Keith Olbermann with a moving special comment about gay marriage

[Luissa]

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.

You guys need to stop asking these stupid questions, they have no function in the debate.

 

[007]

Pedophilia is a mental disorder. Homosexuality is not.

Yes, homosexuality is just as bad a mental disorder as pedophilia is. It's also a fact that by average most pedophiles are homos. They already have a perverted enough brain disorder to have sex with someone of the same sex, the jump to a child then is no bid deal to them. It's mental illness in it's purest form.

As far as keith overbite is concerned, he's just another ultra liberal gas bag in dire need of an ass kicking.

 

[busara]

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.

allowing two consenting adults to marry is the same as allowing more than 2 to marry? it is the same as allowing underage people to marry?

these are completely different issues.

 

[LoThunder]

Did you have to ruin my morning by putting his face on the screen?

I don't take him seriously. His ratings are so low, I can't believe he is still on MSNB. He's been demoted already. I believe it is only a matter of time.

That's interesting that a response would be about the supposed qualities of Olbermann rather than the substance of what he said.

I wonder if anyone who objects to his position has the balls to say what in particular was wrong with his statement...

 

[user_name_guest]

allowing two consenting adults to marry is the same as allowing more than 2 to marry? it is the same as allowing underage people to marry?

these are completely different issues.

It deals with marriages. If a guy and three girls want to marry and a guy and a guy wants to marry, what gives the latter the privilege over the polygamist? Is it unfair for the three girls and guy to not get the same right to marriage as a gay or lesbian. So it's okay to discriminate on other forms of marriage?

 

[Luissa]

Yes, homosexuality is just as bad a mental disorder as pedophilia is. It's also a fact that by average most pedophiles are homos. They already have a perverted enough brain disorder to have sex with someone of the same sex, the jump to a child then is no bid deal to them. It's mental illness in it's purest form.

As far as keith oberbite is concerned, he's just another ultra liberal gas bag in dire need of an ass kicking.

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.

 

[Silence]

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.

I hope you're being sarcastic. Consenting adults entering into marriage isn't the same as underage marriage nor the same as multiple spouses.

What difference does it make to you or me if two people whom I've never met and probably never will meet get married? Seriously?

I think marriage itself sucks as an institution. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone, gay or straight.

 

[LoThunder]

I don't know what everyone is bitching about,. We left it up to a vote.

No partisanship, either yay or nay and Cali the MOST LIBERAL state said No to it.

Regardless of my opinion, this is a democractic state and let the people vote on it. They were fighting to have this vote put through and now it didn't go there way everyone is crying foul.

Sorry, doesn't work that way

I have heard a little of this, "OK, the people have decided, now go home and shut up," argument.
Do you think people really WILL go home and shut-up?

You know, it's one thing when the legislature enacts law that levies taxes, and something else entirely when they enact law that strips personal freedoms from a particular group simply because "The People," are prejudiced against them.

Again, I'd really be interested in seeing someone on the YES on Prop 8 side, take what Olbermann said and say how precisely he is wrong. So far, people have done everything BUT that.

HOW is my marriage harmed by gays being allowed to define their own commitments?

 

[DavidS]

I usually find Keith's special comments to be overly self-righteous and therefore last night I did not listen to it and after watching it here I'm sorry I didn't give it a chance.

Keith is right.

I hope people realize that gays getting married doesn't determine the outcome of their own relationships or marriages.

I'm a heterosexual woman who married at 22 and was divorced by the age of 25... This was 14 years ago and so it's safe to say gays had nothing to do with my divorce....

It's funny that Republicans in general run on a platform of personal freedom and smaller government but the things they try to govern always directly impact the private and personal lives of U.S. citizens.

I fail to see why people are so opposed to this. We have openly gay members of Congress who we've elected to office. An openly gay man or woman can run and be elected to the highest office in the world. We have openly gay officers serving in the military fighting and dying for this country in two very unpopular wars. A gay man or woman can die for this country, but they can't get married? What kind of bullshit is this??

 

[busara]

It deals with marriages. If a guy and three girls want to marry and a guy and a guy wants to marry, what gives the latter the privilege over the polygamist? Is it unfair for the three girls and guy to not get the same right to marriage as a gay or lesbian. So it's okay to discriminate on other forms of marriage?

we are discussing a specific aspect of marriage, not the institution as a whole. but please tell me, why are you against underage marriage and polygamy? (i assume youre against these due to how you mentioned them)

 

[DavidS]

Because we don't vote on rights. Equality under the law is a fundamental principle in a democratic republic.

No one is allowed to vote on whether you are allowed to own a gun. No one should be allowed to vote on a woman's reproductive choice and right to personal privacy. Rights aren't subject to simple plurality votes. That's the fundamental premise behind a democratic republic; rights of minorities are not subject to the tyranny of the majority via a vote or referendum.

We never got the right to vote on abortion, because it was tremendously unpopular 30something years ago. Even if a national vote was put to it today, it would fail. We never gave states that had the Jim Crow Laws the right to vote on whether or not to give minorities the same freedoms as they had - because we knew it would be voted down.

It's horrible that they would put something like this to a referrendum when it would just call out all of the religious bigots and idealouges out there to vote no on it.

 

[Gem]

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?

 

[DavidS]

5 million? Uh, right. He's got a fringe audience. His time is almost up.

His time is almost up? He just signed a brand new 4-year contract. Where are you getting this "his time is almost up" bullshit from?

I'm surprised that a Jew who follows Jewish Law would be concerned about this. Read your Talmud.

Thank you, but I don't need a bunch of Rabbis from thousands of years ago to tell me how to interpret the Torah.

Every Jew, from Reconstructionist to Reform to Conservative to Orthodox to Chassidic cherry picks the laws he or she wants to follow. I have my own personal relationship with God based upon my view of the world and my view of the Torah. I don't need other people telling me that my view is wrong or right - because it's neither. It's my view.

Besides there are several openly gay Rabbis serving in Reform and Conservative Synogogues. I really doubt that God is going to look down on someone because they choose to be happy. This is our only life, our only shot to make it out there. God wants his children to be happy and wants to his children to love.

 

[LoThunder]

yes, again Florida voted this year heavily in favor of Democrats yet the prop was voted down down down down down... why is that?

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 ***.

 

[LoThunder]

Gem: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?


OK, well, you are getting there.

The problem is that high courts don't tend to see things like this from that angle. It is more likely that they will ask, "what is the state's compelling interest in denying people this right?"

 

[DavidS]

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.

To deny people the very basic of rights because of who they are, biologically, should be against the law. I have no idea why biological rights haven't been adopted. You cannot fire someone because they're black, female, gay and Jewish, a black female gay Jewish woman can serve in the military and die for us, yet a black female gay Jewish woman cannot get married. I feel like I'm stuck in the 1950s.

 

[LoThunder]

Reagrdless, just because you feel that gays have the right to marriage doesn't mean you are right.

That is correct. This is probably something that the Supreme Court should rule on. They will ask the question, "what is the state's compelling interest in denying this right to otherwise law-abiding citizens?"

Like I said there is a moral issue. THis country is based on a fundamental belief of values and morals ( to an extent).
I wonder if you could tell me EXACTLY to what extent that is, because I haven't SEEN the US MORAL CODE.


Apparently the majority of the people are not ready to see gays getting married yet.

Why do they need to SEE them? Why do people think that need to live their lives with their noses up their neighbor's assholes?

Seriously, explain to me how my life or yours is harmed by gay marriage, because so far it seems like a lot of whining.

 

[Red Dawn]

Oh Christ, here we go with Bush-voting extremists equating gay relationships with pedophelia, polygamy, or bestiality.


Children cannot consent to a sexual realtionship with an adult. . Pedophelia is not a consensual relationship. Its a crime. Gay relationships are adult consensual relationships.

Animals can't consent.

I've never met anyone in my life demanding the right to polygamy. At best its limited to a handful of kooks in Utah. Please stop equating it with consensual gay relationships practiced by tens of millions of americans.

 

[Gem]

Red Dawn Misread:

Please stop equating it with consensual gay relationships practiced by tens of millions of americans.

Red Dawn don't become hysterical. I'm not equating homosexuality with polygamy, pedophilia, or anything else.

One can discuss how the legalization of gay marriage might effect other "groups" without stating that being gay is "equal" to being a polygamist or a pedophile.

Just like a married couple using birth control is not "equivalent" to a young woman getting an abortion...courts do not equate...they look for what has been done in the past to determine how they will rule in the present and future.

 

[DavidS]

Yes, homosexuality is just as bad a mental disorder as pedophilia is.

You see, you opened up your mouth and now you're going to have to back up your words.

When you talk about mental disorders, you talk about something that is psychologically wrong with someone due to either environmental or biological causes. Now, I've got my latest copy of the DSM-IV-TSR on hand, which was published in 1994 and it lists 296 disorders in 886 pages and well, I know I don't perfect eyesight, but for some reason, the most intelligent diagnosticians of the human mind don't seem to think that homosexuality is a disorder. So how is it, Pale Rider, that the most brilliant minds in the country don't think homosexuality is a mental disorder, and yet you think they're wrong?

First, before you answer that question, what college did you receive your doctorite in psychology from?

It's also a fact that by average most pedophiles are homos.

Where are your non-partisan stasticis to back this up?

They already have a perverted enough brain disorder to have sex with someone of the same sex, the jump to a child then is no bid deal to them. It's mental illness in it's purest form.

Again, your credentials?