Olberman on redefining marriage...

Don't always agree with Olberman's rants, but this is a powerful editorial piece (if corny in spots). Thought I'd share.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27650743/
---------
I keep hearing this term "re-defining" marriage. If this country hadn't re-defined marriage, black people still couldn't marry white people. Sixteen states had laws on the books which made that illegal in 1967. 1967.

The parents of the President-Elect of the United States couldn't have married in nearly one third of the states of the country their son grew up to lead. But it's worse than that. If this country had not "re-defined" marriage, some black people still couldn't marry black people. It is one of the most overlooked and cruelest parts of our sad story of slavery. Marriages were not legally recognized, if the people were slaves. Since slaves were property, they could not legally be husband and wife, or mother and child. Their marriage vows were different: not "Until Death, Do You Part," but "Until Death or Distance, Do You Part." Marriages among slaves were not legally recognized.

You know, just like marriages today in California are not legally recognized, if the people are gay.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

Missed the italics close-out - sorry! How can I go and re-edit my posting to close it out?

Mixed marriage is not forbidden in the bible. We are all from one blood, one DNA, one common mother. We are all one race. Skin color is only melanoma.

    Same sex marriage is forbidden in the bible. God wrote the rules for marriage, we change them to the detriment of our society. So what is the definition of marriage, if we don't use the bible's ? The movement to redefine marriage has already found full expression in what is variously called "polyfidelity" or "polyamory," which seeks to replace traditional marriage with a bewildering array of sexual combinations among various groups of individuals.

   If homosexual marriage becomes the law of the land, then children in public schools will be taught that homosexuality is a normative lifestyle, and that gay households are just another "variant" style of family. Those who object may find themselves on the wrong side of the law. Unbelievable? This Orwellian situation has occurred in Massachusetts , which legalized homosexual marriage in 2004. In April 2005, David Parker, the parent of a six-year-old boy, protested to the Lexington elementary school after his son was taught about homosexual "families" in his kindergarten class. At a scheduled meeting at the school, when Parker refused to back down from his request that the school honor the Massachusetts parental notification statute, he was arrested for "trespassing," handcuffed, and put in jail overnight. The next morning Parker was led handcuffed into court for his arraignment, and over the next several months endured two subsequent court appearances before the school district backed down and decided to drop all charges against him. In 2007, Parker's lawsuit against the Lexington school officials was dismissed by a federal judge who refused to uphold his civil rights and to enforce the Massachusetts parental notification statute. Parker's shocking story will become commonplace in a society that forces the acceptance of homosexual marriage as normative.

Interesting. If you used the Bible, there are also passages stating that you are not supposed to marry non-Christians, either, but I'm not hearing any qualms about that.

It is also interesting to find that the divorce rate among conservative Christians is higher than those of atheists, agnostics, and godless marauding liberals.

Damn liberals

Take THAT you gay people. We'll keep YOU from marrying, while I divorce my third wife, fool around with a fourth and fifth, and finally settle on my sixth. Its' tough keeping track which kid goes to which mommy. Ahh, the sweet beauty of the sanctity of marriage.

Where are the stats that show thart Conservative Christians have a higher divorce-rate than groups x, y, z? I'm not saying you are wrong; I just want the source.

I do know of at least one famous liberal whose hubby stepped out on her all the time--once in a highly public scandal that resulted in his impeachment. No divorce for them. Maybe some liberals just have a different interpretation of the tenets of marriage?

'Damn liberals'

I do know of one famous, recent Republican candidate that threw his babies-mama to the curb when she became fat, disfigured and crippled, and then 'played the field' and married his current, filthy........rich, and oh so sophisticated Cind-a-licious!

Yay for the sanctity of marriage!

The Sanctity of Marriage Allows For The Cheating of A Dismembered Wife

The United States of America is not a theocracy. We have more then one religion here and we are even free to NOT have a religion so why should we deny basic human rights to a portion of our population based on one interpretation of one religious text?

Perhaps you should remind yourself of one of the basic building blocks of our country

 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

poor David Parker, with his head in the sand, living in denial that society has a large contingent of homosexuals.

Poor David Parker, denying the fact that "all men" are created equal in this country.

Yep, let's burden a whole section of society that for a majority of the time doesn't even affect you.

Yeah, must be quite difficult to wrap your head around a man jamming his penis into another man's asshole, huh David Parker?

Why is it even your business?

Because you don't want your child to be prepared in how to deal with the situation that is "unatural" outside of your own perceived societal environment?

Just as with racism, time couldn't come fast enough to "allow" gay people an opportunity to live their lives in happiness and peace.

Fuck you, David Parker, for what you are about to become...

As a christian I am against homosexual activities. As a rational person I am against it because it is against nature.

However my christian philosophy tells me that God loves all of his children and I should accept them as well. So because of that I choose to love the sinner and hate the sin. I don't try to change them or their personalities. My religion forces me to accept them.

Now that being said I have no problem with gay marriage. We all should be able to live happily. However I am so much more for civil unions. Civil unions help more people than just homosexuals so I say why should we do something that only benefits one aspect of society. Let's help everyone.

Also by opening up the term marriage to include more we do open "pandora's box". Where will we draw the line? What will stop the radical Mormon from saying he wants to marry 12 of his second cousins? Are we not too preventing him from marrying the one he loves? What about the guy who wants to marry his dog (I don't get it either). So for these reasons and more I support civil unions wholeheartedly. And my christian faith supports it.

MikeyA

MikeyA

And in 26 states, including California, marrying your first cousin is legal.

---------

"Show me a man who lives alone and has a perpetually dirty kitchen, and five times out of nine I'll show you an exceptional man." -Charles Bukowski

There's a city full of walls you can post complaints at

do you mean melanin? I think melanoma is something more dire that just being black. :=)

One of the root problems in the Republican Party is that it has been hijacked by the Fundamental Christians. So, the issue of homosexual marriage always gets tied up in a battle of right vs. wrong, Bible references, and morality judgments. These are often tied to slippery-slope arguments that usually end with some statement like, "What's next? Pretty soon people will want to marry their farm animals!"

Unfortunately, this has driven plenty of people right into the arms of the liberals and away from the party that once stood for conservative spending, limited government, and protection of the Constitution.

To avoid alienting a voting base, discussions of gay marriage SHOULD be tied to economics, semantics, and this nation's Declaration of Independence--we separated to give each citizen "liberty and the pursuit of happiness..." No force--not even God's will-- seems to be able to convert homosexuals to heterosexuals, so doesn't it seem that they should be accepted and permitted freedom as humans and as American citizens? (some of whom have conservative ideals, but ally with the Dems because the Dems have taken on their cause!).

With that being said, I'll surprise you and say that marriage is not the road I think we should take.
The term Marriage has been defined since its Anglo-Saxon origin, as the"union of a man and woman." Instead, I think they should be granted homosexual unions with tax, insurance, and death benefits like other committed couples--that is freedom and that is fair.

As for our children's understanding of this... I am not in favor of schools teaching anything that needs to be discussed in the home--and that is one of the reasons that my kids attend private schools. We've had to discuss this issue with our own kids on several occaisons. They see it everywhere--at Cedar Point, at the mall, at the campground, and ALL OVER TV, and they ask. Just yesterday, we were watching the seemingly innocent "Cash Cab" with our 10-year-old, and one of the women in the cab laid a kiss on the other. As the credits rolled, they kissed on the street. Is it better to tell our kid that this is abherrant behavior and these people are freaks or to say Some people are just programmed to like the same sex?

So, I support some of your conclusions, and think it's great that you are willing to talk to your kids about this as their questions arise, but I do disagree with and have questions about some of your statements.

What is your basis for declaring homosexual behavior abherrant? I am guessing that it is a moral argument, based on one interpretation of the Bible. Please correct me if that is untrue - I admit that is an assumption I've made based on your comment above. Homosexuality and bisexuality is quite common in nature, particularly among higher orders of the animal kingdom and herding/social animals. Humans would be abherrent if part of the population wasn't exhibiting homosexual behavior.

Marriage is not an Anglo-Saxon phenomenon, as far as I know - something that is part of cultures all over the world, backward through time before there were Christians. And even if one were to declare it an Anglo-Saxon origin, it has been redefined countless times over the years in terms of what it means (thank goodness, although I COULD use a dowry, and thank goodness, or many women would not be able to ever have equal roles in such a relationship)... How does the right of a person to love and marry another person, regardless of gender, affect the right of another person to do the same. One may not like that prospect, and it does open a host of questions when raising your own children if one disagrees with that lifestyle, but so do a LOT of things.

Define seeing homosexuality all over TV? I couldn't count on my hands the number of shows that have prominent displays of homosexuality (excluding premium-channel fare like the L-Word), particularly in the pre-10 pm range.

Hmmm, scratch that - it may be a function of what I watch. Although, you bring up a good point there - didn't think about the whole reality TV thing, or TV-on-the-street. With the advent of reality TV, quasi-real-life shows, of course they would reflect the real-world make-up of our society. I would say the reason we didn't see any homosexual relationships on TV really pre-late 1990's is that it was consciously not added to television scripts/programming. In many ways akin to treatment of many minority groups in film and television over the ages.

Anyway, thanks for the comment - spurred on some thinking on my part!

Whoa! You got me all wrong; I'm NOT declaring homosexuality abherrent behavior! Just the opposite!

I had hoped to point out that that is what others are wont to do--tell kids that it is WRONG...that seems to be the result of misunderstanding any possible genetic disposition, and fear that accepting homosexuality makes it a lifestyle choice. That is taking some moral high-road to condemn that which we do not understand.

And there was at least one "gasp" gay character in pre-1990s TV: on Soap( Jodi, played by Billy Crystal). I was young, but I remember the hype about it. The show aired after the nightly news....

for sure. Yes,change marriage laws NOW! I ,want to marry my daughter! No, I, want to marry my sister! Wait, I mean, I want to marry my mother! Or, is it my brother ,I want to marry. NOOOOO,it's the sheep next door I want to marry ! That's it, I want to marry everything and anything...,it it FEELS GOOOOD, DO IT!!! Takes care of this redefinition , doesn't it?! Yes, lets change what has NOT needed CHANGE, for millenniums' , to satisfy homosexuals. Maybe then,. their predatory NATURE , will change.Yes, and a turd in the pool is welcome also! Some people like SH%@ !!!

you've proven to be the proverbial 'turd' in the SwampBubbles' 'pool'. You post some of the most incoherent, non-sensical rubbish I've ever read.

B.O. buttsniffer, doesn't like me.Creeks will fill, rivers will rise, lakes will overflow, the ocean levels will rise, with ALL the tears I cry,for a milksop nancy-girl! . Grow up poof, buy a pair of balls, and have that clitoris, removed, your menstrual moaning is nauseating.LORD, spare me wimps without answers,they cannot even think of word usage , without prompting, from smarter folks! SHEEP all sound alike to me...BAAAAA...BAAAA...BAAAA.

at your references to the menstral cycle.

some of his stuff he posts here, abiet convoluted and juvenile, pales to what Mike "TY" Coon leaves on the Blade comment section of some of those stories.

What I would pay to see the results from the mental evaluation of his wife...

Ty coon....that's damn hilarious

if it wasn't for me, you candy assed sissies would not have a thing to type.Of course, unless it was an idea, thought, or phrase, stolen from me or someone else, you jackasses probably have never had an original thought, in your whole miserable , pathetic lives. So, take my cue, and now type something about what I just gave you an idea on. It is so much easier to steal , than to work! Ask any Dim. in prison,GOD,knows , there are a bunch of you B.O., buttsniffers there!

about my spouse, you whiny miserable poof ! Her maiden name is, Drummond. She is in Fla., with her ailing mother. They are going over , how, to continue their families 'loaning ', of many paintings/statues, etc., to various art museums. You see, that agreement ENDS, upon her mothers', demise. So, the big question IS, to continue the loan agreement or, sell them at Sotheby's, auction house. What would you do ? I,need a wise and educated person to ASSIST us ,on this dilemma. Since, you do not qualify , on both counts,you may guess , what we decide.Regarding her mental condition, she has a mother in hospice ,and has a very BIG,decision to make by weeks end! What to do, what to do ?

I meant to say melatonin- the hormone that determines skin color. When the Human Genome Project was completed in 2000, scientists announced that they had put together a draft of the entire sequence of the human genome and “the researchers had unanimously declared, there is only one race—the human race.” But the more closely that researchers examine the human genome—the complement of genetic material encased in the heart of almost every cell of the body—the more most of them are convinced that the standard labels used to distinguish people by ‘race’ have little or no biological meaning.”1 Marriage between People Groups? this is from http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n1/interracial-marriage This means that from a biblical and observational scientific perspective, interracial marriage is nonexistent. In fact, society should use terms like “people groups,” “cultural groups,” or “ethnic Now from my view - About marriage, then it will have no meaning if we change it. Because who determines what it means? It can mean any kind of relationship. And we don't value our Judeo -Christian roots any more. Isn't this the real problem with the U.S. ? We have cast God aside. We want His protection and our public officials pray openly 'God bless America', but we don't bless Him. We do our own thing, not His . He has standards and rules, and if we are going to want Him, our people and country should honor and follow His word.   

"About marriage, then it will have no meaning if we change it."

Wow, powerful. Can you REALLY sit there and say marriage no longer has meaning if liberal gayyyyys marry, but it has meaning when the divorce rate is nearing 50% and the rate of infidelity is not too far off.

"And we don't value our Judeo -Christian roots any more."

I follow one important principle: "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."

1) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning. Also apparently those homosexual animals have picked up some unnatural behavier

2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

4) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Brittany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

7) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

8) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

9) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

 

Marriage is a human right. Not a heterosexual privilege.

I just can't take it anymore...

It's called MELANIN.
Melanoma is skin cancer.
Melatonin is a hormone.

I don't claim to know everything, but the fact that an assumption was made that melanoma was a skin pigment (the assumption was indicated as incorrect), followed by the assumption that melatonin caused skin pigment (which was equally incorrect), shows a pattern of making statements from a very sanctimonious, unctuous place. It sort of negates much of your argument for introducing religion into American society.

I beg you to form some ideas of your own.

Why

Why does it have to be defined as marriage?

A civil union can benefit so many other groups besides homosexuals. Here are some examples:

Two divorced women who live with and rely on each other for a standard of living.

Brothers who are in the latter years of life yet one lives with the other to get the full benefits of their social security and to avoid being put into a home.

For me this issue the bible doesn't even apply. What one chooses to do in their home is their own business and they must answer to God for it, not me. However if we can make our society more inclusive that is ALWAYS a better alternative to making it exclusive.

So why can't both sides agree that civil unions are all around a better decision.

MikeyA

MikeyA

Well, then technically, the government shouldn't be looking at ANY marriage as a marriage, but simply as a civil union. I agree, a religious institution shouldn't/can't be forced to 'marry' anyone them deem not fit for marriage defined by their beliefs. But the government is a NON-RELIGIOUS institution, therefore, it shouldn't be recognizing ANYONE'S marriage as a marriage, but simply as a 'civil union' -- at least in their eyes. In the government's eye's, it should simply be for the benefits that are normally associated with 'marriage'.

Is that a correct assessment?

The following is from Prohibit Divorce Petiton :

Divorce destroys the sanctity of marriage and its powerful influence on the betterment of society.  This proposition would keep the very meaning of marriage from being transformed into nothing more than a contractual relationship between two adults. 

Prohibiting divorce between heterosexual married couples will keep the interests of children and families intact.  We will continue to celebrate marriage as the union of husband and wife, not as a relationship between "Party A" and "Party B." 

 The marriage of a man and a woman has been at the heart of society since the beginning of time and it promotes the ideal opportunity for children to be raised by a mother and a father in a family held together by the legal, communal, and spiritual bonds of marriage. 

As a society we should put the best interests of children first, and those interests lie in traditional marriage. 

Permitting divorce destroys marriage as we know it and causes a profound harm to society.  We should be restoring marriage, not undermining it.

 

And for those of you who voted yes on Prop 8 but disagree with this petition...Why?  This petition is copied and pasted from literature from your website, ProtectMarriage.com, but applied to Divorce instead of Gay Marriage.  So how can you argue with your own words?

******

For the record I think that gays should be allowed to marry and have all the same rights that the rest of us do.
If your church doesn't agree with or believe in then by all means do not perform gay weddings in your church.

 

From MikeyA: So why can't both sides agree that civil unions are all around a better decision.

Because elements of both sides don't want a civil union. One side wants homosexual people to be able to legally marry and have their marriage be officially recognized by the government on all levels, as well as having their marriage be accepted as completely normal by their neighbors and peers.

The opposition doesn't want any part of this kind of marriage to exist anywhere in the United States. Neither side is willing to compromise. See?

From OhioKat: As a society we should put the best interests of children first, and those interests lie in traditional marriage.

I don't agree. Society should put the protection of civil rights of adults first. Then the adults, if they have children, can decide what's best for their own children. Not you.

From OhioKat: Permitting divorce destroys marriage as we know it and causes a profound harm to society. We should be restoring marriage, not undermining it.

Consider the cases of verbal abuse, physical abuse, rape, incest, drugs and deliberate ignorance perpetrated by one or both adults on the rest of the family. An abused wife decides she's had enough of being his personal speed bag, and when he starts using the kids as involuntary Tazer testers Mom is finally pushed over the edge. Now then, what would you have her do? Remain married to this psychopath and learn to roll with the punches, file for divorce, or ding him and be judged by twelve? Without someone like me on the jury, that is. (Not guilty, yerhonner. Give the lady a medal and send her home.)

It would be far and away better that some of these marriages didn't take place at all, but until couples get some serious marriage consoling before tying the knot and funding for abortion becomes available, abusive or temporary marriages are here to stay.

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

Madjack and T++ I agree totally.

We can't look at gay marriage simply from a christian point of view because not everyone is christian.

I am totally convinced though that everyone should favor civil unions. The reason I gave the two examples above is because I actually know people in those situations.

Essentially those I mentioned rely on one another as a married couple would but they do not receive the same entitlements as a married couple. I believe if we extended them the right to create a civil union even though they are not gay nor are they a married couple then the chance of a tragedy slipping one of them into poverty is lessened. And I think that is something everyone could agree on.

MikeyA

MikeyA

why are homosexuals treated differently?

Because their sexual proclivities differ from "mainstream society"?

What is civil union? Why can not homosexual men and women just outright marry?

What purpose is it to prohibit two people whom love each other from sharing in the bliss which is marrage?

fear?

And why allow "God-fearing" members of society dictate how two people who share the loving bond of a relationship be denied marrage because of "what gets shoved up their ass"?

It sickens me that in the 21st century that people still judge based on their own perception instead of compromise...

To answer your first question I guess I try to not treat anyone differently. What someone does in the privacy of their own home is their own business. However if they bring it out into public they shouldn't be mad when I made a judgement about it.

Why can not men and women just outright marry? Good question. Our government regulates marriage. When they regulate it they choose the limits of it. I'm not saying those limits are right or wrong but the government does have a right to regulate them.

A civil union is a union between two people that essentially states that two people rely on each other for a certain standard of living. It is a way of extending the rights of married people to people who cannot or will not legally marry.

What purpose is it to prohibit two people whom love each other from sharing in the bliss which is marrage? Married people are happier, generally better educated, pay more in taxes, and are less likely to be arrested. The short answer is marriage is good for our society so the gov't promotes marriage by allowing married people to get benefits not allowed of single people. Such as a one time tax free gift to their spouse. But when our government began regulating marriage to offer incentives they also assumed responsibilities of defining it.

MikeyA

MikeyA

but I love my wife. we do go out into public together and we grab ass. i also know some people are repulsed by pda, but I don't care because in that moment it's me and my wife.

is it that same repulsion that you (everyone) harbor when you (everyone) see two men just holding hands, or even two women?

why?

I mean, think about it. Why would our culture in this day and age find two people of the same sex romantically involved affect what goes on in your (everyone) own life?

Can you (everyone) not turn away as you (everyone) had when you saw me and my wife trapsing about?

Why would our open and free society prohibit two people a life of being complete with one they love? Because their mere presence offends you (everyone)?

How would society react today had Mark Foley won the Presidency?

I have no problem with public displays of affection be it homosexual or heterosexual. I do have a problem with sexual deviance in public and unfortunately both gay and straight people do it.

But everyone is judged on a daily basis. For some reason EVERYONE feels that they shouldn't be judged. That's what people do. If we didn't judge things we wouldn't make good decisions. So I do have a problem with the "don't judge me" portion of our society regardless of their sexuality. I feel this because it's unrealistic and it adds to the victimization our society for some reason wants to relate to.

MikeyA

MikeyA

Everyone seems to have misinterpreted OhioKat...some of you may want to re-read her post about prohibiting divorce, and you'll see that she doesn't actually agree with those points. She was trying to make a point.

The whole Prohibiting Divorce thing is taking the same reasons that were used by people who were promoting Prop 8 in California.

 

If you read that last bit at the end you'd see where it says the wording is taken directly from the website and they just replaced the words "Gay Marriage" with the word "Divorce".

You can apply the same arguments to divorce that they applied to gay marriage.

 

I don't have a problem with divorce having had one myself.

 

 

*

The initial post in this thread from another board was taken from a gay weekly free newspaper-don't know if the link to the original paper still works. . I make no comment, other than this is a side no one wishes to talk about.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1533646/posts

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

'I used to have compassion, but they taxed it and legislated it out of existence.'

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

'I used to have compassion, but they taxed it and legislated it out of existence.'

The link goes to an article about gay bath houses.

Promiscuity isn't something that only gays do or participate in. Toledo had its share of  hetero sex clubs as I recall.

 

As you say though, perhaps the link isn't working properly.

Smile

Why not just let gays form legal, civil unions that would give them the same legal rights as if they were married - but not call it 'married'? Find another appropriate name. If some gays still want to use the word "marriage' - they can, but legally it'd be a civil union protected with laws. I fail to see why anybody would care if they married or not - if you don't approve, then don't go to the wedding & don't send a gift. To each his own.

I highly doubt that there's been one single person who "turned gay" because of something they saw on TV.

I think it comes down to the fact that they aren't asking for a special category. If a civil union is the same thing as being married they why not just call it what it is, a marriage.

All they are asking for is the same equal treatment and rights that the rest of us enjoy.

If certain churches or religions don't want to perform wedding ceremonies thats fine. No one is asking them to but just because they don't want to shouldn't make it illegal for anyone else to.

The US is not a theocracy. To remove an entire segment of our populations basic human right to get married based on a religious principal and to want it actually written into the Constitution kind of blows the whole seperation of church and state out of the water, don't you think?

Seperate but equal (civil union in place of marriage) didn't work for the blacks and it doesn't work for gays either. Its discrimination.

Marriage is a Human right not a heterosexual priviledge.

Seems to me that the Bible says slavery is an 'ok' thing, and endorced polygamy & all kinds of things that'd be unacceptable by today's standards. (just to make the point to those who are against gay marriage based on their religious beliefs).

Nobody's ever been 'turned' gay - they either are, or they are not. A child will not become gay by living with gay parents, or turn gay by watching a tv show. That's be like assuming that somebody can become a pedophile because of something they saw on tv - suddenly overcome by lust when they see a 6 year old child. How ignorant.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.