And to think, in as little as 50 years ago, the were laws prohibiting interracial marriages. Is anyone other than old white christian males safe from republicans?
Marriage can only be between two opposite-sex persons since a man and a woman is the ONLY PAIR capable of enlarging into family. The state's legitimate reason in regulating marriage is to regulate the relationship between spouses and any children they MIGHT conceive and bear. SAME-SEX RELATIONSHIPS (ANYMORE THAN A MAN AND HIS BEAST OR A WOMAN AND HER INANIMATE OBJECT) PROVIDES NO PRINCIPLED REASON WHY THE STATE SHOULD RECOGNIZE THEIR UNION AS MARRIAGES.
Keith's comparison is offensive, and puzzling to many—not least to the nearly two-thirds of black voters who voted to uphold conjugal marriage under California Proposition Eight. What is TELLING is that SAME-SEX PARTNERSHIPS CANNOT BE MARRIAGES BECAUSE THEY LACK ANY ESSENTIAL ORIENTATION TO CHILDREN. THEIR SEXUAL UNION IS NOT GENERATIVE SEX. Indeed, in the common law tradition, only coitus (not anal or oral sex even between legally wed spouses) has been recognized as consummating a marriage.
@RadarKat73080 No couple can directly or simply choose to procreate. The only thing any couple can directly do regarding procreation is to perform the kind of sexual union that will lead to procreation. Opposite-sex couples who are infertile can perform precisely the same kind of sexual union that fertile couples can perform. Both couples (fertile and infertile), fulfills the behavioral conditions of procreation.
@RadarKat73080 "Have you been asleep the past few years? My wife and I had difficulty conceiving, so she took medication." I'm sorry, but this comment seems to imply that we know each other. At any rate, I am truly sorry for your wife's condition, however, (like I stated earlier) infertile opposite-sex couples can perform the EXACT type of sexual union that is familiarized with conceiving and bearing a child.
@RadarKat73080 The behavioral parts of the process of reproduction do not lose their dynamism toward reproduction if non-behavioral factors in the process—for example low sperm count or ovarian problems—prevent conception from occurring, even if the spouses expect this beforehand. Practically speaking, many couples believed to be infertile end up having children who would be served by their parents healthy marriage.
@RadarKat73080 In other words, even during conditions such as infertility (or if the mated pair desires not to reproduce) a system of organs within both the male and female work together for the purpose of reproduction. However much sodomy or oral sex may be considered sexual gratification they can never be considered reproductive.
@magn1f1ed4u What's wrong with gratification? Why is this even an issue? Because God hates it? God hates a LOTTA things, but people have focused more on this issue than even the Bible does, even if you buy every passage people cite as being about it. Gay marriage hurts no one, as it doesn't apply to people who aren't gay. It hurts the children? Prove it! Kids can grow up just as messed up with straight parents. I wish Christians objected to rape, murder and robbery as much!
@RadarKat73080 My last statement said nothing about the moral objectivity of sexual gratification. My point is if sodomy and oral sex share anything in common with coitus (male and female sexual intercourse) it is that sodomy and oral sex may be considered sexual; but sodomy and oral sex can NEVER be considered reproductive since NEITHER sodomy and/or oral sex involves the seminal emission and reception in the woman's reproductive tract.
@RadarKat73080 Underlying people's adherence to the marital norms (monogamy and fidelity) already in decline are the deep connections in their minds between marriage, coitus, and children; so same-sex "marriages" would harm the marital institution because same-sex relationships (like the relationship between a woman and her inanimate object or a man and his beast) provides no reason of moral principle to form and sustain a marriage.
@magn1f1ed4u Are you certain about that statement? Or do you believe that infidelity is on the rise because more and more famous people, athletes and politicians, are getting caught with their hand in the cookie jar? "There is nothing new under the sun," the writer of Ecclesiastes tells us.
@RadarKat73080 Certain social pressures (the sexual revolution, radical feminism) and legal developments (No-Fault divorce) have already worn the ties that bind spouses to each other and something beyond themselves as mere individuals in a relationship, but redefining marriage to include same-sex couples will only continue adversely effecting marriage and tear out any basis for reversing other recent trends and restoring the many social benefits of a health marriage culture.
@magn1f1ed4u It's not like guys could get outta a bad marriage by simply writing a note (Mosaic Law) or just have their wives killed (Henry VIII) Funny, but I was under the impression that human coupling predated man's knowledge of where babies came from? Tell me your head's up there for the warmth! You have failed to prove any of your claims.
@RadarKat73080 The norms of marriage should create conditions suitable for children: stable and harmonious conditions which are undermined by divorce-which deprives children of an intact biological family-and infidelity, which diverts one's responsibility and attention from spouse and children.
@RadarKat73080 In relationships (same-sex) that LACK an orientation to procreation it is difficult to understand how exclusivity and permanence should be INHERENTLY NORMATIVE AND DESIREABLE whenever NOT very costly. Thus, the inherent link between husband and wife to procreation provides an intelligible basis for adherence to norms of monogamy and fidelity.
@RadarKat73080 Because of its aptness for procreation, conjugal marriage is a moral reality that creates moral privileges and obligation between people independently of legal enforcement.
@magn1f1ed4u None of your comments have convinced me that same sex marriage should be outlawed and clearly I can't convince you that, so long as nobody is harmed, people should be allowed to do as they please. Which is pretty much my only goal. I don't buy people's moral objections to homosexual antagonism. There are greater evils in this world and we don't hear near as much from people claiming the moral high ground.
@RadarKat73080 That's fine by conceding that you don't understand how redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships is detrimental to marriage, but as I've stated earlier: in relationships (same-sex) that LACK an orientation to procreation it is difficult to understand how exclusivity and permanence should be INHERENTLY NORMATIVE AND DESIREABLE whenever NOT very costly.
@RadarKat73080 Redefining marital law to accommodate same-sex relationships would harm adults more generally insofar as the WEAKENING of social expectations SUPPORTING MARRIAGE would make it harder for adults to abide by MARITAL NORMS (exclusivity and permanence). In other words, public institutions shape our ideas, and ideas have consequences; so removing the RATIONAL BASIS for a norm will erode adherence to that norm—if not immediately, then over time.
@magn1f1ed4u It's a little late to start worrying about that! Never mind famous people, my grandfather ran out on my grandmother, my older sister had four kids by four different guys. Her dad isn't my dad. They're installing a turn style for my younger sister's NEXT wedding. Complaining that gay marriage will hurt the institution is a little like you being upset because I ran over your dog who was already dead.
@RadarKat73080 "It's a little late to start worrying about that!" so we don't bother in reversing so many recent trends which exacerbated social ills and further derancinate the entire marital structure even if it means depriving our children of a basic life skill? By doing so, we teach children that the only solution to every problem is to walk away from it. Does our society inculcate such attitudes about values as well?
@RadarKat73080 At any rate, lasting marriages are a reality and they were even more so before couples were allowed to UNILATERALLY dissolve their marriages. That's because social and legal developments have altered people's attitude about marriage. Various studies have shown that as a healthy marriage culture declines, the demand for state spending, social services, and government policing naturally increases.
@RadarKat73080 As stated previously, in relationships (same-sex) that LACK an orientation to procreation it is difficult to understand how exclusivity and permanence should be INHERENTLY NORMATIVE AND DESIREABLE whenever NOT very costly. In other words, if NO RATIONAL BASIS exists for marital norms of exclusivity and permanence, why bother abiding by them?
@RadarKat73080 At least for opposite-sex couples there is a rationale. Their spouse is the ONLY person by which they MAY (should they choose to) conceive, bear, and rear a child who would be served by their parents healthy marriage. To CONSUMMATE (i.e. COMPLETE) a marriage a couple MUST engage in that DISTINCT sex function (coitus) that is KNOWN to cause reproduction.
@RadarKat73080 "Complaining that gay marriage will hurt the institution is a little like you being upset because I ran over your dog who was already dead." We can't just turn our backs on this problem and NOT EXPECT this to come home and roost; indeed, in many ways, it already has...absentee fathers, declining literacy and graduation rates among children, teen and out-of-wedlock pregnancies, increased incarceration rates, etc.
@magn1f1ed4u Okay, how do you suggest we deal with these problems of which you speak? Enforce conservative morality by decree of law? Have a vice Gestapo patrolling the streets and peeking in people's windows and on-line? Do you want David Vitter, Bill O'Reilly, Newt Gingrich and Mark Sanford imposing moral laws upon us? And how would that be different from having no morality at all? Oppression is the only way you'll get to the point you want and that's why I'm opposed.
@RadarKat73080 "Oppression is the only way you'll get to the point you want and that's why I'm opposed" how is it that public understanding of the conjugal perception of marriage requires oppression? It's NOT about invoking social pressure the likes of a tyrant, it's about providing a DEFINITE SHAPE AND PURPOSE to marriage so that people MAY choose to live within its perimeters WITH a proper understanding (in their minds) of what constitutes a marriage.
@RadarKat73080 The difference lies in the fact that there aren't “vice Gestapo patrolling the streets and peeking in people's windows and on-line” as per your last statement. Like I stated in my previous reply, same-sex "marriage" advocates understand that the state's favored conception of marriage matters because it affects society's understanding of that institution.
@RadarKat73080 What, are you insinuating that oppression and tyrannical control (the very thing you're opposed) is the only way to enforce same-sex “marriage”? In any case, this ISN'T about ELIMINATING all manners of relationships, this is about WHAT MARRIAGE IS ESSENTIALLY ABOUT? Humans may form any relationship composition they find desirable, it's just any other relationship composition SHOULD NOT be recognized as MARRIAGE.
@RadarKat73080 No one deliberates in a vacuum. We all take cues (including cues as to what marriage is and what it requires of use) from cultural norms which are shaped partly by the law. Indeed, same-sex "marriage" advocates concede this, why else would they be dissatisfied over civil unions for same-sex couples? Like us, same-sex "marriage" advocates understand that the state's favored conception of marriage matters because it affects society's understanding of that institution.
@magn1f1ed4u So? All manner of relationships existed in pretty much every society on earth. There's been co-habitation, gay relationships and mistresses/concubines even in the most Puritan societies!
@RadarKat73080 In fact, University of Calgary philosopher Elizabeth Brake, who supports legal recognition of relationships of any size and gender composition affirms "marriage does not simply allow access to legal entitlements; it also allows partners to signal the importance of their relationship AND TO INVOKE SOCIAL PRESSURES ON COMMITMENT." It goes without saying that a state supported marriage definition is what's at stake in this debate.
@RadarKat73080 As in my previous posts, contrary to your claim, LAWS FORBIDDING SAME-SEX “MARRIAGES” are in NO way similar to laws forbidding interracial marriages or miscegenation. Antimiscegenation was about whom to allow to marry, NOT what marriage is essentially about. NOT ONE OPPONENT of interracial marriage EVER DENIED the fact that blacks and whites could form a distinct reproductive purpose.
@RadarKat73080 Public participation and appreciation of marriage depends on cultural norms (which are shaped partly by the law) that provide a rational explanation of what marriage is what it requires of us. With this in mind, people can properly choose marriage and live by its norms.
@RadarKat73080 With all due respect, same-sex “marriage” advocates LACK the resources to answer the challenge WHAT IS MARRIAGE or why the state should support certain features of marriage that they (same-sex “marriage” advocates) would not dispute?
@magn1f1ed4u - Agree with you entirely. Liberals like Olbermann and other supporters of same-sex "marriage' are forgetting one thing. Christians are not the problem here, but the "religion of peace" is. While many churches have become so secular, to the point where they are ordaining pro-homosexual, secular "ministers", no Muslim mosque is changing with every fad and fashion. Try having a gay "pride" parade or start a GBLT bookstore in Deerborn, Michigan, the USA's first Muslim caliphate.....
@bgibb101I'm just about complete with a video response to Keith Olbermann's tirade against California's Proposition 8. It LEVELS the very challenges Keith Olbermann sets forth against Prop 8 and/or marital law which recognizes marriage as a conjugal (husband and wife) union and demonstrates why marriage CANNOT be anything more or less than a union that is inherently opposite-sex and monogamous.
@RadarKat73080 So depriving marriage of a definite shape (opposite-sex couples) is to deprive it of a definite purpose (who make a permanent and exclusive commitment to each other of the type that is naturally fulfilled by bearing and rearing children (should the couple DESIRE to conceive children)). By including same-sex couples in marital law, the state risks distorting public understanding of marriage.
@RadarKat73080 Since the sexual union of same-sex couples (like that of a woman and her animate object or a man and his beast) lack an orientation to procreation, the legal definition of marriage will shift to marriage being about the subjective preferences of those involved. People understand that since same-sex couples CANNOT (at any time) procreate, then no other reason exists to continue abiding by marriage's norms of exclusivity and permanence.
@RadarKat73080 People will then continue forming (in two for now) domestic partnerships for romantic-sexual partners with little intention of entering and sustaining a marriage. And various studies have shown that as a healthy marriage culture declines, state spending, policing, and social services increases.
@RadarKat73080 That's because marital norms create conditions suitable for children: stable and harmonious conditions that are undermined by divorce—which deprives children of an intact biological family—and by infidelity, which betrays and divides one's attention and responsibility to spouse and children.
@magn1f1ed4u - The entire concept of same-sex "marriage" is preposterous. This entire argument has absolutely nothing to do with anybody's "rights." It is merely another heterosexual institution for militant homosexuals to destroy in order to make a statement. In essence, same-sex "marriage" is about legitimizing lifestyle. Period. Also, liberals forget that the USA is taking in over a million immigrants a year that come from countries where homosexuality is viewed with absolute disgust...
@RadarKat73080 A society uses its legal system not only to punish but to convey its values, both to itself and to the next generation and any principle that would justify the legal recognition of same‐sex relationships would also justify the legal recognition of polyamorous and non‐sexual ones.
Keith Olbermann's claim is an EPIC failure...throughout history, no society's laws have explicitly forbidden gay marriage because, until recently, it has not been thought possible. ANTIMISCEGENATION LAWS, AT LEAST IN THE UNITED STATES, WERE MEANT TO KEEP BLACKS SEPARATE FROM WHITES, and thus in a position of social, economic, and political inferiority to them; but TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE LAWS WERE NOT DEVISED TO OPPRESS THOSE WITH SAME-SEX ATTRACTIONS.
under the first clause of the first amendment, guarantees the right of gay marriage. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." the politicians say it's because these gay marriages don't contribute to the population, is only a mask, their true reason for being against gay marriage is their GOD DAMN (yes, HIS "name" used in vain was intended) religion.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" this means that anti-gay laws are unconstitutional.
hypothetically, if I'm gay, I will fight for it, maybe even falsifying the state documentation of marriage, if there even is any thing that must exist. I've made my commitment to my male partner, and no certificate should show it. marriages shouldn't be a state matter, or social matter, it's a PERSONAL matter.
Everyone should be given the right to be married. We all deserve a chance at, love and happines, no matter our sexual orientations. If you dont want to get married to a member of the same sex DONT, If you dont want to marry someone of the opposite gender DONT. It's Highly ilogical that God, the one that loves us unconditionaly, would call us "sinners" and send us off to hell where we would forever suffer until the end of time....just because of who we want to spend the rest of uor lives with...
Protect marriage? Puhlease. With a 50 percent divorce rate, rampant domestic violence, Las Vegas drive-through chapels, and I wanna-marry-a-really-rich-guy reality TV shows, there's no way gays could trash marriage the way straight people have. ~ Good Times, Santa Cruz County News
@playEADG1 You keep saying that people aren't born gay, but have you ever really stopped to think about that for even thirty seconds or are you just repeating what other people have told you? Did YOU wake up one day and decide to be straight? If so, does that mean you could have honestly gone either way until you made that decision? Seriously man, THINK about what you say before you say it.
@FalconCrestlover73 you just copy and pasted an incoherent assemblance of randomness totally irrelevant to the conversation at hand. in fact, your first post specifically says that "no specific civil ceremonoy was required". do you understand what civil means? it means pertaining to the state. therefore, marriage in ancient greece did not pertain to the state. what exactly did you think you were proving?
@FalconCrestlover73 you sound like you're making this up. greece specifically viewed marriage as anti-civil, the state didn't even have to know that a man and a woman were married, far from a "legal institution". no matter where you or I believe it started, it is the general consensus of historians that marriage was an invention of a religion, whichever religion you or I believe it was is irrelevant because I can assure you it didn't allow same sex marriages.
@FalconCrestlover73 its not a legal institution its a religious institution recognized legally. history's earliest records of marriage are that of a judeo-christian background. saying that marriage is inherently secular demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of its known history.
He held a presence similar to Murrow, very passionate but very realistic, especially with the quote of a poet and the Goodnight and Good Luck comment at the end.
You are what you are. Straight or gay is not something you or anyone else has any control over or can ever choose to change. There is no choice in matters of sexual atteaction. Being a self-righteous, judgmental asshole, however, was your God damn choice!
The sadistic part of all this BS is the demends placed on gays and lesbians to CHNAGE, which is impossible. Has a gay person ever made such demands of someone who happens to be heterosexual? Why ask sacrifices only of OTHERS? Would JESUS?
@hamps88 Marriage wasn't made a sacrament until the 12th Century. Originally in most cultures the main focus of marriage was to bind families together, to create social bonds that were understood by the community, and to provide economic and social support of families by creating alliances between different families. Marriages in different cultures ranged from man-woman to men-woman to women-man to men-women, to woman-woman and much more. Gay couples and their families deserve CIVIL MARRIAGE..
you---sir---no longer have a job b/c you---sir---are so disgustingly biased that not even the kind of people who are willing to associate themselves with msnbc want to listen to your slanderous rantings. furthermore---sir---no one has forgotten that you lost your previous sports reporting career b/c you were fired for sexual harassment.
Olbermann expresses this not as a pundit but as equal rights activist. We will be on the winning side of history. You can mark these words! We will win in our endeavors. Gays will eventually be allowed equal rights. Although we may differ, the ties that bind are stronger than the rhetoric and hate that divides. If you are a believer in god, than you should believe we are all created equal. Do not use those holy teachings to divide us as a people, for we are all one. Let love be.
@wiltingplant: It is not for us to judge, but for God to do so and while on this earth, we must remember that we do not judge and cannot be judge. Our only task while here is to work on becoming better people in our hearts and our souls; the act of denying others is counter to the work we have been given to do. We must give freely of our generosity and hope; in doing so, we do God's work. To use God to justify the belittling of your fellow man is to misunderstand and misuse God to your own ends.
He's right -- *if and only if* we are approaching life from the perspective that it's all about us and how we feel rather than about God and doing His work. I am absolutely all for people being happy -- but we are not the best judges of what will make us happy. God has already said His part on this; my choice is to figure that He knows better and go with it. Would it be easier for me to just say "heck, no big deal" to my gay friends? Absolutely. Unfortunately, God doesn't leave that option.
@wiltingplant Since life ought not be approached from a me perspective but a God perspective, the right question is "How does God feel about this?" There are many topics which the Bible isn't specific on, but this one is dead center -- God abhors homosexuality. Since I am not omniscient and ever-gracious, I can only see the immediate benefits of voting against such a measure and cannot fully explain why precisely God has chosen to condemn the practice. We must remember that God's way is best.
@wiltingplant Slight problem with that approach, buddy: not everyone in America believes in God. And of those who do, there are those like myself who think those portions of the Bible are archaic bullshit, along with the pro-slavery and stoning bits. And the Bill of Rights gives us the right to think that.
I don't like Olbermann, but his talking points, is spot on. I really don't care if people are gay. I hope someday, they can wed like the rest of us!!!
4 minutes ago TRUE STORY : olberman was dumped by laura ingrahm when she walked in on him on his kness blowing a nfl player. he is the worst type of faggot, in the closet and champion of queers ya he says "im not gay" 50 sumthin femine guy, no girlfriend, never married, ya hes not gay, ha-ha. watch him do waht he does best at 0:31, suck cock
4 minutes ago TRUE STORY : olberman was dumped by laura ingrahm when she walked in on him on his kness blowing a nfl player. he is the worst type of faggot, in the closet and champion of queers ya he says "im not gay" 50 sumthin femine guy, no girlfriend, never married, ya hes not gay, ha-ha. watch him do waht he does best at 0:31, suck cock
i dont understand why it was necessary to pass a proposition to deny others what you yourself want. if you do not want to recognize a gay marriage, fine. do it in your church tho, and don't step over the line between church and state because prop 8 was clearly a breach in this separation. that's why it was ruled unconstitutional
KO is desperately trying to win an emmy to save his piece of crap show. And what better way to do it than tugging at the heart strings of the poor picked on gay community. "This is about the human heart", eeeasy stomach. KO's phony baloney delivery was so transparent that I could hardly see his feigned expressions of deep compassion, or maybe it was due to my throwing up. I need some KOpectate.
@1pt21jigawatt actually, I find his acting quite compelling. regardless of how sincere this speech was, it was still powerfully eloquent and beautiful.
@1pt21jigawatt Please cite specific examples that back up this claim or maybe a specific example that shows Olbermann feels contrary to anything that was in this speech. Olbermann can often be over the top and obnoxious but this was not one of those times. This was an excellent bit that very much shows the frustration that many of us who support LGBT rights feel when dealing with those who oppose them.
@Padmepotter4986 You asked me to cite specific examples, how about his use of the word "love". What would KO know anything about meaning of that word? For starters, he's not married (not that that has anything to do with it, but with KO I'm guessing it does). The man is devoid of showing or demonstrating kindness or compassion of any kind. Have you watched his show?
@Padmepotter4986 He spews hate speech in nearly 99.9% of the time. His maniacal demeanor gloats daily when choosing his "worst person in the world". Is there not anyone worthy of his admiration? If condescending and arrogance were music the man would be a symphony orchestra.
God is Love,and God would want his creations to preach AGAINST the Sin of Homosexuality and to turn away from it if you are doing it so you can join him in Heaven.Meanwhile,Satan encourages God's creations to justify the Sin of Homosexuality by using the "God is Love"(as though God wasnt anything else,like Wrath for instance) explanation,and get people to believe it to be ok.
KO is desperately trying to win an Emmy to save his Titanic piece of crap show, and what better way to do this than tugging at the heart strings of the poor picked on gay community. "Don't you as human beings have to embrace that love", eeeasy stomach!!! KOs delivery of this phony baloney speech was so transparent that I could hardly see his feigned expressions of deep compassion, or maybe that was due to my throwing up. I need some KOpectate.
this has moved me beyond words, i honestly sat here crying at the screen nodding my head. he has just worded everything with such a beautiful passion, in such a meaningful way that how could anyone sit here and still be against gays. he has fought their views with logic, honesty and feeling, all with the power of words. i just fell in love with him. if everyone had just an ounce of similar views to keith, this world would be an ok place.
@studentofsmith hi there - really loved your comment - great suggestion - pity they won't actually do that though but I really admire your wisdom. God bless
Let the government recognize all domestic contracts (including those currently called marriage) as civil unions. It wouldn't matter if they were between the same sex, the opposite sex or multiple people as long as everyone involved was a consenting adult. The governments only role would be to recognize and enforce any legal obligations arising out of such arrangements. The word "marriage" would no longer have any legal meaning, it would be up to the people to decide what is or isn't a marriage.
@oneflyasianguy Im not filled with hate, the guy just pissed me off. He was being mad disrespectful. I treat others the way they make me treat them. By the way im not christain:)
@PakistaniAtheist Oh I no how to spell fuck face but I choose to abbreviate the words. Piss mouth?!?!? What are we in the 70's update your vocab cab you smelly piece of shit. See people like you are a pure cancer to society, you bring more harm then benefit. I got a suggestion go kill yourself.
@bigbossmonster and you fucking suck at abbreviating words because you are the dumb trash that some poor cunt farted out in some street corner that could not even get a fucking education. Lol, people like you prove how stupid and idiotic most of humanity is. living in a cesspit of bigotry, ignorance, and false macho-man stupidity. I got a suggestion, castrate yourself so that you lose the testosterone and never have any offspring! you little piss-mouth degenerate. stay dumb, stay stupid.
@PakistaniAtheist ur still talkin?!? R U RLY STILL TALKIN? hey buddy look it suks u got rejected from Harvard get over it. now listen here pussy fuk. i hate faggots now i will hate them 2day an will die hating them. u stupid fuks nowadays r soo twisted an wrong that u dont no the difference between rite and wrong. HELLOOOOOOOOOO MAN AND MAN DONT WORK DUM ASSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS THANK GOD THAT SHITHOLE COUNTRY UR FROM GETS BOMBED ON A DAILY BASIS. FAGGOT
@calkinst You know what Im really not to sure. At the time i said those things, I really wasn't thinking. I mean don't get me wrong i still hate homosexuality with a passion in my heart, but god knows I will never harm them. But Im always up for a discussion if you'd like. Believe it or not but I actually took time out to watch the movie "milk" which was a very good movie. Knowledge is the cure for ignorance. You can't be one sided no matter how you feel. Good day to you sir or miss:)
@bigbossmonster knowledge doesn't make you less ignorant, or less stupid. knowledge isn't picking up a book and understanding the facts and figures presented to you in them. you're still an idiot, no matter what degree or job you land yourself. you're nothing more than a pathetic moron with a cold and unworthy heart. good luck with your life that is so clearly going to head nowhere.
@jjaydeeify Uh god I'd much rather talk to a retarded pony then you. Im not going to waste my breath on some backwards thinker. Homosexuality is wrong BECAUSE THEIR MEN!!!!! Any questions? Good day sir:)
@bigbossmonster it's funny because homosexuality is not "wrong" because people are born that way. if you don't acknowledge biology then God fucked up didn't he?
@bigbossmonster i cant post links on here, but they have found one. i posted a couple on your profile. ask yourself this question, in a climate of such homophobia and persecution in many areas of the world, why would anyone choose to be gay?
@hellojulie Let me save you the trouble, no such gene exists. Sorry bud but thats the facts. Why would people want to be gay despite the persecution? well why do people commit all sorts of crimes despite the harsh reaction?! Why do people dress and act certain ways despite them not fitting in?! It seems homosexuals use the appealing to emotion fallacy. Also IF their was a gay gene don't you think much more of the world would be gay then less then 10% of the worlds population?!
@bigbossmonster too bad that it does, because the side that endorses religion, doesnt really know too much about science. there is a gay gene, i cant post anything on youtube however that would prove it, so this requires RESEARCH. youre analogies are offensive and bullshit. alot of people commit crimes despite being punished because they NEED to steal in order to feed their family, or because they have a psychological disfunction that fucks them up. your statistic of ten percent is BS bc there
@hellojulie So every theif steals because he needs to feed his family?!?! Damn then All those people stealing tv's, cars, money, drugs, games, and electronics are doing this because of their families?! Look my man if I didn't know better but it seems your trying to justify theft. Also I have done research about gay genes and all I got were a bunch of bull shit THEORYS about ANIMALS. Wait weren't we talking about humans not animals?!?!?
@bigbossmonster you are so retarded its amazing. you cannot even understand my point. i did not say all theives steal for their families. if you have even bothered to take one biology class in your entire life, you would know the HUMANS ARE ANIMALS. we are mammals. we have a 98% similar genetic make up with the animals they were testing in the labs. that's how they found vaccines for illnesses, by USING ANIMALS. of course you would have to acknowledge evolution but i wont put it past you
@hellojulie yes we are both mammals and yes their is alot of similarities, but it does not mean we are the same thing. Regradless how you want to take it but the fact is no gay gene exists. You still haven't proven it.
@bigbossmonster i cant post links on youtube, and scientific theories should not be taken as a work in progress, it is basically the results of what they have found that is put forth until something else in nature is found to refute it. it's as close to a fact as you will get. Evolution is the most widely accepted theory in the world, because nothing has been or may never will be found to refute it. like the gay gene
@hellojulie gay gene is as you said only a theory not fact. It does not exist. Also you speak of evolution but again it has been ripped apart numerous times. The cambrain explosion refutes it. The fossil record refutes it. In darwins book "the orgin of species" he said that there will be billions upon billions of half in half (half horse half sheep), I ask you where are they ate?!
@bigbossmonster a scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.
@bigbossmonster those do not refute evolution at all. i would really like to see where you get your info from, because it obviously is not any valid scientific evidence. in fact, the cambrian explosion refers to the major diversification of life from relatively simple organisms, to more complicated ones due to environmental factors, hence: evolution is why it happened. please do not speak of science when you do not know anything about it. it's insulting. darwin had many aspects of his book
@hellojulie Ok, how do you explain that in the records the animals are in the same form as they were back millions of years ago? If evolution was true, how come not a single human from the begining of mankind till now has ever witnessed such an event? If evoultion be true then that means apes and monkey should not exist because we evolved from them no?
@bigbossmonster bc evolution is a slow and painstaking process for certain things. none of us today have seen a monkey evolve into a person because our species, homo sapiens, is relatively new. we have been around since the last ice age. but the earliest homo sapiens did see obvious examples of evolution. their competitors, neanderthals, died out because they could not accomplish the essential feats of survival that the homo sapiens could. we do see examples of evolution all over however if you
@bigbossmonster you look at bacteria for pulmonary tuberculosis for example, the disease causing agents were controlled after antibiotics were introduced not too long ago. however, the antibiotics did not kill all of the germs. the germs left over, reproduced and evolved to a point where antibiotics were rendered ineffective which is the reason why TB is a very big problem around the world again. that's evolution. if you go to the bahamas and observe the prey of Leiocephalus carinatus, they have
@bigbossmonster have grown longer legs in order to outrun the lizard, and were able to reproduce without fear of being wiped out. that's evolution. monkeys and apes are still around today because they are our cousins. we both came from a common ancestor, or concestor, and we broke off about 12 million years ago and went our separate ways with evolution, producing two separate species, but two very similar species. our dna matches that of an ape or monkey's by 98%
@hellojulie Man you have done your research bravo. But you still didn't answer my question: Why are animals still in the same form as they were in millions of years ago?
@bigbossmonster because evolution takes millions with multicellular complicated organisms, especially those that have survived the mechanisms of evolution like natural selection. if you were able to live now like you were able to live millions of years ago, you do not need to evolve that much, just reproduce alot
@bigbossmonster of course not. science is a complicated subject. i'd rather trust the people who follow the scientific method rather than those who read a book that dates thousands of years before people really knew about the world around them. the fossil record is overwhelming evidence of evolution anyway.
@hellojulie Um buddy all science is, is a bunch of observations, hypothesis's, and trial and error. Science has been more wrong then right. Yes thousands of people were killed by religious fanatics, but did you for get how many weapons and missiles and bombs were made from science that killed millions?! So you say you read the fossil records? Then how come the animals, millions of years ago, are in the same form?!
@bigbossmonster you idiot, i already answered that question twice now. and no, science has not been more wrong than right. it's the reason why you dont die from influenza anymore, it's the reason why we have been able to use natural resources around us and build modern civilization, it's the reason why we can understand the natural world around us instead of relying on books that only give credence to god for why floods occur. it's the basis of our civilized society, like it or not.
@hellojulie Im an idiot?! Im rather apualed by such accusations! But in all reality science killed more people then religion. NOW THATS FACT. God bless your soul:)
@bigbossmonster"science has killed people" Thats fucking retarded.People kill people not science.Furthermore since science has made killing more effecient we should abbandon it, is what your implying?Religion promotes stupidity and makes it a virtue.It holds unsubstainated belief superior to reason which is why society has turned away from traditional aspects of it.Science actually actively seeks the right answer rather than assert dogmatism.thats why religion is a societal problem.
@ScarletNight666 The christain religion you mean not all but here let me ask you something mr peaceful who created the nuke?! Religion or science? Did you know there was a period of time when science tried to prove poor people aren't worth livin g?! It's called buck v bell. I agree that their is alot of religious pshyco's but I don't think you remember what happened in the 20th century. Amazing that was the bloodiest century in mankinds history and amzing enough most of the leaders were atheists
@bigbossmonster Most leaders today are religious.So thats a load of shit."Nukes" as you call them, ended a war and discouraged future wars that would be like the first and second world war.buck v bell was about euthanizing retards not the poor.Because he thought they would likely have retarded childern and contribute very little to society Hence the term unfit form living.Athiesm is not the source of most violence,nor is science.Peoples use of technology is not the fault of science.
And to think, in as little as 50 years ago, the were laws prohibiting interracial marriages. Is anyone other than old white christian males safe from republicans?
dsspike51 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Marriage can only be between two opposite-sex persons since a man and a woman is the ONLY PAIR capable of enlarging into family. The state's legitimate reason in regulating marriage is to regulate the relationship between spouses and any children they MIGHT conceive and bear. SAME-SEX RELATIONSHIPS (ANYMORE THAN A MAN AND HIS BEAST OR A WOMAN AND HER INANIMATE OBJECT) PROVIDES NO PRINCIPLED REASON WHY THE STATE SHOULD RECOGNIZE THEIR UNION AS MARRIAGES.
magn1f1ed4u 2 months ago
Keith's comparison is offensive, and puzzling to many—not least to the nearly two-thirds of black voters who voted to uphold conjugal marriage under California Proposition Eight. What is TELLING is that SAME-SEX PARTNERSHIPS CANNOT BE MARRIAGES BECAUSE THEY LACK ANY ESSENTIAL ORIENTATION TO CHILDREN. THEIR SEXUAL UNION IS NOT GENERATIVE SEX. Indeed, in the common law tradition, only coitus (not anal or oral sex even between legally wed spouses) has been recognized as consummating a marriage.
magn1f1ed4u 2 months ago
@magn1f1ed4u So....the only purpose of marriage is procreation? If a man and woman can't medically have children, they should be forbidden?
RadarKat73080 1 month ago
@RadarKat73080 No couple can directly or simply choose to procreate. The only thing any couple can directly do regarding procreation is to perform the kind of sexual union that will lead to procreation. Opposite-sex couples who are infertile can perform precisely the same kind of sexual union that fertile couples can perform. Both couples (fertile and infertile), fulfills the behavioral conditions of procreation.
magn1f1ed4u 1 month ago
@magn1f1ed4u Have you been asleep the past few years? My wife and I had difficulty conceiving, so she took medication.
RadarKat73080 1 month ago
@RadarKat73080 "Have you been asleep the past few years? My wife and I had difficulty conceiving, so she took medication." I'm sorry, but this comment seems to imply that we know each other. At any rate, I am truly sorry for your wife's condition, however, (like I stated earlier) infertile opposite-sex couples can perform the EXACT type of sexual union that is familiarized with conceiving and bearing a child.
magn1f1ed4u 1 month ago
@RadarKat73080 The behavioral parts of the process of reproduction do not lose their dynamism toward reproduction if non-behavioral factors in the process—for example low sperm count or ovarian problems—prevent conception from occurring, even if the spouses expect this beforehand. Practically speaking, many couples believed to be infertile end up having children who would be served by their parents healthy marriage.
magn1f1ed4u 1 month ago
@RadarKat73080 In other words, even during conditions such as infertility (or if the mated pair desires not to reproduce) a system of organs within both the male and female work together for the purpose of reproduction. However much sodomy or oral sex may be considered sexual gratification they can never be considered reproductive.
magn1f1ed4u 1 month ago
@magn1f1ed4u What's wrong with gratification? Why is this even an issue? Because God hates it? God hates a LOTTA things, but people have focused more on this issue than even the Bible does, even if you buy every passage people cite as being about it. Gay marriage hurts no one, as it doesn't apply to people who aren't gay. It hurts the children? Prove it! Kids can grow up just as messed up with straight parents. I wish Christians objected to rape, murder and robbery as much!
RadarKat73080 1 month ago
@RadarKat73080 My last statement said nothing about the moral objectivity of sexual gratification. My point is if sodomy and oral sex share anything in common with coitus (male and female sexual intercourse) it is that sodomy and oral sex may be considered sexual; but sodomy and oral sex can NEVER be considered reproductive since NEITHER sodomy and/or oral sex involves the seminal emission and reception in the woman's reproductive tract.
magn1f1ed4u 1 month ago
@RadarKat73080 Underlying people's adherence to the marital norms (monogamy and fidelity) already in decline are the deep connections in their minds between marriage, coitus, and children; so same-sex "marriages" would harm the marital institution because same-sex relationships (like the relationship between a woman and her inanimate object or a man and his beast) provides no reason of moral principle to form and sustain a marriage.
magn1f1ed4u 1 month ago
@magn1f1ed4u Are you certain about that statement? Or do you believe that infidelity is on the rise because more and more famous people, athletes and politicians, are getting caught with their hand in the cookie jar? "There is nothing new under the sun," the writer of Ecclesiastes tells us.
RadarKat73080 1 month ago
@RadarKat73080 Certain social pressures (the sexual revolution, radical feminism) and legal developments (No-Fault divorce) have already worn the ties that bind spouses to each other and something beyond themselves as mere individuals in a relationship, but redefining marriage to include same-sex couples will only continue adversely effecting marriage and tear out any basis for reversing other recent trends and restoring the many social benefits of a health marriage culture.
magn1f1ed4u 1 month ago
@magn1f1ed4u It's not like guys could get outta a bad marriage by simply writing a note (Mosaic Law) or just have their wives killed (Henry VIII) Funny, but I was under the impression that human coupling predated man's knowledge of where babies came from? Tell me your head's up there for the warmth! You have failed to prove any of your claims.
RadarKat73080 1 month ago
@RadarKat73080 The norms of marriage should create conditions suitable for children: stable and harmonious conditions which are undermined by divorce-which deprives children of an intact biological family-and infidelity, which diverts one's responsibility and attention from spouse and children.
magn1f1ed4u 1 month ago
@RadarKat73080 In relationships (same-sex) that LACK an orientation to procreation it is difficult to understand how exclusivity and permanence should be INHERENTLY NORMATIVE AND DESIREABLE whenever NOT very costly. Thus, the inherent link between husband and wife to procreation provides an intelligible basis for adherence to norms of monogamy and fidelity.
magn1f1ed4u 1 month ago
@RadarKat73080 Because of its aptness for procreation, conjugal marriage is a moral reality that creates moral privileges and obligation between people independently of legal enforcement.
magn1f1ed4u 1 month ago
@magn1f1ed4u None of your comments have convinced me that same sex marriage should be outlawed and clearly I can't convince you that, so long as nobody is harmed, people should be allowed to do as they please. Which is pretty much my only goal. I don't buy people's moral objections to homosexual antagonism. There are greater evils in this world and we don't hear near as much from people claiming the moral high ground.
RadarKat73080 1 month ago
@RadarKat73080 That's fine by conceding that you don't understand how redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships is detrimental to marriage, but as I've stated earlier: in relationships (same-sex) that LACK an orientation to procreation it is difficult to understand how exclusivity and permanence should be INHERENTLY NORMATIVE AND DESIREABLE whenever NOT very costly.
magn1f1ed4u 1 month ago
@RadarKat73080 Redefining marital law to accommodate same-sex relationships would harm adults more generally insofar as the WEAKENING of social expectations SUPPORTING MARRIAGE would make it harder for adults to abide by MARITAL NORMS (exclusivity and permanence). In other words, public institutions shape our ideas, and ideas have consequences; so removing the RATIONAL BASIS for a norm will erode adherence to that norm—if not immediately, then over time.
magn1f1ed4u 1 month ago
@magn1f1ed4u It's a little late to start worrying about that! Never mind famous people, my grandfather ran out on my grandmother, my older sister had four kids by four different guys. Her dad isn't my dad. They're installing a turn style for my younger sister's NEXT wedding. Complaining that gay marriage will hurt the institution is a little like you being upset because I ran over your dog who was already dead.
RadarKat73080 1 month ago
@RadarKat73080 "It's a little late to start worrying about that!" so we don't bother in reversing so many recent trends which exacerbated social ills and further derancinate the entire marital structure even if it means depriving our children of a basic life skill? By doing so, we teach children that the only solution to every problem is to walk away from it. Does our society inculcate such attitudes about values as well?
magn1f1ed4u 1 month ago
@RadarKat73080 At any rate, lasting marriages are a reality and they were even more so before couples were allowed to UNILATERALLY dissolve their marriages. That's because social and legal developments have altered people's attitude about marriage. Various studies have shown that as a healthy marriage culture declines, the demand for state spending, social services, and government policing naturally increases.
magn1f1ed4u 1 month ago
@RadarKat73080 As stated previously, in relationships (same-sex) that LACK an orientation to procreation it is difficult to understand how exclusivity and permanence should be INHERENTLY NORMATIVE AND DESIREABLE whenever NOT very costly. In other words, if NO RATIONAL BASIS exists for marital norms of exclusivity and permanence, why bother abiding by them?
magn1f1ed4u 1 month ago
@RadarKat73080 At least for opposite-sex couples there is a rationale. Their spouse is the ONLY person by which they MAY (should they choose to) conceive, bear, and rear a child who would be served by their parents healthy marriage. To CONSUMMATE (i.e. COMPLETE) a marriage a couple MUST engage in that DISTINCT sex function (coitus) that is KNOWN to cause reproduction.
magn1f1ed4u 1 month ago
@RadarKat73080 "Complaining that gay marriage will hurt the institution is a little like you being upset because I ran over your dog who was already dead." We can't just turn our backs on this problem and NOT EXPECT this to come home and roost; indeed, in many ways, it already has...absentee fathers, declining literacy and graduation rates among children, teen and out-of-wedlock pregnancies, increased incarceration rates, etc.
magn1f1ed4u 1 month ago
@magn1f1ed4u Okay, how do you suggest we deal with these problems of which you speak? Enforce conservative morality by decree of law? Have a vice Gestapo patrolling the streets and peeking in people's windows and on-line? Do you want David Vitter, Bill O'Reilly, Newt Gingrich and Mark Sanford imposing moral laws upon us? And how would that be different from having no morality at all? Oppression is the only way you'll get to the point you want and that's why I'm opposed.
RadarKat73080 1 month ago
@RadarKat73080 "Oppression is the only way you'll get to the point you want and that's why I'm opposed" how is it that public understanding of the conjugal perception of marriage requires oppression? It's NOT about invoking social pressure the likes of a tyrant, it's about providing a DEFINITE SHAPE AND PURPOSE to marriage so that people MAY choose to live within its perimeters WITH a proper understanding (in their minds) of what constitutes a marriage.
magn1f1ed4u 1 month ago
@magn1f1ed4u And this is different from what I said how?
RadarKat73080 1 month ago
@RadarKat73080 The difference lies in the fact that there aren't “vice Gestapo patrolling the streets and peeking in people's windows and on-line” as per your last statement. Like I stated in my previous reply, same-sex "marriage" advocates understand that the state's favored conception of marriage matters because it affects society's understanding of that institution.
magn1f1ed4u 1 month ago
@RadarKat73080 What, are you insinuating that oppression and tyrannical control (the very thing you're opposed) is the only way to enforce same-sex “marriage”? In any case, this ISN'T about ELIMINATING all manners of relationships, this is about WHAT MARRIAGE IS ESSENTIALLY ABOUT? Humans may form any relationship composition they find desirable, it's just any other relationship composition SHOULD NOT be recognized as MARRIAGE.
magn1f1ed4u 1 month ago
@RadarKat73080 No one deliberates in a vacuum. We all take cues (including cues as to what marriage is and what it requires of use) from cultural norms which are shaped partly by the law. Indeed, same-sex "marriage" advocates concede this, why else would they be dissatisfied over civil unions for same-sex couples? Like us, same-sex "marriage" advocates understand that the state's favored conception of marriage matters because it affects society's understanding of that institution.
magn1f1ed4u 1 month ago
@magn1f1ed4u So? All manner of relationships existed in pretty much every society on earth. There's been co-habitation, gay relationships and mistresses/concubines even in the most Puritan societies!
RadarKat73080 1 month ago
@RadarKat73080 In fact, University of Calgary philosopher Elizabeth Brake, who supports legal recognition of relationships of any size and gender composition affirms "marriage does not simply allow access to legal entitlements; it also allows partners to signal the importance of their relationship AND TO INVOKE SOCIAL PRESSURES ON COMMITMENT." It goes without saying that a state supported marriage definition is what's at stake in this debate.
magn1f1ed4u 1 month ago
@magn1f1ed4u Like they had to accept inter-racial relationships? Still not really seeing the downside here.
RadarKat73080 1 month ago
@RadarKat73080 As in my previous posts, contrary to your claim, LAWS FORBIDDING SAME-SEX “MARRIAGES” are in NO way similar to laws forbidding interracial marriages or miscegenation. Antimiscegenation was about whom to allow to marry, NOT what marriage is essentially about. NOT ONE OPPONENT of interracial marriage EVER DENIED the fact that blacks and whites could form a distinct reproductive purpose.
magn1f1ed4u 1 month ago
@RadarKat73080 Public participation and appreciation of marriage depends on cultural norms (which are shaped partly by the law) that provide a rational explanation of what marriage is what it requires of us. With this in mind, people can properly choose marriage and live by its norms.
magn1f1ed4u 1 month ago
@RadarKat73080 With all due respect, same-sex “marriage” advocates LACK the resources to answer the challenge WHAT IS MARRIAGE or why the state should support certain features of marriage that they (same-sex “marriage” advocates) would not dispute?
magn1f1ed4u 1 month ago
@magn1f1ed4u - Agree with you entirely. Liberals like Olbermann and other supporters of same-sex "marriage' are forgetting one thing. Christians are not the problem here, but the "religion of peace" is. While many churches have become so secular, to the point where they are ordaining pro-homosexual, secular "ministers", no Muslim mosque is changing with every fad and fashion. Try having a gay "pride" parade or start a GBLT bookstore in Deerborn, Michigan, the USA's first Muslim caliphate.....
bgibb101 1 month ago
@bgibb101I'm just about complete with a video response to Keith Olbermann's tirade against California's Proposition 8. It LEVELS the very challenges Keith Olbermann sets forth against Prop 8 and/or marital law which recognizes marriage as a conjugal (husband and wife) union and demonstrates why marriage CANNOT be anything more or less than a union that is inherently opposite-sex and monogamous.
magn1f1ed4u 1 month ago
@RadarKat73080 So depriving marriage of a definite shape (opposite-sex couples) is to deprive it of a definite purpose (who make a permanent and exclusive commitment to each other of the type that is naturally fulfilled by bearing and rearing children (should the couple DESIRE to conceive children)). By including same-sex couples in marital law, the state risks distorting public understanding of marriage.
magn1f1ed4u 1 month ago
@RadarKat73080 Since the sexual union of same-sex couples (like that of a woman and her animate object or a man and his beast) lack an orientation to procreation, the legal definition of marriage will shift to marriage being about the subjective preferences of those involved. People understand that since same-sex couples CANNOT (at any time) procreate, then no other reason exists to continue abiding by marriage's norms of exclusivity and permanence.
magn1f1ed4u 1 month ago
@RadarKat73080 People will then continue forming (in two for now) domestic partnerships for romantic-sexual partners with little intention of entering and sustaining a marriage. And various studies have shown that as a healthy marriage culture declines, state spending, policing, and social services increases.
magn1f1ed4u 1 month ago
@RadarKat73080 That's because marital norms create conditions suitable for children: stable and harmonious conditions that are undermined by divorce—which deprives children of an intact biological family—and by infidelity, which betrays and divides one's attention and responsibility to spouse and children.
magn1f1ed4u 1 month ago
@magn1f1ed4u - The entire concept of same-sex "marriage" is preposterous. This entire argument has absolutely nothing to do with anybody's "rights." It is merely another heterosexual institution for militant homosexuals to destroy in order to make a statement. In essence, same-sex "marriage" is about legitimizing lifestyle. Period. Also, liberals forget that the USA is taking in over a million immigrants a year that come from countries where homosexuality is viewed with absolute disgust...
bgibb101 1 month ago
@RadarKat73080 A society uses its legal system not only to punish but to convey its values, both to itself and to the next generation and any principle that would justify the legal recognition of same‐sex relationships would also justify the legal recognition of polyamorous and non‐sexual ones.
magn1f1ed4u 1 month ago
Keith Olbermann's claim is an EPIC failure...throughout history, no society's laws have explicitly forbidden gay marriage because, until recently, it has not been thought possible. ANTIMISCEGENATION LAWS, AT LEAST IN THE UNITED STATES, WERE MEANT TO KEEP BLACKS SEPARATE FROM WHITES, and thus in a position of social, economic, and political inferiority to them; but TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE LAWS WERE NOT DEVISED TO OPPRESS THOSE WITH SAME-SEX ATTRACTIONS.
magn1f1ed4u 2 months ago
Comment removed
magn1f1ed4u 2 months ago
Comment removed
TimPags 3 months ago
under the first clause of the first amendment, guarantees the right of gay marriage. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." the politicians say it's because these gay marriages don't contribute to the population, is only a mask, their true reason for being against gay marriage is their GOD DAMN (yes, HIS "name" used in vain was intended) religion.
Zeldagigafan90210 3 months ago
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" this means that anti-gay laws are unconstitutional.
hypothetically, if I'm gay, I will fight for it, maybe even falsifying the state documentation of marriage, if there even is any thing that must exist. I've made my commitment to my male partner, and no certificate should show it. marriages shouldn't be a state matter, or social matter, it's a PERSONAL matter.
Zeldagigafan90210 3 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Keith Olbermann You make me want to vomit... I am so glad you off MSNBC! Big stinkin liberal...
Rockioe 7 months ago
No one chooses what gender they are attracted to, we are simply born that way.
gaychristianandproud 8 months ago
I think he deserves a movie style slow clap for this.
Bjtafoya7 8 months ago 4
Everyone should be given the right to be married. We all deserve a chance at, love and happines, no matter our sexual orientations. If you dont want to get married to a member of the same sex DONT, If you dont want to marry someone of the opposite gender DONT. It's Highly ilogical that God, the one that loves us unconditionaly, would call us "sinners" and send us off to hell where we would forever suffer until the end of time....just because of who we want to spend the rest of uor lives with...
TheSuperiorMind 8 months ago
Protect marriage? Puhlease. With a 50 percent divorce rate, rampant domestic violence, Las Vegas drive-through chapels, and I wanna-marry-a-really-rich-guy reality TV shows, there's no way gays could trash marriage the way straight people have. ~ Good Times, Santa Cruz County News
aixelsydyslexia 8 months ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I don't hate Blacks or Gays but people are not born Gay. Homosexuality is a sin but being black isn't.
playEADG1 8 months ago
@playEADG1 You keep saying that people aren't born gay, but have you ever really stopped to think about that for even thirty seconds or are you just repeating what other people have told you? Did YOU wake up one day and decide to be straight? If so, does that mean you could have honestly gone either way until you made that decision? Seriously man, THINK about what you say before you say it.
abracadaverous 8 months ago
His points on Black Marriage are flawed because being black isn't a sin.
playEADG1 8 months ago
@playEADG1 people are born black and born gay, think thats the point ... just an fyi
HelplessPeon 8 months ago
Great man...
angerock49 9 months ago
@FalconCrestlover73 you just copy and pasted an incoherent assemblance of randomness totally irrelevant to the conversation at hand. in fact, your first post specifically says that "no specific civil ceremonoy was required". do you understand what civil means? it means pertaining to the state. therefore, marriage in ancient greece did not pertain to the state. what exactly did you think you were proving?
Danro05 11 months ago
@FalconCrestlover73 you sound like you're making this up. greece specifically viewed marriage as anti-civil, the state didn't even have to know that a man and a woman were married, far from a "legal institution". no matter where you or I believe it started, it is the general consensus of historians that marriage was an invention of a religion, whichever religion you or I believe it was is irrelevant because I can assure you it didn't allow same sex marriages.
Danro05 11 months ago
@FalconCrestlover73 its not a legal institution its a religious institution recognized legally. history's earliest records of marriage are that of a judeo-christian background. saying that marriage is inherently secular demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of its known history.
Danro05 11 months ago
He held a presence similar to Murrow, very passionate but very realistic, especially with the quote of a poet and the Goodnight and Good Luck comment at the end.
FascistKingDave 1 year ago
You are what you are. Straight or gay is not something you or anyone else has any control over or can ever choose to change. There is no choice in matters of sexual atteaction. Being a self-righteous, judgmental asshole, however, was your God damn choice!
The sadistic part of all this BS is the demends placed on gays and lesbians to CHNAGE, which is impossible. Has a gay person ever made such demands of someone who happens to be heterosexual? Why ask sacrifices only of OTHERS? Would JESUS?
schlummieleinchen 1 year ago
I think this is the most beautiful thing i have ever heard.
vikalik 1 year ago
What is there to believe in,if you dont believe in something,you will fall for anything,Marriage=man+woman!!!!!!!
hamps88 1 year ago
@hamps88 Marriage wasn't made a sacrament until the 12th Century. Originally in most cultures the main focus of marriage was to bind families together, to create social bonds that were understood by the community, and to provide economic and social support of families by creating alliances between different families. Marriages in different cultures ranged from man-woman to men-woman to women-man to men-women, to woman-woman and much more. Gay couples and their families deserve CIVIL MARRIAGE..
ersaamen 1 year ago 12
This has been flagged as spam show
you---sir---no longer have a job b/c you---sir---are so disgustingly biased that not even the kind of people who are willing to associate themselves with msnbc want to listen to your slanderous rantings. furthermore---sir---no one has forgotten that you lost your previous sports reporting career b/c you were fired for sexual harassment.
CornFedArmen 1 year ago
Olbermann expresses this not as a pundit but as equal rights activist. We will be on the winning side of history. You can mark these words! We will win in our endeavors. Gays will eventually be allowed equal rights. Although we may differ, the ties that bind are stronger than the rhetoric and hate that divides. If you are a believer in god, than you should believe we are all created equal. Do not use those holy teachings to divide us as a people, for we are all one. Let love be.
ofenimore375 1 year ago
If he has such a problem with Democracy and Christianity, maybe he shold move to Iran, or North Korea.
jogeryjogo 1 year ago
@jogeryjogo Explain please. How is your suggestion at all Christian or Democratic?
JimHinCO 1 year ago
@jogeryjogo he's christian and democratic...
msav111 1 year ago
@msav111 lol, olbermann could never be confused as a christian, i have no idea where you got that idea.
Danro05 11 months ago
Watch the documentary *8: The Mormon Proposition* if you want to understand what happened really.
tosan1 1 year ago
@wiltingplant: It is not for us to judge, but for God to do so and while on this earth, we must remember that we do not judge and cannot be judge. Our only task while here is to work on becoming better people in our hearts and our souls; the act of denying others is counter to the work we have been given to do. We must give freely of our generosity and hope; in doing so, we do God's work. To use God to justify the belittling of your fellow man is to misunderstand and misuse God to your own ends.
jessinoan 1 year ago
Wow.
SeeThinkFall 1 year ago
He's right -- *if and only if* we are approaching life from the perspective that it's all about us and how we feel rather than about God and doing His work. I am absolutely all for people being happy -- but we are not the best judges of what will make us happy. God has already said His part on this; my choice is to figure that He knows better and go with it. Would it be easier for me to just say "heck, no big deal" to my gay friends? Absolutely. Unfortunately, God doesn't leave that option.
wiltingplant 1 year ago
@wiltingplant Since life ought not be approached from a me perspective but a God perspective, the right question is "How does God feel about this?" There are many topics which the Bible isn't specific on, but this one is dead center -- God abhors homosexuality. Since I am not omniscient and ever-gracious, I can only see the immediate benefits of voting against such a measure and cannot fully explain why precisely God has chosen to condemn the practice. We must remember that God's way is best.
wiltingplant 1 year ago
@wiltingplant Slight problem with that approach, buddy: not everyone in America believes in God. And of those who do, there are those like myself who think those portions of the Bible are archaic bullshit, along with the pro-slavery and stoning bits. And the Bill of Rights gives us the right to think that.
So...no, the religious approach won't work.
Mperce 1 year ago
@wiltingplant Where in the world are you getting that God abhors homosexuality?
JimHinCO 1 year ago
this man is awesome!
Fuumasfrog 1 year ago
one of the Great Americans
jags1972 1 year ago
Dramatic, but fuck me if only more people thought and spoke like this. Prop 8 supporters need to see this. And they need to honestly answer
FrankBiggle 1 year ago 28
I don't like Olbermann, but his talking points, is spot on. I really don't care if people are gay. I hope someday, they can wed like the rest of us!!!
dkatz1964 1 year ago
As one who swam on both Sides of the River, I appreciate this Comment.
ReezeGoingSenseless 1 year ago
I love what Keith said here, I think he misused the word "semantical", but overall this comment is beautiful.
espenshade55 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
4 minutes ago TRUE STORY : olberman was dumped by laura ingrahm when she walked in on him on his kness blowing a nfl player. he is the worst type of faggot, in the closet and champion of queers ya he says "im not gay" 50 sumthin femine guy, no girlfriend, never married, ya hes not gay, ha-ha. watch him do waht he does best at 0:31, suck cock
salem293 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
4 minutes ago TRUE STORY : olberman was dumped by laura ingrahm when she walked in on him on his kness blowing a nfl player. he is the worst type of faggot, in the closet and champion of queers ya he says "im not gay" 50 sumthin femine guy, no girlfriend, never married, ya hes not gay, ha-ha. watch him do waht he does best at 0:31, suck cock
salem293 1 year ago
Comment removed
salem293 1 year ago
One of his finest. If there was a god I would that he would bless Mr. Olbermann.
ajuanhijo 1 year ago
i dont understand why it was necessary to pass a proposition to deny others what you yourself want. if you do not want to recognize a gay marriage, fine. do it in your church tho, and don't step over the line between church and state because prop 8 was clearly a breach in this separation. that's why it was ruled unconstitutional
hellojulie 1 year ago
KO is desperately trying to win an emmy to save his piece of crap show. And what better way to do it than tugging at the heart strings of the poor picked on gay community. "This is about the human heart", eeeasy stomach. KO's phony baloney delivery was so transparent that I could hardly see his feigned expressions of deep compassion, or maybe it was due to my throwing up. I need some KOpectate.
1pt21jigawatt 1 year ago
@1pt21jigawatt actually, I find his acting quite compelling. regardless of how sincere this speech was, it was still powerfully eloquent and beautiful.
doonuter 1 year ago
@doonuter I'm glad you enjoyed the KOol-aid.
1pt21jigawatt 1 year ago
@1pt21jigawatt Please cite specific examples that back up this claim or maybe a specific example that shows Olbermann feels contrary to anything that was in this speech. Olbermann can often be over the top and obnoxious but this was not one of those times. This was an excellent bit that very much shows the frustration that many of us who support LGBT rights feel when dealing with those who oppose them.
Padmepotter4986 1 year ago
Comment removed
1pt21jigawatt 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Padmepotter4986 You asked me to cite specific examples, how about his use of the word "love". What would KO know anything about meaning of that word? For starters, he's not married (not that that has anything to do with it, but with KO I'm guessing it does). The man is devoid of showing or demonstrating kindness or compassion of any kind. Have you watched his show?
1pt21jigawatt 1 year ago
@Padmepotter4986 He spews hate speech in nearly 99.9% of the time. His maniacal demeanor gloats daily when choosing his "worst person in the world". Is there not anyone worthy of his admiration? If condescending and arrogance were music the man would be a symphony orchestra.
1pt21jigawatt 1 year ago
@1pt21jigawatt He dropped the "Worst Person" segment because of Jon Stewart's rally.
SocialistAmerican 1 year ago
God is Love,and God would want his creations to preach AGAINST the Sin of Homosexuality and to turn away from it if you are doing it so you can join him in Heaven.Meanwhile,Satan encourages God's creations to justify the Sin of Homosexuality by using the "God is Love"(as though God wasnt anything else,like Wrath for instance) explanation,and get people to believe it to be ok.
God has created a worthy adversary in the Devil.
liw213 1 year ago
@liw213 people like you are the source of all the suffering our world endures. Your god is the only sin I know of.
doonuter 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@liw213
You are the cancer killing this country.
MAYHEM8231 1 year ago
@liw213 too bad people are born gay.
hellojulie 1 year ago
Simply Brilliant...
linam73 1 year ago 2
Travel around the world with an Latino women rockmycity.info
wrrnlam 1 year ago
KO is desperately trying to win an Emmy to save his Titanic piece of crap show, and what better way to do this than tugging at the heart strings of the poor picked on gay community. "Don't you as human beings have to embrace that love", eeeasy stomach!!! KOs delivery of this phony baloney speech was so transparent that I could hardly see his feigned expressions of deep compassion, or maybe that was due to my throwing up. I need some KOpectate.
martidw 1 year ago
this has moved me beyond words, i honestly sat here crying at the screen nodding my head. he has just worded everything with such a beautiful passion, in such a meaningful way that how could anyone sit here and still be against gays. he has fought their views with logic, honesty and feeling, all with the power of words. i just fell in love with him. if everyone had just an ounce of similar views to keith, this world would be an ok place.
jjaydeeify 1 year ago
@Squmbumf24 Well said
WerewolfOfTheWater 1 year ago
its not like gays can reproduce
bigem9999 1 year ago
@Squmbumf24 what's pure sense please to god explain to me what it is?!?!
bigbossmonster 1 year ago
apparently, black people don't recognize the similarity
retownsend 1 year ago
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahohohohohohohohohoeheheheheheheheheheharharharharharhohohohohoho!
And Olberman, you are gay.
JimFromWaterford 1 year ago
@studentofsmith hi there - really loved your comment - great suggestion - pity they won't actually do that though but I really admire your wisdom. God bless
bagospannerz 1 year ago
Let the government recognize all domestic contracts (including those currently called marriage) as civil unions. It wouldn't matter if they were between the same sex, the opposite sex or multiple people as long as everyone involved was a consenting adult. The governments only role would be to recognize and enforce any legal obligations arising out of such arrangements. The word "marriage" would no longer have any legal meaning, it would be up to the people to decide what is or isn't a marriage.
studentofsmith 1 year ago
755 PEOPLE WHO DISLIKE THIS ARE BIEBER FANS
Hur
Dur
LolCaramelz 1 year ago
Could you two just not talk to each other please?
jordanai 1 year ago
faggots an their bitch supporters should all die. i cant wait until the earth swallows u faggots up. like what happened in morroco 1969 bing it
bigbossmonster 1 year ago
@bigbossmonster
why are White Christians so filled with hate and vitriol?
oneflyasianguy 1 year ago
@oneflyasianguy Im not filled with hate, the guy just pissed me off. He was being mad disrespectful. I treat others the way they make me treat them. By the way im not christain:)
bigbossmonster 1 year ago
@bigbossmonster learn how to fucking spell first you degenerate piss-mouth!
PakistaniAtheist 1 year ago
@PakistaniAtheist Oh I no how to spell fuck face but I choose to abbreviate the words. Piss mouth?!?!? What are we in the 70's update your vocab cab you smelly piece of shit. See people like you are a pure cancer to society, you bring more harm then benefit. I got a suggestion go kill yourself.
bigbossmonster 1 year ago
@bigbossmonster and you fucking suck at abbreviating words because you are the dumb trash that some poor cunt farted out in some street corner that could not even get a fucking education. Lol, people like you prove how stupid and idiotic most of humanity is. living in a cesspit of bigotry, ignorance, and false macho-man stupidity. I got a suggestion, castrate yourself so that you lose the testosterone and never have any offspring! you little piss-mouth degenerate. stay dumb, stay stupid.
PakistaniAtheist 1 year ago
@PakistaniAtheist ur still talkin?!? R U RLY STILL TALKIN? hey buddy look it suks u got rejected from Harvard get over it. now listen here pussy fuk. i hate faggots now i will hate them 2day an will die hating them. u stupid fuks nowadays r soo twisted an wrong that u dont no the difference between rite and wrong. HELLOOOOOOOOOO MAN AND MAN DONT WORK DUM ASSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS THANK GOD THAT SHITHOLE COUNTRY UR FROM GETS BOMBED ON A DAILY BASIS. FAGGOT
bigbossmonster 1 year ago
@bigbossmonster you should really seek some help for your anger issues
idaman12345 1 year ago
@idaman12345 Im not an angry person, im a rather happy person:) good day to you sir
bigbossmonster 1 year ago
@bigbossmonster thats not what i got from your posts
idaman12345 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@idaman12345 See someone like you I have no choice but to respect and talk kindly to you.
bigbossmonster 1 year ago
@bigbossmonster theres a place in hell god is saving for you........r u ready?
mps929 1 year ago
@mps929 To the contrary good sir, Im shooting for heaven:)
bigbossmonster 1 year ago
@bigbossmonster im confused, are you making these comments simply to get a reaction from people or are you really this angry. just curious
calkinst 1 year ago
@calkinst You know what Im really not to sure. At the time i said those things, I really wasn't thinking. I mean don't get me wrong i still hate homosexuality with a passion in my heart, but god knows I will never harm them. But Im always up for a discussion if you'd like. Believe it or not but I actually took time out to watch the movie "milk" which was a very good movie. Knowledge is the cure for ignorance. You can't be one sided no matter how you feel. Good day to you sir or miss:)
bigbossmonster 1 year ago
@bigbossmonster knowledge doesn't make you less ignorant, or less stupid. knowledge isn't picking up a book and understanding the facts and figures presented to you in them. you're still an idiot, no matter what degree or job you land yourself. you're nothing more than a pathetic moron with a cold and unworthy heart. good luck with your life that is so clearly going to head nowhere.
jjaydeeify 1 year ago
@jjaydeeify Uh god I'd much rather talk to a retarded pony then you. Im not going to waste my breath on some backwards thinker. Homosexuality is wrong BECAUSE THEIR MEN!!!!! Any questions? Good day sir:)
bigbossmonster 1 year ago
@bigbossmonster it's funny because homosexuality is not "wrong" because people are born that way. if you don't acknowledge biology then God fucked up didn't he?
hellojulie 1 year ago
@hellojulie Show me proof of a gay gene. Homosexuality is a choice period, a sick choice, but nonetheless a choice.
bigbossmonster 1 year ago
@bigbossmonster i cant post links on here, but they have found one. i posted a couple on your profile. ask yourself this question, in a climate of such homophobia and persecution in many areas of the world, why would anyone choose to be gay?
hellojulie 1 year ago
@hellojulie Let me save you the trouble, no such gene exists. Sorry bud but thats the facts. Why would people want to be gay despite the persecution? well why do people commit all sorts of crimes despite the harsh reaction?! Why do people dress and act certain ways despite them not fitting in?! It seems homosexuals use the appealing to emotion fallacy. Also IF their was a gay gene don't you think much more of the world would be gay then less then 10% of the worlds population?!
bigbossmonster 1 year ago
@bigbossmonster too bad that it does, because the side that endorses religion, doesnt really know too much about science. there is a gay gene, i cant post anything on youtube however that would prove it, so this requires RESEARCH. youre analogies are offensive and bullshit. alot of people commit crimes despite being punished because they NEED to steal in order to feed their family, or because they have a psychological disfunction that fucks them up. your statistic of ten percent is BS bc there
hellojulie 1 year ago
@hellojulie So every theif steals because he needs to feed his family?!?! Damn then All those people stealing tv's, cars, money, drugs, games, and electronics are doing this because of their families?! Look my man if I didn't know better but it seems your trying to justify theft. Also I have done research about gay genes and all I got were a bunch of bull shit THEORYS about ANIMALS. Wait weren't we talking about humans not animals?!?!?
bigbossmonster 1 year ago
@bigbossmonster you are so retarded its amazing. you cannot even understand my point. i did not say all theives steal for their families. if you have even bothered to take one biology class in your entire life, you would know the HUMANS ARE ANIMALS. we are mammals. we have a 98% similar genetic make up with the animals they were testing in the labs. that's how they found vaccines for illnesses, by USING ANIMALS. of course you would have to acknowledge evolution but i wont put it past you
hellojulie 1 year ago
@hellojulie yes we are both mammals and yes their is alot of similarities, but it does not mean we are the same thing. Regradless how you want to take it but the fact is no gay gene exists. You still haven't proven it.
bigbossmonster 1 year ago
@bigbossmonster i cant post links on youtube, and scientific theories should not be taken as a work in progress, it is basically the results of what they have found that is put forth until something else in nature is found to refute it. it's as close to a fact as you will get. Evolution is the most widely accepted theory in the world, because nothing has been or may never will be found to refute it. like the gay gene
hellojulie 1 year ago
@hellojulie gay gene is as you said only a theory not fact. It does not exist. Also you speak of evolution but again it has been ripped apart numerous times. The cambrain explosion refutes it. The fossil record refutes it. In darwins book "the orgin of species" he said that there will be billions upon billions of half in half (half horse half sheep), I ask you where are they ate?!
bigbossmonster 1 year ago
@bigbossmonster a scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.
hellojulie 1 year ago
@bigbossmonster those do not refute evolution at all. i would really like to see where you get your info from, because it obviously is not any valid scientific evidence. in fact, the cambrian explosion refers to the major diversification of life from relatively simple organisms, to more complicated ones due to environmental factors, hence: evolution is why it happened. please do not speak of science when you do not know anything about it. it's insulting. darwin had many aspects of his book
hellojulie 1 year ago
@hellojulie Ok, how do you explain that in the records the animals are in the same form as they were back millions of years ago? If evolution was true, how come not a single human from the begining of mankind till now has ever witnessed such an event? If evoultion be true then that means apes and monkey should not exist because we evolved from them no?
bigbossmonster 1 year ago
@bigbossmonster bc evolution is a slow and painstaking process for certain things. none of us today have seen a monkey evolve into a person because our species, homo sapiens, is relatively new. we have been around since the last ice age. but the earliest homo sapiens did see obvious examples of evolution. their competitors, neanderthals, died out because they could not accomplish the essential feats of survival that the homo sapiens could. we do see examples of evolution all over however if you
hellojulie 1 year ago
@bigbossmonster you look at bacteria for pulmonary tuberculosis for example, the disease causing agents were controlled after antibiotics were introduced not too long ago. however, the antibiotics did not kill all of the germs. the germs left over, reproduced and evolved to a point where antibiotics were rendered ineffective which is the reason why TB is a very big problem around the world again. that's evolution. if you go to the bahamas and observe the prey of Leiocephalus carinatus, they have
hellojulie 1 year ago
@bigbossmonster have grown longer legs in order to outrun the lizard, and were able to reproduce without fear of being wiped out. that's evolution. monkeys and apes are still around today because they are our cousins. we both came from a common ancestor, or concestor, and we broke off about 12 million years ago and went our separate ways with evolution, producing two separate species, but two very similar species. our dna matches that of an ape or monkey's by 98%
hellojulie 1 year ago
@hellojulie Man you have done your research bravo. But you still didn't answer my question: Why are animals still in the same form as they were in millions of years ago?
bigbossmonster 1 year ago
@bigbossmonster because evolution takes millions with multicellular complicated organisms, especially those that have survived the mechanisms of evolution like natural selection. if you were able to live now like you were able to live millions of years ago, you do not need to evolve that much, just reproduce alot
hellojulie 1 year ago
@hellojulie i have no clue what you mean. Just open up the fossil record an boom the truth shall set you free.
bigbossmonster 1 year ago
@bigbossmonster of course not. science is a complicated subject. i'd rather trust the people who follow the scientific method rather than those who read a book that dates thousands of years before people really knew about the world around them. the fossil record is overwhelming evidence of evolution anyway.
hellojulie 1 year ago
@hellojulie Um buddy all science is, is a bunch of observations, hypothesis's, and trial and error. Science has been more wrong then right. Yes thousands of people were killed by religious fanatics, but did you for get how many weapons and missiles and bombs were made from science that killed millions?! So you say you read the fossil records? Then how come the animals, millions of years ago, are in the same form?!
bigbossmonster 1 year ago
@bigbossmonster you idiot, i already answered that question twice now. and no, science has not been more wrong than right. it's the reason why you dont die from influenza anymore, it's the reason why we have been able to use natural resources around us and build modern civilization, it's the reason why we can understand the natural world around us instead of relying on books that only give credence to god for why floods occur. it's the basis of our civilized society, like it or not.
hellojulie 1 year ago
@hellojulie Im an idiot?! Im rather apualed by such accusations! But in all reality science killed more people then religion. NOW THATS FACT. God bless your soul:)
bigbossmonster 1 year ago
@bigbossmonster"science has killed people" Thats fucking retarded.People kill people not science.Furthermore since science has made killing more effecient we should abbandon it, is what your implying?Religion promotes stupidity and makes it a virtue.It holds unsubstainated belief superior to reason which is why society has turned away from traditional aspects of it.Science actually actively seeks the right answer rather than assert dogmatism.thats why religion is a societal problem.
ScarletNight666 1 year ago
@ScarletNight666 The christain religion you mean not all but here let me ask you something mr peaceful who created the nuke?! Religion or science? Did you know there was a period of time when science tried to prove poor people aren't worth livin g?! It's called buck v bell. I agree that their is alot of religious pshyco's but I don't think you remember what happened in the 20th century. Amazing that was the bloodiest century in mankinds history and amzing enough most of the leaders were atheists
bigbossmonster 1 year ago
@bigbossmonster Most leaders today are religious.So thats a load of shit."Nukes" as you call them, ended a war and discouraged future wars that would be like the first and second world war.buck v bell was about euthanizing retards not the poor.Because he thought they would likely have retarded childern and contribute very little to society Hence the term unfit form living.Athiesm is not the source of most violence,nor is science.Peoples use of technology is not the fault of science.
ScarletNight666 1 year ago