Menu Bar
Keith Olbermann on Gay Marriage
Needs Plugin: Flash |
Not Working?
<< Prop-8 The Musical: Jack Black, John C. Reilly, and More
|
Gay Marriage: Dan Savage vs Tony Perkins >>
Retweet This
Share on Facebook
Email This
Nov. 10: In a Special Comment, Countdown's Keith Olbermann disagrees with the passing of Proposition 8 in California and urges people to accept love between people of the same sex.
Nov 10, 2008 8:56 PM
Re: Keith Olbermann on Gay Marriage
If only the people he's talking to would watch this, there might be a chance that some would see the light beyond their fears...but they won't.
That kind of fear or arrogance, whatever it is, precludes seeking knowledge or other's opinions...very sad.
That kind of fear or arrogance, whatever it is, precludes seeking knowledge or other's opinions...very sad.
By: Lsamsa
Re: Keith Olbermann on Gay Marriage
Screw you Olbermann
Gay people shackin up just aint as important as marriages that produce blood children.
Gay people shackin up just aint as important as marriages that produce blood children.
By: Voidwar
Re: Keith Olbermann on Gay Marriage
Yah, feck you, Olbermahn. Faigs shackin up ain't got no right no how having nothing with to do with us gode Christin folks.
Shackin up ain't marage. Marage is about having blood children. Thet's right. Pure blood only. Thet means stop adopting, to.
Now I JUST BET YOU THAT SUM LIBERAL ACTIVISM JUGE is gonna say Prop 8 cain't hold up. Why? Becase its unconstatutionized. Like thet's sopossed to mean anything? I blame Hew-sain Obama, OLbermahn, and all the liberal commies on Milk & Cookie for everything wrong in this county.
(p.s. This post is dedicated to the majesty of Todd Palin's NASCAR goatee... Sniff! Mmmm... Smells like moose chili. :)
(p.p.s. If for some reason anyone is truly against gay marriage, do you mind sharing why? I'm just curious because this stuff is a big nothing for me. Oh, and what are you doing to make divorce illegal, too? Ya know, since you're all about the "sanctity of marriage," right?)
Shackin up ain't marage. Marage is about having blood children. Thet's right. Pure blood only. Thet means stop adopting, to.
Now I JUST BET YOU THAT SUM LIBERAL ACTIVISM JUGE is gonna say Prop 8 cain't hold up. Why? Becase its unconstatutionized. Like thet's sopossed to mean anything? I blame Hew-sain Obama, OLbermahn, and all the liberal commies on Milk & Cookie for everything wrong in this county.
(p.s. This post is dedicated to the majesty of Todd Palin's NASCAR goatee... Sniff! Mmmm... Smells like moose chili. :)
(p.p.s. If for some reason anyone is truly against gay marriage, do you mind sharing why? I'm just curious because this stuff is a big nothing for me. Oh, and what are you doing to make divorce illegal, too? Ya know, since you're all about the "sanctity of marriage," right?)
Re: Keith Olbermann on Gay Marriage
So Void War,
What about straight couples who adopt!? That is not their blood relative, yet they raise a child as their own. You are a jerk, if you are not being snark.
What about straight couples who adopt!? That is not their blood relative, yet they raise a child as their own. You are a jerk, if you are not being snark.
Re: Keith Olbermann on Gay Marriage
That's such a ridiculously stupid statement there, fella. Fucking dumb is what it is.
Marriage is not a necessity to breeding, and being gay doesn't mean you can't raise a child well. Nor does reproducing somehow give you special entitlement to the literary/legal/spiritual definition of marriage.
Besides, language and religions change over time. Things get redefined to suit the situation. Who knows what marriage will mean in the year...2010.
Put it this way, my bigoted acquaintance... I'm straight, about to get married and have absolutely no interest in kids. In fact, I rather loath the idea of children ruining my life. Demanding everything that i do not wish to give. Ah... too much responsibility. Not for me.
Yet if i wish to keep the woman I love (great gal, btw), I'll have to bite the bullet and... uh... fire it one day. Which sucks serious ass for a selfishly hedonistic and non-traditional joe like myself. And no matter how much i try to smile, I'll still be going into it with no interest.
Now, my attitude about child raising is probably less uncommon than i think it to be; however, I think it is fair to say that it's fucking ghey how I get more legitimacy simply because I prefer sticking my penis is places that make babies.
Gay folks who really want to have kids, and have the means to do so, should be granted equal rights. That is fair.
What's the big deal? Only religions claim gay marriage is wrong, and not one of them has ever offered ANY facts to support their case. (I'd say that dude to it being a load of mindless nonsense.... still, facts are facts... and they have shit)
No one has proof gay couples cannot raise quality people, because no such evidence exists.
Marriage is not a necessity to breeding, and being gay doesn't mean you can't raise a child well. Nor does reproducing somehow give you special entitlement to the literary/legal/spiritual definition of marriage.
Besides, language and religions change over time. Things get redefined to suit the situation. Who knows what marriage will mean in the year...2010.
Put it this way, my bigoted acquaintance... I'm straight, about to get married and have absolutely no interest in kids. In fact, I rather loath the idea of children ruining my life. Demanding everything that i do not wish to give. Ah... too much responsibility. Not for me.
Yet if i wish to keep the woman I love (great gal, btw), I'll have to bite the bullet and... uh... fire it one day. Which sucks serious ass for a selfishly hedonistic and non-traditional joe like myself. And no matter how much i try to smile, I'll still be going into it with no interest.
Now, my attitude about child raising is probably less uncommon than i think it to be; however, I think it is fair to say that it's fucking ghey how I get more legitimacy simply because I prefer sticking my penis is places that make babies.
Gay folks who really want to have kids, and have the means to do so, should be granted equal rights. That is fair.
What's the big deal? Only religions claim gay marriage is wrong, and not one of them has ever offered ANY facts to support their case. (I'd say that dude to it being a load of mindless nonsense.... still, facts are facts... and they have shit)
No one has proof gay couples cannot raise quality people, because no such evidence exists.
By: EViLMinD
Re: Keith Olbermann on Gay Marriage
Sorry, bigot dude. When I first used "dude", I meant 'due'.
It's late and I'm sleepy.
It's late and I'm sleepy.
By: EViLMinD
Re: Keith Olbermann on Gay Marriage
That was a coherent, to-the-point argument, EM. I'm surprised, and impressed.
On a side note, kids grow on you a lot faster than you can imagine. When you first see their tiny hand grip your finger, you'll grow up really quickly. But that's aside from your point, I know.
On a side note, kids grow on you a lot faster than you can imagine. When you first see their tiny hand grip your finger, you'll grow up really quickly. But that's aside from your point, I know.
By: Oh-Deeh
Re: Keith Olbermann on Gay Marriage
thats your counter to olbermanns monologue? wow you destroyed him. you didn't even have to make any sort of logical argument. you just expressed your opinion in an ineloquent way and destroyed all of olbermanns reasoning and selfless decency.
By: sonicjohnson
Re: Keith Olbermann on Gay Marriage
Olbermann's appeal to emotion was a fallacy.
He tries to make the claim that its about Love, but that is a false argument, since folks can live together and love each other for a lifetime, and never be married. So Love is not the issue, and thats what Olbermann hung his argument on.
He tries to make the claim that its about Love, but that is a false argument, since folks can live together and love each other for a lifetime, and never be married. So Love is not the issue, and thats what Olbermann hung his argument on.
By: Voidwar
Re: Keith Olbermann on Gay Marriage
Ah, I see. You're THAT jackass that lives inside a microscopic ideal world.
Okay, why do you think Olbermann brought up the fact about slaves not being able to marry? To pull heartstrings? Wrong.
He brought it up to point out the parallel between the class status of slaves and blacks in the past(as recent as '67) to gays and lesbians in the present-day.
Slaves and blacks were viewed as second-class citizens. Therefore, their rights to marry were NOT recognized. If a slave was sold or moved, there was no guarantee the spouse would go also(more than likely not).
Same with blacks pre-late 60's. Get married in a state that accepts it and move to a state that does not? As far as the new state is concerned, you're not married. You have NO rights as a married couple.
Want to visit your 'wife' in the hospital? Sorry. Immediate relatives only. Want to share healthcare benefits? Sorry. Spouses only.
The situation with gays & lesbians is the exact same thing. By saying that gays and lesbians are not allowed to marry, you are saying they are second-class citizens, just like slaves used to be.
As much as anyone(yes, this includes you) may claim to not be homophobe, etc., making the argument that gays and lesbians should not be allowed the right to marry proves otherwise. You, are gaycist.
So while he may have stated that his argument was about love, he was not talking strictly romantic love. He was speaking about unconditional love for your fellow men and women of your state, this country, the world. With that unconditional love, comes equal rights for ALL, including the right to marry who you damned well please, regardless of their sexual orientation. Yes, that even includes transsexuals.
[Related Tangent]
While I have no problem with gays & lesbians, transexuals do creep me out. I think it is because gays and lesbians have all the right parts while trannys have parts that they shouldn't have.
Its one thing to have an extra toe, but a vagina AND a penis? That's one of the few things in my life that I have a hard time accepting on an interpersonal level(you know, face-to-face). But you know what, that is a biological variant. It isn't common, but it is far from rare. And you know what else? It is just like being gay or lesbian in that it is a question of birth, not choice.
Having stated my discomfort with transexuals, I still firmly believe they have all the rights of any other person, including the right to marry. Want to know why? Probably not, but I'll tell you anyway...
The fact that two gay or lesbian people(or trannys) are going to get married does NOT affect MY life in ANY POSSIBLE WAY.
Absolutely None.
Zero.
Zilch.
Nada.
And do you want to know what else? It is going to effect YOUR life by the EXACT SAME amount.
Okay, why do you think Olbermann brought up the fact about slaves not being able to marry? To pull heartstrings? Wrong.
He brought it up to point out the parallel between the class status of slaves and blacks in the past(as recent as '67) to gays and lesbians in the present-day.
Slaves and blacks were viewed as second-class citizens. Therefore, their rights to marry were NOT recognized. If a slave was sold or moved, there was no guarantee the spouse would go also(more than likely not).
Same with blacks pre-late 60's. Get married in a state that accepts it and move to a state that does not? As far as the new state is concerned, you're not married. You have NO rights as a married couple.
Want to visit your 'wife' in the hospital? Sorry. Immediate relatives only. Want to share healthcare benefits? Sorry. Spouses only.
The situation with gays & lesbians is the exact same thing. By saying that gays and lesbians are not allowed to marry, you are saying they are second-class citizens, just like slaves used to be.
As much as anyone(yes, this includes you) may claim to not be homophobe, etc., making the argument that gays and lesbians should not be allowed the right to marry proves otherwise. You, are gaycist.
So while he may have stated that his argument was about love, he was not talking strictly romantic love. He was speaking about unconditional love for your fellow men and women of your state, this country, the world. With that unconditional love, comes equal rights for ALL, including the right to marry who you damned well please, regardless of their sexual orientation. Yes, that even includes transsexuals.
[Related Tangent]
While I have no problem with gays & lesbians, transexuals do creep me out. I think it is because gays and lesbians have all the right parts while trannys have parts that they shouldn't have.
Its one thing to have an extra toe, but a vagina AND a penis? That's one of the few things in my life that I have a hard time accepting on an interpersonal level(you know, face-to-face). But you know what, that is a biological variant. It isn't common, but it is far from rare. And you know what else? It is just like being gay or lesbian in that it is a question of birth, not choice.
Having stated my discomfort with transexuals, I still firmly believe they have all the rights of any other person, including the right to marry. Want to know why? Probably not, but I'll tell you anyway...
The fact that two gay or lesbian people(or trannys) are going to get married does NOT affect MY life in ANY POSSIBLE WAY.
Absolutely None.
Zero.
Zilch.
Nada.
And do you want to know what else? It is going to effect YOUR life by the EXACT SAME amount.
By: poolaka
Re: Keith Olbermann on Gay Marriage
You had a great point, up until your assertion that pre-circa-1967, a black, married couple that moved to a state that didn't allow blacks to marry would not be recognized as married in that state. You're forgetting Art. IV, Section 1 of the constitution, which states that each state shall give "Full faith and credit" to "the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state."
That clause of the constitution is why the truly hardliner stance against gay marriage demands an amendment to the US constitution banning it. You see, they're afraid that if a gay couple gets married in another state that does allow it, they'll have to tolerate--worse, even legally recognize--that "unholy union" when that couple moves to the states that banned it.
That clause of the constitution is why the truly hardliner stance against gay marriage demands an amendment to the US constitution banning it. You see, they're afraid that if a gay couple gets married in another state that does allow it, they'll have to tolerate--worse, even legally recognize--that "unholy union" when that couple moves to the states that banned it.
By: Oh-Deeh
Re: Keith Olbermann on Gay Marriage
duly noted. I freely admit to not knowing the constitution inside and out. I was riffing off of what Olb'man mentioned, knowing the he always does his research.
Looks like I took a bit too much liberty. However, I still stand by my everything else I wrote, because the principle remains true.
Looks like I took a bit too much liberty. However, I still stand by my everything else I wrote, because the principle remains true.
By: poolaka
Re: Keith Olbermann on Gay Marriage
And I probably don't need to say this, but I'll just restate that I wasn't trying to break down your argument. I'm in full agreement with you. I just didn't want you to make that mistake in another discussion, and thus lose your footing in the debate. (I'm an educator by trade.)
By: Oh-Deeh
Re: Keith Olbermann on Gay Marriage
Oh, except "tranny" usually refers to someone who is a trans-sexual. That means they are undergoing hormone therapy and surgical operations in order to transform their body to the opposite sex. (Sometimes people are born with the body of a man, but feel as though they are spiritually/emotionally/psychologically actually a woman--that they are a woman stuck in a man's body--and the medical procedures are there to correct the physical 'mistake.') I just read your side note regarding this point, and realized you seem to be talking about "hermaphrodites," rather than trans-sexuals.
By: Oh-Deeh
Re: Keith Olbermann on Gay Marriage
"Unconditional love for your fellow men and women of your state, this country, the world."
well put, and would that it were so.
Everyone wants to be loved.
Two people in love want to feel that they matter, that their love counts. With the possible exception of meanness, I cannot think why anyone would want to deny any couple the right to legally claim a spouse, and lifelong friend, and lover.
well put, and would that it were so.
Everyone wants to be loved.
Two people in love want to feel that they matter, that their love counts. With the possible exception of meanness, I cannot think why anyone would want to deny any couple the right to legally claim a spouse, and lifelong friend, and lover.
By: Spankywzl
Re: Keith Olbermann on Gay Marriage
Oh, so they can live together, so that makes it fine? What about the idea of free choice that far right conservatives preach but do not live by?
"It's the Lord's holy word, as my second wife said to my third."
-Roy Zimmerman
"It's the Lord's holy word, as my second wife said to my third."
-Roy Zimmerman
Re: Keith Olbermann on Gay Marriage
It's half false. He often refers to the lack of love of those who voted to pass proposition 8, or their lack of compassion for people who want to be treated as equals. He doesn't pay much attention to the inequality of rights, which is the real issue at hand. But he is right in questioning the intentions of those who voted to pass proposition 8, because that is one facet of the problem.
I don't understand why you have to start nitpicking the argument with all that cocksure language. It's kind of irritating. I know you're probably really smart and know how to properly use commas and semicolons; however, that doesn't mean you need to run off at the mouth and fingers with every single flaw that comes to mind. Chill out. Be happy that someone with a voice is at least vaguely hinting that this proposition was evil, and that any self-proclaimed tyrant or inattentive idiot who voted yes was therefore evil.
I don't understand why you have to start nitpicking the argument with all that cocksure language. It's kind of irritating. I know you're probably really smart and know how to properly use commas and semicolons; however, that doesn't mean you need to run off at the mouth and fingers with every single flaw that comes to mind. Chill out. Be happy that someone with a voice is at least vaguely hinting that this proposition was evil, and that any self-proclaimed tyrant or inattentive idiot who voted yes was therefore evil.
By: boyblunders
Re: Keith Olbermann on Gay Marriage
Jesse Ventura said it best, IMHO: How dare the government get involved in telling people who to love?
But the sheer ignorance of your statement deserves to be addressed. Are you telling me that my adopted son is of any less value than my naturally born daughter of my own bloodline?
Just my little opinion: You've got to rethink your position.
But the sheer ignorance of your statement deserves to be addressed. Are you telling me that my adopted son is of any less value than my naturally born daughter of my own bloodline?
Just my little opinion: You've got to rethink your position.
By: spam_vigilante
Re: Keith Olbermann on Gay Marriage
Can you give him a Kidney ?
Can you give one to your Daughter ?
Ahh so one relationship is FACTUALLY not as close as the other.
Like I already said, love does not need marriage, so it ain't about that.
Further, my comment was about bastards, not adoptees.
Can you give one to your Daughter ?
Ahh so one relationship is FACTUALLY not as close as the other.
Like I already said, love does not need marriage, so it ain't about that.
Further, my comment was about bastards, not adoptees.
By: Voidwar
Re: Keith Olbermann on Gay Marriage
Actually, it is possible to give a kidney to someone you are not related to in any way. As a matter of fact, nearly HALF of all living transfers are done in this fashion today. On top of that, the donor does not even need to be the same blood type.
Next argument.
Next argument.
By: poolaka
Re: Keith Olbermann on Gay Marriage
fine , lets change it to Bone Marrow.
Need a match for that as I recall, so your attempted "shootdown" is thus shot down.
Need a match for that as I recall, so your attempted "shootdown" is thus shot down.
By: Voidwar
Re: Keith Olbermann on Gay Marriage
Only problem with bone marrow transplants is that a sibling is only 25% likely to be a match... the majority of all transplants are from unrelated donors.
By: Wolvan
Re: Keith Olbermann on Gay Marriage
I'm pretty sure this man is not his own daughter's sibling, doofus.
By: Voidwar
Re: Keith Olbermann on Gay Marriage
Marriage is about children, bloodlines and family ties.
Bastards are LESS. Legitimacy matters.
Marriage determines legitimacy, and defines both sides of a child's family tree.
Bastards have half a family tree, and it shows.
I don't mind gay folks at all, and I am an atheist , so it ain't about religion, its about blood.
Bastards are LESS. Legitimacy matters.
Marriage determines legitimacy, and defines both sides of a child's family tree.
Bastards have half a family tree, and it shows.
I don't mind gay folks at all, and I am an atheist , so it ain't about religion, its about blood.
By: Voidwar
Re: Keith Olbermann on Gay Marriage
Like I'm in a hole , yawn.
The opinion of people who are fans of Olbermann is worth Zilch, and your comment did not address my points anyway.
The opinion of people who are fans of Olbermann is worth Zilch, and your comment did not address my points anyway.
By: Voidwar
Re: Keith Olbermann on Gay Marriage
I'll take on your points, weak as they are.
So marriage is based on the ability to have kids, right? So people who are sterile, have had a vasectomy or menopause, aren't valid for marriage either. Better be careful, Void, your definition would include people who can't get it up.
You make no valid point other than showing how ignorant and vicious you are. Neither you nor those religious fascists out there have the right to decide for these people. All the rest of us have to do is be patient until people who think like you disappear.
So marriage is based on the ability to have kids, right? So people who are sterile, have had a vasectomy or menopause, aren't valid for marriage either. Better be careful, Void, your definition would include people who can't get it up.
You make no valid point other than showing how ignorant and vicious you are. Neither you nor those religious fascists out there have the right to decide for these people. All the rest of us have to do is be patient until people who think like you disappear.
By: SpyPlaneX1
Re: Keith Olbermann on Gay Marriage
Void, try this one on for size and tell me what you'd do in this case.
I am a damn fine looking specimen of a man and in my high school days I was out getting tons and tons of pu$$y, okay. You with me so far?
Say, one of the Magnum trojans I used ripped at the shear force of my ejaculation and got one of these girls pregnant. Remember, it takes two to tango... I was 18 at the time, legal 'hitchin' age in my state, yet my 'girlfriend' was only 17.
Me AND my 'girlfriend' at the time wanted to get married to avoid having a "bastard" child, as you so eliquently put, but were not able to get married. So, I know kind of what it's like to not be able to get married when you want to.
My son was 1 month old before we were legally able to marry, not because my wife was 18, no, that wasn't the case for another month. But because some dumb ass wrote that it's NOT okay to get married at 17 w/o parents consent, but it IS okay the minor has a child with the person they want to marry?! WHAT?! Ya, so I had to wait until my son was born before we could get married.
Now, we have 3 children together, my son is 9 and I have another son who is 4 and a daughter who is 2.
My point is this. I'm sorry you've never felt this feeling before, but this thing "Love" is a very amazing human trait. My wife and I LOVE each other and we knew then that we LOVED each other, yet we couldn't get married because of some bs law that doesn't take in account the LOVE two people have for each other.
Again, I'm sorry no one loves you, Void. If you knew love, you'd change your mind and be against such a vicious and hate-filled thing like Prop 8.
Didn't mommy ever hug her "blood child"?
I am a damn fine looking specimen of a man and in my high school days I was out getting tons and tons of pu$$y, okay. You with me so far?
Say, one of the Magnum trojans I used ripped at the shear force of my ejaculation and got one of these girls pregnant. Remember, it takes two to tango... I was 18 at the time, legal 'hitchin' age in my state, yet my 'girlfriend' was only 17.
Me AND my 'girlfriend' at the time wanted to get married to avoid having a "bastard" child, as you so eliquently put, but were not able to get married. So, I know kind of what it's like to not be able to get married when you want to.
My son was 1 month old before we were legally able to marry, not because my wife was 18, no, that wasn't the case for another month. But because some dumb ass wrote that it's NOT okay to get married at 17 w/o parents consent, but it IS okay the minor has a child with the person they want to marry?! WHAT?! Ya, so I had to wait until my son was born before we could get married.
Now, we have 3 children together, my son is 9 and I have another son who is 4 and a daughter who is 2.
My point is this. I'm sorry you've never felt this feeling before, but this thing "Love" is a very amazing human trait. My wife and I LOVE each other and we knew then that we LOVED each other, yet we couldn't get married because of some bs law that doesn't take in account the LOVE two people have for each other.
Again, I'm sorry no one loves you, Void. If you knew love, you'd change your mind and be against such a vicious and hate-filled thing like Prop 8.
Didn't mommy ever hug her "blood child"?
By: chawx
Re: Keith Olbermann on Gay Marriage
yah void, i agree with everyone here that the scope of your comprehension on basic human principles and ideology is lacking. Do yourself a favor and take some hallucinogens or something, go meditate. Your brain has some growing to do.
Re: Keith Olbermann on Gay Marriage
Maybe read some Terrence McKenna, too?
Re: Keith Olbermann on Gay Marriage
Your argument is so nonsensical it's hard to follow, but I'll give it a shot.
You apparently have a raging hard on for being able to make a family tree. Why does marriage necessitate this? "Person A had sex with Person B and Person C came out." Do you not know how reproduction works?
Or maybe you think that adopted children are loved less? I think you'd have a tough time making that argument to someone who spent four years on a waiting list. In fact, by that scale, you could argue that adopted children are loved four times more than natural births because the decision making process took four times as long! (wait time varies)
Sorry void, but Marriage is 100% about love. There is nothing else that necessitates marriage. Not children, not sharing a garage, not giving any fuck about the other persons family. By denying people this right, you also deny them several benefits our government provides to married couples, which is the main, legal, argument against it's prohibition. You seem to have a very middle ages view of love, in that the way it tied nations together through loveless marriages that frequently required mistresses was more important.
Although your perverse fascination with the power of "blood" is somewhat amusing.
You apparently have a raging hard on for being able to make a family tree. Why does marriage necessitate this? "Person A had sex with Person B and Person C came out." Do you not know how reproduction works?
Or maybe you think that adopted children are loved less? I think you'd have a tough time making that argument to someone who spent four years on a waiting list. In fact, by that scale, you could argue that adopted children are loved four times more than natural births because the decision making process took four times as long! (wait time varies)
Sorry void, but Marriage is 100% about love. There is nothing else that necessitates marriage. Not children, not sharing a garage, not giving any fuck about the other persons family. By denying people this right, you also deny them several benefits our government provides to married couples, which is the main, legal, argument against it's prohibition. You seem to have a very middle ages view of love, in that the way it tied nations together through loveless marriages that frequently required mistresses was more important.
Although your perverse fascination with the power of "blood" is somewhat amusing.
By: Faffy
Re: Keith Olbermann on Gay Marriage
And to add the major argument against Prop 8 etc.: Why do you care who someone else marries? Really? Does it really make other marriages less valid somehow? Does it make marriage less valid than the present 50% divorce rate? Or is there some hidden bonus to discriminating that I'm not seeing?
In short, how does something that does not effect you bother you so much?
In short, how does something that does not effect you bother you so much?
By: Faffy
Re: Keith Olbermann on Gay Marriage
"We must protect our precious bodily fluids."
Re: Keith Olbermann on Gay Marriage
"Bastards are LESS. Legitimacy matters.
Bastards have half a family tree, and it shows"
How exactly are bastards less? You said it show, but how? Does it physically show, or is it a personality thing...I'm really confused as to how this shows, or maskes bastards less than a person.
Are you willing to take that Pepsi Challenge?
Bastards have half a family tree, and it shows"
How exactly are bastards less? You said it show, but how? Does it physically show, or is it a personality thing...I'm really confused as to how this shows, or maskes bastards less than a person.
Are you willing to take that Pepsi Challenge?
By: AmadeusMaxwell
Re: Keith Olbermann on Gay Marriage
I am a proud moderate conservative, but i completely agree. I don't get what the far right is making a big deal about.
By: Red_dude
Re: Keith Olbermann on Gay Marriage
"It's all about blood. Take my family for instance - it don't fork."
What kind of Nazi eugenics garbage is this, anyway? Orphans and victims of disaster in Void's world = expendable! People vitout zere papaz = lesser citizens! Those not of the "pure" blood = condemned from birth!
He's not digging a hole, he's just shoveling dirt. Give the man enough, and let him bury himself.
What kind of Nazi eugenics garbage is this, anyway? Orphans and victims of disaster in Void's world = expendable! People vitout zere papaz = lesser citizens! Those not of the "pure" blood = condemned from birth!
He's not digging a hole, he's just shoveling dirt. Give the man enough, and let him bury himself.
By: SpyPlaneX1
Re: Keith Olbermann on Gay Marriage
Its so Ironic that Homosexuals were protesting in front of that Mormon Church the day after the election. Mormons faced the same discrimination that homosexuals did. They were forced to abandon their right to marry whoever they want.
By: poonhound
Re: Keith Olbermann on Gay Marriage
I actually agree with that. I'd say my view of the Mormon church is a lot like the opinion many proponents of Prop 8 would say they have towards homosexuals; I don't necessarily have anything against them, I just don't agree with them on principle. However, that being said, I don't think it's the government's place to limit how many wives or husbands a person can have, if having more than one life-long commitment works for them. The real reason the Mormons lost that battle was because polygamy is legally irreconcilable with American tax, property, inheritance, and power-of-attorney laws.
But you're right. There they are, pointing fingers like people once did to their own ancestors.
But you're right. There they are, pointing fingers like people once did to their own ancestors.
By: Oh-Deeh
Re: Keith Olbermann on Gay Marriage
I actually disagree with that. (big shock, Poon, I know... :)
I believe you've got the argument backward. It's ironic for sure. Ironic that the Mormons supported Prop 8 so fervently with their money and time after they themselves faced the exact same discrimination.
The Mormons know what it's like and didn't care for it themselves. But now they dish it out to others? Hm.
And, by the way, there have been homosexual protesters outside Mormon churches in California since long before the election. The media just wasn't reporting them until now. (to show the gays as "sore losers?" perhaps...)
Prop 8 was one of the most costly election measures during this entire election season (outside of the Presidency, of course) with estimates of up to 70% of donations and volunteers coming from the Mormon Church.
In fact, one middle-class Mormon family themselves donated $50,000 to this effort. It was crazed.
So for the Mormons? Prop 8's inherent discrimination was very personal. They wanted to discriminate against the gays just like...like, well, like they were discriminated against.
So... Ironic? Yep. For sure. Absolutely. Why would the Mormons who "faced the same discrimination that homosexuals did" be so rabid to discriminate against others in the exact same way?
I believe you've got the argument backward. It's ironic for sure. Ironic that the Mormons supported Prop 8 so fervently with their money and time after they themselves faced the exact same discrimination.
The Mormons know what it's like and didn't care for it themselves. But now they dish it out to others? Hm.
And, by the way, there have been homosexual protesters outside Mormon churches in California since long before the election. The media just wasn't reporting them until now. (to show the gays as "sore losers?" perhaps...)
Prop 8 was one of the most costly election measures during this entire election season (outside of the Presidency, of course) with estimates of up to 70% of donations and volunteers coming from the Mormon Church.
In fact, one middle-class Mormon family themselves donated $50,000 to this effort. It was crazed.
So for the Mormons? Prop 8's inherent discrimination was very personal. They wanted to discriminate against the gays just like...like, well, like they were discriminated against.
So... Ironic? Yep. For sure. Absolutely. Why would the Mormons who "faced the same discrimination that homosexuals did" be so rabid to discriminate against others in the exact same way?
Re: Keith Olbermann on Gay Marriage
Nice one by Keith O. I just gotta say as a fella who knows a lesbian married couple who got married and are raising a kid, go F**K yourself voidwar.
Her choice in partner was far better than her abusive husband. I am proud of her, her WIFE and their child.
Oh and by the way, I am a Bastard. My folks were not married, because my mom decided not to marry my alcoholic father. So proud bastard here.
I really hate you asanine putzes who 'proclaim' and say 'the bible says' when 98% of you morons have never even spoken to a well adjusted gay couple. Have you?
More important, have you LISTENED to their side of the story and formed an opinion?
No. I would say not. And it's not even about being gay. You retards just NEED someboy to oppress. Some villian to fight. Someone to HATE. You sicken me.
I left the Christian faith, strangely enough, because. . . get this. . . I believe in what Jesus preached.
L-O-V-E. Read that. (I preume you can read as you can type)
You know what? This is the way I see it.
Jesus preached love, forgiveness, and acceptance.
Christians preach love, forgiveness, and acceptance, BUT PRACTICE hate, revenge, and intollerance.
Dont think so?
Mary Magdeline - Whore, Jesus was kind to her. Are you?
Lepers - the afflicted, hmmm, nice to them. Will you shake hands with somone who has AIDS?
Women - treated them as equals. Do you?
Gah-damn you make me mad.
And don't say I am wrong because the proof is in the pudding shortbus, just look at your post.
Her choice in partner was far better than her abusive husband. I am proud of her, her WIFE and their child.
Oh and by the way, I am a Bastard. My folks were not married, because my mom decided not to marry my alcoholic father. So proud bastard here.
I really hate you asanine putzes who 'proclaim' and say 'the bible says' when 98% of you morons have never even spoken to a well adjusted gay couple. Have you?
More important, have you LISTENED to their side of the story and formed an opinion?
No. I would say not. And it's not even about being gay. You retards just NEED someboy to oppress. Some villian to fight. Someone to HATE. You sicken me.
I left the Christian faith, strangely enough, because. . . get this. . . I believe in what Jesus preached.
L-O-V-E. Read that. (I preume you can read as you can type)
You know what? This is the way I see it.
Jesus preached love, forgiveness, and acceptance.
Christians preach love, forgiveness, and acceptance, BUT PRACTICE hate, revenge, and intollerance.
Dont think so?
Mary Magdeline - Whore, Jesus was kind to her. Are you?
Lepers - the afflicted, hmmm, nice to them. Will you shake hands with somone who has AIDS?
Women - treated them as equals. Do you?
Gah-damn you make me mad.
And don't say I am wrong because the proof is in the pudding shortbus, just look at your post.
By: Xendis
Re: Keith Olbermann on Gay Marriage
You are the shortbus rider, as you bag on me for Christianity when I have already stated that I am an atheist.
The fact that you are a bastard means you have half a family tree. Mebbe dad was a putz, but that whole side of the family ? I kinda doubt it. But see, with no marriage, and no connections, you , the bastard, start life with half the family resources to fall back on.
1/2 is LESS. Q.E.D.
The fact that you are a bastard means you have half a family tree. Mebbe dad was a putz, but that whole side of the family ? I kinda doubt it. But see, with no marriage, and no connections, you , the bastard, start life with half the family resources to fall back on.
1/2 is LESS. Q.E.D.
By: Voidwar
Re: Keith Olbermann on Gay Marriage
So this is your big argument? Family resources.
A bastard-child is less of a person because they have less resources to pull from than a non-bastard child?
Forget that for a second... what about an adopted child? Is an adopted child only okay if they have two parents and those parents aren't bastards? What if one of those parents is estranged from his family or their estate? Is that adopted child even less of a worthwhile person because he has a bastard parent?
What if your parents and their family are poor? What if there are no resources to fall back on... are you less of a person? What if your parents are orphans? What if you are an orphan?
Is a bastard with one rich parent more of a person than a non-bastard with poor parents?
Is an adopted child of a gay couple less worthwhile because their parents are gay? What if their parents are rich? What if their parents have lots of resources to fall back on?
What if the child is the actual blood-relation of one of the gay parents? Is a surrogate-born child of gay parents less of a person?
Is a black child less of a person? A child of Christian parents?
...
I am not adopted. My father was adopted by my Grandad. I am largely estranged from my mother and her side of the family - even if I wasn't, they have precious-few resources to share. Am I less of a person, less of a human, less worthwhile, because my last name was not given to me because of the blood in my veins?
Should I not be allowed to marry because I am the spawn of an adopted father and a bastard mother?
Your argument has no merit - furthermore, it is abhorrent for all of the things that you will not say but obviously believe.
A bastard-child is less of a person because they have less resources to pull from than a non-bastard child?
Forget that for a second... what about an adopted child? Is an adopted child only okay if they have two parents and those parents aren't bastards? What if one of those parents is estranged from his family or their estate? Is that adopted child even less of a worthwhile person because he has a bastard parent?
What if your parents and their family are poor? What if there are no resources to fall back on... are you less of a person? What if your parents are orphans? What if you are an orphan?
Is a bastard with one rich parent more of a person than a non-bastard with poor parents?
Is an adopted child of a gay couple less worthwhile because their parents are gay? What if their parents are rich? What if their parents have lots of resources to fall back on?
What if the child is the actual blood-relation of one of the gay parents? Is a surrogate-born child of gay parents less of a person?
Is a black child less of a person? A child of Christian parents?
...
I am not adopted. My father was adopted by my Grandad. I am largely estranged from my mother and her side of the family - even if I wasn't, they have precious-few resources to share. Am I less of a person, less of a human, less worthwhile, because my last name was not given to me because of the blood in my veins?
Should I not be allowed to marry because I am the spawn of an adopted father and a bastard mother?
Your argument has no merit - furthermore, it is abhorrent for all of the things that you will not say but obviously believe.
By: Wolvan
Re: Keith Olbermann on Gay Marriage
Huh, the picture of Mary and Jesus kind say otherwise. Kinda makes you look like a Christian that does not believe in abstinence.
And I said my father was an alcoholic when I was being born. The first 5 years of my life I had a step father and visited my biological dad cause he sobered up. Oh wait a minute there. That means I had. Mother + her family, father + his family, Stepfather + his family. That's three families.
Not bad for a bastard.
Its actually the old argument of nature vs nurture. I have learned traits from a mother, father, and step-father. And biological traits from two parents.
Now getting back to your argument about gay marriage (assh0le).
If you believe in marriage is strictly for procreation, then anyone with a genetic disorder should not marry. Hetero or otherwise. Right?
Marriage is not just about procreation. It's a commitment to remain faithful and to support each other over a lifetime.
Why should that be hetero exclusive?
Perhaps the traditional definition of marriage should be abolished alltogether. Making way for a 'Set Term Child Rearing Liscence' which could be for biological parental units and a 'Long Term Commitment Liscence' For non procreating hetero and homo couples so we can clearly define who plans to have children and who cannot or are not legaly sanctioned to have them.
Or maybe we should just let gay couples get married and see if the world is still here in 10 years.
(I put my money on the fact it is)
++++++++++RANT ENDS++++++++++
And I said my father was an alcoholic when I was being born. The first 5 years of my life I had a step father and visited my biological dad cause he sobered up. Oh wait a minute there. That means I had. Mother + her family, father + his family, Stepfather + his family. That's three families.
Not bad for a bastard.
Its actually the old argument of nature vs nurture. I have learned traits from a mother, father, and step-father. And biological traits from two parents.
Now getting back to your argument about gay marriage (assh0le).
If you believe in marriage is strictly for procreation, then anyone with a genetic disorder should not marry. Hetero or otherwise. Right?
Marriage is not just about procreation. It's a commitment to remain faithful and to support each other over a lifetime.
Why should that be hetero exclusive?
Perhaps the traditional definition of marriage should be abolished alltogether. Making way for a 'Set Term Child Rearing Liscence' which could be for biological parental units and a 'Long Term Commitment Liscence' For non procreating hetero and homo couples so we can clearly define who plans to have children and who cannot or are not legaly sanctioned to have them.
Or maybe we should just let gay couples get married and see if the world is still here in 10 years.
(I put my money on the fact it is)
++++++++++RANT ENDS++++++++++
By: Xendis
Re: Keith Olbermann on Gay Marriage
If you read the caption on the picture, it sez "Abstinance doesn't work", you tool.
By: Voidwar
Re: Keith Olbermann on Gay Marriage
I have already twice stated that I am an atheist. Work on your comprehension.
By: Voidwar
Re: Keith Olbermann on Gay Marriage
The fact that you are an Atheist doesn't make you any less an idiot and ass.
Please respond on your thoughts of why "family resources" is the sole measure of worth of a family. Then please illustrate how the families of gay couples are not acceptable resources and how that should bar them from being legally wed. After you are done that feat, please explain how a gay family is any different from a straight family, or a single-parent family, or an adopted family, or a mixed-race family, or a family started by orphans.
Please explain all of these things... please try and explain why your are bat-shit crazy.
Please respond on your thoughts of why "family resources" is the sole measure of worth of a family. Then please illustrate how the families of gay couples are not acceptable resources and how that should bar them from being legally wed. After you are done that feat, please explain how a gay family is any different from a straight family, or a single-parent family, or an adopted family, or a mixed-race family, or a family started by orphans.
Please explain all of these things... please try and explain why your are bat-shit crazy.
By: Wolvan
Re: Keith Olbermann on Gay Marriage
I doubt your ability to rely on your "stepfather"'s extended family is anything like my abilty to rely on my Legitimate family & blood ties.
You may have particularly "lucked out" and gotten a stepfather who was a good man, and with good extended family also.
But if that extended family had money to put one kid thru college, do you think it would go to you or a blood relative ??
Thanx for playing.
Legitimacy MATTERS.
You may have particularly "lucked out" and gotten a stepfather who was a good man, and with good extended family also.
But if that extended family had money to put one kid thru college, do you think it would go to you or a blood relative ??
Thanx for playing.
Legitimacy MATTERS.
By: Voidwar
Re: Keith Olbermann on Gay Marriage
You know, you're like one of my friends that can be a real ass. Tenacious and controversial. Of course there is one big difference:
His arguments are actually coherent and sensible because he actually does some research on his subjects.
Why don't you go and help the Republican party rebuild itself? I'm sure your voice will be welcomed with open arms.
His arguments are actually coherent and sensible because he actually does some research on his subjects.
Why don't you go and help the Republican party rebuild itself? I'm sure your voice will be welcomed with open arms.
By: poolaka
Re: Keith Olbermann on Gay Marriage
Ad hominem tripe.
If you can't address the content, don't bother posting.
If you can't address the content, don't bother posting.
By: Voidwar
Re: Keith Olbermann on Gay Marriage
I've read and re-read your argument, and it's still absurd.
What family resources are you talking about? Money? Property? A last name? Genetics?
There's no "QED" about it. I can't get my head around this cartoon sense of family you've got going on. The last time anyone took your approach seriously, you got a bunch of inbred bluebloods (re: hemophiliacs).
What family resources are you talking about? Money? Property? A last name? Genetics?
There's no "QED" about it. I can't get my head around this cartoon sense of family you've got going on. The last time anyone took your approach seriously, you got a bunch of inbred bluebloods (re: hemophiliacs).
By: SpyPlaneX1
Re: Keith Olbermann on Gay Marriage
Try this one on: the bomb's ticking. You only have time to save your distant cousin whom you've never met until now, or your wife. Who do you save, legitimacy?
By: SpyPlaneX1
Re: Keith Olbermann on Gay Marriage
Actually, I did address the argument in quite detail in a different post. I've determined that using coherence and logic with you is completely useless.
So, I've decided to be obnoxious instead. Life is fun!
So, I've decided to be obnoxious instead. Life is fun!
By: poolaka
Re: Keith Olbermann on Gay Marriage
well, there you go. that first line outright defines you as dick and what ever 'legitimate' family you have must be a real piece of work to raise someone like you.
I am tolerant, i respect opinions, but you sir need your ass taken outside a woodshed and punched in by a big burly leather bear.
p.s. without a tub of crisco
I am tolerant, i respect opinions, but you sir need your ass taken outside a woodshed and punched in by a big burly leather bear.
p.s. without a tub of crisco
By: Xendis
Re: Keith Olbermann on Gay Marriage
Bring it you weak lefty cunt.
Am I kool cuz I threatened someone on the interwebz now ?
Am I kool cuz I threatened someone on the interwebz now ?
By: Voidwar
Re: Keith Olbermann on Gay Marriage
So your big argument is "I bet my real daddy loves me more than your fake daddy."?
gfys
gfys
By: Faffy
Re: Keith Olbermann on Gay Marriage
I doubt your ability to rely on "legitimate" family and blood ties is anything financially like the government grant I get that is paying for my advanced education and living expenses. As if there have been no impoverished, violent, or generally useless "legitimate" families, right? You have conflicting ideas of what legitimizes a family. Is it blood relation, or is it resources? You seem to correlate blood relation with resources, but that's a weak correlation. There probably is not a significant difference between the resources that a "legitimate" family can provide, or those that any other family can provide. It's been shown over and over, in fact, that Love is the greatest resource for a child. Forget overly abstract examples of kidneys and blood transfusions and bone marrow transplants. You're really reaching with those, especially because you have a pathetically deficient knowledge in these subjects.
The most successful children are those who are happy and loved by family, regardless of the the nature of the family. Look up a book called "Summerhill" or do some research on youth welfare and achievement. All the money in the world won't make a child accountable for their own potential, or make them happy. Just look at all the trust fund babies and rich college students who have all the resources in the world, but can find little else to do but drugs and each other.
You need to drop the Maddox routine because it does not befit your intellect. Certainly, you're horrifically pedantic and an asshole, but you're also an idiot, and therefore you have nothing to offer but frustration. I mean, really? Have you even finished high school? Do you have a girlfriend? A boyfriend? A compassionate relationship with another human being? You can't possibly be this arrogant in real life. Fuck off you pseudo-intellectual thug, at least until you learn some respect and modesty.
The most successful children are those who are happy and loved by family, regardless of the the nature of the family. Look up a book called "Summerhill" or do some research on youth welfare and achievement. All the money in the world won't make a child accountable for their own potential, or make them happy. Just look at all the trust fund babies and rich college students who have all the resources in the world, but can find little else to do but drugs and each other.
You need to drop the Maddox routine because it does not befit your intellect. Certainly, you're horrifically pedantic and an asshole, but you're also an idiot, and therefore you have nothing to offer but frustration. I mean, really? Have you even finished high school? Do you have a girlfriend? A boyfriend? A compassionate relationship with another human being? You can't possibly be this arrogant in real life. Fuck off you pseudo-intellectual thug, at least until you learn some respect and modesty.
By: boyblunders
Re: Keith Olbermann on Gay Marriage
Yawn, a bunch more ad hominem.
From someone proud of how hard they suck on a government teat no less. Small wonder you are on Olbermann's side, dole taker.
From someone proud of how hard they suck on a government teat no less. Small wonder you are on Olbermann's side, dole taker.
By: Voidwar
Re: Keith Olbermann on Gay Marriage
There is no conflict about legitimacy, as it is a simple term, with a widely known definition. A child is "legitimate" if it is born in wedlock, and "illegitimate" if not.
Bastard = Illegitimate
Bastard = Illegitimate
By: Voidwar
Re: Keith Olbermann on Gay Marriage
I'm not talking about the widely known definition of legitimatacy - I'm talking about how you define the functional significance of legitimacy. Do you know what functional significance is? You have not answered my questions, only tried to insult me and given me a bad dictionary entry. Once more:
What is different from a "legitimate" family and any other families? Can you make that argument convincingly, without using insults and specious premises as your starting points?
And I am not gloating about government funding, but using it as a counterexample; I work for it anyways, so fuck you. Your insult doesn't address that one does not need a legitimate family to provide the things that you say they provide. Now, can you say that a greater percentage of legitimate families can provide better resources than other families? Bear in mind that all those children who are being adopted came from legitimate heterosexual conception, essentially from a failed "legitimate" family. Every single adopted child exemplifies a failure of the utility of the "legitimate" biologically constructed family, with "illegitimate" families picking up the slack, which is admirable.
Can you stay on topic? It's more fun that way.
What is different from a "legitimate" family and any other families? Can you make that argument convincingly, without using insults and specious premises as your starting points?
And I am not gloating about government funding, but using it as a counterexample; I work for it anyways, so fuck you. Your insult doesn't address that one does not need a legitimate family to provide the things that you say they provide. Now, can you say that a greater percentage of legitimate families can provide better resources than other families? Bear in mind that all those children who are being adopted came from legitimate heterosexual conception, essentially from a failed "legitimate" family. Every single adopted child exemplifies a failure of the utility of the "legitimate" biologically constructed family, with "illegitimate" families picking up the slack, which is admirable.
Can you stay on topic? It's more fun that way.
By: boyblunders
Re: Keith Olbermann on Gay Marriage
Whatever. Trying to discuss things with you, Voidwar, is neither productive nor fun. I've made my points, you're wrong, and I'm out. Anything else you have to write will not be read. Peace.
By: boyblunders
Re: Keith Olbermann on Gay Marriage
Now as a Californian im not only known as the state with the govenator but also the state full of homophobes...Fuck your religion...I'm going to start a prop that bans all Christians and Mormons Ect... from getting married cause with divorce rate so high in California why should they fuck up something as sacred as marriage....How would u like that assholes not to be able to get married....I bet all u fucking Christians wish u where gay cause ur wife ain't putting out and need something...
By: mayzachi
Re: Keith Olbermann on Gay Marriage
Or u wish u were gay because yr wife looks so much like a dooood!
Re: Keith Olbermann on Gay Marriage
I want to play too (without crisco).
I think I'm starting to follow Voidwar's wisdom. Here's my summary of all the glistening turds, harvested from the discussion:
-----
1. Marriages between people who biologically reproduce are more important than gay people shacking up.
2. Parents are often good medical candidates to donate kidneys and bone marrow to their biological offspring for transplant, especially if those parents had already entered into a marriage or putative marriage at the time of the child's birth or conception.
3. As a registered fan of Keith Olbermann, all of Spam Vigilante's opinions on any topic are worthless.
4. If you think Voidwar is not an atheist, you ride on short busses.
5. Even if you father is known to you, you have only half a family tree, unless your parents were married at the time of your birth or conception.
6. Half a family tree is less than a whole family tree.
7. If you think the picture of Mary and baby Jesus is a joke, you are right, because Voidwar is an atheist. If you think that picture's caption "Abstinance [sic] doesn't work" is a joke, you are wrong, because Voidwar is an atheist. Work on your comprehension (you tool).
8. No matter how much of an insufferable Internet troll one is, one can always rely on one's married biological parents (or legal "birth certificate" parents, in the case of an adulterous mother) for preferential treatment over one's adopted brother. (However, an adulterous father siring an illegitimate bastard child into a partial family tree presents a bit of a problem, as that child would have a legal claim for financial support.)
9. Expressing a similarity between an anonymous Internet troll and a coherent, sensible friend constitutes ad-hominem tripe, in the case of a friend who can sometimes be an ass. (crisco?)
10. If you can't address the content don't bother posting.
11. Publicly fantasizing about a leather bear taking an interweb troll out to the woodshed without crisco signifies that one is a weak lefty cunt. (Mmmm...crisco...)
12. Carefully reading the statements of an Internet troll, and then rebutting them with reasoned analysis and supporting literature constitutes nothing but ad hominem attack, especially when accompanied by a drubbing on etiquette and a request to fuck off.
13. Accepting government services makes one predisposed to favor legal marriages for homosexuals. It also makes one's opinions invalid.
14. Archaic words of social control, originating from Western medieval proto-cultures, still exist in many dictionaries and a few backwoods churches. You can even look them up and bring them back into common usage.
-----
Hope that clears up any confusion as to why the California State Constitution should be amended to prohibit any new marriages that are not between one man (or F2M transexual) and one woman (or M2F transexual or prepubescent girl). Just ask any Mormon or atheist troll about marriage. Marriage shouldn't be allowed between more than two people, and those two people have to be fertile, otherwise it's just shacking up, and hence, not as important. And as everyone knows, if it's not as important it should be prohibited by constitutional amendment. Now all we have to do is prohibit marriage for old people, quadriplegics, contraceptive users, and not-on-the-moodies. (Oh yeah, and force marriage for anyone who's pregnant. It wouldn't be polygamy, it'd be a series of overlapping monogamies.)
Q.E.D., people.
I think I'm starting to follow Voidwar's wisdom. Here's my summary of all the glistening turds, harvested from the discussion:
-----
1. Marriages between people who biologically reproduce are more important than gay people shacking up.
2. Parents are often good medical candidates to donate kidneys and bone marrow to their biological offspring for transplant, especially if those parents had already entered into a marriage or putative marriage at the time of the child's birth or conception.
3. As a registered fan of Keith Olbermann, all of Spam Vigilante's opinions on any topic are worthless.
4. If you think Voidwar is not an atheist, you ride on short busses.
5. Even if you father is known to you, you have only half a family tree, unless your parents were married at the time of your birth or conception.
6. Half a family tree is less than a whole family tree.
7. If you think the picture of Mary and baby Jesus is a joke, you are right, because Voidwar is an atheist. If you think that picture's caption "Abstinance [sic] doesn't work" is a joke, you are wrong, because Voidwar is an atheist. Work on your comprehension (you tool).
8. No matter how much of an insufferable Internet troll one is, one can always rely on one's married biological parents (or legal "birth certificate" parents, in the case of an adulterous mother) for preferential treatment over one's adopted brother. (However, an adulterous father siring an illegitimate bastard child into a partial family tree presents a bit of a problem, as that child would have a legal claim for financial support.)
9. Expressing a similarity between an anonymous Internet troll and a coherent, sensible friend constitutes ad-hominem tripe, in the case of a friend who can sometimes be an ass. (crisco?)
10. If you can't address the content don't bother posting.
11. Publicly fantasizing about a leather bear taking an interweb troll out to the woodshed without crisco signifies that one is a weak lefty cunt. (Mmmm...crisco...)
12. Carefully reading the statements of an Internet troll, and then rebutting them with reasoned analysis and supporting literature constitutes nothing but ad hominem attack, especially when accompanied by a drubbing on etiquette and a request to fuck off.
13. Accepting government services makes one predisposed to favor legal marriages for homosexuals. It also makes one's opinions invalid.
14. Archaic words of social control, originating from Western medieval proto-cultures, still exist in many dictionaries and a few backwoods churches. You can even look them up and bring them back into common usage.
-----
Hope that clears up any confusion as to why the California State Constitution should be amended to prohibit any new marriages that are not between one man (or F2M transexual) and one woman (or M2F transexual or prepubescent girl). Just ask any Mormon or atheist troll about marriage. Marriage shouldn't be allowed between more than two people, and those two people have to be fertile, otherwise it's just shacking up, and hence, not as important. And as everyone knows, if it's not as important it should be prohibited by constitutional amendment. Now all we have to do is prohibit marriage for old people, quadriplegics, contraceptive users, and not-on-the-moodies. (Oh yeah, and force marriage for anyone who's pregnant. It wouldn't be polygamy, it'd be a series of overlapping monogamies.)
Q.E.D., people.
Re: Keith Olbermann on Gay Marriage
May I be the first to ask, nay, demand your hand in marriage, thus defying Prop 8 and launching our sure-to-be long history of homosexual Viking delights?
Thor
ps. Posts as hilarious as this are why M&C is M&C and not just another graveyard of Youtube Gizmos somebody accidentally fed after Midnight... Almost makes us look forward to Void's next ever-increasingly insipid remarks.
Thor
ps. Posts as hilarious as this are why M&C is M&C and not just another graveyard of Youtube Gizmos somebody accidentally fed after Midnight... Almost makes us look forward to Void's next ever-increasingly insipid remarks.
Re: Keith Olbermann on Gay Marriage
Oh, that was just beautiful.
I must share somewhere in this thread equally as juicy.
You may now submit to the IRS your reasoning why the Latter Day Saints (who made political commentary and funded the Prop 8 support in California) deserve to have their 301(c) tax-exempt status tripped from their church:
http://lds501c3.wordpress.com/
I feel better already.
I must share somewhere in this thread equally as juicy.
You may now submit to the IRS your reasoning why the Latter Day Saints (who made political commentary and funded the Prop 8 support in California) deserve to have their 301(c) tax-exempt status tripped from their church:
http://lds501c3.wordpress.com/
I feel better already.
By: spam_vigilante
Re: Keith Olbermann on Gay Marriage
Uh, I hate this keyboard.
Stripped
~
Oh, and it's obviously 501(c)(3).
Will Void call this an ad hominem attack from a lefty? A leftie?
Stripped
~
Oh, and it's obviously 501(c)(3).
Will Void call this an ad hominem attack from a lefty? A leftie?
By: spam_vigilante
Re: Keith Olbermann on Gay Marriage
What a pack of blithering idiots here.
A lot of hollerin about christians, when I am an atheist, and a lot of appeals to emotion, but no one can refute that half a family tree is less than a whole family tree.
No one wants to claim that their stepfather's kin will choose them over blood.
Legitimacy matters, and most of you don't like to admit it. So instead, you try to call me names.
Who could be impressed by this except the poo-flingin monkey next to you ?
A lot of hollerin about christians, when I am an atheist, and a lot of appeals to emotion, but no one can refute that half a family tree is less than a whole family tree.
No one wants to claim that their stepfather's kin will choose them over blood.
Legitimacy matters, and most of you don't like to admit it. So instead, you try to call me names.
Who could be impressed by this except the poo-flingin monkey next to you ?
By: Voidwar
Re: Keith Olbermann on Gay Marriage
Hey, Void, if everyone you meet is an asshole, maybe you're the asshole.
Re: Keith Olbermann on Gay Marriage
or mebbe i'm on a website heavily populated by ad hominem flinging lefties. :/
By: Voidwar
Re: Keith Olbermann on Gay Marriage
Lol! "ad hominem flinging lefties!?" You probably can't even see the irony of simultaneously denigrating people's opinions by calling them "lefties" while accusing them of ad hominem. Right? That's hilarious! Keep it up!
Re: Keith Olbermann on Gay Marriage
Hey, go easy on him. I didn't know what "ad hominem" meant at age 13 either.
Why, when I was a snotty zit-faced teenager, we didn't even have Wikipedia:
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.
To illustrate the concept, here are two hypothetical examples:
"Your opinion is worthless, Fred, since you are obviously a fan of The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour."
"Don't listen to Wilma! We must not be confused by the opinions of someone who rides public transportation."
Hope that helps. You can spare yourselves the shame and inadequacy I felt as a teenager under the withering laughter that would ensue every time I misused argumentum ad hominem in awkward social situations. Learn from my mistakes.
Why, when I was a snotty zit-faced teenager, we didn't even have Wikipedia:
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.
To illustrate the concept, here are two hypothetical examples:
"Your opinion is worthless, Fred, since you are obviously a fan of The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour."
"Don't listen to Wilma! We must not be confused by the opinions of someone who rides public transportation."
Hope that helps. You can spare yourselves the shame and inadequacy I felt as a teenager under the withering laughter that would ensue every time I misused argumentum ad hominem in awkward social situations. Learn from my mistakes.
Re: Keith Olbermann on Gay Marriage
Or, perhaps you think you're the only sane one with several people rationally pointing out the fallacy of your arguments.
You asked why no one thought that their adopted child was just as worthy as their bloodline child. I responded that I was one who did, albeit in the form of a question. Does my earlier reply not count simply because you had not made that reckless assumption yet?
No, I am afraid I have no personal attacks to supply you with. I don't know you well enough. Though I do see sufficient evidence of faulty reasoning in your comments and therefore attack them in a fair and sensible manner.
You asked why no one thought that their adopted child was just as worthy as their bloodline child. I responded that I was one who did, albeit in the form of a question. Does my earlier reply not count simply because you had not made that reckless assumption yet?
No, I am afraid I have no personal attacks to supply you with. I don't know you well enough. Though I do see sufficient evidence of faulty reasoning in your comments and therefore attack them in a fair and sensible manner.
By: spam_vigilante
Re: Keith Olbermann on Gay Marriage
And 4/3 of seed is 3/16 of a leaf. 2/2 is equal to 15. 62 times 84 is whole bit lot of numbers.
Personally, I've always been impressed by those poo-flinging monkeys. They have great arms and accuracy! But, I'm sure you already know this as I'm sure family tree is largely populated by them.
You want ad hominem attacks? I'm more than happy to provide it so you can actually use the term properly for the first time in this entire thread.
You're a jackass.
Personally, I've always been impressed by those poo-flinging monkeys. They have great arms and accuracy! But, I'm sure you already know this as I'm sure family tree is largely populated by them.
You want ad hominem attacks? I'm more than happy to provide it so you can actually use the term properly for the first time in this entire thread.
You're a jackass.
By: poolaka
Re: Keith Olbermann on Gay Marriage
Huzzah! Wow, could that have been any better? Awe-some. And poo-flingin' monkeys?! Yes! This is gold, brother. Keep the good stuff comin', Void! Go, man - go go go!
Re: Keith Olbermann on Gay Marriage
A little late to the party but this is worth watching:
http://www.hulu.com/watch/24921/30-days-same-sex-parenting
http://www.hulu.com/watch/24921/30-days-same-sex-parenting
By: slage123
Re: Keith Olbermann on Gay Marriage
Whoa, check this out. You people amaze me. I'm impressed.
Marriage is just another method of control, created by religion and perfected by government. Your relationships are as significant as you make them, regardless of any legal document.
Marriage is just another method of control, created by religion and perfected by government. Your relationships are as significant as you make them, regardless of any legal document.
By: i8ursandwich
Re: Keith Olbermann on Gay Marriage
I agree.
If some pair of whack jobs want to get all dressed up and go in front of a crowd of people, and publicly describe the way they intend to bone down with each-other, hey whatever you're into, pervert. Give me some cake.
But the minute a government starts handing out rights, they've gotta do it for everyone -- straight, gay, polygamous, polyfidelotous, or single. Everyone.
I just find it fascinating that the Mormon Church would get so worked up over recognizing gay marriage, when they presumably would like to have their polygamous marriages recognized.
But really, I'd rather the government not get involved in people's sex lives.
If some pair of whack jobs want to get all dressed up and go in front of a crowd of people, and publicly describe the way they intend to bone down with each-other, hey whatever you're into, pervert. Give me some cake.
But the minute a government starts handing out rights, they've gotta do it for everyone -- straight, gay, polygamous, polyfidelotous, or single. Everyone.
I just find it fascinating that the Mormon Church would get so worked up over recognizing gay marriage, when they presumably would like to have their polygamous marriages recognized.
But really, I'd rather the government not get involved in people's sex lives.
Re: Keith Olbermann on Gay Marriage
If you can find it, read Charles Beaumont's The Crooked Man, a short story that is set in a world where heterosexuality is outlawed. A man and a woman (disguised as a man) meet furtively in a gay bar and what happens next is up to you to find out.
