It speaks for itself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHVHXsl-n2E
...tears maybe a bit contrived, but the message is incredible in and of itself.
Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
RE: Olbermann's Great Special Commentary: Prop 8
The CA. Supreme Court voted just this year that it was unjust to only limit marriage to a man and a woman and to limit it violated CA laws. I'm sure Prop 8 is in the process of being overturned. I'd have to actually read the bill to see what was said, but really have no feeling either way. I'm all for Equal rights...just not special rights
RE: Olbermann's Great Special Commentary: Prop 8
| Quoting EMBQA (Reply 1): The CA. Supreme Court voted just this year that it was unjust to only limit marriage to a man and a woman and to limit it violated CA laws. I'm sure Prop 8 is in the process of being overturned. I'd have to actually read the bill to see what was said, |
Prop 8 is not a law; it amends the California constitution which means the state supreme court cannot overturn the measure unless it can show that the measure does not amend the constitution but rather "revises" it which would not be permissible under state rules. Anyway, that is my understanding.
-
- Longhornmaniac
- Posts: 3163
- Joined:
RE: Olbermann's Great Special Commentary: Prop 8
I'm one of those people who really enjoy listening to Keith Olbermann. Yes, his politics do align with mine, and I enjoy his rhetoric in attacking the policies of the current administration. However, how can anybody sit here and say that was politically biased, or pushing a political agenda (of course it was asking why, but it wasn't his normal attacking style)? I've watched a lot of Special Comment segments, and this one is by far my favorite.
Way to go, Keith!
Cheers,
Cameron
Way to go, Keith!
Cheers,
Cameron
-
- ConcordeBoy
- Posts: 16852
- Joined:
RE: Olbermann's Great Special Commentary: Prop 8
| Quoting PacNWjet (Reply 2): Prop 8 is not a law; it amends the California constitution |
...isn't that the whole premise under which they're attempting to have it thrown out:
because to amend the CA constitution, you first need a 2/3 vote by the legislature on the issue, IINM. That didn't happen with this.
-
- Yellowstone
- Posts: 2821
- Joined:
RE: Olbermann's Great Special Commentary: Prop 8
| Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 4): ...isn't that the whole premise under which they're attempting to have it thrown out: because to amend the CA constitution, you first need a 2/3 vote by the legislature on the issue, IINM. That didn't happen with this. |
Not quite. You can pass constitutional amendments in CA by a simple majority vote by the public (which is really quite stupid, IMO). The argument for throwing it out is that the CA Supreme Court found marriage to be a fundamental right, i.e. that the right to marriage is guaranteed by the entire text of the Constitution. In that case, adding a prohibition of gay marriage would make the document self-contradictory, and thus be invalid. If you wanted to ban gay marriage, you would have to revise the entire first article of the state Constitution (so the argument goes), and that revision would take a 2/3 vote.
RE: Olbermann's Great Special Commentary: Prop 8
I'd call Keith Olbermann an a-wipe, but I have too much respect for toilet paper. Why wasn't
he making such a plea before Nov 4th? Or better yet, why didn't he get his Messiah to take
a vocal stand about gay marriage during the campaign? Look, this wasn't the first time that
Californians voted down gay marriage. The opponents need to come up with a better tactic,
and not one where filing lawsuits could end them up at the Supreme Court.
he making such a plea before Nov 4th? Or better yet, why didn't he get his Messiah to take
a vocal stand about gay marriage during the campaign? Look, this wasn't the first time that
Californians voted down gay marriage. The opponents need to come up with a better tactic,
and not one where filing lawsuits could end them up at the Supreme Court.
RE: Olbermann's Great Special Commentary: Prop 8
The gays in California got caught with their heads between their legs. Where was all of the protesting and marches before the vote took place? Don't take people for granted that something will pass just because of the state you live in. Now trying to make people the scapegoat is the way to go huh? Have they protested outside of black churches yet? If so why not? Did they even try to reach out to blacks, laitnos, and the majority of whites who voted before Nov. 4th?
RE: Olbermann's Great Special Commentary: Prop 8
“What if someone voted that you couldn’t marry?”
Well, that would go against, and try to follow here Keith, THOUSANDS OF YEARS OF HUMAN TRADITION and the very foundation of our civilization as we know it. It’s NOT marriage, what’s so hard to understand? Have legal provisions via contract law to protect homosexual couples, but nothing more and don’t call it marriage, because it’s not. The hollow emotional pleas are just that—based on specious logic.
“The world is stacked against love”
Yeah, Olbermann—you’re part of the reason why with your hate. Your words ring hollow…”meaningless division”? LMAO! That is the pot calling the kettle black if I’ve ever heard it! Olbermann’s entire body of work stands as evidence to this.
The Golden Rule doesn’t apply here either, especially if you have no comprehension of the true spirituality of what is Biblically driven. If I had to explain, you wouldn’t understand. Olbermann has no comprehension beyond that of his own ego, his own show and if he did care so much about the plight of this passage of Prop 8, he’d have been giving it more play beforehand.
Well, that would go against, and try to follow here Keith, THOUSANDS OF YEARS OF HUMAN TRADITION and the very foundation of our civilization as we know it. It’s NOT marriage, what’s so hard to understand? Have legal provisions via contract law to protect homosexual couples, but nothing more and don’t call it marriage, because it’s not. The hollow emotional pleas are just that—based on specious logic.
“The world is stacked against love”
Yeah, Olbermann—you’re part of the reason why with your hate. Your words ring hollow…”meaningless division”? LMAO! That is the pot calling the kettle black if I’ve ever heard it! Olbermann’s entire body of work stands as evidence to this.
The Golden Rule doesn’t apply here either, especially if you have no comprehension of the true spirituality of what is Biblically driven. If I had to explain, you wouldn’t understand. Olbermann has no comprehension beyond that of his own ego, his own show and if he did care so much about the plight of this passage of Prop 8, he’d have been giving it more play beforehand.
RE: Olbermann's Great Special Commentary: Prop 8
| Quoting Lowrider (Reply 10): You just happen not to like one of them. |
No, I just happen to think libertarian values are one of the best things about this country and issues like this highlight how far we actually have to go to achieve that standard. There are a lot of people who would do well to read every Federalist article over and over again.
AMONG the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction... By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.
- James Madison, Federalist no. 10
Essentially, the founders were concerned about rights not being subject to either legislation or popular vote. Rights of the people are a natural entity not beholden to the will of the people or larger society. So again, unless the prospect of gay marriage somehow injures your rights as a straight married or straight religious person, who are you to stand in their way? More importantly, why would you care to?
-
- DocLightning
- Posts: 22305
- Joined:
RE: Olbermann's Great Special Commentary: Prop 8
Got this from my mom:
Loving v. Virginia (1967) was a landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme Court declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation (interracial marriage) statute, the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924", unconstitutional, thereby overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States.
The U.S. Supreme Court's decision read, as follows,
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
On June 12, 2007, Mildred Loving, the plaintiff in this case (along with her husband, Richard) issued a rare public statement prepared for delivery on the fortieth anniversary of the Loving v. Virginia decision of the US Supreme Court. The concluding paragraphs of her statement read as follows:
Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights.
I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about.
Mildred Loving passed away on May 2, 2008.
Loving v. Virginia (1967) was a landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme Court declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation (interracial marriage) statute, the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924", unconstitutional, thereby overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States.
The U.S. Supreme Court's decision read, as follows,
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
On June 12, 2007, Mildred Loving, the plaintiff in this case (along with her husband, Richard) issued a rare public statement prepared for delivery on the fortieth anniversary of the Loving v. Virginia decision of the US Supreme Court. The concluding paragraphs of her statement read as follows:
Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights.
I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about.
Mildred Loving passed away on May 2, 2008.
RE: Olbermann's Great Special Commentary: Prop 8
| Quoting Mariner (Reply 11): Quoting Slider (Reply 8): Have legal provisions via contract law to protect homosexual couples, but nothing more and don’t call it marriage, because it’s not. If marriage is wedded to religion - how do (heterosexual) atheists get married? |
I am awaiting slider response to that question eagerly.
I cannot understand that backwards people that are against gay civil unions (Marriage), these people seem to me as the modern versions of the ant-civil rights movment nimrods. Its not even the people that dont approve of it that bother me, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but the people that actively go out of their way in their boring unfullfilled lives to try to stop others from enjoying theirs. That has to be the answer, you really have to hate your own life to go out of your way to make someone elses life misarable.
Once people start living and enjoying their lives and keep religion to themselves the world will be a much better place to live in.
I am lucky I live in a tolerant society here in Toronto where people mind their own business, I have two gay friends that just got married recently in Toronto, they make a better couple then most strait relationships I have seen.
Although I am not gay, I still find it my personal self interest that the gay community, and every other minority for that matter gets equal oppertunity. It makes for a better over all society.
-
- ConcordeBoy
- Posts: 16852
- Joined:
RE: Olbermann's Great Special Commentary: Prop 8
| Quoting Slider (Reply 8): THOUSANDS OF YEARS OF HUMAN TRADITION and the very foundation of our civilization as we know it. |
...so were slavery and institutionalized misogyny (in-general).
Both are traditional.
Both have been in all manner of cultures worldwide and for thousands of years.
Both are now prohibited by law in most civilized societies, because they violate basic human rights.
In light of such, what legal justification can you draw for prohibiting equal marriage-- as what you just described will eventually be struck down as discriminatory, as were the two aforementioned concepts.
RE: Olbermann's Great Special Commentary: Prop 8
| Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 12): So again, unless the prospect of gay marriage somehow injures your rights as a straight married or straight religious person, who are you to stand in their way? More importantly, why would you care to? |
I have been through this plenty of times before here, so I will stick to a summary. If given the choice, I will never choose to tacitly endorse, approve of, or legitimize an activity I consider morally wrong. What you do behind closed doors is up to you, but when you want to make it part of public policy, then you invite the views of all. I have heard or read all the arguments and counter-arguments, and am not open to changing my mind. If you want to advocate for libertarian values, you should be trying to reform the government so as to eliminate the status of married from federal law all together. Most matters can be handled by contract, will, or power of attorney. Simply make it a requirement that all domestic matters be handled this way. Remove married from the tax code and census. Health insurance can be single, +1, or +1 with dependent children, the way many companies already are. Matters involving children will be handled in much the same way they are now. Leave the marriages to the church.
-
- pwm2txlhopper
- Posts: 1563
- Joined:
RE: Olbermann's Great Special Commentary: Prop 8
| Quoting Slider (Reply 8):
“What if someone voted that you couldn’t marry?” |
You can marry if you're gay! It just has to be somebody of the opposite sex. It's the same rights straights have, because we can't marry somebody of the same sex either! It's not marriage, and never has been. If I went as a straight and said I wanted to marry another man, I'd be denied the opportunity as well!
The reasons gays don't get married is because they aren't attracted to the opposite sex! Therefore, they never attempt to marry somebody they're actually eligible to marry! Then they yell discrimination and get their panties in a bunch! Sorry, but what prevents you from marrying isn't the country's problem, it's your own gender role confusion or genetics or whatever it is that makes them gay. I feel sorry for them. I really I don't care what is though. It's not "hate", it's just common sense! Unless that is, you live in a liberal reality, which obviously most of the USA doesn't at this point in time. Thank God, California hasn't gone completely insane, as most expected! If even in a state like California they vote against gay marriage, it only proves the USA is still an overwhelmingly traditional leaning society, that doesn't support these kooky progressive ideas.
Move to Western Europe if they want to live in a secular, non-judgments made culture, with no moral boundaries or traditional cultural practices retained. But this isn't the USA! Unless you're in places like New York/Northeast San Francisco or Los Angeles maybe.
| Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 16): oth are now prohibited by law in most civilized societies, because they violate basic human rights. |
And homosexual acts violate the law of nature and basic human biology. It's just not right. A little bit odd, funny, weird, etc. Hence, the original meaning of 'queer' before it became a "word of hate and bigotry"
[Edited 2008-11-11 18:46:04]
RE: Olbermann's Great Special Commentary: Prop 8
| Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 5): The argument for throwing it out is that the CA Supreme Court found marriage to be a fundamental right, i.e. that the right to marriage is guaranteed by the entire text of the Constitution. In that case, adding a prohibition of gay marriage would make the document self-contradictory, and thus be invalid |
Then explain the 18th and 21st amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
| Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 9): Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict adult personal relationships. |
Then why is prostitution illegal?
| Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 12): Rights of the people are a natural entity not beholden to the will of the people or large society |
If that is so, then why is it not a right for 3 people to marry? Or 4 if they are all consenting adults?
| Quoting DocLightning (Reply 14): The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State. |
Your own argument is shot down here by the use of "race", unless of course you are now going to claim that homosexuality is now a "race".
-
- FruteBrute
- Posts: 115
- Joined:
RE: Olbermann's Great Special Commentary: Prop 8
If the reports are correct that the Mormon Church has contributed anywhere from $22 to $25 million to defeat this, then their tax exempt status needs to be revoked immediately, and all of the revenues taxed as a political organization, as well as all of their property needs to now be taxed by the various local govt entities for property tax.
RE: Olbermann's Great Special Commentary: Prop 8
| Quoting Lowrider (Reply 17): you should be trying to reform the government so as to eliminate the status of married from federal law all together. Most matters can be handled by contract, will, or power of attorney. Simply make it a requirement that all domestic matters be handled this way. Remove married from the tax code and census. Health insurance can be single, +1, or +1 with dependent children, the way many companies already are. Matters involving children will be handled in much the same way they are now. Leave the marriages to the church. |
If I remember correctly, and it's bean awhile since I was in school, we were taught that in the USA we had a separation of church and state. Marriage is a sacrament of the church if I remember from church school. Then why is a religious sacrement part of government?
Why can people get married at a justice of the peace and not in a church by a minister or rabi etc?
I feel that we need to remove the word marriage from the laws and all people gay or straight need to go to court and file all the various papers for their relationship. That's it their done.
If for religious reason they want to have something done in church as part of their faith and traditions go right ahead and do it. The church can even give you a certificate, like baptism.
Take religion out of this debate.... As we know; society changes the interpretation of scripture as society changes over time. If two straight people want to form a family relationship, then let them. It's not about what I do or don't do behind closed doors is the issue. It's all about love.
MSNBC Keith Olbermann on Prop 8, Marriage and more! sums it up nicely.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVUecPhQPqY
Where are the Beatles.... All we need is love.
-
- pwm2txlhopper
- Posts: 1563
- Joined:
RE: Olbermann's Great Special Commentary: Prop 8
| Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 16):
oth are now prohibited by law in most civilized societies, because they violate basic human rights. |
And homosexual acts violate the law of nature and basic human biology. It's just not right. Hence, the original meaning of 'queer' before it became a "word of hate and bigotry"
| Quoting RJdxer (Reply 19):
Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 12): Rights of the people are a natural entity not beholden to the will of the people or large society If that's so, then why is it not a right for 3 people to marry? Or 4 if they are all consenting adults? |
And another reason people are opposed to things like the progression to same sex marriage!
If you make it reality, then, 10-20 years down the road, for the sake of progression they could legalize polygamous marriage, because to not, would be discrimination! At least that will be the argument from those in support of it! And then what about another 20 years down the road if somebody wants to marry a horse? Sure, it's not a consenting human, but so what? If you can change what marriage is, and keep progressing to crazier and crazier things, then there's no reason the laws couldn't also be changed so that no only can you marry whoever, and whatever you want, but if in the case it's not human, it doesn't even need to give consent.
Does that sound crazy to some of you in support same sex marriage? Well, 20-30 years ago people would have thought what you're demanding now was just as crazy! But we've "evolved" *sigh*
Where do things stop? They never do with progressive politics and policies! That's what happens you we get rid of culture's traditional boundaries! it eventually becomes a free for all based on what makes you feel good, not what's best for society!
[Edited 2008-11-11 19:12:07]
[Edited 2008-11-11 19:13:32]
RE: Olbermann's Great Special Commentary: Prop 8
| Quoting PWM2TXLHopper (Reply 22): And homosexual acts violate the law of nature and basic human biology. It's just not right. |
Why is a homosexual act being brought up? This is about love and relationships.
Their are plenty of straight people who are married and don't procreate for what ever reason and some straight people have some weird sexual perversions I don't agree with. But their sex lives don't keep them from being able to get married.
-
- FruteBrute
- Posts: 115
- Joined:
RE: Olbermann's Great Special Commentary: Prop 8
| Quoting PWM2TXLHopper (Reply 22): And homosexual acts violate the law of nature and basic human biology. It's just not right. Hence, the original meaning of 'queer' before it became a "word of hate and bigotry" |
Sorry dude but that argument doesn't fly. The one, single, only, solitary argument against gay marriage is religion. That's it. Only religion as an excuse. Seeing there's documented proof of over 450 different animal species that engage in homosexual sex its every bit as "natural" as str8 sex.
| Quoting PWM2TXLHopper (Reply 22): Does that sound crazy to some of you in support same sex marriage? Well, 20-30 years ago people would have thought what you're demanding now was just as crazy! But we've "evolved" *sigh* |
Yeah well I guess we shouldn't have let black people and Chinese people marry white people like the Supreme Court ruled in what? 1967. Look at that slippery slope. First those black people want equal rights, now the gays? And just a few decades before that all marriages were arranged and women were considered property. "Traditional marriage" spanning thousands of years was based on property, land rights, royal names, and increasing the family power. Look at what a slippery slope that was allowing women to be considered equal under the law? Egad!
| Quoting PWM2TXLHopper (Reply 22): That's what happens you we get rid of culture's traditional boundaries! it eventually becomes a free for all based on what makes you feel good, not what's best for society! |
Oh you're so right. I mean how dare those gay people who have been together for 10, 15 or 20 years want to have a public celebration of their union. It would make a sheer mockery of "marriage" eh? I mean come on, the sanctity of marriage that str8 people have engaged in just can't be matched. You know, drunken, drive-thru weddings in Vegas, more divorces than many people's IQs like Brittany Spears, 50% marriage failure rate, rampant cheating, and the list goes on and on. How dare those gays try to tarnish the sacred institution of marriage. The best thing for society is the ability to let white trash marry other white trash having 14 kids by 8 different baby daddies, just so long as they are super Christians and all.
-
- waterpolodan
- Posts: 1628
- Joined:
RE: Olbermann's Great Special Commentary: Prop 8
| Quoting PWM2TXLHopper (Reply 22): And homosexual acts violate the law of nature and basic human biology. It's just not right. Hence, the original meaning of 'queer' before it became a "word of hate and bigotry" |
Wow. They're all making a choice to violate the "laws" of nature and biology, are they? I hope that when I have children and they grow up in our society, people have moved well beyond your disgusting, ignorant view of the world.
RE: Olbermann's Great Special Commentary: Prop 8
| Quoting ADXMatt (Reply 21): I feel that we need to remove the word marriage from the laws and all people gay or straight need to go to court and file all the various papers for their relationship. |
Why do we need papers for a relationship, isn't that between the individuals.? What business is it of the government, if all marriage provisions are expunged from the law?
-
- ConcordeBoy
- Posts: 16852
- Joined:
RE: Olbermann's Great Special Commentary: Prop 8
| Quoting Lowrider (Reply 17): If you want to advocate for libertarian values, you should be trying to reform the government so as to eliminate the status of married from federal law all together. Most matters can be handled by contract, will, or power of attorney. Simply make it a requirement that all domestic matters be handled this way. Remove married from the tax code and census. Health insurance can be single, +1, or +1 with dependent children, the way many companies already are. |
Translation: "if I can't have it like I want, then I want no one to have it!"
Pathetic.
| Quoting PWM2TXLHopper (Reply 18): And homosexual acts violate the law of nature |
...would certainly be interested to see how you arrive at that conclusion, particularly seeing as it's been proven to exist in nature, throughout various classes, time and time again.
Then again, it's even more droll to observe your (typical) inability to separate homosexual acts from homosexual relationships.
| Quoting PWM2TXLHopper (Reply 18): and basic human biology. It's just not right. |
I'm wondering if you're aware that the exact same wording was tried and failed as an attempt to stifle interracial marriage to, are you not? What's that quip about what those ignorant of history are doomed to do?
| Quoting PWM2TXLHopper (Reply 18): A little bit odd, funny, weird, etc |
You do realize that you sound like you're reading this straight out of a cliche' book right?
RE: Olbermann's Great Special Commentary: Prop 8
This thread is essentially reconducting the same discussion as an already existing thread:
https://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...ms/non_aviation/read.main/2002595/
Please continue the discussion over there.
https://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...ms/non_aviation/read.main/2002595/
Please continue the discussion over there.
-
- WunalaYann
- Posts: 2128
- Joined:
RE: Olbermann's Great Special Commentary: Prop 8
| Quoting PWM2TXLHopper (Reply 17): Move to Western Europe if they want to live in a secular, non-judgments made culture, with no moral boundaries or traditional cultural practices retained. |
Excuse me, but I come from Western Europe and I do have moral boundaries and traditional cultural practices. And so do virtually all the people I know. I would appreciate you did not slag other people's countries and cultures like that, it does your cause no favours. To gavel down moral judgements on cultures you obviously have no clue about is not exactly in line with what America stands for.
For what it is worth, gay marriage is not legal in France, even though my country of origin gets all sorts of crap from the likes of you who like to depict it as a morally corrupt, lawless land of Sodom and Gomorrah.
Other legal arrangements allow gay couples to be fiscally non-discriminated compared to heterosexual couples, but said arrangements are not marriage at all. I am in favour of gay marriage, but that does not make me a representative sample of "Western Europe", far from it.
That some countries in Europe have more progressive societies and rules is obvious, and they are coincidentally the ones with the highest standards of living, too. You can think most of Scandinavia, the Benelux, the German-speaking world, etc.
| Quoting PWM2TXLHopper (Reply 21): And homosexual acts violate the law of nature and basic human biology. It's just not right. Hence, the original meaning of 'queer' before it became a "word of hate and bigotry" |
I am heterosexual and find your statement not only patently incorrect (as science has proven it wrong time and again) but also a pure display of bigotry.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: DH106 and 13 guests