What can I say? The man knows his audience.

You all do know that this guy is just an actor right?

I would say he is Fox's answer to Comedy Centrals admittedly better news shows.

I think there are big differences between Comedy Central's news and Beck.

For one, Comedy Central says they're fake (and are lying), Fox News says they're real (and are lying).

Comedy Central's shows try to make you feel empowered by showing you how ridiculous our government is. Beck's show tries to make you feel afraid, and desperate in the face of a ruthless and efficient government.

Comedy Central encourages you not to take things too seriously, even when the topics are quite serious. Fox News encourages you to take even the most trivial or nonexistent issue as being some sort of major assault on your freedom, to be fought back against by any means necessary.

Comedy Central uses laughter to quell fear, Fox News uses fear to quell reason.

In this case, Beck is saying that liberals calling hateful, wrongheaded things hateful or wrongheaded is in fact some sort of persecution. It's of a piece with the right-wing noise machine's general position that the chief racial issue in America is that too many old white men are being accused of racism.

Some even go so far as to put forth the idea that slavery was harder on the owners than on the slaves themselves.

I'm confused as to why this has the lies tag? Just because it's Fox doesn't mean it's a lie...in fact everything he said in this video is dead on!

^ I flagged it lies for one of two reasons (take your pick):

1. Because Beck's ultimate point is that any liberal saying anything like this is actually an oppressive hatemonger (which is textbook truthiness/up-is-downism).

2. Because I (and the original YT poster) labeled this as a moment of self-awareness, and it's fairly obvious that it's not.

So, one or both of us is lying, fair warning.

I hate to say it but, despite the hypocrisy, Beck has a point.

I know I'll be downvoted into oblivion for saying this, because I've been through it before, but maybe one or two of you will hear the message and understand it.

You can oppose immigration without being a racist.
You can oppose Obama or his policies without being a racist.
You can deny the Holocaust without being an anti-semite.
You can oppose gay marriage without being a homophobe.
You can oppose the US Government without being a terrorist.
You can oppose the War on Terror without hating our troops.
You can oppose hydrogen powered vehicles without supporting big oil.
You can oppose abortion without being a Bible-thumping misogynist.
You can oppose war without being an appeaser.

Do many people oppose gay marriage because of their hatred of gays? Certainly. Do many people oppose Obama because of racism? Clearly. Are some who deny the Holocaust anti-semites? Probably.

But some people are just mislead and some people are just nuts. Some even (*gasp*) have different and legitimate opinions. We've gotten to this place where any level of disagreement warrants the most extreme vocabulary that can be conjured and the liberals are just as guilty as the conservatives.

You want to know why there's no progress in government? It's because of radical preconceived notions. Anything the left proposes is Nazism, Fascism, Marxism or Socialism. They hate good Christian people and the country. Anything the right proposes is Nazism, Fascism or Discrimination. Nobody even hears the other side because they've decided ahead of time what those people will say.

And the vast majority of you here on the sift are the same way. Open your eyes and ears. There are a lot of people with differing and/or opposing viewpoints to yours and not all of them are nutcases who want to destroy the country. You serve nobody's interests by shooting them down with extremist labels before they've even had the chance to make their case.

*nochannel *politics *controversy

also I submit that a "rant" is a *talk

This video has been removed from all channels (Lies, Politics, News, Controversy) due to invalid channel assignment - nochannel invoked by xxovercastxx. Please review the FAQ to learn about appropriate channel assignments.

Adding video to channels (Controversy, Politics) - requested by xxovercastxx.

er... *talks

oh and I missed *news

Adding video to channels (News, Talks) - requested by xxovercastxx.

He forgot frog killer.

He likes to kill frogs.

I'm not going to downvote you, you raise a point.

However, I do feel the need to ask a few things.
What possible reason other then either being a bible thumper or homophobe is there for objecting gay marriage?

I'm asking legitimately. Two people love each other, they want the same treatment as everybody else. Unless it's wrong in the eyes of the lord, or you don't like seeing a man holding another mans hand, I see no actual valid reason for it. They still pay to be wed, if they want children, they have to adopt..which means a child gets much better care then it ever would if it doesn't get adopted, and that way everybody's happy.

Now, Beck says he opposes Illegal immigration, big difference to just immigration. I can understand not wanting illegal immigrants, even though they too are just a group of people looking for a better life, but the ones who come over legally, apply for a visa or citizenship.. if they take a job away from an American, then they deserve the spot more then the American, they were more qualified.

I don't see the point of denying the holocost, when there are still survivors OF the holocost, and documents, eyewitness accounts, films, and still photographs proving that millions of Jewish people were encamped, and killed, during WWII. True, you can argue that you don't care about the jews, you just don't believe it happened.. but I don't understand the reasoning for it. Any hard look at the facts would prove that it happened, and unless you really did have some ulterior motive you'd change your views.

Of course you can oppose policies without being a racist, anybody claiming you ARE one is a loon. Obama is NOT the first ever president of the u.s.a. and as far as I know, for each and every president before him, there was at least one group of people that thought "Hey..we don't like you, or your policies, BOO!"

You can oppose the war on terror without hating the troops makes no sense to me. Most people who are against the war seem to be against it because they feel that American blood shouldn't be shed in a senseless war, and want to bring them HOME. I don't understand your point there at all.

Abortion, I agree with you on. My mother is adopted, and while I'm still pro-choice, she is against abortions. If whoever gave birth to her decided on having an abortion instead, she would never have been here.

Look, I'll stop picking apart your post now, because I know the point was actually to promote having an open mind, but your examples given are slightly..flawed. By all means, if you have means to correct me, do so, I will gladly look at all the evidence given to me. But honestly..
some things, some pre-concieved notions, they're honestly true.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
I hate to say it but, despite the hypocrisy, Beck has a point.
I know I'll be downvoted into oblivion for saying this, because I've been through it before, but maybe one or two of you will hear the message and understand it.
You can oppose immigration without being a racist.
You can oppose Obama or his policies without being a racist.
You can deny the Holocaust without being an anti-semite.
You can oppose gay marriage without being a homophobe.
You can oppose the US Government without being a terrorist.
You can oppose the War on Terror without hating our troops.
You can oppose hydrogen powered vehicles without supporting big oil.
You can oppose abortion without being a Bible-thumping misogynist.
You can oppose war without being an appeaser.
Do many people oppose gay marriage because of their hatred of gays? Certainly. Do many people oppose Obama because of racism? Clearly. Are some who deny the Holocaust anti-semites? Probably.
But some people are just mislead and some people are just nuts. Some even ( gasp ) have different and legitimate opinions. We've gotten to this place where any level of disagreement warrants the most extreme vocabulary that can be conjured and the liberals are just as guilty as the conservatives.
You want to know why there's no progress in government? It's because of radical preconceived notions. Anything the left proposes is Nazism, Fascism, Marxism or Socialism. They hate good Christian people and the country. Anything the right proposes is Nazism, Fascism or Discrimination. Nobody even hears the other side because they've decided ahead of time what those people will say.
And the vast majority of you here on the sift are the same way. Open your eyes and ears. There are a lot of people with differing and/or opposing viewpoints to yours and not all of them are nutcases who want to destroy the country. You serve nobody's interests by shooting them down with extremist labels before they've even had the chance to make their case.

He's speaking too many big words for his audience. I know, I tried to explain 'jingoism' and 'Age of Reason' to my father, and his reply was nothing short of, "well, I just know what I know."

He admires Glenn Beck. And he votes.

Heh heh, he said "childrens." @1:18

Woo! Gerbil shooting!!!

He's taking the piss. He laughs himself to sleep at night thinking of his audience

Great comments by all, which is why I am such a fan of the 'sift.

Here are the assertions Beck ascribed to "liberals":

1. If you're against health care you hate the poor.
   
2. If you oppose their "climate change bill", you hate the planet, or are flat-earth moon landing denier.
   
3. If you oppose illegal immigration you're anti-hispanic.
   
4. If you oppose the stimulus, it's just because Obama is black.
   
5. If you oppose Obama's budget deficits, you must have been okay with Bush's (and are a hypocrite).
   
6. If you "support the troops", you're a warmonger.
   
7. If you attend a tea party, you're crazy.
   
8. If you "support traditional marriage", you're a homophobe.
   
9. If you oppose abortion, you're against women.
   
10. If you oppose the fairness doctrine, you hate diversity.
    
11. If you oppose "strong-arm" unions, you're against the workers.
    

1. If you're against universal health care, you don't care if the poor live or die.
   
2. If you refuse to believe that human activity has been changing the climate in ways that will cause humankind harm, you are a flat-earth moon landing denier.
   
3. If your only solution to illegal immigration is to engage in massive police action against those who've immigrated illegally, you're anti-hispanic, anti-muslim, and generally a bigoted xenophobic moron who doesn't believe in individual human rights.
   
4. If you oppose the stimulus, it's because you are either a) a moron who thinks government spending can't help a sagging economy, or b) a partisan who's more interested in scoring political points than helping the country.
   
5. If you're going to go out into the streets and protest deficits in 2009, you should have been doing it ever since Bush's tax cuts turned a budget surplus into a deficit. Also, there should have been a large contingent of the so-called conservative base against continuing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan because of the cost. But there wasn't, so there are lots of people who only believe in keeping spending in check when it's a Democratic administration doing the spending, and that destroys your credibility on the subject. (Shorter alternative: The left protests spending tax money to kill people, while the right protests spending tax money to save people.)
   
6. If you think the only way to "support the troops" is to keep them in harm's way indefinitely without clear goals, then you're a warmonger, and definitely not supporting the troops!
   
7. Most of the people attending the tea parties were crazy, or crazy-tolerant. A lot of people were protesting against conspiracy theories (e.g. death panels). A lot of people were threatening violence. A lot of people were using racial imagery or language. No one seemed to mind their presence at the rally, or asked them to leave. If there were reasonable people there, they let the crazies usurp their message, and that reflects poorly on them.
   
8. If you oppose civil unions with equal legal benefits for gay couples, you're a homophobe. (As an aside, if Beck's objecting to being called a homophobe, it's more proof we've already won this fight, since even the right believes that word has a negative connotation that they're uncomfortable with)
   
9. If you support criminalizing abortion, you fundamentally don't trust women to be able to make important decisions about their health and life, and that's sexist.
   
10. We're pretty divided about the fairness doctrine, actually. Our smear against opposition to it would be about conservative elites wanting to preserve their for-profit propaganda enterprises though, not about "diversity".
    
11. If you oppose making it easier for workers unionize (which is what the Employee Free Choice Act would do), you're against the workers.
    

I started appreciating Beck when I realized he is just mocking his audience and doing it well enough that few people realize it.

Stop feeding the troll.

I'm not going to watch this, as I don't watch any Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, FOX News anything.

How do you get rid of a bully? Ignore him.

>> ^Shepppard:
I don't see the point of denying the holocost, when there are still survivors OF the holocost, and documents, eyewitness accounts, films, and still photographs proving that millions of Jewish people were encamped, and killed, during WWII. True, you can argue that you don't care about the jews, you just don't believe it happened.. but I don't understand the reasoning for it. Any hard look at the facts would prove that it happened, and unless you really did have some ulterior motive you'd change your views.

Can I just get something off my chest, I know it's a bit off topic.

My grandmother had the most awesome photo albums. Beautiful old photos of family in Europe from a time when posing for a photo seemed to mean something. She showed me those albums every time I visited her and she carefully recounted the stories of every person in those photos. And it was impossible to go through the family album without pauses to note the people who died in concentration camps, survived concentration camps or in one case, actually escaped a concentration camp. We are not Jewish. At some point between my childhood and becoming an adult the holocaust became solely about the internment and death of Jews. How did this happen?

You might choose to deny the holocaust because you're anti-semitic...but you're also calling my Polish grandmother a liar. Even if you don't deny the holocaust you're doing an injustice to a large number people by equating it only to the Jewish community.

>> ^mizila:
Heh heh, he said "childrens." @1:18


Oh no! a fox pass!

So he didn't explain why he does subscribe to those points of views. He just addressed that that's how he looks for feeling that way. So in a way he's agreeing.

>> ^blankfist:
He's speaking too many big words for his audience. I know, I tried to explain 'jingoism' and 'Age of Reason' to my father, and his reply was nothing short of, "well, I just know what I know."
He admires Glenn Beck. And he votes.

Hahaha...for some reason I just pictured your dad as Wilfred Brimley

^But sexier.

Gay Marriage: There are people out there who just don't want to shake things up; people who like the status quo and want to see marriage remain M/F only. Exactly what's going on in their heads, I can't say. I'd be interested to find out and I know that won't happen if I scream obscenities at them before they have the chance to explain it.

Illegal Immigration: First, the omission of "illegal" in my first post was just an oversight on my part. I really don't see why anyone would support illegal immigration, honestly. I think the claim that some people do is more likely a distortion. People, generally liberals, argue for better treatment of illegals and against the assload of money we spend trying, and failing, to stop them at the border. Wingnuts then point at those people and claim that they're in favor of illegal immigration. That one feels like runaway douchebaggery to me.

The Holocaust: This guy is labeled an antisemite for his beliefs about the Holocaust. If you're looking for "the point" to denying the Holocaust, then you're way off the mark. It's not as if there is a "point" to believing in the Holocaust, either. That's what you and I, presumably, believe because that is what the evidence presented to us suggests. Some people have interpreted the evidence differently or have been exposed to different evidence. I think most of those people are probably nuts but it's a complete logical fallacy to jump to antisemitism from there.

War on Terror: You've made my point for me here. Everyone I know who is against the war fully supports the troops. We want them home and safe rather than risking their lives to protect us from absolutely nothing. However, anyone who was against the war during the Bush administration was labeled as anti-American, unpatriotic, an appeaser or accused of hating the troops. It's a bullshit accusation intended to shut you up or drown you out and that's it.
---
It seems like you may have mistaken my list of examples for my personal positions and that's not the case, so I can't really make any arguments for these things. The only argument I'm making is that you shouldn't assume your preconceived notions are true and shut out those opposing viewpoints as a result. Have your preconceptions if you must, but give the person the chance to prove you wrong.

>> ^Shepppard:
What possible reason other then either being a bible thumper or homophobe is there for objecting gay marriage?
I'm asking legitimately. Two people love each other, they want the same treatment as everybody else. Unless it's wrong in the eyes of the lord, or you don't like seeing a man holding another mans hand, I see no actual valid reason for it.
Now, Beck says he opposes Illegal immigration, big difference to just immigration. I can understand not wanting illegal immigrants, even though they too are just a group of people looking for a better life, but the ones who come over legally, apply for a visa or citizenship.. if they take a job away from an American, then they deserve the spot more then the American, they were more qualified.
I don't see the point of denying the holocost, when there are still survivors OF the holocost, and documents, eyewitness accounts, films, and still photographs proving that millions of Jewish people were encamped, and killed, during WWII. True, you can argue that you don't care about the jews, you just don't believe it happened.. but I don't understand the reasoning for it. Any hard look at the facts would prove that it happened, and unless you really did have some ulterior motive you'd change your views.
Of course you can oppose policies without being a racist, anybody claiming you ARE one is a loon. Obama is NOT the first ever president of the u.s.a. and as far as I know, for each and every president before him, there was at least one group of people that thought "Hey..we don't like you, or your policies, BOO!"
You can oppose the war on terror without hating the troops makes no sense to me. Most people who are against the war seem to be against it because they feel that American blood shouldn't be shed in a senseless war, and want to bring them HOME. I don't understand your point there at all.
Abortion, I agree with you on. My mother is adopted, and while I'm still pro-choice, she is against abortions. If whoever gave birth to her decided on having an abortion instead, she would never have been here.
Look, I'll stop picking apart your post now, because I know the point was actually to promote having an open mind, but your examples given are slightly..flawed. By all means, if you have means to correct me, do so, I will gladly look at all the evidence given to me. But honestly..
some things, some pre-concieved notions, they're honestly true.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
You can oppose gay marriage without being a homophobe.


I actually agree with everything else in ^xxovercastxx's post except for this.

Most importantly the state is, constitutionally, in writing and sworn to = separated from the church.

Christian Marriage, Hindu Marriage, Buddist Marriage, Chinese Marriage, Muslim Marriage, Pagan, mother earth goddess - tree worshiping marriage... and Gay Marriage are all equal in law due to freedom of belief and religion.

Choosing to oppose Gay marriage based on Deuteronomy? That's using freedom of religion as a moral guidance to prejudge, and oppose equality.

You can't say, my god says you and your lifestyle is evil and you cannot be legally equal - but I'm not a homophobe, i don't hate you! You're just evil and you do not deserve freedoms.

*findthumb Am I the only one that isn't seeing a thumbnail for this?

A different thumbnail image for this video could not be found for findthumb request by jimnms.

One can oppose gay marriage from a strictly utilitarian perspective. Marriage is about making BABIES, babies which fuel the economy. All sociopolitical barriers aside, I don't foresee two men or women impregnating each other anytime soon.

That's pure, impractical devil's advocate though. Live and let live. There really is no logical or reasonable defense of opposition to gay marriage. "Protecting the status quo" hardly qualifies.

And why would anyone "deny" the holocaust? May just as well deny the existence of some guy named George Washington who supposedly served as the US president some time ago. History, as being a product of men, requires a certain amount of discretion when studied... but denying the holocaust is just plain unfounded idiocy.

Am I the only one that isn't seeing a thumbnail for this?

Even siftbot has seen enough of Beck's fat head.

My response to this clip: Yep.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
I hate to say it but, despite the hypocrisy, Beck has a point.

He does have a point, but it's fun to just take his words out of context, because he's a batshit crock who doesn't hold any reasonable qualification for being taken seriously.

Absolutism is no good no matter where you come from, whether that's deciding your ideas are the only valid ideas available, or it's creating false choices (your porridge is either too cold or too hot!). Its easy enough to hate truly bad ideas without trying to invent new reasons to hate the guy. So yeah, what he's saying is essentially valid to the point that he is describing non sequitur, but it seemed like his ultimate point was also a non sequitur. It doesn't follow that because some people on the left do this, any person on the left you encounter will do it.

Oh, and there are some conclusions that CAN be reached by some positions. Marriage inequality is clearly discrimination, which is clearly wrong, and you can look to many of the Constitution's amendments for the proof enshrined there in our founding document. No discriminating against blacks. No discriminating against women. No discriminating based on creed or belief. And it should really follow from this last one that there should be no discriminating based on sexual preference, since one could argue that it's a creed or belief in some way.

So it's not a dishonest question to ask a gay marriage opponent why he believes in discrimination more than freedom. What he supports IS discrimination that robs other citizens of freedom. He wants to have more freedom than gays. What he doesn't want to do is take the responsibility of having his own marriage and having to accept that other people can do it, even "those" people. And that's really what we need in society, the sense of responsibility to be civil and accept others as they are rather than demanding they change to serve us.

I wandered off topic, but my point is that it's not always unfair to draw a conclusion from someone's position on a matter that casts them in a negative light, sometimes it's unavoidable.

The daily show definitely has more true content than glenn beck.

From Dr. Theophrastus Seuss' timeless classic "Fox in Socks":

Now wait
a minute
Mr. Socks Fox!

When a fox is
in the bottle where
the tweetle beetles battle
with their paddles
in a puddle on a
noodle-eating poodle.
THIS is what they call...

...a tweetle beetle
noodle poodle bottle
paddled muddled duddled
fuddled wuddled
fox in socks, sir!

Fox in socks,
our game us done, sir.
Thank you for
a lot of fun, sir

</reality>

I just googled gerbil shooting, didn't realise he was talking about this.

Daily show has more true content than any mainstream news source which is why they insist on calling themselves the "fake" news. Who would want to be associated with a "real" mainstream news source.
-Karl

Ok, I've been wanting to ask this for awhile.



Does anyone else see a resemblance between Beck and George?

I don't mean politically, I mean in terms of looks, mannerisms, and presenting style?

I am very much in support of people who are gay, but I am slightly sick of hearing that when people make voting decisions based on their beliefs, they are somehow violating the "separation of church and state" doctrine, which I believe wholeheartedly in, but which is not an explicit part of the Constitution. Jefferson suggested that the doctrine is an inherent part of the Constitution, and nobody "sw[ears] to" it, but they misunderstand it on a regular basis.

People shouldn't vote on issues that they consider moral based on their religious beliefs? Well, maybe their religious beliefs are wrong, but it is completely unreasonable to suggest that they shouldn't vote based on their beliefs, and it is even more unreasonable to suggest that this is somehow a violation of the separation of church and state. It isn't. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. All laws are enforcements of someone's concept of right and wrong. Granted, this particular issue is based less on ethics and more on faith that almost any other. Although the decisions themselves may be unconstitutional, there is nothing unconstitutional about making them based on religious beliefs. The separation of church and state is irrelevant.

>> ^raverman:
>>> ^xxovercastxx:
You can oppose gay marriage without being a homophobe.I actually agree with everything else in ^xxovercastxx's post except for this.

Most importantly the state is, constitutionally, in writing and sworn to = separated from the church.

Christian Marriage, Hindu Marriage, Buddist Marriage, Chinese Marriage, Muslim Marriage, Pagan, mother earth goddess - tree worshiping marriage... and Gay Marriage are all equal in law due to freedom of belief and religion.

Choosing to oppose Gay marriage based on Deuteronomy? That's using freedom of religion as a moral guidance to prejudge, and oppose equality.

You can't say, my god says you and your lifestyle is evil and you cannot be legally equal - but I'm not a homophobe, i don't hate you! You're just evil and you do not deserve freedoms.

>> ^thepinky:
Well, maybe their religious beliefs are wrong...

Shoulda stopped there

>> ^raverman:
Most importantly the state is, constitutionally, in writing and sworn to = separated from the church.
Christian Marriage, Hindu Marriage, Buddist Marriage, Chinese Marriage, Muslim Marriage, Pagan, mother earth goddess - tree worshiping marriage... and Gay Marriage are all equal in law due to freedom of belief and religion.
Choosing to oppose Gay marriage based on Deuteronomy? That's using freedom of religion as a moral guidance to prejudge, and oppose equality.
You can't say, my god says you and your lifestyle is evil and you cannot be legally equal - but I'm not a homophobe, i don't hate you! You're just evil and you do not deserve freedoms.


How does Separation of Church and State have anything to do with me (hypothetically) being against gay marriage? I am neither Church nor State; I can have the opinion that gays should not be married all I want.

A homophobe who says they're not a homophobe is still a homophobe. PHJF's comment is a perfect example of someone being against gay marriage without a drop of hatred for gays. People seem to be getting hung up on the argument that an opinion like the one proposed by PHJF is unreasonable. Whether it is or not is beside the point. The point is that someone can be against gay marriage without being a homophobe and attempting to drown them out by calling them such is a disservice to everyone.

From the never-wrong Wikipedia:
A phobia (from the Greek: phóbos, fear or morbid fear), is an irrational, intense, persistent fear of certain situations, activities, things, or people.

Homophobia is like any other phobia. It is something you must control yourself. Homophobes in general are not the problem.

Bigots like Glenn Beck are. To lump "homophobes" in with bigots isn't fair.

>> ^thepinky:
but I am slightly sick of hearing that when people make voting decisions based on their beliefs, they are somehow violating the "separation of church and state" doctrine, which I believe wholeheartedly in, but which is not an explicit part of the Constitution.

Quite right, though, taken at it's literal meaning "Congress shall not make any laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" quite implicitly means that laws cannot be based on religious doctrine. In all actuality having "Christmas Day" a federal holiday is a violation of the First Amendment. Anti-Gay marriage laws are pure and simple unconstitutional.

When a law has ZERO basis outside of religious doctrine, as those preventing gay marriage, they are in violation of the First Amendment. As for people voting based on their religious beliefs, sure that doesn't violate the separation of Church and State, having faith based ballot measures does.

>> ^PHJF:
One can oppose gay marriage from a strictly utilitarian perspective. Marriage is about making BABIES, babies which fuel the economy. All sociopolitical barriers aside, I don't foresee two men or women impregnating each other anytime soon.

I'll agree with that position as soon as they make it a crime to have a child out of wedlock. That's like saying that if a straight person cannot procreate they shouldn't be allowed to get married, which is just as absurd as non breeding gay people. Why does Satan have such idiotic lawyers? You'd think with all of them going to Hell, he could pick the cream of the crop.

Perhaps my rephrasing of #8 should have been:

8. If you oppose gay couples having equal adoption rights, you're a homophobic bigot.

This anti-gay thing isn't about religion. If you're gay, and strongly believe in that kind of religion, swell. Don't get married. No particular reason why the law should forbid other people from getting married because of that.

The whole reason why they talk about "definition of marriage" is to skirt the equal protection clause in the 14th amendment. Under the 14th, you're guaranteed equal "privileges and immunities" by the laws of the state; privileges like marriage. They want to define the privilege of marriage as being a legal agreement between a man and a woman only, which means the privilege can't apply to gay people due to the nature of the privilege rather than due to a law that explicitly restricts their rights.

It's bullshit, all of it. It's about discrimination towards a minority, and it's misguided and wrong.

It's also misguided and wrong to pretend that my saying the above is somehow a bigoted oppression of people who see things differently. Nah, I defend your legal right to say or think whatever kind of bigoted thing you want, I just oppose letting you use law to institutionalize your bigotry.

I heard he raped a murder a girl in 1990 but who's counting eh? =D

blindsiding people with a blow, for being politically incorrect is easy, recognizing the dignity of the people who oppose you is hard.

And when you're angry and upset before you come to the debate, then it's nearly impossible. And I'm talking about myself here.

Actually, marriage, like any other word in the English language, is largely how it's define. In the USA, the term is a contract.

If you define marriage as between a man and woman, that's one defination.
If you define marriage as the process to procreation, that's another defination.
if you define marriage as between two adults, that's a third.

What alot of you get hung up on, is that 'marriage', is not only a religious concept and meaning. There's a financial and legal defination.

The financial defination, usually means, things are joined shared in terms of expenses and financial gain. In addition, if a spouce passes away, the other, gains full ownership of assets and expenses.

Legal defination, is that, a spouse can make decisions for their spouce, in the even their loved one is unable to make decisions (i.e. in a coma, serving on active duty, in prison, etc). This applies to issues in which legal definations are needed as the result of issues that arise from local, county, state, and federal laws and regulation.

So in the end, if you oppose gay marriage, not from a religious point of view, you would need to define exactly what is the financial and legal documentations and rights of the people. I have yet, to hear one arguement that is non-religious in nature, that holds weight, in why two homosexual people can not marry. Even the one on procreation. Since, the couple can still adopt, or maybe one or both have children from a previous relationship. Still, they could hire a surrogate mother to carry a child to term (and be paid for it too).

Now, some argue, that if gay marriage was allowed. Marrying one's dog/cat, or sibling, or underage person, or, taking a 2nd or 8th wife, is equally 'ok'.

Marrying one's pet: This is not allowed under contract law of the USA, on the grounds that a pet (i.e. a dog) can not communicate understanding of the legal issues of being married. Notice your dog doesnt get Visa/Mastercard applications in the mail? There's a reason for it.

Marrying one's silbing/underage person: Contract law can only 'stick' if A) The person is 18 or above, or B) Has a parent's permission (inwhich case, the parent is held libable for any damages). Except for a few states, most states in the US prohibit this.

Marrying multiple people: Besides the fact that this would just be a legal nightmare to navigate through. One would have to make the arguement, that those in previous but current marriage contracts, agree, to the terms of the new marriage. Unless one is a Mormon, I doubt anyone would really pursue this for legimate reasons.

>> ^thepinky:
I am very much in support of people who are gay, but I am slightly sick of hearing that when people make voting decisions based on their beliefs, they are somehow violating the "separation of church and state" doctrine.


Really, you've heard people make that argument more then once? Enough times to make you sick of it? If you can find some example that would be awesome, because it seems like a straw man to me.

PHJF:

I know you're just playing devil's advocate like you said but I'd like to point out that marriage is not "about making babies". If my wife and I can't have kids, our marriage is still legitimate.

Netrunner:

I'm just going to repost this because it's awesome:

5.If you're going to go out into the streets and protest deficits in 2009, you should have been doing it ever since Bush's tax cuts turned a budget surplus into a deficit. Also, there should have been a large contingent of the so-called conservative base against continuing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan because of the cost. But there wasn't, so there are lots of people who only believe in keeping spending in check when it's a Democratic administration doing the spending, and that destroys your credibility on the subject. (Shorter alternative: The left protests spending tax money to kill people, while the right protests spending tax money to save people.)

>> ^xxovercastxx:
Some even ( gasp ) have different and legitimate opinions.

Unacceptable.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
You can oppose gay marriage without being a homophobe.


I don't see how, I really don't. Denying gay people equal rights with straights is homophobia.

^ Agreed.

Upvote for a Glen Beck video without a * Lies tag.

>> ^thepinky
>> ^xxovercastxx

I'm not even going to bite at the "marriage is for babies". Thousands of horny pregnant teens who were taught abstinance rather than contraception can beg to differ.


...but laws reflecting a moral beleif:

I would have thought the bill of rights, guaranteeing freedom of religion: Where beliefs are in opposition and rub together: the majority cannot vote based on morality to make the practices or beliefs of the minority illegal.

YES you can vote based on morals and beliefs EXCEPT where it constitutes oppression and breaks the rules of the game.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by blankfist.

*backup=[...snipped...]

Added alternate embed code for this video - backup requested by NetRunner.

Can't find an exact clip like the original with the proper, amusing edit (and Videosift seems to strip/neutralize &end parameters on Youtube embeds).

Oddly, the amusing edit got a copyright takedown notice, but this longer clip didn't. Funny that.

Transcript:

If I oppose health care, I'm against the poor; if I oppose their ridiculous climate change bill, I hate the planet and I'm a flat-Earth, moon-landing denier; if I oppose illegal immigration, I'm anti-Hispanic; if I oppose the stimulus package, I'm against the president because he's black; if I oppose the massive deficit increasing exponentially by this administration, I loved it the previous eight years; if I support the troops, I'm a war-monger; if I attended a tea party, I'm crazy; if I favor traditional marriage, I'm a homophobe; if I oppose abortion, I'm against women; if I oppose the Fairness Doctrine, I hate diversity; if I oppose strong-arm unions, I'm against workers.

So, taking all of their arguments, one by one, and adding them all together, I guess it would be safe to assume that according to the inclusive, diverse progressives that I'm just a crazed, poor person-hating, flat-Earth believing, moon-walk denying, deficit-loving, homophobic, xenophobe, who is a homogenous, women-hating, racist, that loathes hard-working, blue-collar Americans.

Oh, did I mention I'm a warmongering, jingoistic fatso? That hates children? And puppies? And spits on trees? And shoots gerbils, just for sport?

And if I don't hate, I'm simply dangerous. A fearsome, mob-inciting, redneck, flesh-eating monstrous, rhetoric spewing, out-of-control religious zealot, bent on blowing something up, maybe even before the end of the show.