MSNBC's Keith Olbermann's on Gay Marriage

Wacker

Hi guys,

I know this would be far more suitable in the LGBT forum, but I figured there might be some interest here too, as he does delve into religion a little. This is about Proposition 8, a law in California that deemed marriage to be between a man and a woman. As you may know, Proposition 8 was just ruled unconstitutional (GET IN!!!), so this is apt.

Enjoy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChanTFSmqao

goingpostal

Great news. I read about it on slate today http://www.slate.com/id/2262766/ The religious loonies got hammered out the gate. The case they presented in court sounds pathetically weak. Here's hoping it leads to a Supreme Court judgement in favour of gay marriage.

magicbastarder

i'm sure olberman is a nice guy, but i find him excruciating to watch.

King Mob

magicbastarder wrote: »

i'm sure olberman is a nice guy, but i find him excruciating to watch.

Same here.

Too close to a leftie Bill O'Reilly for me.

The Mad Hatter

I really liked Rachel Maddow's take on it, though. Her show is on just after Olbermann's. It's not on YouTube as far as I can tell, but you can download it as a podcast through iTunes. Be quick, though - it'll only be up for another few hours.

liamw

Does anyone get this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5qdOQ-yzFU

goingpostal

liamw wrote: »

Does anyone get this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5qdOQ-yzFU

No. I have no idea what point they are trying to make. And I see that as no failure whatsoever on my part. I just couldn't be ársed trying to figure out their tortured logic.

The Mad Hatter

goingpostal wrote: »

No. I have no idea what point they are trying to make. And I see that as no failure whatsoever on my part. I just couldn't be ársed trying to figure out their tortured logic.

^^This.

Zillah

liamw wrote: »

Does anyone get this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5qdOQ-yzFU

That was...confusing...

They seem to imply with that photo that small children who can barely write yet are taking pledges to defend gay people from those that might insult them. I'd probably object to that, even as a queer. I don't think kids should be making oaths or pledges of any sort (ironically, I wonder if the people who made this video support the pledge of allegiance that kids take at school in the US).

Regardless, what the flying fuck that has to do with prop 8 I have no idea, they're either insane or using blatant scaremongering.

amacachi

Well I'm against gay marriage because I'm against the current concept of marriage and I don't like seeing it strengthened. But ****ing hell when the Christians start I'm embarrassed to express an opinion.
EDIT: Then again if the Christians are right then this will actually weaken marriage. Hmmm, for once I hope the nuts are right. :pac:

condra

3 cheers for LOGIC AND REASON beating DOGMA and BIGOTRY

I wonder what they think of all this in the Christianity forum

bnt

The USA Declaration of Independence has that bit about "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". I kinda assumed that applied to everyone, without any exceptions. Simple enough?

monkeypants

magicbastarder wrote: »

i'm sure olberman is a nice guy, but i find him excruciating to watch.

He reads better than he comes across on TV. Not bad for a former sports presenter though. Can't see Peter Collins doing the same.

Zombrex

magicbastarder wrote: »

i'm sure olberman is a nice guy, but i find him excruciating to watch.

He is the liberal version of Glenn Beck. I swear he was about to cry during the video.

What happened to just reporting the facts, or just expressing an opinion. Why is everything on American news so EMOTIONAL!!!!!

He does make a good point about marriage meaning different things to different people at different times. Not long ago marriage in America mean a white man marrying a white woman and a black man marrying a black man. And it also meant at different times a man taking ownership of a woman.

It makes the claims by conservatives that the meaning of marriage is being eroded some what ridiculous. The term never had a strong fixed meaning in the first place.

I personally think though, as I said onthe Christian forum, that the State should not recognize "marriages". The term is too flexible and open to interpretation by different groups to have meaning necessary to fit inside a legal framework

The Mad Hatter

Wicknight wrote: »

He is the liberal version of Glenn Beck. I swear he was about to cry during the video.

What happened to just reporting the facts, or just expressing an opinion. Why is everything on American news so EMOTIONAL!!!!!

American newscasters are paid by the decibel.

Galvasean

Zillah wrote: »

they're either insane or using blatant scaremongering.

It's the Republican way. "Vote for us or the terrorists will get you." etc.

King Mob

Galvasean wrote: »

It's the Republican way. "Vote for us or the terrorists will get you." etc.

It's not really much worse than the Democrat's "Vote for us or the Republicans will get you."

sink

New Law Would Ban Marriages Between People Who Don't Love Each Other

TheBardWest

Wicknight wrote: »

He is the liberal version of Glenn Beck. I swear he was about to cry during the video.

What happened to just reporting the facts, or just expressing an opinion. Why is everything on American news so EMOTIONAL!!!!!

Olberman isn't a newscaster, he's an opinion guy - just like Beck or O'Reilly - just for the left-wing. But the average, levelheaded newscasters aren't shiny enough to make news overseas, let alone make headlines on an Atheism BBS in Ireland...:rolleyes:

Wacker

[QUOTE=Wicknight;67309459 marriage in America mean a white man marrying a white woman and a black man marrying a black man[/QUOTE]

Wait, what?!?

Galvasean

Wacker wrote: »

Wait, what?!?

I was wondering if anyone would pick up on that... perhaps marriage is betetr defined than we thought?

drifting

sink wrote: »

New Law Would Ban Marriages Between People Who Don't Love Each Other

If they did not love each other they would divorce or separate. The mere act of living together on a permanent basis involves a certain amount of love, that would not be possible with an enemy causing any degree of aggravation.

sink

drifting wrote: »

If they did not love each other they would divorce or separate. The mere act of living together on a permanent basis involves a certain amount of love, that would not be possible with an enemy causing any degree of aggravation.

Wow!