Skip to content

It gets better: no, not the NFL lockout; NY Giants’ owner Steve Tisch to join Michael Strahan in support of gay marriage

Jun 12, 2011, 1:30 PM EDT

Steve Tisch

Well, as an NFL owner, Steve Tisch is still a greedy old curmudgeon robbing the world of football, but at least he’s a greedy old curmudgeon robbing the world of football who is stepping forward to voice his support for an aggrieved minority.

The New York Marriage Equality campaign, already well known for the inclusion of hockey polarizer Sean Avery, roundball virtuoso Steve Nash, and the previously mentioned gap-toothed sack machine, will reportedly release another segment starring Tisch, who must find himself with a little extra time on his hands, without, you know, an actual organization to run.

There seems to be a bit of a groundswell lately of professional sports figures who are willing to voice their support for a social issue that the general public has long assumed would be terribly unpopular in the world of jock-straps and testosterone, but as recent surveys have shown for the first time that more Americans support the right for homosexuals to marry than not, perhaps it’s time to leave that bit of conventional thinking at the curbside. 

Whatever your opinion is on the controversial topic (my own  probably having already been made clear), it is interesting to see more and more athletes (and one greedy old curmudgeon) who are willing to remove themselves from their carefully crafted bubble of non-offensive neutrality to remind us that at the end of the day, they are people, and people tend to have opinions on the matters of their time. After all, if we wanted to watch competition between a bunch of bland and soul-less machines, there’s always NASCAR.

Look for Tisch’s PSA to be released on the NY airwaves some point later this week.

***

NFL owner to back gay marriage [BenMaller.com]

  1. rogerwilliams - Jun 12, 2011 at 5:26 PM

    As we offered for Straham, don’t our sports personalities read any more?

    The online article “Is Cuomo Ignoring the Evidence Against Gay Marriage” ( http://www­.scribd.co­m/doc/5488­1192/Is-Cu­omo-Ignori­ng-the-Evi­dence-Agai­nst-Gay-Ma­rriage-Upd­ated ) illustrate­­­s 27 reasons … 17 stated explicitly … why New Yorkers will reject polls from complicit activist groups … and also reject “gay marriage” in 2011-2012. It is evidence-b­­­ased!

    Tisch should also consider Dr. Joseph Nicolosi’s “The Removal of Homosexual­ity from the Psychiatri­c Manual ( http://www­.catholics­ocialscien­tists.org/­CSSR/Archi­val/2001/N­icolosi_71­-78.pdf ).

    Finally, he should read Kathleen Melonakos’ “Why Isn’t Homosexual­ity Considered a Disorder On the Basis of Its Medical Consequenc­es?” ( http://www­.lifesiten­ews.com/ne­ws/archive­/ldn/2006/­nov/061130­a ).”

    Tisch should be forewarned that America … and New York … will require more than hot air from him in this new “PSA”! One also senses that the city and state are simply fed up with gay-activist deception, bullying and intimidation! Tisch’s gullibility could be the last straw in that debacle!

    • david0296 - Jun 12, 2011 at 11:09 PM

      The “Evidence Against Gay Marriage” is laughable. It’s just a longwinded diatribe of cherry-picked (outdated) research by religious organizations (under the guise of fake medical authorities) to demonize a gay citizens. There’s nothing to refute because the entire article has an extreme anti-gay bias that is SO over-the-top it’s almost absurd.

      Dr. Nicolosi uses research from Dr. Rekers, who is the discredited doctor who was caught with a male escort. In other words, Dr. Rekers IS gay and Dr. Nicolosi is a quack (and is clearly a self-loathing closeted gay man, based on his recent appearance on Anderson Cooper 360). Neither one wants to be gay, so they are determined to prove that they can change a gay person’s sexual orientation. Dr. Rekers apparently failed to “de-gay” himself after 30 years of pretending to be straight.

      Lifesitenews.com is part of an ultra-conservative Canadian political group that is pro-life and anti-gay rights. They are also extremely biased, and therefore a non-credible resource.

      • rogerwilliams - Jun 13, 2011 at 1:23 AM

        David does not address the detail, the facts, the evidence!

        Isn’t it noticeable?

        It’s a favourite approach used by gay-activists, and lawyer Roger J. Magnuson addresses it in his book “Are Gay Rights Right? Making Sense of the Controversy!”. He calls it the ad hominem argument!

        The ad hominem argument is properly defined as an attack on the proponent of an argument, rather than on the substance of the person’s arguments!

        It is addressed at Reason 8 of 17 in the online article “Is Cuomo Ignoring the Evidence Against Gay Marriage?” ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/54881192/Is-Cuomo-Ignoring-the-Evidence-Against-Gay-Marriage-Updated# ).

        Again, note that David does not address a SINGLE point that Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, Dr. Judith Reisman, Dr. Rekers or RN Kathleen Melonakos makes … not a SINGLE one!

        Strange, he does not even offer a SINGLE pro-gay source! This would be intellectual mischief masquerading as scholarship … or else a strong delusion!

        Dr. Jeffrey Satinover in his book “Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth” calls it “… denial so intense that self-examination is entirely precluded …”!

      • david0296 - Jun 13, 2011 at 7:51 AM

        Did you actually expect me to refute 27 sections of a frothing-at-the-mouth anti-gay propaganda piece? Why would I want to waste one minute of my time doing that? Even if I did, you’d just write the whole thing off as biased “gay agenda” nonsense. I’m under no obligation to refute any of that paranoid slippery-slope garbage.

        Dr. Rekers, the “father” of anti-gay therapy was exposed as a fraud, and a closeted gay man. He has NO credibility has an authority on anything pertaining to sexual orientation. Yet, Dr. Nicolosi (and others like him) STILL uses his research as though it had any validity. It doesn’t. The man behind the research was a self-loathing closeted gay man, trying to prove to himself that he could change a person’s sexual orientation. 30 years later, he’s living proof that he failed.

        10 counties and 5 states have marriage equality. It has had virtually NO impact on heterosexual marriages. None at all. Straight couples are NOT getting divorced because gay couples can marry. For you to win your argument, you have to prove that gay marriage will actually harm society, and that there is a RATIONAL legal basis to discriminate against gay citizens. The Yes on Prop. 8 lawyers failed to do that in a court of law. One of their arguments was, “We don’t have to prove anything.” Yeah, you don’t have a legal leg to stand on. Preventing gay couples from marrying DOES NOT help straight couples with their marriages and families. It only harms gay couples.

      • david0296 - Jun 13, 2011 at 11:51 AM

        Roger does not address the detail, the facts, the evidence!

        Isn’t it noticeable? It’s a favourite approach used by anti-gay activists. I call it the ad hominem argument! The ad hominem argument is properly defined as an attack on the proponent of an argument, rather than on the substance of the person’s arguments!

        He hasn’t refuted a single thing I’ve said in my two posts. Why is that? So I must be telling the truth when I say that Dr. Rekers was exposed as a fraud, and had to resign from NARTH. That his work has been exposed on CNN (Anderson Cooper 360) as fraudulent and damaging. That so-called doctors such as Dr. Nicolosi (and family values organizations) still use Dr. Rekers quackery as legitimate medical treatment, even after it’s been make crystal clear that it’s not.

        Roger has also failed to show a rational legal basis to discriminate against gay citizens, aside from religious bias and bigotry. The fact that “some” gay people wrongly practice unsafe sex (unlike straight people that end up with unplanned pregnancies) does not merit excluding all gay citizens from having the same exact civil rights (that are guaranteed in our Constitution) that straight people receive.

      • rogerwilliams - Jun 13, 2011 at 12:48 PM

        Sorry, David, even your “supporters” are beginning to see through your waffle!

        ALL your concerns are addressed in the online article “Is Cuomo Ignoring the Evidence Against Gay Marriage?” ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/54881192/Is-Cuomo-Ignoring-the-Evidence-Against-Gay-Marriage-Updated# ).

        Again, note that David does not address a SINGLE point that Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, Dr. Judith Reisman, Dr. Rekers or RN Kathleen Melonakos make … not a SINGLE one!

        What, EXACTLY, do you disagree with in the law review “Studies of Homosexual Parenting: A Critical Review” by George Rekers & Mark Kilgus (http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2Rekers.doc )

        Readers will now be noticing your avoidance of the factual detail!

    • rogerwilliams - Jun 13, 2011 at 11:09 AM

      See the pattern, readers?

      David, what, EXACTLY, do you disagree with in Reason 1 of 17 in the online article “Is Cuomo Ignoring the Evidence Against Gay Marriage?”. What, EXACTLY, would you disagree with in Dr. Paul McHugh’s analysis, particularly the last sentence as quoted in that article?

      Remember that the ad hominem argument is properly defined as an attack on the proponent of an argument, rather than on the substance of the person’s arguments!

      It is addressed at Reason 8 of 17 in the online article “Is Cuomo Ignoring the Evidence Against Gay Marriage?” ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/54881192/Is-Cuomo-Ignoring-the-Evidence-Against-Gay-Marriage-Updated# ).

      Again, note that David does not address a SINGLE point that Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, Dr. Judith Reisman, Dr. Rekers or RN Kathleen Melonakos makes … not a SINGLE one!

      Strange, he does not even offer a SINGLE pro-gay source! This would be intellectual mischief masquerading as scholarship … or else a strong delusion!

      Dr. Jeffrey Satinover in his book “Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth” calls it “… denial so intense that self-examination is entirely precluded …”!

      • pmzamboni - Jun 13, 2011 at 5:34 PM

        rogerwilliams:

        I think I speak for most everyone, including your family: Please get some help. There is still time. You might be interested this the following fun facts:

        The world is not flat.
        The sun does not revolve around the earth.
        Women are allowed to vote.
        Black people are free.
        Bleeding is not an appropriate treatment for anything.
        Your illness is not the result of “evil humors”.

        Please evolve with the rest of mankind.

      • rogerwilliams - Jun 14, 2011 at 2:14 AM

        PMzamboni, I think I speak for everyone when I say that evolution … as pipe-dream, illusion, escape-mechanism or delusion … has for too long been the refuge of the functionally illiterate … and we did not need Jonathan Wells’ “Survival of the Fakest” ( http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/survivalOfTheFakest.pdf ) to prove that point!

        Wells makes the point at Page 8 that Darwinian evolution made it possible to become an “intellectually fulfilled atheist”!

        If that is not enough, try “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism” ( http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/100ScientistsAd.pdf )!

        The strangest thing … none of you pro-gay activists have quoted a SINGLE physician or scientist who will go on record as defending “homosexuality” as medical condition!

        OK, let’s lower the bar a little! What, EXACTLY, do you disagree with in the online article by RN Kathleen Melonakos “Why Isn’t Homosexuality Considered a Disorder on the Basis of Its Medical Consequences?” ( http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2006/nov/061130a )

        That said, gay-activism actually demeans the noble struggle of Blacks and Jews!

        Refocus … address the EVIDENCE!

  2. mgflolox - Jun 12, 2011 at 6:46 PM

    In about 20 years, the people opposing gay marriage will be regarded in the same light as the segregationists of the 60’s are now.

    • rogerwilliams - Jun 12, 2011 at 9:19 PM

      In 20 years, unless America devotes ALL of its medical budgets to “gay rights”, there may be no one left who is afflicted by same-sex-attraction-disorders!

      Focus on the evidence, Mgflo … FOCUS!

      The CDC’s FastFacts Snapshot on HIV/AIDS for September 2010 ( http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/FastFacts-MSM-FINAL508COMP.pdf ) offers the following sobering facts:

      (CDC surveillance systems refers to men who have sex with men as “MSM”):

      ► MSM account for nearly half of the more than one million people living with HIV in the U.S. (48%, or an estimated 532,000 total persons).

      ► MSM account for more than half of all new HIV infections in the U.S. each year (53%, or an estimated 28,700 infections).

      ► While CDC estimates that MSM account for just 4 percent of the U.S. male population aged 13 and older, the rate of new HIV diagnoses
      among MSM in the U.S. is more than 44 times that of other men (range: 522–989 per 100,000 MSM vs. 12 per 100,000 other men).

      ► MSM are the only risk group in the U.S. in which new HIV infections are increasing. While new infections have declined among both heterosexuals
      and injection drug users, the annual number of new HIV infections among MSM has been steadily increasing since the early 1990s.

      Where has the science changed? On what basis, exactly, are Cuomo and Bloomberg basing their public-policy approach on this issue?

      Given the facts, why institutionalize … through ‘marriage” … a behaviour with obvious/significant negative personal and social consequences?

      After the very liberal Justice Kirby, good law should be based on good data, and the very least that legislators can do is to familiarize themselves with the details!

  3. fatfreddystubbs - Jun 12, 2011 at 7:02 PM

    “Well, as an NFL owner, Steve Tisch is still a greedy old curmudgeon robbing the world of football,”

    Yeah, good point. Those June NFL games are always riveting.

    Other than reading the reports of some idiot beat reporters about OTA’s, we haven’t been robbed of football at this point.

    But, to get to the subject at hand, good for Tisch and Strahan for standing up for what’s right. (even though they’re on the right side on this one, can’t give credit to creeps like Avery and Nash for anything.)

  4. edgy is under THEE Thumb! - Jun 13, 2011 at 9:36 AM

    I’m not gay but one of my kids or grand children may be. Parental love for our kids is, or should be, unconditional regardless of whether our kids turn out gay or straight. I want them to be happy with whom ever is their choice in life to be with (not mine or society’s), its no one’s business outside the 2 in the relationship. I sure as hell won’t be turning my back on them because of whom they choose to be their life partner.

    Everyone should be able to be with, live with, AND MARRY whomever suits them – its their business – not society’s – what goes on in their love lives. I want my kids to grow up knowing they can be who they are – regardless of what “normal” society thinks.

    At one time people slept sitting up instead of in beds laying down, tomatoes were considered to be poisonous and blacks and minorities had no rights. All of those things changed over time – it is long past the time to legalize gay marriage.

    • rogerwilliams - Jun 13, 2011 at 11:30 AM

      Edgy, your perspective is better chanted than implemented … as it represents a public-policy disaster when the best legal, medical and social evidence is considered.

      Reason 7 of 17 in the online article “Is Cuomo Ignoring the Evidence Against Gay Marriage?” ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/54881192/Is-Cuomo-Ignoring-the-Evidence-Against-Gay-Marriage-Updated ) addresses key concerns raised by Dr. Judith Reisman in her 60-page law-review in 2002 “Crafting Bi/Homosexual Youth”.

      I suggest that you read it before making these over-the-top statements!

      After reading that law review, do you STILL believe that your “kids or grandkids” would have achieved their best life possible in the face of gay-activist social engineering?

      Reason 9 of 17 in the article “Is Cuomo Ignoring the Evidence Against Gay Marriage?” addresses the very unwelcome “side-effects” of a “deathstyle” you may be wishing upon your “kids and grandkids”.

      Focus, man, focus … on the evidence!

      • edgy is under THEE Thumb! - Jun 14, 2011 at 7:48 AM

        Dodger Rodger – I suggest you take your self back under the idiot rock you came out from under. Until you’ve walked 10 years in my shoes, you remain clueless with regard to this issue.

        So far – it doesn’t matter if you have 4000 reasons – you sound exactly like a Christian homophobic trying to impose your personal will on others.

        Were American history left up to morons like you, blacks would still be slaves, women wouldn’t be allowed to vote and unemployment would be permanently resolved by using child labor.

  5. cleanslaton - Jun 13, 2011 at 11:51 AM

    @Rogerwilliams–
    People aren’t going to stop being gay. It’s not a choice [anyway] that will be made illegal; this isn’t the middle east. Why put up civil barriers if it’s not illegal to be gay? You don’t have to agree with any of it, but people outside of your narrow, myopic viewpoint will continue to grow in numbers and eventually make you look stupid for selfishly wanting to keep others from being happy.

    I applaud the reader who compared you to a 1960’s segregationist. Also, how does the issue affect you? Is there a law keeping you from marrying the person of your choice? Would you have the courage to confront a gay person about your views in person? Do you even know any gay people?
    My guess is ‘NO’ to the 3 latter questions. It’s fine that you think what you think, but for your own sake–you should keep it to yourself.
    I am not gay & live in Texas, and I support gay marriage. There are plenty of people around me that share your opinion. I used to think like you, but that was before I knew any gay people. Now, I can’t possibly imagine how anyone could cite a single FACT that makes it fair to impugn the civil rights of gay people. Hiding behind God [the same God that would've created existence--homosexuality included] doesn’t hold an argument. The U.S. Supreme court tends to operate in the realm of tangibility, not a 2000+ year old mistranslated, edited storybook. Also, look at how popular your comments are here–kind of like people voting in an election, eh?

    to conclude, I think comedian Lewis Black put it best:
    ‘Anyone…DUMB ENOUGH….to want to get married–should be allowed to.’

    • rogerwilliams - Jun 13, 2011 at 12:51 PM

      See Reason 17 of 17 in the online article “Is Cuomo Ignoring the Evidence Against Gay Marriage?” ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/54881192/Is-Cuomo-Ignoring-the-Evidence-Against-Gay-Marriage-Updated )

      • david0296 - Jun 13, 2011 at 1:49 PM

        In response to #17, read this entire page from American Psychological Association. Unlike your (religious, anti-gay) sources, the APA is a legitimate source for psychological information.

        http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx

      • rogerwilliams - Jun 14, 2011 at 2:33 AM

        David, I did … and will respond in other posts! It’s just one web page! There are NO, repeat NO stated references! NO established authority cited! Some references are made to in-house APA documents (is this cherry-picking?), but we will address those too!

        Now consider the comparative depth, scholarship, authority and clear references in the 2002 online law review “Why Narth? The American Psychological Association’s Destructive and Blind Pursuit of Political Correctness”
        ( http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2kaufman.doc )

        It’s 20 pages long, and replete with references!

        Readers should decide which document wins the scholarship test!

        Gay-advocacy … one inevitably finds, is based on a hoax, a lie, of stupendous proportions … and the APA is being irresponsibly activist!

      • david0296 - Jun 14, 2011 at 9:38 AM

        Just finished reading the “Why NARTH?” document. It all comes down to, “My religious beliefs tell me my sexual orientation is wrong, and societal pressures are telling me my sexual orientation is wrong. I don’t want to be ostracized by society, so please help me change my sexual orientation.” The problem is, you can’t change your sexual orientation. Just like you can’t force yourself to be right handed, if you’re left handed. (Our society used to try and do that.) Just like you can’t force yourself to be 6-foot tall when you’re 5-foot-6. Behaviors can be modified, sexual orientation cannot.

        These desperate people (that have been brainwashed to hate themselves) are free to pray-the-gay-away or go to these religious “be a man” camp retreats. They have the freedom to do that. Meanwhile, the rest of society, and the medical and psychological associations, all know it doesn’t work. Pretending to be straight, getting married, even having children, doesn’t prove a single thing. Even Exodus admitted that it is impossible to change a person’s sexual orientation. The original founders of Exodus ended up as a gay couple.

        Proof that NARTH is a complete sham. Under the ludicrous category of Legal Consequences, they present a hypothetical case about Johnny. Why this is under Legal Consequences is anyone’s guess. Johnny accepts that he’s gay, and ends up in a long-term relationship. But of course his partner cheats on him — because as we all know it is virtually impossible for a same-sex couples to stay together in a monogamous relationship. Even though tens-of-thousands of gay couples have married in the U.S. and one-third of them are raising children. And of course Johnny’s partner gives him AIDS — because as we all know every gay person on the planet has unprotected sex with thousands and thousands of partners. Of course the statistics they use to back up these outrageous claims are from 1984. Some the so-called research goes all the way back to 1978.

        Here’s the 2011 version of Johnny: “Johnny accepts that he’s gay, and ends up in a long-term relationship. Since society doesn’t promote a social stigma about their sexual orientation, they don’t feel pressured to pretend to live their lives as a straight person. So, after being together for 5 years, Johnny gets married to Steve. Both men stay faithful to each other (just like monogamous straight couples do — except for Newt Gingrich). After a while they decide to adopt a child (that had been discarded by two straight teens that ended up having an unwanted pregnancy due to their having unprotected sex). They provide the child with stability, support, and a loving home. They all live happily ever after. The end.

  6. fearlessleader - Jun 13, 2011 at 1:44 PM

    Just a note to say how pleased I am to see the pro-equality comments on this article (and the sentiment expressed in the post as well). I’ve become sadly accustomed to watching comment threads on LGBT-related pieces turn into bigoted and ungrammatical flame-fests, and it’s incredibly refreshing to find only one belligerent homophobe (as of now) on this one!

    Kudos to all the athletes and sports figures who have joined the “It Gets Better” movement; may many more jump on the bandwagon.

    • rogerwilliams - Jun 14, 2011 at 2:39 AM

      Actually, O Fearless Leader … I and others are quite disappointed with the pro-gay response. It seems to be getting clearer to all and sundry that New York was about to be conned!

      One more time … WHAT, EXACTLY, do you disagree with in the online article “Is Cuomo Ignoring the Evidence Against Gay Marriage?” ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/54881192/Is-Cuomo-Ignoring-the-Evidence-Against-Gay-Marriage-Updated# ).

      It illustrates 27 reasons … 17 stated explicitly … why New York will reject gay marriage in 2011 and 2012.

      • edgy is under THEE Thumb! - Jun 14, 2011 at 7:50 AM

        Roger – you personally illustrate 17 stated explicitly reasons that you are an clueless clown when it comes to this issue.

      • mgflolox - Jun 15, 2011 at 8:07 PM

        I appreciate what most of the people posting on this story are trying to do, but when someone is as fervently passionate about defending their bigotry as rogerwilliams is, it’s best to just let him own it.

      • rogerwilliams - Jun 15, 2011 at 8:20 PM

        MGFlo, Dr. Jeffrey Satinover (“Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth”) refers to your dilemma as “… denial so intense that self-examination is entirely precluded …”!

        Homosexuality as medical condition is the ONLY psycho-sexual/mental disorder so identified that sees as its ultimate and necessary goal the destruction of core creation-structures of the American and Judeo-Christian ethos!

        How significant is this?

        And a gay-activist grouping would want Americans, and Christians, to NOT defend the national ethos, and their faith, with something as simple and overpowering as … the evidence!

        FOCUS, MAN … focus on the evidence!

      • rogerwilliams - Jun 15, 2011 at 8:23 PM

        Edgy … the sub-caption in the online article “Is Cuomo Ignoring the Evidence Against Gay Marriage?” ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/54881192/Is-Cuomo-Ignoring-the-Evidence-Against-Gay-Marriage-Updated ) refers to a link showing the FRC’s listing of ANOTHER 10 reasons!