search results matching tag: gay rights

» channel: weather

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.002 seconds

    Videos (77)     Sift Talk (3)     Blogs (4)     Comments (248)   

Should gay people be allowed to marry?

newtboy says...

Wow. You don't understand the concepts of civilization, society, or legal rights at all, do you?
You know that, by FAR, most sodomites are not gay, right? Apparently not.

Sniper007 said:

The very notion that a right can be granted by society is absurd. Either you have the right, or you don't. Society has nothing to do with it.

The reason sodomites insist on receiving extrinsic, public sympathy and support is because their lifestyle has no intrisic virtue. Every sodomite is by definition an evolutionary dead-end, and that community struggles with suicide and depression far more than the general populace - for a reason. Change is possible, but the world would have them believe they are "born that way and should never change". Horse hockey.

Doubt - How Deniers Win

bobknight33 says...

You indicate that this is a one sided issue. I say you are right because liberal left control nearly all forms of media and education have latched onto this propaganda. Just as for gay rights and abortion. The left all push their ill logical ways .

The Weather Channel’s founder, John Coleman strongly disagree with your crazy thought.

skip the first 2 min its just anti Gore rants.



I gather you think that Abortion is not murder even when there is 100 % proof that the "tissue" is human is shape and form.

You and your ilk are deniers through you own ignorance.

newtboy said:

If that were true, why is it completely one sided on the part of those in the business of understanding climate? Certainly there's one respected, credentialed, peer reviewed climatologist out there smart enough to understand that if he only told "the truth" about climate change and sold it to industry, he could make exponentially MORE money and get more funding from private industry. There's not a single one, meaning your assertion that it's 'all about perpetrating fraud to get money' is utterly ridiculous and backwards, and just more insane right wing BS. Debate, confusion, or lack of scientific consensus on man made climate change? Nope, not buying it.

gwiz665 (Member Profile)

newtboy says...

True enough, but my point is, given enough time, all religions are used to incite violence and hate of 'others'. Sometimes repeatedly throughout history. Today's 'evil' religion may be tomorrows 'moderate', and vice versa.

It's the 'Christians' in Russia that are attacking gays right now, is it not?
It's the Jews in Israel that burned an innocent non-Jewish child alive quite recently, no? They all lead to hate of and violence towards "them" eventually.

gwiz665 said:

One of the three happened this week. I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to figure out which one.

Moore Says Obama Remembered Solely as First Black President

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Student Debt

Lawdeedaw says...

You ask where to start? It is obvious that was not rhetorical in any way shape or form because your argument was poorly put together from the beginning.

"The total bill due in AMERICA tops 1 trillion." Then, "That's right, student debt in AMERICA..." There is even a reference to an AMERICAN President, and everything else about this video was about America. We see a reoccurring theme here newt?

So follows the logic that since this discourse is focused solely on American schools, then we are all talking about American schools. No other assumption is logical. My comment, with that prefacing in mind, is obviously intended for American schools. Yeah, take it out of context and I look like an idiot, but with the context I am not the one that looks stupid.

Let me give you another example. Say we are talking about gay rights in America and I just generalize the concept of gay rights after an intense discussion about just that. You could argue that since gay rights in tribal, African countries are different then I am stupid, but don’t be such a stickler for pathetic red herrings.

Second, the problems facing the poor are tragic. It is WELL DOCUMENTED; however, that poor children have lower grades. Why? Because it's hard to think on an empty stomach. In other words, it's hard to care about what the fuck is on the chalkboard when you have to worry about where you are going to get food at or hell, if you will have a roof over your head. This fact is not insulting, as you clearly say it is, this is reality. A sad, tragic reality that few in America have the balls to have a real discourse on. We trivialize it behind a false veneer. We make it seem like the poor try so hard and care so much but that if only we helped them a little more they could succeed. No, we have to help them a LOT more.

I think all colleges should be paid for by the government. I think books and research materials should be free. I think we can do a lot more than what we currently do.

Lastly, one student in my current class is obviously lacking in education and more so obvious does not care. She is a mother of three children, one of which is disabled. I can see why she just wants the degree and I don't judge her. You, on the other hand, do unintentionally judge this woman, newt. You insult her by suggesting her lack of educational pursuance is rare to the poor and that she must be failing that pursuit because of a lack of drive. She cannot care about bettering her leisurely time newt, period.

Do you think I gave a fuck about learning, just for education’s sake when my brothers beat me, threw me down the stairs, choked me, humiliated me, and shoved a pillow over my face at night? Or when they punched my skull into concrete and beat my dog? You insult the hell out of me—as though I SHOULD have cared when I just tried to survive. As though I failed to care and that made me a failure. The poor should not care—they should survive. We should all help them care.

newtboy said:

Where to start, Lawdeedaw?
First, your comment was not limited to American colleges, so your admonition to @bareboards2 is a misstep.
Second, I must guess from the grammar and your estimations that you were visiting these colleges, not enrolled, because my experience was far different. I was a struggling full time, minimum wager earner while I went to college on my own dime for YEARS, because I wanted to learn things, not for a 'degree' to get a good paying career. I knew many others there that may have hoped to better their earning potential, but also wanted to better themselves, and so took many elective classes that didn't further an academic career, as did I. I also knew some of those at Stanford, but fewer.
EDIT:The poor not caring about education is not only wrong, it's extremely insulting. Because attaining good education is more difficult does not make it less important to them, in fact it's likely MORE important, and many sacrifice to a degree inconceivable to the 'rich' to educate themselves and their children.
And not all Americans are overt consumerists ruled by their base emotions and without any self control. Many are, but not all by a long shot.

CNBC Host Accidentally Outs Apple CEO Tim Cook as Gay

shveddy says...

For what it's worth, I did some digging and the rumors that Tim Cook is gay seem to be at least partially sourced to a speech he made in 2013.

http://business.time.com/2013/12/15/apple-ceo-tim-cook-gives-remarkable-speech-on-gay-rights-racism/

The relevant bit is at about 3:10 when he says that "I have seen, and I have experienced many other types of discrimination, and all of them were rooted in the fear of people that were different from the majority."

The rest of the speech talks about human rights in general, whether from a perspective of disability, race or gender.

Sure, it sounds like he's hinting at discrimination he experienced as a gay man in Alabama, but it could just as easily be sloppy wording on his part. I'm leaning towards sloppy wording just because I don't think he would hint at his sexual orientation so casually. As Apple's CEO, such a move would be a lot more intentional and carefully orchestrated.

So again, the CNBC host doesn't have a clue what he's talking about and he didn't out anyone. He just spread unsubstantiated rumors.

Huckabee is Not a Homophobe, but...

silvercord says...

Some disconnected thoughts:

I didn't mean to say what you weren't saying. Apologies. I do like what you said here, "for her to use her basic human right to not be discriminated against as a woman to leverage those men into a difficult position, sounds like a crappy thing to do." Yes, a crappy thing. I think we'd better get used to it; at least in the United States where people want to adhere to the letter of the law when it comes to asserting their rights.

Am I wrong in assuming you live outside of the States? If so that makes it easy for me to understand your stance on religious rights being unequal with other rights.

I am not insisting that discrimination be protected. Far from it. If you were being discriminated against you would want me in your corner. I detest discrimination. What I find interesting about all of the cases you mentioned, the only reason a gay couple has given for asking the state to enforce the anti-discrimination laws is over the issue of marriage and the issue of marriage alone. The photographer and bakers apparently served the gay community in other capacities from their storefronts without incident. No lawsuits, no nothing. I think we have to ask 'why?" What is it specifically about marriage that would cause a Christian (or a Muslim, or any number of religions for that matter), to say, "I can't participate in that?" I suspect that if the couple in question had been a man and two or three women getting married that the business owners response would have been the same - that is not our understanding of marriage, sorry we can't in good conscience go there." At the risk of repeating myself, their refusal isn't about the people they refused. It is specifically about the act of marriage.

As an aside, I find it ironic to the nth degree that the State of Oregon is trying to legally compel the bakery owners to participate in a ceremony that is illegal in the State of Oregon. Marriage among gays in Oregon is illegal. Sigh. This is why I wish religion, of any sort, would get out of the business of telling people what to do. I would like to see a withdrawal from the legislation of religious tenets that are not in line with the US Constitution. Then gays could marry freely in this country and this argument could be put away.

Many of the problems in this world could be resolved if the religionists didn't feel like they needed to make everyone outside of their religion believe and behave like they do. As I see it, in a free society, a religious belief should not be able compel those outside that belief to do anything.

You may be familiar with openly gay author/blogger Andrew Sullivan who has written about this subject. He says: I would never want to coerce any fundamentalist to provide services for my wedding – or anything else for that matter – if it made them in any way uncomfortable. The idea of suing these businesses to force them to provide services they are clearly uncomfortable providing is anathema to me. I think it should be repellent to the gay rights movement as well.

There is, of course, extensive writing on this issue by all sides and we may never be able to untangle it here but I have enjoyed getting your perspective.



“what is to stop the members of Westboro Baptist Church from showing up at a bakery run by gays and demand they cater an anti-gay event?” answer; Anti-discrimination laws.

I hope you're right. I hope we never have an opportunity to find out. But here is, in part, the text of Oregon's law:

Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older.

"Religion" doesn't not have a special designation of 'unless' in there. I can see those Westboro Baptist a-holes notice that and will have some gay bakers baking a cake for them every day of the week.

All of this discussion is really a digression of my initial post which was to say: If our communities were stronger, if we'd risk more relationally, if we'd put down the electronics and get to know each other, it sure would be a lot easier to get along. We would have less use for the legal system to resolve our differences.

Let me ask you, have you ever seen a law change someone's heart? I haven't.

Hanover_Phist said:

Please don't put words in my mouth. I didn't suggest the Muslim men were not discriminating. I simply stated that the Canadian woman who wanted to force devout Muslim men to cut her hair, for her to use her basic human right to not be discriminated against as a woman to leverage those men into a difficult position, sounds like a crappy thing to do. Just as if a mixed race couple were to find Archie Bunker to ask him to cater their wedding solely for the purpose of crying foul when they get discriminated against by the well known racist.

But that's not what's going on with the wedding couple, the photographer or the bakers. You are insisting that discrimination should be protected as a fundamental human right if someone calls it their “religion” and I find that idea abhorrent. So does the State of Oregon.

The bakers can't discriminate against a gay couple on religious grounds just as Archie Bunker can't deny blacks from drinking from the same water fountain as him. The difference between these two analogies is Archie Bunker wouldn't then turn around and suggest that his right to be a bigot is a fundamental human right that is on par with black's rights to not be discriminated against.

“what is to stop the members of Westboro Baptist Church from showing up at a bakery run by gays and demand they cater an anti-gay event?” answer; Anti-discrimination laws.

As stated many times above, your right to religion extends to the tip of your nose. That's how and why physical rights trump religious rights.

Huckabee is Not a Homophobe, but...

Yogi says...

@Jinx To me it's quite obvious that Phelps has had the opposite effect that he intended to have. People weren't willing to see themselves side with or compared to such an extremist and he gave ammo to those who said it's crazy to hate gays.

The Gay Rights movement is unprecedented in our countries history for how fast it is moving and achieving real results. You need to take a step back and recognize that fact, it's moving at a blistering pace. This is largely because of past movements which have laid the groundwork and the civilizing effect of the late 60s early 70s.

You can cite Russia all you want I don't care about Russia. I'm talking about the United States because this post is about a United States pundit/politician. If you want to discuss Russia fine but it should be on a video about Gay Rights in Russia.

Huckabee is Not a Homophobe, but...

Jinx says...

Idk. Phelps et al took homophobia to a whole new level. It's easy to rail against such a comic book villain. Disagreeing with Phelps, even on his stance on homosexuality, doesn't necessarily mean you still don't have a mostly negative attitude towards homosexuality. I'm thinking of the "hate the sin, love the sinner" crowd. I think Huckabee and his ilk fit into this sort of "homophobia lite". They dress their bigotry up in platitudes and are likely to find support from some or the same people who might have decried Phelps. One might look towards Russia in the run up to Sochi. There you see the same sort of stance, where they enact policy that strips gays of their rights whilst insisting that its not borne of homophobia and is merely to protect children from paedophiles. I do not doubt their sincerity in this belief - most homophobes don't identify themselves as homophobes.

Ultimately I think these extreme undiluted views create an illusion of overwhelming support for gay rights. Perhaps the publicity raised a debate about homosexuality/phobia, but that debate still had to be fought and won by gay rights activists, not through us all uniting against a sort of shill.

I certainly hope things continue the way they have been. Still, there are parts of the world which seem to be regressing in this regard (see Russia again -.-). I have a feeling that rallying against any minority group is always going to be an effective political tactic, especially if it's done under the guise of protecting children from sexual abuse or preserving "family values".

Yogi said:

Eventually these people will die, and the old husks and their followers left behind will spur further movements towards greater equality.

Just think, Fred Phelps did more to help Gays gain sympathy and rights than probably any of you did.

David Mitchell on Atheism

Yogi says...

Which of those things were religious people stifling science or research? Also the one you cite in our country didn't actually happen. The gaining of gay rights in this country has been actually amazingly painless to watch because of the civil rights fights we've had in the past.

I'm not kidding you, religious people have very little power in this country, the reason why scientific research into say global climate change is because of oil companies. The corporations have WAY more say into our democracy so let's pick the important battles.

ChaosEngine said:

You're kidding, right?

We've had Arizona almost pass a law that legalises discrimination, and Uganda actually pass a law that where homosexuality is punishable by death.

Meanwhile 60% of Americans don't accept the reality of evolution.

I wonder where you get the idea that people DON'T listen to really religious people.

And I have watched Chomsky, and I agree that he's a good debater. That said, I've never seen Dawkins be anything other than polite even when dealing with unbelievable idiocy.

Harrowing Footage of LGBT Beaten and Humiliated in Russia

siftbot says...

Tags for this video have been changed from 'gay rights, lack thereof, abuse, torture, medieval, cunts' to 'gay rights, lack thereof, abuse, torture, medieval, cunts, neo nazi, lgbt, russia' - edited by xxovercastxx

Canada creates Gayest video ever

shatterdrose says...

It's called shaming. Look it up. And yes, it does work. Matter of fact, psychologically, it's one of the surest ways to endure behavior. Unfortunately, we've lost that in America with teachers barred from using red ink, giving bad grades and every little league athlete getting an award.

When 90% of the worlds population is making fun of you, you begin to rethink your stance. And conversely, it's the same tactic bullies use but only in a negative way. As you said, "human nature" is to conform with a little room for individualism. People want to fit into the crowd, and when you're the only one gay-bashing, you stand out in a very negative way when everyone is either ignoring you or calling you an idiot.

(Not to mention, ads like this cause those of us who support gay rights to cheer louder thus making it harder for those beating up LGBT's to get away with their acts feeling like they did the whim of society. It's called Mob Behavior. It's also very human . . .)

A10anis said:

You seem to have, inadvertently, illustrated my misgivings about the ad. If you honestly believe that, metaphorically, "slapping someone in the face," or calling them a "dumbass" is likely to get them to change their opinion, you know little of human nature. Personally, were I "gay" and a participant in the games, I would, like Jesse Owens, respond to the ignorance with a dignified silence, and let my abilities talk for me. Rhetoric, such as yours, and rather pointless ads, simply inflame the situation.

Duck Dynasty Is Fake!

highdileeho says...

Why is it that this guy gets hung by his toes. But when Alec Baldwin calls someone a "fucking cocksucking faggot" and a long list of other unrelated homophobic slurs, no one bats an eye.

All reality TV shows have been doctored to make for more interesting TV since its inception with The Real World, the so-called point of this whole video is mute. Anyone with half a brain cell knows this video isn't about Duck Dynasty being fake, or about the discrimination of opressed people.

Alec Baldwin is making millions doing far worse on a monthly basis. Remember when he called his 12 year old daughter and verbal and mentally abused her? Or when he called a reporter a fat queen. Or another incident where he threathens to shove his foot up someone's faggot ass. No one tries to ruin his career over any of the horrible disgusting things Alec has said or done, but this bearded redneck happens to quote bible scriptures. That's what all this fabricated hate is really all about.

Most of the 'outraged' people don't give a shit about gay people, they just want to see the religious wingnuts get taken down a peg so they can wave their fedora emblazoned atheism flag. They won't come right out and say it because it would make them selfish assholes riding the coat-tails of people who are actually being abused and discriminated against. No I'm not religious, but I can smell bullshit a mile away, and this whole thing reeks. Were's this assholes outrage when it comes to Alec? Ohh He dosen't really give a shit about gay rights, not a peep when he can't pin a christian to the wall; he just cares about religious people doing stupid things.

Don't subjegate the real issue with your atheism agenda, it makes you look disgusting and reprehensible. That attitude is exactly why no one takes our ideology seriously; You think your doing some greater good, but your means are selfish to the very core.

Stephen Fry: Out There: Episode 2 - BBC Documentary

longde says...

An inane comment, since some groups of white men have also not had equal rights until recently; since people in the groups you mentioned are homosexuals; and since people in the groups you mentioned that are not homosexuals do indeed speak out for gay rights.

Hipnotic said:

I meant any and all groups of people that used to not have equal rights not too long ago - African Americans, women, etc.

Stephen confronts Vitaly Milonov

Yogi says...

Watching the 2nd one right now. It's very upsetting but also heartening to me how quickly things can change. How long did it take Black people to get treated equally? It's like gay rights in some countries got a fast track because people aren't gonna put up with the bullshit anymore and that's a great thing.

Gays are Awesome! Don't get married though...no one should get married.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists