# Keith Olbermann with a moving special comment about gay marriage



## DavidS (Nov 11, 2008)

[youtube]hnHyy8gkNEE[/youtube]

*Full text*



> Finally tonight as promised, a Special Comment on the passage, last week, of Proposition Eight in California, which rescinded the right of same-sex couples to marry, and tilted the balance on this issue, from coast to coast.
> 
> Some parameters, as preface. This isn't about yelling, and this isn't about politics, and this isn't really just about Prop-8. And I don't have a personal investment in this: I'm not gay, I had to strain to think of one member of even my very extended family who is, I have no personal stories of close friends or colleagues fighting the prejudice that still pervades their lives.
> 
> ...


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 11, 2008)

DavidS said:


> [youtube]hnHyy8gkNEE[/youtube]
> 
> *Full text*



Did you have to ruin my morning by putting his face on the screen?

I don't take him seriously.  His ratings are so low, I can't believe he is still on MSNB.  He's been demoted already.  I believe it is only a matter of time.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 11, 2008)

He's just another homo loving shill for the sodomite agenda. Most likely a closet fag!!


----------



## DavidS (Nov 11, 2008)

PoliticalChic said:


> Did you have to ruin my morning by putting his face on the screen?
> 
> I don't take him seriously.  His ratings are so low, I can't believe he is still on MSNB.  He's been demoted already.  I believe it is only a matter of time.



Actually, his ratings are the highest on MSNBC and he beats O'Reilly in the key demographic of 18-54. Of course, if you just watch O'Reilly the whole time, you'll hear a different story.

The reason being is that GE's stock value is double what NewsCorp's is. NewsCorp's stock has plummeted recently and is now only worth about $8. I can't wait for the news that Murdoch has to announce layoffs. Start with Hannity and then make your way to O'Reilly.

Anyway, irregardless of the messenger, I found the message itself very true. You believe marriage is between a man and a woman. No problem. This is America and you have that right. But your beliefs should not impose on their beliefs. If they want to get married, let them. It's the stupidest thing in the world to ask everyone else's permission to let people get married. Holding a referrendum on "Should gay people be allowed to get married" was the most insulting thing they could do. Did they hold a referrendum on civil rights? On allowing black people to vote? On allowing black people to be free? No. Leaders actually lead and said "You cannot judge people. You must let them be free." Unfortunately, we don't have any leaders today.


----------



## DavidS (Nov 11, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> He's just another homo loving shill for the sodomite agenda. Most likely a closet fag!!



I know you say a lot of what you say just to get reactions out of people, but you do actually believe what you say, which is scary. Islam is a religion about peace and Islam believes that you cannot be at peace unless your neighbor is at peace. If your neighbor is not at peace because he does not have the same civil rights as you do, why are you at peace?


----------



## WillowTree (Nov 11, 2008)

DavidS said:


> Actually, his ratings are the highest on MSNBC and he beats O'Reilly in the key demographic of 18-54. Of course, if you just watch O'Reilly the whole time, you'll hear a different story.
> 
> The reason being is that GE's stock value is double what NewsCorp's is. NewsCorp's stock has plummeted recently and is now only worth about $8. I can't wait for the news that Murdoch has to announce layoffs. Start with Hannity and then make your way to O'Reilly.
> 
> Anyway, irregardless of the messenger, I found the message itself very true. You believe marriage is between a man and a woman. No problem. This is America and you have that right. But your beliefs should not impose on their beliefs. If they want to get married, let them. It's the stupidest thing in the world to ask everyone else's permission to let people get married. Holding a referrendum on "Should gay people be allowed to get married" was the most insulting thing they could do. Did they hold a referrendum on civil rights? On allowing black people to vote? On allowing black people to be free? No. Leaders actually lead and said "You cannot judge people. You must let them be free." Unfortunately, we don't have any leaders today.







If all gay people would move to Iran they would find peace everlasting. Immadinnajacket said so.


----------



## DavidS (Nov 11, 2008)

WillowTree said:


> If all gay people would move to Iran they would find peace everlasting. Immadinnajacket said so.



If all gay people weren't here... I've heard that before. If all black people weren't here... if all Jewish people weren't here... if all Catholic people weren't here... then this country wouldn't be America. This country would be a European settlement like it was 400 years ago. Earth to Willow - it's not 400 years ago anymore! It's the 21st century. Either get with the times or the times will pass you by.

You're a bigot.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 11, 2008)

DavidS said:


> I know you say a lot of what you say just to get reactions out of people, but you do actually believe what you say, which is scary. Islam is a religion about peace and Islam believes that you cannot be at peace unless your neighbor is at peace. If your neighbor is not at peace because he does not have the same civil rights as you do, why are you at peace?


Both the Bible and Quran speak against homosexuality.

By allowing gay marriage our society is destroying it's morals and decending into cultural choas. In history rampant homosexuality was a sign of a society imploding and in the last functioning stages of civilation.

Yes Islam is a religion of Peace. And yes, you need to be at Peace with your neighbor. 

But if your neighbor is a rapist, murderer, homosexual, child molester, or some other type of pervert. You are NOT required to accept them or their sick lifestyle as OK or normal.


----------



## xsited1 (Nov 11, 2008)

Keith Olbermann is a gay man that is still in the closet.


----------



## DavidS (Nov 11, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> Both the Bible and Quran speak against homosexuality.



Do you follow every single law in the Qu'ran to a T? Do you follow everything just perfectly so that an Imam would be proud of you? I bet you don't. I bet you're just as imperfect as everyone else is. Don't hide behind your holy book to excuse your bigotry. 



> By allowing gay marriage our society is destroying it's morals and decending into cultural choas.



By allowing two people who love each other to get married, society is somehow going to be in chaos? How does that work?



> In history rampant homosexuality was a sign of a society imploding and in the last functioning stages of civilation.



This is laughable - show me one society that collapsed because of homosexuality. 



> Yes Islam is a religion of Peace. And yes, you need to be at Peace with your neighbor.   But if your neighbor is a rapist, murderer, **snip** child molester, or some other type of pervert. You are NOT required to accept them or their sick lifestyle as OK or normal.



Everything you mentioned there is fine. But there are many child molesters who are straight, there are many rapists who are straight and there are many murders who are straight. The three things you mentioned have absolutely nothing to do with a man loving another man or a woman loving another woman. You are not a pervert if you are gay. You are not a child molester if you are gay and you are not a murderer if you are gay. Allowing Ellen Degeneres to get married isn't hurting society - in fact, I'll dare say the opposite. It's GOOD for society because it shows we're becoming more tolerant. Gay people who want to be married don't hurt us, they don't act against God, they don't commit violence - they're normal people who just want the same civil rights as you and I enjoy.


----------



## DavidS (Nov 11, 2008)

xsited1 said:


> Keith Olbermann is a gay man that is still in the closet.



Who cares if he is or he isn't? The purpose of this thread is about extending the same civil rights to gay people as you and I have. 

We choose not to hire someone because they're black, it's discrimination and it's illegal.
We choose not to hire someone because they're a woman, it's discrimination and it's illegal.
We choose not to hire someone because they're gay, it's discrimination and it's illegal.

So if it's illegal to discriminate against gays, why is it legal to prohibit them the right to get married?


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 11, 2008)

DavidS said:


> This is laughable - show me one society that collapsed because of homosexuality.


It is a historical fact that ancient Rome had as a society decended into depraved homosexuality. Homosexuality wasn't the cause, but a symptom of moral decline, of a culture self destructing.


You keep talking about tolerance.

Is it intolerant to be against NAMBLA?

After all, they just want love and to love their boy partners.

Are we bigoted in not lowering the age of consent and forcing them to be criminals?

See where this tolerence of everything leads? Perversion upon perversion!!


----------



## DavidS (Nov 11, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> It is a historical fact that ancient Rome had as a society decended into depraved homosexuality. Homosexuality wasn't the cause, but a symptom of moral decline, of a culture self destructing.



Rome failed for several other reasons - you could make the coincidental excuse that they wore togas and that be the reason why failed. Homosexuality had nothing to do with Rome's failure. 



> You keep talking about tolerance. Is it intolerant to be against NAMBLA? After all, they just want love and to love their boy partners. Are we bigoted in not lowering the age of consent and forcing them to be criminals? See where this tolerence of everything leads? Perversion upon perversion!!



Pedophilia is a mental disorder. Homosexuality is not. You're comparing adult homosexuals who just want to have the same rights as you and I do, to sick, disgusting pedophiles. You don't see the difference because you don't surround yourself with diverse people. Not only do I live in NYC, but I'm in the art scene... almost everyone I know is either gay or bi-sexual or has a friend who is. It's about as normal in NYC as being Mormon in Utah. Do Utahians think there's anything wrong with Mormonism?


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 11, 2008)

DavidS said:


> Pedophilia is a mental disorder. Homosexuality is not.


According to the members of NAMBLA that is a totally bigoted statement. You are a pedophobe!!!!


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 11, 2008)

DavidS said:


> Not only do I live in NYC, but I'm in the art scene... almost everyone I know is either gay or bi-sexual or has a friend who is. It's about as normal in NYC as being Mormon in Utah. Do Utahians think there's anything wrong with Mormonism?


You would have to ask Gunny that question.


----------



## xsited1 (Nov 11, 2008)

DavidS said:


> Who cares if he is or he isn't? The purpose of this thread is about extending the same civil rights to gay people as you and I have.
> 
> We choose not to hire someone because they're black, it's discrimination and it's illegal.
> We choose not to hire someone because they're a woman, it's discrimination and it's illegal.
> ...



You're missing the point of my post.  Olbermann has a very small fringe audience.  He's insignificant.  What he says is meaningless.  He's good for comedy relief, nothing more.


----------



## WillowTree (Nov 11, 2008)

DavidS said:


> If all gay people weren't here... I've heard that before. If all black people weren't here... if all Jewish people weren't here... if all Catholic people weren't here... then this country wouldn't be America. This country would be a European settlement like it was 400 years ago. Earth to Willow - it's not 400 years ago anymore! It's the 21st century. Either get with the times or the times will pass you by.
> 
> You're a bigot.






no I'm not, I just misplaced my post,, you went on to tell us how peaceful the religion of Islam was so I suggested peace in Iran. get it? I think it is you who is the bigot.


----------



## WillowTree (Nov 11, 2008)

DavidS said:


> I know you say a lot of what you say just to get reactions out of people, but you do actually believe what you say, which is scary. Islam is a religion about peace and Islam believes that you cannot be at peace unless your neighbor is at peace. If your neighbor is not at peace because he does not have the same civil rights as you do, why are you at peace?






If all gay people would move to Iran they would find peace everlasting. Immadinnajacket said so.





there, better placement.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 11, 2008)

DavidS said:


> Not only do I live in NYC, but I'm in the art scene..


I don't think I would brag about living in cesspool called NYC and hanging around weirdos and perverts!!


----------



## WillowTree (Nov 11, 2008)

DavidS said:


> Who cares if he is or he isn't? The purpose of this thread is about extending the same civil rights to gay people as you and I have.
> 
> We choose not to hire someone because they're black, it's discrimination and it's illegal.
> We choose not to hire someone because they're a woman, it's discrimination and it's illegal.
> ...





You surely didn't have a problem discriminating against Mr. McCain because of his age. That's illegal too... oh well that's life in hypocriteville.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 11, 2008)

WillowTree said:


> If all gay people would move to Iran they would find peace everlasting. Immadinnajacket said so!


I would suppot a mass deportation of all homos to Iran for their 100% effective cure.


----------



## WillowTree (Nov 11, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> I would suppot a mass deportation of all homos to Iran for their 100% effective cure.






I was just being sarcastic at David. He really believes the peaceful religion of Islam would give equal rights to gay people.


----------



## DavidS (Nov 11, 2008)

WillowTree said:


> You surely didn't have a problem discriminating against Mr. McCain because of his age. That's illegal too... oh well that's life in hypocriteville.



Are you really this dense?


----------



## WillowTree (Nov 11, 2008)

DavidS said:


> Are you really this dense?







very!


----------



## DavidS (Nov 11, 2008)

xsited1 said:


> You're missing the point of my post.  Olbermann has a very small fringe audience.  He's insignificant.  What he says is meaningless.  He's good for comedy relief, nothing more.



About 5 million people watch Keith Olbermann every night, moreso in the key demographic than O'Reilly does and his viewing audience is a "very small fringe audience?" 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/11/arts/television/11arts-NEWDEALFORKE_BRF.html?ref=television

Even if 10 people watched him, the point of this thread is about civil rights for ALL people. Jesus. Some of you just can't get the message and it's disappointing.


----------



## DavidS (Nov 11, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> I would suppot a mass deportation of all homos to Iran for their 100% effective cure.



I would support a mass deportation of Sunni Muslims to Alabama for their 100% effective cure.


----------



## Navy1960 (Nov 11, 2008)

While I will not comment on the  rantings of  the learned sports caster Keith Olbermann,  the only thing  I will say about watching  him is to consider the source.  While I personally see no harm in the gay marriage issue , other than the religious and ethical issues people  have with it.  The fact remains that the  "PEOPLE" of the state of Ca. have spoken with their voices in the ballot box as well as  states like Az. and Fl.  When this  result did not suit the gay community then the voice of the  people became a non issue, when all during this recent election and others the gay community would use that mantra over and over in such issues as it's support for  the anit-war movement in Berkley, and Gavin Newsom in S.F.  So now the result does not suit the agenda and  no matter what the people say, they wish to seek a result the people of those states do NOT want.  Has anyone given this any thought?  this is why we live in the United States, as this is a state issue and state laws differ from place to place, it would appear that if the gay community wished to live in a state that supported them then they would of course seek that out, thats what makes this country so great. However in this case, rather than do that they wish to force that agenda on the majority that do not wish this.  I submit there are avenues for  the gay community to change state opinions , one would be  go into the courts which I believe would not achieve anything in the end , and the other would be to change the minds of the people within those states  and to seek a new vote in the next election. The current  comments by Mr. Olbermann while  nice and  flowery are meaningless, especially when taking into consideration his ILLEGAL comment, someone needs to inform Mr. Olbermann that Prop. 8 will become state law! as well as law in other states.  In the end  all this does nothing to change the minds though of the voters in those states who supported a ban on gay marriage.


----------



## del (Nov 11, 2008)

keith olbermann


----------



## DavidS (Nov 11, 2008)

Navy1960 said:


> While I will not comment on the  rantings of  the learned sports caster Keith Olbermann,  the only thing  I will say about watching  him is to consider the source.  While I personally see no harm in the gay marriage issue , other than the religious and ethical issues people  have with it.  The fact remains that the  "PEOPLE" of the state of Ca. have spoken with their voices in the ballot box as well as  states like Az. and Fl.  When this  result did not suit the gay community then the voice of the  people became a non issue, when all during this recent election and others the gay community would use that mantra over and over in such issues as it's support for  the anit-war movement in Berkley, and Gavin Newsom in S.F.  So now the result does not suit the agenda and  no matter what the people say, they wish to seek a result the people of those states do NOT want.  Has anyone given this any thought?  this is why we live in the United States, as this is a state issue and state laws differ from place to place, it would appear that if the gay community wished to live in a state that supported them then they would of course seek that out, thats what makes this country so great. However in this case, rather than do that they wish to force that agenda on the majority that do not wish this.  I submit there are avenues for  the gay community to change state opinions , one would be  go into the courts which I believe would not achieve anything in the end , and the other would be to change the minds of the people within those states  and to seek a new vote in the next election. The current  comments by Mr. Olbermann while  nice and  flowery are meaningless, especially when taking into consideration his ILLEGAL comment, someone needs to inform Mr. Olbermann that Prop. 8 will become state law! as well as law in other states.  In the end  all this does nothing to change the minds though of the voters in those states who supported a ban on gay marriage.



Did the *people* get to decide on civil rights for black people? Did the *people* get to decide when black people could vote? Or when women could vote? If you would've asked *the people* in the deep south whether or not to allow black people freedom, they would've overwhelmingly voted no. If you would've asked *the people *100 years ago if women should have the right to vote, they would've said no.

So why do *the people* get to decide who can and who cannot be married?

Prop 8 will be overturned. I guarantee you that. You didn't come to me and ask me my permission to marry your wife. Why do they need to come to you and ask you permission to marry the person they love?

Irregardless, gay marriages are still being performed in California. Are you going to throw them all in jail for violating the law now?


----------



## WillowTree (Nov 11, 2008)

DavidS said:


> Did the *people* get to decide on civil rights for black people? Did the *people* get to decide when black people could vote? Or when women could vote? If you would've asked *the people* in the deep south whether or not to allow black people freedom, they would've overwhelmingly voted no. If you would've asked *the people *100 years ago if women should have the right to vote, they would've said no.
> 
> So why do *the people* get to decide who can and who cannot be married?
> 
> ...






well I ain't gonna give you permission to marry my wife even if you did aske me.


----------



## Gem (Nov 11, 2008)

For me, personally, I get very concerned when people start talking about creating or changing laws based solely on personal feelings of what they "feel" is right and should happen.  That isn't to say that those feelings shouldn't play a part...just that the argument that homosexuals should be allowed to marry because they love eachother and love is nice and don't we all just love love (which is basically what Olbermann's commentary says) isn't why marriage is recognized in this society.  

Our system doesn't give a shit if my husband and I love one another...we were not required to "prove" our "love" for eachother in anyway before marrying.  In fact, the state would have still granted us permission to marry if we had stated conclusively that we did not love one another, but still desired to marry.  

The truth is much colder than Olbermann's fuzzy reasoning that because we have sex without love we should allow people who love eachother to marry.  The state does not legislate love, nor make laws to honor it.  The state recognizes marriage because of the inherant benefits a man and a woman being legally obligated and committed to eachother as they raise children provides SOCIETY.

So in my opinion...the real question in this debate is not whether or not it would make us feel all warm and fuzzy inside to let gays marry (which, in my opinion, smacks a bit too much like Obama's "I want Supreme Court justices who are empathetic to poor people and single mothers" nonsense)...but rather does it benefit society to allow homosexuals to marry?

What are the possible benefits to our society will we derive from allowing homosexuals to marry?  What possible dangers will our society face from allowing homosexuals to marry?

When the question is posed that way...it becomes much easier to debate.  We can set aside the religious arguments for or against gay marriage, we can set aside the emotional "Olbermann-esque" arguments of whether or not the decision makes us "feel good" and discuss rather, whether or not it will be, in the end, beneficial to society as a whole.


----------



## Navy1960 (Nov 11, 2008)

DavidS said:


> Did the *people* get to decide on civil rights for black people? Did the *people* get to decide when black people could vote? Or when women could vote? If you would've asked *the people* in the deep south whether or not to allow black people freedom, they would've overwhelmingly voted no. If you would've asked *the people *100 years ago if women should have the right to vote, they would've said no.
> 
> So why do *the people* get to decide who can and who cannot be married?
> 
> ...



The common thread there though David is that in the end the courts and legislatures made that decision did they not?  Who votes for  legislatures? you and I, so yes the people decide what is law and what is not law in their respective states, if that law is not constitutaional then it's the courts job to decide if it is or is not. Did I mention anything about throwing them in jail? no, however, as of today those marriages only have validation by the people that perform them until such time as it is struck down.  To answer your other question David the reason why is quite simple, because you live in a state where the people of that state have  decided that the  marriage that YOU made a CHOICE to enter into is not recoginzed by that state as a valid marriage.  Tell you something David, I loved my wife more than the wolrd itself and if I had happened to live in a state where I could not marry her, I loved her enough to go somewhere where I could!! The other thing too David, I didn't need a paper or any law to validate that love.


----------



## DavidS (Nov 11, 2008)

WillowTree said:


> well I ain't gonna give you permission to marry my wife even if you did aske me.



You're a dude? Whoa.


----------



## BlackAsCoal (Nov 11, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> He's just another homo loving shill for the sodomite agenda. Most likely a closet fag!!



Frankly my brother your insane phobia identifies you as the closet homosexual. Closet homosexuals don't take bold stands on homosexuality as Olbermann did .. they sceam and shout and whine and piss and moan about it as you just did.

Grow up brother .. why should what two consenting adults peacefully do be any concern of yours? .. that is, unless you're a closet homosexual


----------



## BlackAsCoal (Nov 11, 2008)

WillowTree said:


> If all gay people would move to Iran they would find peace everlasting. Immadinnajacket said so.



Hell, I bet a lot of people would find peace if you just moved your ass off this board.


----------



## WillowTree (Nov 11, 2008)

BlackAsCoal said:


> Hell, I bet a lot of people would find peace if you just moved your ass off this board.







if cow shit was butter baby!


----------



## Andrew2382 (Nov 11, 2008)

I bet David, DVR'ed that..
DOn't worry David, I am sure one day you and your man crush will be able to live very happy lives together one day.


----------



## DavidS (Nov 11, 2008)

Gem said:


> So in my opinion...the real question in this debate is not whether or not it would make us feel all warm and fuzzy inside to let gays marry (which, in my opinion, smacks a bit too much like Obama's "I want Supreme Court justices who are empathetic to poor people and single mothers" nonsense)...but rather does it benefit society to allow homosexuals to marry? What are the possible benefits to our society will we derive from allowing homosexuals to marry? What possible dangers will our society face from allowing homosexuals to marry? When the question is posed that way...it becomes much easier to debate. We can set aside the religious arguments for or against gay marriage, we can set aside the emotional "Olbermann-esque" arguments of whether or not the decision makes us "feel good" and discuss rather, whether or not it will be, in the end, beneficial to society as a whole.



Marriage = money. Money to the church to marry them, money for the catering company, the rental hall, etc. all marriage expenses benefit society. Then there's the marriage tax penalty. Then of course you have to buy a bigger home and pay property taxes on the bigger home. So it can benefit society through more money being spent. Money is the life blood to society and with the economy in the dumps today, people who are yearning to get married will spend more money at their wedding. Women can get also get ovarian transplants and invitro fertilization, so they can have children. Gay men can adopt children. So, in every way that a heterosexual marriage helps society, a homosexual marriage can help society. It does not change the way I live, or do business or my relationship with my wife if Tom and Harry or Elizabeth and Alice are married. It does, however; help society grow and be more tolerant of those who are different than us. 

The drawback? Racists and bigots will whine and complain for a few years. That's about it.


----------



## BlackAsCoal (Nov 11, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> Both the Bible and Quran speak against homosexuality.
> 
> By allowing gay marriage our society is destroying it's morals and decending into cultural choas. In history rampant homosexuality was a sign of a society imploding and in the last functioning stages of civilation.
> 
> ...



In other words, Islam is just as much bullshit as everyother religion.

And it isn't "our" society that's being destroyed by homosexuality, it's just the warped one you live in. Homosexuals have always existed in the real world.

Additionally and even more astonishing .. here you are a muslim in America, talking shit about what destroys "our" society when in fact more than a few Americans don't consider you part of American society. Most people, who also hate homosexuals as you do, would rather live next to a homosexual bath house then live next door to you. I'm not one of those people because I neither practice or preach hate and they do .. or as you do.


----------



## DavidS (Nov 11, 2008)

BlackAsCoal said:


> Frankly my brother your insane phobia identifies you as the closet homosexual. Closet homosexuals don't take bold stands on homosexuality as Olbermann did .. they sceam and shout and whine and piss and moan about it as you just did.
> 
> Grow up brother .. why should what two consenting adults peacefully do be any concern of yours? .. that is, unless you're a closet homosexual



Any bashing of Sunni Man deserves a green rep!


----------



## BlackAsCoal (Nov 11, 2008)

DavidS said:


> You're a dude? Whoa.





I could have sworn it was a girl.


----------



## Red Dawn (Nov 11, 2008)

Good for Olbermann.


----------



## Red Dawn (Nov 11, 2008)

* Gov. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER (R-CA):  "I think it is unfortunate, obviously, but it's not the end, because I think this will go back into the courts, this will go back to the Supreme Court, because the Supreme Court very clearly in California has declared this unconstitutional.* It's the same as in the 1948 case when blacks and whites were not allowed to marry. This falls into the same category*."




  * Mayor JERRY SANDERS (R-San Diego):    "I have close family members and friends who are a member of the gay and lesbian community. Those folks include my daughter Lisa, as well as members of my personal staff.  I want for them the same thing that we all want for our loved ones&#8212;for each of them to find a mate whom they love deeply and who loves them back; someone with whom they can grow old together and share life&#8217;s experiences.  And I want their relationships to be protected equally under the law. In the end, I couldn&#8217;t look any of them in the face and tell them that their relationship&#8212;their very lives&#8212;were any less meaningful than the marriage I share with my wife Rana."


----------



## Andrew2382 (Nov 11, 2008)




----------



## DavidS (Nov 11, 2008)

BlackAsCoal said:


> I could have sworn it was a girl.



I don't know too many guys who put pictures of fluffy little kittens all over his avatar all the time. 

Err.. correction. I *do* know the kind of guys who would do that. That's the entire purpose of this thread!


----------



## Andrew2382 (Nov 11, 2008)

DavidS said:


> Err.. correction. I *do* know the kind of guys who would do that.



Shocking


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 11, 2008)

BlackAsCoal said:


> Frankly my brother your insane phobia identifies you as the closet homosexual. Closet homosexuals don't take bold stands on homosexuality as Olbermann did .. they sceam and shout and whine and piss and moan about it as you just did.
> Grow up brother .. why should what two consenting adults peacefully do be any concern of yours? .. that is, unless you're a closet homosexual



How come you know so much about closet homos?

Is there some secret you need to reveal to the board??


----------



## Silence (Nov 11, 2008)

I usually find Keith's special comments to be overly self-righteous and therefore last night I did not listen to it and after watching it here I'm sorry I didn't give it a chance.

Keith is right.  

I hope people realize that gays getting married doesn't determine the outcome of their own relationships or marriages.  

I'm a heterosexual woman who married at 22 and was divorced by the age of 25... This was 14 years ago and so it's safe to say gays had nothing to do with my divorce....  

It's funny that Republicans in general run on a platform of personal freedom and smaller government but the things they try to govern always directly impact the private and personal lives of U.S. citizens.


----------



## Andrew2382 (Nov 11, 2008)

I don't know what everyone is bitching about,. We left it up to a vote.

No partisanship, either yay or nay and Cali the MOST LIBERAL state said No to it.

Regardless of my opinion, this is a democractic state and let the people vote on it.  They were fighting to have this vote put through and now it didn't go there way everyone is crying foul. 

Sorry, doesn't work that way


----------



## busara (Nov 11, 2008)

Andrew2382 said:


> I don't know what everyone is bitching about,. We left it up to a vote.
> 
> No partisanship, either yay or nay and Cali the MOST LIBERAL state said No to it.
> 
> ...



because it was put up to a vote people now shouldnt be expressing their opinions on the matter? i thought this thread was intended for discussion on the topic


----------



## Andrew2382 (Nov 11, 2008)

busara said:


> because it was put up to a vote people now shouldnt be expressing their opinions on the matter? i thought this thread was intended for discussion on the topic



Thats fine and it is a discussion, hence my COMMENT.


I am trying to figure out why everyone is crying and bitching about it. 

If the people were ok with gay marriage then they would have VOTED for it.  But the majority voted against it.


----------



## busara (Nov 11, 2008)

Andrew2382 said:


> Thats fine and it is a discussion, hence my COMMENT.
> 
> 
> I am trying to figure out why everyone is crying and bitching about it.
> ...



your idea of a discussion is saying anyone questioning the vote is crying and bitching


----------



## WillowTree (Nov 11, 2008)

Silence said:


> I usually find Keith's special comments to be overly self-righteous and therefore last night I did not listen to it and after watching it here I'm sorry I didn't give it a chance.
> 
> Keith is right.
> 
> ...






It very funny that you think Republicans voted down propsition 8 in the heavily Democratic state of California.. I am peeing in my pants at the very thought of it... think about it... California,,,,,Democrat,,,,,Obama,,,,voted down prop 8... think,,,,,,think,,,,,,,,think........


----------



## Red Dawn (Nov 11, 2008)

Andrew2382 said:


> I don't know what everyone is bitching about,. We left it up to a vote.
> 
> No partisanship, either yay or nay and Cali the MOST LIBERAL state said No to it.
> 
> ...




Because we don't vote on rights.  Equality under the law is a fundamental principle in a democratic republic. 

No one is allowed to vote on whether you are allowed to own a gun.  No one should be allowed to vote on a woman's reproductive choice and right to personal privacy.  Rights aren't subject to simple plurality votes.  That's the fundamental premise behind a democratic republic; rights of minorities are not subject to the tyranny of the majority via a vote or referendum.


----------



## Andrew2382 (Nov 11, 2008)

Well, if a conservative says anything abou the obama election we get labeled as whiners and cryers.  And get todl you guys lost get over it.

Whats the difference here?


----------



## Silence (Nov 11, 2008)

Andrew2382 said:


> Thats fine and it is a discussion, hence my COMMENT.
> 
> 
> I am trying to figure out why everyone is crying and bitching about it.
> ...



I think the problem is people are shocked by the outcome of the vote more than anything else.  

We had a similar vote here in FL, Amendment 2, it passed as well.  

Personally the law doesn't have an adverse impact on me or my life but it saddens me to think that others see nothing wrong with denying a certain segement of our population the basic right of marrying the person they love.


----------



## Andrew2382 (Nov 11, 2008)

Red Dawn said:


> Because we don't vote on rights.  Equality under the law is a fundamental principle in a democratic republic.
> 
> No one is allowed to vote on whether you are allowed to own a gun.  No one should be allowed to vote on a woman's reproductive choice and right to personal privacy.  Rights aren't subject to simple plurality votes.  That's the fundamental premise behind a democratic republic; rights of minorities are not subject to the tyranny of the majority via a vote or referendum.




Thats your op.

There is an issue of morality, and apparently the people though it was an imoral issue.

This coutry (hypothetically) is a country of values still


----------



## Andrew2382 (Nov 11, 2008)

Hell I could care less, I would love to see the first gay couple marry and fight it out in divroce court and watch someone lose 50% of their assetts.

They have it good right now, they should leave it alone!


----------



## BlackAsCoal (Nov 11, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> How come you know so much about closet homos?
> 
> Is there some secret you need to reveal to the board??



I think the secret of your homo-insanity has already been revealed brother.

Your religion has its boot up your ass inhibiting blood flow to your brain.

Let me ask you again .. what difference does it make to you what two consenting adults do peacefully together .. see if you can find an answer you don't have to look up in the Quran.


----------



## xsited1 (Nov 11, 2008)

DavidS said:


> About 5 million people watch Keith Olbermann every night, moreso in the key demographic than O'Reilly does and his viewing audience is a "very small fringe audience?"
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/11/arts/television/11arts-NEWDEALFORKE_BRF.html?ref=television
> 
> Even if 10 people watched him, the point of this thread is about civil rights for ALL people. Jesus. Some of you just can't get the message and it's disappointing.



5 million?  Uh, right.  He's got a fringe audience.  His time is almost up.

I'm surprised that a Jew who follows Jewish Law would be concerned about this.  Read your Talmud.


----------



## WillowTree (Nov 11, 2008)

Silence said:


> I think the problem is people are shocked by the outcome of the vote more than anything else.
> 
> We had a similar vote here in FL, Amendment 2, it passed as well.
> 
> Personally the law doesn't have an adverse impact on me or my life but it saddens me to think that others see nothing wrong with denying a certain segement of our population the basic right of marrying the person they love.







yes, again Florida voted this year heavily in favor of Democrats yet the prop was voted down down down down down... why is that?


----------



## Luissa (Nov 11, 2008)

Gem said:


> For me, personally, I get very concerned when people start talking about creating or changing laws based solely on personal feelings of what they "feel" is right and should happen.  That isn't to say that those feelings shouldn't play a part...just that the argument that homosexuals should be allowed to marry because they love eachother and love is nice and don't we all just love love (which is basically what Olbermann's commentary says) isn't why marriage is recognized in this society.
> 
> Our system doesn't give a shit if my husband and I love one another...we were not required to "prove" our "love" for eachother in anyway before marrying.  In fact, the state would have still granted us permission to marry if we had stated conclusively that we did not love one another, but still desired to marry.
> 
> ...


Did they ask that same question when they would not let black and white people marry? And does it benefit me to let you marry? no
And it will benefit homosexuals to marry so therefore it will benefit their society which is part of american society. Gay people are already allowed to have civil unions in some states or be married, has society fallen do to this?


----------



## busara (Nov 11, 2008)

Andrew2382 said:


> Well, if a conservative says anything abou the obama election we get labeled as whiners and cryers.  And get todl you guys lost get over it.
> 
> Whats the difference here?



a few people acted that way after the election, so now you do the same to others whether or not they acted in this poor manner. 

is this really your reasoning? the common lack of intelligent discussion on this board is rather disappointing, but i guess it really is hard to act like an adult.


----------



## busara (Nov 11, 2008)

WillowTree said:


> yes, again Florida voted this year heavily in favor of Democrats yet the prop was voted down down down down down... why is that?



because you can support most issues upheld by a party and not all?


----------



## Red Dawn (Nov 11, 2008)

Andrew2382 said:


> Thats your op.
> 
> There is an issue of morality, and apparently the people though it was an imoral issue.
> 
> This coutry (hypothetically) is a country of values still




I'm glad to see the Republican base isn't changing with the times. 

Please do keep insisting that your party voted on "morals" like denying gays the right to a legal and permanent relationship.    I think its great the republicans aren't changing their party to reflect the 21st century.    

This proposition is going to be overturned.  Since you evidently don't understand basic american civics, or the concept of a democratic republic, I can assure you that allowing people to vote on the status of basic human rights and equality under the law will not pass constitutional muster, and will be overturned. 

Even Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzzenegger understands this, and thinks it will be overturned. 

But, by all means, encourage your Party to continue to be the Party of Mike Huckabee and Pat Robertson.    That would be cool.


----------



## Andrew2382 (Nov 11, 2008)

busara said:


> a few people acted that way after the election, so now you do the same to others whether or not they acted in this poor manner.
> 
> is this really your reasoning? the common lack of intelligent discussion on this board is rather disappointing, but i guess it really is hard to act like an adult.



No I was just making a point.

Reagrdless, just because you feel that gays have the right to marriage doesn't mean you are right.  Like I said there is a moral issue.  THis country is based on a fundamental belief of values and morals ( to an extent).

Apparently the majority of the people are not ready to see gays getting married yet.


----------



## Andrew2382 (Nov 11, 2008)

Red Dawn said:


> I'm glad to see the Republican base isn't changing with the times.
> 
> Please do keep insisting that your party voted on "morals" like denying gays the right to a legal and permanent relationship.    I think its great the republicans aren't changing their party to reflect the 21st century.
> 
> ...




Hey Genius,

it wasn't the repubs that shot it down.  So why don't you get a clue

It might be the 70% of blacks that voted against it, and I am going to go on a limb here and say 69.99% of them voted democratic everything else


----------



## WillowTree (Nov 11, 2008)

busara said:


> because you can support most issues upheld by a party and not all?






that's my point, don't blame Republicans for voting down the gay marriage propositions. Hispanics and African Americans voted against it.. and we know they were heavy dem voters... so to point fingers at Republicans is ridiculous.


----------



## Silence (Nov 11, 2008)

WillowTree said:


> yes, again Florida voted this year heavily in favor of Democrats yet the prop was voted down down down down down... why is that?



I wouldn't say FL voted heavily in favor of ALL democrats, just Obama.  Otherwise Republicans largely held onto their positions, hell our repoublican supervisor of elections here in Pinellas made it next to impossible to early vote by closing all by 3 voting places and she got re-elected.  

Florida is still a very conservative state IMO.  Amend 2 passing didn't surprise me in the least.  Now the CA vote?  that surprised me.


----------



## Andrew2382 (Nov 11, 2008)

Silence said:


> I wouldn't say FL voted heavily in favor of ALL democrats, just Obama.  Otherwise Republicans largely held onto their positions, hell our repoublican supervisor of elections here in Pinellas made it next to impossible to early vote by closing all by 3 voting places and she got re-elected.
> 
> Florida is still a very conservative state IMO.  Amend 2 passing didn't surprise me in the least.  Now the CA vote?  that surprised me.




yup, people don't realize how red of a state Florida is.

The state legislature got a bigger Republican majority, Repub Gov

Obama won because of better marketing and campigning.  Amend 2 passing was no surprise here, it was a surprise in Cali


----------



## busara (Nov 11, 2008)

WillowTree said:


> that's my point, don't blame Republicans for voting down the gay marriage propositions. Hispanics and African Americans voted against it.. and we know they were heavy dem voters... so to point fingers at Republicans is ridiculous.



i believe olbermann never blamed repubs, just people who voted against it. i really dislike the guy, btw


----------



## busara (Nov 11, 2008)

Andrew2382 said:


> No I was just making a point.
> 
> Reagrdless, just because you feel that gays have the right to marriage doesn't mean you are right.  Like I said there is a moral issue.  THis country is based on a fundamental belief of values and morals ( to an extent).
> 
> Apparently the majority of the people are not ready to see gays getting married yet.



i havent given my opinion on the matter. but just because people believe that gay mariage is wrong doesnt mean they are right either. hence the problem here, people are using their personal moral beliefs set the law here. but what does the constitution say about marriage and peoples rights?


----------



## BlackAsCoal (Nov 11, 2008)

Red Dawn said:


> I'm glad to see the Republican base isn't changing with the times.
> 
> Please do keep insisting that your party voted on "morals" like denying gays the right to a legal and permanent relationship.    I think its great the republicans aren't changing their party to reflect the 21st century.
> 
> ...



Sweet


----------



## Gem (Nov 11, 2008)

Luissa Wrote:


> Did they ask that same question when they would not let black and white people marry?


I'm sure many did.  The question of how would changing the way things have been done for a significant period of time change our nation should always be asked prior to making such changes.  Otherwise you end up with ridiculous and avoidable negative consequences that could have been dealt with or foreseen with a little bit of thought.



> And does it benefit me to let you marry? no


You're absolutely wrong on this one.  By allowing people to marry you create a stable and beneficial environment in which to raise children.  An environment which has been proven time and time again to create the best possible situation for children to grow and learn and remain safe and healthy.  You create an environment which raises the safety, health, and socioeconomic status of those involved which in turn, means less safety concerns for the community, costs relating to health care and less people on wellfare or in need of government assistance...all of which effect YOU.

Now...whether or not we would see similar benefits from allowing gays to marry SHOULD be the question...rather than this nonsense about people marrying each other only affecting each other...which is proof that the person saying it isn't fully considering the issue, but allowing their emotions to cloud the issue.



> And it will benefit homosexuals to marry so therefore it will benefit their society which is part of american society.



Now you're changing your mind.  If it makes no difference if I, as a heterosexual, marry...then why does it benefit our society to allow homosexuals to marry?  You can't have it both ways, Luissa.



> Gay people are already allowed to have civil unions in some states or be married, has society fallen do to this?



As the gay community, and I would imagine you yourself would be quick to say....civil unions and gay marriage are not the same thing...otherwise the gay community would have stopped asking for gay marriage by now.


----------



## Luissa (Nov 11, 2008)

I watched "Guess Who is Coming to Dinner" last night, and even though it has to do with racially mixed marriages, watch the movie it might give you some insight into this issue today.


----------



## user_name_guest (Nov 11, 2008)

We should define gay as man and women.  Imagine the backlash from the homosexual community.


----------



## Luissa (Nov 11, 2008)

Gem said:


> You're absolutely wrong on this one.  By allowing people to marry you create a stable and beneficial environment in which to raise children.  An environment which has been proven time and time again to create the best possible situation for children to grow and learn and remain safe and healthy.  You create an environment which raises the safety, health, and socioeconomic status of those involved which in turn, means less safety concerns for the community, costs relating to health care and less people on wellfare or in need of government assistance...all of which effect YOU.






So to go by your arguement then wouldn't it benefit us to allow them to marry since for one it benefits ones health who is involved in the situation wouldn't we see AIDS among gay people fall along with other STD's. ANd also since gay people can adopt it would benefit the children involved in the situation. And another example my gay friend is on state medical or a form of it but is partner who works for the state if married could put him on his medical plan therefore it would benefit you and I. I also know of another gay man who has HIV and has a boyfriend who could provide him with medical through his work but since it is not possible the man has to recieve medical and his medicine through the state and we all know the AIDS/HIV cocktail can be very expensive not to mention the cost of when they get sick.


----------



## Gem (Nov 11, 2008)

That's funny, I watched it yesterday afternoon.  I love Sidney Poiteir.  And no, it doesn't give insight into what the possible positive and negative outcomes of allowing homosexuals to marry might cause in our society.  It _does_shows how societies can grow and change, and sometimes SHOULD grow and change, how people have prejudices even if they don't know it, and how change, even good change can be painful at first.

Luissa, you need to re-read my first post and not be quite so judgmental of people simply because they don't immediately jump on the "Yeah, I agree completely with you!" bandwagon.  I'm not saying that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry, I have an uncle I would love to see married to the right man and several friends who I wish nothing but happiness for.  It is quite possible that gay marriage would be beneficial to our society and should be legalized immediately.  Gay marriage activists should be discussing these benefits...rather than whining about how gays not being allowed to marry hurts their feelings.

What I AM saying, however, is that I haven't seen any of the people who were against Prop-8, Keith Olbermann, you, or others who feel that homosexual marriage should be allowed deal with (or even consider, for that matter) what the outcomes, the consequences of this decision might cause.  

We shouldn't rush into changing the way things have been done simply because you don't _feel_ its fair.  Thats why the expression: The road to Hell is paved with good intentions - exists in the first place - because sometimes, in our rush to make everyone happy, or do something that makes us _feel_ good...we ignore whether or not the potential positive outcomes outweigh the potential negative consequences.

I would be more impressed with someone like Olbermann answering those types of questions...rather than droning on and on about how he _feels_ gay marriage should be legal because it would make him _feel_ so happy inside.


----------



## user_name_guest (Nov 11, 2008)

If they allow gays to marry one another, would that mean polygamy is on the table? Does that mean underage marriage will be on the table?  What about their rights?  Should they be discriminant because they have multiple spouses or that they are only 10.


----------



## Gem (Nov 11, 2008)

Luissa Wrote:



> So to go by your arguement then wouldn't it benefit us to allow them to marry since for one it benefits ones health who is involved in the situation wouldn't we see AIDS among gay people fall along with other STD's. ANd also since gay people can adopt it would benefit the children involved in the situation. And another example my gay friend is on state medical or a form of it but is partner who works for the state if married could put him on his medical plan therefore it would benefit you and I. I also know of another gay man who has HIV and has a boyfriend who could provide him with medical through his work but since it is not possible the man has to recieve medical and his medicine through the state and we all know the AIDS/HIV cocktail can be very expensive not to mention the cost of when they get sick.



Now you're getting it!

Rather than going on and on about how it hurts your feelings that gays can't marry you are addressing the potential BENEFITS to society for allowing gays to marry!

Marriage isn't recognized in our society because it makes us feel all warm and fuzzy to see a man and a woman with rings on their fingers.  Its because legally recognizing marriage BENEFITS us.  I know its cold, but its accurate.

Now - what needs to happen is people need to address whether the issues you listed above are accurate or not...whether or not these benefits would outweigh potential negatives, etc.  I'm not sure if this is the thread for it...but it would be FAR more beneficial than the usual "Gays are evil!"  "Gays are people!"  "Gays are are bad!"  "My Uncle should be able to marry!"  blather that usually goes on...not just here, but everywhere.


----------



## Luissa (Nov 11, 2008)

user_name_guest said:


> If they allow gays to marry one another, would that mean polygamy is on the table? Does that mean underage marriage will be on the table?  What about their rights?  Should they be discriminant because they have multiple spouses or that they are only 10.


You guys need to stop asking these stupid questions, they have no function in the debate.


----------



## 007 (Nov 11, 2008)

DavidS said:


> Pedophilia is a mental disorder. Homosexuality is not.



Yes, homosexuality is just as bad a mental disorder as pedophilia is. It's also a fact that by average most pedophiles are homos. They already have a perverted enough brain disorder to have sex with someone of the same sex, the jump to a child then is no bid deal to them. It's mental illness in it's purest form.

As far as keith overbite is concerned, he's just another ultra liberal gas bag in dire need of an ass kicking.


----------



## busara (Nov 11, 2008)

user_name_guest said:


> If they allow gays to marry one another, would that mean polygamy is on the table? Does that mean underage marriage will be on the table?  What about their rights?  Should they be discriminant because they have multiple spouses or that they are only 10.



allowing two consenting adults to marry is the same as allowing more than 2 to marry? it is the same as allowing underage people to marry?

these are completely different issues.


----------



## LoThunder (Nov 11, 2008)

PoliticalChic said:


> Did you have to ruin my morning by putting his face on the screen?
> 
> I don't take him seriously.  His ratings are so low, I can't believe he is still on MSNB.  He's been demoted already.  I believe it is only a matter of time.


*That's interesting that a response would be about the supposed qualities of Olbermann rather than the substance of what he said. 

I wonder if anyone who objects to his position has the balls to say what in particular was wrong with his statement...*


----------



## user_name_guest (Nov 11, 2008)

busara said:


> allowing two consenting adults to marry is the same as allowing more than 2 to marry? it is the same as allowing underage people to marry?
> 
> these are completely different issues.



It deals with marriages.  If a guy and three girls want to marry and a guy and a guy wants to marry, what gives the latter the privilege over the polygamist?  Is it unfair for the three girls and guy to not get the same right to marriage as a gay or lesbian.  So it's okay to discriminate on other forms of marriage?


----------



## Luissa (Nov 11, 2008)

Pale Rider said:


> Yes, homosexuality is just as bad a mental disorder as pedophilia is. It's also a fact that by average most pedophiles are homos. They already have a perverted enough brain disorder to have sex with someone of the same sex, the jump to a child then is no bid deal to them. It's mental illness in it's purest form.
> 
> As far as keith oberbite is concerned, he's just another ultra liberal gas bag in dire need of an ass kicking.


actually one average heterosexuals are just as likely and more likely to be pedohiles. And usually pedophiles usually don't like to have sex with adult at all and it is considered to be it's own sexual orientation. and they stopped classifying homsexuality as a mental illness many years ago.


----------



## Silence (Nov 11, 2008)

user_name_guest said:


> If they allow gays to marry one another, would that mean polygamy is on the table? Does that mean underage marriage will be on the table?  What about their rights?  Should they be discriminant because they have multiple spouses or that they are only 10.



I hope you're being sarcastic.  Consenting adults entering into marriage isn't the same as underage marriage nor the same as multiple spouses.  

What difference does it make to you or me if two people whom I've never met and probably never will meet get married?  Seriously? 

I think marriage itself sucks as an institution.  I wouldn't recommend it to anyone, gay or straight.


----------



## LoThunder (Nov 11, 2008)

Andrew2382 said:


> I don't know what everyone is bitching about,. We left it up to a vote.
> 
> No partisanship, either yay or nay and Cali the MOST LIBERAL state said No to it.
> 
> ...


*I have heard a little of this, "OK, the people have decided, now go home and shut up," argument.
Do you think people really WILL go home and shut-up? 

You know, it's one thing when the legislature enacts law that levies taxes, and something else entirely when they enact law that strips personal freedoms from a particular group simply because "The People," are prejudiced against them.

Again, I'd really be interested in seeing someone on the YES on Prop 8 side, take what Olbermann said and say how precisely he is wrong. So far, people have done everything BUT that.

HOW is my marriage harmed by gays being allowed to define their own commitments? *


----------



## DavidS (Nov 11, 2008)

Silence said:


> I usually find Keith's special comments to be overly self-righteous and therefore last night I did not listen to it and after watching it here I'm sorry I didn't give it a chance.
> 
> Keith is right.
> 
> ...



I fail to see why people are so opposed to this. We have openly gay members of Congress who we've elected to office. An openly gay man or woman can run and be elected to the highest office in the world. We have openly gay officers serving in the military fighting and dying for this country in two very unpopular wars. A gay man or woman can die for this country, but they can't get married? What kind of bullshit is this??


----------



## busara (Nov 11, 2008)

user_name_guest said:


> It deals with marriages.  If a guy and three girls want to marry and a guy and a guy wants to marry, what gives the latter the privilege over the polygamist?  Is it unfair for the three girls and guy to not get the same right to marriage as a gay or lesbian.  So it's okay to discriminate on other forms of marriage?



we are discussing a specific aspect of marriage, not the institution as a whole. but please tell me, why are you against underage marriage and polygamy? (i assume youre against these due to how you mentioned them)


----------



## DavidS (Nov 11, 2008)

Red Dawn said:


> Because we don't vote on rights.  Equality under the law is a fundamental principle in a democratic republic.
> 
> No one is allowed to vote on whether you are allowed to own a gun.  No one should be allowed to vote on a woman's reproductive choice and right to personal privacy.  Rights aren't subject to simple plurality votes.  That's the fundamental premise behind a democratic republic; rights of minorities are not subject to the tyranny of the majority via a vote or referendum.



We never got the right to vote on abortion, because it was tremendously unpopular 30something years ago. Even if a national vote was put to it today, it would fail. We never gave states that had the Jim Crow Laws the right to vote on whether or not to give minorities the same freedoms as they had - because we knew it would be voted down. 

It's horrible that they would put something like this to a referrendum when it would just call out all of the religious bigots and idealouges out there to vote no on it.


----------



## Gem (Nov 11, 2008)

Actually, I think we would be foolish NOT to consider how legalizing gay marriage might effect polygamist supporters, and although its distasteful, more extreme groups like pedophiles.

I'm surprised that so many people here who claim to be open-minded completely shut down any critical thinking when someone puts homosexuality and polygamy in the same sentence.  

PLEASE UNDERSTAND - because I don't want to waste a lot of time on explaining this:

-  I do not equate homosexuals with pedophiles.  And although I really don't have any problem with 3 or more consenting adults living together, I don't equate homosexuality with polygamy.


However...

I DO think that you are foolish if you dismiss the fact that we know polygamist and pedophile organizations are watching the gay marriage issue closely and are hoping that the legalization of gay marriage occurs.  We should ask why...

One reason, in my opinion, is because of the concept of LEGAL PRECEDENT.  Precedent is HUGELY important and influential in the creating and defining of new laws...we got Roe v. Wade in large part due to a line of precedential rulings that go all the way back to a tiny little case that stated that a married couple was permitted to use birth control in the privacy of their own bedrooms.  The judge who ruled that way might never have known that his ruling would eventually be used to legalize abortion...but thats the way precedent works.

Currently, marriage = a legal arrangement between 1 man and 1 woman.  Our nation has always defined it as such, so even when we finally abolished laws regarding the race of people who married...the definition was the same.

If we change the definition of marriage so that marriage = legal arrangement between 2 people.  Precedent has been set.  The definition of marriage is subject to change and revision based on the changing feelings and mores of society.

How then, 10, 15, or 20 years down the line - when gay marriage has been legalized and has not caused the downfall of society as we know it do you intend to tell three consenting adults that their definition of a loving marriage doesn't count?  They will use all the same statements that Keith Olbermann made in the video that so many of you love...."With all the problems in our world...is the fact that three people want to love and support each other REALLY the problem we need to focus on?"

The polygamists will, of course, face the same sort of fight and struggles that gay marriage supporters have...but from a LEGAL PRECEDENT viewpoint...we've already shown that the definition can be changed...how exactly are we going to deny civil rights to people just because they happened to fall in love with two people instead of one?


----------



## DavidS (Nov 11, 2008)

xsited1 said:


> 5 million?  Uh, right.  He's got a fringe audience.  His time is almost up.



His time is almost up? He just signed a brand new 4-year contract. Where are you getting this "his time is almost up" bullshit from?



> I'm surprised that a Jew who follows Jewish Law would be concerned about this.  Read your Talmud.



Thank you, but I don't need a bunch of Rabbis from thousands of years ago to tell me how to interpret the Torah. 

Every Jew, from Reconstructionist to Reform to Conservative to Orthodox to Chassidic cherry picks the laws he or she wants to follow. I have my own personal relationship with God based upon my view of the world and my view of the Torah. I don't need other people telling me that my view is wrong or right - because it's neither. It's my view. 

Besides there are several openly gay Rabbis serving in Reform and Conservative Synogogues. I really doubt that God is going to look down on someone because they choose to be happy. This is our only life, our only shot to make it out there. God wants his children to be happy and wants to his children to love.


----------



## LoThunder (Nov 11, 2008)

WillowTree said:


> yes, again Florida voted this year heavily in favor of Democrats yet the prop was voted down down down down down... why is that?


*You don't believe that bigotry is a good enough explanation?

Out here the Yes committee told people that teachers were going to be telling kids how to cram penises into buttholes. 
You know, lies are fear tactics- just like how all OTHER Right-Wing pressure is applied.

I still don't know what vested interest the people have in denying this simple right to Life,, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness- that THAT is what is going to be argued in the Supreme Court very soon on this issue.

You won't be able to argue that gay marriage makes you, "feel all icky down there," or that it pisses Jesus off. 

You''ll have to FINALLY ANSWER THE QUESTION- exactly WHAT HARM does gay marriage incur? 
And what is the PEOPLE'S compelling interest in removing the right of gays to marry? 

That's going to be a LOT harder than denouncing Keith Olbermann or calling each other fag.*


----------



## LoThunder (Nov 11, 2008)

_Gem:So in my opinion...the real question in this debate is not whether or not it would make us feel all warm and fuzzy inside to let gays marry (which, in my opinion, smacks a bit too much like Obama's "I want Supreme Court justices who are empathetic to poor people and single mothers" nonsense)...but rather does it benefit society to allow homosexuals to marry?_


*OK, well, you are getting there.

The problem is that high courts don't tend to see things like this from that angle. It is more likely that they will ask, "what is the state's compelling interest in denying people this right?"
*


----------



## DavidS (Nov 11, 2008)

Luissa27 said:


> So to go by your arguement then wouldn't it benefit us to allow them to marry since for one it benefits ones health who is involved in the situation wouldn't we see AIDS among gay people fall along with other STD's. ANd also since gay people can adopt it would benefit the children involved in the situation. And another example my gay friend is on state medical or a form of it but is partner who works for the state if married could put him on his medical plan therefore it would benefit you and I. I also know of another gay man who has HIV and has a boyfriend who could provide him with medical through his work but since it is not possible the man has to recieve medical and his medicine through the state and we all know the AIDS/HIV cocktail can be very expensive not to mention the cost of when they get sick.



To deny people the very basic of rights because of who they are, biologically, should be against the law. I have no idea why biological rights haven't been adopted. You cannot fire someone because they're black, female, gay and Jewish, a black female gay Jewish woman can serve in the military and die for us, yet a black female gay Jewish woman cannot get married. I feel like I'm stuck in the 1950s.


----------



## LoThunder (Nov 11, 2008)

Reagrdless, just because you feel that gays have the right to marriage doesn't mean you are right.

*That is correct. This is probably something that the Supreme Court should rule on. They will ask the question, "what is the state's compelling interest in denying this right to otherwise law-abiding citizens?"*

 Like I said there is a moral issue. THis country is based on a fundamental belief of values and morals ( to an extent).
*I wonder if you could tell me EXACTLY to what extent that is, because I haven't SEEN the US MORAL CODE. 
*

Apparently the majority of the people are not ready to see gays getting married yet.

*Why do they need to SEE them? Why do people think that need to live their lives with their noses up their neighbor's assholes? 

Seriously, explain to me how my life or yours is harmed by gay marriage, because so far it seems like a lot of whining.*


----------



## Red Dawn (Nov 11, 2008)

Oh Christ, here we go with Bush-voting extremists equating gay relationships with pedophelia, polygamy, or bestiality.  


Children cannot consent to a sexual realtionship with an adult. .   Pedophelia is not a consensual relationship. Its a crime.   Gay relationships are adult consensual relationships. 

Animals can't consent.   

I've never met anyone in my life demanding the right to polygamy.  At best its limited to a handful of kooks in Utah.   Please stop equating it with consensual gay relationships practiced by tens of millions of americans.


----------



## Gem (Nov 11, 2008)

Red Dawn Misread:


> Please stop equating it with consensual gay relationships practiced by tens of millions of americans.



Red Dawn don't become hysterical.  I'm not equating homosexuality with polygamy, pedophilia, or anything else.

One can discuss how the legalization of gay marriage might effect other "groups" without stating that being gay is "equal" to being a polygamist or a pedophile.

Just like a married couple using birth control is not "equivalent" to a young woman getting an abortion...courts do not equate...they look for what has been done in the past to determine how they will rule in the present and future.


----------



## DavidS (Nov 11, 2008)

Pale Rider said:


> Yes, homosexuality is just as bad a mental disorder as pedophilia is.



You see, you opened up your mouth and now you're going to have to back up your words. 

When you talk about mental disorders, you talk about something that is psychologically wrong with someone due to either environmental or biological causes. Now, I've got my latest copy of the DSM-IV-TSR on hand, which was published in 1994 and it lists 296 disorders in 886 pages and well, I know I don't perfect eyesight, but for some reason, the most intelligent diagnosticians of the human mind don't seem to think that homosexuality is a disorder. So how is it, Pale Rider, that the most brilliant minds in the country don't think homosexuality is a mental disorder, and yet you think they're wrong? 

First, before you answer that question, what college did you receive your doctorite in psychology from?



> It's also a fact that by average most pedophiles are homos.



Where are your non-partisan stasticis to back this up?



> They already have a perverted enough brain disorder to have sex with someone of the same sex, the jump to a child then is no bid deal to them. It's mental illness in it's purest form.



Again, your credentials?


----------



## LoThunder (Nov 11, 2008)

Gem:Currently, marriage = a legal arrangement between 1 man and 1 woman. Our nation has always defined it as such, so even when we finally abolished laws regarding the race of people who married...the definition was the same.

*But the arguments were very similar. Remember that a lot of the laws concerning inter-racial marriage was predicated on the idea that members of other races weren't fully human.*

If we change the definition of marriage so that marriage = legal arrangement between 2 people. Precedent has been set. The definition of marriage is subject to change and revision based on the changing feelings and mores of society.


*I there would also be a lot of discussion about the purpose of the state to grant or deny certain rights. 
No "feelings," just pragmatic concerns about denying rights to a variety of American citizen who is otherwise law-abiding and participatory in society.*

How then, 10, 15, or 20 years down the line - when gay marriage has been legalized and has not caused the downfall of society as we know it do you intend to tell three consenting adults that their definition of a loving marriage doesn't count? 

*There is very little doubt that at some point, polygamiost communities will demand the right to multiple marriages.
Don't forget that this will apply in BOTH directions- a woman might also want several husbands.
*

They will use all the same statements that Keith Olbermann made in the video that so many of you love...."With all the problems in our world...is the fact that three people want to love and support each other REALLY the problem we need to focus on?"

*Sorry Gem. I can tell you are tough- but I think this is as OK of an argument as saying that all gays are pedophiles- like the kooks do.
This is a nation of humans ma'am. And our inner concerns and needs are outlined in the Constitution: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness...*

The polygamists will, of course, face the same sort of fight and struggles that gay marriage supporters have...but from a LEGAL PRECEDENT viewpoint...we've already shown that the definition can be changed...how exactly are we going to deny civil rights to people just because they happened to fall in love with two people instead of one?

*I think the bigger question is, do we NEED to?
Is that all this country is ABOUT? Figuring out who we can rule over and how we can tell them how to live?
Why? 
To what ultimate end?*


----------



## BlackAsCoal (Nov 11, 2008)

Luissa27 said:


> I watched "Guess Who is Coming to Dinner" last night, and even though it has to do with racially mixed marriages, watch the movie it might give you some insight into this issue today.



It was a movie ahead of its time, as was "Imitation of Life" .. a movie hearlded by black Americans as "Gone With the Wind" is by white Americans.

But if you want to see a documentary about a little known slice of American life .. see "Scandalize My Name."


----------



## 007 (Nov 11, 2008)

Luissa27 said:


> actually one average heterosexuals are just as likely and more likely to be pedohiles. And usually pedophiles usually don't like to have sex with adult at all and it is considered to be it's own sexual orientation. and they stopped classifying homsexuality as a mental illness many years ago.



Wrong. I've been posting on this board for many years now, and I've proved this many, many times with hard data and facts. They're all there with just a simple google search, do it. "ON AVERAGE," homosexuals are nine times more likely to be a pedophile than a heterosexual.

http://us2000.org/cfmc/Pedophilia.pdf

REPORT SHOWS LINK BETWEEN HOMOSEXUALITY AND CHILD ABUSE

http://conservativecolloquium.wordp...emoving-homosexuality-from-list-of-disorders/


----------



## WillowTree (Nov 11, 2008)

LoThunder said:


> *You don't believe that bigotry is a good enough explanation?
> 
> Out here the Yes committee told people that teachers were going to be telling kids how to cram penises into buttholes.
> You know, lies are fear tactics- just like how all OTHER Right-Wing pressure is applied.
> ...






reality is elusive huh? The African American and the Hispanic vote sank prop 8 in California and Florida.. Not Republicans.


----------



## Silence (Nov 11, 2008)

Pale Rider said:


> Wrong. I've been posting on this board for many years now, and I've proved this many, many times with hard data and facts. They're all there with just a simple google search, do it. "ON AVERAGE," homosexuals are nine times more likely to be a pedophile than a heterosexual.
> 
> http://us2000.org/cfmc/Pedophilia.pdf
> 
> ...



  that's bullshit..... 

Give us a link that's not a rightwing nutjob site Pale.  Like an actual medical journal and scientific study group.


----------



## Gem (Nov 11, 2008)

LoThunder Wrote:


> I think the bigger question is, do we NEED to?
> Is that all this country is ABOUT? Figuring out who we can rule over and how we can tell them how to live?
> Why?
> To what ultimate end?



Again, I think in your haste to label me as against gay marriage you missed the point I have been trying to make.

It very well might be that gay marriage, polygamous marriage, etc. will not hurt our nation at all.  It might be that the majority of people in California who voted for Prop-8 are dead wrong - that our society will be unharmed or even strengthened by allowing adults to choose whomever they wish to marry, provided that person or those persons are also consenting adults...

My issue isn't with gay marriage in this thread...but with the debate as it has been held so far...illustrated in PERFECT form, by Olbermann's emotional speech about how nice it would be if we all just loved love.

I'm not trying to be "tough" as you call it.  I'm trying to get past arguments that have no place in decisions being made that will effect our nation as a whole.

Rather than insulting or belittling people for daring to ask whether polygamist marriage will follow gay marriage...rather than get highly offended that they would even ask such a question (even though they might not be saying that the two are equal...just that to them it makes sense that once gay people can marry, people might want to marry more than one person)...why not simply answer the question?

-  Either explain why polygamist marriage WON'T follow gay marriage.
-  Or explain why polygamist marriage is no less damaging to our society than heterosexual or gay marriage would be.

Here's where my argument comes in....

I don't care if you are for gay marriage or against it.  I don't care if you are for polygamy or against it.  I haven't stated whether I am for or against gay marriage because truthfully...I don't think it matters to the conversation nearly as much as getting to a point where we can discuss the issues without name calling is.

What I HAVE stated...is that the debate that Olbermann presents is, in my opinion, tantamount to "Gay marriage should be legalized because it makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside."

There are real concerns about gay marriage that have nothing to do with people hating gays or people being told by their religion that it is wrong.  Why doesn't the gay marriage movement answer them...instead of just yelling that anyone who asks a question is a bigoted homophobe?

There are real answers about how gay marriage would change society positively or at a minimum, wouldn't really change society much at all for a large majority of the population.  Why not discuss those answers rather than falling back on emotional stories?

There are a lot of things that we could do as a society that would make us feel all warm and happy inside in the short term....it doesn't mean we should do them.  Then again it doesn't mean we shouldn't...

We should, however, be willing and able to discuss the positives and negatives of the decisions without hysterics.  I see a lot of hysterics in this debate from both sides...I don't see a lot of rational conversation...


----------



## BlackAsCoal (Nov 11, 2008)

Gem said:


> Actually, I think we would be foolish NOT to consider how legalizing gay marriage might effect polygamist supporters, and although its distasteful, more extreme groups like pedophiles.
> 
> I'm surprised that so many people here who claim to be open-minded completely shut down any critical thinking when someone puts homosexuality and polygamy in the same sentence.
> 
> ...



What about people who have sex with animals? Aren't they watching as well?

If you choose to go down this line of argument then nothing imaginable is out of the range of possibilities .. and you really should be thinking about adding people who love goats to your argument.

The problem you seem to be having is that you believe you should define future society. You cannot, nor should you .. you don't have enough information about the future to determine what is best for that society.

Humans evolve and what you're fighting is a totally unwinnable battle.

Best concentrate on what makes the society you exist in better.


----------



## LoThunder (Nov 11, 2008)

*Sodomy and civil rights*

David R. Weiss, November 7, 2008

This country has a sodomy problem. And until we have the wisdom and the courage to be honest about what that means we're not going to resolve the question of civil rights for homosexuals. We need to be clear about why sodomy is such a threat to the common good of civil society, why it undermines the family, and why it is such an evil when afoot in faith communities. It's not going to be easy. But it needs to be done.

The word "sodomy" comes from a biblical text (Genesis 19) where the ancient city of Sodom is marked out for divine destruction because its evil ways so angered God. Sodomy names those who act like the inhabitants of Sodom.

Fine. But listen carefully. Not in this textnor in any other biblical textis there a condemnation of committed same-sex relationships. Not one. Not anywhere. There are a small handful of texts that condemn same-sex prostitution in pagan temples, and perhaps military rape and pederasty. But nowhere in the Bible is there a single word that condemns committed same-sex relationships.

To vote on Proposition 8 in California, or on any of the other state initiatives seeking to ban same-sex marriage, based on the Bible is the moral equivalent of using biblical texts to support slavery or apartheid. It is obscene.

So having cleared that up, let's talk about the real problem here: sodomy. Acting like the inhabitants of Sodom.

The prophet Isaiah (1:10-17; 3:9-15) knew something about the reputation of those who lived in Sodom. He says they despised justice, especially for widows and orphansthose at the edges of family structures in the ancient world. And he says they built an economy that stole the goods of the poor.

Likewise, the prophet Ezekiel (16:49) was also acquainted with the sodomy "lifestyle."  He rails against them because in the midst of their abundance they were indifferent to the needy.

Even Jesus, some 2000 years after its destruction, can employ a reference to Sodom with full effect. Twice (Matthew 11:19-24 and Luke 10:12) he invokes the memory of Sodom as a city condemned for its treatment of the marginalized and its lack of hospitality to sojourners.

For both the Hebrew prophets and the Christian Messiah sodomy is not about acting on same-sex attraction; it is clearly and unequivocally about social injustice and horrendous breeches of hospitality, of which the attempted gang rape of Lot's guests is simply one final bit of damning evidence.

Sodomy, understood biblically, is the sin of creating social structures that systematically isolate those already at the margins of society. It is roundly condemned by the prophets and by Jesus. And for good reason.

It destroys the fabric of families by teaching even the youngest children to dehumanize persons simply because of difference. It undermines the common good of society by scape-goating a minority in ways that contradict the very ideals we claim to hold in a democracy. And it is simply an unforgiveable evil in faith communities where it betrays the very messages of justice, mercy, and compassion that are at the heart of religious faith.

So let's be clear: the desire to close off the protections afforded by marriage to persons living in committed same-sex relationships (and to their children) is itself an act of sodomy and it has no place in civil society or in communities of faith.

Further, when African-Americans and Hispanics vote in large numbers alongside conservative white Christians to ban same-sex marriage they ally themselves with the same strand of Christianity that in the past quoted other biblical texts just as effectively to justify genocidal policies toward Native Americans, xenophobic laws toward immigrants, and abominations like slavery, Jim Crow, and apartheid.

So, yes, this country has a sodomy problem. But so long as we think it has anything to do with gay sex we've missed the point of God's outrage. Sodomy happens when any group uses their majority or their power to abuse and marginalize another group. That's what happened in California, Arizona, Florida, and Arkansas on November 4. And it's time for us, as citizens and as Christians, to stop acting like the inhabitants of Sodom.


----------



## Gem (Nov 11, 2008)

BlackasCoal Wrote:


> What about people who have sex with animals? Aren't they watching as well?
> 
> If you choose to go down this line of argument then nothing imaginable is out of the range of possibilities .. and you really should be thinking about adding people who love goats to your argument.



You're right, BlackasCoal...far better to just change laws, make new ones, change the way our society has operated since its inception quickly without even a hint of consideration for what such a decision might mean in the long run...its either that or you think that gay people are the same as people who practice bestiality.  

What nonsense.  Taking into consideration that changing the definition of marriage will make it easier from a legal standpoint to change it again at a later date does not mean that we must take into consideration every ludicrous possibility that some lunatic can come up with....it simply means being an adult...and considering the consequences of our actions.  




> The problem you seem to be having is that you believe you should define future society. You cannot, nor should you .. you don't have enough information about the future to determine what is best for that society.
> 
> Humans evolve and what you're fighting is a totally unwinnable battle.
> 
> Best concentrate on what makes the society you exist in better.



Again, I find it hysterical that because I'm not getting teary over Keith Olbermann's blubbering I automatically am fighting against gay marriage.  Is the argument for gay marriage so weak that we can not even consider the possible positive and negative consequences for our actions?  We just have to do it - no consideration, no thinking...or we're bigots or trying to control the future...ridiculous.

Of course we can not determine what is best for the future...we can and should however...make decisions that will effect the future cautiously and with consideration.


----------



## LoThunder (Nov 11, 2008)

What about people who have sex with animals? Aren't they watching as well?

If you choose to go down this line of argument then nothing imaginable is out of the range of possibilities .. and you really should be thinking about adding people who love goats to your argument.

*Sorry. 
Too silly of an argument. 
I'm surprised no one has told you that yet.

We are ALWAYS referring to consenting adults in these conversations. Tell me exactly HOW an animal could possibly give it's consent...
The same goes for children. A child cannot by definition, give consent to adult sexual relations. 

Time to get a new argument. This one is broken...*


----------



## Red Dawn (Nov 11, 2008)

For Christ sake, can you NeoCons drop the moral equivalency to pedophelia and bestiality. 

Gays are only asking for the same right the rest of us heterosexuals already enjoy.  A legal and permanent committed relationship.  They're not asking the churches to condone it, or the churches to practice gay marriage.   Its a civil relationship, the church doesn't have to do shit, or condone shit. 

And they're not asking to marry animals, or children, so that's a red herring.  They're not asking for something different than the rest of us adults already have.  

This is so stupid.  Hey gun nuts, when SCOTUS overturned the handgun ban in DC, did you hear any liberal argue that it would lead to the slippery slope of private citizens owning nuclear weapons, or grenade launchers?  No you didn't.  Because that would be a stupid ass argument to make.    

This is about equality under the law, and the extension of legal constitutional rights to everyone.   No one is asking to marry animals or create new rights to justify criminal behaviour like pedophilia. .


----------



## Againsheila (Nov 11, 2008)

All I know is when I was 18, I was certain that legalizing gay marriage was the right thing to do.  After I had my own kids, I lost that certainty.  I think the gay lifestyle is wrong.  I don't think we should be doing something just 'cause it feels good.  That said, I have a gay friend whom I've known and loved since he was a baby, though I didn't find out he was gay until last year, I'm always the last to know everything.  He has a partner that imo isn't good enough for him.  Even my friend is unsure if gay marriage should be legalized.

One thing I do know is that at my nieces wedding there were a couple of lesbians that really got out of line.  Had they been heterosexual, I would have told them to get a room.  Because they were lesbians, I was afraid if I told them what I thought they would call me a bigot.  I was wrong, I should have told them what I thought.  The truth is that I am a bigot.  I treated them different than I would heterosexuals in the same situation.  I won't do that again.


----------



## BlackAsCoal (Nov 11, 2008)

Gem said:


> BlackasCoal Wrote:
> 
> 
> You're right, BlackasCoal...far better to just change laws, make new ones, change the way our society has operated since its inception quickly without even a hint of consideration for what such a decision might mean in the long run...



Where's the problem? There's a word for changing laws, making new ones, and changing the way our society has operated from its inception .. it's called "life" .. and life is dynamic, not static .. it's supposed to change and in this society nothing gets changed quickly. It took African-Americans 364 years just to be relatively free. It took women hundreds of years to even vote and even longer to get fair compensation on the workplace .. which still has not be achieved.



> its either that or you think that gay people are the same as people who practice bestiality.



No, you're the one making the argument of think of the possibilities and deviants are watching. You don't appear to like your own argument and I'm sure more than a few people believe your stretch of "pedophiles" is just as outrageous as people who love goats.



> What nonsense.  Taking into consideration that changing the definition of marriage will make it easier from a legal standpoint to change it again at a later date does not mean that we must take into consideration every ludicrous possibility that some lunatic can come up with....it simply means being an adult...and considering the consequences of our actions.



Nope, that's just the strawman argument, but it sure ain't the one I'm making .. the arguments I'm making is that what two consenting adults peacefully do with their lives is none of your business .. that gay marriage will be determined constitutional and a protected right of being an American.



> Again, I find it hysterical that because I'm not getting teary over Keith Olbermann's blubbering I automatically am fighting against gay marriage.  Is the argument for gay marriage so weak that we can not even consider the possible positive and negative consequences for our actions?  We just have to do it - no consideration, no thinking...or we're bigots or trying to control the future...ridiculous.



Then that would make two of us laughing.

You seem to believe that serious people haven't considered all possibilities and consequences as best they can. I disagree with that and I'm sure it's even been considered by gays themselves. But your argument, which you don't appear to like, is that we should consider that deviants are watching and opening the door to gays open the doors to deviants.

First, deviants like pedophiles an polygamists are criminals. Gays are not criminals. Comparing the two is apples and oranges. What you're suggesting is that someone commiting a criminal act will be given legal status .. should you really take this any further is my question.



> Of course we can not determine what is best for the future...we can and should however...make decisions that will effect the future cautiously and with consideration.



Lots of people, including me have given careful consideration to the issue and recognize that gays aren't going anywhere. Their societal and politcal power is growing, not diminishing. 

Hopefully gay marriage fares a lot better than marriage between a man and a woman in this country because their numbers as depressingly horrid .. and children pay the price.


----------



## LoThunder (Nov 11, 2008)

Again, I think in your haste to label me as against gay marriage you missed the point I have been trying to make.


*No, I'm not doing that. I can see you're looking at this dispassionately and legalistically. No harm in that. It's got to be done sometime soon anyway...*

It very well might be that gay marriage, polygamous marriage, etc. will not hurt our nation at all. It might be that the majority of people in California who voted for Prop-8 are dead wrong - that our society will be unharmed or even strengthened by allowing adults to choose whomever they wish to marry, provided that person or those persons are also consenting adults...

*Frankly, I believe that is what we are going sdee happen next. I'd like to remind you that people don't just get "touchy-feely," benefits from marriage, they get the ability to have a next-of-kin conservator of their final wishes. None of the so-called domestic partner laws have as much teeth as civil marriage. People are still finding themselves pushed aside at the end of life by family members who very often despise the gay person.*

My issue isn't with gay marriage in this thread...but with the debate as it has been held so far...illustrated in PERFECT form, by Olbermann's emotional speech about how nice it would be if we all just loved love.

*Well, I certainly admire your stone-hard position on this. Women have finally moved to the front of American politics when they can prove they are as unfeeling as any man. 
You've come a long way baby...*

I'm not trying to be "tough" as you call it. I'm trying to get past arguments that have no place in decisions being made that will effect our nation as a whole.


*Sorry. While I don't think you are adamantly opposed or even especially bigoted on this question, I do think that the reason you are so fierce about this essay is because you can sense that it will resonate with people; that it has LEGS. 

You might think that emotional arguments are inherently unfair, and I disagree. Indeed, the whole YES on Prop 8 has been FUELED by strong feelings. I dare say there is nothing ELSE of substance IN the debate.

You think that guy who claims that people will want to hump GOATS isn't making an emotional plea?
And like it or NOT, those are the kooks people are LISTENING to-- the emotional ones...*

Rather than insulting or belittling people for daring to ask whether polygamist marriage will follow gay marriage...rather than get highly offended that they would even ask such a question (even though they might not be saying that the two are equal...just that to them it makes sense that once gay people can marry, people might want to marry more than one person)...why not simply answer the question?

*Well, you are obviously either a formal or a "hobbyist" student of the law, so I am surprised you don't know that people have already tried to question the laws against polygamy. 

Are you asking me, does that make gay marriage a DEAL-BREAKER in that respect? 

No. I think sometime soon we are going to need to state CLEARLY what, if any compelling interest does the state have in preventing people from having multiple spouses.

Personally, I think the issues are WAY different than gay marriage, but I certainly won't deny that looking at ONE will lead us to look at another...*

- Either explain why polygamist marriage WON'T follow gay marriage.
- Or explain why polygamist marriage is no less damaging to our society than heterosexual or gay marriage would be.

*I think I'd first like to hear how you think polygamy is harmful. I believe it is as well- but I'd like to know your position first.*

Here's where my argument comes in....

I don't care if you are for gay marriage or against it. I don't care if you are for polygamy or against it. I haven't stated whether I am for or against gay marriage because truthfully...I don't think it matters to the conversation nearly as much as getting to a point where we can discuss the issues without name calling is.

*I am by nature, a sarcastic pup. This is what my mom called me.
I certainly do not disrespect you, but I need to tell you that I am informal and irreverent. Please accept me as I am, because I have the hots for your cartoon avatar...*

What I HAVE stated...is that the debate that Olbermann presents is, in my opinion, tantamount to "Gay marriage should be legalized because it makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside."

There are real concerns about gay marriage that have nothing to do with people hating gays or people being told by their religion that it is wrong. Why doesn't the gay marriage movement answer them...instead of just yelling that anyone who asks a question is a bigoted homophobe?

There are real answers about how gay marriage would change society positively or at a minimum, wouldn't really change society much at all for a large majority of the population. Why not discuss those answers rather than falling back on emotional stories?

There are a lot of things that we could do as a society that would make us feel all warm and happy inside in the short term....it doesn't mean we should do them. Then again it doesn't mean we shouldn't...

We should, however, be willing and able to discuss the positives and negatives of the decisions without hysterics. I see a lot of hysterics in this debate from both sides...I don't see a lot of rational conversation...

*I hope to be doing that. At the same time, I will be responding to outright bigots and homophobes the way I generally do. 
I hope you will be able to tell the difference between which people I am talking to. 
*


----------



## BlackAsCoal (Nov 11, 2008)

LoThunder said:


> What about people who have sex with animals? Aren't they watching as well?
> 
> If you choose to go down this line of argument then nothing imaginable is out of the range of possibilities .. and you really should be thinking about adding people who love goats to your argument.
> 
> ...



Time for you to get a mind that can follow logic .. and I'm surprised no one has told you that yet.

Here's a clue .. "consenting adults" does not apply to sheep.

"consenting adults" also does not apply to children.

I qualify "consenting adults" with "peacefully" .. people in the act of commiting a crime such as pedophillia and polygamy do not qualify as peacefully.

Sorry I have to get this specific but it didn't appear that you were keeping up.

If there something you want to say that challenges whether "consenting adults" should be able to "peacefully" live their lives married, I'd sure like to hear it.


----------



## Gem (Nov 11, 2008)

BlackasCoal - I'll try again...slowly this time.

Stating that a possible reason to go slowly on legalizing gay marriage is that from a legal precendent standpoint it opens the door to polygamists seeking similar rights is not even remotely close to comparing a homosexual to a pedophile.  

You seem to want to make this what I am saying, but I am not, nor have I ever stated that.  

Your wish to dismiss it out of hand is understandable...no one who supports gay marriage wants to believe that legalizing gay marriage might one day lead to the legalization of forms of marriage they do not currently approve of...but it does not invalidate the argument.

Rather than attempting to use a typical tactic of implying that I am insulting homosexuals or comparing them to pedophiles - which anyone with half a brain understands I am not...why don't you explain why the legalization of gay marriage will not make the legalization of polygamist marriage an easier fight?


----------



## DavidS (Nov 11, 2008)

Againsheila said:


> All I know is when I was 18, I was certain that legalizing gay marriage was the right thing to do.  After I had my own kids, I lost that certainty.  I think the gay lifestyle is wrong.  I don't think we should be doing something just 'cause it feels good.  That said, I have a gay friend whom I've known and loved since he was a baby, though I didn't find out he was gay until last year, I'm always the last to know everything.  He has a partner that imo isn't good enough for him.  Even my friend is unsure if gay marriage should be legalized.
> 
> One thing I do know is that at my nieces wedding there were a couple of lesbians that really got out of line.  Had they been heterosexual, I would have told them to get a room.  Because they were lesbians, I was afraid if I told them what I thought they would call me a bigot.  I was wrong, I should have told them what I thought.  The truth is that I am a bigot.  I treated them different than I would heterosexuals in the same situation.  I won't do that again.



And there are people who think your lifestyle is wrong. How would you like them to pass a ban on your lifestyle and prohibit you from living it? You are entitled to your opinions, you are entitled to your bigotry even, but you are not entitled to prohibit them from living a normal life.


----------



## Gem (Nov 11, 2008)

LoThunder Wrote:


> Frankly, I believe that is what we are going sdee happen next. I'd like to remind you that people don't just get "touchy-feely," benefits from marriage, they get the ability to have a next-of-kin conservator of their final wishes. None of the so-called domestic partner laws have as much teeth as civil marriage. People are still finding themselves pushed aside at the end of life by family members who very often despise the gay person.



Ironically, you make my point as you try to disagree with me, I think.  You list real, concrete reasons why gay marriage should be legalized...while putting aside the "touchy-feely" benefits.  I do not disagree that there is an emotional component to this debate...but I feel that the concrete reasons are more important when discussing with people who disagree with you and when deciding to change a law.

I agree with you, by the way, in that I do think gay marriage will be legalized in the relatively near future.



> Well, I certainly admire your stone-hard position on this. Women have finally moved to the front of American politics when they can prove they are as unfeeling as any man.
> You've come a long way baby...



Just because I'm not getting teary over a man who chooses a "worst person in the world" every day doesn't mean I don't have any emotions regarding this issue.  I just think that we've spent more than enough time screaming "People should be able to love whomever they choose!"  or "Gays are evil!" for 100 lifetimes...it isn't going anywhere...so we may as well try talking about what might actually happen if gay marriage was legalized...or reasons aside from emotional or religious ones why gay marriage might not be a good idea.



> Sorry. While I don't think you are adamantly opposed or even especially bigoted on this question, I do think that the reason you are so fierce about this essay is because you can sense that it will resonate with people; that it has LEGS.



Sorry, I think you're wrong on this one.  I don't think that Olbermann's statement did anything but appeal to those who already agreed with him.  Hell, I even agree with most of his points and I was rolling my eyes...



> You might think that emotional arguments are inherently unfair, and I disagree. Indeed, the whole YES on Prop 8 has been FUELED by strong feelings. I dare say there is nothing ELSE of substance IN the debate.
> 
> You think that guy who claims that people will want to hump GOATS isn't making an emotional plea?
> And like it or NOT, those are the kooks people are LISTENING to-- the emotional ones...



Not unfair...just unhelpful.  And I agree...the emotional arguments are the ones people listen to...which is why we have so many idiots screaming the same stupid things over and over again...perhaps its time for a little cold rationality from heartless little people like me?  



> Well, you are obviously either a formal or a "hobbyist" student of the law, so I am surprised you don't know that people have already tried to question the laws against polygamy.



I have a lawyer in the family.  Arguing with him is a bitch.  And that polygamists have tried before is important...but not necessarily an end to the debate, especially with the precedent of gay marriage newly entered into the equation.



> Are you asking me, does that make gay marriage a DEAL-BREAKER in that respect?
> 
> No. I think sometime soon we are going to need to state CLEARLY what, if any compelling interest does the state have in preventing people from having multiple spouses.
> 
> Personally, I think the issues are WAY different than gay marriage, but I certainly won't deny that looking at ONE will lead us to look at another...



Thank you.  This is really all I am looking for.  A discussion as to the possible outcomes, both positive and negative, of legalizing gay marriage.  I believe that legalizing gay marriage will lead to an eventual push by some to legalize polygamy...



> I think I'd first like to hear how you think polygamy is harmful. I believe it is as well- but I'd like to know your position first.



I have mixed feelings on polygamy actually.  My objections to legalizing it are multifold, the complications to the legal system, the care of children, the history of exploitation that has followed with it, etc.



> I am by nature, a sarcastic pup. This is what my mom called me.
> I certainly do not disrespect you, but I need to tell you that I am informal and irreverent. Please accept me as I am, because I have the hots for your cartoon avatar...



Sarcasm is wonderful.  I am incredibly sarcastic...although I've learned to tone it down here because people were misreading it and typing me some really nasty notes!    But I have no problem with sarcasm or irreverence...and I'm glad my avatar does it for ya!



> I hope to be doing that. At the same time, I will be responding to outright bigots and homophobes the way I generally do.
> I hope you will be able to tell the difference between which people I am talking to.



I usually can tell the difference...hopefully you'll do the same with me, and understand when I'm addressing some posters and not all.


----------



## WillowTree (Nov 11, 2008)

DavidS said:


> And there are people who think your lifestyle is wrong. How would you like them to pass a ban on your lifestyle and prohibit you from living it? You are entitled to your opinions, you are entitled to your bigotry even, but you are not entitled to prohibit them from living a normal life.






I am lost now David. Who prohibts you from living your chosen lifestyle?


----------



## Againsheila (Nov 11, 2008)

DavidS said:


> And there are people who think your lifestyle is wrong. How would you like them to pass a ban on your lifestyle and prohibit you from living it? You are entitled to your opinions, you are entitled to your bigotry even, but you are not entitled to prohibit them from living a normal life.



Hmm, if they banned my lifestyle...there's soon be no more people in the world.  Well, unless they ignored the ban or used scientific methods.

Kind of missed my point, didn't you?  I think it's wrong, that doesn't mean I want to ban it.  I think it's wrong for people who aren't married to have kids, but I'm not out to ban that either.  I disagree with sex before marriage and yes, my husband IS they only one I've had sex with.  I know that makes me a freak but there it is.  

I thought the gay lifestyle was wrong when I was 18 too, but back then I was certain that making it legal for them to marry was the right thing to do.  After having my own children, I'm not so sure anymore.  

Oh, and feel free to define "normal".


----------



## BlackAsCoal (Nov 11, 2008)

Gem said:


> BlackasCoal - I'll try again...slowly this time.
> 
> Stating that a possible reason to go slowly on legalizing gay marriage is that from a legal precendent standpoint it opens the door to polygamists seeking similar rights is not even remotely close to comparing a homosexual to a pedophile.
> 
> ...



I don't have to distort what you're saying to make my argument.

I'll try this real slowly ..

You're suggesting that legalizing gay marriage opens the door to people who are committing the criminal acts of polygamy and pedophillia.

And I'm saying that's ridiculous. It's ridiculous not because you may not like gays, it's ridiculous to believe that people in the commission of a criminal act will somehow be given legal status that validates that illegal act.

And I'm saying that denying rights to any group today because somewhere in the future social deviants might get the same rights isn't much of an argument .. which is why no one really considers it.

Stop hiding behind "I'm not homophobic" .. that's not my argument.


----------



## Gem (Nov 11, 2008)

Gay marriage is currently illegal is most states.  Polygamy is likewise, illegal.  So where is your argument?

If we legally recognize one, why couldn't the other be legally recognized later?

You aren't making sense, BlackasCoal...just because Polygamy is illegal now doesn't mean that can't be changed.  It's legal to live with more than one person, legal to sleep with more than one person...so why can't those people receive the same civil rights as everyone else?


----------



## Againsheila (Nov 11, 2008)

BlackAsCoal said:


> I don't have to distort what you're saying to make my argument.
> 
> I'll try this real slowly ..
> 
> ...




You do know that up until recently sodomy has been considered illegal in almost every states, right?


----------



## LoThunder (Nov 11, 2008)

Gem's Quote:
I have a lawyer in the family. Arguing with him is a bitch. And that polygamists have tried before is important...but not necessarily an end to the debate, especially with the precedent of gay marriage newly entered into the equation.


*Well, I have several dogs in this fight. 
Some of my dearest friends are gay and in committed healthy relationships. 
I also love a good legal fight, just from the standpoint of constitutionality.*

Thunder:Are you asking me, does that make gay marriage a DEAL-BREAKER in that respect?
No. I think sometime soon we are going to need to state CLEARLY what, if any compelling interest does the state have in preventing people from having multiple spouses.

Personally, I think the issues are WAY different than gay marriage, but I certainly won't deny that looking at ONE will lead us to look at another...

Gem: Thank you. This is really all I am looking for. A discussion as to the possible outcomes, both positive and negative, of legalizing gay marriage. I believe that legalizing gay marriage will lead to an eventual push by some to legalize polygamy...

*Well I am hoping that people can see the distinction between the FATUOUS argument of "well, next people will want to marry GOATS," and this ACTUAL possibility that polygamists will assert their "rights." It is entirely likely that this will happen and people on the NO on Prop 8 side of the debate need to be prepared to deal with it.
*

Thunder: I think I'd first like to hear how you think polygamy is harmful. I believe it is as well- but I'd like to know your position first.

Gem:I have mixed feelings on polygamy actually. My objections to legalizing it are multifold, the complications to the legal system, the care of children, the history of exploitation that has followed with it, etc.

*I will state right out that I was a Mormon as a kid, (we got thrown out because Mom couldn't stop smoking,) and this business of off-shoot Mormon fundamentalists in Utah, Colorado, Mexico and Canada gets my skins crawling.

If you haven't read, "Under The Banner of Heaven," by Jon Krakauer, I really recommend it (now watch as the Mormons rally to kick my butt...)

I will just say that I have seen nothing in PRACTICE to allow me to think that polygamy is either healthy or follows the general guidelines of "consenting adults."*

Thunder: I am by nature, a sarcastic pup. This is what my mom called me.
I certainly do not disrespect you, but I need to tell you that I am informal and irreverent. Please accept me as I am, because I have the hots for your cartoon avatar...

Gem:Sarcasm is wonderful. I am incredibly sarcastic...although I've learned to tone it down here because people were misreading it and typing me some really nasty notes! But I have no problem with sarcasm or irreverence...and I'm glad my avatar does it for ya!

*At some point in the gay marriage debate, we may also need to decide whether it is morally decent to hump a cartoon...*

Thunder: I hope to be doing that. At the same time, I will be responding to outright bigots and homophobes the way I generally do.
I hope you will be able to tell the difference between which people I am talking to.

Gem: I usually can tell the difference...hopefully you'll do the same with me, and understand when I'm addressing some posters and not all.

*You are filled with great kindness.*


----------



## Gem (Nov 11, 2008)

LoThunder Wrote:


> we may also need to decide whether it is morally decent to hump a cartoon...



Well I'm all for that.  I mean, who isn't?   You've seen my avatar.  Who wouldn't want to get with that?!?


----------



## Ocean56 (Nov 11, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> Both the Bible and Quran speak against homosexuality.
> 
> By allowing gay marriage our society is destroying it's morals and decending into cultural choas. In history rampant homosexuality was a sign of a society imploding and in the last functioning stages of civilation.
> 
> ...




*  And what if all religion, including ISLAM, was banned, the same way that gay marriage has been?  What if some "genius" decided that all religion was a terrible thing and just made all of it illegal, based on a popular vote in your state? 

Don't give absurd replies that "it would never happen" and other such nonsense. Try to IMAGINE, if anyone is capable of doing so, what YOUR reaction would be if some state law suddenly made it illegal for you to attend your fundie church. That you could be arrested, tried and convicted for the "crime" of just showing up at your church door. How would it FEEL? It wouldn't feel too good, isn't that correct?

Bottom line; RELIGION DOESN'T RULE THE U.S., nor should it ever.  Which means YOU don't get to impose your anti-gay religious beliefs onto everyone else, either by force or by ballot.  The fact that it was put on a ballot in the first place is a travesty.   

Ocean   *


----------



## LoThunder (Nov 11, 2008)

LoThunder Wrote:
we may also need to decide whether it is morally decent to hump a cartoon...

Well I'm all for that. I mean, who isn't? You've seen my avatar. Who wouldn't want to get with that?!?

*I've often wondered what it would be like to meet someone who actually looked that way- eyes as big as dollar bills and such.
Might be pretty damn scary...*


----------



## Gem (Nov 11, 2008)

A little "close encounters?"


----------



## Ocean56 (Nov 11, 2008)

LoThunder said:


> [/B] Thunder: I am by nature, a sarcastic pup. This is what my mom called me.  I certainly do not disrespect you, but I need to tell you that I am informal and irreverent.
> [/B]



*That's why I love your posts so much, if you don't mind my saying so.    They are indeed informal, irreverent, and above all HONEST.  

Even if I might disagree with any of your views one day, which so far I have not, I know exactly where you stand on an issue, and as I think you know by now, I'll tell you that I disagree and my reasons why.  You are blunt and plain-speaking, and I never have to wonder if you have any hidden meanings.  For me, honesty and plain-speaking is what works.  

Ocean  *


----------



## BlackAsCoal (Nov 11, 2008)

Gem said:


> Gay marriage is currently illegal is most states.  Polygamy is likewise, illegal.  So where is your argument?
> 
> If we legally recognize one, why couldn't the other be legally recognized later?
> 
> You aren't making sense, BlackasCoal...just because Polygamy is illegal now doesn't mean that can't be changed.  It's legal to live with more than one person, legal to sleep with more than one person...so why can't those people receive the same civil rights as everyone else?



Surely you're being purposefully obtuse.

One more time.

Being gay is not illegal.

Being a pedophile or a polygamist is illegal

Granting marriage rights to gay people does not justify a criminal act.

Granting marriage rights to pedophiles and polygamists is the justification of an criminal act.

Personally, I couldn't care less if three people or eight people all decide to marry each other. Doesn't affect my marriage or life one iota.

Pedophiles get married to children all the time and it's perfectly legal in states like Alabama and South Carolina where children as young as 14 get married, and New Hampshire where a female can be married at 13 .. and there is a host of states that allow marriage at 15.

Hope that clears things up.


----------



## xsited1 (Nov 11, 2008)

I can't wait until a cure is found for homosexuality.  Then we won't be having these conversations.


----------



## BlackAsCoal (Nov 11, 2008)

Againsheila said:


> You do know that up until recently sodomy has been considered illegal in almost every states, right?



Sure .. until people got smarter and asked if it was only wrong when men took it up the butt.


----------



## Ocean56 (Nov 11, 2008)

LoThunder said:


> *You don't believe that bigotry is a good enough explanation?
> 
> Out here the Yes committee told people that teachers were going to be telling kids how to cram penises into buttholes.
> You know, lies are fear tactics- just like how all OTHER Right-Wing pressure is applied.
> ...




*It certainly WILL be a lot harder, and I'm looking forward to hearing something intelligent for a change.

So far, I have yet to hear or read ANY legitimate argument against gay marriage.  All I have seen and heard are incredibly lame ones, such as "it redefines my own marriage" (REALLY, and just HOW does it do that, exactly?   ) and "it pisses Jesus/God off."  Which as far as I'M concerned, don't even come close to an argument anyone can take seriously as an intelligent reason to ban gay marriage.

Ocean*


----------



## Gem (Nov 11, 2008)

Unfortunately, it doesn't clear it up.  

Being gay is not illegal.  Neither is being sexually involved with more than one person at the same time. 

Being married to a person of the same sex is currently illegal in most states.  Being married to more than one person is likewise, illegal.

Where is this confusing to you, BlackasCoal?


----------



## BlackAsCoal (Nov 11, 2008)

Gem said:


> LoThunder Wrote:
> 
> 
> Well I'm all for that.  I mean, who isn't?   You've seen my avatar.  Who wouldn't want to get with that?!?



I don't ... I'm hoping to have sex with GigiBowman's avatar.

When I was growing up, Betty Boop was all we had .. didn't have BET.


----------



## Gem (Nov 11, 2008)

True...GigiBowman's avatar is pretty hot.


----------



## BlackAsCoal (Nov 11, 2008)

Gem said:


> Unfortunately, it doesn't clear it up.
> 
> Being gay is not illegal.  Neither is being sexually involved with more than one person at the same time.
> 
> ...



I'm done and comfortable with agreeing to disagree .. I appreciate your perspective


----------



## DavidS (Nov 11, 2008)

xsited1 said:


> I can't wait until a cure is found for homosexuality.  Then we won't be having these conversations.



The Nazis said the same thing about Jews. That they needed to be "cured."


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 11, 2008)

DavidS said:


> The Nazis said the same thing about Jews. That they needed to be "cured."


Please provide link or evidence where any Nazi leader made a statement about Jews needing to be "cured of Judiasm".

Thank You


----------



## Luissa (Nov 11, 2008)

Pale Rider said:


> Wrong. I've been posting on this board for many years now, and I've proved this many, many times with hard data and facts. They're all there with just a simple google search, do it. "ON AVERAGE," homosexuals are nine times more likely to be a pedophile than a heterosexual.
> 
> http://us2000.org/cfmc/Pedophilia.pdf
> 
> ...


Here is something for you to read!

HOMOSEXUALITY AND CHILD SEXUAL MOLESTATION


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 11, 2008)

Luissa27 said:


> Here is something for you to read!
> 
> HOMOSEXUALITY AND CHILD SEXUAL MOLESTATION


As a father of 4 boys. I say why take a chance of exposing your child to any homo.

I think it is stupid to risk your child's safety, just to prove that you are tolerent and PC.


----------



## LoThunder (Nov 11, 2008)

Ocean56 said:


> *That's why I love your posts so much, if you don't mind my saying so.    They are indeed informal, irreverent, and above all HONEST.
> 
> Even if I might disagree with any of your views one day, which so far I have not, I know exactly where you stand on an issue, and as I think you know by now, I'll tell you that I disagree and my reasons why.  You are blunt and plain-speaking, and I never have to wonder if you have any hidden meanings.  For me, honesty and plain-speaking is what works.
> 
> Ocean  *


*Thanks ma'am.*


----------



## Ocean56 (Nov 11, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> As a father of 4 boys. I say why take a chance of exposing your child to any homo.  I think it is stupid to risk your child's safety, just to prove that you are tolerent and PC.



*Well, personally I think it is stupid to risk my child's psychological health and well-being, which is why I keep him out of ALL religious institutions, no matter what the faith may be.  

Too much hatred, intolerance and bigotry shown to anyone who is "different" for me to expose him to that toxic brand of "faith."  Your post is one of the best examples of proof of the worst of religion.  "Congratulations," I guess.   *


----------



## Ocean56 (Nov 11, 2008)

LoThunder said:


> *Thanks ma'am.*



*You're most welcome, sir.*


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 11, 2008)

Ocean56 said:


> *Well, personally I think it is stupid to risk my child's psychological health and well-being, which is why I keep him out of ALL religious institutions, no matter what the faith may be.
> 
> Too much hatred, intolerance and bigotry shown to anyone who is "different" for me to expose him to that toxic brand of "faith."  Your post is one of the best examples of proof of the worst of religion.  "Congratulations," I guess.   *


I didn't mention religion in my post.

I was talking about child safety.

Any parent, be they atheist or religious, needs to protect their children from predators.


----------



## LoThunder (Nov 11, 2008)

Gem said:


> True...GigiBowman's avatar is pretty hot.


*Yes. There also seemed to be a bit of hotness from her photo...
I don't mean that in a disrespectful way of course...*


----------



## Shadow (Nov 11, 2008)

WillowTree said:


> reality is elusive huh? The African American and the Hispanic vote sank prop 8 in California and Florida.. Not Republicans.



Democrats never look at how voting blocks feel/think about certain issues.  They just assume they "own" the opinions and votes of them all because they are so very special and cool.    Did all of you Obots not see the Black Theology/Christian hecklers at Obama's rally with signs against homosexuality?  Yes, I know the brain washed masses just ASSUMED they were either republicans or plants...  but the fact is, many black voters are also anti gay.  They don't support it because they don't wan't gay rights to be a CIVIL RIGHTS issue.  Lets see if Obama goes against his biggest block of voters and does anything for gay rights during his tenure...


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 12, 2008)

Shadow said:


> Democrats never look at how voting blocks feel/think about certain issues.  They just assume they "own" the opinions and votes of them all because they are so very special and cool.    Did all of you Obots not see the Black Theology/Christian hecklers at Obama's rally with signs against homosexuality?  Yes, I know the brain washed masses just ASSUMED they were either republicans or plants...  but the fact is, many black voters are also anti gay.  They don't support it because they don't wan't gay rights to be a CIVIL RIGHTS issue.  Lets see if Obama goes against his biggest block of voters and does anything for gay rights during his tenure...


American voters are sick of homos attacking their moral values and trying to force a perverted gay agenda.

They just want the homos to get back in their closet and shut up!!


----------



## Ocean56 (Nov 12, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> I didn't mention religion in my post.
> 
> I was talking about child safety.  Any parent, be they atheist or religious, needs to protect their children from predators.



*  I DO protect my son from predators.  That's why I keep him AWAY from all religious zealots and bigots, no matter what faith they may be.  Sorry if you have a problem with that, but thankfully, it's not MY burden to carry.*


----------



## Ocean56 (Nov 12, 2008)

Shadow said:


> Democrats never look at how voting blocks feel/think about certain issues.  They just assume they "own" the opinions and votes of them all because they are so very special and cool.    Did all of you Obots not see the Black Theology/Christian hecklers at Obama's rally with signs against homosexuality?  Yes, I know the brain washed masses just ASSUMED they were either republicans or plants...  but the fact is, many black voters are also anti gay.  They don't support it because they don't wan't gay rights to be a CIVIL RIGHTS issue.  Lets see if Obama goes against his biggest block of voters and does anything for gay rights during his tenure...



*Got any STATISTICS to indicate HOW "many black voters are anti-gay?"  Anywhere?  I'll wait.*


----------



## Ocean56 (Nov 12, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> American voters are sick of homos attacking their moral values and trying to force a perverted gay agenda.  They just want the homos to get back in their closet and shut up!!




*Too bad for you and the rest of the anti-gay bigots that you're not going to get your wish this time.  And don't be so arrogant as to seriously believe you speak for ALL American voters.  You DON'T speak for me.
*


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 12, 2008)

Ocean56 said:


> *  I DO protect my son from predators.  That's why I keep him AWAY from all religious zealots and bigots, no matter what faith they may be. *


I also keep my children away from religious zealots and bigots. Fanatics of any kind can be detrimental to a childs mental health.


----------



## LoThunder (Nov 12, 2008)

Democrats never look at how voting blocks feel/think about certain issues. 

*Well, now there's a fascinating statement. I guess it wouldn't do any good to identify some of the very people who do that for the DNC, eh?*

They just assume they "own" the opinions and votes of them all because they are so very special and cool. 

*I don't think that is true, but I have seen the effort on behalf of the republicans to create the mythological BELIEF that it is true. They do this by chanting it over and over again until people of low-intelligence start believing it.*

Did all of you Obots not see the Black Theology/Christian hecklers at Obama's rally with signs against homosexuality?

*No. When people are working to rally support, they don't get all flipped out by a little opposition. 

Frankly, it just proves to me that the very people that Right-Wingers claim are "voting in lockstep," are actually quite diverse in their thinking. *

 Yes, I know the brain washed masses just ASSUMED they were either republicans or plants... but the fact is, many black voters are also anti gay. 

*I knew that. But having a few democrats who are anti-gay doesn't make gays evil nor does it mean that they are automatically right.
And the idea that people who are so far removed from the normal platform of the democratic party should consider joining the republicans is not an old or foreign one.   *

They don't support it because they don't wan't gay rights to be a CIVIL RIGHTS issue. 

*Well, currently they may want in one hand, and shit in the other and then compare the relative weight. 
Civil Rights are Civil Rights. 
Secular Civil Marriage is a civil issue and if we could ever agree that certain segments have a RIGHT to marry- then we'd have to say that SOME are having that CIVIL RIGHT removed. 
It's OK by me if a few people hate hearing that- most of them were unhappy to begin with...*

Lets see if Obama goes against his biggest block of voters and does anything for gay rights during his tenure...

*Sorry, but Obama didn't RUN as "The Black Candidate," much as people want to think so. 
Blacks voted for Obama for the same reason that I did: We considered him the better choice. 
The same reason that whites voted for McCain.

It isn't always politically expedient to stick up for people who SEEM to represent a small minority- but I think this time will be different.

There is no societal gain by locking gays out of civil marriage. None but division and unrest in a time when we need unity. 
The Supreme Court will probably take this issue up, and when they do opponents will have to show JUST CAUSE for denying this right to an otherwise law-abiding demographic...*


----------



## chloe (Nov 12, 2008)

DavidS said:


> Rome failed for several other reasons - you could make the coincidental excuse that they wore togas and that be the reason why failed. Homosexuality had nothing to do with Rome's failure.
> 
> 
> 
> Pedophilia is a mental disorder. Homosexuality is not. You're comparing adult homosexuals who just want to have the same rights as you and I do, to sick, disgusting pedophiles. You don't see the difference because you don't surround yourself with diverse people. Not only do I live in NYC, but I'm in the art scene... almost everyone I know is either gay or bi-sexual or has a friend who is. It's about as normal in NYC as being Mormon in Utah. Do Utahians think there's anything wrong with Mormonism?



Some 15% of Utahns do. The rest are all Mormon so of course they don't. It was a very touching speech by Keith. Normally Keith gets on my nerves. I prefer O'Reilly, Keith seems like he is so slanted left that like when I watch him I almost get a stomach ache. But yeah in his own way his gay speech was sweet.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 12, 2008)

LoThunder said:


> [/COLOR]*Sorry, but Obama didn't RUN as "The Black Candidate," much as people want to think so.
> Blacks voted for Obama for the same reason that I did: We considered him the better choice.
> *


*True, Obama didn't run as a Black candidate.

But most blacks voted for him because he was Black!*


----------



## Ocean56 (Nov 12, 2008)

LoThunder said:


> *There is no societal gain by locking gays out of civil marriage. None but division and unrest in a time when we need unity.
> The Supreme Court will probably take this issue up, and when they do opponents will have to show JUST CAUSE for denying this right to an otherwise law-abiding demographic...*



*Very true.  So far, I have yet to see ANY compelling argument against gay marriage other than the lame ones along the "god hates fags" line.  Which is hardly worth taking seriously, despite the claims of the anti-gay religious fundamentalists of all faiths claiming it is.*


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 12, 2008)

Ocean56 said:


> *Very true.  So far, I have yet to see ANY compelling argument against gay marriage other than the lame ones along the "god hates fags" line.  Which is hardly worth taking seriously, despite the claims of the anti-gay religious fundamentalists of all faiths claiming it is.*


As closed minded as you are, I doubt you will ever acknowledge any argument against sodomite marriage.


----------



## Ocean56 (Nov 12, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> True, Obama didn't run as a Black candidate.
> *But most blacks voted for him because he was Black!*




*REALLY.  Did you personally go out and interview "most blacks" to arrive at this rather absurd conclusion?  *


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 12, 2008)

Ocean56 said:


> *REALLY.  Did you personally go out and interview "most blacks" to arrive at this rather absurd conclusion?  *


Yes, yes I did!!


----------



## Ocean56 (Nov 12, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> As closed minded as you are, I doubt you will ever acknowledge any argument against sodomite marriage.




*Oh PLEASE.  I've seen YOUR so-called "arguments" against gay marriage.  They are neither intelligent nor are they compelling.  *


----------



## Ocean56 (Nov 12, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> Yes, yes I did!!




*Yeah.  Right.  I'll believe that when I "miraculously" have $10 million in my bank account tomorrow.   *


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 12, 2008)

Ocean56 said:


> *Oh PLEASE.  I've seen YOUR so-called "arguments" against gay marriage.  They are neither intelligent nor are they compelling.  *


According to who? You!!!


----------



## chloe (Nov 12, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> True, Obama didn't run as a Black candidate.
> 
> But most blacks voted for him because he was Black!



Did you vote for Obama,  Sunni? I know your just a white man .


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 12, 2008)

chloe said:


> Did you vote for Obama,  Sunni? I know your just a white man .


Not quite sure what you are implying??

But yes, I did vote for Obama


----------



## chloe (Nov 12, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> Yes, yes I did!!



Did you film it? Can u upload the interviews you did? he he


----------



## Zoom-boing (Nov 12, 2008)

My understanding about the whole gay marriage thing is that the objection to it is the redefining of the term 'marriage' from one man/one woman to mean one man/one woman; one man/one man; one woman/one woman, not the civil rights part, per say.  Heterosexuals should have a say in this - and they did when they voted -  as their 'union' is defined by this word. 

Why don't they leave the definition of marriage and it's rights as is, one man/one woman and have 'civil union' mean one man/one man or one woman/one woman and have 'civil union' also include all the same rights that 'marriage' has?


----------



## DavidS (Nov 12, 2008)

Zoom-boing said:


> My understanding about the whole gay marriage thing is that the objection to it is the redefining of the term 'marriage' from one man/one woman to mean one man/one woman; one man/one man; one woman/one woman, not the civil rights part, per say.  Heterosexuals should have a say in this - and they did when they voted -  as their 'union' is defined by this word.
> 
> Why don't they leave the definition of marriage and it's rights as is, one man/one woman and have 'civil union' mean one man/one man or one woman/one woman and have 'civil union' also include all the same rights that 'marriage' has?



Why do people care about what the definition of marriage is? I mean unless this "re-defining" of marriage is going to financially hurt tax-wise heterosexual marriages, who the hell cares? Seriously. No one's heterosexual marriage is going to be hurt by this. These people just want the same rights as we have.


----------



## dilloduck (Nov 12, 2008)

DavidS said:


> Why do people care about what the definition of marriage is? I mean unless this "re-defining" of marriage is going to financially hurt tax-wise heterosexual marriages, who the hell cares? Seriously. No one's heterosexual marriage is going to be hurt by this. These people just want the same rights as we have.



It's a question of sacrificing lower order freedoms for higher order freedoms---are gays SO bent on using the word marriage that they would risk all the other rights that they have in most states now anyway ? How about if I demand all cats be called dogs from now on ?


----------



## Shadow (Nov 12, 2008)

Ocean56 said:


> *Got any STATISTICS to indicate HOW "many black voters are anti-gay?"  Anywhere?  I'll wait.*



How about the 79% that voted against gay Marriage in CA for starters...


----------



## Zoom-boing (Nov 12, 2008)

DavidS said:


> Why do people care about what the definition of marriage is? I mean unless this "re-defining" of marriage is going to financially hurt tax-wise heterosexual marriages, who the hell cares? Seriously. No one's heterosexual marriage is going to be hurt by this. These people just want the same rights as we have.



The majority of Christians who live in this country care because it flys in the face of what they believe.  Money has nothing to do with it; it's the redefining of the term 'marriage' to mean something other than one man/one woman.  

Why not just call gay unions 'civil unions' or 'gay unions' and give them all the same rights that 'married' unions have?  Wouldn't this be a simple solution?  If the term 'married' is such a non-issue (as indicated in your post), why not just use a different term for gay couples and give them the same rights?


----------



## LoThunder (Nov 12, 2008)

Shadow said:


> How about the 79% that voted against gay Marriage in CA for starters...


*Suppose we had put slavery or integration up for a vote in the South?

Would it be surprising to see them voted down?  


*


----------



## tresha (Nov 14, 2008)

First off, David, thank you, truly for posting this thread. It warmed my heart.
Secondly, I love your point about not voting on rights for other people, instead it's a matter of leaders, leading.

Years and years ago I researched, wrote and performed a persuasive speech on gays in the military.
One of the points I remember making was that when it came time to integrate the military, or to combine men and women, the powers that be didn't wait around until everyone was happy with it. Hell, not even a majority was happy with it.
People looked around and said, "this is inherently wrong, this is how it needs to be fixed, deal with it."

I can't believe there are so many people so fucking insecure about their own lives that they truly believe I can wreck the sanctity of their marriage.
Do they not realize that seems to give us queers an awful lot of power, _we don't actually have_?

Here's a shocker for you:

*I cannot affect your marriage.*

Unless I come into your home, physically remove your wife and take her with me, your marriage cannot be affected by me.

I swear to Jesus Mary and Joseph I wish I had half the power people have assigned to me.
Here's another shocker for you:
If the "sanctity of your marriage" has been affected, quit blaming me!
I didn't have a fucking thing to do with you not keeping your marriage together.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 14, 2008)

Shadow said:


> How about the 79% that voted against gay Marriage in CA for starters...


This just shows that the MAJORITY of Americans don't support the perverted homo lifestyle.

I will be so happy when criminalizing homosexuality is put on the ballot and Americans can vote on it.


----------



## tresha (Nov 14, 2008)

Oh good, you're here.
Answer me this if you will:

Why are you and those of your ilk so damn convinced that me and my ilk have such an amazing amount of power over you?


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 14, 2008)

tresha said:


> Oh good, you're here.
> Answer me this if you will:
> 
> Why are you and those of your ilk so damn convinced that me and my ilk have such an amazing amount of power over you?


Not sure what an "ilk" is, but if it means keeping "homo ilk" out of main stream society. Than I am an "anti homo ilk".


----------



## tresha (Nov 14, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> Not sure what an "ilk" is, but if it means keeping "homo ilk" out of main stream society. Than I am an "anti homo ilk".




ilk, ilk...um....others like you.
In this instance, why do you and others like you believe that myself and others like me have so much power of you?

By the way,homoman, sorry, sunniman,  does giving me neg points give you some sort of sexual thrill? You seem to jump on the chance. Petty petty man.
PF is doing fine.
So sorry your reluctance as a lesbian didn't work out for you.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 14, 2008)

Homos have ZERO power over normal people.

And we are working politically to keep it that way


----------



## tresha (Nov 14, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> Homos have ZERO power over normal people.
> 
> And we are working politically to keep it that way



Un huh, un-huh.
So, riddle me this Batman, if we have no power of you, why is it so important to make laws restricting us?


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 14, 2008)

tresha said:


> Un huh, un-huh.
> So, riddle me this Batman, if we have no power of you, why is it so important to make laws restricting us?


Same as society restricts all other devients and perverts. (rapists, child molesters, etc.)


----------



## tresha (Nov 14, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> Same as society restricts all other devients and perverts. (rapists, child molesters, etc.)



Wow...that's just....sad, sunni. 
That's really the best you could come up with?
Cause a rapist and a child molester, they actually _hurt_ people you know?
A rapist can theoretically have power over you.

Like, for instance, if a big ol' scary man were to jump you in the parking lot, late one night and sodomize you, why that would be having at least temporary power over you.
Now, if you were a consensual partner, no power. See how that works!?

Or...if you were never never ever accosted by scary big man, and two queer guys wanted to have all kinds of kinky gay sex, why that's not power of you at all, right?


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 14, 2008)

tresha said:


> Like, for instance, if a big ol' scary man were to jump you in the parking lot, late one night and sodomize you,


I guess two can play this fantasy game.

Like, if a man raped you and the experiance converted you from lesbianism to only wanting men.


----------



## tresha (Nov 14, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> I guess two can play this fantasy game.
> 
> Like, if a man raped you and the experiance converted you from lesbianism to only wanting men.



Well, if I had suggested you would be turned queer, then yes, your lovely analogy would work.
Since, I didn't suggest that, I'm gonna have to ask you to go back and try again.


----------



## bigdaddygtr (Nov 26, 2008)

PoliticalChic said:


> Did you have to ruin my morning by putting his face on the screen?
> 
> I don't take him seriously.  His ratings are so low, I can't believe he is still on MSNB.  He's been demoted already.  I believe it is only a matter of time.



Wow, thank you for proving the point that you could quite possibly be the dumbest person on this board.  First, you like Ann Coulter which is an awful start.  Then, you make up this bullshit about Olbermann's ratings being low when he's consistently 1-3 and beats your boy O'Reilly ALL THE TIME.  And third, well you like Ann Coulter so you just have to be a freaking moron or a heartless witch or both


----------



## eots (Nov 26, 2008)

tresha said:


> First off, David, thank you, truly for posting this thread. It warmed my heart.
> Secondly, I love your point about not voting on rights for other people, instead it's a matter of leaders, leading.
> 
> Years and years ago I researched, wrote and performed a persuasive speech on gays in the military.
> ...



there are those that might argue that while you alone can not effect the
foundations of society.. marriage.. family.. church..but that legions of you's
working toward a gay agenda could have a profoundly negative effect  on these foundations if not kept in check


----------



## Truthspeaker (Nov 26, 2008)

This is the phoniest commercial for the gay agenda I have ever seen. No wonder his ratings are so low. Did you see him try to force tears, but couldn't do it? Unbelievable how many people are taken in by this fraud.


----------



## Lycurgus (Dec 9, 2008)

*Olbermann & MSLSD can go striaght to hell. *


----------

