Keith Olbermann with a moving special comment about gay marriage

[Sunni Man]

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]

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]

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]

Are you really this dense?

very!

 

[DavidS]

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]

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]

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]

keith olbermann

 

[DavidS]

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]

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?

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

 

[Gem]

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]

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?

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]

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

You're a dude? Whoa.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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!