MSNBC Keith Olbermann on Prop 8, Marriage

[DSM4Life]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVUecPhQPqY

[SMCengineer]

I never really watch Keith Olberman (too pretentious and liberal), but I watched it last night and that part was pretty good.

[Amorphic]

raises some very valid points.

[Panzerfaust]

Cry me a river!

We might as well vote for legal marriages between humans and animals.

[DSM4Life]

Cry me a river!

We might as well vote for legal marriages between humans and animals.

You have my vote.

[JDawg1536]

Cry me a river!

We might as well vote for legal marriages between humans and animals.

Yeah, **** equality. And **** the Constitution and Declaration of Independence while we're at it.

[stpete]

Another reason not to watch anything NBC.
I don't care what people do as long as it doesn't interfere with my life. But what do we tell our children when men and women are marrying each other? Especially when our church says otherwise? God doesn't believe in it. But i really don't care. I care about how to explain this to my kids. Kind of tough imo.

[gixxerboy1]

Another reason not to watch anything NBC.
I don't care what people do as long as it doesn't interfere with my life. But what do we tell our children when men and women are marrying each other? Especially when our church says otherwise? God doesn't believe in it. But i really don't care. I care about how to explain this to my kids. Kind of tough imo.

how do you explain anything else to your kids? If 2 men are walking down the street holding hands how do you explain that to your kids? how would you have to explain that different if they had a ring on their finger and were married.

[Amorphic]

Another reason not to watch anything NBC.
I don't care what people do as long as it doesn't interfere with my life. But what do we tell our children when men and women are marrying each other? Especially when our church says otherwise? God doesn't believe in it. But i really don't care. I care about how to explain this to my kids. Kind of tough imo.

you answered your own question, tell your kids they shouldnt care as long as it doesnt interfere with their lives.

God? Until it can be proven there is a God i dont see how any religious undertones or deviance arguments can have any relevance whatsoever. The church has no business dictating the sexuality of a population, nor do they have much influence in anything to do with the modern world, other than causing conflict and hate.

[SMCengineer]

Another reason not to watch anything NBC.
I don't care what people do as long as it doesn't interfere with my life. But what do we tell our children when men and women are marrying each other? Especially when our church says otherwise? God doesn't believe in it. But i really don't care. I care about how to explain this to my kids. Kind of tough imo.

Simple, teach them tolerance.

[J-Dogg]

how do you explain anything else to your kids? If 2 men are walking down the street holding hands how do you explain that to your kids? how would you have to explain that different if they had a ring on their finger and were married.

The same way you explain to them that some people have different skin color, or different colored hair, some people have glasses.

You tell them that some people are different, but they are still people and deserve to be treated like people.

[MuscleScience]

I could some what understand if marriage was still of any moral value to our society. However if we have a 50%+ divorce rate in this country. Marriage is not a sacred institution anymore as far as our actions are concerned. I guess some could see this as a victory of traditional family values. I think the battle should focus its efforts to lowering divorce rates as opposed to hindering people that love each other.


Oh yeah, Olbermann is a douche.

[Tock]

But what do we tell our children when men and women are marrying each other?

Um, how about, "Men and women are marrying each other?"

Especially when our church says otherwise?

Our church says it's ok.
Check this out:
http://www.mccchurch.org/AM/Template...ContentID=2121

We got some good music, too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhH7Q...eature=related

God doesn't believe in it.

Sure He does.
Look at all the other gay animals He made:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15750604/
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...gayanimal.html

But i really don't care. I care about how to explain this to my kids. Kind of tough imo.

Not hard for the kids to understand. It will be for you, though, because you've been taught that these things are unnatural, don't happen in nature, that God hates gay people, that homosexuality is the worst possible sin imaginable, etc etc etc. Well, it's up to you to decide to embrace hand-me-down wrong information from your preacher, or embrace common-sense information that's plain as day, in front of your face, and verified and accepted by the vast majority of scientists in the world.

Before you decide, keep in mind that it took 400 years for the Catholic church to finally admit that Galileo was right (that the Earth orbits the sun). And keep in mind that if the superstitious nuts of 1694 Salem (Massachusetts) had their way, witch hysteria would have spread all over the colonies and wiped out New England. And Christian preachers in the Confederacy were absolutely certain that black men were made by God Himself to be slaves to white men--they knew because the Bible explained it all to them in its pages.

Think again. Things are not necessarily what you've been told they are.
And there's no need to spread misinformation to your kids.

[WARMachine]

Man i thought all this talk about Prop 8 would stop after the election...

Hey guys, i think its just as F'd up as everyone else does, but let it go.

It will go up for vote again, and hopefully by that time, people will realize how they are violating rights of gays by not letting them wed.

But until then, i think we should put this to rest.

[Tock]

Cry me a riverr!

We might as well vote for legal marriages between humans and animals.

Fine Libetarian you turned out to be.

Regardless, to have a marriage, ya gotta have parties able to enter in to a legally binding contract. That would rule out most animals, and some humans.

[J-Dogg]

"Amazon Dolphin
The Amazon River dolphin or boto has been reported to form up in bands of 3-5 individuals enjoying group sex. The groups usually comprise young males and sometimes one or two females. Sex is performed in non-reproductive ways, using snout, flippers and general rubbing, without regards to gender. They will sometimes perform homosexual penetration of the blowhole, the only known example of nasal sex.[31] The males will sometimes also perform sex with tucuxi males, a small porpoise."


That had me cracking up, lol. I think those Dolphins are on coke, lol flipper sex? Blow hole sex? hahah

[FallenWyvern]

You don't go to the state of California for a bar mitzvahs license or a baptism license, so why do you need one for marriage?

Quit mixing church and state!

[Deltasaurus]

^^^i agree

[thegodfather]

Issues of rights are not up to the majority. This should never have gone up for referrendum, it should have been argued and decided by the California Supreme Court.

[MuscleScience]

It makes perfect sense for homosexuality to exist in nature. The default sex of any mammal for example is female should there be any problem with the Y chromosome. Or if it is absent and a single X is present then the progeny will be expressed as female. Of course in examples of this there are other genetic problems, but science doesnt fully understand the genetic basis of behavior yet and it has been proposed based of data that like many other behaviors there is a genetic component to sexual behavior.

It is reasoned that killing of individuals of the same species is natural too. It is a viable solution for the propagation of and individuals genetic material to be passed along if the competition is eliminated. Male African Lions will kill the cubs of other males if they come across them. The Male lion can not mate successfully with a female that is nursing cubs. This is a strategy for the Male Lion to pass on his genes to the next generation.

Humans are only different in that we can control conscience behavior and our society dictates what is acceptable behavior. One can reasonably argue that murder is also in our nature. Yet we as a collective society regard murder as a social taboo. Apparently the social norm of California is that gay marriage is still taboo, based on the passage of this law.

If one is going to use the scientific argument for a particular argument the other side has to be presented. I do not personally agree with the passage of this law. Then again I respect the fact that the people of California for the time being feel that it is a social norm that they hold with some regard no matter my personal feelings on the issue.

[thegodfather]

If one is going to use the scientific argument for a particular argument the other side has to be presented. I do not personally agree with the passage of this law. Then again I respect the fact that the people of California for the time being feel that it is a social norm that they hold with some regard no matter my personal feelings on the issue.

However, it is a matter of law. Matters of law are decided by the judicial branch, not by majoritys and referendums. The people of California would NEVER be asked whether they agreed with Amendments 1-10, so I see no reason why they would be asked about any other negative freedom.

[MuscleScience]

However, it is a matter of law. Matters of law are decided by the judicial branch, not by majoritys and referendums. The people of California would NEVER be asked whether they agreed with Amendments 1-10, so I see no reason why they would be asked about any other negative freedom.

Then again the constitution also gives rights to the state to make and enforce laws as it sees fit as long as they follow the constitution. This isnt the only issue that has gone to referendum and been passed. Now if California's Supreme Court rules that the law violates its own state constitution then i can see them stepping in.

I do not feel that the state or any other entity should step in on someones personal freedoms. Can it not be argued though at some point there needs to be a line drawn in the sand that limits peoples freedoms on certain subjects. One can argue that preventing a group of people that believe in polygamy from marrying multiple partners is a violation of personal freedoms. Yet our society overwhelming rejects the practice.

Is not law nothing more than social acceptable behaviors that are set forth by the people?

I probably shouldnt try to battle you on this subject as I am not versed in this area.....

[Voice of Reason]

Who gives a fvck about marriage anyway... It's just more paperwork and a last name change with a party. Fvck the dumbshit and just have the party and live happily ever after homo's (when I say homo's I mean homo sapiens)...

[thegodfather]

Then again the constitution also gives rights to the state to make and enforce laws as it sees fit as long as they follow the constitution. This isnt the only issue that has gone to referendum and been passed. Now if California's Supreme Court rules that the law violates its own state constitution then i can see them stepping in.

I do not feel that the state or any other entity should step in on someones personal freedoms. Can it not be argued though at some point there needs to be a line drawn in the sand that limits peoples freedoms on certain subjects. One can argue that preventing a group of people that believe in polygamy from marrying multiple partners is a violation of personal freedoms. Yet our society overwhelming rejects the practice.

Is not law nothing more than social acceptable behaviors that are set forth by the people?

Sort of yes, and sort of no...There is a distinction between Malum In Se and Malim Prohibtum... The first is illegal because it is an evil in and of itself, and the second is that it is wrong because its a law or prohibited. I disagree with polygamy being banned as well, it serves no public health interests, and it just assuages(sp) the moral trepidations of ultra right wing religious zealouts, much in the same way that banning gay marriage does. States can get away with banning these things as "public health" interests, which was the original way that States began to be involved with marriage, requiring them to get tested for STDs and such.


I probably shouldnt try to battle you on this subject as I am not versed in this area.....

in red....

[Coop77]

Man i thought all this talk about Prop 8 would stop after the election...

Hey guys, i think its just as F'd up as everyone else does, but let it go.

It will go up for vote again, and hopefully by that time, people will realize how they are violating rights of gays by not letting them wed.

But until then, i think we should put this to rest.

It will NEVER be let go. When in history has a group of oppressed people demanding rights just let it go? Women. Jews. Blacks. If your rights were just put up for a vote and lost you'd be pretty pissed too.

[Panzerfaust]

Just to see people arguing for this shows how ****ed up and twisted the world has become. It's a sad ****ing day....

[Kratos]

Just to see people arguing for this shows how ****ed up and twisted the world has become. It's a sad ****ing day....

Seems like it's always a sad day and the world is going down the toilet when people don't agree with you. Nothing sad about argument or openly sharing opinions.

[JDawg1536]

Just to see people arguing for this shows how ****ed up and twisted the world has become. It's a sad ****ing day....

As if it was sane and forthright before?

[Amorphic]

Just to see people arguing for this shows how ****ed up and twisted the world has become. It's a sad ****ing day....

oh i forgot its twisted and fvcked up to have minorities argue for equality and basic human rights.....my bad

[Flagg]

Comparing a marriage between a same sex couple and a human with an animal is utterly absurd.

For a start, the same sex couple will be two consenting adults. Animals cannot speak, ergo cannot consent to anything. If you want to push this topic further, beastiality could be considered a form of rape, seeing as the animal in question has not consented to anything because it cannot talk, yet beastiality is actually legal in some parts of the world. So does that mean that certain states or governments is condoning rape for some but not for others?

On the other hand, I, like a lot of people could care less if people of the same sex want to get married and have a certificate or not, but just why is it so important to gay people? I mean, do gay people consider themselves part of a community? If so, it doesn't sound like a way of being accepted by society.

[xavier_888888]

One word "EQUALITY".

[Amorphic]

Comparing a marriage between a same sex couple and a human with an animal is utterly absurd.

For a start, the same sex couple will be two consenting adults. Animals cannot speak, ergo cannot consent to anything. If you want to push this topic further, beastiality could be considered a form of rape, seeing as the animal in question has not consented to anything because it cannot talk, yet beastiality is actually legal in some parts of the world. So does that mean that certain states or governments is condoning rape for some but not for others?

On the other hand, I, like a lot of people could care less if people of the same sex want to get married and have a certificate or not, but just why is it so important to gay people? I mean, do gay people consider themselves part of a community? If so, it doesn't sound like a way of being accepted by society.

i think more than anything its just for the legal benefits of being in a marriage. obviously its symbolic that gay people would also want the same rights to marriage as a straight person. personally i have no idea why people get so uptight about the business of others. if they love eachother and want to get married, all the more power to them. considering half of all marriages fail anyways i dont think the whole christian right ideology that marriage is a sacred thing means much anymore

[Flagg]

i think more than anything its just for the legal benefits of being in a marriage. obviously its symbolic that gay people would also want the same rights to marriage as a straight person. personally i have no idea why people get so uptight about the business of others. if they love eachother and want to get married, all the more power to them. considering half of all marriages fail anyways i dont think the whole christian right ideology that marriage is a sacred thing means much anymore

I agree, but I wish religion could stay out of this. Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't marriage established long before any organised religion was? I can't stand the fact that Christianity tries to "own marriage" like its a monopoly that belongs to christianity.
So what you're saying is, it comes down to tradition. Gay people wanting the same traditional values as everyone else? I just don't see how marriage is that more of a deal than a civil union, but hey thats just me. Im not trynna argue against it, but I just want people to be able to see two sides of an argument rather than blundering in with their own narrow minded opinions with no real contributions.

[Amorphic]

I agree, but I wish religion could stay out of this. Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't marriage established long before any organised religion was? I can't stand the fact that Christianity tries to "own marriage" like its a monopoly that belongs to christianity.
So what you're saying is, it comes down to tradition. Gay people wanting the same traditional values as everyone else? I just don't see how marriage is that more of a deal than a civil union, but hey thats just me. Im not trynna argue against it, but I just want people to be able to see two sides of an argument rather than blundering in with their own narrow minded opinions with no real contributions.

trust me, im against the religious aspect of it as well

[JDawg1536]

I agree, but I wish religion could stay out of this. Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't marriage established long before any organised religion was? I can't stand the fact that Christianity tries to "own marriage" like its a monopoly that belongs to christianity.
So what you're saying is, it comes down to tradition. Gay people wanting the same traditional values as everyone else? I just don't see how marriage is that more of a deal than a civil union, but hey thats just me. Im not trynna argue against it, but I just want people to be able to see two sides of an argument rather than blundering in with their own narrow minded opinions with no real contributions.

Well, I just plain can't stand christianity. I see both sides of the argument, however a civil union is not the same as a marriage. A civil union does not give them the same benefits, such as medical decisions, immigration and residency rights, inheritance in the absence of a will, medicare, joint tax filing, tax credits, etc..... Denying someone the same rights because of something they did not choose is wrong. Just my opinion though.

[Flagg]

Well, I just plain can't stand christianity. I see both sides of the argument, however a civil union is not the same as a marriage. A civil union does not give them the same benefits, such as medical decisions, immigration and residency rights, inheritance in the absence of a will, medicare, joint tax filing, tax credits, etc..... Denying someone the same rights because of something they did not choose is wrong. Just my opinion though.

Ahh I see, so say a gay person from the USA was seeing another gay person from Germany and they both wanted to live in the USA, a Civil Union would not grant the German citizenship?

[Panzerfaust]

oh i forgot its twisted and fvcked up to have minorities argue for equality and basic human rights.....my bad

Engage in humanistic behaviour before requesting human rights then.









































***This should get em going***

[JDawg1536]

So you aren't a fan of anal or oral?

[stpete]

So...Is being gay in the genes?

[StoneGRMI]

Keith Olbermann is a douche nozzle.

The people of California have spoken so what's the argument? If you don't like how the government of California works, move out. There's nothing anyone can argue.

By the way, I'm indifferent about the subject. If it came on my ballot I would likely not register any vote either way.