Keith Olbermann with a moving special comment about gay marriage

[LoThunder]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[Silence]

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

Homosexual Activists Intimidate American Psychiatric Association into Removing Homosexuality from List of Disorders Conservative Colloquium

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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".