VIDEO

Ann Coulter thinks that that old man should be euthanized. 

This is A+
Great video 

That video should be played on every network, every time someone wants to deny rights to another based on circumstances of their birth 

One of the comments left on the YouTube site said this:

I have enormous respect for this man but I don't understand his argument. Gay's don't have equal rights? Since when? If he is speaking about gay marriage... well, marriage is not a right. Rights are spelled out very clearly in the U.S. Constitution. It makes no mention of marriage, gay or otherwise.

I'm very much inclined to agree with both his initial statement and his question. 

Let me start by saying that if someone wants to marry someone else,
so long as its not some sort of weird child marriage or arranged marriage,
they should be allowed to.

Having said that, the notion that the second world war was fought so that gays could marry,
for "human rights" or even "equal rights"
is absurd to a degree that requires coffee to exit my mouth at a high velocity. 

DarkAss said:

Let me start by saying that if someone wants to marry someone else,
so long as its not some sort of weird child marriage or arranged marriage,
they should be allowed to.

Having said that, the notion that the second world war was fought so that gays could marry,
for "human rights" or even "equal rights"
is absurd to a degree that requires coffee to exit my mouth at a high velocity.

Who gets to decide what's "weird"? 

Two consenting adults should be able to do whatever the fuck they choose with/to/for each other, period. Government should get its dirty paws out of people's personal lives, and into more important things, like nationalized health care and putting a dome over top of Detroit. 

DREW ALMIGHTY said:

Who gets to decide what's "weird"?

Al Yankovic. 

I have enormous respect for this man but I don't understand his argument. Gay's don't have equal rights? Since when? If he is speaking about gay marriage... well, marriage is not a right. Rights are spelled out very clearly in the U.S. Constitution. It makes no mention of marriage, gay or otherwise.

How about the Declaration of Independence which guarantees "Life, Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness" as the three "unalienable rights" of man. I would think the right to marriage, gay or otherwise, would be protected under that clause. 

That dude reminded me of Matlock for some reason... 

So the ONLY rights anyone in America has are dictated by the Constitution? All the thousands of laws and amendments created since it was written mean nothing?

Although I do agree that WWII had nothing to do with that unless you really stretch. 

Niteglo said:
marriage is not a right. Rights are spelled out very clearly in the U.S. Constitution.

Oh yeah, try denying that non right to straight people and see what happens.

Corporate free speech isn't in the U.S. Constitution either, but it has superseded individual free speech (which is there) repeatedly in recent years. 

DorgoDorato said:

Ann Coulter thinks that that old man should be euthanized.

proof or you're an idiot. 

Did he say he talks to 8th grade teachers, but not about the whore? 

Where is Wookie? 

My personal stance on the issue is that the government doesn't have the right to 'approve' hetero marriages either, and should be barred from giving or denying union to any consenting parties of legal age. I'd gladly trade in my marriage certificate for a secular certificate of union if it meant that anyone else who wanted the same privileges afforded to me and my wife by it were allowed to have them. 

Siurana said:

So the ONLY rights anyone in America has are dictated by the Constitution? All the thousands of laws and amendments created since it was written mean nothing?

Although I do agree that WWII had nothing to do with that unless you really stretch.

Pretty sure the Nazis rounded up gay people and made them wear pink triangles on their clothes, just like the Jews got gold stars (not the happy kind).

Pretty clear connection if you ask me. 

There is a difference between rights and freedoms. He voted for freedom at Omaha, not rights. Marriage in the us is not currently a right, it is a freedom.

Rights are the only thing that truly abrogates freedom, in a free society. Rights defend specific freedoms against the freedoms of others. 

KNW said:

That video should be played on every network, every time someone wants to deny rights to another based on circumstances of their birth

So you don't believe in gay rights? 

Ryder said:

How about the Declaration of Independence which guarantees "Life, Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness" as the three "unalienable rights" of man. I would think the right to marriage, gay or otherwise, would be protected under that clause.

You know that the Declaration of Independence isn't a governing document, right? It just told King George he wasn't the boss of us any more. The law of the land is in the Constitution.

Marriage isn't mentioned in the constitution. So you'd look to the 9th and 10th ammendment to the Bill of Rights which say: 9th the listing of individual rights in the Constitution and Bill of Rights is not meant to be comprehensive; and that the other rights not specifically mentioned are retained by the people. and 10th reserves to the states respectively, or to the people, any powers the Constitution did not delegate to the United States, nor prohibit the states from exercising.

So let the States decide. If you don't like what your State decides, change it or move. 

ncuskey said:

Pretty sure the Nazis rounded up gay people and made them wear pink triangles on their clothes, just like the Jews got gold stars (not the happy kind).

Pretty clear connection if you ask me.

Indeed, the connection is not all that vague.
For all those arguing marriage is not a right, you are correct. However marriage is a legal service provided by the legal system in this country. What you are doing by denying gay marriage is denying equal opportunity to legal process based on sexual preference, this is clearly unconstitutional. If you want to take marriage out of the legal system all together, then fine, otherwise you are restricting due process, which is a constitutional right however you look at it. 

well, marriage is not a right. Rights are spelled out very clearly in the U.S. Constitution. It makes no mention of marriage, gay or otherwise.

but equal protection under the law is a right and as of this moment doug and I cant get married because we are not protected under the the laws written by theocrats. The founding fathers came here to avoid this EXACT situation. Now we are doing it to ourselves 

I can't help thinking that a lot of the shilly-shallying over the Constitution, rights versus freedoms, what WWII was actually fought by the USA for and other such nit-picking on this thread is only there because, ultimately, of homophobic bigotry.
If two consenting adults want to get married and call themselves 'married' and be recognised as such by the state then what fucking business is it to you or me? 

Gays have just the same exact rights to marriage as straights... if gays want to get married... fine, just has to be opposite sex. Just like straights can't marry same sex... therefore, same rights. What the gays are looking for is have different rights, or new ones. They are not denied anything that straight people have. 

billy66
Gays are denied the right to marry the person they love. Straights are not denied that right. Your argument is pointless and semantic bullshit. 

DREW ALMIGHTY said:

Who gets to decide what's "weird"?

DarkAss said:

Al Yankovic.

Best comment of the day. Thanks for the laugh. 

billy66 said:

Gays have just the same exact rights to marriage as straights... if gays want to get married... fine, just has to be opposite sex. Just like straights can't marry same sex... therefore, same rights. What the gays are looking for is have different rights, or new ones. They are not denied anything that straight people have.

My guess is that this comment is tongue-in-cheek. Please don't be otherwise. 

Rights or freedoms, freedoms or rights...both words mean basically the same thing. His point wasn't that he went to Omaha beach because the nazis were denying gay nazis from marrying other gay nazis. His point was that while on bloody omaha, he saw some crazy shit that made him think, "hey, all people should be treated fairly." Not, "hey when I get back, I'm gonna have 4 sons. One of them is gonna turn gay. So, that's what I fought for on Omaha beach." Jesus, why are people so afraid of two same sex people getting freaky in the privacy of their own home? 

AngryPirate said:

My guess is that this comment is tongue-in-cheek. Please don't be otherwise.

Yeah, kinda thought that too - but only after I'd jumped in on him feet first with my 2 cents worth.
Billy-66 if it was tongue-in-cheek - my bad. 

blueeyedboy said:

I can't help thinking that a lot of the shilly-shallying over the Constitution, rights versus freedoms, what WWII was actually fought by the USA for and other such nit-picking on this thread is only there because, ultimately, of homophobic bigotry.
If two consenting adults want to get married and call themselves 'married' and be recognised as such by the state then what fucking business is it to you or me?

Why limit it to two consenting adults, or even adults? We outlawed Polygamy. What right do we have to tell people they can't have two or more spouses?

Or how about minors. In some cultures it is not unheard of for people to marry 12-year olds. Who are we to stand in the way.

What if I really truly love my dog, and my dog really loves me and I want a marriage certificate to prove our love to the world?

Brother and Sister?

Yeah, I know, I'm a crazy loon. But I seriously want to know where do you draw the line in the sand? You can never define marriage without leaving some group out.

And most of the arguing over gay marriage seems to center around religion. This is why I propose the followiing:

Have the government issue Civil Union Certificates instead of marriage certificates to all couples, gay or straight. This would afford all couples the same rights, privileges, etc equally. This would also mean that a Brother and Sister could enter into a Civil Union without it deriving any sort of sexual conotation. Hell, two business partners could create a Civil Union if they wanted.

Then, you allow religious organizations to provide their own Marriage Certificates which would be nothing more than a piece of paper on top of the government's Civil Union license saying that the Civil Union is one of the State as well as sanctioned by "God", or "Allah", or "Buddha", etc.

Then we can get over this stupid debate about Gay Marriage and on to something important. 

You can never define marriage without leaving some group out.

Exactly the point and thanks for making it. You arent supposed to be leaving people out. Period. It creates classes among our citizens and denies us equitable freedoms 

Can we just get rid of the idea of marriage entirely in our society? It would make my life considerably easier. 

Why limit it to two consenting adults, or even adults? We outlawed Polygamy. What right do we have to tell people they can't have two or more spouses?

False equivalency.

Or how about minors. In some cultures it is not unheard of for people to marry 12-year olds. Who are we to stand in the way.

What if I really truly love my dog, and my dog really loves me and I want a marriage certificate to prove our love to the world?

Brother and Sister?

Slippery slope.

As for the rest of what you said, marriage is ALREADY a secular institution. If you don't want it to, it doesn't have to have anything to do with religion. Why can't we extend those same protections to gays? People don't have a problem with atheists getting married, right? 

I'm waiting for peepeehead to post in this thread and make it a real shit show. 

Valderos said:

Or how about minors. In some cultures it is not unheard of for people to marry 12-year olds. Who are we to stand in the way.

http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w137/imp011/pl-pedo-bear.png

sorry. Had to be done. 

Where's my snare drum and penny whistle? That dude makes me proud to share citizenship with him. 

How about the Declaration of Independence which guarantees "Life, Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness" as the three "unalienable rights" of man. I would think the right to marriage, gay or otherwise, would be protected under that clause.

By this logic what is NOT covered? 

Exactly the point and thanks for making it. You arent supposed to be leaving people out. Period. It creates classes among our citizens and denies us equitable freedoms

Obi, this is the exact problem (IMO) with our country. We are NOT all created equal no matter how badly we want to be. If that we the case we would all be rich (since we are smart) have perfect families since we all make the right choice) and be happy all the time..... 

arothman said:

My personal stance on the issue is that the government doesn't have the right to 'approve' hetero marriages either, and should be barred from giving or denying union to any consenting parties of legal age. I'd gladly trade in my marriage certificate for a secular certificate of union if it meant that anyone else who wanted the same privileges afforded to me and my wife by it were allowed to have them.

Yes.

Gay people can participate an old Christian religious tradition all the want. Let the Pope worry about that.

The real issue is that marriage is a breach of the separation of church and state, to begin with. 

Lurch256 said:

By this logic what is NOT covered?

Pursuit of genocide by banana pudding?

I have a dream. 

Gay marriage is such a non-issue, employed by the politicians to get easy thoughtless votes.

It doesn't fucking matter. Married, not married. Gay. Whatever. Why's everyone want to get married anyway? Whats big desire there? If you love someone, love them. You don't need a certificate, gov't approval, or a religious ceremony. I swear half the people getting married aren't even religious. So they're just doing it for tax benefits? Fine. So then whats so sacred about it? Let the gays have their tax benefits, or take "marriage" off the books altogether. 

^^I'm with you on everything except saying it's a non-issue. A subset of American citizens are being denied an important right given to everyone else based on their demographics - hardly what I would call a non-issue. 

It's not an important right. 

What's the big deal with marriage??
Homosexuals wanting to get married is just as stupid as atheists that celebrate christmas just because "that's what you do"
Have some god damn dignity people. 

I think the major issue (Well, it would be for me if I was gay, at least) is that the legal status of marriage confers certain privileges such as tax breaks and in some states, the ability to adopt (Many restrict or prohibit it if you're a gay couple, I believe). That's the major problem I find with the whole thing.

And no, I'm not really a marriage supporter. The state shouldn't be involved in marriage at all, but until that consensus happens, the law should be applied without regard for anyone's preferences. I include polygamy in this as well: If someone wants to marry 100 women, that's their problem, not mine. 

ncuskey said:

Pretty sure the Nazis rounded up gay people and made them wear pink triangles on their clothes, just like the Jews got gold stars (not the happy kind).

Pretty clear connection if you ask me.

Just to get the facts right:

No one knew that was happening until the war was almost over.

They couldn't possibly have been literally fighting the Nazis over gay rights et al for most of the war. 

SparkyTWP said:

And no, I'm not really a marriage supporter. The state shouldn't be involved in marriage at all...

Studies show that married people are much stronger contributors to a society both financially and in other ways, so promoting both marriage and healthy marriages is in the best interest of a state or federal body. I've only seen one summary of a study regarding homosexual couples, and IIRC, it found no distinction between them and heterosexual couples. Assuming that's still the case, there's no reason that a) governments shouldn't continue to promote marriage via tax breaks, etc, and b) it shouldn't be extended to any union deemed to be socially positive. 

DarkAss said:

Al Yankovic.

Make that 2 votes for best comment of the day.

I really like this old guy. When you REALLY think about it, it doesn't make any sense. 

That load a of bull. Of course heterosexual couples are "stronger contributers." They have the benefit of contributing to a society that wants their "contributions." 

Admiral Sackbar said:

It's not an important right.

Tell that to the homosexual partners and their children who can't visit their dying loved one in the hospital because they're not their "spouse".

Besides, why did we have to let the negros sit anywhere on the bus they wanted? It's not an important right that they sit where they please! It's not as if the bus wasn't going to the same place anyways. It's not like whites were the only ones who got to use the water fountain. There were two, them colored got one too.

But, I digress, this is about marriage. So, why are we letting the blacks get married either? I mean, I'm totally with you Admiral Sackbar! It's not an important right.