Keith Olbermann with a moving special comment about gay marriage

[WillowTree]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

Sweet

 

[Gem]

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]

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]

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

 

[Luissa]

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]

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 doesshows 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]

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]

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.