Yep. Just like Jesus said. Love your neighbor, and treat others as you would like to be treated yourself....unless they don't believe exactly what you do, then screw 'em and hope they die.

Sorry, Pat. It seems this was about a disturbed self hating homosexual, spurred on by people like you to hate himself and those he's attracted to.

This reads like someone was ticking off a checklist of a professional smear attack.

- Have we opened with the most emotive words we know? Check!
- Have we loosely associated those words with our intended target? Check!
- Have we taken the opportunity to associate paedophilia with homosexuality? Check!
- Have we associated open mindedness with sexual predation? Check!
- But have we belittled someone for a personal attack even though we initiated it and he was quoting our own words back at us? Check!
- What about covering our retreat - have we implied that anyone who disagrees is delusional? Of course! What? I mean check!

I'm 100% convinced that bob is a very well constructed parody of the far right wing.

I get your point, but I feel this is more akin to fixing the ignition but ignoring the fact that there are no brakes on the car. It's all fine to do it that way, unless you put the car on the road before you fix it all.
I just fear that leaving these laws (or portions thereof) in effect means they will be used and abused to abuse people, as they have been used in the past. I find them disgusting attempts to make homosexuality illegal, and leaving them on the books also indicated it's immoral by the states measure. That needs to be fixed, as it dehumanizes a large number of people for nothing.
I hope someone WILL pick this up as a battle worth fighting. I don't want my tax dollars going to support homophobic, illegal, immoral laws, their use, or even their removal by the courts when it would be so simple and reasonable to have taken care of it as they re-wrote the law. It's abhorrent to me that it's assumed that just bringing this issue up would end debate and halt the bill...it's likely reality, but it's disgusting.

To be clear, it doesn't effect me. I live in Cali, and I'm not getting any anal anyway (giving or receiving), but no oral?!? Screw that, yo. I'm sure glad Cali lets me get my freak on.

Vote as you like, but I think you missed the important point being made (agreed, made excessively poorly, even disingenuously by Cenk) that this was an intentional squandering of the perfect time to remove the offending, illegal portions of the law, and leaving them in may (I'm no legal scholar, but often if one part is invalid, the entire document is invalid) invalidate the whole thing and require another re-write, taking more time, money, and effort, all of which are in short supply.

Is it a BIG deal, no...at least I hope not. There's always the possibility that they'll actually try to use it again to prosecute homosexuals, forcing them to 'prove' they aren't sodomites in court (an impossibility, btw) or go to prison or at best be forced to publicly re-address and re-litigate it over and over as they appeal up to the supreme court, destroying them professionally and financially, as has been done many times in the past.
Please do note that most 'homosexual behavior' has been illegal in the South in the past, and those laws have been repeatedly used to destroy people's lives and families, often based on false accusations, and despite their unconstitutionality and immorality. Leaving those laws on the books, even when they've been deemed unenforceable, leaves many people in a legal limbo. They can never feel safe in their own state and there's the reality that every time a new public official is elected they have to wonder if they'll have to fight this fight once again. Many times states have decided to enforce unconstitutional laws, and while in the end they were struck down, those they are applied against in the mean time are often destroyed.
Also, because they can't successfully prosecute someone for this unconstitutional law doesn't mean they can't use it to 'out' them, or investigate them until they find something they can prosecute, as has also happened in the past.
...But I don't think Cenk tried to make any of those points, he was just pointing out this blatant hypocrisy, which is representative of Republicans spending their exceedingly limited legislating time, effort, and money doing ridiculous, illegal, meaningless things, but completely fail at doing anything helpful, meaningful, or even legal like removing the offensive, unconstitutional part of the law when you're already re-writing and re-voting on a law, or maybe finding a way to get Flint non-poisoned water, or finding a way to put those responsible for poisoning an entire community (whether by negligence or out of greed) in prison, and it's representative of their complete hypocrisy about the party platform, which is conveniently completely forgotten when 'out of control government intrusion' is on their side.
I do completely admit he could have been far clearer about what really happened rather than imply they wrote this in as an amendment, bad Cenk.

I'm genuinely curious. Why won't support for legalization play out like gay marriage? If anything it will go faster.

pot has been legal for a long time before it became illegal. It's only illegal because of corporate interest and a decades long fear campaign against it.

Meanwhile homosexuality gaining acceptance is pretty astounding considering for how long it has been rejected and ostracized.

Now of course, homosexuality acceptance is about human beings and marijuana legalization is about a plant so I'll grant you a difference there. But once it's shown that the states that did legalize it aren't falling into chaos and lawlessness, the fear mongering is going to die a quick death.

Shouldn't there be a circle outside the fundamentalist circle? I'd think the way she's talking she's outside that circle too. The sheer numbers in all the discussed circles is certainly something to be weary of, and I agree the issue needs to be addressed more by those outside the fundamentalist circle.

The same circles can be applied to Christians as well. The inner circle includes people like that guy who killed those at the Planned Parenthood. The next Islamist circle would be mostly the Tea Party type Christians, those that want to force one type of Christian view on others via political action. The Fundamentalist include fundamentalist Christians, those that think gay marriage is a sin and should be outlawed. Now beyond that inner circle, most of Christianity has outgrown it's radical violent past... though their support of the death penalty and stand your ground and murder somebody for stealing your TV sort of suggests they haven't... They criticize Muslim support for chopping off hands of thieves as barbaric, but believe in stand your ground for theft... And those in the fundamentalist circle and further to the center are the ones who do all the speaking for Christianity. There was no outpouring from Christians after the Planned Parenthood terrorist attack about how he doesn't represent Christianity. There is no mass outpouring from the majority of Christians who have no issue with gay marriage to stand up for those who sin differently than them, instead letting the fundamentalist rule the show and present their views as the dominant Christian view, which appears to be that it is worth judging homosexuality as a far worse sin than the ones that they committing... The same arguments she's making for the moderate Muslims to be standing up against fundamentalist to Jihadist Muslims should be applied to Christians as well... no, they radicalized Christians generally aren't as big a threat in terms of violence, but the growing public image of Christians as being bigoted, self-righteous, feeling repressed demigods is a real problem for Christianity as well, and is in large part to blame for its shrinking numbers.

Violence and war against Islam though helps grow the radical elements. As much as Christians love to play the "help help we're being opposed" card, Muslims are increasingly more able to play that card with legit purpose. Trump's call to stop them all from even visiting the US, to register all US Muslims into a database and track them is an open invitation to radicalize more, to move more of them from moderate to fundamentalist and to move fundamentalist towards jihadist... and if it was just one radical idiot like Trump that would be one thing, but he has a huge swath of support, which makes it again easier to radicalize more as they can point out that their faith is under a real and legit attack... which proves their faith is the one true faith as the enemy is working so hard to attack it... this is an argument made by Christians all the time with the we are being oppressed cries, that prove that Christianity is the one true faith, because the devil is working so hard to push Christianity down, yet they don't recognize their attempts to push Islam down proves the exact same point to the Muslims...

I think they all show that religion does far more harm than good.

This article appears to have been written by homosexuals.

I never said to rely on Putin or RT solely. I just tried to explain that ignoring him and RT because of stupid reasons like that is not very wise, because the west isnt much better. You have to see all the sides to make a proper judgement.

A, B and C are irrelevant. Ownership is irrelevant because the western media is also "owned" by people with an agenda. But even between those different people there is a common agenda. You can see that in Germanys media right now very well. They are outright lying collectively to the people just to stay politically correct.

Reputation also is irrelevant because objectivity > reputation.

Funding is also irrelevant, as you said yourself. You can see it very well that it doesnt change much where they get their money from. The agenda matters. Also very well observable lately.

Putin first and foremost is a counterweight. He makes the western mistakes more obvious. He also has very good points when defending his own countries actions. Even the homosexual ones, if you ever listened to him on that topic. Yes, as a political leader he is of course manipulating, but he makes much more sense, actually uses facts and doesnt nearly lie as much as any politician I have ever seen.
You of course need to have and acknowledge those facts to realize that. But you made it clear that you arent. Comparing Russias imperialism with Americas shows just how much. Its pretty much clear the USA was involved in that coup detat once again. Now imagine how the USA would have reacted if Russia did that in Canada or Mexico. Or imagine how the USA would react to being completely surrounded by Russian military bases, having decades of history of destabilizing and overthrowing countries and whole regions, breaking and ignoring international law, even threatening the country where the international court sits to never dare to bring one of their before their court and then Russia claiming that the USA is the aggressor.

Actually Russia has long been very passive about the eastern expansion of NATO and they forgave that bleeding out of Russia towards the west in the 90s. Something like that happening at their doorstep actually justifies much MUCH harsher reactions, but they didnt use them. Instead they actually took another (hypocritical) slap in the face rather passively and silently with those sanctions.

Syria... I am surprised you even bring that up, because thats just stupid to use that for your argument. Syria has been a long ally of Russia and they asked for help after the US and NATO started bombing their infrastructure instead of ISIS. The war in Syria is even more obviously an externally funded war, not a civil war, while in the Ukraine you can actually see parts of a civil war, it started like that, because those people didnt want the new government. Also again mostly due to America and their support of other totalitarian regimes in that region.
You should read this:
https://consortiumnews.com/2015/05/31/holes-in-the-neocons-syrian-story/

I must guess her brand of religion does not have the 'thou shall not steal' clause, because at her rally they brought her out to 'eye of the tiger', with no permission from anyone in Survivor, and they're pissed. Taking someone else's property and converting it to your use is stealing in my mind, I don't know about hers.

I wondered how many people she refused licenses in the past because they were wearing blended fabrics, or had been seen eating shellfish, both of which are just as forbidden as homosexuality in the bible, actually those two are more clearly forbidden than homosexuality as I understand it, yet no one ever tries to legislate fabric choice or outlaw sea food restaurants. Hmmm.

I'm going to skip all the "gay is a choice" bollocks (hint: it's not, and when did you decide to be straight?) and focus on this.

Simple answer: because you're allowed to stand against this anymore in a civilised society.

Aww, is your freedom to be a bigoted homophobe being taken away? Too fucking bad.

This is 2015. You don't get to stand against homosexuality anymore, just like you don't get to dispute women having the vote or black people being allowed to ride the bus.

It's over. You lost. Deal with it.

OK, let's ignore the sideshow and get to the point. Yes, you make choices that do no harm and make you feel better unlike others (I'm looking at you, homeopathy). So did Kriss Kross but I still feel compelled to call wearing your pants backwards stupid. Your food trend isn't that much better.
I don't have to sift through the internet to know that. Do you like dessert?
I make a lot of dessert. A LOT! Even vegan. Vegan Vanillasauce. I have to replace milk and cream with soymilk and the eggyolks with some starch (usually corn, for the gluten-free asshats). The only original ingredients are sugar (healthy!) and vanillabean.
You see the problem?
I replace ingredients you object to to mimic a product you shouldn't want in the first place. All the fucking time. All the fucking time I see vegan recipes of dishes that normally contain eggs or milk or butter or even meatproducts. I know a cook who can make vegan Leberwurst. Go on, google 'Leberwurst' and explain to me how somebody who wants to eat that and be vegan isn't a tool.
I don't mind vegetarians at all. They have actually compelling reasons for that diet choice. I wouldn't make that choice ever but I can respect theirs and believe everybody should (a lot of people don't). I loose my respect for individual vegetarians the minute they start talking about Tofuschnitzel. You want Schnitzel? Maybe you should just go and have Schnitzel. You can still eat vegetarian the rest of the week. You're just 'mostly vegetarian' then. That's fine too.
Imagine a man who tells you all the time how he disapproves of the 'homosexual lifestyle' and thinks that kind of behaviour is immoral and wrong. Then that man goes home, tells his wife to get her strap-on and moans 'Channing!' repeatedly while she does him from behind.
That man is as much of a tool as the guy who walks in a restaurant and orders vegan creme brulee. Or any pie. Or pancakes. Or Lasagne. Or a milkshake. Or something with Cheese. Or with Honey. Or icecream. Sorbets are fine though. They're mostly fruit, sugar (healthy!) and water.
I don't hate you, I just call out the stupid thing you do. You want to improve the treatment of animals, make it more ethical? That's fine, I'm with you on that. I just don't see how not using butter can help.

Not true. Homosexuals are to be put to death, as are witches and people who work on the lord's day or let others (including animals) work for them, people who practise divination or "seek omens", people who curse their father or mother and people who have sex with their father or their daughter-in-law or their neighbour's wife or who give their children away as sacrifices to Molek.

Ever done one of these? I mean worked on the lord's day or had anyone work for you? (Not given away you children as sacrifices to Molek.)

Homosexuality is categorized by the scripture as being on the same level as lying and covetousness. In other words, we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. This isn't to minimize it but it is to say that we all have a sin problem.

Homosexuals are worthy of love and respect because they were created in the image of God. That image has been corrupted in all of us due to sin. That is why Jesus Christ died on the cross, to pay for our sins and restore the image of God in us so we can live the lives He created us to live.

Ah Asmo, this is humorous. Not in a way that has me thinking less of you, but due to the fact that even the smartest people make the most indefensible arguments. Stewart always has a joke when Republicans (and sometimes Democrats) do the same thing Chaos just did and which you defended--which is to ignore the "implied" in a statement. Usually Republicans use hate speech or such, but they just don't say the hate literally (Often when Obama's policies were compared to Nazi Germany's policies, for example.)

I.e, "Hey, I'm not saying Obama is like Hitler, but look at the smoke stacks coming from the White House?! They look like Jew smoke to you?!"

Another, but this one in more relation to our conversation.

I.e., Hey Lawdeedaw, when you have dick in your mouth does it taste good? WOAH, I DIDN'T SAY YOU SUCK DICK! YOU IMPLIED THAT! I just asked, you know, when dick is in your mouth...

See how utterly indefensible that above statement is? Or why Stewart gets so pissed, rightly so, when people make that argument? People can hide behind the most obvious statements and it's bullshit. Or people can be ignorant of the statements you make, and it's just as bullshit.

If you can't see the sense that makes, don't respond to this post please. I don't argue with ideology that blinds people to clear points and I have agreed with my fair share of points over the years when I have been wrong...so I expect it returned in kind.

Second, you do have a point about me being judgmental. I am jaded because every marriage I observed growing up was toxic. "Dad can't divorce mom, even tho she abuses us kids." Was a wonderful house I lived in. My wife was beaten for years by her husband, until she took poverty and destitution over that, and then met me. The list goes on and on, yada yada, no more need to explain my own life history because it isn't necessarily what happens in all of America. So I look at the worst aspects of marriage. Aspects that are as universal as the fact that we eat, breathe, shit and die.

Of course I also use history and stats to back up my judgment. So; marriage is a civil contract based on liberty and property (At least the part of marriage that matters to the government insofar as the rights they give you.) If the world's population of homosexuals is around 2.5% or so, depending on the estimates, then cheating (seeking out more than one relationship at a time) is much more naturally inherent to humans than sexual orientation by far. This is also natural in regards to the homosexual relationships as well. Cheating causes so much grief, repercussions, and yet it is only one bad aspect of being tied into a contract that many societies make difficult to break either through legal means or cultural taboos. Furthermore, abuse, divorce, long-term separation for business matters, much of these things kind of lend credence to the fact that marriage is created by society and has nothing to do with the "apparent" definitions we apply to it.

And Asmo, naughty naughty Asmo, you implied something...I am in no way shape or form telling other people what "their relationship is about." Just because I say something is inconvenient for damn near everyone (For some it is not) doesn't really mean much of anything. Shoes are inconvenient because you have to tie their laces. Is that me telling you how to shoe? No. How about kids? Kids are a hell of an inconvenience, but if you said I was degrading parenthood, especially my own, I would tell you to fuck yourself with that bold-faced lie.

If you are focused on the "property" aspect of that comment, well, you have an issue with my definition of the government's hand in marriage.

So...are we talking about Swan monogamy or situational or temporary monogamy? Because last time I checked the majority of Americans or others haven't had just one partner. Nor, even if they have, do they keep those "feelings" of relationship to one individual (Such as that soulmate feeling, sex-free.)

You could argue that boning, fucking, sucking, dating people until you decide it is convenient to settle down is monogamy, and that's fine. Well, right until most people leave/cheat/explore. Then they gotta get back into the routine eventually, because you know it's so natural...

You are born human, sexual, primal, and society tames you. You are born uncircumcised, and who tells you it is wrong? Religious freaks. Who tells you missionary is right, and sex is for procreation? Society. Basically, anything that Rome and Greece did, after they committed atrocities around the world, is now considered wrong. Orgies, emperors, GAY SEX, etc. Coincidence? Probably not.

Tell me Chaos, who did tell you polyamory was "learned"? Biologists? Or society? Or some crappy half-witted data that just says so?

No, devil's advocate here is the same, to me, as devil's advocate against homosexuals.

At least that's my heartfelt belief. I was once wholly monogamous, even turned down a threesome with my first girlfriend. Then I realized that marriage was based on ownership, a very human trait, but monogamy is inconvenient for damn near everyone who practices it.