*doublepromote

Double-Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Thursday, February 9th, 2012 3:09pm PST - doublepromote requested by burdturgler.

What parallel is she trying to draw between sex and relationships? Is she saying that gay sex is icky but we should not think about that but think about the relationship side of the equation?

Its a commendable speech but I get the feeling that she needed the in your face experience to see the light and this experience is hard to come by. Surely the logic of the argument is enough?

*politics
*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by NetRunner.

Adding video to channels (Politics) - requested by NetRunner.

Well...it's not ALMOST cruel...

It's so easy to turn a blind eye to anything until it effects you personally. When I was a kid, I called my friends "gay" all the time. It was just another insult to throw back at other little shits in the playground. Then my best friends Mom came out of the closet..

Really changed my perspective.

edit: And the more I think about it, no teacher ever told me not too. Kinda fucked in retrospect.

>> ^Aniatario:

It's so easy to turn a blind eye to anything until it effects you personally. When I was a kid, I called my friends "gay" all the time. It was just another insult to throw back at other little shits in the playground. Then my best friends Mom came out of the closet..
Really changed my perspective.
edit: And the more I think about it, no teacher ever told me not too. Kinda fucked in retrospect.


What's wrong with calling someone happy? I think it's the F-Word people really get worked up about. Even that is being slowly "reclaimed."

>> ^bmacs27:

>> ^Aniatario:
It's so easy to turn a blind eye to anything until it effects you personally. When I was a kid, I called my friends "gay" all the time. It was just another insult to throw back at other little shits in the playground. Then my best friends Mom came out of the closet..
Really changed my perspective.
edit: And the more I think about it, no teacher ever told me not too. Kinda fucked in retrospect.

What's wrong with calling someone happy? I think it's the F-Word people really get worked up about. Even that is being slowly "reclaimed."


What's wrong with calling someone a cigarette/bundle of sticks?

Seriously, certain words hurt because of the way they have been and/or are used. But I shouldn't even have to be pointing that out.

>> ^Yogi:
I hope that her God can find it in his heart to forgive her.


I am so glad that I don't have to wonder if MY GOD will find it in my heart to forgive ANYONE. I am absolutely sure that MY GOD will forgive you!

-

Notice Yogi's sarcasm (i.e. grayed out text).
In other news, my God is the sun, but it doesn't judge me and doesn't require constant asskissing or reminders of how great it is. Oh, and without it, none of you suckers would be here. My god shines the same amount of light on everyone, regardless of gender, history, or sexual preference.

>> ^Riotgirl:

>> ^Yogi:
I hope that her God can find it in his heart to forgive her.

I am so glad that I don't have to wonder if MY GOD will find it in my heart to forgive ANYONE. I am absolutely sure that MY GOD will forgive you!

lol, not to belittle her moving speech, but "doing the right thing against the vocal majority??"

Sorry, but last I checked, the polls show that the majority ARE ok with gay marriage and you know damned well that trend will not be reversing.

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Friday, February 10th, 2012 1:05am PST - promote requested by gwiz665.

As soon as she said "I miss the sex..." I thought to myself here we go...another "news" story from The Onion. lol...it's been a long day.

I'm glad I don't believe in divine forgiveness or divine retribution either one. I believe in karma and last I checked someone being Gay never hurt anyone else.
>> ^Riotgirl:

>> ^Yogi:
I hope that her God can find it in his heart to forgive her.

I am so glad that I don't have to wonder if MY GOD will find it in my heart to forgive ANYONE. I am absolutely sure that MY GOD will forgive you!

I noticed the sarcasm but I may have still taken that the wrong way if I did sorry @Yogi.

>> ^MonkeySpank:

Notice Yogi's sarcasm (i.e. grayed out text).
In other news, my God is the sun, but it doesn't judge me and doesn't require constant asskissing or reminders of how great it is. Oh, and without it, none of you suckers would be here. My god shines the same amount of light on everyone, regardless of gender, history, or sexual preference.
>> ^Riotgirl:
>> ^Yogi:
I hope that her God can find it in his heart to forgive her.

I am so glad that I don't have to wonder if MY GOD will find it in my heart to forgive ANYONE. I am absolutely sure that MY GOD will forgive you!

And when will we have the weepy politico talking about her wonderful daughter and her daughter's wonderful two would-be husbands? If these votes are based only on how people are wired or some all-purpose equality then the State has no right to bar plural aka polygamous marriages.

I'm less concerned with the issues than with how these laws are created and passed.

The califascists allow issues to make it to the ballot box, then simply ignore undesired outcomes when the sheeple don't vote how they wish. Other states just run bills through and hope no one is paying attention.

So?
>> ^quantumushroom:

If these votes are based only on how people are wired or some all-purpose equality then the State has no right to bar plural aka polygamous marriages.

>> ^quantumushroom:
If these votes are based only on how people are wired or some all-purpose equality then the State has no right to bar plural aka polygamous marriages.

Leaving aside the utterly retarded slippery slope that gay marriage leads to polygamy (which undoubtedly leads to marrying a donkey in your insane world), who gives a fuck?

Provided all parties are consenting adults, I have no problem with any number of people marrying each other. You want to live in a bisexual transgender four way with two guys, a chick and a shemale? Hey, if you're happy, more power to you.

I suppose next you're going to try to equate homosexuality to pedophilia. again.

I am entirely certain that allowing gay marriage will lead to ... more gay people getting married. Full-stop.

@ChaosEngine - props man.

>> ^quantumushroom:

And when will we have the weepy politico talking about her wonderful daughter and her daughter's wonderful two would-be husbands? If these votes are based only on how people are wired or some all-purpose equality then the State has no right to bar plural aka polygamous marriages.
I'm less concerned with the issues than with how these laws are created and passed.
The califascists allow issues to make it to the ballot box, then simply ignore undesired outcomes when the sheeple don't vote how they wish. Other states just run bills through and hope no one is paying attention.


In reply to this comment by quantumushroom:
And when will we have the weepy politico talking about her wonderful daughter and her daughter's wonderful two would-be husbands? If these votes are based only on how people are wired or some all-purpose equality then the State has no right to bar plural aka polygamous marriages.

I'm less concerned with the issues than with how these laws are created and passed.

The califascists allow issues to make it to the ballot box, then simply ignore undesired outcomes when the sheeple don't vote how they wish. Other states just run bills through and hope no one is paying attention.


I wonder why people bother engaging you when you are such an obvious troll. Saying things only to rile people up, yet lacking any real substance.

If you really feel the way you feel - ditch the rhetoric and come with some commentary.

If you support gay marriage, you support polygamy by default. At least you, @ChaosEngine have the stones to actually support both. I'd even go so far as to agree with you, with the exception that I'll freely admit there are/will be many unforeseen problems with both gay marriage and polygamy.


I don't equate pedophilia with homosexuality. What I dispute is your confidence that within 20 years, whatever authority you believe the State will have to prevent pedophile "unions" will still exist.

If no one here has a problem with california or any state revoking election results, aka the will of the people, welcome to fascism.


>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^quantumushroom:
If these votes are based only on how people are wired or some all-purpose equality then the State has no right to bar plural aka polygamous marriages.
Leaving aside the utterly retarded slippery slope that gay marriage leads to polygamy (which undoubtedly leads to marrying a donkey in your insane world), who gives a fuck?
Provided all parties are consenting adults, I have no problem with any number of people marrying each other. You want to live in a bisexual transgender four way with two guys, a chick and a shemale? Hey, if you're happy, more power to you.
I suppose next you're going to try to equate homosexuality to pedophilia. again.

>> ^quantumushroom:

If you support gay marriage, you support polygamy by default.

Bullshit. Polygamy is defined by wikipedia as a marriage which includes more than two partners. Or would you prefer websters, which defines it as marriage in which a spouse of either sex may have more than one mate at the same time. The fact that a marriage contains two wives or two husbands does not make it polygamous.

>> ^quantumushroom:

At least you, @ChaosEngine have the stones to actually support both. I'd even go so far as to agree with you, with the exception that I'll freely admit there are/will be many unforeseen problems with both gay marriage and polygamy.


We've had gay marriage (actually civil unions but marriage in all but name) in NZ for years now. Society has failed to collapse. Are there potential issues with polygamy? Undoubtedly. Hell, I'll admit that there are potential issues with gay marriage. Thing is, there are issues with marriage, period. Even in a committed monogamous heterosexual marriage, there's all kinds of problems, because people are flawed. Being gay or polygamous doesn't make them any more or less flawed. I'd prefer we dropped the polygamous angle now, since it's derailing the conversation. I don't mind debating it, but I feel it's orthogonal to this issue.

>> ^quantumushroom:

I don't equate pedophilia with homosexuality. What I dispute is your confidence that within 20 years, whatever authority you believe the State will have to prevent pedophile "unions" will still exist.

Well, the state grants the marriage licence. I see no proposal to change that, so the authority will remain intact. As for allowing pedophile "unions", how does gay marriage affect that? Age of consent is a well defined concept that applies to everyone, heterosexual or homosexual.

I really am getting tired of repeating this, but context, nuance, judgement. Think is not a four letter word. The world is not black and white, and it is an oversimplification to view it as such. War is sometimes justified, lying is sometimes the right thing to do and I am comfortable making the distinction between a union of two consenting adults and an adult and a child. Why? Because I can weigh up the merits of each individual case and make a judgement.

>> ^quantumushroom:

If no one here has a problem with california or any state revoking election results, aka the will of the people, welcome to fascism.

Fascism? Are you actually serious? Leaving aside how much fascists really don't like homosexuality, you have completely failed to understand democracy.

There are already well defined limits on the will of the people. To use your own analogy, how would you feel if california had passed an amedment legalising pedophilia?

After Midnight - Gay Marriage Lives In Washington State has been added as a related post - related requested by PlayhousePals on that post.