Keith Olbermann on Gay Marriage

Left-handedness?? Hair color?? pretty silly stuff.

Differences that set us apart. Social norms are fickle things. It would be entirely possible for a society to exist in which these debates revolve around left-handedness rather than homosexuality - that we view homosexuality the way we do is a matter of the norms and values of our society.


Immoral; victimization.

Sleeping with your daughter? Marrying her?

Subjective; depends on age. I've never heard about consensual relationships between adults and their parents, at least not without some prior abuse in the past of the offspring in question. I've never read any research on the topic, so I don't feel qualified to respond. I know I'd find it strange, but I'm not about to start assigning stringent moral values to things just because I find them weird. After all, I find the consumption of alcohol and the smoking of tobacco to be very weird.

Stealing?

Generally immoral, as it involves victimization. Some forms of stealing, especially stealing to survive, exist in moral grey areas. Would you be able to say that the act of stealing, absent any explanation of why, is always moral or immoral?

Public indecency?

Depends on what the public considers "decent." The actions of people on public property are, grudingly, within the purview of society - and, as a part of our little social construct, I suppose I feel okay expressing an entirely personal opinion on the matter - that is, that I don't particularly care what people do in public. There are a few things I probably wouldn't be comfortable with - forms of self-mutilation, for example. I doubt you want me to run down a list of all the things I wouldn't be comfortable seeing in the public sphere, and in any case it's difficult to think of them just off the top of my head.

It's all subjective you know. The problem for you is, if you have a line you're a hypocrite. I can apply any of your arguements to any and all of it.

I have a "line." It's just not necessarily straight.

Good pun, no?

The moral high ground? It was your choice on what side of this discussion you wanted to be on and I never put words in your mouth.

The belief that morality is subjective does not necessarily invalidate morality. You saying that I believe morality is invalid was you putting words in my mouth.
 
Werbung:
Straw man - the issue isn't what effect it would have on heterosexual marriage, but that it is usurping an institution which has nothing to do, nor did it ever, with being gay, and also that it represents gays trying to thereby force heterosexuals to look at them in a certain way.

But why does it matter that homosexuals have never been able to marry, in light of the fact that gay people getting married would have no affect on heterosexual marriage, the institution that is supposedly being "ursurped?" If a couple of gay people want to join together in a monogamous union, and they happen to want to call it marriage - why is that, alone, a bad thing? Why can't they call their union whatever they want? Why can't they structure their union however they want?

As for forcing the rest of us to look at them a certain way - it is an attempt at a quick fix to an old and deeply rooted problem. Still, I can't blame them for it - even if I don't think it would really be effective in achieving their goals, at this point in time.

I actually agree, but until they "de-legalize" marriage, I will be opposed to it being misused for political purposes.

The really ironic thing is that deregulation of marriage is an agenda that is entirely bipartisan compatible - if presented in the right light. In fact, it might be the most bipartisan-friendly agenda in modern American politics. Feels strange, doesn't it?

The LAST thing gays should do, if that's what they want, is what they've done.

They're looking to the Civil Rights Movement of the 60s for inspiration. In reality, the last thing they should do is become violent - which, thankfully they haven't. At least so far. Unfortunately, the 60s were a time of greater "cultural innocence" - whereas today's culture is snickety and sarcastic. That, coupled with the fact that color television is no longer a revolutionary advent in terms of presenting information, have impeded the efforts of homosexual rights groups. The time has passed for that kind of organized movement, and frankly I'm not sure what the way of the future is in that regard.

Also the rest of the things they've done - cause a resurgence of AIDS in the US because they don't want to use condoms, and demand special privileges at the expense of others.

I'm going to assume that "special privaleges" pertains to hate crime legislation. I'm undoubtedly leaving something out, so feel free to jump in with whatever it is.

In terms of hate crime legislation - at some point, homosexuals became the focus of specific attacks. It's a measure of intent, meant to stop that intent from becoming violence. While other motivations for crimes - financial and passion being the two most predominant ones - tend to be stronger and less likely to be deterred by laws that are slightly harsher, it was believed that legislating hate crime would help greatly in preventing those crimes from happening - since bigotry isn't as strong a motivation for committing a crime (since it's less personal) as, say, discovering that your wife is sleeping with another man.

Yes - politically, they've been pushy, usurping, and greedy.

They'd like the right to call their unions what they want and structure them the way they want, in a way that is equal to the unions of the rest of the population. They don't want to get beaten up and killed for being what they are. And they'd rather not have to endure society telling them that they're immoral any longer. I don't see that as pushy. In fact, I see that as quintessentially American.

They've been irresponsible with a deadly disease.

Subjective; in many cases, true. AIDS hit the country at a lousy time - just when homosexuals were starting to realize that there is nothing intrinsically immoral about being a homosexual.

They've defamed peoples' religions.

Who hasn't, these days? Look at all the "Islam is Evil" threads we have on this very board. Defamation of the religion of others is frighteningly common.

Does that excuse it? No.

In terms of greater social implications, I've actually met very few homosexuals who are ardently anti-Christianity. What I've found is that many advocates of homosexual rights are anti-Christian (I'm a bit ashamed to admit that I used to be very down on Christianity myself - I still consider myself a critic, but only in the most theoretical fashion - I wouldn't criticize people for practicing their religion, be it harm none, anymore). Most of the homosexuals I know generally regard Christianity from a distance with general indifference.

You don't live here, and don't know how it is.

Where is "here," if you don't mind my asking?

They have political influence WAYYYYYYYYYY beyond their numbers.

Yes and no. Proposition 8 still passed, remember?

Do you EVER get the feeling you shouldn't try to tell people who LIVE in a particular place what prevails there, when you DON'T?

Sometimes. This is how we learn.

If gay marriage became permanently legal, then churches almost certainly COULD be sued under california's Unruh Act:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unruh_Civil_Rights_Act

Interesting. I know churches in Massachusetts are allowed to reject couples for any number of reasons - do you know of any instances where this Unruh Act has been applied to heterosexual marriage before? I doubt an appeal to a law like that on the subject of marriage would carry much weight here, but, as you said, maybe your location is different.

It's not ridiculous at all, you don't know what you're talking about, and it's EXACTLY the kind of thing they'd do, particularly the type of christianity hating pushy gays who live in california.

So, what, all the nice homosexuals wound up in New England?

Lucky me.

No. :rolleyes: Your point woul be - what?

Never mind - I didn't know if you agreed with me on the deregulation of marriage, that's why I asked.

And it also doesn't mean that it was necessary. The american polical ethos is democratic - the people decide. They don't have to give a reason for their decisions or convince anyone that their viewpoint is "necessary".

They don't necessarily need to give a reason, but remember, the universe runs on causality. Voting doesn't involve just picking a solution out of a hat - there is always a reason people vote the way they do. Whether a particular change is necessary or not should be debated - and, as an argument for or against a particular change, saying, "this change has never existed before" has no weight.

The 14th amendment Equal Protection Clause prohibits discrimination according to race. There is nothing equivalent re homosexuality.

And my point is - why bother preventing discrimination on basis of race? What is the point? I think you'll find the point behind the Equal Protection Clause is similar to the point behind those who argue against discrimination based on sexual orientation.
 
what I find funny is this

had the vote instead voted down prop 8, and those who wanted it to pass would have promised to try again.....the people who are pro homosexual marriage would have firmly said. The voters have spoken, now shut up and accept it!!!!!

but since they did not get thier way, they protest in the streets and throw massive tantrums about it, and would never accept that from those who wanted prop 8 had it failed and they were doing the same thing.
 
In terms of hate crime legislation - at some point, homosexuals became the focus of specific attacks. It's a measure of intent, meant to stop that intent from becoming violence.

My apologies if I go a little off topic here but I had to chime in...

Hate Crime legislation is not just superfluous, its abhorrent as its nothing less than institutionalizing penalties for "thought" crimes and rewarding individuals for being victims of "hate".

An individuals intent should not play a role in their punishment for committing an act of violence and infringing the rights of another individual.

Lets say two people were both attacked and beaten with baseball bats in separate incidents - one was the victim of a "regular crime" while the other was deemed guilty of a "hate crime" - the attackers both inflict the same amount of trauma and damage to their victims but one perpetrator gets more jail time than the other...

That scenario punishes the thoughts or intent of one person greater than another who's guilty of an equally despicable act. Add to that, the victim of the Hate Crime is, by law, granted victim compensation while the other victim is not...

How's that fair to the other victim who suffered just as badly, who isn't due compensation, and who's attacker serves less time?

Thus, I do see Hate Crime legislation as being both a punishment for a thought crime and special rights to an individual because of their disposition - be they gay or whatever other qualifier.
 
But why does it matter that homosexuals have never been able to marry, in light of the fact that gay people getting married would have no affect on heterosexual marriage, the institution that is supposedly being "ursurped?" If a couple of gay people want to join together in a monogamous union, and they happen to want to call it marriage - why is that, alone, a bad thing? Why can't they call their union whatever they want? Why can't they structure their union however they want?

I've answered you about five times now, and they can certainly CALL themselves anything they want.

As for forcing the rest of us to look at them a certain way - it is an attempt at a quick fix to an old and deeply rooted problem. Still, I can't blame them for it - even if I don't think it would really be effective in achieving their goals, at this point in time.

Right - they are setting themselves back in a country with a deeply rooted democratic tradition. Conservatives hate like hell that Obama was elected, but are we goint to riot? Nooooooooooooo

The really ironic thing is that deregulation of marriage is an agenda that is entirely bipartisan compatible - if presented in the right light. In fact, it might be the most bipartisan-friendly agenda in modern American politics. Feels strange, doesn't it?

You've got that completely wrong - legal marriage has privileges and is widely supported - only the libertarians, or people with a libertarian streak like me, suggest delegalizing it.

They're looking to the Civil Rights Movement of the 60s for inspiration.

Nope - they would be looking at exactly the WRONG model. Blacks wanted the rights that already existed on paper. Gays are going down a blind alley by demanding something that doesn't exist. Instead, they should convince people to do it democratically.

In reality, the last thing they should do is become violent - which, thankfully they haven't.

Completely wrong, including recently. Post prop 8, they attacked a 69 year old woman carrying a cross at their protest in Palm Springs. They've also vandalized mormon temples. At their west hollywood protest, they were calling black passers-by "nigggers" because of the widespread black support for prop 8.

At least so far. Unfortunately, the 60s were a time of greater "cultural innocence" - whereas today's culture is snickety and sarcastic. That, coupled with the fact that color television is no longer a revolutionary advent in terms of presenting information, have impeded the efforts of homosexual rights groups. The time has passed for that kind of organized movement, and frankly I'm not sure what the way of the future is in that regard.

Sorry - I don't get that at all. :confused:

I'm going to assume that "special privaleges" pertains to hate crime legislation. I'm undoubtedly leaving something out, so feel free to jump in with whatever it is.

Besides that, there's states where landlords can't refuse to rent to people because of their "sexual orientation". That's a straight-forward gay privilege - would the authorities do anything if someone refused to rent to a child molester? Noooooooo. Also there's the hugely over-weighted funding for tax dollars for federal research grants for AIDS. People with a male relative dying of, eg, prostate cancer, a field relatively starved for research funds, have to throw their taxes into the titanic fund for AIDS, all so gays can continue to butt-f__K each other without a condom.

In terms of hate crime legislation - at some point, homosexuals became the focus of specific attacks. It's a measure of intent, meant to stop that intent from becoming violence.

ALL criminal penalties aim to discourage crime - try again. :rolleyes:

While other motivations for crimes - financial and passion being the two most predominant ones - tend to be stronger and less likely to be deterred by laws that are slightly harsher, it was believed that legislating hate crime would help greatly in preventing those crimes from happening - since bigotry isn't as strong a motivation for committing a crime (since it's less personal) as, say, discovering that your wife is sleeping with another man.

All this is BS. If someone gets the crap beaten out of them, it doesn't matter what the motivation is - they've got the crap beaten out of them. Also, the US has a strong free speech amendment (constantly under attack by liberals) that is also deemed to protect thought. In hate crime legislation, what they are really doing is giving an extra penalty for what people think. Besides violating the First Amendment, hate crime legislation violates the equal protection clause.

They'd like the right to call their unions what they want and structure them the way they want, in a way that is equal to the unions of the rest of the population.

Once again - they can CALL themselves anything they want.

They don't want to get beaten up and killed for being what they are.

And I don't want to get beaten up and killed for my money. Do you think someone who beaten up and killed for other than who he "is", is any less beaten up and killed?? :rolleyes:

And they'd rather not have to endure society telling them that they're immoral any longer. I don't see that as pushy. In fact, I see that as quintessentially American.

In THIS country we have free speech. Anyone who can't tolerate others' free speech should move to europe.

Where is "here," if you don't mind my asking?

The United States.

Yes and no. Proposition 8 still passed, remember?

The gays are about 3% of the population, and prop 8 lost 52% - 48%. Like I said.......

Interesting. I know churches in Massachusetts are allowed to reject couples for any number of reasons - do you know of any instances where this Unruh Act has been applied to heterosexual marriage before? I doubt an appeal to a law like that on the subject of marriage would carry much weight here, but, as you said, maybe your location is different.

Gays were getting married like crazy during the legal interval - they didn't bother with the churches then, but they would certainly get around to it if it were finally legalized.

They don't necessarily need to give a reason, but remember, the universe runs on causality. Voting doesn't involve just picking a solution out of a hat - there is always a reason people vote the way they do. Whether a particular change is necessary or not should be debated - and, as an argument for or against a particular change, saying, "this change has never existed before" has no weight.

I've told you the main reasons, and gays never engaged in any debate - they went to a liberal/left court panel to have the first initiative overturned. That's a common practice among libs today - instead of convincing anyone, they'd prefer the usually easier method of just taking their gripe to a sympathetic liberal/left clinton era judicial appointee, or even a jimmy carter era holdover.

And my point is - why bother preventing discrimination on basis of race? What is the point? I think you'll find the point behind the Equal Protection Clause is similar to the point behind those who argue against discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Many people are not convinced of that supposed equivalence, including myself.
 
Differences that set us apart. Social norms are fickle things. It would be entirely possible for a society to exist in which these debates revolve around left-handedness rather than homosexuality - that we view homosexuality the way we do is a matter of the norms and values of our society.



Immoral; victimization.



Subjective; depends on age. I've never heard about consensual relationships between adults and their parents, at least not without some prior abuse in the past of the offspring in question. I've never read any research on the topic, so I don't feel qualified to respond. I know I'd find it strange, but I'm not about to start assigning stringent moral values to things just because I find them weird. After all, I find the consumption of alcohol and the smoking of tobacco to be very weird.



Generally immoral, as it involves victimization. Some forms of stealing, especially stealing to survive, exist in moral grey areas. Would you be able to say that the act of stealing, absent any explanation of why, is always moral or immoral?



Depends on what the public considers "decent." The actions of people on public property are, grudingly, within the purview of society - and, as a part of our little social construct, I suppose I feel okay expressing an entirely personal opinion on the matter - that is, that I don't particularly care what people do in public. There are a few things I probably wouldn't be comfortable with - forms of self-mutilation, for example. I doubt you want me to run down a list of all the things I wouldn't be comfortable seeing in the public sphere, and in any case it's difficult to think of them just off the top of my head.



I have a "line." It's just not necessarily straight.

Good pun, no?



The belief that morality is subjective does not necessarily invalidate morality. You saying that I believe morality is invalid was you putting words in my mouth.

So you do have a 'line' and subscribe to the notion of 'morality'. I apologize for saying you didn't. Now, you decide the bar for us all since voting and the will of the people and what others consider wrong or immoral isn't good enough.

And, now society can decide whats 'indecent' in some cases as you stated above. Just not on issues that you find acceptable. Again, a majority concensus isn't good enough. Why don't you let us know in advance what's acceptable so all of us don't go through all the trouble.
 
Beside the point. In california, it is statutorily illegal for them to marry. When the constitution is silent about an issue, it's left for the people to decide - and in california, they have.


Wow...you are really only discussing your ideas and refuse to recognize others..how so fundamentalist republican of you...You're on ignore...
 
Wow...you are really only discussing your ideas and refuse to recognize others..how so fundamentalist republican of you...You're on ignore...

Double wow..and how so ultra liberal are you to not respect those that respect the will of the people, especially when it doesn't satisfy your opinion....Ignore me to please, you may get the list whittled down to only dealing with like-minded folks.
 
Left-handedness?? Hair color?? pretty silly stuff.

Where do you draw the line vyo? Rape? Sleeping with your daughter? Marrying her? Stealing? Public indecency? It's all subjective you know. The problem for you is, if you have a line you're a hypocrite. I can apply any of your arguements to any and all of it. The moral high ground? It was your choice on what side of this discussion you wanted to be on and I never put words in your mouth.

Rape and incest have victims. It is about abuse of power. If 2 concensual gay men or women want to have sex or live together or even get married, can you show me what is abusive or criminal about that? That analogy doesn't make sense.
 
Excellent post.

In fact it really makes you wonder why so many people are so hung up about gay people getting married.

And when people put it in the same ball park as rape and incest you know that reason checked out a long time ago.
 
Werbung:
Excellent post.

In fact it really makes you wonder why so many people are so hung up about gay people getting married.

And when people put it in the same ball park as rape and incest you know that reason checked out a long time ago.

I know the difference. My point is you can justify any behavior if you toss morality aside. I certainly see your point about rape. But what about incest? Who decided it's wrong? And why? What about polygamy? It's a slippery slope.

Vyo made it clear that he has a limit. My limit is set at marriage is exclusive for 1 man and 1 woman.
 
Back
Top