This video has been declared a duplicate by the original submitter; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof declared by bareboards2.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Maddow-Obamas-Legacy-on-Gay-Rights

>> ^bareboards2:

Protect yourself by having a will, too. Gay or straight, if you aren't married and you are that financially entangled, get a will.
If you are married with children, figure out who you want to take care of them and put it in writing.
I'm a firm supporter of gay rights. But you don't have to wait for the government to take care of you in all things. Take care of yourself. Gay or straight.


Exactly my thoughts.

Also, durable Power of Attorney (Medical and Financial) would be a very good thing to have.

Protect yourself by having a will, too. Gay or straight, if you aren't married and you are that financially entangled, get a will.

If you are married with children, figure out who you want to take care of them and put it in writing.

I'm a firm supporter of gay rights. But you don't have to wait for the government to take care of you in all things. Take care of yourself. Gay or straight.

>> ^bareboards2:

Oh, I understand everything. I just choose to not argue with someone who can't think clearly, @dirkdeagler7
Bullshit. Bible. One paragraph. Equals snit fit.
Ignore all the words inbetween.
You talk about context but don't apply your own logic.


Perhaps if I said he was criticizing their faith in addition to their stance on homosexuality you would disagree less?

I'm the one not thinking clearly? You've ONLY given your own opinion of MY assessment and have not used a single argument or comment to refute anything I've said or to give your own opinion with regards to the things I touched on. Since you're apparently far more enlightened than I am, please explain to me what was the ultimate point of this 3min. commentary (keeping in mind that the beginning and end of the video clearly indicate it was a small piece of some larger lecture he is giving).

I'm not in the mood to be trolled by someone that criticizes my clarity of thought or my understanding of context and logic yet uses none himself.

To be clear I've only commented on the context and seeming POINT of what he was saying and how he said it. I did not go into whether I agree or disagree with him did I? But since you're obviously trying to imply I'm an unreasonable Bible-thumper let me declare my religious stance just for you.

I am a non-practicing christian with a very loose tie to organized Christianity. I do not believe the bible is direct truth and I probably know more about cosmology, the big bang, and science than even most science enthusiasts because I love and respect science and knowledge. I'm not an opponent of gay rights or gay marriage and I believe that sexual preference is no business of anyone but ones self.

I personally would not have walked out that day. I also would have lost respect for someone who takes a benign opportunity to discuss a topic with other enthusiasts (journalism) to parade his/her own personal opinion in a forum that was not intended for this purpose.

>> ^bareboards2:

"It is very apparent that he is not criticizing the stance on homosexuality by Christians but their faith out right."
No. It is not apparent, @dirkdeagler7.
Ginger Ginger Ginger.


Someone above already mentioned that slavery as it was understood and talked about in the bible was not the same as the slavery he is implicating. Did he broach the topic in an unbiased way or in a way that supported his already established argument about it being bullshit?

Also explain to me how stoning, slavery, or virginity before marriage have ANYTHING to do with journalism or gay rights? Unless of course you're using them to attack the validity and stances of Christianity. I would argue his use of the word bullshit and his attitude towards those who walked out that day are evidence of his stance on the faith itself. He clarified in his statement after about "the behavior and not the person" aspect however such clarifications are difficult to interpret as far as sincerity and the intent he had the day of the speech.

Also, if you the type of person that can only read the lines being spoken and can't understand the context, tone, attitude, and reaction of someone to help you to understand what they're communicating...then it's no surprise to me that you disagreed with my assessment of the situation. However it does nothing to give me confidence in your opinion of the situation as you saw it either.

Was this a convention or lecture about the validity of religion or Christianity? Was it a lecture about how religion has impeded the gay rights movement? The title indicates it's a JOURNALISM convention which means that anyone launching into an anti-religious agenda is already in a questionable position. Bully or Hero or Awesome are merely labels people will apply based on their personal beliefs on the topic of religion/homosexuality.

Please note that he does not restrict his criticism of religion to homosexuality, so even making an argument that it is relevant because of his personal life or the topic of religion/sexuality/journalism isn't completely kosher. It is very apparent that he is not criticizing the stance on homosexuality by Christians but their faith out right.

In a convention full of HS students, he calls a book and religion bullshit, would you all have said it wasn't bullying if he said that Islam and Muslims were bullshit? What about anything else people strongly believe believe which are social/cultural choices? What if he was saying that people who think women should not be beaten are bullshit and some battered women walked out...is that bullying?

In my eyes he abused his moment to speak about topics that all attendees volunteered for to push a personal agenda and he did it in a confrontational and heavy handed manner. Students who did not come to get a bible lesson from someone in a journalism convention walked out, shame on them right? Regardless of whether you agree with him or not, you just sound ignorant if you say that what he said is completely understandable/respectable given the audience and context.

Wow, you're smart. You must be a master debater. But you clearly have no sense of humor.>> ^my15minutes:

on the chance that your concern for my well-being was genuine,
let me first assure you i'm not the least bit angry, in general or at opus.
in the (more likely, imho) event that you were attempting to somehow
defend opus, my advice would be, don't. it presupposes that he is defenseless
or disadvantaged, when he is neither. he has just as much of a brain as i or anyone
else, and is just as capable of using it, before typing something regretfully absurd.
a little training in debate would do him great service, however.
this is equally true of you, if you were attempting to come to his aid,
as you managed to commit the same mistake - ad hominem.
you compounded the problem by begging the question.
the question in this case being, "is he angry?"
i see nothing in my text you replied to, that could be misunderstood
as an indicator that i was angry. my little smiley face there was authentic,
because his ad hom indicated that he realized he couldn't back up his previous assertion.
again, if your reply was genuine, then thanks for your unwarranted concern,
and i apologize for believing it unlikely.
in either case, i would humbly ask that any further replies on this matter,
from yourself or opus or anyone else, be directed to my homepage instead of this page,
as what we're discussing has absolutely nothing to do with a funny clip about gay rights.
thanks. - owen
>> ^sickio:
Wow, I'd find someone to talk out your anger issues with if I were you.
>> ^my15minutes:
oh, excellent! an ad hominem attack. thank you. blahblahblah.

on the chance that your concern for my well-being was genuine,
let me first assure you i'm not the least bit angry, in general or at opus.

in the (more likely, imho) event that you were attempting to somehow
defend opus, my advice would be, don't. it presupposes that he is defenseless
or disadvantaged, when he is neither. he has just as much of a brain as i or anyone
else, and is just as capable of using it, before typing something regretfully absurd.

a little training in debate would do him great service, however.
this is equally true of you, if you were attempting to come to his aid,
as you managed to commit the same mistake - ad hominem.

you compounded the problem by begging the question.
the question in this case being, "is he angry?"
i see nothing in my text you replied to, that could be misunderstood
as an indicator that i was angry. my little smiley face there was authentic,
because his ad hom indicated that he realized he couldn't back up his previous assertion.

again, if your reply was genuine, then thanks for your unwarranted concern,
and i apologize for believing it unlikely.

in either case, i would humbly ask that any further replies on this matter,
from yourself or opus or anyone else, be directed to my homepage instead of this page,
as what we're discussing has absolutely nothing to do with a funny clip about gay rights.
thanks. - owen
>> ^sickio:

Wow, I'd find someone to talk out your anger issues with if I were you.
>> ^my15minutes:
oh, excellent! an ad hominem attack. thank you. blahblahblah.

I feel the fact that he was 'investigated' just for having legal gay porn because he was a priest helps make this an equality issue. If a scientist or a doctor makes the same gaff, they don't get investigated. Priests and teachers are suddenly assumed to be predators because they engage in something that pretty much everybody engages in. Even if it was straight porn this would happen.

How is that not an equality issue? Even putting aside the gay rights issue.

I like lesbian porn. Is that a gay rights issue? Am I a lesbian?
Did the priest come out as gay?
In what way does this specific video represent the equal rights of gay people being infringed upon?

For what it's worth, a special round of applause to the people at 1:15, 2:00, 4:16. I just can not comprehend why anyone would have a problem with gay rights.

She was in a Californian beauty pageant a few years ago (because homosexuality is bad in the Bible, while vanity is just super). While I hate what she said, it's more wrong for her to have been asked in public and have her own opinion broadcast as if she meant a damn thing to the world.


>> ^luxury_pie:

I have no fucking idea >> ^FlowersInHisHair:
>> ^luxury_pie:
@3:05 I just want to roundhousekick her stupid plastic face to the ground.
Sometimes I don't like my thoughts.

Who the fuck is she?

I have no fucking idea >> ^FlowersInHisHair:

>> ^luxury_pie:
@3:05 I just want to roundhousekick her stupid plastic face to the ground.
Sometimes I don't like my thoughts.

Who the fuck is she?

>> ^luxury_pie:

@3:05 I just want to roundhousekick her stupid plastic face to the ground.
Sometimes I don't like my thoughts.


Who the fuck is she?