Keith Olbermann with a moving special comment about gay marriage

[Ocean56]

Yes, yes I did!!

Yeah. Right. I'll believe that when I "miraculously" have $10 million in my bank account tomorrow.

 

[Sunni Man]

Oh PLEASE. I've seen YOUR so-called "arguments" against gay marriage. They are neither intelligent nor are they compelling.

According to who? You!!!

 

[chloe]

True, Obama didn't run as a Black candidate.

But most blacks voted for him because he was Black!

Did you vote for Obama, Sunni? I know your just a white man .

 

[Sunni Man]

Did you vote for Obama, Sunni? I know your just a white man .

Not quite sure what you are implying??

But yes, I did vote for Obama

 

[chloe]

Yes, yes I did!!

Did you film it? Can u upload the interviews you did? he he

 

[Zoom-boing]

My understanding about the whole gay marriage thing is that the objection to it is the redefining of the term 'marriage' from one man/one woman to mean one man/one woman; one man/one man; one woman/one woman, not the civil rights part, per say. Heterosexuals should have a say in this - and they did when they voted - as their 'union' is defined by this word.

Why don't they leave the definition of marriage and it's rights as is, one man/one woman and have 'civil union' mean one man/one man or one woman/one woman and have 'civil union' also include all the same rights that 'marriage' has?

 

[DavidS]

My understanding about the whole gay marriage thing is that the objection to it is the redefining of the term 'marriage' from one man/one woman to mean one man/one woman; one man/one man; one woman/one woman, not the civil rights part, per say. Heterosexuals should have a say in this - and they did when they voted - as their 'union' is defined by this word.

Why don't they leave the definition of marriage and it's rights as is, one man/one woman and have 'civil union' mean one man/one man or one woman/one woman and have 'civil union' also include all the same rights that 'marriage' has?

Why do people care about what the definition of marriage is? I mean unless this "re-defining" of marriage is going to financially hurt tax-wise heterosexual marriages, who the hell cares? Seriously. No one's heterosexual marriage is going to be hurt by this. These people just want the same rights as we have.

 

[dilloduck]

Why do people care about what the definition of marriage is? I mean unless this "re-defining" of marriage is going to financially hurt tax-wise heterosexual marriages, who the hell cares? Seriously. No one's heterosexual marriage is going to be hurt by this. These people just want the same rights as we have.

It's a question of sacrificing lower order freedoms for higher order freedoms---are gays SO bent on using the word marriage that they would risk all the other rights that they have in most states now anyway ? How about if I demand all cats be called dogs from now on ?

 

[Shadow]

Got any STATISTICS to indicate HOW "many black voters are anti-gay?" Anywhere? I'll wait.

How about the 79% that voted against gay Marriage in CA for starters...

 

[Zoom-boing]

Why do people care about what the definition of marriage is? I mean unless this "re-defining" of marriage is going to financially hurt tax-wise heterosexual marriages, who the hell cares? Seriously. No one's heterosexual marriage is going to be hurt by this. These people just want the same rights as we have.

The majority of Christians who live in this country care because it flys in the face of what they believe. Money has nothing to do with it; it's the redefining of the term 'marriage' to mean something other than one man/one woman.

Why not just call gay unions 'civil unions' or 'gay unions' and give them all the same rights that 'married' unions have? Wouldn't this be a simple solution? If the term 'married' is such a non-issue (as indicated in your post), why not just use a different term for gay couples and give them the same rights?

 

[LoThunder]

How about the 79% that voted against gay Marriage in CA for starters...

Suppose we had put slavery or integration up for a vote in the South?

Would it be surprising to see them voted down?

 

[tresha]

First off, David, thank you, truly for posting this thread. It warmed my heart.
Secondly, I love your point about not voting on rights for other people, instead it's a matter of leaders, leading.

Years and years ago I researched, wrote and performed a persuasive speech on gays in the military.
One of the points I remember making was that when it came time to integrate the military, or to combine men and women, the powers that be didn't wait around until everyone was happy with it. Hell, not even a majority was happy with it.
People looked around and said, "this is inherently wrong, this is how it needs to be fixed, deal with it."

I can't believe there are so many people so fucking insecure about their own lives that they truly believe I can wreck the sanctity of their marriage.
Do they not realize that seems to give us queers an awful lot of power, we don't actually have?

Here's a shocker for you:

I cannot affect your marriage.

Unless I come into your home, physically remove your wife and take her with me, your marriage cannot be affected by me.

I swear to Jesus Mary and Joseph I wish I had half the power people have assigned to me.
Here's another shocker for you:
If the "sanctity of your marriage" has been affected, quit blaming me!
I didn't have a fucking thing to do with you not keeping your marriage together.

 

[Sunni Man]

How about the 79% that voted against gay Marriage in CA for starters...

This just shows that the MAJORITY of Americans don't support the perverted homo lifestyle.

I will be so happy when criminalizing homosexuality is put on the ballot and Americans can vote on it.

 

[tresha]

Oh good, you're here.
Answer me this if you will:

Why are you and those of your ilk so damn convinced that me and my ilk have such an amazing amount of power over you?

 

[Sunni Man]

Oh good, you're here.
Answer me this if you will:

Why are you and those of your ilk so damn convinced that me and my ilk have such an amazing amount of power over you?

Not sure what an "ilk" is, but if it means keeping "homo ilk" out of main stream society. Than I am an "anti homo ilk".

 

[tresha]

Not sure what an "ilk" is, but if it means keeping "homo ilk" out of main stream society. Than I am an "anti homo ilk".

ilk, ilk...um....others like you.
In this instance, why do you and others like you believe that myself and others like me have so much power of you?

By the way,homoman, sorry, sunniman, does giving me neg points give you some sort of sexual thrill? You seem to jump on the chance. Petty petty man.
PF is doing fine.
So sorry your reluctance as a lesbian didn't work out for you.

 

[Sunni Man]

Homos have ZERO power over normal people.

And we are working politically to keep it that way

 

[tresha]

Homos have ZERO power over normal people.

And we are working politically to keep it that way

Un huh, un-huh.
So, riddle me this Batman, if we have no power of you, why is it so important to make laws restricting us?

 

[Sunni Man]

Un huh, un-huh.
So, riddle me this Batman, if we have no power of you, why is it so important to make laws restricting us?

Same as society restricts all other devients and perverts. (rapists, child molesters, etc.)

 

[tresha]

Same as society restricts all other devients and perverts. (rapists, child molesters, etc.)

Wow...that's just....sad, sunni.
That's really the best you could come up with?
Cause a rapist and a child molester, they actually hurt people you know?
A rapist can theoretically have power over you.

Like, for instance, if a big ol' scary man were to jump you in the parking lot, late one night and sodomize you, why that would be having at least temporary power over you.
Now, if you were a consensual partner, no power. See how that works!?

Or...if you were never never ever accosted by scary big man, and two queer guys wanted to have all kinds of kinky gay sex, why that's not power of you at all, right?