Home > News > Olbermann Special Comment: Proposition 8

Olbermann Special Comment: Proposition 8

11th Nov 08 (Tue) Leave a comment Go to comments

Do unto others what you would have them do unto you…

~Dan

Advertisements
  1. Nathan Ketchen
    11th Nov 08 (Tue) at 12:39 pm

    muy interesante. I think he’s right to say that this isn’t political. It’s a philosophical argument that goes right back to whether or not the God of the Bible exists. If He does, then homosexuality is sin, if He doesn’t, then we have to use some other way to make sense of reality (which is impossible). To compare this to blacks being able to marry whites is wrong-headed. The racism that forbade races to intermarry is indefensible in this country. It is unrelated to this issue.

    The “do unto others” comment is ridiculous. I would have others forbid me to marry a man, so if I lived in California and voted for prop 8, I would not be in violation of that. I think he’s missing the point of the vote on that one.

    From my experience, gays are not just some innocent segment of society. They are working hard to shove their wicked worldview down my throat, and they do whatever it takes.

  2. 11th Nov 08 (Tue) at 1:29 pm

    OK, so even if the God of the Bible exists, and homosexuality is a sin…

    Sinners shouldn’t be allowed to be legally married in a State (or Nation) where we are not governed by the laws of said Bible? Really?? Is homosexuality such a “horrible sin” that warrants removing what should be common rights compared to “other sins”…? Are covetors able to marry? What about Sabbath breakers? What about murderers? [sarcasm] Oh, I forgot, homosexuality is worse than all of that. [/sarcasm]

    Why is it OK to legislate religious beliefs specifically via taking away rights that should be common to all people? I don’t think the racism of the past and the “orientationism” of nowadays are unrelated when it comes to denial of civil rights.

    ~Dan

  3. Nathan Ketchen
    11th Nov 08 (Tue) at 7:17 pm

    You miss the point. Marriage of the opposite sex is fine, and anyone is free to do it.

    Marriage necessarily involves both a husband and a wife.

  4. 11th Nov 08 (Tue) at 7:55 pm

    You miss the point. The civil contract that constitutes “marriage” under State(s) law(s) should not be that limiting / discriminatory.

    When it comes to people who love one another and would like to get married for personal commitment and/or spousal health and other employer-related benefits, it’s a travesty that the “religious” among us are being that bigoted/hate-filled/scared of those different from them to go to the point of legislating their beliefs on a people who do not hold those same beliefs.

  5. Nathan Ketchen
    12th Nov 08 (Wed) at 7:59 am

    I’m willing to concede a civil contract idea, but it cannot be called marriage. You have to call it something else, because marriage necessarily involves a husband and a wife.

    There is nothing healthy about putting your penis in a man’s butt. That’s what we’re talking about here.

    It’s not about hatred, bigotry, or fear, either. Practicing homosexuality is a sin, just like other sins. How is it wrong to legislate my belief but right to legislate yours?

  6. 12th Nov 08 (Wed) at 8:58 am

    The people who want to make it legal to marry who they choose aren’t legislating anything on others. Homosexual couples aren’t doing anything that affects heterosexual couples directly.

    Re: the terminology of “marriage,” I agree… if they could get spousal-type benefits via another naming convention, well, it’d be a moot point. But the fact is that “marriage” is a civil contract and it really shouldn’t matter what sex is marrying what other sex.

  7. Nathan Ketchen
    12th Nov 08 (Wed) at 12:24 pm

    http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/2008/11/11/gay-activists-disrupt-mount-hope-church-lansing-mi/#more-5545

    This link (if it works) is from an Anglican website. This is an example of nice peaceful gay people not forcing their views on anybody (sarcasm).

  8. 12th Nov 08 (Wed) at 1:30 pm

    The link didn’t come through at work; so I googled it and found it on a Lansing newspaper site. That’s horrible, but needless to say, unrelated to Prop 8 making gay marriage illegal.

    From an activist standpoint, it’s more of a response to the hatred they’ve seen from the church. However, it’s not *legislating* their “gay beliefs” on anyone, though. Again, it is horrible, but it’s not LAW based. It’s horrible ACTION based.

    Making something unfair (read: taking away rights) into a LAW is far worse than when stupid people do stupid things.

  9. Nathan Ketchen
    13th Nov 08 (Thu) at 8:20 am

    You are right to point out that I wasn’t following the argument logically there. Sorry about that. It was a cheap shot.

    I’m a little sketchy on the details here, so correct me if I’m wrong. Wasn’t it some judges who made “gay marriage” legal in Califirnia even after a similar proposition was passed by the people of the state banning it in the past? I understand that we are a republic, and don’t have mob rule, but shouldn’t the judges’ legislation represent what the people want? What they legislated is what you expect from a dictatorship, not a republic. I’m glad the people asserted themselves in this instance.

    That being said, I have problems with majority morality, where the majority of people decide what’s right and wrong. In this case I agree with the majority, but probably for different reasons.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: