Even though I don't agree with you on the gay marriage thing, I do agree wit you on how some of the gays are being nasty to others like the Mormons and that's not right. It's uncalled for to go and desecrate someone's church over an issue like this.
I was going to make a video bringing up many of the same points but this guy did a great job. You don't have to be religious to oppose gay marriage.
Sad thing is I appreciate a lot about Olbermann, taking on Fox and Bush/Cheny and a lot of their related crap. But he screwed up with his stupid pro-gay marriage rant.
Homosexuality is a sexuality, thus it's neither a 'lifestyle' nor a 'choice'. I appreciate that you are all for civil unions, but this special comment in the sidebar shows that you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
This is not what marriage is about, it's what is the definition of marriage. It is the definition which so many are attempting to change. The definition of marriage is a union between one man and one woman.
That's it, all the rest is fluff. People get married everyday who don't know what love is, so the definition is NOT love.
Watch the video again, and take notes if necessary.
thank you for responding. I get what you're saying now, but I have a few more questions:
Why does the definition of marriage have to be so concrete and unyielding? Tons of other words and institutions have undergone changes in definiton as necessitated by changes in societal norms, why not marriage? And hasn't the definition of marriage changed before? What makes our current definition so definitive?
I feel that the definition of marriage has in fact changed, but semantics are impossible to discuss so I'll move on. The idea of marriage as a union to help society perpetuate itself is a valid point, but marriage is indeed more than that. What harm would come by allowing two men or women to form a legal union on the basis of love? I'm running out of characters, so I'll continue this in a separate comment box.
I realize that there are civil unions, but in many states they don't offer the same rights as marriage, and even if they did, as we learned from the civil rights movement, the concept of "separate but equal" is just bigoted as outright discrimination, and I'm not talking about everyday discrimination, I'm talking about the kind of discrimination that denies certain rights and privileges to human beings who were born different than the majority.
notice: olbermann said: "...and uncountable in our history are the number of men and women forced by society into marrying the opposite sex in sham marriages, marriages of convenience, or just marriages of not knowing."
i think he's aware of the fact that people that are not in love do in fact, get married.
@cammie29 If that is true, why did Keith base his entire premise on "Love"? Because he wanted to skew the debate which is about the DEFINITION of marriage. He knew what he was doing and tried to turn it into an emotional diatribe.
The definition of marriage is a union between one man and one woman.
Marriage can be ABOUT anything. Money, legal status, social status, people get married for a huge variety of reasons, even insecurity, lonliness and fear. Just as divorce can be about anything.
But we're talking about the legal definition of marriage.
Let me ask you, when a man and a woman get married, are they required to prove they are in love? No!
What is the litmus test for marriage if it's not love? Is it Penis+Vagina = marriage?
Gay couples do NOT have the same rights as straight couples. If one gay partner is injured, the other has no right to know medically how he/she is doing.
Congratulations for the Ad Hominem referencing Keith's marital status; it shows you have no real ammo.
You didn't bring up God?? Where does the original definition of marriage come from that shouldn't be changed?
"The original definition comes from God, but I defeated Keith's spin without having to reference God."
And what god might that be? Your "Christian" god? Not everyone is a Christian, and you can't put religion into legislation because it'll isolate jews, muslims, bhuddist, RATIONAL THINKING PEOPLE.
"Dude, you fail! "
Easy enough to counter: I know YOU do, but what do I?
Not everyone is a Christian, but more than 90% of the population considers themselves Christian, which is why gay marriage has been shot down so much across the Country.
You see, we are a Republic. As such, our votes count. As such, being able to tear apart the definition of marriage to accomodate a tiny percentage of the population doesn't fly, won't fly, can't fly.
We were founded as a free country, allowing people to believe how they want without a tyrannical government enforcing arbitrary morals on the masses. You study history very much? Didn't think so.
We are a republic, yeah, but that doesn't give the majority a right to take freedom away from the minority. By banning gay marriage, you could violate my first amendment right for freedom of religion.
I'm done? No, you haven't won, nor will you ever. Go away now. You are why the U.S. sucks.
Gays are free to engage anyway they like, are they not?
Take freedom? who is taking freedom? Last I looked, marriage was a union between a man and a woman. This sounds more like a tiny minority attempting to destroy the very foundations of marriage. Also last I looked, sex is NOT a religion.
You say the US sucks, but still you stay. MMmmm. You are free to go.
It's not about winning, it's about sharing ideals and values, we just differ in the extreme. Welcome to America!
The lack of that "privilege" has nothing to do with them being gay but due to them being unrelated.
In any case private contracts can be made to reconcile this issue.
As for the definitions origin, it is rooted in biology. Different cultures who share no theological heritage define marriage as between members of the opposite sex.
Either the whole of humanity before the 20th century were bigots toward gays or the definition of marriage emerged due to other reasons.
@earwasel2 Wow, a bit of twisted warping going on here. We are talking about the DEFINITION of marriage. Love is not in the definition. It is a union between one man and one woman. A gay man and a gay woman are more than welcome to marry. So there is no discrimination. I'm all for civil unions for precisely the points you make by the way.
Good solid commentary. I don't really care if a man marriesa man or if a woman marries a woman. It does not take any of the value out of my own marriage.
I was married 3 years after ss marriage was legalized in my country, and there is nothing less about my marriage than anyone elses. I look up at my wedding certificate every night, and all i can think is how can letting a nice couple who's been together 30 years have one of those with their names on it going to change a thing? fact is it doesn't change anything about my marriage, all it does is allow them some security and the same status in society as me.
this guy is an idiot. says that marriage is not about love, marriage, happiness or rights, so what exactly is marriage? and YES marriage is a right (at least it should be) and it even says so in the Decleration of Human Rights and Freedoms from the UN that men and women have a right to marriage and family.
Watch it again - the DEFINITION of marriage is not love or happiness - moron.
The UN? Since when does the UN dictate American law? You can't spell. You're attempting to apply meaningless UN crap to American law, and you're calling me an idiot?
Sorry, but you just set yourself out there!
Plus, gays can marry - no discrimination, they just have to be male and female. That is the DEFINITION of marriage.
No you are right, i can't spell right now, i'm working a 12 hour over night shift with very little sleep, sorry for the typo's. The US is part of the UN, so maybe they should at least try to give equal rights to people, just a thought. The definition of marriage has changed many times, it used to be that black could get married, they just had to marry another black person. I support equal rights, equal protection without discrimination. what do you support?
No, the US is a member of the UN. Nevertheless, the UN does not dictate policy or laws in our country. We have the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights for that.
I support equal rights and protection, two gays can still marry, they just have to be male and female!
By the way, race was an addendum to marriage in some States, it did NOT alter the definition of marriage - which has remained the same for centuries.
yup and the consitution says that "all men are created equal" not all straight men. (last time i checked anyways). You can say that the definition or marriage hasn't changed and then say that it's always been a man and a woman, that is the same argument used against allowing interracial marriage. One day you will look back and see how silly this was. A marriage is a legal contract made by two consenting adults, and to disallow one person to enter into it based on their gender is discrimination
BECAUSE A DOG IS NOT ABLE TO CONSENT AS THEY ARE NOT HUMAN! my god you people always jump to "then someone would want to marry an animal" - lets not get off subject with my prochoice stance please. - and YES i am a supporter of plural marriages, there is nothing illegal about a man having 1 wife and 10 mistresses on the side, but god forbid we should allow him to be held to a standard to them. - and gay marriage can be added on top of the definition it won't change it.
This whole concept of "that's the way it's been for thousands of years" is so amazingly rediculous! slavery was around for thousands of years, womans oppression, lack of medical treatment, oppression of science, oppression of religions. lets just always keep things the same as they've always been and never progress and never change or evolve because that would be bad. get a grip
just because something has been that way for a long times doesn't make it right. - so women made themselves unable to vote, or own property or have jobs? ONCE again, why don't you address my point on those people who are not either fully male or fully female? they are intersexed.(so what rights could they have?) - ALSO disallowing someone to enter into a legal contract (such as marriage) based on their gender is against the law due to gender equality laws and rights!
I would say they need to make up their own minds on what they are. I guess they would have the right to enjoy self-sex eh?
Lastly, the vast majority of Americans are heterosexual, I don't see why the majority needs to twist institutions beyond recognition to accomodate a very small minority of the population.
I also live somewhere where that isn't the definition of marriage, how do you account for that? there is not just ONE definition of marriage. We also live in a world where gender is in question more often than ppl think, there are intersexed people i think it is every 1 in 10,000 as well as transgendered people. so even the definition of male and female is not as clear cut as people would like to believe.
The Definition of marriage: A union between one man and one woman. This has been the definition for centuries in America and thousands of years around the world. It is what it is.
I agree, if a male becomes a female physically, he ceases to be a male and should be considered fully woman. I'm fine with that. I'm fine with people living whatever way suits them.
I am not fine with trashing the very definition of marriage to accomodate people far outside that definition.
well it is NOT the definition of marriage where I live (Canada), nor is it the definition in: Sweden
Norway
Netherlands (Holland)
Belgium
Spain
South Africa Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, and Vermont. and those performed in California for a short time are still recognized as legal. > no one is trashing the definition of marriage, those who trash marriage are the ones who support divorce. What about the people who are not "fully" either sex? what rights do they have?
"I have no beef with the gay community and believe all Americans should be able to enjoy their lifestyle of choice"
Telling gay people they shouldn't be allowed to get married stomps all over their freedom "to enjoy their lifestyle of choice". You should really think more before you talk. When you don't think it makes you sound hypocritical.
@Amissdeeddead68 On the contrary, they are perfectly capable of enjoying their lifestyle without re-writing the very definition of marriage. They have been doing so for the last couple decades, is that not correct?
You sir, are an idiot and an embarrassment to intelligent people throughout the world. Allowing homosexuals the legal right to go through the marriage process is about acceptance; no different from allowing African Americans the rights to attend formerly all white universities (which I have no doubt you oppose), no different from women not being allowed to vote. Anyone who would talk in front of this color schemed background has many issues they need to work out.
Now here's a skewed perspective. All of a sudden, marriage is about "acceptance. Then how do you feel when the courts force gay marriage on States? No acceptance there.
Plus, I never heard an African American go up to his parents and say, Mom, Dad, I'm black.
It's an affront to all blacks when you say crap like this.
So now your critical of my color scheme, such wonderful tolerance you have.
Your reply proves your ignorance, stupidity and most of all bigotry. I love when people like you hide behind a cloak of illogical, specious arguments that sit there unconnected and threadless. Why don't you just admit you hate gay people? Just come out and say it. Stop hiding. In that, I will support YOUR rights.
"Forcing gay marriages on you", you write. Exactly how does it affect your life if gay people are allowed to marry? This is a specific question I am sure you will not answer. How are your freedoms fringed upon? The freedom to be prejudice and bigoted? You can still do that in your own home. Raise your little intolerant children as you like.
Once you go into other people's lives, telling them what they can and cannot do based on your own limited view of morality, well you then have attempted to undermine the very fabric of this country. I can't think of anything less patriotic and more treasonous.
You're old fashioned and out of date, sir, and if you ever lived as an outsider in this country; if you ever were not accepted for the color of your hair, skin, eyes, height, sexual orientation, gender, religion, you would know what that does to a person's self-esteem and self-worth.
You're a real student of science. You also, I assume, believe in the flat Earth society, Earth as the center of the solar system, and the ability of leeches to remove evil spirits from tainted blood. Check out some more current studies sometime; might make for a good read.. I doubt you're a bad person, you just have no sense of how much damage you're capable of doing in other people's lives.
Yeah, I can almost remember like it was yesterday the day I decided to be physically attracted towards women. Chimpanzees, who share 98% of our DNA, I'm sure, as well, make such moral decisions, since its well established homosexuality exists in the primate world. But, this would bring up another science called evolution which your background also denies. Don't use science to support your bigotry. Its weak and sad.
There we go again with the name calling. Nothing intelligent to say? That's what is weak and sad.
Again, I'm attempting to discuss genetic behaviorism which has failed to draw any connection to homosexuality as being innate. Which is the topic at hand.
You want to talk about evolution and chimpanzees. MMMmmm. How can we have a civilixed discussion if you won't stay on topic? Or is because you really don't want to discuss the scientific findings?
Virtually every book on behavioral science indicates sexuality is a behavior, learned and otherwise. Last I looked, behavioral science, is a science.
Further, despite all the studies and research attempting to prove homosexuality can be genetic, there is no such evidence, none to support that opinion.
As expected not a single source listed. You refer to a behavioral theory once believed in more than 40 years ago. Since this is my field, I can say with confidence you haven't kept up with the literature. Your ideals on human sexuality come solely from Christian doctrine. A prudish value system that denies the very nature of human sexuality, while hypocritically allowing repressed church leaders to molest the young and innocent. You needn't reply. This is my last post.
I don't know where your getting your facts from but gays are gay, straight people are straight. The ones that supposedly "change" were bisexual to begin with. You can't choose who you are attracted to.
Once again, marriage is between one man and one woman. Two gays CAN get married as long as one is a man, and one is a woman? Equal protection under the law.
so basically what you're saying is that its ok to take tax dollars from the gay community but deny them the basic right to marry who they want based on what? religious ideology which certainly doesn't seem to have a place in western marriages today. anyhow i shouldn't judge you, ignorance is bliss. i just hope that one day you will see the light. i thank god that i do not live in america nor am an american because honestly i would be ashamed to be a part of so much hypocrisy.
what a dickwad, he spent his entire argument attacking olberman instead of bothering to go near the constitutional violations of prop 8. this is a simple issue of with holding someone's right to pursue their own happiness. so why don't you take your nonsensical argument and shove it where the sun don't shine. honestly people like this make me so mad i could literally explode.
Well, Olberman goes through women like candy. Perhaps it's just that once they get to know him they can't stand him. But I also know he prefers the young 20 something girls. Maybe it makes him feel more like a man, maybe the young ones are easier to control, and he likes control and power. who knows, but his womanizing is fairly common knowledge.
Excuse me, but Olbermann is attempting to share what marriage is and he's way off track in regard to Prop 8. Prop 8 had nothing to do with ANY of his points.
As someone who has never been married, under what pretense can he lecture an entire State of people on what marriage is?
Ha. I stopped listening at "lifestyle of choice". He may not "have beef" with the gay community, but he is evidentally ignorant about them so therefore has very little weight behind his arguement.
i absolutely agree with the author on one particular fact:
what makes keith olbermann a marriage expert? apparently he's 49 (well 50 now considering this video is about 1 yr old) and he still hasn't found a woman to marry his sorry self.
Since when is changing the definition of something harmful to children? Teaching gay sex has no harmful value to it. There are risks involved in having homosexual sex, but mostly with males. Lesbians run the lowest risk of STDs. Furthermore, there are risks in having sex. Especially heterosexual sex, which if done unprotected, rick pregnancy as well as disease. Also, when did we become a Theocracy all of a sudden? There is freedom of religion, meaning you are free to not believe in one too.
There are no sex risks in a fidelity marriage. Remember, we're talking marriage here, not single-whoredom.
There is no freedom FROM Religion mentioned in our Constitution, just a freedom of Religion. Certainly religion is not mandatory in America.
Legitimizing a behavior that carries huge health risks, although true, lesbianism runs the lowest, is still not a good thing for the government to promote.
We are not talking about sex here, we're talking about marriage remember.
And being homosexual should entitle you to marriage, at least at a secular level. I'm not a fan of the religious ceremony, but it's when legal benefits get involved. Saying that you are legitimizing a "behavior" suggests that there is a conscience choice involved in homosexuality.
Saying that there is no freedom from religion states that we are subjugated to demands by religions we do not believe in, are you sure that's what you meant?
Since marriage is between one man and one woman, under what guise should two men or two women marry? Call is something else, I'm not opposed to some form of civil union with a different name, just don't change the definition of marriage.
No, not at all. I'm saying there is no freedom from religion mentioned in the Constitution. It is religion and the freedom to exercise it, that is protected.
This is America, you can believe or not believe whatever you like! Thank our Christian founders!
Under the guise that they are human beings, like every other human being? I mean, it's a form of discrimination, not allowing two people to marry for a reason that they had no control over. If it was solely a religious decision, I would be fine with not allowing homosexuals to marry, but it obviously isn't. Marriage receives more benefits from the government, which as we know is not run by the church. We should either give the same benefits to both gays and straights, or to neither.
It's not discrimination, two gays can marry as long as one is a woman and one is a man, THAT is the definition of marriage.
I do agree that gays should have the right to enter a civil union and that civil union should bare all the rights and legalities of marriage.
In fact, most people in this country don't have a problem with civil unions. Which makes me wonder what the real reason behind trying to re-define marriage is all about???
antio gay marrige people are a joke. your agruements are weak man. People should be able to marry any person they want. two consenting adults wanting to get married should be allowed to. period. this is so silly...right wing haters is what you are. why does it bother you soo much if they get married or not. oh and the gays should be angry with so many churches usin their religion to hate people.
They should have handled it better but I understand why they were angry. When people have went out of their way just to make sure they can't marry who they want. marriage is a heterosexual thing? Well thats kind of the point. Their trying to change that. Look, Im not gay but, why should it bother me if gays marry each other? It doesn't hurt me. In fact, it changes nothing in my life or your life. These laws are not stopping people from being gay anyways.
altering the first amendment? Thats a load of crap. That doesn't hurt freedom of religion.. People will still be able to practice their religion. C'mon. get real..Just because you like it, doesn't be it shouldn't be allowed. Speaking of freedom, they should be free to live the lifestyle they choose aslong as it doesn't hurt others. Pedophelia and beastiality simply have nothing to do with it. AT ALL. Where does any of that come in? lol.
The weak " what if,,, and marry your dog agruement" A dog isn't an adult human being. A dog can't talk or consent. A dog can't even sign a freakin paper. Thats a weak agruement dude.
and the lame gay sex being taught in school agrument? Thats a joke also. Just because gays can marry that means they will teach gay SEX in school? weak paranoiod arguement there. They don't even teach straight sex in school until the kids are in middle school. Oh and they SHOULD teach about gays in school. They should be taught tolerance, not hate.
That was already happening in California Schools when gays were permitted to marry.
No one is advocating schools teach hate. Live and let live is my philosophy. I'm talking about indoctrination. I'm talking about discussing things with kids way to early in their development.
I work in a california school, and thats just silly BS. When gays were allowed to marry here. NOTHING changed. The world didn't colapse. We all survived. The teachers I know here laugh at this agruement. Nobody was teaching gay sex to small children or even older kids. Also parents have the right here to pull their kids out of class if they don't feel comofortable with a certain lesson. But no "gay sex" was being taught. Thats a silly rumor.
If you preach that marriage is this "instigator of problems in relationships" then why is it performed in the first place? Do enlighten me please because this video describes marriage as a bad thing. If it so bad then why should ANYONE take part in it?
Not saying marriage is bad. I'm responding to Olbermann attempting to skew the discussion over the definition of marriage. The actual definition is simply the union of one man and one woman.
Even so, and even given whatever traditions or definitions one wants to cite about marriage, you can see how the terminology of marriage vs. civil union is just like the race-based "separate but equal" treatment that was repealed by the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Race is far different from sexual orientation. The government makes laws that support the well-being of a society. Marriage has been instituted to preserve a marriage that more than likely has produced offspring and need the nurturement of both parents.
Homosexuality carries with it a host of issues, one being the inability for two same sex partners to produce life, another being the documented health risks associated with the gay lifestyle.
Support the well-being of society, huh? So, that means that gays are not deserving of laws that benefit them? Because, after all, we are part of society.
Gays may not reproduce in a traditional way, but they still create families. If it were based only on offspring, we wouldn't allow non-fertile people to marry.
Sexual-romantic orientation may be far different, but regardless, it's still a defining factor.
It's nice that you support civil unions, but it's still "separate but equal".
hey "theobamafactor", why not have civil unions for ALL couples and have marriage go back where it belongs, in the churches, as a sacrament or blessing before one's God?
that way there's no "separate but equal" BS going on, and we'd have civil equality. Marriage would be protected as "sacred" to those who believe it is.
I think its funny it is thought that people have changed their point of views; once called racist or bigoted they have instead died off. As time goes on generations will move along to different points of view. America of the future will be horrified by our America as our fore fathers would be of ours. I'm sure the phrase "that's just how they believed back then" will be appropriate. Keep up the losing fight!
God bless people like "Longfellow89" so that they will see the error of their ways, remove the bigotry from their hearts, and truly treat all people with respect, as their religion likely teaches.
mbison83 > i know how u feel w/ what happened to the old lady..nobody deserve to be treated like that.. the feelings mutual, but also dont go around CUSSING & all of a sudden go ANTI on gays bec what they did was untolerable. hmmm....a lot of US STRAIGHT people had done shit to others & I STRONGLY felt bad abt it.. so,, i think now,based on your comment its OK for me to go & say "FUCK EM' STRAIGHTS! take their RIGHTS frm them! they dont deserve it!!".hmm..wise,very wise of you!!!
u know what? i respected the laws of american freedom, but after what these fags did to the poor woman i say FUCK your bill of rights, assholes! these amendments should be more like privileges than rights that all of you wicked scums do not deserve!
i think it is wrong for what they did to that old lady, but, straight people aren't any different! i have seen ani-gay people kill gay people becouse they are gay!+
All their arguments for gay marriage lack wisdom. The Equal PROTECTION Clause is just that protection. The government must protect our rights according to law. Marriage is not a human law, but God's law and has great spiritual significance to Christians. A man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife and the two shall become one flesh. Read Genesis 1 through 3 for the connection.
Have you Heard separation of church and state, I could care less about what you believe but there are other religions out there, SO why do need to have your been on top? Why Do you need to have the word "marriage" as that definition? Why do you need to be on top of other people?.
ryu: For falling into a poorly laid trap? Nope. Fact is that you can no more dictate the governments beliefs than I can dictate yours. We can do whatever we want so long as another's rights are not infringed.
This is about discrimination and legality. Our country is supposed to be based in freedom - especially from religious imposition. We have a strong history of discrimination in this country which seems to repeat. Refusal to redefine the definition of marriage is blatantly a religion-based decision rooted in discrimination. We might as well ban consumption of catfish and shrimp because that is against the bible as well. There is no real legal reason to ban gay marriage. Unconstitutional. Period.
I think deep that the whole movement against gay is merely people who want maintain the status quo and prevent change. But the reality is that change happens whether you like it or not. Believe people expect change and it should be their choice embrace change or be fearful of change. But being fearful of change forever is like having your head in sand.
Perhaps you should watch this again and take notes this time. I said, love has nothing to do with the DEFINITION of marriage. I very true statement.
Please feel free to avoid my videos in the future. I want INTELLIGENT DISCUSSIONS here, not half-hazard statements based on the inability to grasp the simplest concept.
I'll keep it up though just to embarass you and entertain future readers.
So would you mind if all marriage gay or straight become a civil union and let marriage be only religious ceremony and let churches decided for themselves what marriage is?
I'm sure that you would never nail somebody to a fence to die like the ones who murdered Matthew Shepherd, but people who do those sorts of things always point to YOUR bible as justification. Kinda makes you a little resposible, doesn't it?
It doesn't matter how nice you tell somebody they are inferior, you are still telling them they are inferior.
I also find it amusing that you guys say you support the "will of the people" Before you folks poured in millions of dollars worth of ads and countless thousands of hours running your campaign of fear, a clear majority of californians supported marriage equality.
why didn't you just respect their position?
No, you couldn't care a damn about them, it was always about YOU.
Yeah, I've seen the "love" of conservative christians like jerry falwell who claim 9/11 was god's punishment for us accepting homosexuality. Or Fred Phelps and his loonies who hold up "God Hates Fags" signs and picket funerals of our soldiers fighting in Iraq. As a soldier who has spent a year there, this pisses me off. I know, you aren't like those "nasty" christians, your nicer than them, right? WRONG! The only difference between you and them is your method. You all want the same things.
Don't lump me in with those guys. I'm a real conservative Christian, Phelps is a re loon. And they piss me off too.
Truth, Jerry Falwell's self-righteousness, isn't much better than Hugh Hefner's self-righteousness, that's the truth.
The bible says it is not for us to judge those outside the body of Christ. I live by that. Unlike Olbermann who castigated more than half of the California population.
Don't judge Christians by a few way out looney people looking for reputations.
Oh, and if you have a problem with us expressing our free speech in the streets, then why don't you pass another constitutional amendment?
But you better be careful, because california's constitution is so easy to change, that we might see an amendment that says that middle aged white men can only marry other middle aged white men. Have you and Keith started looking at dinner plates and curtains yet? :)
Now I could have deleted this stupid comment, but hey I like everyone expressing their opinion. Plus, everyone can see your own hatred now.
I appreciate you may not agree with those who voted for Prop 8. But learn to live with it, accept it, move on. This will just eat at you and devour you.
Your bitter and sarcastic comments have not offended me, nor upset me. And they contributed nothing to the debate. What a waste.
You don't hate us, nothing you people do is about hate, just your personal beliefs, right?
You want to make the government treat us as less than you and strip us of our dignity and make a special inferior class out of the due process clause of the constitution, but this isn't hate?
Guess what. You can exercise your "personal beliefs" all you want, but when you go out of your way to create another class of citizens, they aren't "personal" anymore.
You need to work on concealing your hatred a little better, because I can see right through it. It is perfectly obvious that this hate is religiously based and nothing more. You cannot name one problem of gay marriage that isn't related to biblethumping. All the so-called problems your side used in prop 8 were about fundies who didn't want to follow the law. How many non-religious people were inconvenienced in Massachusets? Shall we accomadate the beliefs of racists, too?
Hatred? On the contrary, it has been the homosexual movement that has demonstrated hatred over and over again. Oh you're tolerant as long as people believe as you do, but let someone disagree with you and you spew name calling and hatred all day long - watch the video again.
Fact is, marriage is open and available to you as well. As long as your partner is a woman. THAT, is the definition of marriage.
Your name calling doesn't work on me so save your breath, or your fingers.
civil unions and domestic partnerships do NOT have all the rights and protections as marriage, specifically the federal rights and protections, which you and others enjoy but we can't. I found this out when my partner Duane passed awaya and I was denied his social security benefits.
Apart from being morally contemptible, the speaker's position is also intellectually bankrupt. Marriage is a basic legal right under the US Constitution, under both the Due Process and the Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment. Go read Loving v. Virginia 388 U.S. 1 (1967).
You say you support civil unions. So you'll let gay people do everything that married people do, but you won't let them call it marriage. Isn't that a counsel of hypocrisy?
I agree with you. And under the law, a gay man and a gay woman can certainly get married. So being gay does not preclude them from marriage. They just have to fall within the definition of what marriage is, a union between one man and one woman - regardless of their sexual orientation.
You know what is REALLY fucked up about that Dont Ask Don't Tell? Govt. spends thousands of tax-money dollars that YOU and I pay for every year to train [for many years] these soldiers AND do an incredible job protecting USA across the globe, yet the Army&Navy fires them on the spot just because they are Gay. What a WASTE of money & training time. Then they'll have to recruit another faggot & train them all over again.
Look, you seem like an intelligent guy so I won't be a total asshole since you're not one of those Christian nutjobs that deserve to get their prick cut off for being a total bigot. I DO understand that you are coming from a place of fear & anxiety about the unknown future.
But this is AMERICA & a fight for the Equal treatment and protection of a minority group is expected whenever they are oppressed or discriminated against.
I agree no minority should be discriminated against or oppressed. I just fail to see how gays are.
Further, I've seen what has happened in States like Mass. that has gay marriage. Catholic charities shutting down after 100 years, churches being forced by courts to allow lesbian receptions on their grounds.
Do you see how the 1st Amendment of Freedom of Religion is being trampled?
Canada, pastors get arrested if they speak against homosexuality.
I hate to say this without sounding like a prick but this is really a generational gap issue. Many young Gay and straight people favor Gay marriage today while old people tend to be more conservative & against marriage when it comes to this issue.
It;s just really a matter of time until Gay marriage becomes legal. CSPAN, CNN & Gallup polls proved this over & over again and its pretty damn obvious. We all use YouTube & you can tell that majority of young people are fine with gay marriage.
I do not doubt there is some generational stuff in play. I also realize schools have indoctrinated kids in believing homosexuality is a good and moral sexual orientation.
I'm not for changing the definition of marriage to include gays.
I am for ALL the legal options available in marriage to be available to gay couples. I say this cause I have a gay sibling. It' s only right.
To hell with this Kumbaya bullshit. You're not going to sweet-talk me just because you allegedly claim you have a homosexual sibling. For all I know, your Gay sibling may probably just have the same Christian mentality as you do. How does that help the cause for many oppressed Gay & Lesbians in this country? It doesn't.
BTW, I am deeply offended at what that old geezer had to say that most Gays & Lesbians make high income in society. I live in Los Angeles & that may be a true----however you should not single out just LGBT alone because there are many other people who also make high income YET Gays & Lesbians do not get the same equal rights & privileges that heterosexuals couples do. UNFAIR & unAmerican.
That's a true statement. As a minority, gays enjoy being in the upper range of the middle class. Greater than ANY OTHER minority group. So don't tell me about job discrimination, cause it just ain't so.
How can you say there is no job discrimination? There are thousands of Gay & Lesbian sergeants, lieutenants & soldiers who have been fired in the Army just because they are Gay. Lt. Dan Choi. Fehrenbach & many others. CNN! Some dyke got fired from snowboarding camp last year in hickville just because she came out as a Lesbian. There IS job discrimination among that & many others. Just because a select few makes a large income that does not mean others are not discriminated.
I'm referring to the private sector which is where all the discrimination policies are directed.
As for the military, because it is impossible to determine who is and who is not gay, if a gay person wants to be in the military, keep your mouth shut.
If a straight wants out of the military, all he has to do is say he's gay. Can't prove him to be a liar can you.
Exactly. So HOW is that fair to any Gay & Lesbian soldier serving in the Army who is accused of being Gay by their straight soldiermates & be fired from their job?
Why should a Gay person have to "shut up" about their sexuality, YET a straight soldier can openly declare & brag the fact that he is straight in the Army? UNFAIR & unAmerican.
You said you have never heard that heterosexuals are superior than Gay people. Ignorance much in your area?
Last week, there were Christian nutjobs at the city hall that were yelling "You FAGS are ABNORMAL, you will never be ACCEPTED. You will NEVER be EQUAL. God will NEVER accept SINNERS like YOU PERVERT FREAKS!"
And you said heterosexuals do not believe they are far more superior? Really?
NOW THATS TELLING HIM
MCELVAINE6996 1 year ago
Even though I don't agree with you on the gay marriage thing, I do agree wit you on how some of the gays are being nasty to others like the Mormons and that's not right. It's uncalled for to go and desecrate someone's church over an issue like this.
donjabroni 1 year ago
I was going to make a video bringing up many of the same points but this guy did a great job. You don't have to be religious to oppose gay marriage.
Sad thing is I appreciate a lot about Olbermann, taking on Fox and Bush/Cheny and a lot of their related crap. But he screwed up with his stupid pro-gay marriage rant.
curea229 2 years ago
Comment removed
cammie29 2 years ago
That is not true in California (which is the what we are discussing (Prop 8) Domestic Partnership laws allows for all of the above.
theobamafactor 1 year ago
AMEN TO THIS GUY! I couldn't have said it better myself.
raidacaipo 2 years ago
is this the 1950s or something? it the 21st century already and we still have people discriminating gays even today. i can't believe this.
Hperman09 2 years ago 5
News flash, you discriminate every day.
Where to eat, what products to buy, who to work with, who not to work with, who you date, who you visit, who you associate with, who cuts your hair.
I could go on and on. Get the drift?
theobamafactor 2 years ago
From your sidebar:
'Whatever someone's lifestyle choice'
Homosexuality is a sexuality, thus it's neither a 'lifestyle' nor a 'choice'. I appreciate that you are all for civil unions, but this special comment in the sidebar shows that you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
Speedy636Germany 2 years ago 7
I would disagree. Seuxality is a behavior. I do not believe anyone is born gay.
Therefore, it is a lifestyle choice. I don't know how else to phrase it.
theobamafactor 1 year ago
Please someone help me here, because I am genuinely curious...what is marriage about if not love?
TheseApples 2 years ago
This is not what marriage is about, it's what is the definition of marriage. It is the definition which so many are attempting to change. The definition of marriage is a union between one man and one woman.
That's it, all the rest is fluff. People get married everyday who don't know what love is, so the definition is NOT love.
Watch the video again, and take notes if necessary.
theobamafactor 2 years ago
@theobamafactor
thank you for responding. I get what you're saying now, but I have a few more questions:
Why does the definition of marriage have to be so concrete and unyielding? Tons of other words and institutions have undergone changes in definiton as necessitated by changes in societal norms, why not marriage? And hasn't the definition of marriage changed before? What makes our current definition so definitive?
TheseApples 2 years ago 4
The definition hasn't changed. There have been some laws and addendums to marriage in various States but the definition has not changed.
Marriage is designed by the government because it helps society perpetuate itself, something two men or two women are incapable of doing.
Because it involves children, the government has made it harder to dissolve a marriage than a simple break up to keep the family unit whole.
theobamafactor 2 years ago
@theobamafactor
Thanks again for your response.
I feel that the definition of marriage has in fact changed, but semantics are impossible to discuss so I'll move on. The idea of marriage as a union to help society perpetuate itself is a valid point, but marriage is indeed more than that. What harm would come by allowing two men or women to form a legal union on the basis of love? I'm running out of characters, so I'll continue this in a separate comment box.
TheseApples 2 years ago
I realize that there are civil unions, but in many states they don't offer the same rights as marriage, and even if they did, as we learned from the civil rights movement, the concept of "separate but equal" is just bigoted as outright discrimination, and I'm not talking about everyday discrimination, I'm talking about the kind of discrimination that denies certain rights and privileges to human beings who were born different than the majority.
TheseApples 2 years ago 3
notice: olbermann said: "...and uncountable in our history are the number of men and women forced by society into marrying the opposite sex in sham marriages, marriages of convenience, or just marriages of not knowing."
i think he's aware of the fact that people that are not in love do in fact, get married.
cammie29 2 years ago 3
@cammie29 If that is true, why did Keith base his entire premise on "Love"? Because he wanted to skew the debate which is about the DEFINITION of marriage. He knew what he was doing and tried to turn it into an emotional diatribe.
theobamafactor 1 year ago
The definition of marriage is a union between one man and one woman.
Marriage can be ABOUT anything. Money, legal status, social status, people get married for a huge variety of reasons, even insecurity, lonliness and fear. Just as divorce can be about anything.
But we're talking about the legal definition of marriage.
Let me ask you, when a man and a woman get married, are they required to prove they are in love? No!
weneedmccain 2 years ago
What is the litmus test for marriage if it's not love? Is it Penis+Vagina = marriage?
Gay couples do NOT have the same rights as straight couples. If one gay partner is injured, the other has no right to know medically how he/she is doing.
Congratulations for the Ad Hominem referencing Keith's marital status; it shows you have no real ammo.
You didn't bring up God?? Where does the original definition of marriage come from that shouldn't be changed?
Dude, you fail.
earwasel2 2 years ago 25
Oh Contrare! We are discussing the DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE. A union between one man and one woman. THAT is the definition.
No, it shows Keith has no cred to discuss the issue.
The original definition comes from God, but I defeated Keith's spin without having to reference God.
Dude, you fail!
weneedmccain 2 years ago
"The original definition comes from God, but I defeated Keith's spin without having to reference God."
And what god might that be? Your "Christian" god? Not everyone is a Christian, and you can't put religion into legislation because it'll isolate jews, muslims, bhuddist, RATIONAL THINKING PEOPLE.
"Dude, you fail! "
Easy enough to counter: I know YOU do, but what do I?
earwasel2 2 years ago 2
Not everyone is a Christian, but more than 90% of the population considers themselves Christian, which is why gay marriage has been shot down so much across the Country.
You see, we are a Republic. As such, our votes count. As such, being able to tear apart the definition of marriage to accomodate a tiny percentage of the population doesn't fly, won't fly, can't fly.
Dude, you're done.
weneedmccain 2 years ago
We were founded as a free country, allowing people to believe how they want without a tyrannical government enforcing arbitrary morals on the masses. You study history very much? Didn't think so.
We are a republic, yeah, but that doesn't give the majority a right to take freedom away from the minority. By banning gay marriage, you could violate my first amendment right for freedom of religion.
I'm done? No, you haven't won, nor will you ever. Go away now. You are why the U.S. sucks.
earwasel2 2 years ago 3
Gays are free to engage anyway they like, are they not?
Take freedom? who is taking freedom? Last I looked, marriage was a union between a man and a woman. This sounds more like a tiny minority attempting to destroy the very foundations of marriage. Also last I looked, sex is NOT a religion.
You say the US sucks, but still you stay. MMmmm. You are free to go.
It's not about winning, it's about sharing ideals and values, we just differ in the extreme. Welcome to America!
weneedmccain 2 years ago
"more than 90% of the population considers themselves Christian"
about 33% of the world is Christian (2.1 billion people).
about 21% practice Islam (they are obviously not Christian).
another 16% are not religious.
14% are Hindu.
research before you comment. thanks.
cammie29 2 years ago 3
Correction, I was referring to the American population since this is an American legal debate.
Gays should be thankful they live in a Christian nation, if this were an Islam nation, they'd all be dead.
Just sayin!
theobamafactor 1 year ago
The lack of that "privilege" has nothing to do with them being gay but due to them being unrelated.
In any case private contracts can be made to reconcile this issue.
As for the definitions origin, it is rooted in biology. Different cultures who share no theological heritage define marriage as between members of the opposite sex.
Either the whole of humanity before the 20th century were bigots toward gays or the definition of marriage emerged due to other reasons.
wood9670 2 years ago
@earwasel2 Wow, a bit of twisted warping going on here. We are talking about the DEFINITION of marriage. Love is not in the definition. It is a union between one man and one woman. A gay man and a gay woman are more than welcome to marry. So there is no discrimination. I'm all for civil unions for precisely the points you make by the way.
theobamafactor 1 year ago
show that faggot keith that he's nothing but a dumbass
GermX100 2 years ago
Olbermann's comment on Prop 8 was awesome...he totally nailed it and made a great argument for how wrong it was.
Hollywoodsteve 2 years ago 5
Good solid commentary. I don't really care if a man marriesa man or if a woman marries a woman. It does not take any of the value out of my own marriage.
drldrl81 2 years ago 2
I was married 3 years after ss marriage was legalized in my country, and there is nothing less about my marriage than anyone elses. I look up at my wedding certificate every night, and all i can think is how can letting a nice couple who's been together 30 years have one of those with their names on it going to change a thing? fact is it doesn't change anything about my marriage, all it does is allow them some security and the same status in society as me.
sarakai 2 years ago 3
That's why I support civil unions for all the legal protections affored heterosexual couples.
That's only fair.
weneedmccain 2 years ago
this guy is an idiot. says that marriage is not about love, marriage, happiness or rights, so what exactly is marriage? and YES marriage is a right (at least it should be) and it even says so in the Decleration of Human Rights and Freedoms from the UN that men and women have a right to marriage and family.
sarakai 2 years ago
Watch it again - the DEFINITION of marriage is not love or happiness - moron.
The UN? Since when does the UN dictate American law? You can't spell. You're attempting to apply meaningless UN crap to American law, and you're calling me an idiot?
Sorry, but you just set yourself out there!
Plus, gays can marry - no discrimination, they just have to be male and female. That is the DEFINITION of marriage.
weneedmccain 2 years ago
No you are right, i can't spell right now, i'm working a 12 hour over night shift with very little sleep, sorry for the typo's. The US is part of the UN, so maybe they should at least try to give equal rights to people, just a thought. The definition of marriage has changed many times, it used to be that black could get married, they just had to marry another black person. I support equal rights, equal protection without discrimination. what do you support?
sarakai 2 years ago
No, the US is a member of the UN. Nevertheless, the UN does not dictate policy or laws in our country. We have the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights for that.
I support equal rights and protection, two gays can still marry, they just have to be male and female!
By the way, race was an addendum to marriage in some States, it did NOT alter the definition of marriage - which has remained the same for centuries.
weneedmccain 2 years ago
yup and the consitution says that "all men are created equal" not all straight men. (last time i checked anyways). You can say that the definition or marriage hasn't changed and then say that it's always been a man and a woman, that is the same argument used against allowing interracial marriage. One day you will look back and see how silly this was. A marriage is a legal contract made by two consenting adults, and to disallow one person to enter into it based on their gender is discrimination
sarakai 2 years ago
Well, if it says that we are all CREATED equal, why are you for abortion? Is that not murder?
No no no, interracial marriage was added on top of the definition, that does not change the definition.
Is it discriiminatory to not allow a woman to marry a dog? Why can't she marry the dog and count him as a dependent? Mmmmm?
How about 10 women marrying one man? Hey they're all consenting adults!
weneedmccain 2 years ago
BECAUSE A DOG IS NOT ABLE TO CONSENT AS THEY ARE NOT HUMAN! my god you people always jump to "then someone would want to marry an animal" - lets not get off subject with my prochoice stance please. - and YES i am a supporter of plural marriages, there is nothing illegal about a man having 1 wife and 10 mistresses on the side, but god forbid we should allow him to be held to a standard to them. - and gay marriage can be added on top of the definition it won't change it.
sarakai 2 years ago
I see, so innocent lives have no say on whether they live or die? You better focus on getting that one right first.
Which is it? Marriage is a union between one man or one woman or it isn't. Same sex marriage destroys the very definition of what marriage is.
weneedmccain 2 years ago
This whole concept of "that's the way it's been for thousands of years" is so amazingly rediculous! slavery was around for thousands of years, womans oppression, lack of medical treatment, oppression of science, oppression of religions. lets just always keep things the same as they've always been and never progress and never change or evolve because that would be bad. get a grip
sarakai 2 years ago
We are talking about the institution of marriage. And it is not discriminatory, two gays can marry, as long as one is male and one is female.
One could also argue, that women have placed themselves under self-oppression. So the question is, are they better off? I don't think so!
weneedmccain 2 years ago
just because something has been that way for a long times doesn't make it right. - so women made themselves unable to vote, or own property or have jobs? ONCE again, why don't you address my point on those people who are not either fully male or fully female? they are intersexed.(so what rights could they have?) - ALSO disallowing someone to enter into a legal contract (such as marriage) based on their gender is against the law due to gender equality laws and rights!
sarakai 2 years ago
I would say they need to make up their own minds on what they are. I guess they would have the right to enjoy self-sex eh?
Lastly, the vast majority of Americans are heterosexual, I don't see why the majority needs to twist institutions beyond recognition to accomodate a very small minority of the population.
weneedmccain 2 years ago
I also live somewhere where that isn't the definition of marriage, how do you account for that? there is not just ONE definition of marriage. We also live in a world where gender is in question more often than ppl think, there are intersexed people i think it is every 1 in 10,000 as well as transgendered people. so even the definition of male and female is not as clear cut as people would like to believe.
sarakai 2 years ago
The Definition of marriage: A union between one man and one woman. This has been the definition for centuries in America and thousands of years around the world. It is what it is.
I agree, if a male becomes a female physically, he ceases to be a male and should be considered fully woman. I'm fine with that. I'm fine with people living whatever way suits them.
I am not fine with trashing the very definition of marriage to accomodate people far outside that definition.
weneedmccain 2 years ago
well it is NOT the definition of marriage where I live (Canada), nor is it the definition in: Sweden
Norway
Netherlands (Holland)
Belgium
Spain
South Africa Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, and Vermont. and those performed in California for a short time are still recognized as legal. > no one is trashing the definition of marriage, those who trash marriage are the ones who support divorce. What about the people who are not "fully" either sex? what rights do they have?
sarakai 2 years ago
"I have no beef with the gay community and believe all Americans should be able to enjoy their lifestyle of choice"
Telling gay people they shouldn't be allowed to get married stomps all over their freedom "to enjoy their lifestyle of choice". You should really think more before you talk. When you don't think it makes you sound hypocritical.
Amissdeeddead68 2 years ago 31
@Amissdeeddead68 On the contrary, they are perfectly capable of enjoying their lifestyle without re-writing the very definition of marriage. They have been doing so for the last couple decades, is that not correct?
theobamafactor 1 year ago
You sir, are an idiot and an embarrassment to intelligent people throughout the world. Allowing homosexuals the legal right to go through the marriage process is about acceptance; no different from allowing African Americans the rights to attend formerly all white universities (which I have no doubt you oppose), no different from women not being allowed to vote. Anyone who would talk in front of this color schemed background has many issues they need to work out.
douglaspjk 2 years ago 5
Now here's a skewed perspective. All of a sudden, marriage is about "acceptance. Then how do you feel when the courts force gay marriage on States? No acceptance there.
Plus, I never heard an African American go up to his parents and say, Mom, Dad, I'm black.
It's an affront to all blacks when you say crap like this.
So now your critical of my color scheme, such wonderful tolerance you have.
weneedmccain 2 years ago
Your reply proves your ignorance, stupidity and most of all bigotry. I love when people like you hide behind a cloak of illogical, specious arguments that sit there unconnected and threadless. Why don't you just admit you hate gay people? Just come out and say it. Stop hiding. In that, I will support YOUR rights.
douglaspjk 2 years ago
"Forcing gay marriages on you", you write. Exactly how does it affect your life if gay people are allowed to marry? This is a specific question I am sure you will not answer. How are your freedoms fringed upon? The freedom to be prejudice and bigoted? You can still do that in your own home. Raise your little intolerant children as you like.
douglaspjk 2 years ago
Once you go into other people's lives, telling them what they can and cannot do based on your own limited view of morality, well you then have attempted to undermine the very fabric of this country. I can't think of anything less patriotic and more treasonous.
douglaspjk 2 years ago
You're old fashioned and out of date, sir, and if you ever lived as an outsider in this country; if you ever were not accepted for the color of your hair, skin, eyes, height, sexual orientation, gender, religion, you would know what that does to a person's self-esteem and self-worth.
douglaspjk 2 years ago
You should not stick homosexuality into that mix.
Last I looked, just being scientific mind you, sexuality is a choice for all people. It is a behavior.
A person is born a specific color or race, that is who they are, can't change that.
Lots of gays have gone straight, so your argument is moot.
weneedmccain 2 years ago
You're a real student of science. You also, I assume, believe in the flat Earth society, Earth as the center of the solar system, and the ability of leeches to remove evil spirits from tainted blood. Check out some more current studies sometime; might make for a good read.. I doubt you're a bad person, you just have no sense of how much damage you're capable of doing in other people's lives.
douglaspjk 2 years ago
Mmmm, I bring up behavioral science and genetic behavior and you bring up the flat earth society.
Nothing like staying on topic.
I ensure that everyone I meet throughout the day is left with a positive experience.
weneedmccain 2 years ago
Yeah, I can almost remember like it was yesterday the day I decided to be physically attracted towards women. Chimpanzees, who share 98% of our DNA, I'm sure, as well, make such moral decisions, since its well established homosexuality exists in the primate world. But, this would bring up another science called evolution which your background also denies. Don't use science to support your bigotry. Its weak and sad.
douglaspjk 2 years ago 2
There we go again with the name calling. Nothing intelligent to say? That's what is weak and sad.
Again, I'm attempting to discuss genetic behaviorism which has failed to draw any connection to homosexuality as being innate. Which is the topic at hand.
You want to talk about evolution and chimpanzees. MMMmmm. How can we have a civilixed discussion if you won't stay on topic? Or is because you really don't want to discuss the scientific findings?
weneedmccain 2 years ago
There is no such scientific evidence in our known universe that supports your position. Supply your sources, sir, supply your sources.
douglaspjk 2 years ago
Virtually every book on behavioral science indicates sexuality is a behavior, learned and otherwise. Last I looked, behavioral science, is a science.
Further, despite all the studies and research attempting to prove homosexuality can be genetic, there is no such evidence, none to support that opinion.
theobamafactor 2 years ago
As expected not a single source listed. You refer to a behavioral theory once believed in more than 40 years ago. Since this is my field, I can say with confidence you haven't kept up with the literature. Your ideals on human sexuality come solely from Christian doctrine. A prudish value system that denies the very nature of human sexuality, while hypocritically allowing repressed church leaders to molest the young and innocent. You needn't reply. This is my last post.
douglaspjk 2 years ago 3
Not behavioral theory, but SCIENCE! Isn't that what we're talking about?
Considering the warped conversation you offer, I doubt seriously behavioral science is your field, far from it.
It's been fun, I like exposing slanted and skewed views.
weneedmccain 2 years ago
I don't know where your getting your facts from but gays are gay, straight people are straight. The ones that supposedly "change" were bisexual to begin with. You can't choose who you are attracted to.
Cody3700 2 years ago 4
Limited view of morality? Is it the historical evidence of marriage over thousands of years that make you think that?
Perhaps yours is the limited view.
weneedmccain 2 years ago
Once again, marriage is between one man and one woman. Two gays CAN get married as long as one is a man, and one is a woman? Equal protection under the law.
weneedmccain 2 years ago
sticks and stones, is that all you have iny our arsenal, name calling?
I love it when you can't defend what I say and just toss out names, name calling is the last refuge of the ignorant.
weneedmccain 2 years ago
What about complete visitation rights in a hospital? Gays don't have that right because they aren't family.
eogilby1 2 years ago
I support that right for gays, I mean it's only fair.
weneedmccain 2 years ago
Comment removed
salma738 2 years ago
so basically what you're saying is that its ok to take tax dollars from the gay community but deny them the basic right to marry who they want based on what? religious ideology which certainly doesn't seem to have a place in western marriages today. anyhow i shouldn't judge you, ignorance is bliss. i just hope that one day you will see the light. i thank god that i do not live in america nor am an american because honestly i would be ashamed to be a part of so much hypocrisy.
salma738 2 years ago
Oh not at all, gays can marry, as long as it's a gay man and gay woman, THAT is the definition of marriage.
weneedmccain 2 years ago
what a dickwad, he spent his entire argument attacking olberman instead of bothering to go near the constitutional violations of prop 8. this is a simple issue of with holding someone's right to pursue their own happiness. so why don't you take your nonsensical argument and shove it where the sun don't shine. honestly people like this make me so mad i could literally explode.
salma738 2 years ago
Tell me the Constitutional violations? There are none and the courts supported that position - dickwad.
Pursuing happiness is NOT the definition of marriage - dickwad.
Caution - anger and frustration can be your undoing! But if you are so inclined, feel free to spontaneously combust.
weneedmccain 2 years ago
good argument but bullshitt!
REPUBELICAN 2 years ago
Well, Olberman goes through women like candy. Perhaps it's just that once they get to know him they can't stand him. But I also know he prefers the young 20 something girls. Maybe it makes him feel more like a man, maybe the young ones are easier to control, and he likes control and power. who knows, but his womanizing is fairly common knowledge.
weneedmccain 2 years ago
He's an idiot who treats women like objects.
weneedmccain 2 years ago
Prop 8 did not affect me, I don't live in California. Didn't push it, didn't promote it.
Olbermann is an oaf, I just enjoy exposing his hypocrisy, his intolerance, and his elitist arrogance. It's quite fun.
weneedmccain 2 years ago
Excuse me, but Olbermann is attempting to share what marriage is and he's way off track in regard to Prop 8. Prop 8 had nothing to do with ANY of his points.
As someone who has never been married, under what pretense can he lecture an entire State of people on what marriage is?
weneedmccain 2 years ago
It wasnt a rant you JERK. I hate this man now.
Yohtarama 2 years ago
Ha. I stopped listening at "lifestyle of choice". He may not "have beef" with the gay community, but he is evidentally ignorant about them so therefore has very little weight behind his arguement.
Lindelamare 2 years ago
i absolutely agree with the author on one particular fact:
what makes keith olbermann a marriage expert? apparently he's 49 (well 50 now considering this video is about 1 yr old) and he still hasn't found a woman to marry his sorry self.
NightfireOP 2 years ago
the author of this video is not attacking homosexuals, he is jabbing keith olbermann's "special comment" video.
NightfireOP 2 years ago
Thank you for the quality clarification. Truth is, I never met a gay person I didn't like.
weneedmccain 2 years ago
This guy is so stupid. He did not even do his home work before he put this video out. Please shut up and go to hell!
raymond1001 2 years ago
ray: He's stupid?
You don't look like you are in a postition to cast stones...
wormer105 2 years ago
where in his video did he not do his homework? or do you enjoy lashing at people just because they offer a different view?
NightfireOP 2 years ago
Since when is changing the definition of something harmful to children? Teaching gay sex has no harmful value to it. There are risks involved in having homosexual sex, but mostly with males. Lesbians run the lowest risk of STDs. Furthermore, there are risks in having sex. Especially heterosexual sex, which if done unprotected, rick pregnancy as well as disease. Also, when did we become a Theocracy all of a sudden? There is freedom of religion, meaning you are free to not believe in one too.
Javispa72 2 years ago
There are no sex risks in a fidelity marriage. Remember, we're talking marriage here, not single-whoredom.
There is no freedom FROM Religion mentioned in our Constitution, just a freedom of Religion. Certainly religion is not mandatory in America.
Legitimizing a behavior that carries huge health risks, although true, lesbianism runs the lowest, is still not a good thing for the government to promote.
We are not talking about sex here, we're talking about marriage remember.
weneedmccain 2 years ago
And being homosexual should entitle you to marriage, at least at a secular level. I'm not a fan of the religious ceremony, but it's when legal benefits get involved. Saying that you are legitimizing a "behavior" suggests that there is a conscience choice involved in homosexuality.
Saying that there is no freedom from religion states that we are subjugated to demands by religions we do not believe in, are you sure that's what you meant?
Javispa72 2 years ago
Since marriage is between one man and one woman, under what guise should two men or two women marry? Call is something else, I'm not opposed to some form of civil union with a different name, just don't change the definition of marriage.
No, not at all. I'm saying there is no freedom from religion mentioned in the Constitution. It is religion and the freedom to exercise it, that is protected.
This is America, you can believe or not believe whatever you like! Thank our Christian founders!
weneedmccain 2 years ago
Under the guise that they are human beings, like every other human being? I mean, it's a form of discrimination, not allowing two people to marry for a reason that they had no control over. If it was solely a religious decision, I would be fine with not allowing homosexuals to marry, but it obviously isn't. Marriage receives more benefits from the government, which as we know is not run by the church. We should either give the same benefits to both gays and straights, or to neither.
Javispa72 2 years ago
It's not discrimination, two gays can marry as long as one is a woman and one is a man, THAT is the definition of marriage.
I do agree that gays should have the right to enter a civil union and that civil union should bare all the rights and legalities of marriage.
In fact, most people in this country don't have a problem with civil unions. Which makes me wonder what the real reason behind trying to re-define marriage is all about???
weneedmccain 2 years ago
Oh wow. This was ugly? Why is this man so malicious?
shewasborntosin 2 years ago
antio gay marrige people are a joke. your agruements are weak man. People should be able to marry any person they want. two consenting adults wanting to get married should be allowed to. period. this is so silly...right wing haters is what you are. why does it bother you soo much if they get married or not. oh and the gays should be angry with so many churches usin their religion to hate people.
19TEC85 2 years ago
You know, all this name calling doesn't bother me. hater hater hater. Please.
If you take a look at all the violence caused by gays after the Prop 8 vote, who are the real haters?
Marriage is a heterosexual thing, defined as one man and one woman. Why would the homosexual lobby try to co-opt a heterosexual thing?
You're attempting to change the very definition of an institution that has been with us for centuries.
Make up your own thing and have at it!
weneedmccain 2 years ago
They should have handled it better but I understand why they were angry. When people have went out of their way just to make sure they can't marry who they want. marriage is a heterosexual thing? Well thats kind of the point. Their trying to change that. Look, Im not gay but, why should it bother me if gays marry each other? It doesn't hurt me. In fact, it changes nothing in my life or your life. These laws are not stopping people from being gay anyways.
19TEC85 2 years ago
This is about a whole lot more than gays marrying. It's about changing the very definition of what marriage is.
It's about altering forever the 1st Amendment, freedom of religion.
It's about opening a pandora's box that will include everything from pedophelia to beastiality.
It's about gay sex being taught in schools as acceptable despite all the health risks associated with it.
Massachusettes is a perfect example of how the laws have come down on churches.
weneedmccain 2 years ago
altering the first amendment? Thats a load of crap. That doesn't hurt freedom of religion.. People will still be able to practice their religion. C'mon. get real..Just because you like it, doesn't be it shouldn't be allowed. Speaking of freedom, they should be free to live the lifestyle they choose aslong as it doesn't hurt others. Pedophelia and beastiality simply have nothing to do with it. AT ALL. Where does any of that come in? lol.
19TEC85 2 years ago
It already happened in Mass.
A 100 year old Catholic Charity closed its door because the government forced them to place kids in gay households.
A church was forced to allow two lesbians to use their facility for their reception on a beach.
If we're going to have equal rights for all, what about the woman in love with her dog and wants to marry him for the tax deduction as a dependent?
weneedmccain 2 years ago
The weak " what if,,, and marry your dog agruement" A dog isn't an adult human being. A dog can't talk or consent. A dog can't even sign a freakin paper. Thats a weak agruement dude.
19TEC85 2 years ago
and the lame gay sex being taught in school agrument? Thats a joke also. Just because gays can marry that means they will teach gay SEX in school? weak paranoiod arguement there. They don't even teach straight sex in school until the kids are in middle school. Oh and they SHOULD teach about gays in school. They should be taught tolerance, not hate.
19TEC85 2 years ago
That was already happening in California Schools when gays were permitted to marry.
No one is advocating schools teach hate. Live and let live is my philosophy. I'm talking about indoctrination. I'm talking about discussing things with kids way to early in their development.
weneedmccain 2 years ago
I work in a california school, and thats just silly BS. When gays were allowed to marry here. NOTHING changed. The world didn't colapse. We all survived. The teachers I know here laugh at this agruement. Nobody was teaching gay sex to small children or even older kids. Also parents have the right here to pull their kids out of class if they don't feel comofortable with a certain lesson. But no "gay sex" was being taught. Thats a silly rumor.
19TEC85 2 years ago
If you preach that marriage is this "instigator of problems in relationships" then why is it performed in the first place? Do enlighten me please because this video describes marriage as a bad thing. If it so bad then why should ANYONE take part in it?
buckweed15 2 years ago
Not saying marriage is bad. I'm responding to Olbermann attempting to skew the discussion over the definition of marriage. The actual definition is simply the union of one man and one woman.
weneedmccain 2 years ago
Even so, and even given whatever traditions or definitions one wants to cite about marriage, you can see how the terminology of marriage vs. civil union is just like the race-based "separate but equal" treatment that was repealed by the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
IantoCross 2 years ago
Race is far different from sexual orientation. The government makes laws that support the well-being of a society. Marriage has been instituted to preserve a marriage that more than likely has produced offspring and need the nurturement of both parents.
Homosexuality carries with it a host of issues, one being the inability for two same sex partners to produce life, another being the documented health risks associated with the gay lifestyle.
Nevertheless, I support civil unions.
weneedmccain 2 years ago
Support the well-being of society, huh? So, that means that gays are not deserving of laws that benefit them? Because, after all, we are part of society.
Gays may not reproduce in a traditional way, but they still create families. If it were based only on offspring, we wouldn't allow non-fertile people to marry.
Sexual-romantic orientation may be far different, but regardless, it's still a defining factor.
It's nice that you support civil unions, but it's still "separate but equal".
divinehumanism 2 years ago
hey "theobamafactor", why not have civil unions for ALL couples and have marriage go back where it belongs, in the churches, as a sacrament or blessing before one's God?
that way there's no "separate but equal" BS going on, and we'd have civil equality. Marriage would be protected as "sacred" to those who believe it is.
IantoCross 2 years ago
This has been my position for some time.
weneedmccain 2 years ago
I think its funny it is thought that people have changed their point of views; once called racist or bigoted they have instead died off. As time goes on generations will move along to different points of view. America of the future will be horrified by our America as our fore fathers would be of ours. I'm sure the phrase "that's just how they believed back then" will be appropriate. Keep up the losing fight!
gxx
gxx
gerrixx 2 years ago
Gay marriage is flat out wrong period.
The world doesn't revolve around it and it never has.Screw all this pro faggot brainwashing, I for one had enough of it.
And get over it keith, YOU LOST
GOD BLESS TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE
Longfellow89 2 years ago
God bless people like "Longfellow89" so that they will see the error of their ways, remove the bigotry from their hearts, and truly treat all people with respect, as their religion likely teaches.
IantoCross 2 years ago
mbison83 > i know how u feel w/ what happened to the old lady..nobody deserve to be treated like that.. the feelings mutual, but also dont go around CUSSING & all of a sudden go ANTI on gays bec what they did was untolerable. hmmm....a lot of US STRAIGHT people had done shit to others & I STRONGLY felt bad abt it.. so,, i think now,based on your comment its OK for me to go & say "FUCK EM' STRAIGHTS! take their RIGHTS frm them! they dont deserve it!!".hmm..wise,very wise of you!!!
youtoob9681 2 years ago
u know what? i respected the laws of american freedom, but after what these fags did to the poor woman i say FUCK your bill of rights, assholes! these amendments should be more like privileges than rights that all of you wicked scums do not deserve!
mbison83 2 years ago
i think it is wrong for what they did to that old lady, but, straight people aren't any different! i have seen ani-gay people kill gay people becouse they are gay!+
metaltwinke 2 years ago
if gaysalready have the same rights, as in a civil union type thing, then why can that be called marrige? what difference does it make.
though the basic wording in usas history for marrige hasnt changed,the global expresion of marrige has changed,and changes from culture to culture
al
kellogscornsnake 2 years ago
All their arguments for gay marriage lack wisdom. The Equal PROTECTION Clause is just that protection. The government must protect our rights according to law. Marriage is not a human law, but God's law and has great spiritual significance to Christians. A man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife and the two shall become one flesh. Read Genesis 1 through 3 for the connection.
CheapTrick81 2 years ago
Have you Heard separation of church and state, I could care less about what you believe but there are other religions out there, SO why do need to have your been on top? Why Do you need to have the word "marriage" as that definition? Why do you need to be on top of other people?.
ryukage99 2 years ago
ryu: Seperation of church and state has not nor ever has been a rule. Not in the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights.
wormer105 2 years ago
Look at the 1st amendment. Seesh.
ryukage99 2 years ago
ryu: The freedom of speech amendment?
wormer105 2 years ago
and freedom of religion and from religion.
ryukage99 2 years ago
ryu: That first part is correct and the second part is not.
wormer105 2 years ago
Why not? Why not have freedom from religion?
ryukage99 2 years ago
ryu: Infringes on another's right to free speech as well as freedom of religion.
wormer105 2 years ago
You get a gold star.
ryukage99 2 years ago
ryu: For falling into a poorly laid trap? Nope. Fact is that you can no more dictate the governments beliefs than I can dictate yours. We can do whatever we want so long as another's rights are not infringed.
wormer105 2 years ago
This is about discrimination and legality. Our country is supposed to be based in freedom - especially from religious imposition. We have a strong history of discrimination in this country which seems to repeat. Refusal to redefine the definition of marriage is blatantly a religion-based decision rooted in discrimination. We might as well ban consumption of catfish and shrimp because that is against the bible as well. There is no real legal reason to ban gay marriage. Unconstitutional. Period.
negroncito 2 years ago
I think deep that the whole movement against gay is merely people who want maintain the status quo and prevent change. But the reality is that change happens whether you like it or not. Believe people expect change and it should be their choice embrace change or be fearful of change. But being fearful of change forever is like having your head in sand.
ryukage99 2 years ago
yeah, how stupid to equate love with marriage.
I thought they kind of go together like a horse and carraige.
Stupid comment. I'll remember to avoid your dumbass videos in the future. (Btw you are more smug than Olbermann which is an achievement)
fuckyiuyiu 2 years ago
Perhaps you should watch this again and take notes this time. I said, love has nothing to do with the DEFINITION of marriage. I very true statement.
Please feel free to avoid my videos in the future. I want INTELLIGENT DISCUSSIONS here, not half-hazard statements based on the inability to grasp the simplest concept.
I'll keep it up though just to embarass you and entertain future readers.
theobamafactor 2 years ago
So would you mind if all marriage gay or straight become a civil union and let marriage be only religious ceremony and let churches decided for themselves what marriage is?
ryukage99 2 years ago
I'm sure that you would never nail somebody to a fence to die like the ones who murdered Matthew Shepherd, but people who do those sorts of things always point to YOUR bible as justification. Kinda makes you a little resposible, doesn't it?
bndkllr2 2 years ago
bnd: "but people who do those sorts of things always point to YOUR bible as justification. Kinda makes you a little resposible, doesn't it?"
Not really. Should the Beatles have gotten flack because Manson thought he heard more in the song Helter Skelter?
People commit crimes for so many reasons that if we went by your logic NO ONE is clean.
wormer105 2 years ago
It doesn't matter how nice you tell somebody they are inferior, you are still telling them they are inferior.
I also find it amusing that you guys say you support the "will of the people" Before you folks poured in millions of dollars worth of ads and countless thousands of hours running your campaign of fear, a clear majority of californians supported marriage equality.
why didn't you just respect their position?
No, you couldn't care a damn about them, it was always about YOU.
bndkllr2 2 years ago
Yeah, I've seen the "love" of conservative christians like jerry falwell who claim 9/11 was god's punishment for us accepting homosexuality. Or Fred Phelps and his loonies who hold up "God Hates Fags" signs and picket funerals of our soldiers fighting in Iraq. As a soldier who has spent a year there, this pisses me off. I know, you aren't like those "nasty" christians, your nicer than them, right? WRONG! The only difference between you and them is your method. You all want the same things.
bndkllr2 2 years ago
Don't lump me in with those guys. I'm a real conservative Christian, Phelps is a re loon. And they piss me off too.
Truth, Jerry Falwell's self-righteousness, isn't much better than Hugh Hefner's self-righteousness, that's the truth.
The bible says it is not for us to judge those outside the body of Christ. I live by that. Unlike Olbermann who castigated more than half of the California population.
Don't judge Christians by a few way out looney people looking for reputations.
weneedmccain 2 years ago
Haha this video is cool :)
Keith sucks.
dalkass 2 years ago
Oh, and if you have a problem with us expressing our free speech in the streets, then why don't you pass another constitutional amendment?
But you better be careful, because california's constitution is so easy to change, that we might see an amendment that says that middle aged white men can only marry other middle aged white men. Have you and Keith started looking at dinner plates and curtains yet? :)
bndkllr2 2 years ago
Now I could have deleted this stupid comment, but hey I like everyone expressing their opinion. Plus, everyone can see your own hatred now.
I appreciate you may not agree with those who voted for Prop 8. But learn to live with it, accept it, move on. This will just eat at you and devour you.
Your bitter and sarcastic comments have not offended me, nor upset me. And they contributed nothing to the debate. What a waste.
theobamafactor 2 years ago
Let me get this straight
You don't hate us, nothing you people do is about hate, just your personal beliefs, right?
You want to make the government treat us as less than you and strip us of our dignity and make a special inferior class out of the due process clause of the constitution, but this isn't hate?
Guess what. You can exercise your "personal beliefs" all you want, but when you go out of your way to create another class of citizens, they aren't "personal" anymore.
bndkllr2 2 years ago
How is the government stripping you of your dignity? How are you treated inferior?
In fact, the case could be made that you and the gay agenda have purposefully created your own class, isn't that right?
I could ask you, what makes you so special that you think the government needs to accomodate your every whim?
If you spent more time enjoying the freedom this country provides perhaps you'd be a happier person.
theobamafactor 2 years ago
TheobamaFactor,
You need to work on concealing your hatred a little better, because I can see right through it. It is perfectly obvious that this hate is religiously based and nothing more. You cannot name one problem of gay marriage that isn't related to biblethumping. All the so-called problems your side used in prop 8 were about fundies who didn't want to follow the law. How many non-religious people were inconvenienced in Massachusets? Shall we accomadate the beliefs of racists, too?
bndkllr2 2 years ago
Hatred? On the contrary, it has been the homosexual movement that has demonstrated hatred over and over again. Oh you're tolerant as long as people believe as you do, but let someone disagree with you and you spew name calling and hatred all day long - watch the video again.
Fact is, marriage is open and available to you as well. As long as your partner is a woman. THAT, is the definition of marriage.
Your name calling doesn't work on me so save your breath, or your fingers.
theobamafactor 2 years ago
theobamafactor,
civil unions and domestic partnerships do NOT have all the rights and protections as marriage, specifically the federal rights and protections, which you and others enjoy but we can't. I found this out when my partner Duane passed awaya and I was denied his social security benefits.
bndkllr2 2 years ago
Apart from being morally contemptible, the speaker's position is also intellectually bankrupt. Marriage is a basic legal right under the US Constitution, under both the Due Process and the Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment. Go read Loving v. Virginia 388 U.S. 1 (1967).
You say you support civil unions. So you'll let gay people do everything that married people do, but you won't let them call it marriage. Isn't that a counsel of hypocrisy?
aravindrganesh 2 years ago
I agree with you. And under the law, a gay man and a gay woman can certainly get married. So being gay does not preclude them from marriage. They just have to fall within the definition of what marriage is, a union between one man and one woman - regardless of their sexual orientation.
theobamafactor 2 years ago
Of course. Keith Olbermann is a lying liberal fanatical Obama nut hugging moron. He makes me sick.
apocalypse1280 2 years ago
whether a person is liberal or conservative doesnt matter
being closed minded is probably whats making you sick
the only true thing in your statement is that he is liberal which i have no idea how that is an insult
BBmunny 2 years ago
he was asking repeatedly but also rhetorically to make them think
to me tolerance is tolerance is tolerance no matter ones perspective
also teleprompter and notes and supposed theatrics does not add up to being self-righteous/fake/disengenuous
BBmunny 2 years ago
i see no hypocrisy on keiths part as i would think if he was shown the footage of the no on 8 people harassing the old lady he would feel as you do
it is also totally legitimate to bring religion into the discussion as he did briefly
you also cannot in any way claim he was disengenuous in his delivery as i really doubt you were present
to your comment below: the ability to procreate isnt a prerequisite for marriage
BBmunny 2 years ago
Well I disagree. Keith knew exactly why proponents of Prop 8 voted the way they did, so why ask the question - repeatedly?
Tolerance only works one way for the left in today's culture - that's nothing new, and Keith should know that.
Oh it's legitimate, however, being able to debunk his every argument without bringing up religion says a lot.
I didn't need to be there. He was using a teleprompter, than why look at his notes? So he can look up with disgust.
weneedmccain 2 years ago
You know what is REALLY fucked up about that Dont Ask Don't Tell? Govt. spends thousands of tax-money dollars that YOU and I pay for every year to train [for many years] these soldiers AND do an incredible job protecting USA across the globe, yet the Army&Navy fires them on the spot just because they are Gay. What a WASTE of money & training time. Then they'll have to recruit another faggot & train them all over again.
lloydbaltazar 2 years ago
Look, you seem like an intelligent guy so I won't be a total asshole since you're not one of those Christian nutjobs that deserve to get their prick cut off for being a total bigot. I DO understand that you are coming from a place of fear & anxiety about the unknown future.
But this is AMERICA & a fight for the Equal treatment and protection of a minority group is expected whenever they are oppressed or discriminated against.
lloydbaltazar 2 years ago
I agree no minority should be discriminated against or oppressed. I just fail to see how gays are.
Further, I've seen what has happened in States like Mass. that has gay marriage. Catholic charities shutting down after 100 years, churches being forced by courts to allow lesbian receptions on their grounds.
Do you see how the 1st Amendment of Freedom of Religion is being trampled?
Canada, pastors get arrested if they speak against homosexuality.
That's not right.
theobamafactor 2 years ago
I hate to say this without sounding like a prick but this is really a generational gap issue. Many young Gay and straight people favor Gay marriage today while old people tend to be more conservative & against marriage when it comes to this issue.
It;s just really a matter of time until Gay marriage becomes legal. CSPAN, CNN & Gallup polls proved this over & over again and its pretty damn obvious. We all use YouTube & you can tell that majority of young people are fine with gay marriage.
lloydbaltazar 2 years ago
I do not doubt there is some generational stuff in play. I also realize schools have indoctrinated kids in believing homosexuality is a good and moral sexual orientation.
I'm not for changing the definition of marriage to include gays.
I am for ALL the legal options available in marriage to be available to gay couples. I say this cause I have a gay sibling. It' s only right.
theobamafactor 2 years ago
To hell with this Kumbaya bullshit. You're not going to sweet-talk me just because you allegedly claim you have a homosexual sibling. For all I know, your Gay sibling may probably just have the same Christian mentality as you do. How does that help the cause for many oppressed Gay & Lesbians in this country? It doesn't.
lloydbaltazar 2 years ago
I thought we were having an honest discussion.
If you doubt everything I say, why continue?
theobamafactor 2 years ago
BTW, I am deeply offended at what that old geezer had to say that most Gays & Lesbians make high income in society. I live in Los Angeles & that may be a true----however you should not single out just LGBT alone because there are many other people who also make high income YET Gays & Lesbians do not get the same equal rights & privileges that heterosexuals couples do. UNFAIR & unAmerican.
lloydbaltazar 2 years ago
That's a true statement. As a minority, gays enjoy being in the upper range of the middle class. Greater than ANY OTHER minority group. So don't tell me about job discrimination, cause it just ain't so.
theobamafactor 2 years ago
How can you say there is no job discrimination? There are thousands of Gay & Lesbian sergeants, lieutenants & soldiers who have been fired in the Army just because they are Gay. Lt. Dan Choi. Fehrenbach & many others. CNN! Some dyke got fired from snowboarding camp last year in hickville just because she came out as a Lesbian. There IS job discrimination among that & many others. Just because a select few makes a large income that does not mean others are not discriminated.
lloydbaltazar 2 years ago
I'm referring to the private sector which is where all the discrimination policies are directed.
As for the military, because it is impossible to determine who is and who is not gay, if a gay person wants to be in the military, keep your mouth shut.
If a straight wants out of the military, all he has to do is say he's gay. Can't prove him to be a liar can you.
theobamafactor 2 years ago
Exactly. So HOW is that fair to any Gay & Lesbian soldier serving in the Army who is accused of being Gay by their straight soldiermates & be fired from their job?
Why should a Gay person have to "shut up" about their sexuality, YET a straight soldier can openly declare & brag the fact that he is straight in the Army? UNFAIR & unAmerican.
lloydbaltazar 2 years ago
You said you have never heard that heterosexuals are superior than Gay people. Ignorance much in your area?
Last week, there were Christian nutjobs at the city hall that were yelling "You FAGS are ABNORMAL, you will never be ACCEPTED. You will NEVER be EQUAL. God will NEVER accept SINNERS like YOU PERVERT FREAKS!"
And you said heterosexuals do not believe they are far more superior? Really?
lloydbaltazar 2 years ago