This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by BoneRemake. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

Heard in the pub last night, Elton John has written a song for her funeral "Candle under the spoon"

Today I learned that I don't like Nicholas Cage as an actor. Though there are many artists that I dislike, there are relatively few that I didn't dislike immediately, that I have tolerated for so many years, and then suddenly develop or realize a deep-seated dislike for their works. The only other one that I can think of is Elton John. Queen was like that for me too, but after a shorter period of time. I stopped liking them when I was in High School. I stopped liking Elton John when I worked for a month in a kitchen where Elton John was the chef's favourite. And I stopped liking Nicholas Cage today when I saw The Lord Of Death. Great movie, shame it had to be Nick Cage. The script and production were great, the material was on the page. The Lord of Death could have been an academy award winning role. But instead they got Nick Cage.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'U2, love, Gabby, Giffords, Mark, Kelly, Beautiful Day, elton john lyric' to 'U2, love, Gabby, Giffords, Mark, Kelly, Beautiful Day, david bowie lyric' - edited by Trancecoach

Tags for this video have been changed from 'U2, love, Gabby, Giffords, Mark, Kelly, Beautiful Day' to 'U2, love, Gabby, Giffords, Mark, Kelly, Beautiful Day, elton john lyric' - edited by Trancecoach

Than Elton John? >> ^jwray:

Jimmy Carr is better.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'dave grohl, foo fighters, elton john, tiny dancer, cover' to 'dave grohl, foo fighters, elton john, tiny dancer, cover, almost famous' - edited by brycewi19

Is that Elton John? [grin]

Looks a bit like Elton John in his younger days - But after having John Lennon's music blasted at us through the whole thing we imagine it looks like him.

American "football" is rugby-with-autism played in body-fenders. It's more like some homoerotic Broadway choreographed over-production of a divorce litigation done up by Elton John than any sport.

oh shit, elton john said it, guess we all better fall in line!

over and over and over and over and over, like a monkey with a miniature cymbal.

This is a lesbian's view of the legal stuff: "The Difference Between Marriage and Civil Unions".

It's a short enough article so worth a read. IMO the important points start at "Taxes", halfway down the first page.

My own two cents: I think that in a human sense marriage is just a label for loving commitment. People can be everything a husband and wife can be without that label just as that label doesn't automatically make the couple a paradigm. In that sense I don't care who calls themselves married. In the legal sense I always thought of marriage as a declaration of two people as a single legal entity and all the entitlements that that brings are a natural progression of that. I guess that simple definition won't stand up to most people's standards but in my mind everything else is just an elaboration. I don't see why a state would interfere with that on the basis of genders. The only difference between a homosexual union and a heterosexual union (excepting sterility) is the ability to produce kids. There's plenty of evidence that even the ability to raise kids is the same.

So... Gay marriage legal? It's only a label and taxes. The label doesn't matter a damn and the main argument against tax equality boils down to "we give these guys tax cuts 'cos they breed". <sarc> I say give the children of unfit breeders to fit gays and give everyone who's raising kids the extra rights. </sarc> Or not. There is that whole over-population thing.>> ^quantumushroom:
For me, the gay "marriage" debate ended with the arrival of civil unions. If a gay couple has the same legal rights as a married couple, then that is, in essence, the libertarian goal. As Elton John put it: "I don't want to be married. I'm very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership. The word 'marriage,' I think, puts a lot of people off. You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships."
Obviously the 'loudest' gays are not happy with "civil unions"...

First of all, let me say thank you for the reasoned arguments. As liberalsift's only "conservatarian" a heavy (voluntary) responsibility weigh on my shoulders. I'll attempt to address the talking points.


Native Americans practiced same-sex coupling. Thousands of years even before that, there's evidence of humans pairing off for mutual protection and cooperation - two prehistoric dudes have a better chance of taking down large game than if they worked alone. Two female cave girls have a better chance of surviving and avoiding being raped by cave dudes than if they were separate.

But what you're describing isn't marriage, and even if there were homosexual acts under these circumstances, it's not something the tribe would recognize. Even the ancient Greek pederasts scoffed at the idea of gay marriage.

Same-sex coupling has existed as long as humans have. Hell, even modern day penguins are known to engage in same-sex coupling.

We shouldn't be looking to the animal kingdom for comparisons, where cannibalism and killing other beasts' offspring is normal.

Before people cite the Book of Matthew, let me remind them that "Man shall not lay with another man..." doesn't refer to homosexuality. There wasn't even a word for it when the bible was authored. The line references how we are not to treat men the same way we treat women. And just how were women treated during the days of the bible's authoring? Like cattle - merely objects to be bought, sold, and bartered for. The line speaks that we should not enslave men the way we enslave women. The line speaks to institutionalized misogyny, and has NOTHING to do with homosexuality.

I have never heard this interpretation of Matthew so I remain...neutral.

The first amendment guarantees us freedom of religion. It also guarantees us freedom FROM religion. Every law needs a secular reason for existing. "God says it's wrong" isn't, nor will ever be, reason enough for a law. The 14th amendment guarantees equal rights and freedoms, even to people you don't like.

The First Amendment does NOT guarantee freedom "from" religion, this deliberate distortion is a 'gift' Progressivism. Equal rights and freedoms have very obvious limitations. You're free to ride a bicycle and you're free to drive a car on the freeway, but you're NOT free to ride your bicycle on the freeway.

The Judicial branch did it's job - protecting the people from themselves. Just because the majority voted for something doesn't mean jack shit. If it's unconstitutional, it won't fly, no matter how big the majority.

A judge made up things for a non-existent "right", similar to how abortion was made legal by non-existent privacy rights. Whether you agree with abortion or not, the ruling was inept and corrupt. There was a time when slavery was considered constitutional, so it's true that things change.

And why is it "Small-Government" types always try to use the government to enforce their religious views? Seems HYPOCRITICAL to me.

Some libertarians vouch for the "privatization of marriage" which means the State doesn't recognize any marriage but can only enforce contracts between (any) people. (Unfortunately?) we don't live in a libertarian society---far from it---and the State (with much thanks to Statists) has its tentacles in all manner of arenas and areas in which it has no business. The main reasons governments evolved was to preserve private property rights and keep enemies outside the gates. Marriage is a legal contract, and since it affects taxation and a slew of other things it is the State's business, for better or worse.

For me, the gay "marriage" debate ended with the arrival of civil unions. If a gay couple has the same legal rights as a married couple, then that is, in essence, the libertarian goal. As Elton John put it: "I don't want to be married. I'm very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership. The word 'marriage,' I think, puts a lot of people off. You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships."

Obviously the 'loudest' gays are not happy with "civil unions", which brings me to my next point: there is indeed something special about the one man/one woman marriage. If there was not, these gay pawns (the latest pawns of Progressive Statist subversives) wouldn't be so adamant. Except for the fundamentalists, no one could care less about people's personal lives....but if you force a majority to recognize something as being on par with what they consider sacrosanct, then it will be received negatively.

I would be personally delighted if some judge ruled---against the will of the people---that all controlled substances drugs be made legal, prostitution be made legal, all excessive federal hurdles to owning firearms be abolished, perhaps the income tax be replaced with something else.......but it's not the way the system works. As a member of society I am as much a "victim" of traditional values as everyone else.

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

Society is stupid. A large community of people in Germany decided killing Jews was ok (Godwin seekers you can now leave). It's a big reason we don't have a pure democracy: because people are STUPID. They're ignorant, they're fickle, they're quick to react to things they're afraid of and it is just plain stupid put somebody's rights to a vote, if that right isn't violating another person's rights.

Society is indeed stupid, but not all the time, and therefore the accumulated wisdom of centuries of trial and error shouldn't be readily abandoned.

----------------------------------------------------
Well, this is just one sifter's opinions. At present about 70% of Americans oppose same-sex marriage. Perhaps in 10 years only 30% will be opposed and society's values will radically change.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'equality, awareness, advert, anna paquin, elton john' to 'equality, awareness, advert, anna paquin, elton john, tru blood' - edited by burdturgler

In reply to this comment by therealblankman:
@aniatario- Yup, definitely has a reputation as an asshole. As for "stealing" the rights to the music, well he's the songwriter for most of it and that's where the rights to revenues lies. That said the tracks that the band recorded were very collaborative, so he could have chosen to be more equitable, but chose not to. They worked together for over 20 years and by not sharing Robbie alienated himself from the rest of The Band, especially Levon Helm. So yeah... an asshole.

@rougy- During the editing process for The Last Waltz Scorsese and Robertson lived together and consumed copious quantities of drugs. I guess Scorsese was the typical New York hopped-up cokehead, and Robertson definitely seemed to be more of a mellow stoner.

Side note: Just read on Wikipedia that Elton John's song "Levon" was written as a tribute to Levon Helm, the drummer from The Band. Interesting.

wow man.
the next time i find a good robbie robertson vid ill send it your way to post.
you know waaay more about him and the band than i do,for real.
i learned more about him just by your comments..very awesome my man.