Keith Olbermann Special Comment on Proposition 8
- Thread starter Raziaar
- Start date
Cpt Tenacious
Tank
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2007
- Messages
- 2,232
- Reaction score
- 1
I don't undertand how something like this can be illegal in America, in 2008. I mean, America still is "land of the free" right?
unozero
Tank
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2008
- Messages
- 3,449
- Reaction score
- 1
lol what's the problem?
I think gay people can get married and do what ever the hell they want but I reserve the right to think anal sex between two man is mind numbingly disgusting.
like I said before I didn't go vote but i was always against prop8 so was everybody in my family except for my old school white christian grandma lol.
if you would have watched my youtube video you would know that Arkansas seems to chucked full of even retards then California.
I think gay people can get married and do what ever the hell they want but I reserve the right to think anal sex between two man is mind numbingly disgusting.
like I said before I didn't go vote but i was always against prop8 so was everybody in my family except for my old school white christian grandma lol.
if you would have watched my youtube video you would know that Arkansas seems to chucked full of even retards then California.
Vegeta897
Banned as all ****
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2004
- Messages
- 26,141
- Reaction score
- 471
amirite
eraser
Spy
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2003
- Messages
- 836
- Reaction score
- 0
I laughed.
Qonfused
Party Escort Bot
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2004
- Messages
- 9,500
- Reaction score
- 6
amirite
Azner
Tank
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2006
- Messages
- 5,652
- Reaction score
- 11
French Ninja
Newbie
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2005
- Messages
- 2,177
- Reaction score
- 2
PvtRyan
Party Escort Bot
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2003
- Messages
- 10,026
- Reaction score
- 1
Because polygamous marriages aren't between two equals, the power balance is always with one sex, usually with the man. Other than that, a large reason for getting married is the financial benefits and our society and laws are kind of built around a two person marriage. So there's practical reasons too. It's really nothing like a two same sex people getting married.
1. I wasn't asked to join the community. I just want to express my views, and get some differing points of views.
2. The point that Olbermann was making is that no one has a right to infringe upon others happiness or "love", especially based on religion or traditional values.
My point being is that where do you draw a line and who gets to draw the line? If 4 people love each other, using the logic of individual freedoms and rights, why is it illegal for them to be married, be it 2 men 3 women, or how ever it mix and matches, if it truly makes them happy. What supreme being is saying its only ok to truly love just one other person?
Marriage has traditionally been between one man and one woman, but if we say that's an outdated, bigoted tradition, "Let us make it between two people", how could you argue against polygamy when we are just making the rules up as we go.
Democracy has prevailed, the people have spoken, and they have elected Obama president.
Democracy has prevailed, the people of California have spoken, and they have said no to gay marriage.
The line has been drawn. Marriage is between one man and one woman. c'est la vie
BUT WAIT, its great that democracy has elected Obama, but terrible that it worked in saying no to gay marriage. WTF? Which is it, and if we are going to overturn the will of the people, why not let me marry my 2 girlfriends while we write the new rules.
2. The point that Olbermann was making is that no one has a right to infringe upon others happiness or "love", especially based on religion or traditional values.
My point being is that where do you draw a line and who gets to draw the line? If 4 people love each other, using the logic of individual freedoms and rights, why is it illegal for them to be married, be it 2 men 3 women, or how ever it mix and matches, if it truly makes them happy. What supreme being is saying its only ok to truly love just one other person?
Marriage has traditionally been between one man and one woman, but if we say that's an outdated, bigoted tradition, "Let us make it between two people", how could you argue against polygamy when we are just making the rules up as we go.
Democracy has prevailed, the people have spoken, and they have elected Obama president.
Democracy has prevailed, the people of California have spoken, and they have said no to gay marriage.
The line has been drawn. Marriage is between one man and one woman. c'est la vie
BUT WAIT, its great that democracy has elected Obama, but terrible that it worked in saying no to gay marriage. WTF? Which is it, and if we are going to overturn the will of the people, why not let me marry my 2 girlfriends while we write the new rules.
CptStern
suckmonkey
- Joined
- May 5, 2004
- Messages
- 10,303
- Reaction score
- 62
so you just randomly stumbled upon this community and made your first post in the politics section with no agenda whatsoever ..it was pure chance ..oh let me guess, you've been lurking since 2003 and only now decided to post cuz you hate dem gays
take it up with your state polygamy laws, what does this have to do with same sex marriage? surprised you didnt mention animal love
what does one law have to do with the other? they're distinct. take up with your state legislature if you feel so strongly about it
you dont vote on rights and freedoms ..if that were always the case I'm sure blacks would still be drinking from the "colored" drinking fountain
who gave you or your idiotic group ownership of marriage? what right do you have to dictate what other people do? why does this concern you in the least? there is no one forcing you to marry your same sex if that's what you're afraid of. so why is this a problem, please explain
man once believed that the earth is flat, times change, society changes ...c'est la vie, ce n'est pas?
Is there a sane person on this board that I can debate with?
Mr Stabby
Tank
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2004
- Messages
- 2,285
- Reaction score
- 3
If it's all voluntary, I really don't see the problem.
CptStern
suckmonkey
- Joined
- May 5, 2004
- Messages
- 10,303
- Reaction score
- 62
not that I'm claiming sanity but I'll take that as a "I cant answer your points so I'll ask someone else" ...it's always someone else
Neutrino
Tank
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2003
- Messages
- 4,407
- Reaction score
- 0
Personally, I completely agree with your reasoning. My own conclusion is that polygamy should also be completely legal. If it doesn't hurt anyone else then the government should have no right to make it illegal.
There's a large and fundamental difference between voting for elected officials and voting on civil rights issues. This country isn't actually a true democracy anyway. And a true democracy would most likely not have the freedoms that we do. Majority rule in this country has resulted in horrible civil rights crimes, from slavery to lack of womens' suffrage. I wrote about this earlier:
http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2805897&postcount=45
Also, concerning your comment on our "democracy" electing Obama, I personally don't fully agree with that process either. In my opinion the whole democratic process breaks down when you have what is essentially a 50/50 split among a few hundred million people. Even though I voted for Obama and I'm quite happy that he was elected I do recognize the problems inherent in the system during such polarized times. However, I have no bettter solution and we must be incredibly careful if we decide to change it as it does at least seem to work for now.
Eejit
The Freeman
- Joined
- May 19, 2004
- Messages
- 13,510
- Reaction score
- 219
The point is polygamy isn't really relevant.
There aren't millions of wannaba polygamists around the U.S. being discriminated against, and they aren't visibly trying to lobby for changes to marriage laws right now.
If that happens come back to us and we can discuss it, but as of now it's academic and largely irrelevant to this Proposition 8 discussion.
There aren't millions of wannaba polygamists around the U.S. being discriminated against, and they aren't visibly trying to lobby for changes to marriage laws right now.
If that happens come back to us and we can discuss it, but as of now it's academic and largely irrelevant to this Proposition 8 discussion.
Glirk Dient
Newbie
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2005
- Messages
- 3,506
- Reaction score
- 0
QFT not to mention polygamy isn't genetic. Those people only have philosophical qualms with the current law whereas homosexuals are being dehumanized for the people they are. Perhaps that is where the line is drawn. Philosophical reasons vs the right to live a happy life for who you are.
lefty
Tank
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2008
- Messages
- 4,094
- Reaction score
- 2
Iowa, Utah, Idaho, etc...
Raziaar
I Hate Custom Titles
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2003
- Messages
- 29,769
- Reaction score
- 140
Atomic_Piggy
Newbie
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2006
- Messages
- 6,485
- Reaction score
- 2
I think polygamy should be legal, provided all parties are consenting (although when children become involved it gets messy) but that isn't really relevant to this discussion...plus I don't actually give a shit either way.
MultiVaC
Tank
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2003
- Messages
- 2,855
- Reaction score
- 4
Polygamy is a choice. People who are polygamists aren't biologically driven to be polygamists, and they would likely be able to find happiness in a so-called "traditional" marriage. If you are a homosexual, it is simply the way you are, and currently you are forced to live your life without the social, economic, and emotional benefits of marriage, a fundamental part of our society which nearly everyone is taught to aspire to and anticipate their entire lives. And if we allow "civil unions" but not marriage for these people, we are denying them the sense of legitimacy and social acceptance that comes with being treated as equals under the law. "Separate but equal", aka segregation. Prop 8 has passed, yes, but our democracy is built on the foundation of majority rule, minority rights. When the majority votes to take rights away from a minority it is an unacceptable situation, and if there is still any justice in this country Prop 8 will be overturned by the courts for being obscenely unconstitutional (that is what the judicial branch is for, after all). I'm actually not sure how a state constitution can be rewritten on the basis of a single vote, it seems to defeat the purpose of a constitution, but I'm no expert on this sort of thing.
Regarding the polygamy argument, that is a slippery slope fallacy and belongs in a separate discussion altogether. I haven't checked recently, but is our logical fallacy thread still up?
Regarding the polygamy argument, that is a slippery slope fallacy and belongs in a separate discussion altogether. I haven't checked recently, but is our logical fallacy thread still up?
jet_porkins
Newbie
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2008
- Messages
- 1,459
- Reaction score
- 0
To be fair, it's relevant to say that at least two of the three polygamists will be of the same sex.
Eejit
The Freeman
- Joined
- May 19, 2004
- Messages
- 13,510
- Reaction score
- 219
The Monkey
The Freeman
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2004
- Messages
- 16,316
- Reaction score
- 16
I think it's completely irrelevant if homosexuality is genetic or not. Two people love each other, let's leave it at that, Shouldn't people just mind their own ****ing business?
And there's no reason why polygamy shouldn't be legal. Even if it is a choice, who is anyone to deny them that choice?
And there's no reason why polygamy shouldn't be legal. Even if it is a choice, who is anyone to deny them that choice?
I would like to thank you all for the differing points of view. I stumbled across this board looking for people thoughts on the Olbermann story, and its one of the few boards I have found where I was not immediately labeled something for asking a legitimate question.
My personal feelings are that what grown consenting adults do in their own private lives is absolutely none of my business, so please stop trying to make it my business.
No one say life is fair, and some things are never going to be fair. I want a bigger peepee, and I would love to be 3 inches taller, but despite the 100's of promises I receive each and every day in my inbox, I just doubt this will ever happen., and I have to just accept this as one one the cruel jabs of life.
Let the heteros have marriage, since its obvious thats what the majority wants, and continue to love just as much as you can, or you risk opening the door for me and my 2 girlfriends, bob and his dog, or sheila and her love doll, gaining access to marriage, thus making it special to no one.
and to CptStern, really? man come on, you really want me to debate your response point by point? I just take a few
Q:"so you just randomly stumbled upon this community and made your first post in the politics section with no agenda whatsoever ..it was pure chance ..oh let me guess, you've been lurking since 2003 and only now decided to post cuz you hate dem gays"
A: I did stumble across this board by accident, looking at Google results from the term "Olbermann prop 8" Dont you have an agenda? Who gave you or your idiotic group ownership of agendas?
Q: who gave you or your idiotic group ownership of marriage? what right do you have to dictate what other people do? why does this concern you in the least? there is no one forcing you to marry your same sex if that's what you're afraid of. so why is this a problem, please explain
A: What right do you have to dictate to other people? now thats a little hypocritical don't ya think.
It seems like marriage has been the property of western heteros for the past 2000 years or so, and since I wasn't alive then, I cant tell who who the person is that me or my idiotic group ownership, I think her name was Sue or maybe Bill?
My personal feelings are that what grown consenting adults do in their own private lives is absolutely none of my business, so please stop trying to make it my business.
No one say life is fair, and some things are never going to be fair. I want a bigger peepee, and I would love to be 3 inches taller, but despite the 100's of promises I receive each and every day in my inbox, I just doubt this will ever happen., and I have to just accept this as one one the cruel jabs of life.
Let the heteros have marriage, since its obvious thats what the majority wants, and continue to love just as much as you can, or you risk opening the door for me and my 2 girlfriends, bob and his dog, or sheila and her love doll, gaining access to marriage, thus making it special to no one.
and to CptStern, really? man come on, you really want me to debate your response point by point? I just take a few
Q:"so you just randomly stumbled upon this community and made your first post in the politics section with no agenda whatsoever ..it was pure chance ..oh let me guess, you've been lurking since 2003 and only now decided to post cuz you hate dem gays"
A: I did stumble across this board by accident, looking at Google results from the term "Olbermann prop 8" Dont you have an agenda? Who gave you or your idiotic group ownership of agendas?
Q: who gave you or your idiotic group ownership of marriage? what right do you have to dictate what other people do? why does this concern you in the least? there is no one forcing you to marry your same sex if that's what you're afraid of. so why is this a problem, please explain
A: What right do you have to dictate to other people? now thats a little hypocritical don't ya think.
It seems like marriage has been the property of western heteros for the past 2000 years or so, and since I wasn't alive then, I cant tell who who the person is that me or my idiotic group ownership, I think her name was Sue or maybe Bill?
CptStern
suckmonkey
- Joined
- May 5, 2004
- Messages
- 10,303
- Reaction score
- 62
this is called trolling
is this the internet equivilent of "I know what you are but what am I?"
you know rephrasing the question and asking it of the person who originally asked it is still not answering the question "I know what you are but what am I" ..this is common in people who cant answer the question given to them so they parrot the question instead
and so now not to fall into your idiotic trap I'll answer your question. I'm not dictating anything, I'm not forcing gay marriage on you. I'm not saying your religion has to change to adopt same sex marriages ..what I am saying is that you (your group, anti-same sex marriage proponents) have no right to change something they dont own
yes no one outside of the west has ever been married ..seriously why do we attract so many geographically challenged people? really is there some road sign that says "all those looking for timbuktu you've arrived in florida"
is this english? it looks like english but I dont know what it means ..methinks it's some new form of faux-english all the hip kids are using these days
Atomic_Piggy
Newbie
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2006
- Messages
- 6,485
- Reaction score
- 2
QFT.
Since when? Why is it impossible for more than one person to love one another?
Why is it even any of your concern?
Good grief man, did you really have to use the ole' "I don't agree with this person, so I will try to make them look like an "idiot" shtick...
OK
1. Not trolling, look it up
2. You asked who gave me or my group ownership of marriage, How about "The People of California? I really had to answer that for you?
3. You are dictating to me. You are telling me that I have no right to blah blah blah. At least in California(once again not speaking for other states, just California, in case that went over your head), they(heterosexuals) do own marriage, your point is therefore moot.
4. Um ok, I didn't want to speak for other cultures, just my own(western) I think 99.8% of the people who would read that kinda gets the jist.
5. Ahh typos, nothing says "THAT GUY IS STUPID" more than typos. Good thing you keep that in your arsenal, you sure showed me, sport.
