Page 8 of 12 FirstFirst ... 456789101112 LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 172

Thread: Keith Olbermann goes off on Prop 8.. you can feel the fury coming off him

  1. #106
    Hit By Ban Bus!
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    379

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nana55 View Post
    Prop 8 does not mention children. The people who wanted prop 8 are the ones who kept bringing up the children. People opposing it just wanted the right to marry. That was all. They don't want the right to teach it in school, or make people love them. They just wanted a basic right. Bringing children in to it muddies the water. It was a simple straight forward prop. It was wrong-headed but nothing about school or education.

    I agree but this is why I said Grimmlok was his own worst enemy. Because when you get sucked into the conversation the way he did and debate that it should be taught in school then you will convince the bigots and the fence sitters that there is more to this court case and they will err on the side of caution.

    Like I said, I don't want my kids used in someone elses court battle. Its inappropriate. You should see the constant barrage of crap my girlfriend sent me. She was in a total state of panic. They've convinced her that its a conspiracy theory trying to brainwash kids.

    And also its not about the "sex sex sex" as has been stated. Its really about the God God God. She feels they are indoctrinated children to accept a lifestyle that goes against biblical teaching. At the end of the day she cares more about her children's lives in heaven than in the here and now.

    Its pretty sad. But here's the funniest part. She is able to separate a secular world from her spiritual world. She stated she felt it was unjust that gay couples couldn't visit one another in hospitatls. She felt it was wrong that they couldn't get insurance as partners. She felt that it was sad that they couldn't be a family. She was fine with giving them a separate but equal marriage right.

    But she didn't want to call it marriage because in the bible it is defined as something governed by God.

    If it was just about the legal rights and civil rights, she had no problem with it. Only when God got involved.

    However from my POV she shouldn't be having a say anyway.

  2. #107
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,372

    Default

    Fuck god, fuck jebus, and fuck their retard followers.

    Should all be confined to an island for the insane.

    For realz. Watch out when i become planetary emperor. some serious shit is gonna go down.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  3. #108
    Hit By Ban Bus! AliceInWonderland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    you already know.
    Posts
    44,442

    Default

    yeah, we can read, thank you for stating the obvious flip

  4. #109
    Elite Member Just Kill Me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    sucking on a blow pop and playing with electrodes
    Posts
    15,550

    Default

    What about marriage as defined by King Henry or James? Marriage is a word in a bible that was not written by "god".
    KILLING ME WON'T BRING BACK YOUR GOD DAMNED HONEY!!!!!!!!!!

    Come on, let's have lots of drinks.

    Fuck you all, I'm going viral.

  5. #110
    Hit By Ban Bus!
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    379

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grimmlok View Post
    Fuck god, fuck jebus, and fuck their retard followers.

    Should all be confined to an island for the insane.

    For realz. Watch out when i become planetary emperor. some serious shit is gonna go down.
    Maybe that's how it started out. Maybe God banished them from the Garden of Eden and dumped them out on the rest of the world and all hell broke loose.

    Seriously I can't believe in this day and age that people still believe in God. Especially the bible. Maybe God I can understand but to try to make laws in this century honor ideologies from thousands of years ago is just...... Can anyone explain the logic in this?


    Quote Originally Posted by Just Kill Me View Post
    What about marriage as defined by King Henry or James? Marriage is a word in a bible that was not written by "god".
    I'm wondering the same thing. What exactly was marriage in the bible? Wasn't it just "hey you wanna be my wife" or "hey I want her to be my wife" Where did all the ceremony come from? Its not in the bible is it?

    The marriage at Canna? Skips off to wiki

  6. #111
    Hit By Ban Bus! AliceInWonderland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    you already know.
    Posts
    44,442

    Default

    there is no god.

  7. #112
    Elite Member Lobelia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    a backwards hillbilly state
    Posts
    20,801

    Default

    Well then!
    "I've cautiously embraced jeggings"
    Emma Peel aka Pacific Breeze aka Wilde1 aka gogodancer aka maribou

    Yip, yip, yip in your tiny indignation. Bark furiously on, lady dog.

  8. #113
    Elite Member Fluffy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    5,600

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AliceInWonderland View Post
    there is no god.
    Yes Karl.

  9. #114
    Hit By Ban Bus!
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    squirrels in the morning, squirrels in the evening, squirrels at suppertime!
    Posts
    1,243

    Default

    This is just what I love about Olbermann, his rational rants..

    He is right on the money on this issue. It's outrageous.

  10. #115
    Hit By Ban Bus! AliceInWonderland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    you already know.
    Posts
    44,442

  11. #116
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,372

    Default

    of course they do!
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  12. #117
    Elite Member Moongirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Cal-i-for-nigh-ay!
    Posts
    7,590

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SSDiva View Post
    Great job, Keith!

    Like a friend of mine said in her blog Thursday, 'so you don't agree with gay marriage, here's a clue DON'T FUCKING GET ONE!!!'


    This editorial was published in my local paper back in August:


    Voices from the Valley: News flash: Gay marriage is voluntary
    By MICHAEL CARLEY
    August 29, 2008 - 1:04PM

    Back in 2003, the same-sex marriage debate really got going when the state Supreme Court in Massachusetts paved the way for its legality in that state.

    At the time, I was worried like many Americans, and like many others, my worry was based on unfounded fear rather than reality. You see, as a straight man, I just didn’t want to marry another man, no matter what the courts or legislatures might say.

    A friend of mine finally clued me in: “Mike, you idiot, it’s voluntary. Just because they make same-sex marriage legal doesn’t mean you have to marry a guy. It just means that gay people will be able to marry their partners just like the rest of us.”

    Silly me. I should have known of course. Maybe by writing this, I can help alleviate someone else’s fear. Your marriage is not being threatened.

    This is the way the message is being framed these days; that we must “defend” or “protect” marriage against supposed attack. Whose marriage? What attack? I fail to understand how your marriage or mine is in any way diminished by extending the same legal rights and responsibilities to gay people. I have to assume that the people making this argument are as confused as I was.

    The other argument I hear against same-sex marriage is that the purpose of marriage is for the rearing of children and since gay people cannot produce biological children together, their marriages ought not to be recognized.

    While your children might like this rather narrow definition of marriage, if you had not been able to have them, would you view your marriage as any less valid, sacred or legal? If we were to use this definition of marriage, heterosexual couples who are too old or unable to have children, or who simply do not wish to procreate, would have to be denied their rights as well.

    Another worry I often hear is that if we allow same-sex marriage, we must allow marriages between three or more partners or those between humans and farm animals as well. This is so laughable I need not address it other than to say that it shows a great deal about the thinking of those making such arguments.

    Seriously, the problem with this issue is that throughout our history, marriage has been a dual institution — a sacred union sanctioned by various religious groups and a civil union sanctioned by the government and bringing with it literally thousands of rights and responsibilities, including the right to inherit property and visit one’s spouse in the hospital and the obligations involved in the rearing of children and management of legal matters.

    The solution ought to be rather simple. We must mentally divorce (no pun intended) the legal and religious institutions of marriage. Under the law (like it or not) the two are already separate. It is not the role of the government to use any religious group’s definition of marriage or morality to make the law. At the same time, religious institutions remain free to recognize or not recognize whichever marriages they choose and the government has nothing to say about it.

    The courts in California and Massachusetts have ruled that laws against same-sex marriage violate those states’ constitutions. Those rulings say nothing about how religious groups will deal with the issue; they apply only to the civil institution of marriage, not the religious one. Any church is free to recognize only those marriages they consider valid. Churches already do this based on a variety of factors including membership in a particular denomination, history of divorce or extramarital sexual activity, or willingness to undergo premarital counseling. As private organizations, religious groups are free to discriminate in whatever manner they choose.

    The government, on the other hand, should have a valid reason when it chooses to discriminate against a particular group or restrict their rights and that reason cannot have as its basis the religious doctrine of any group. The role of government is to represent and uphold the rights of all groups, whether or not that group is in the majority or not, and especially — and this is the beauty of our constitutional system — whether or not that group is popular or not. In this country, the majority is not given the right to take away the rights of any minority.

    Lastly, I’ll note that my friend’s reality check was very good timing. In December of that same year, I met a great woman and married her the next year. We are both thankful that we had the freedom to marry the person of our choice and that now our 8-month-old son will have even more freedom than we did. No matter what his orientation, he and the person he loves will be free to share in the rights and responsibilities the rest of us take for granted.

    What could be more American than that?

    -- Michael Carley is a resident of Porterville and director of research and grants at Porterville College.

  13. #118
    Elite Member MontanaMama's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Evading P6 & P7
    Posts
    13,466

    Default

    Is Porterville a real place? But this, too, is well stated and frankly, obvious.

    Let's see what other craziness this great institution of marriage has represented....ooooh, I know, not too long ago, the wife was considered property of the husband and had no rights or ownership in the couples assets. I think they justified that with the "Bible" too. Well, that's been changed and we don't have men or women marrying the livestock. What in the holy heck is the problem? The more we talk about it the more befuddled I get - why is this even an issue?

  14. #119
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,372

    Default

    You see, as a straight man, I just didn’t want to marry another man, no matter what the courts or legislatures might say.
    I trust this part was sarcasm, and he isn't this much of a moron
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  15. #120
    Elite Member Penny Lane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Over the hills and far away
    Posts
    21,646

    Default

    I found this video on a mormon blog.. ugh... they try to make it all Mister Rogers, easy-as-pie shit... not a complex issue implicating the rights and happiness of gays and lesbians at all..

    [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vI-GjWY-WlA[/youtube]

Page 8 of 12 FirstFirst ... 456789101112 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Tom Brokaw: Chris Matthews & Keith Olbermann have gone too far
    By witchcurlgirl in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: August 29th, 2008, 09:28 AM
  2. Keith Olbermann and Glenn Greenwald feud over FISA
    By witchcurlgirl in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: June 27th, 2008, 02:15 PM
  3. Keith Olbermann throws fit over ketchup?
    By mrs.v in forum Latest Gossip
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: June 26th, 2008, 08:21 PM
  4. Replies: 6
    Last Post: November 14th, 2007, 08:11 PM
  5. Olbermann completely skewers O'Reilly.
    By ohmygoodness in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: February 3rd, 2006, 02:58 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •