MSNBC Misrepresents US News Article on Same-Sex Marriage
MSNBC anchor Thomas Roberts harangued Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage on today's "MSNBC Live". "Why do you feel [gays] are less than you and don't deserve equal rights?" asked Roberts.
[VIDEO BELOW THE FOLD]
MSNBC anchor Thomas Roberts harangued Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage on today's "MSNBC Live". "Why do you feel [gays] are less than you and don't deserve equal rights?" asked Roberts.
The openly gay daytime news anchor also touted a recent article in US News & World Report showing lower divorce rates in states recognizing same-sex marriages. The raw data Roberts provided do not appear to be in question; divorce rates in states recognizing same-sex marriage average at 41.2%, as opposed to 50.3% in states that do not. He also appears to be correct that the divorce rate in Massachusetts dropped 20.7% from 2003 to 2008.
But as any social scientist would tell you, correlation doesn't imply causation.
What Roberts conveniently ignored are the intervening variables that correlate both with same-sex marriage and with divorce rates. US News notes that states that have legalized same-sex marriage also tend to have more highly-educated populations. These populations tend to marry later, and late marriage also appears to be correlated with support for same-sex marriage:
Of the 10 states with the highest median age for males at their first marriage, eight recognize or perform gay marriages, with median ages between 29.3 (Maryland) and 31.5 (D.C.). Iowa is the outlier here, with a median age of 26.9. Altogether, these statistics point to a relationship between older marriage age, low divorce rates, and liberal views on same-sex marriage.
The important variable is thus not whether a state recognizes same-sex marriage, but other factors that act on both same-sex marriage and divorce.
MSNBC viewers would have to either read the article Roberts referenced, or have some basic knowledge of research methods not to get taken in by what is either sloppy or biased reporting.
A transcript follows
MSNBC
"MSNBC Live"
08/05/2011
11:46 a.m. EDT
THOMAS ROBERTS: In an article in US News & World Report suggesting the correlation between legalizing same-sex marriage and lower divorce rates for states that recognize or perform gay marriages, the rate is 41.2%. But for states that don't, it's 50.3%. In Massachusetts where same-sex marriage was legalized in '04 the, the divorce rate went down almost 21%. What does that tell you?
JOHN LEWIS: It tells us that this movement for marriage equality is truly about our common humanity, and the common instinct to love another human being and to want to have kin and family and to have your family recognized fully with a legal marriage, and I can say from a personal perspective as an example, my husband, Stewart and I, have been together for 24 years. And for many of those years, we didn't have any rights and recognition for our relationship. But in 2008, we were able to legally marry in California, surrounded by friends, family, all of our living parents who were then in their 80s, and it was just a tremendous time for us. And I think as Americans are seeing their friends and neighbors and ordinary folks just like Stewart and me getting married and having happy relationships, it's showing that it's good- it's good for marriage. And It's good for our society because it brings us all together and respect each other.
ROBERTS: Brian, when you hear a story like that, why do you feel John and Stewart are less than you and don't deserve equal rights?
BRIAN BROWN: Gays and lesbians have the right to live as they choose. They don't have the right to redefine marriage. When you redefine marriage, there are profound public consequences. We see same sex taught in schools in states that have redefined marriage, but we also see religious organizations and individuals punished by the state. When you have Catholic charities, adoption agency in Massachusetts basically forced out of adopts because of course Catholic charities cannot adopt children to same sex couples. You see the profound consequences. So the notion that what you're doing bypassing same-sex marriage is expanding rights is wrong.
ROBERTS: The LGBT community is primarily raised by the heterosexual community. But the gay people got here through heterosexuals having sex, right?
BROWN: That has nothing to do with the fact that marriage is a profoundly public good. When you redefine the nature of marriage, there are consequences. We now have Jonathan Turley, one of the most esteemed legal professors in this country launching a lawsuit in Utah to claim that polygamy should be legalized there using the exact same arguments as supporters of same-sex marriage, redefining marriage is wrong. It is not true that two men or two women are in the same position as a man and woman, a husband and wife united together in marriage. These are different things.
ROBERTS: Until you get a divorce, and then the man and woman aren't united anymore in a marriage.
- Eric Ames's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Oh, that's an easy one.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 4:08pm.
See, the overall divorce rate for states with gay "marriage" is lower because straight husbands resign themselves to the fact that even though they want to go homo, it's a waste of time because all the good homos are already married to each other.
In states without gay marriage, most straight husbands leave their wives because all of the good homos are still whoring around and are available for one-night stands.
That about it, Tommy Bobby?
We'll see how long that lasts
Submitted by Red Jeep on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 11:52pm.
After a couple years of "marriage" gays will start catting around again. Bank on it.
we also see religious
Submitted by motherbelt on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 4:16pm.
we also see religious organizations and individuals punished by the state. When you have Catholic charities, adoption agency in Massachusetts basically forced out of adopts because of course Catholic charities cannot adopt children to same sex couples. You see the profound consequences. So the notion that what you're doing bypassing [sic] same-sex marriage is expanding rights is wrong.
Not only Massachusetts. The ACLU is suing in Illinois.
In the liberal mindset, denying one group's right to adhere to its religious principles in order to "expand" others' rights is considered "progress."
I sense a pattern
Submitted by JackandMarilyn on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 4:24pm.
Not surprising for a right wingin' website. Is the divorce rate really a concern? It should't be part of the debate and it's just as retarded to bring it up as a benefit as it is to reject gay marriage on that notion. Now gay-bash away.
Tsk tsk. You stop bashing the developmentally disabled.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 4:31pm.
How dare you use the word retard like that. Shame on you.
Oh is that off limits now?
Submitted by JackandMarilyn on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 4:39pm.
The dreaded "RRRRRRRRRRRRRRR" word. There are worse things to call someone.
Oh yeah? Give me some examples.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 4:44pm.
.
Worse??
Submitted by Joe W. on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 4:46pm.
You mean like "Faggot"??
good evening JackandMarilyn
Submitted by cocodrie on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 4:34pm.
Your central problem is you are a moralphobe. You have an irrational fear of morals.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Divorce Rate?
Submitted by Joe W. on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 4:45pm.
Hey, Sparkles, it appears to me as though it was the gay blade who brought up the divorce rates in an effort to justify your perversion. Of course, divorce rates do not matter. What matters is that the lifestyle and sexual perversion is wrong, and ought not be glorified and "protected" as you and yours are squealing for. Y'all would be better served crawling back into the closet from which you slithered out of, thweetie.
Gee Joe
Submitted by JackandMarilyn on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 4:46pm.
You forgot to finish by calling me a faggot.
My Bad...
Submitted by Joe W. on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 4:52pm.
Sorry about that...Faggot.
Thank you
Submitted by JackandMarilyn on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 4:56pm.
That was very kind. I deserved that for visiting a conservative website. Now you will probably tell me how tolerant you are.
Word to the wise Jacko
Submitted by cocodrie on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 5:03pm.
You poke the dogs you get bit.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Pssst Jack*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 5:03pm.
Inciteful and insulting name calling will get a reply. As my grandmother used to say.....when you kick a cow patty dont be surprised when things start to stink...
we are not tolerant . . .
Submitted by Free Stinker on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 6:14pm.
. . . of ignorance or trolls.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Alien!
Submitted by DumbCanuck on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 7:57pm.
Hmmm... I didn't know the incubation period of trolls was 6 weeks... Waitaminute... your first post 4 weeks ago was rather benign, but now, you seem to be on a rampage. It's seems as if the parasite inside of you 4 weeks later finally managed to bust out of your gut...
Is this how trolls are born? What happened to your host? That person seemed to be a lot nicer!
"There... Are... Four... Lights!"
If gays think marriage is such a joke, why do they want it?
Submitted by Slyrr on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 5:02pm.
Pro-gay groups have long used 'the divorce rate' as rationalization to pimp gay marriage. The basic argument boils down to something like this: 'Oh yeah? Well... uh.... Since so many straight marriages fail, that means marriage itself is flawed, so why not just let gays marry since marriage is a joke anyway?'
If they really believe that claptrap, then it raises a question which I have yet to hear any pro-gay group answer satisfactorily. 'If you think marriage is such a joke, why are you so eager to let gays marry?' You'd think, since they don't think much of marriage, that they'd be eager to AVOID getting trapped in what they decry as a 'failed institution'.
And of course we all know the answer. It was never about money, or tax breaks, civil rights, recognition, respect, or anything else that they say publically. It's religion that they're really opposed to, because religion defends marriage. Religion protects marriage as sacred. Most religions also have 'homosexuality is a sin' as part of their doctrine.
Since religion defends marriage and decries homosexuality, religion is therefore the real target of the pro-gay groups. Anything else they bring up as part of the debate is just waffle and obfuscation. That's why, on pro-gay forums and comment boards, the threads don't have any posts that say 'yay, we finally have civil benefits!' No. All the comments revolve around, 'We finally stuck it to them God-boys!' and, 'Soon we'll be forcing them to conduct gay marriages in their temples!'
Pro-gay groups hide behind the mask of wanting 'love and equality' for all. But pull aside the curtains and you see an organization that was founded on, and is based in, resentment, anger and hate.
You seem to know everything
Submitted by JackandMarilyn on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 5:57pm.
Homosexuals couldn't possibly want to marry simply because they love one another and wish to spend their lives together. It's all about the church. Maybe the church should stop trashing gays----------might stop the gays from trashing the church.
Thank you
Submitted by Dave81 on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 6:17pm.
Thank you for explaining why my wife and I got married! Things are so much clearer now!
That or babymaking
Submitted by JackandMarilyn on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 6:27pm.
Unless you're sterile.
Gays need to be married to live together?
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 6:20pm.
Well, gee, that puts a whole different light on things.
I may change my mind.
There might be hope after all
Submitted by JackandMarilyn on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 6:24pm.
If I wasn't certain you're making a mockery of the situation.
No, I'm not mocking anything, Marilyn.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 6:42pm.
You said the reason homosexuals want to marry is simply because they wish to spend their lives together.
Where do you live, Helmand Province? Because in all 50 US states, any two people can live together anywhere without a marriage license.
Think before you type.
Did I say that?
Submitted by JackandMarilyn on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 7:10pm.
Or did I say "Homosexuals couldn't possibly want to marry simply because they love one another and wish to spend their lives together." Are you married? Why?
You implied exactly that. Don't try to weasel out of it.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 7:45pm.
Any two people can spend their lives together right now without being married.
I got married because I wanted my children to not be bastards and have a normal life. Too bad some kids end up being the unwitting victims of someone else's fantasy world where the abnormal is not only acceptable, but is even celebrated as a superior lifestyle.
I implied nothing
Submitted by JackandMarilyn on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 7:59pm.
I don't need to weasel out of anything. The comments are still there for all to consume. Lunacy figures gays are out to shut down the church, the church who have since existence condemned homosexuality as a big scary sin. Gays have every right to hate the church. But only a completely neurotic delusional homophobe would think that it's not about marriage, that it's about bringing down the church. As for your reason for marrying, nothing to do with love? Did you have kids before you married? Or did you marry so you could breed?
"Gays have every right to hate the church"---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 8:09pm.
"But only a completely neurotic delusional homophobe would think that it's not about marriage, that it's about bringing down the church".
And who, exactly, is being delusional here?
Surely not you, Marilyn, as you appear to be precisely the militant type, unhappy Gay ranter we have witnessed lo, these many times on threads here; most of whom do not end their stay with any sense of grace. Or will, for that matter.
Will and grace, now there's a thought.
MD
What make me militant?
Submitted by JackandMarilyn on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 9:04pm.
And what makes you think I'm unhappy?
"What make me militant?"
Submitted by Dave. on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 9:19pm.
Your assholiness, that's what.
I have several gay friends, one of which is my best friend since childhood, and who I have known since before the first grade (I'm 47 now).
Yet, he is not anything like you, as he owns his own business, and is probably more conservative overall than even I am.
I have been known to defend the rights of homosexual Americans right here on the pages of this very site - more than once.
Yet, belligerent, in-your-face, no-matter-what gay a-hole jerk-wads like you cause me to wonder why I even bothered.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Took the words, Dave---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 9:25pm.
right off my keyboard.
Only difference between Marilyn and studiotodd is Marilyn ain't dropped any F bombs.
Yet.
MD
md,
Submitted by Dave. on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 9:31pm.
LOL - Well, I guess we can just wait for bombs away.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Give me an example
Submitted by JackandMarilyn on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 9:39pm.
What do you see here specifically that makes me an a-hole? And do you want a pat on the back for having a gay friend? Everyone should and probably does have gay friends. Gays are like straights, except for that one part that happens in the bedroom. When you see a gay pride parade do you think those few thousand represent a few million? When was the last time you saw a gay man walking down the street costumed as a pink flamingo? The Tea Party probably outnumbers gays in America, but do they represent ALL Americans? You don't have to like everyone. I don't like the flamboyance, never have. But I don't judge the entire population because of a small percentage.
"Give me an example"
Submitted by Dave. on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 10:12pm.
No problem.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Pretty weak Dave
Submitted by JackandMarilyn on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 10:13am.
Pretty weak. But not even a quote?
Nap, probably not
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 10:18pm.
Tea Party probably outnumbers gays in America, but do they represent ALL Americans?
Most are those whom are Taxed. But you wouldn't know anything about that, no doubt.
It's all about being "special" here in US*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 6:50pm.
People born with 11 toes .5%
People who are albino 1.1
People who are gay 8%
People who are dwarfs .01%
People who are developmentally
disabled. 4.5%
People identify as Christians 76%
You're being generous Caj
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 7:12pm.
Human Rights Campaign lists the gay population at less than 3%.
[Edit: found the ink.]
Good statistics
Submitted by JackandMarilyn on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 7:11pm.
Did you notice the church only discriminates against one of those groups?
Why the hangup on the church?
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 7:15pm.
-
Ha Ha Jack*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 7:19pm.
You missed the whole point of my post...not surprised
And I used the % gay population because that is the "estimated" number of people who claim to have had same sex relationships but do not necessarily claim to be homosexual. That makes it a choice. The majority of us dont have to see that choice as "acceptable". The other people I listed were born that way. Get the picture?
Idiot alert!
Submitted by JackandMarilyn on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 7:37pm.
That's your argument? Gay is a choice? Do you think people just wake up one day and decide to go gay? Ignorance is a plague, and you got it man.
OK Jack
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 7:45pm.
Whats the difference between a normal, and Gay folks? Is being a Carpenter a choice?
Tone it down, or you wont find many friends around here
who is the idiot*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 8:07pm.
Try again Jack. Every gay website claims that 10% of the population is gay. The true numbers of gays who identify as homosexual is 2.4%. Gays add another 8% of people who claim to have had a homosexual relationship at least once in their life and count them as gay. If you consider homosexuality as a birth defect, not a choice, then a very small number of people are gay. Americans are tolerant of gays. You have the same right to housing, education, jobs, voting, as any other American. But gays are not satisfied with the same rights as other people, they want more. Because gays have a narcissistic view of their lifestyle, that their sexual identity is more important than other aspects of their lives, proves a serious dysfunction in that persons life.
You cannot expect dysfunctional people, by birth or by choice, to force upon a majority, an acceptance of that lifestyle. Handicapped individuals are accomodated in our society in some areas to assist them in functioning. Society has done that and more for gays but it is never enough for the gay community. You now want to punish the Church and the other 98% of the population because of your abnormality.
Depression, drug and alcohol abuse, domestic violence, STD's, and suicide is as high or more so among gays as among heterosexuals. Not because of a society that is unaccepting but because the very nature of homosexuality is abnormal. The narcissistic tendencies for homosexuals is evidenced by Gay Pride Parades, attacks on Christians and Churches, attacks on anyone who does not believe homosexuality is acceptable and deserves "special' rights and priviledges. It is a constant attack based not on a persons values, a persons worth, a persons skills or knowledge, but rather always on their sexual activity and sexual identity. Justice Roberts said recently....to stop discrimination based on race, you need to stop discriminating on the base of race. ....The same applies for homosexuals. There are many homosexuals who live normal lives, go to work, have families, be part of a family and friends, follow the law, vote, and are independant. They live as normal Americans because their sexual identity is not ALL of they are. Those people I have met and they are the ones who should be PROUD
Do you frequent many gay websites?
Submitted by JackandMarilyn on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 9:01pm.
Or was that just an exaggeration like much of your response? Being gay is no more a birth defect than blue eyes. And no, gays most certainly do not have the same rights as all Americans. Gays may not marry the person he or she is in love with, a person who returns that love in the same way heterosexual couples do. How much time a day do you spend having sex? The reason I ask this is I'm betting it's a pretty small percent. Same with gays. Gays eat, sleep, go to work, exercise, go to the movies, build skyscrapers and serve you dinner. Those parts are all okie dokie with you, but you just can't get the image out of your head of something you will never see. Just like I'm guessing no one has ever seen you have sex. Your suicide mention is idiotic. How the hell do you know why gays commit suicide? Do you have the same statistics for straights who commit suicide? People like you scare gay teens into killing themselves because your only message is that of damnation. You make life hell for these kids and then you blame them. It's sick.
Wow
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 9:12pm.
I agree with you that homosexuality is not a birth defect; you'd have to be born with it to qualify.
wow jack*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 9:29pm.
That was quite an angry reply to my post but you never addressed any issues. First, I never brought religion into the comment nor mentioned "sin". I took statistics from gay websites to show you how skewed they are with numbers and descriptions. Why in the world would you assume that I would ever encourage suicide? If you bothered to look up my account, you would easily see that I am a retired social worker and would never wish harm to anyone, just the opposite in fact. And as for condemning gays, guess you forgot the possibility that there are many of us here at NB who have gays in our families.
And not with you or anyone would I discuss my sex life and I sure 'n hell dont want to hear about yours.
I tried to warn him
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 10:11pm.
Jack, like every other libtard, cant handle the truth!
Bravo my peeshwank Cajun beb.
aww Boudin*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 10:26pm.
se bec...;-)
Which issues did I miss?
Submitted by JackandMarilyn on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 9:44am.
Gays are dysfunctional? Gays are narcissists? Or how gays attack the church because they're a bunch of bullies, not because the church has been attacking gays for 2000 years?
Better watch your insults there,
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 9:31pm.
Not nice to insult cajun.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
???
Submitted by JackandMarilyn on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 9:38am.
Tell that to the guy who called me faggot. Or is that appropriate now?
Nap, not here Jack-wagon
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 10:51am.
You told him to call you a bundle of sticks. Your quite the jerk Jack
cajun---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 7:57pm.
Jack (or Marilyn) will never get the picture unless it is one painted, photographed, or drawn, with only information and input deemed acceptable by one who either whole-heartedly accepts and supports the Gay lifestyle, or one who is homosexual.
I have read posts by members here who are homosexual and are unashamedly open about being so, as they should be; but who post as regular conservatives with no agenda other than a political one.
There is a decided difference between accepting yourself as you are, and getting on with your life, or being desirous of force feeding your views, whatever they happen to be, on others where only acceptance or obeisance is a satisfactory outcome.
MD
Church trashing gays? How exactly?
Submitted by DumbCanuck on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 8:27pm.
I suppose it's that Leviticus thingy, right? You know... the one that says Homosexuality is an abomination?
Well so what? We all know what gays think of the Church. So why do they care so much what the Church thinks of them? Personally, it doesn't bother me anymore for gays to think that I'm homophobe. Why then should they care if I think that homosexuality is sinful?
BTW FYI... The Church will be the first to stand in line to defend gay rights. Been doing so for the last 30 years! Didn't know that, I'll bet...
"There... Are... Four... Lights!"
You're spending a lot of
Submitted by redfish on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 2:52am.
"Maybe the church should stop trashing gays----------might stop the gays from trashing the church."
You're spending a lot of energy defending the fact that flamboyant gays who march in parades are a very small percentage of gays --- when nobody has said otherwise --- yet you casually imply that every church as if its the Westboro Baptist Church, and every pastor is Fred Phelps.
"Lunacy figures gays are out to shut down the church, the church who have since existence condemned homosexuality as a big scary sin. Gays have every right to hate the church."
The traditional Christian position on this is pretty simple. Every sexual relationship outside of a traditional marriage is considered a problem, including straight relationships. It has nothing to do with gays in particular. It's somewhat a stoic idea; a belief that sex has a certain place in life, that sex outside that is not important, and that people should exercise self-control. That view of morality may be wrong, but construing it as anti-gay is deliberate misunderstanding.
There have always been fanatics, and they've generally been viewed as fanatics. In the 15th century, Savonarola took over Florence and among his acts, he instituted a law making sodomy a capital offense. He was excommunicated by the Pope, and after his surrender, he was charged with heresy, tortured on the rack, and executed by fire. Florence afterwards returned to a policy of tolerance (with blessing of the Church).
History is a lot more complicated than it seems, when you get into it.
Most churches today are pretty moderate compared to what they've been in the past. They don't even expect their congregants to be stoic, they put up with pre-marital sex even as they argue against it, and they preach tolerance and understanding towards gay people. They disagree on what the legal purpose of marriage is. They'll generally argue that marriage exists today primarily for the children brought into marriages, and it isn't discriminatory to restrict the definition. Catholic adoption agencies prefer to adopt to different sex couples, and they think its crazy to make a law that would define them as discriminatory just so that society can prove itself to be tolerant. Mean, hateful stuff, right?
No, and everyone has a right to opinion
Submitted by JackandMarilyn on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 9:52am.
But just compare your comments to the rest of the comments on this thread. The base of the least tolerant argument is such---------"we don't care if you're gay, but don't shove it in my face!" Well it's the small percentage of gay paraders who piss people off, and as previously stated they only represent a small percentage of gays. Phelps is a piece of crap. I don't think the majority of humans are as evil as he, right up to the Pope himself. But some of the comments on this website make me believe he's got a whole lot of fans here.
You may not be dressed as a pink flamingo,
Submitted by SickofLibs on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 10:03am.
but you sure as hell are a drama queen.
There is not one single person here that doesn't think Phelps and Phelps-like characters are sick.
Good
Submitted by JackandMarilyn on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 10:11am.
There's hope for you yet. But why did you call me drama queen?
Why are you a drama queen?
Submitted by SickofLibs on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 10:34am.
Because you said you believe there are many Phelps fans here. You are dead wrong.
Possibly
Submitted by JackandMarilyn on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 10:45am.
On the flip side, not a whole lot of comments here that make me think otherwise. I figure very few people support his attacks on our most honorable, our American soldiers, but his hatred of gays seems to have much support.
Wrong again Jack/Marilyn*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 11:04am.
Folks here at NB do not hate gays, we do not support Phelps, no true Christian would. You instigated the negative comments here with insulting and inciteful comments. We responded to your comments not gays. You brought the Church into this discussion. No one else has talked about religion and homosexuality. Some posters, like me, have rarely discussed religion on a public board. I believe it to be personal and inappropriate to discuss with those so adamant to demean Christians since they are so un informed.
If it hurts to have it pointed out that gays live an "abnormal" existence, you took that personal, but it does not eliminate the truth. Gays do have problems in their lives, as do many other "minority" groups as I pointed out in my previous posts. We have people with all sorts of "problems" who attempt to function in society without making their "problems" the focus of who they are and their participation in society. What % of gays live the "drama" and are "militant" in their demands for "marriage" and forcing Churches to perform those "marriages? We see them as bullies intending, as most liberals, to destroy the moral boundaries of our society. That we will fight, will defend, and it has nothing to do with homosexuality. That is projection on your part.
We have gays here at NB, openly conservative. Their private lives are not the focus of their participation here at NB. They are welcomed and respected. Their comments contribute a different view to NB and that is appreciated. Your views, however, are the typical militant view, throw in insults, name calling, and attack Churchs and THAT attitude is what resulted in the negative responses.
I'm not an idiot
Submitted by JackandMarilyn on Sun, 08/07/2011 - 10:50am.
And you're not fooling anyone. I didn't set the tone of this page by referring to gays as "homos." So who incited who? And one more thing. Who brought up religion? Oh right-----------the interview this page is dedicated to.
cajun has no need to---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 08/07/2011 - 6:29pm.
"fool" anyone - she is an intelligent, well respected member here at NB's.
And you, JackandMarilyn, which of the two eponymous username deities are you?
Or are you merely another sad, disillusioned Gay who wants to berate all conservatives and religious people as being the sole construct of everything bad that occurs in a Gay person's life?
That is a tired old line that will get no sympathy from those who know it to be false.
MD
Thank you Mathew*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sun, 08/07/2011 - 9:02pm.
Nor do I need to reply to anyone but I shall not allow Jack/Marilyn to have the last post on this thread.
I sense a pattern....8-5-11 at 4:24 byJacknMarilyn
"Not surprising for a right wingin' website.....Now gay bashaway"
Gee Joe....8-5-11 at 4:46 by JacknMarilyn
"You forgot to finish by calling me a faggot."
Idiot Alert....8-5-11 at 7:37 by JacknMarilyn (reply to cajun2)
"Ignorance is a plague and you got it man"
No one on this thread bashed homosexuals. The tone of this thread did show that NBers do not hate gays but do resent "militant" gays who expect to be treated as a "special" group while attacking this societies morals, boundaries, and the majority of Christians in this country. Gays have all the same rights as any American but with all liberals and gay liberals, it is never enough to be free to live your life as an individual, they demand a "group" be given special privileges beyond what ordinary Americans enjoy. No one on this thread called for "condemnation " of gays as "sinful" nor did anyone throw out any names or insults until Jack/Marilyn changed the tone of this thread. No one brought religion into the discussion until Jack brought it up.
As I stated before, there are gays who are regular members of NB. They offer their views and opinions at NB bringing interesting points in discussions. They do not revel in their homosexuality as their sole identity. Those posters here are respected and welcomed as is their contributions to any discussion.
JacknMarilyn received a not so generous welcome as a result of his first post on this thread as I listed above. I have tried in my posts to explain a true conservatives position on "GAY MARRIAGE" not about homosexuality. Hopefully JacknMarilyn will review this thread with a more open mind than the numbness that seems to have damaged his ability to accept and comprehend another point of view on any subject. If not, then J/M will obviously be posting only on specific threads, those that comprise the entirety of his existence.
Just to be certain
Submitted by JackandMarilyn on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 4:30pm.
I don't get to have the last word, correct? "No one on this thread bashed homosexuals." You stated gays are dysfunctional, narcissistic, and abnormal. What is the opposite of bashing? Is that the way you wish for your previous statements to be considered? Nope, sorry folks, nothing to see here. I think you have had such contempt for gays for so long it has clouded your ability to even notice when someone refers to an apparent homosexual as "Sparkles, Thweetie, or Faggot." It's okay, those words don't bother me. Just not very creative. This drum you keep banging (with your forehead most likely), GAYS WANT MORE RIGHTS THAN US, is a total copout. Gays CAN NOT marry the individual they've fallen in love with, because people like you think the word marriage means something significantly more than a government issued certificate. It's in the Bible. Those are the rules, take em or leave em. We said NO, Sparkles! Now leave, and don't bring it up again-----------like a good homo. Oh did I say that? No, if fact it was the first post on the page. You probably see that as a compliment. You're full of it.
And you, Marilyn---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 7:40pm.
are a whiner, a complainer, and a dolt.
You give decent people, who are also homosexual, a bad name.
MD
Check that
Submitted by JackandMarilyn on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 9:19pm.
Everyone who disagrees with this site's status quo is a whiner, a complainer, and a dolt. Got it. Thanks for your enlightening comments, please write again soon.
It's not that you disagree, Marilyn ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 2:47am.
but more your attitude.
The tale has been told; and it has grown quite old.
You are not the first, and surely won't be the last, to assume that your comments fall on virgin ears here, and whose feelings get hurt because the comments are neither welcomed nor encouraged, as they are the same old-same old.
MD
dean
Submitted by JackandMarilyn on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 9:58am.
It's okay that I call you dean, right? You appear to by psychoanalyzing me here yet you know relatively little about me--------only my position regarding bigotry, hate, and the many fears people have over allowing gays to marry the person they love. Same old story may apply to the website but the debate will continue.
Call me anything but late for dinner, Marilyn,---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 10:48pm.
but I psychoanalyze no one, as I have no training in that field.
I do, however, have many years experience in the investigative field that allow me to recognize the same old bullshit being regurgitated over and over.
That is what you throw out there, but would have me believe that you are merely concerned about the bigotry, hate, and the many (?) fears people (what people? Christians"? Conservatives?) have over allowing Gays to marry the person they love.
That is GLAAD promoted bullshit.
You want to wed your significant other, go right ahead; it is the pushiness to force those "people" to recognize your union as a marriage that gets tiresome.
There is definitely bigotry and hate against homosexuality in this world; but by the same token there are many considerate, fair minded people on this web site.
Indeed.
But by all means, do the regular militant Gay parade, preen, and strut; and try and put the onus of bigotry and hate on any and all who disagree with you, rather than looking in the mirror and seeing the same type of bigotry and hate staring back out at the parts of the world not encompassed in either homosexuality or involved in actually praising it.
"The debate will continue".
Debate, my ass.
Losers of debates don't go straight to litigation to have their defeat overturned in a court of law.
Unless, of course---.
MD
Interesting point you bring up
Submitted by JackandMarilyn on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 9:31am.
What are your thoughts on the legal fight over abortion? The supreme court decided this decades ago but it hasn't stopped the debate, nor has it stopped people from making new laws limiting abortion. In this case the losers of the abortion debate have been knocking on the door of the supreme court with a litany of arguments, with the devoid hope of one day overturning Roe v Wade. So I disagree. One point I'd like you to respond to because I've mentioned it several times---------Why shouldn't gay adults be allowed to marry the person they love? I know what the church says. Hell man, I've been to Vatican City and witnessed the grotesquely deformed homeless crawling the sidewalk begging for help, just footsteps away from one of the largest concentrations of wealth in the world. And ignored by the church. So I don't give a crap about what the church says about abortion, gay marriage, or anything else. With 100,000 pieces of art depicting the crucifixion it appears to me the church has forgotten the message of Jesus. All arguments out the window, my one simple question remains.
Why can't gays marry the person they love?
They should be able to ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 2:44am.
as far as I'm concerned; just don't co-opt the word marriage, which has historically meant a union between a man and a woman.
If it is indeed all about being with the 'person you love', hopefully forever, then a legal ceremony resulting in a civil union should suffice.
MD
Your a nitwit
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 11:06am.
You obviously dont know what your talking about. But is sure hasnt kept you from writing disparaging things about some very good folks here.
So save your whining, your getting what you dish out.
Marilyn, YOU are the one who came in here flinging poo.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 11:42am.
Allow me to remind you of your initial post way up top there:
"Not surprising for a right wingin' website. Is the divorce rate really a concern? It shouldn't be part of the debate and it's just as retarded to bring it up as a benefit as it is to reject gay marriage on that notion. Now gay-bash away."
Your attitude has "sucked" from the git-go.
SOL
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 11:48am.
Jack&Marilyn will fling no poo until it is finely churned.
BS, that's B as in Bull and S as in
Submitted by UpNorth on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 10:41am.
Scat.
Kindly provide a link to where a "whole lot of fans" of Phelps said so on NB. Other wise, apologize and shut your piehole, because you're either making crap up as you type, or lying intentionally.
If I were to visit a
Submitted by redfish on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 2:24pm.
If I were to visit a progressive website, there would be a lot of mean sounding comments towards Christians too, but I know most people who support gay rights aren't anti-Christian. Its more about politics than anything.
The gay rights movement is led by militant gays, who are more cultural leftists than they are just for gay rights; they hate conservative values about sex, they hate the conservative understanding of law and the Constitution, they hate conservative views about art and fashion. Many of them, like Dan Savage, act as bullies, even as they argue against bullying. They're very open in using their "gayness" as a way to attack their opponents.
When people say "we don't care if you're gay, but don't shove it in my face" they're referring to gay militantism, not gay people. Regarding TV, it would be one thing if there were mature, complex portrayals of gay characters in adult programs, but most gay characters on TV serve some advocacy purpose. Like I said in the other thread, a gay character is usually paired with a bigoted Christian to make some sort of political point. There's efforts to put gay characters in family programs, and some people don't think its appropriate for different reasons.
So people get angry, and they tweak militant gays by saying mean things and making fun of them, like progressives tweak religious people sometimes. And sometimes each side takes it too far and generalizes. Only... one is considered bigoted hate speech, and the other socially-conscious activism.
Reading comprehension problem?
Submitted by Model850 on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 5:15pm.
Check again, Skippy. The divorce rate statistic wasn't raised by anyone here.
The MSNBC anchor cited the article:
THOMAS ROBERTS: In an article in US News & World Report suggesting the correlation between legalizing same-sex marriage and lower divorce rates...
I'm pretty sure MSNBC is not a "right wingin' website."
Checked. Noted.
Submitted by JackandMarilyn on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 5:55pm.
My post is consistent with the story. Who brought it up in the story? The gay anchor. Did I credit another? Still retarded to bring it up. And my deepest regrets if I offended anyone with my ugly choice of words. The pattern recognized---------2 straight days this site has opened a forum as an opportunity to bash gays.
We're not bashing gays...
Submitted by DumbCanuck on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 8:34pm.
... we're bashing you!
"There... Are... Four... Lights!"
canuck*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 8:45pm.
bada bing!
Thomas Roberts and the other
Submitted by TE on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 4:37pm.
Thomas Roberts and the other homosexual political activists at A-Mess-NBC and the rest of the Washington/New York/American press corps are incapable of understanding that homosexuals do have "equal rights" in marriage. Every homosexual, like every heterosexual person, has the right to marry one, unmarried person of the opposite sex. That's what marriage is.
Reduce headline to the first 2 words....
Submitted by Slyrr on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 4:39pm.
They could have just ended the headline after TWO words: 'MSNBC' and 'misrepresents'.
That's pretty much all we need to know. If they want to prune syllables, just say, 'MSNBC lies'.
Guess who's getting married?
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 5:27pm.
Bert and Ernie! Yay!
Be sure and check out the comments to see what this self-centered group of misfits thinks would be just faboo for your toddlers to learn about.
No, they don't have an agenda. Nope. it's just about the tax breaks.
SoL
Submitted by Denny Crane on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 3:04am.
Problem is that it's just Bert.
Ernie is straight.
We Are The 53%
So What Else Is New....MSNBC
Submitted by Barack Must Go on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 6:44pm.
So What Else Is New....MSNBC Misrepresents EVERYTHING!
What is it about liberals that makes them incapable of logical..
Submitted by big.league.slider on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 1:08am.
What is it about liberals that makes them incapable of logical trains of thought? To claim that a homosexual person does not have the same rights as a heterosexual person, with regards to a government recognizing the legal aspects of who they choose to marry, is irrational. In consideration of the legal implications of marriage, both homosexuals and heterosexuals are treated equally.
As a heterosexual male, the law would not acknowledge my marriage to another male. Just as the law would not acknowledge the marriage of any homosexual man to another male. Understand? If the law treats everyone the same regardless of sexual orientation, how is that discrimination?
Re: Jonathan Turley - 'A gay-wedding crasher' is the heading
Submitted by Rush Fan on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 7:18am.
of a Los Angeles Times article that has a subheading: A law professor attempts to use a homosexual rights ruling to defend a polygamous family in Utah. Gay marriage proponents are not happy with this. Here is part of the beginning paragraph:
Is marriage between three, four, or more people in our future? The last paragraph of the article suggests that might happen::
Another unintended consequence of Liberal actions.
Acting without thinking is like shooting without aiming —B. C. Forbes
But, but, the spokespersons
Submitted by UpNorth on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 10:46am.
for the gay rights lobby assured us that this could never happen.
Much like the end of DADT was just about service, it wasn't about the benefits, and recognition, and forcing same sex marriage into states where it's not recognized by law.
Just another example of the Liberal Mob mentality and their
Submitted by ProudAmerican58 on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 3:49pm.
basic inability to follow rational arguments.
Brown made the point that gay unions are not "less than" but are "different from" the union between a man and a woman, the primary reason being, as gay Mr. Roberts himself pointed out, "...the gay people got here through heterosexuals having sex, right?"
RIGHT!!!