Keith Olbermann on Gay Marriage

[vyo476]

Ahh...the scorched earth policy. If I can't have what I want then destroy it for the vast majority who prefer the system stay as is. No democracy, no majority rules.

It is the most egalitarian solution. Men and women would still be able to "get married" - it just wouldn't be a matter of government contract anymore.

I'm not trying to subvert democracy or the rule of the majority - I'm trying to change the majority's mind. Are you unwilling to listen to new ideas?

 

[oceanenvy]

The word 'tolerance' is terribly divisive, could you please be more tolerant of millions who believe marriage is sacred and exclusive to a man and a woman?

And go ahead and create your own law. Create your own union between partners as well and quit forceing what many don't appreciate on them. Be civil and respect others.

How does allowing homosexuals to marry defy its sanctity? Since nearly 55% of all marriages end in divorce, it doesn't seem so "sacred" to me. Are you also against divorce? 2 gay people getting married doesn't affect my marriage at all, thank God. Don't understand why it would.

 

[Rhodri]

Be tolerant to intolerance?

Exactly, you're catching on. You're are beginning to see that 'playing the victim' isn't exclusive to you libs. You should have an open mind and understand that this topic saddens the majority, it hurts deeply, please open your heart and offer up understanding to those that feel marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a women. I know you have it in you... for that's what liberals claim to do best, accepting others.

[/QUOTE]As for being civil - how am I not?[/QUOTE]

By being closed minded.

 

[Rhodri]

I'm trying to change the majority's mind.

Don't know about you personally, but many gays are trying to jam it down peoples throats. The displays during festivals on mainstreet USA are vulgar and obscene. The gays aren't satisfied with just going about living their lives in peace. Many mainstream citizens find them delibertly provoking and hostile. They've screwed up the long lived annual Irish Festival every year in NYC, just there way of making friends I guess. Oh..and we should open our hearts to this poor persecuted bunch..give me a break.

 

[Libsmasher]

Quote:
- He says they took away homosexuals "right" to marry - there has never been such a right.

Marital rights appear nowhere in the Constitution, this is true. I don't believe that any marriages should be matters of legality - heterosexuals shouldn't need the government to justify their unions any more than homosexuals.

Your opinion about the wisdom of its legality has nothing to do with the issue - which is the gays and their lib media allies are LYING when they say gay marriage is a "right".

Quote:
- He says "What is it to you?". Firstly, people realize that it's an attempt by gays to usurp a 10,000 year old heterosexual institution for the purpose of "mainstreaming" themselves, or forcing people to look at them as "normal".

Oh dear, hoping for tolerance is terrible, isn't it?

Does "tolerance" mean allowing some people to co-opt OTHER people's institutions? Nooooooooooo. Did it ever mean that? Noooooooooo.

People who exist outside of "mainstream" society's norms are always looking for acceptance. Do you think there's a concrete reason they shouldn't be accepted?

This is a free society. People can accept or reject whomever they like. Also, the word "accept" is mischievous. What do you mean by that? Who knows.

Quote:
But an even better indication of "what is it to you" was when a protestant church in san diego had its tax exmption removed when it refused to marry a lesbian couple.

My mistake - it was in New Jersey.
http://bobingle.blogspot.com/2007/09...ver-civil.html

Oversimplification. This isn't a church being penalized for not marrying homosexuals, it's a matter of specified use of property that made that property tax-exempt in the first place.

Spare me. U.S. gays are among the pushiest damn people on earth as a political entity. There's NO DOUBT AT ALL that's what they would do if they get "gay marriage". They have a ferocious hatred of christianity, and would like nothing better than to "get" churches in this way.

Quote:
- The king of smear talks emotionally about love - who is trying to keep homosexuals apart who are in love? Nobody - bogus straw man.

But creating a dichotomy where unions resulting from heterosexual love are recognized and endorsed by the federal government while unions resulting from homosexual love are specifically and methodically not recognized by any level of government does kind of send a message.

Oooooooooo - I get ya! Their love is disrupted because it's not recognized by the federal government.

Quote:
- He brings in the bogus argument about race. But blacks' rights were guaranteed after the civil war by the
14th and other amendments - there never was such an amendment for homosexuals.

No, the proposal is to create such a law.

You don't know what you're talking about. In california, gays never sought a law. They merely got some lib judges to overturn a law prohibiting gay marriage.

The references to race were meant as comparison - that it used to be illegal for blacks to marry whites in many states, but in the interests of egalitarianism that was changed.

If you're going to comment about US law, you need to do some reading first. The ban on interracial marriage was unconstitutional, according to the 14th amendment. There is no such constitutional right for gays.

Quote:
The majority of california voters, mostly liberals, got this one right.

It was an irrelevant question. The future of unitary equality for couples of all sexual persuasion is in the deregulation of marriage - in essence, taking marriage out of the government's hands.

Possibly true but not relevent to the thread.

 

[vyo476]

Your opinion about the wisdom of its legality has nothing to do with the issue - which is the gays and their lib media allies are LYING when they say gay marriage is a "right".

In a sense I was agreeing with you. Before you thank me, you should know that the cold shiver you probably just felt was thanks enough.

Does "tolerance" mean allowing some people to co-opt OTHER people's institutions? Nooooooooooo. Did it ever mean that? Noooooooooo.

I'm sorry, this rather reminds me of the rational of the five-year-olds who won't let one specific kid play with the Legos with them despite the fact that there are more than enough for all.

Actually, that's a bad analogy, since Legos would be a finite resource - they could, potentially, run out of Legos, whereas we can never "run out of" marriage.

The idea that gay marriage would be "co-opt" is bogus. Gay marriage would have zero effect on heterosexual marriage.

That said, I still don't support any form of legislated marriage, homosexual or otherwise. I feel that if I don't reiterate that point in every section of this post you'll somehow twist around what I'm saying to make it sound as though I do support it.

This is a free society. People can accept or reject whomever they like. Also, the word "accept" is mischievous. What do you mean by that? Who knows.

What do I mean? In terms of acceptance, I'd like to see society change to a point where "gay" is not a watchword, an accusation assigned to anyone acting in a strange or awkward manner - a derogatory reference that instills the belief that being a homosexual must be avoided in order to be accepted socially.

So I repose the question: Is there any concrete reason they shouldn't be accepted?

Spare me. U.S. gays are among the pushiest damn people on earth as a political entity. There's NO DOUBT AT ALL that's what they would do if they get "gay marriage". They have a ferocious hatred of christianity, and would like nothing better than to "get" churches in this way.

Believe it or not, I respect your self-assurance, even if I don't agree with it.

I doubt very much that they're the "pushiest damn people on earth as a political entity." The issue with homosexuals is that there are so few of them in government - and, with the current climate of politics in this country, it isn't always, or even usually, politically wise for straight politicians to be overtly sympathetic to homosexual causes. As a result, public demonstration is the best way to assure that their voices are heard.

I doubt they'd be able to penalize churches for not marrying gay couples were homosexual marriage to become legal, in California or elsewhere. Don't all churches reserve the right to accept or deny any couples from marrying at their institutions? I have a cousin whose fiance had to convert to Catholicism in order to have their wedding at a Catholic church, yet I've never heard of Catholic churches being sued for discriminating against non-Catholics.

And this whole idea that homosexuals are seeking to have their unions legally recognized in order to then use that law as tool to "get" churches is completely ridiculous and, I can say with relative assurance, not indicative of the feelings of the great majority of homosexuals, who want gay marriage for the sake of getting married, not to attack religious institutions.

Oooooooooo - I get ya! Their love is disrupted because it's not recognized by the federal government.

No.

Would heterosexual love be disrupted if it wasn't recognized by the federal government?

You don't know what you're talking about. In california, gays never sought a law. They merely got some lib judges to overturn a law prohibiting gay marriage.

I guess the defeat of Prop 8 wouldn't have "created" a law, per se, but the point still stands. Changes are made in government - whether through court decisions or legislation - in order to fix problems. Simply stating, "That change was never made" does not mean the change is unnecessary.

If you're going to comment about US law, you need to do some reading first. The ban on interracial marriage was unconstitutional, according to the 14th amendment. There is no such constitutional right for gays.

If you're going to comment on my posts, you're going to have try to keep up with what they mean. I said "comparison." We're not talking, "what is the letter of the law" here, but "what is the intent of the law." Lifting the ban on interracial marriage was done because it was unconstitutional - but you have to ask further, why was it made unconstitutional in the first place?

 

[vyo476]

Exactly, you're catching on. You're are beginning to see that 'playing the victim' isn't exclusive to you libs. You should have an open mind and understand that this topic saddens the majority, it hurts deeply, please open your heart and offer up understanding to those that feel marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a women. I know you have it in you... for that's what liberals claim to do best, accepting others.

I do empathize with people who wish for their marriage to be a sacred bond between man and woman.

I just don't agree that in order for their marriage to be a "sacred bond between a man and a woman" that all marriages must follow that pattern exclusively. This is America, where all people are supposed to exist privately unto themselves, sharing as much of themselves with others as they see fit. What others do, and what others call what they're doing, ought to be their own business. If gay people want to live together in monogamous relationships and call them marriages - what business is that of straight people?

I also don't agree that for a marriage to be a "sacred bond" it must be legislated by the United States government. Once again, I believe that how people define their relationships should be their own business - not the business of the government. Without the legislation that creates marital contracts, heterosexuals could still have their sacred bonds between men and women.

By being closed minded.

We're all guilty of close-mindedness from time to time. That's not an excuse - just an observation.

 

[vyo476]

Don't know about you personally, but many gays are trying to jam it down peoples throats.

Personally, I think the most overt thing I've done was act in a play called "Removing the Glove" when I was in high school. It used left-handedness as an allegory for homosexuality - showing a world in which being left-handed carried the same social stigma homosexuality carries in this world. It was a largely goofy play, but it served as an effective allegory. No one was mandated to attend the performance - all who came did so voluntarily.

The displays during festivals on mainstreet USA are vulgar and obscene.

In what way?

Remember that what is "vulgar" and "obscene" is largely subjective. I am an art school student at a school where nudity in painting and photography (and even sculpture, new class next semester) is fairly common, so I see things just around the dormitory where I live that you might consider "vulgar" and "obscene."

The gays aren't satisfied with just going about living their lives in peace.

Some are, some aren't. Some aren't even willing to admit they are homosexual.

As for being peaceful, they stage protests and go on marches. I haven't heard any reports of things getting violent, although that could easily just be because I haven't seen it. Are they?

Many mainstream citizens find them delibertly provoking and hostile. They've screwed up the long lived annual Irish Festival every year in NYC, just there way of making friends I guess.

I'm afraid I don't know what you're talking about. How do they "mess up" this Irish Festival in New York? Bear in mind that I've never been to NYC - my father is a stalwart Red Sox fan and I'd probably be disowned for setting foot inside the city limits.

Oh..and we should open our hearts to this poor persecuted bunch..give me a break.

Try telling your friends that you're gay. Your parents and siblings. Your coworkers. See how they react. "Gay" is a watchword in many places in this country for negativity. Granted, things have gotten better, but there's still a pervasive social stigma attached to homosexuality.

Perhaps it's easier for older people. High school is only a few years behind me at this point, and I remember how incredibly difficult it was for my gay friends to admit their homosexuality to the world at large - to stop hiding it from people, in essence. Admitting to being homosexual in that environment is very difficult - because every time you hear someone rebut a statement they don't like with, "that's gay," it says to you that homosexuality is wrong, that you the homosexual are wrong, and trust me - you hear that a lot in public high schools.

I empathize with homosexuals in that they have to overcome a pervasive and inequitable social stigma, I rejoice in the knowledge that many are and are refusing to be ashamed of what they are anymore, and I'm relieved that their organized protests are not (to the best of my knowledge) turning violent.

If you choose not to - to ignore all that - then I suppose that's your business.

 

[Rhodri]

Rick Santorem says it better than I can. http://pewforum.org/events/?EventID=180

You can make a case for any behavior or desire humans are likely to want or engage in. Criminals may be predisposed to commiting crimes (genetically speaking). Therefore we should accept or even embrace their activities. Same with pediphiles or rapists. Without any moral boundaries vyo.. your argument is easy. Since you've obviously adopted this mind set where morality is invalid, this discussion is too.

 

[vyo476]

Rick Santorem says it better than I can. http://pewforum.org/events/?EventID=180

You can make a case for any behavior or desire humans are likely to want or engage in. Criminals may be predisposed to commiting crimes (genetically speaking). Therefore we should accept or even embrace their activities. Same with pediphiles or rapists. Without any moral boundaries vyo.. your argument is easy. Since you've obviously adopted this mind set where morality is invalid, this discussion is too.

Heterosexuals are predisposed to heterosexuality, and we embrace their activities. Hell, left-handedness and brown hair are both "predispositions," and no one cares about either of them at all, at least not anymore. This is a societal issue, Rhodri - an issue of social norms and values - and what society deems "okay" or "acceptable" has always been completely subjective.

I find it slightly offensive that in order to end this discussion, you felt it necessary to project values onto me that you could detest enough to leave - in essence, putting words in my mouth to give yourself the righteous moral high ground. Who is being "close-minded" now?

 

[Rhodri]

Heterosexuals are predisposed to heterosexuality, and we embrace their activities. Hell, left-handedness and brown hair are both "predispositions," and no one cares about either of them at all, at least not anymore. This is a societal issue, Rhodri - an issue of social norms and values - and what society deems "okay" or "acceptable" has always been completely subjective.

I find it slightly offensive that in order to end this discussion, you felt it necessary to project values onto me that you could detest enough to leave - in essence, putting words in my mouth to give yourself the righteous moral high ground. Who is being "close-minded" now?

Left-handedness?? Hair color?? pretty silly stuff.

Where do you draw the line vyo? Rape? Sleeping with your daughter? Marrying her? Stealing? Public indecency? It's all subjective you know. The problem for you is, if you have a line you're a hypocrite. I can apply any of your arguements to any and all of it. The moral high ground? It was your choice on what side of this discussion you wanted to be on and I never put words in your mouth.

 

[Cookie Parker]

he should have brought this up before the vote, it was black people who came out in droves to vote for obama and vote for prop 8

he might have compelled them to vote otherwise, and why isnt he on obama because obama said he is AGAINST homosexual marriage

I can't find where Obma said he was against homosexual marriage. Do you have a link?

 

[Libsmasher]

I'm sorry, this rather reminds me of the rational of the five-year-olds who won't let one specific kid play with the Legos with them despite the fact that there are more than enough for all.

Actually, that's a bad analogy, since Legos would be a finite resource - they could, potentially, run out of Legos, whereas we can never "run out of" marriage.

Whaaaaaaaatttttttttt????????????

The idea that gay marriage would be "co-opt" is bogus. Gay marriage would have zero effect on heterosexual marriage.

Straw man - the issue isn't what effect it would have on heterosexual marriage, but that it is usurping an institution which has nothing to do, nor did it ever, with being gay, and also that it represents gays trying to thereby force heterosexuals to look at them in a certain way.

That said, I still don't support any form of legislated marriage, homosexual or otherwise. I feel that if I don't reiterate that point in every section of this post you'll somehow twist around what I'm saying to make it sound as though I do support it.

I actually agree, but until they "de-legalize" marriage, I will be opposed to it being misused for political purposes.

What do I mean? In terms of acceptance, I'd like to see society change to a point where "gay" is not a watchword, an accusation assigned to anyone acting in a strange or awkward manner - a derogatory reference that instills the belief that being a homosexual must be avoided in order to be accepted socially.

The LAST thing gays should do, if that's what they want, is what they've done. Also the rest of the things they've done - cause a resurgence of AIDS in the US because they don't want to use condoms, and demand special privileges at the expense of others.

So I repose the question: Is there any concrete reason they shouldn't be accepted?

Yes - politically, they've been pushy, usurping, and greedy. They've been irresponsible with a deadly disease. They've defamed peoples' religions.

Believe it or not, I respect your self-assurance, even if I don't agree with it.

You don't live here, and don't know how it is.

I doubt very much that they're the "pushiest damn people on earth as a political entity." The issue with homosexuals is that there are so few of them in government - and, with the current climate of politics in this country, it isn't always, or even usually, politically wise for straight politicians to be overtly sympathetic to homosexual causes. As a result, public demonstration is the best way to assure that their voices are heard.

They have political influence WAYYYYYYYYYY beyond their numbers.

I doubt they'd be able to penalize churches for not marrying gay couples were homosexual marriage to become legal, in California or elsewhere. Don't all churches reserve the right to accept or deny any couples from marrying at their institutions? I have a cousin whose fiance had to convert to Catholicism in order to have their wedding at a Catholic church, yet I've never heard of Catholic churches being sued for discriminating against non-Catholics.

Do you EVER get the feeling you shouldn't try to tell people who LIVE in a particular place what prevails there, when you DON'T? If gay marriage became permanently legal, then churches almost certainly COULD be sued under california's Unruh Act:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unruh_Civil_Rights_Act

And this whole idea that homosexuals are seeking to have their unions legally recognized in order to then use that law as tool to "get" churches is completely ridiculous and, I can say with relative assurance, not indicative of the feelings of the great majority of homosexuals, who want gay marriage for the sake of getting married, not to attack religious institutions.

It's not ridiculous at all, you don't know what you're talking about, and it's EXACTLY the kind of thing they'd do, particularly the type of christianity hating pushy gays who live in california.

Would heterosexual love be disrupted if it wasn't recognized by the federal government?

No. Your point woul be - what?

I guess the defeat of Prop 8 wouldn't have "created" a law, per se,
but the point still stands. Changes are made in government - whether through court decisions or legislation - in order to fix problems. Simply stating, "That change was never made" does not mean the change is unnecessary.

And it also doesn't mean that it was necessary. The american polical ethos is democratic - the people decide. They don't have to give a reason for their decisions or convince anyone that their viewpoint is "necessary".

If you're going to comment on my posts, you're going to have try to keep up with what they mean. I said "comparison." We're not talking, "what is the letter of the law" here, but "what is the intent of the law." Lifting the ban on interracial marriage was done because it was unconstitutional - but you have to ask further, why was it made unconstitutional in the first place?

Duhhhhhhhh - I ALREADY SPOKE TO THAT - YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO KEEP UP WITH WHAT I'VE SAID. The 14th amendment Equal Protection Clause prohibits discrimination according to race. There is nothing equivalent re homosexuality.

 

[Cookie Parker]

Nor is there anything constitutionally which prevents them from marrying.

 

[Libsmasher]

Nor is there anything constitutionally which prevents them from marrying.

Beside the point. In california, it is statutorily illegal for them to marry. When the constitution is silent about an issue, it's left for the people to decide - and in california, they have.