CBS ‘Early Show’: Guns ‘Controversial,’ Not Gay Marriage

CBS ‘Early Show’: Guns ‘Controversial,’ Not Gay Marriage

By Kyle Drennen (Bio | Archive)
August 19, 2008 - 12:32 ET

While co-host Harry Smith described a Texas school allowing teachers to carry guns as "a controversial decision" on Tuesday’s CBS Early Show, he teased an upcoming segment on Ellen DeGeneres marrying actress Portia de Rossi as simply exciting celebrity gossip: "And we have the wedding pictures from the marriage of Ellen DeGeneres and Portia de Rossi. That happened over the weekend."

The Early Show covered the DeGeneres-de Rossi wedding on Friday and Monday as well, with no suggestion of it being controversial at all. On Monday, Chen declared: "And wedding bells. Comedian and talk show host, Ellen DeGeneres, ties the knot with her long-time partner. We'll have details about the wedding." Correspondent Michelle Gillen then reported: "The DeGeneres-de Rossi wedding is perhaps the highest profile same-sex marriage since California legalized such unions just over three months ago... In 1997, Degeneres became the first television star to come out publicly on her sitcom ‘The Ellen Show.’" At the end of Monday’s segment, Smith wondered: "The thing I'm curious about, she's been so public about it. Then why would you keep the ceremony so private?" Chen replied: "So you can sell it to People magazine for $4 million."

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Apparently Chen was correct, because on Tuesday she talked to executive editor of People magazine, Jess Cagle, about exclusive photos of the wedding: "And the blushing brides. We have the first pictures of the wedding of Ellen and Portia." Chen began by asking Cagle: "Tell us all about the wedding, starting with what they wore, who wore what?" She later asked: "Alright, rings? What was the ceremony like? Was there a ring exchange? What do we know?" When Cagle replied: "And they exchanged just vows that they had written themselves. And Wayne Dire, the author of the inspirational books, was actually there to officiate the ceremony." Chen responded "How nice."

While Smith’s segment on teachers carrying guns featured a debate among guests, Chen’s segment on same-sex marriage featured no debate. An objective journalist might wonder what DeGeneres and de Rossi will do if gay marriage in California is overturned following a ballot initiative in November, or what impact the marriage may have on DeGeneres’s ratings among Americans who oppose gay marriage.

Instead, Chen concluded the segment by asking Cagle: "In the final seconds, how long ago did they meet and how did they meet?" On June 17, Chen interviewed actor George Takei, who announced his plan to marry his partner, Brad Altman. Chen began: "Gentlemen good morning and congratulations."

Here is the full transcript of the Monday segment:

7:00AM TEASER:

JULIE CHEN: And wedding bells. Comedian and talk show host, Ellen DeGeneres, ties the knot with her long-time partner. We'll have details about the wedding.

7:14AM TEASER:

CHEN: And Ellen DeGeneres ties the knot with her long-time partner, actress Portia de Rossi. We'll have details of their wedding.

7:20AM TEASER:

CHEN: Up next, Ellen DeGeneres says 'I do' in Beverly Hills.

7:23AM SEGMENT:

HARRY SMITH: Wedding bells rang this weekend for comedian and talk show host Ellen DeGeneres. CBS News correspondent Michelle Gillen has more.

MICHELLE GILLEN: Amidst buzzing paparazzi helicopters, Ellen DeGeneres reportedly married long-time girlfriend Portia de Rossi in Los Angeles. The DeGeneres-de Rossi wedding is perhaps the highest profile same-sex marriage since California legalized such unions just over three months ago.

ELLEN DEGENERES: I'm gay.

GILLEN: In 1997, DeGeneres became the first television star to come out publicly on her sitcom 'The Ellen Show.'

DEGENERES: That felt so great.

GILLEN: She announced her engagement to de Rossi during a taping of her current talk show.

DEGENERES: So I would like to say right now for the first time I am announcing I am getting married.

GILLEN: The intimate ceremony was reportedly attended by 19 guests, including de Rossi's mother, who flew in from Australia, and DeGeneres's mom, Betty. Michelle Gillen, CBS News, New York.

SMITH: The thing I'm curious about, she's been so public about it. Then why would you keep the ceremony so private?

CHEN: So you can sell it to People magazine for $4 million.

SMITH: Oh, okay.

CHEN: I don't know. Just a thought. Well we wish them well.

Here is the full transcript of the Tuesday segment:

7:15AM TEASER:

JULIE CHEN: And the first pictures from the wedding of Ellen DeGeneres and Portia de Rossi.

7:30AM TEASER:

HARRY SMITH: And we have the wedding pictures from the marriage of Ellen DeGeneres and Portia de Rossi. That happened over the weekend.

7:36AM TEASER:

CHEN: And the blushing brides. We have the first pictures of the wedding of Ellen and Portia.

7:40AM SEGMENT:

JULIE CHEN: Stevie Wonder's 'Ribbon in The Sky' is the favorite song of Ellen DeGeneres and Portia de Rossi and they danced to it at their wedding over the weekend. And these are the first wedding photos. Joining us is Jess Cagle, People magazine executive editor and Early Show entertainment contributor. Jess, good morning.

JESS CAGLE: Good morning, Julie.

CHEN: Tell us all about the wedding, starting with what they wore, who wore what?

CAGLE: Okay. Let me set the scene for you.

CHEN: Yes, please.

CAGLE: Very intimate, very candle lit, very small wedding at their home in Beverly Hills, which is this great, kind of modern house, but it's very warm and cozy. They had about 19 guests and they were all sitting around the den on Saturday night and there were candles all around. Ellen and Portia came down and they were both wearing Zac Posen designs that he had designed just for them. And Ellen, as you can see, wore pants, as always, but then a kind of feminine top to it. And Portia Derossi wore this amazing backless gown that almost looks like a wedding dress, but not quite.

CHEN: It does. Oh it totally does, I mean it looks gorgeous. Alright, rings? What was the ceremony like? Was there a ring exchange? What do we know?

CAGLE: They had wedding bands. Now, the big ring Portia got when they got engaged, which was this three carat Neil Lang sparkler. But at the ceremony, they sat on pillows, along with everybody else in the den, there were 19 guests. And they exchanged just vows that they had written themselves. And Wayne Dire, the author of the inspirational books, was actually there to officiate the ceremony.

CHEN: How nice. Do we know who was on the guest list of 19 guests at all?

CAGLE: It was all friends and family. All friends and family. It was originally planned to be a much bigger wedding. And somebody described it as 'it was going to look like the front row of the Oscars.' Because you know, Ellen and Portia know everybody in Hollywood and everybody likes them. It would have been a very cool wedding to go to.

CHEN: In the final seconds, how long ago did they meet and how did they meet?

CAGLE: They met in 2004, that's when they started dating. But they met years and years before that when Portia de Rossi was still doing Alli Mcbeal. And just Portia said she was not ready to live as an openly gay woman. Once they met again in 2004, Portia said: 'I'm not going to let this opportunity pass me by twice.'

CHEN: Alright, Jess Cagle, thanks so much.

—Kyle Drennen is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

I must agree with Michael

August 19, 2008 - 12:57 ET by pocomoco

I must agree with Michael Savage when, in a recent show, he stated that the motive for the MSM’s continued trumpeting of the homosexual life-style is because many in the MSM are, themselves, homosexuals.

As Savage suggests - there can be no other reason!

Sadly, pocomoco, you may be

August 19, 2008 - 13:10 ET by ForeverOnTheRight

Sadly, pocomoco, you may be right. But then again, they may follow what is fashionable in the liberal crowd like lemmings to the sea.

Agreed

August 19, 2008 - 13:56 ET by Nortonalec

Also, members of the MSM are completly taken by stars and slobber all over them and their causes. I can't think of one journalist who does not get giddy when they interview someone from Hollywood.

Nortonalec

Julie Chen

August 19, 2008 - 14:43 ET by allanf

Isn't Julie Chen married to the head honcho over at CBS, Les Moonves? So it would must be multicultural liberalism on her part.

Wolfcastle: That outfit

August 19, 2008 - 13:20 ET by Killgrave

Wolfcastle: That outfit makes you look like a homosexual.
Audience: Booooo!!!
Wolfcastle (pointing at audience): Maybe you all are homosexuals, too!

Pray

August 19, 2008 - 13:03 ET by iveseenitall

Pray for our nation.

NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"

Yes, ivseenitall, pray for

August 19, 2008 - 13:12 ET by ForeverOnTheRight

Yes, ivseenitall, pray for the lost souls.

...and the msm doesn't

August 19, 2008 - 13:18 ET by bigtimer

...and the msm doesn't understand why they are so despised....losing viewers...

"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh

exactly bt

August 19, 2008 - 13:52 ET by candance

These morning shows used to be news. Now it's all Hollywood gossip, cooking tips, and a dash of the weather forecast. When I wake up in the mornings I want the news - not photos of some celebrity's wedding.

I agree it's brutal.

August 19, 2008 - 17:16 ET by TheGingerman

I agree it's brutal. Unfortunately, however, the only people watching these shows are stay at home wives, who, if tabloid trash magazine sales are any indication, care exclusively about sleazy gossip, cooking tips, and a little bit of weather.

I find it hard to blame the morning shows b/c if I was them I'd do the same exact thing. It's a for profit business. You have to cater to your audience.

My advice. Don't watch it. Get your news from the internet.

Have any of you considered

August 19, 2008 - 14:15 ET by

Have any of you considered what you would do if you had a gay child? What would you do? And this is an honest question.

Hypothetically -- You catch your 17 year old son kissing another boy -- what do you do?

Do you accuse him of a political stunt? Do you stone him or castrate him?

Or do you act like V.P. Cheney. Love your child and embrace that which makes him or her happy. Don't make a political grenade out of the intimate, sexual lives of other people.

Dick Cheney did it; can you?

I have a relative who is Gay many of us

August 19, 2008 - 14:22 ET by Dee Bunk

have friends and relatives who are. We love and respect them but that doesn't mean we have to be for Gay Marriage. Most of us feel the first choice for children with all other things equal is to have a mother and a father. Marriage is about children.

Why does marriage have to

August 19, 2008 - 17:20 ET by TheGingerman

Why does marriage have to be about children? Are married couples who either choose to not have children or can't have children any less married than those who have children? Their marriages aren't as valid somehow?

That argument makes no sense. Marriage isn't about making babies, it's about spending your life with someone you love. If you choose to have kids, great, but you don't get married to have kids, you get married b/c you love your significant other.

Frankly, I think many people would find your stance to be nonsensical

if you cater to the

August 19, 2008 - 18:52 ET by TruthMonger

if you cater to the original God-given purpose of marriage, as I do, then procreation of children is one of those purposes, also as a protection against the sin of fornication, and also to care for each other in sickness and in health...

It is the model for the union between Christ and the church...

And therefore the notion of gay "marriage" is quite disrespectful of this divine and sacred institution - kind of like descrating native tribal graves, or pissing on the Koran...

Journalism is the opium of the liberals

Monger I never said it

August 19, 2008 - 18:58 ET by TheGingerman

Monger I never said it wasn't a potential aspect of marriage, I simply stated that it isn't the ONLY aspect of marriage.

To claim that marriage is only about making babies is ridiculous. Plenty of couples choose not to have children or can't have children, which in no way diminishes the credibility of their marriages.

Ginger - it's the only reason for Government to get involved in

August 19, 2008 - 19:11 ET by Dee Bunk

marriage. Irrespective of the religious stuff there is no reason for the government to give people who marry any privileges except for that they will likely raise a family. Otherwise civil unions could cover every type of relationship of people who want to live together whether they are family, friends or lovers.
Marriage doesn't mean people have to have kids, but it's more likely if people are married that they won't abort a baby they create.

Dee - so I suppose you have

August 19, 2008 - 19:26 ET by TheGingerman

Dee - so I suppose you have the same level of animosity for barren women.

Perhaps we should check individual's fertility levels before we allow them to get married.

It's really just amazing to me that you would deny a child the right to a good life simply because they might be adopted by a gay couple.

Hey maybe you're right. The Foster Care system in America is really great! No major problems at all. I'd much rather live with people who saw me as a paycheck than live with people that actually loved me. I have several friends that grew up with gay parents, and guess what? They're are just fine. In fact, 3 of the 4 are married. Children need love, support, and a safe home. That is all. It's not whose giving the care, but rather, the quality of the care. This has been shown time and time again. Hence, the reason that children that spend their early years in quality day care have the same chance for normative development as those who grow up with their parent.

You seem to be very concerned about Children which I can appreciate. The strange thing is that your belief system is based on what you believe, not what's actually good for them.

On a side note, I'm not quite sure what abortion has to do with gays getting married. Last I checked gay guys and girls weren't able to get pregnant. What did I miss?

Recommendation: You seem to view children as exceedingly fragile, susceptible to all kinds of outside influences. This is not the case. I would suggest, if you have the time, that you should check out "Vulnerable but Invincible" by Emmy Werner & Ruth Smith.

Give our species some credit.

I'm kindly asking you to stop ginger

August 19, 2008 - 19:30 ET by candance

As a woman who is personally unable to get pregnant, I feel the need to say here we don't appreciate being turned into a political free throw.

Candance - I'm not sure why

August 19, 2008 - 19:37 ET by TheGingerman

Candance - I'm not sure why you are attacking me.

I'm defending people who aren't able to have children. Dee is the one who said that the ONLY reason for marriage was to have children.

Take it up with her, not me. She used it as a political argument, I pointed out that she was way off base. Did you not read any of my posts?

I specifically stated that the point of marriage is to spend the rest of your life supporting and living with the person that you love. If you have children then great, if you don't than also great.

Frankly, my mind is boggled by your post. It's Dee you should be chastising. I think marriage is about love, she thinks marriage is SOLELY about children AND uses that stance to POLITICIZE gay marriage.

I know these are your people, but please, Dee is wrong, I am right, and you know it.

I apologize your mind is boggled

August 19, 2008 - 19:45 ET by candance

Dee simply said that children are designed to thrive under the guidance of a man and woman in their lives.

You are the one who turned barren women into a debate point.

And I wasn't attacking you - I was kindly asking you to have some sensitivity.

Candance - you're acting in

August 19, 2008 - 19:54 ET by TheGingerman

Candance - you're acting in a disingenuous manner.

I went after DEE for this post. In going after Dee my argument was in support of the fact that Marriage is about love, not children. Her post implies that an inability or a decision to not have children invalidates a marriage.

Again, talk to her not me. I completely support the position of married couples that have no children b/c I think that is a possibility of marriage but not the purpose. I think you went after me too early without actually reading what I wrote. I wasn't insensitive at all, you're close minded friend Dee was. See for yourself:

I have a relative who is Gay many of us
August 19, 2008 - 15:22 ET by Dee Bunk

have
friends and relatives who are. We love and respect them but that
doesn't mean we have to be for Gay Marriage. Most of us feel the first
choice for children with all other things equal is to have a mother and
a father. Marriage is about children.

I read your posts every day, I know you're a very intelligent woman, don't pull these petty antics on me. You're better than that, much better from what I've seen in the past.

ginger

August 19, 2008 - 20:01 ET by bigtimer

It has been obvious you read the posts most days ginger...you haven't changed a lick....you know when and where to attempt to cause trouble between posters here....you are easy to read, I can see right through you, plus I have a good memory of how you work.

Your agenda isn't going to succeed either...

...good always prevails over evil.

"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh

Ms. Timer you don't know

August 19, 2008 - 20:08 ET by TheGingerman

Ms. Timer you don't know me. My agenda is not to disrupt but rather to steer right.

Dee was out of line. Do you disagree? Married couples that don't have children are not fulfilling the purpose of marriage?

Are you sure?

I know you and Dee are BFFs but even you must realize her comments concerning marriage are out of line and offensive to certain people. I appreciate your dedication to the NB team, but come on, I was 100% correct and she is entirely wrong.

To admit otherwise is to argue that marriage without children is less valid than marriage with children.

It isn't going to work with

August 19, 2008 - 20:14 ET by bigtimer

It isn't going to work with me ginger.

By the way...this blog post is about the arrogance of the bias in the msm of deciding for us out here in the real world what is controversial and what isn't.

You may want to pay attention to that instead of attempting to cause trouble, troublemaker.

You sure made a huge deal about the significance of the R. Barr thread....do the same here.

"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh

Oh so now you hop back on

August 19, 2008 - 20:20 ET by TheGingerman

Oh so now you hop back on topic. In the words of the church lady.

"Well Isn't that conveeeeenient"

ginger.... You may want

August 19, 2008 - 20:25 ET by bigtimer

ginger....

You may want to check my post below that has a time stamp on it....I posted it this morning and haven't changed my sentiments.

You and your brethren like fk haven't bothered to do anything but troll...but then again that's what you are...trolls, that are allowed to stay, unfortunately.

"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh

Stop putting words in my mouth Ginger - you are confusing

August 19, 2008 - 21:05 ET by Dee Bunk

religious marriage with government benefits for marriage. I didn't say that anyone wasn't fulfilling their marriage if they didn't have kids. I said that there is no reason for the GOVERNMENT to give SPECIAL benefits to two people who live together without kids.

Dee - so what did you mean

August 19, 2008 - 21:11 ET by TheGingerman

Dee - so what did you mean when you EXPLICITLY stated that marriage is ONLY about children? I actually quoted the exact line where you said that. Word for word.

You said it, not me, I'm not confused at all, but clearly you are.

The only words I put in your mouth were your own.

I said that there is no

August 19, 2008 - 21:13 ET by TheGingerman

I said that there is no reason for the GOVERNMENT to give SPECIAL benefits to two people who live together without kids.

By the way, what do you mean by this? Married couples without children don't deserve the same rights as those who have children?

Oh boy, you are just digging deeper and deeper. Do you read what you post before you post it? Do you not understand how offensive your position is to people who aren't able to have children?

That's amazing. Really amazing.

ginger,

August 19, 2008 - 22:56 ET by RESTLESS 1

I think you are both wrong. Marriage without children is no less valid than one with kids. However, govt. should not grant the same breaks to both. Having kids takes money, time, and devotion, thus couples with kids get tax breaks for each one.

Now, what do gays have against civil unions? As long as they enjoy the same benefits that heterosexuals enjoy, why hijack the term marriage. In my opinion, govt. has no standing to validate marriage at all. That is God's realm, and since the homosexual lifestyle is not a Godly one, they have no standing to use the term.

Of course, all of this just takes away from the real subject. Why aren't we studying homosexuals to try to develop remedies? It is not natural behavior. Why don't we expend our energies on trying to truly help these people?

"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008

Wrong restless - only Ginger is wrong

August 19, 2008 - 23:30 ET by Dee Bunk

You have not contradicted anything I said. I never said a Marriage without children was any less valid - only they said that by purposefully misinterpreting my words.

I said Marriage is about Children and further explained that it's about setting up the ideal situation for raising them. That doesn't mean if someone never has them that there is a problem with it. There would simply be no reason for government to get involved if no one ever had children. A society without children would not need to give breaks to certain types of living arrangements over others.

"I never said a Marriage

August 20, 2008 - 15:56 ET by RESTLESS 1

"I never said a Marriage without children was any less valid".

You say that now, but your original comment did not indicate such.

Single people with kids get tax breaks as well. How do you reconcile that with your statement? Couples without children get no tax breaks for just being married, other than being able to file jointly, and that is no advantage. So, in other words, the govt. has no business in marriage either way. That is where you are wrong.

"This liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008

Wrong Restless - the tax rate for married people is less

August 20, 2008 - 17:15 ET by Dee Bunk

if one stays home with their children which is how it was designed. The marriage penalty only comes into play when both spouses work and that wasn't the norm way back when it was designed. It's finally being corrected somewhat by the Bush tax cuts. Besides the income tax rates, they also get breaks on inheritance taxes. Employers are also allowed to discriminate against single people by giving benefits to married people that single people don't get including health insurance and life insurance to their roommates.

It's very rude of you to claim that I think a marriage without children is less valid when I've clearly said I don't believe that. Are you calling my a liar like Cool and Ginger? How would you like it if I say I think you think children are meaningless and not part of marriage? I could gleam that from what you said if I wanted to be as rude.

Just because you interpret my statement that marriage is about children to say that a childless marriage is not valid doesn't make it so, especially when I've explicitly said that isn't what I mean. Candance understood what I meant and she can't have children. She understood even before I explained further based on the bogus claims.
The institution of marriage is there to set up the best circumstances for raising children and the point at which married people decide for or against having children is irrelevant. If it isn't about children then there is no reason for the discrimination against single people.

Dee, not entirely true.

August 20, 2008 - 17:23 ET by bassndude

Dee, not entirely true. Depends on ones income, or it used to. I filed taxes one year and it would have been less had my wife and I divorced and both claimed single head of household. I quit checking after that. It was only a few years back.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

Right Bass

August 20, 2008 - 17:34 ET by Dee Bunk

That is why I said if one spouse doesn't work. The marriage penalty is something Republicans have been trying to eliminate. It was never intended to be a penalty and only became noticeable after it became the norm for both spouses to work.

You sure like telling me

August 20, 2008 - 17:51 ET by RESTLESS 1

You sure like telling me when I'm wrong, but you are ideed wrong. Most married people would pay less taxes if they filed separately. I know many who do, many with children, who still file separately in order to get a bigger refund due to less taxes owed.

"The institution of marriage is there to set up the best circumstances
for raising children and the point at which married people decide for
or against having children is irrelevant."

Where do you get this from? Who do you think "set up marriage"? Govenment as late has set up some tax incentives for people with kids to get married. It was not the other way around. However, govt. has no standing to validated marriage, as far as I am concerned. They have usurped that power through fees and licenses. Only God, or one with His power vested in him, such as a Priest, can sanctify, or validate a marriage. All others are not marriages, homo or hetero, according to Gospel.

Oh, and I am not saying that you believe marriages without children are not valid. I am saying that you shoud recognize that that is how your comment came across, instead of trying to rationalize it away.

"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008

Wrong again Restless

August 20, 2008 - 22:48 ET by Dee Bunk

First - You completely ignored what I said about one spouse not working. When one person doesn't work there is no way for them to pay more being married than if the two were unmarried.
Second - I have stated that there is a difference in purpose for religions and marriage and the government and marriage. You have ignored that also. If you think government shouldn't be involved at all - fine but the fact is they are.
Third - I'm not rationalizing anything. I'm telling you what I believe and why I believe it. You don't get to misinterpret it and when I explain how you don't understand what I'm saying tell me that I'm rationalizing. That is rude.
That's what liberals do to conservatives with their bogus claims of racism and homophobia. As I said, I could easily use your same logic to tell you that you come across thinking children are not important in a marriage.

"Marriage is about

August 20, 2008 - 22:55 ET by RESTLESS 1

"Marriage is about children."

Hard to misinterpret that.

I know, I know. I'm wrong again.

"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008

R1

August 20, 2008 - 23:01 ET by

marriage is about:

just what she says it's about

"You can not support the Troops if you do not support their Mission"

Yeah, well, I don't seem to

August 20, 2008 - 23:08 ET by RESTLESS 1

Yeah, well, I don't seem to be making any progress here, so I'll return to my troll busting. :)

"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008

That's right

August 20, 2008 - 23:14 ET by Cool Arrow

And don't you forget it.

Make it so #1

Mr. Data, to the bridge.

I ♣ my seal

Bruce

August 20, 2008 - 23:15 ET by shawn228

I am not taking anyones side and I'm just watching as a spectator and not a participant, but huh? Maybe I will understand your cryptic sayings, the day I understand women :-)

Real life video games are cool

poor shawn

August 20, 2008 - 23:17 ET by candance

This one is not so cryptic. He's simply making a joke that any marriage is defined by whatever the wife has to say about it.

oic

August 20, 2008 - 23:22 ET by shawn228

I get it now. Just like how my wife and I get into religious arguments all the time. She thinks she's God and I don't :-)

Real life video games are cool

Shawn

August 20, 2008 - 23:27 ET by Cool Arrow

Welcome to the Cabaret.

I ♣ my seal

Restless, I never argued

August 20, 2008 - 17:02 ET by TheGingerman

Restless, I never argued that they should receive the same tax breaks. In fact, I never even mentioned anything about taxes. I simply stated that Dee was wrong b/c marriage is not necessarily ONLY about children.

Cure homosexuals? A remedy? Not sure how you'd do that outside of genetic modification, but then you're opening the whole eugenics thing which is a bit too Nazi for my tastes. Engineering a master race is a tough sell.

Gays don't need any help. They are just fine the way they are. People ARE studying homosexuals and guess what? The more sophisticated our technology becomes and the more comprehensive our understanding of the human brain/genetics becomes the more we see that being gay is biological. Why would we have to cure something natural?

Furthermore, what does it matter to you if some guy wants to sleep with another guy? All this bedroom legislation is a bit much for me.

This is one issue we'll most likely just have to agree to disagree.

People are born with

August 20, 2008 - 17:56 ET by RESTLESS 1

People are born with physical and psychological abnormalities all of the time. Doesn't make it optimum.

I am not preaching eugenics. I am saying stop with calling anyone who disagrees with what is a lifestyle a homophobe and let's have some real discussion. If we could find a way to stop children from being born with autism, or something like that, shouldn't we do it? Why is it different with gays. Some don't want to be gay. Why have you no compassion for them?

"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008

Restless, I never argued

August 20, 2008 - 17:02 ET by TheGingerman

Furthermore, what does it matter to you if some guy wants to sleep with another guy? All this bedroom legislation is a bit much for me.

This is one issue we'll most likely just have to agree to disagree.

okay ginger

August 19, 2008 - 20:14 ET by candance

I'm backing off this because I don't see much good coming out of this. Like you I read a lot that I don't reply to and knew exactly what Dee said. I know where Dee is coming from.

You're free to talk about infetility if you wish, but your sarcastic comments about Dee dumping on barren women and joking about fertility tests annoyed me. Dee doesn't look down on barren women just because she feels strongly about marriage.

It's possible to have the best intentions but say it in an insenstive way, and that's what happened.

Carry on.

PS - Dee I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone! When did you and I become friends? :-) (joke)

You're right Candance. Dee

August 19, 2008 - 20:18 ET by TheGingerman

You're right Candance.

Dee arguing that gays can't get married simply b/c the ONLY purpose of marriage is to have children is not disparaging to married couples who don't have children at all. I apologize to all of my friends who aren't able to have children or choose to not have children. I in no way intendend to defend them from blatant ignorance and self-centrism.

I apologize for supporting married couples who love each other and live happily without children.

I don't know what got into me.

I advise you to reread the thread and reconsider your posts to me.

in any case, according to

August 19, 2008 - 20:28 ET by TruthMonger

in any case, according to the Bible - creation of children is not the only purpose served by marriage - but probably the primary purpose

Journalism is the opium of the liberals

Gingerman

August 19, 2008 - 20:31 ET by Cool Arrow

I've read through the thread. And Dee is right.

Marriage is about Children.

You'll notice there's a period at the end of that statement?

Just trying to help everybody get along.

I ♣ my seal

Cool - what does the period

August 19, 2008 - 20:43 ET by TheGingerman

Cool - what does the period have to do with anything?

Clearly marriage is not only about Children. Dee is wrong, that is fact, getting along is not more important than pointing out her misguided stance.

Marriage is not only about children and anyone who argues otherwise is doing so to validate their own personal opinions.

Plenty of Americans don't have children but STILL have rewarding and significant marriages.

Period

August 19, 2008 - 20:50 ET by Cool Arrow

A Period indicates "end of statement". As in "that's all".

Sheesh!

I ♣ my seal

Right Cool - Marriage is

August 19, 2008 - 20:53 ET by TheGingerman

Right Cool - Marriage is only about children PERIOD means what?

Marriage is only about children. What are you arguing?

It's not an argument gingerman

August 19, 2008 - 20:57 ET by Cool Arrow

It has been spoken. Thus shall it be.

Can't we all just get along?

I ♣ my seal

who's on first?

August 19, 2008 - 21:11 ET by TruthMonger

who's on first?

Watt

August 19, 2008 - 21:15 ET by Cool Arrow

W att;s on Second

I ♣ my seal

Ginger - I have no idea what Cools position is

August 19, 2008 - 21:09 ET by Dee Bunk

he's probably trying to antagonize me not you but it's not working for him because I don't care.

He's sarcastic and mean and hard to figure out so I don't try anymore. If you are arguing with me, he's sure to be on your side in my estimation. So just tell him he has a good point and he'll be happy with you.

Thanks Dee

August 19, 2008 - 21:15 ET by Cool Arrow

All I did was agree with your absolute statement which completely annuls the meaning of elderly people getting married.

We know what they're really after, don't we?

See? I can get along.

I ♣ my seal

No I don't agree

August 19, 2008 - 21:19 ET by Dee Bunk

I'm completely fine with elderly people getting married.

Really?

August 20, 2008 - 03:58 ET by Cool Arrow

You said "Marriage is about children"

You're resetting goalposts right and left to cover an indefensible absolute to which you are only now adding caveats.

Your defense against Gay Marriage is "Marriage is all about the children"? Then defend it that way, but don't be surprised if people shoot holes in the logic.

I ♣ my seal

Hi Dee.... ginger knows

August 19, 2008 - 21:19 ET by bigtimer

Hi Dee....

ginger knows full what the deal is with each poster and their past with each other...he is intentionally using this...just wanted you to know.

He is an old troll that comes in and out now and then...don't know if you remember his tactics ect.

I saw CA' s remark, I understand your response, just wanted you to beware of ginger-pooh.

I'm outta' of this thread...

I think.

"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh

I got that too BT

August 19, 2008 - 21:21 ET by candance

He tried his darnedest to get me to go after Dee which made me think he was trying to start some drama.

Thanks Candance

August 19, 2008 - 21:27 ET by Dee Bunk

these liberals and their apologists love to try and turn everything into homophobia and racism just because they are too dense to understand another point of view. Their simple minds can only think in black and white.

Thanks BT - I'm not familiar with Ginger

August 19, 2008 - 21:22 ET by Dee Bunk

he seems to be someone who makes a lot of bogus assumptions about people - that's for sure.

Dee.... Well, if you get

August 19, 2008 - 21:29 ET by bigtimer

Dee....

Well, if you get to any other threads you will see what I mean...

When he brought back all the memories of who he was for me was on the Roseanne Thread...he's everywhere since though, most likely was some bit earlier too...

Just wanted you to beware.

candance...glad you caught it too if you didn't get a chance to catch other posts between us earlier.

He did his best to get you and Dee to go at it here.

"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh

Dee - Don't kid yourself.

August 19, 2008 - 21:29 ET by TheGingerman

Dee - Don't kid yourself. I made no bogus assumptions. I took YOUR OWN words at face value.

Did you not say Marriage is only about children? I'm pretty sure you did, since I copied and pasted your exact words.

Pretending you didn't say something doesn't mean you didn't say it.

How absurd. Have some accountability for your posts. You said it, so either defend your stance that the only purpose of marriage is to have children or apologize for your insensitive comments.

Those are your options. You and Ms. Timer can high five all you want, but it will never change what you said.

It appears nothing gets through to Ginger

August 19, 2008 - 21:37 ET by Dee Bunk

he can't understand there is a difference between government benefits for marriage and religious marriage and that just because an institution is set up to be conducive to having children doesn't mean one has to have children. He only sees black and white. To him being against gay marriage means hating Gay people - Pure ignorance.

ginger,

August 19, 2008 - 22:37 ET by RESTLESS 1

Look dude, Cool is agreeing with you. Ya stooooppppiiiddddd or watt?

"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008

Restless - If Ginger or Cooly baby were interested in more

August 19, 2008 - 22:51 ET by Dee Bunk

detail - they could read this previous thread where it was discussed in detail

Gay marriage, Civil Unions and Gay Adoption - What is best for Children?

It looks like Cool has already read it but didn't have much to add other than some divisive jabs at other posters. I imagine that he didn't speak out against my opinion at that time because his buddy Trach agreed with me on the issue. He's pretty immature that way. He likes to start trouble just to start trouble and he'll side with any old troll to do it.

It's very transparent.

Dee,

August 19, 2008 - 23:05 ET by RESTLESS 1

My post was about ginger's inability to discern what Cool was trying to convey. I was trying to help him out, not get involved in any petty squabbles between you and Cool Arrow. I ain't in it.

"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008

Wrong Dee

August 19, 2008 - 23:10 ET by Cool Arrow

The heading of that thread that applied to children was "What is best for Children?"

Agreeing that Mommy and daddy should be married to each other is a far cry from your statement that "Marriage is all about children".

Again, by defining the purpose of marriage so specifically, you bring into question all the other reasons people get married.

Love comes to mind as a pretty good reason to marry also.

You just don't want to backpedal from something you wrote that you now realize was wrong.

I ♣ my seal

Wrong Cooly baby

August 19, 2008 - 23:24 ET by Dee Bunk

I thouroughly explained that I was talking about government involvement. In Christianity it is also about Children but that is another issue that I'm not discussing.

If what you are saying is true and it's not about Children then there is no reason in the world for Gay marriage to be disallowed and no reason to have any limits on the number of wives or husbands and no reason for the government to be involved in it at all.

I've said it many times on here that Marriage is about Children. That is a far cry from saying that people who get married must have children. Marriage sets up the ideal situation so that when and if people do have children (which is natural if they have sex whether they set out to have children or not ) then the best environment is established. It's not that hard to understand unless you don't want to. I know you don't want to. I'm done.

Yes it is about Children and family

August 19, 2008 - 20:59 ET by Dee Bunk

If it's not then there is absolutely no reason for government to be involved in it.

How crazy that you equate setting up an ideal family situation as some how shunning people who end up not having kids. How does it do that? I've never heard any married people say they were discriminated against for not having kids. There is no reason to give family benefits to people who don't want to have kids. If a couple chooses not to have kids then there is no reason that they both can't work and neither should have to take care of the other. If one chooses not to work and lets the other take care of them then there is nothing wrong with it but it's not something the rest of us should be paying for. Those people get to take advantage and there is no way to stop it, but there is no reason for them to get special benefits.

Raising kids takes sacrifices and is important and that's why their are tax breaks and other benefits for married people.

I'll disagree

August 19, 2008 - 21:06 ET by Cool Arrow

Which tax breaks do not exist for married couples? Doesn't an unmarried (shacking up) couple pay less in taxes?

And the deductions to which you refer are for "dependents" which applies to both married and unmarried people.

I ♣ my seal

I don't feel like explaining it to you

August 19, 2008 - 21:16 ET by Dee Bunk

it's complicated and I'm fine with you disagreeing. I could care less. When someone is really interested in what I mean, I'll explain it to them as best I can. What the actual tax laws do is secondary anyway - it's what they should do and they do encourage a single working household where one person works less or not at all to take care of the kids.

Riiight Dee

August 19, 2008 - 21:23 ET by Cool Arrow

What the actual tax laws do is secondary anyway.

So much fun when you move the goalpost.

But why do you say you care that I disagree? I thought the reverse was true?

I ♣ my seal

you have been dissed now

August 19, 2008 - 21:40 ET by TruthMonger

you have been dissed

now go to your room

Journalism is the opium of the liberals

Thanks, Truthie

August 19, 2008 - 22:06 ET by Cool Arrow

I'm now familiar with the term's new meaning.

It's like Obama's wanting to "dis" Iraq. Some call it "cut and run".

I get it.

I ♣ my seal

Not fair candance

August 19, 2008 - 22:21 ET by Cool Arrow

gingerman used the example to show Dee the absolute of "Marriage is all about the children" is much too broad to be defensible.

When I got married, for example, my immediate desire was certainly not "all about the children". If it had been, we could've had them right away.

gingerman's point is valid. Marriage is not all about the children.

When a broad statement is made as an absolute, it is only natural to ask; "Really? well what about this, or that?"

I ♣ my seal

Wrong - If men and women couldn't procreate together

August 19, 2008 - 23:03 ET by Dee Bunk

then their would be no reason for society to have marriage between one man and one woman. In fact, it would make more sense to have polyigamy if anything.

You and Ginger are unable to distinguish between religous marriage and government involvement in it. There is no reason for a secular government to get involved in marriage other than to help with raising children.

It's funny how you think this is too broad now and find it so natural to ask "Really?" when you didn't the last time it was discussed.

Gay Marriage, Civil Unions and Gay adoption - What's Best for the Children

There you go again

August 19, 2008 - 23:34 ET by Cool Arrow

If men and women couldn't procreate together
then (sic) their would be no reason for society to have marriage between one man and one woman.

Once again you lift an insult to those married couples who cannot, or do not have children.

And there would be no reason? Don't think for a minute the rest of the world is above jealousy in the same way you may be.

And I do not concede "What's best for the children?" is ideologically synonymous with "Marriage is all about children".

I submit you don't think the two are the same either, but now you're all dug in. Now you're pointing to a different goalpost altogether in a whole 'nother thread.

Might want to retreat and regroup Dee, since all you've got got going for you is "Cooly baby"

Ooooh, that smarts, Dee. Please quit calling me "Cooly baby".

I ♣ my seal

When you stop being a baby I will

August 19, 2008 - 23:45 ET by Dee Bunk

It's not an insult and you know it. Setting up the best family structure isn't an insult to people who don't end up having the family. Please explain why there should be only one man and one woman marriage if there were never going to be any children in the world without using any religion. Why should the government get involved at all in that case? What reason would there be to give tax breaks? Why would they need each other's insurance if they both worked and had their own? If one decides not to work, why should a struggling single person have to pay for them to stay home and shop? What if a person wants to get married to get these benefits but no one will marry them? Is that fair? Isn't that an insult to single people? What if a person never wants to get married and wants to remain celibate? Aren't you insulting them by giving special rights to the married ones?

How about

August 20, 2008 - 00:04 ET by Cool Arrow

People demand contractual obligations with their commitments?

And if there weren't going to be any kids in the first place, your hypothetical ended at least 7000 years ago. What's your point? we're not here because we never existed?

And without a legal binding agreement, you're right. Whoever's got the gold is going to make the rules. Why would one partner stay at home anyway if there weren't kids.

Of course you can paint an entirely different picture if people aren't physically and emotionally attracted to each other. Is this part of your equation? The original observation, as you might recall was "It is not good for man to be alone" "Be fruitful and multiply" came along later.

What does celibacy have to do with anything? Do you honestly believe unmarried singles should live with a different set of rights? If so, why?

I ♣ my seal

well cool

August 19, 2008 - 23:15 ET by candance

I wasn't trying to get involved in the actual debate. I just took offense to Ginger's flippant post where he joked about fertility testing. People don't appreciate that kind of stuff about sensitive subjects.

Understood candance

August 19, 2008 - 23:32 ET by Cool Arrow

I read it differently. As a challenge to a stated absolute taken to its extreme.

I ♣ my seal

ginger you just don't

August 19, 2008 - 19:40 ET by TruthMonger

ginger you just don't understand the love behind our efforts

and the lack of love behind your ambivilence

Journalism is the opium of the liberals

I have no animosity against Gay people - where do you get that?

August 19, 2008 - 20:49 ET by Dee Bunk

That is extremely rude to assume that people who don't want Gay marriage hate Gay people or wish them any harm. I didn't say they couldn't be good parents or better than foster parents or that they shouldn't be allowed to adopt. Barren women can adopt or not have children. I SAID - ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, a mother and father were the best family unit. You are so stuck in your brainwashed idea that conservatives hate Gay people. Most conservatives don't and many liberals do.

If government is going to get involved in Marriage then it should encourage the ideal based on what is best for Children. Just because a kid can be okay doesn't mean it's what you want to encourage. Some cocaine babies turn out fine and single parent kids turn out fine too. That doesn't mean they don't deserve to have a mother and father when ever possible.

There is absolutely no reason to give Gay Couples preferential treatment over other live in arrangements (like Mother/Daughter/Grandaughter among many others). Civil Unions are the appropriate venue for non traditional families and they shouldn't discriminate against opposite sex couples or platonic couples.

you know dee

August 19, 2008 - 19:27 ET by candance

Libs tend to get annoyed at the "slippery slope" argument yet they're never able to explain exactly why.

What business *is* it of theirs if three women want to marry the same man?

If a 17 year old is happy with an older man, how does it affect them?

If a man wants to marry his sister, how is that any of ginger's business?

If marriage is truly something that only exists "in the bedroom" then why are libs picking and choosing what types of marriage to permit?

right on the

August 19, 2008 - 19:42 ET by TruthMonger

right on the money

Journalism is the opium of the liberals

Candance - the slippery

August 19, 2008 - 19:43 ET by TheGingerman

Candance - the slippery slope argument is juvenile.

1) Didn't NB argue that the Texas authorities were wrong for busting up those polygamist creeps? You're out of lockstep on this one. In fact, bigtimer was a huge proponent of those people.

2) I don't care if a 17 year old wants to marry an older man - you're telling me that a 16 year old is responsible enough to drive a 5 ton car with which they could cause serious damage, but not responsible enough to decide who they love? That is absurd

3) A man can't marry his sister b/c inbreeding causes serious genetic issues. This was a joke right?

4) Marriage isn't something that only exists in the bedroom, but IT IS something that only impacts those directly involved. Two gay guys getting married in California has LITERALLY zero impact on your existence.

serious

August 19, 2008 - 20:24 ET by TruthMonger

serious genetic issues? what do you care - it "doesn't affect you"

now you see where I'm coming from on gay marriage?

it also causes serious genetic issues, as well as serious emotional and spiritual issues

Journalism is the opium of the liberals

Really flash. What makes

August 19, 2008 - 14:24 ET by bassndude

Really flash. What makes you think on one on this site has a gay child? That was rather a presumptive question, and asinine to boot.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

what would flash do if he

August 19, 2008 - 14:29 ET by TruthMonger

what would flash do if he had an evangelical anti-gay son? hmmmm....

i have a 3 year old son, and i have thought about this question, and i will do what i do with all people who occasionally practice homosexual acts - love them dearly the way Jesus does

Journalism is the opium of the liberals

Well then answer the

August 19, 2008 - 14:36 ET by

Well then answer the charge. As a theoretical matter you would diminish the happiness of gay people and couples; but if it's your own child then you'll support and love them.

Why is your hypothetical gay child's happiness more important than everyone else's?

The hypothetical gay child

August 19, 2008 - 14:43 ET by bassndude

The hypothetical gay child is not so hypothetical, moron. And even he is against gay marriage. As am I. We do not hate him, but he knows very well we do not approve of his actions. And when he comes home, he is welcome. But we do not condone his way of life.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

gay people are

August 19, 2008 - 14:54 ET by TruthMonger

gay people are miserable

liberals support this

i oppose this

Journalism is the opium of the liberals

Truth, misery goes with the

August 19, 2008 - 15:25 ET by bassndude

Truth, misery goes with the gay lifestyle. There is alway something wrong with them, always sick, always depressed. They are all taking anti depressants. All of them I know anyway. And that is more than just a few of em.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

you got it bass - just like

August 19, 2008 - 15:31 ET by TruthMonger

you got it bass - just like any perverse lifestyle - drug addiction, porn, prostitution - sad, sad people

and for further repugnance - the DNC simply uses these mentally and emotionally ill people as just another a political wedge - useful idiots - as are pretty much all of their main constituent groups

Journalism is the opium of the liberals

my brother was gay..

August 19, 2008 - 15:41 ET by upcountrywater

All depressed and smoking 2-3 packs a day..

Him and all his friends that i met (10 men), are DEAD, all from AIDS. My poor mom, soo depressing. He passed away years ago.

Liberals62%

IranianUranium

damn, and here we are

August 19, 2008 - 15:54 ET by TruthMonger

damn, and here we are getting in the way of all their happiness:(

Journalism is the opium of the liberals

What do you tell him if he

August 19, 2008 - 14:59 ET by

What do you tell him if he asks to bring his partner home? I mean you know that it would be o.k. if his adult sister did the same thing.

Do you go to his wedding? This is the happiest day of his life and he's invited everyone he loves to share it with him. Do you show up? Or do you stick to your ideological guns at the expense of the tightest bond on the earth -- the bond between a child and parent.

Do you humiliate your son and his partner by skipping the wedding just to score political points?

So much for family values. (Before you say it, families aren't about sexuality, they're about the immutable bond between a child and his parents.) Do you hate "gay marriage" so much that you'd be willing to sacrifice your own son?

oy vay

August 19, 2008 - 15:04 ET by TruthMonger

oy vay

That's not really any kind

August 19, 2008 - 15:12 ET by

That's not really any kind of response.

Do you oppose gay marriage so much that you'd be willing to become estranged - forever - from your own child if he married another man?

That's not "oy vay," it's a serious question.

If you're willing to stand up and defend your own convictions at the expense of the happiness of your own children then I'll bow out.

I couldn't go to a

August 19, 2008 - 15:22 ET by TruthMonger

I couldn't go to a "wedding" that isn't really a wedding

they could come and visit, but I would not recognize them as a couple or married or even gay - no "is gay" but rather simply perform gay sex acts occasionally...

I'm all about love, dude - what's best for people - opposition would be the best for his happiness - the gay lifestyle is miserably unhappy and empty

your turn

Journalism is the opium of the liberals

BUT You -- as a heterosexual

August 19, 2008 - 15:32 ET by

BUT You -- as a heterosexual -- wouldn't know that. AND you couldn't possibly argue that point having no personal experience. Why not let your son be the judge of his own happiness?

no one knows anything -

August 19, 2008 - 15:37 ET by TruthMonger

no one knows anything - it's all just belief - and as a Christian I believe the way to true happiness for all people is by way of Jesus

I can let him try things, stumble and fall occasionally, God has given him free will, and so I should emulate God's attitude likewise on those who stray

the inevitable repercussions will happen naturally by God's design

Journalism is the opium of the liberals

flash, were you born this

August 19, 2008 - 15:25 ET by bassndude

flash, were you born this stupid, or do you have to work at it?

You answer that question, I will answer the rest of yours.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

Come on Flash, answer my

August 19, 2008 - 15:26 ET by bassndude

Come on Flash, answer my question. I have my reply on yours already done. Just waiting for you to answer one little question.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

Nothing I said was

August 19, 2008 - 15:28 ET by

Nothing I said was necessarily "stupid." It was, however, compassionate. I look at my own children and imagine what I would want for them, even if they're homosexual.

I just want them to be the happiest they can be. I'd bet that if push came to shove in your own life, you'd do exactly the same.

I'm not willing to go on the internet and lie about my personal feelings to promote the political ambitions of people I've never met and who couldn't care less about me or you -- let alone the personal happiness of our children.

Not an answer to the

August 19, 2008 - 15:37 ET by bassndude

Not an answer to the question, so I will assume that you dont have to work at it. You assume alot, I may as well.

To answer you:

1) No and no.

2) No. I would not go. And besides, he is against gay marriage. Man cannot marry man nor woman, woman. Its a God thing so the very premise of "gay" marriage is moronic. Besides gay marriage is a sham and illegal here, in this state. So, so much for that.

We love our son, just as much as the other 2 boys and 3 girls and all 15 grandkids. Have not cut him out of the will nor have we disowned him. He is still, after all, our son. But we do not support or condone nor do we enable his life style.

After all one must stand on ones own beliefs. With out the courage to stand ones ground on their beliefs simply bespeaks of weakness in ones own self. I stand my ground, and I dont back up or reevaluate because it is convenient.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

fk - you're wasting your

August 19, 2008 - 17:28 ET by TheGingerman

fk - you're wasting your time. For some reason these people care what others do regardless of the impact it might have on their lives.

It's absolutely baffling. I can't imagine wasting one second of my time being angry over something that has zero impact on my life, such as gay marriage.

What a waste of mental energy.

Since I was a child my mother's sister has been with the same woman. 8 years ago they adopted a beautiful, smart baby girl from China (my goddaughter) and in that time they have given her an amazing life, in fact, they've saved her life. She's intelligent, well-rounded, socially active, and just like any other 10 year old girl. Good parenting is good parenting.

It's amazing to me that someone would argue that it was wrong for them to get married and start a family given the alternative. Considering the terrible job most straight parents do raising their children, I'm more than willing to let the gays get married and give the whole family thing a shot.

Who cares? Gay people getting married has zero impact on your life. Get over yourselves.

it most certainly does have

August 19, 2008 - 18:56 ET by TruthMonger

it most certainly does have an impact - as does everything everyone does

and what we Christians do is all about love - we care about these lambs who stray - we want them found again - you apparently are happy to see them led to the slaughter

you need to get some spiritual literacy going

you're quite mis-informed

Journalism is the opium of the liberals

I'm curious Monger. How

August 19, 2008 - 19:00 ET by TheGingerman

I'm curious Monger. How would some gays you don't even know getting married make a difference in your life?

Your concern is precious, but grown adults don't need your condescending attitude.

Are you a conservative? If so, how do you reconcile the need to control others that stems from your zealotry with the core principles of conservatism?

"Gay people getting

August 19, 2008 - 20:31 ET by shawn228

"Gay people getting married has zero impact on your life."

I would not say I am for or against marriage, but I disagree that gay people getting married has zero impact on somebody's life. I believe it could turn the already confusing medical system upside down, by who you can insure under your plan.

Real life video games are cool

shawn

August 19, 2008 - 20:42 ET by Cool Arrow

The company I work for already recognizes partnerships for insurance purposes. I don't have a problem with it yet. But if they ever try to fire smokers, or refuse to insure them because of their risky lifestyle. . . then it's pots and kettles time.

I ♣ my seal

ginger, it's the butterfly

August 19, 2008 - 20:36 ET by TruthMonger

ginger, it's the butterfly effect

and i take it your condescending attitude is just fine?

I'm a conservative fundie, and i reconcile my attempts to control most likely the same way you do - democratically

Journalism is the opium of the liberals

you're right ginger

August 19, 2008 - 19:04 ET by candance

It is a wasted argument because we will never see eye to eye.

You say it doesn't affect me. I say it does. In many ways. But whatever - you think I'm stupid and brain addled so it doesn't matter.

Just know that you're not the only person on NB with a lesbian aunt. But some of us don't go off on sermons about our personal experiences.

Have a nice day.

flash you need to learn

August 19, 2008 - 14:57 ET by TruthMonger

flash you need to learn what true love is

it's not blind approval of "if-it-feels-good-then-do-it"

read "the art of love" by eric fromme

Journalism is the opium of the liberals

fk...this blog post was

August 19, 2008 - 14:35 ET by bigtimer

fk...

this blog post was about the obvious bias in the msm with what they decide is controversial to all of us out here in the real world and what isn't.

Gay marriage is controversial to a lot of people in this country fk.

Just as much for some on the left who have a problem with a teacher carrying to protect kids from nutcases in this country.

...see the difference?

I for one am getting sick and tired of the constant cramming down out throats by the talking heads on what is important to me...and what isn't.

The talking heads are nothing but leftists filled with propaganda for their leftist views, arm in arm with the leftist party... they intentionally attempt, bit by bit to make us out here think is acceptable.

"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh

Dick Cheney did it?

August 19, 2008 - 14:38 ET by Karma

Not that I care what he thinks, but does he love his child and embrace homosexuality? Where did you learn this?

Loving my children is as easy as it is natural. Embracing that which makes them happy has nothing to do with love. In fact, it could border on child endangerment in cases.

a few quick points

August 19, 2008 - 14:43 ET by candance

1) I have no children, but do have many family and friends who are gay. In fact almost every conservie I know has a gay person somewhere in their lives. Lay off the kool aid.

2) It's possible to respect someone you disagree with, which is what most conservies are quite capable of doing. I treat gay people exactly the same as anyone else. We're not a bunch of 5 year olds who can't handle differences.

Convenient that you choose

August 19, 2008 - 14:59 ET by MassConserv

Convenient that you choose to profess your admiration of Dick Cheney in this instance. But, I mean, this is Dick Cheney we're talking about here! Such a public admission!

Aren't you afraid to have your Lib Card revoked?

THE reason they do not call

August 19, 2008 - 14:19 ET by ForeverOnTheRight

THE reason they do not call gay 'marriage' controversial is simply because they do not have controversy with it so therefore it is not controversial. Ignoring the fact that conservatives and the religious right do have controversy with it.

Now if Portia had given

August 19, 2008 - 14:57 ET by zhombre

Now if Portia had given Ellen a set of matching silver M1911A1 pistols for a wedding gift, one monogrammed P the other monogrammed E, that would have been controversial and really effing cool too.

As far as teachers having

August 19, 2008 - 15:31 ET by oldArmy

As far as teachers having weapons in school.....I don't see a problem with a few chosen teachers per school having access to a properly secured weapon. With proper training and keeping which teachers have access completely secret from general knowledge. No problems here at all.

My issue with gay marriage is the simple fact as to how it becomes legal in the first place. NOT by the will of the people.....but by judges that disregard the will of the people. Mass. mase the vote non-existant for years after a judge made it ok...to the best of my knowledge still hasn't seen the light of day on a ballot during a general election. Which I personally find appalling. Democrats say things like "Every vote should count" until the results are in and it doesn't reflect their views and then they move it to the courts....have a judge change the law...and then have their state government take it off the radar.

THATS what I find Controversial about gay marriage. I do believe every state where this issue has faced an up/down vote....it goes down in smoke. I find that interesting....

Let me guess, CBS made no

August 19, 2008 - 15:06 ET by deerjerkydave

Let me guess, CBS made no mention of the controversial circumstances in which gay marriage became "legal" in California. Over 60% of Californian's voted to block civil gay marriages eight years ago. The California Supreme Court with the help of San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom overturned the will of the people by one vote earlier this year. This is forcing a constitutional amendment to be voted on by Californians this fall to prevent the courts from making moral decisions for the public.

Whaaaa?

August 19, 2008 - 17:01 ET by SickofLibs

"They met years and years before that when Portia de Rossi was still doing Alli Mcbeal."

Mrs. Degeneres was also doing Alli Mcbeal when they met? What a trollup!

Trollup? Liberals call it Ethical Slut!

August 19, 2008 - 20:30 ET by Edward

Polygamy Vs. Ethical Slut

Flip Flop Rers Among Us, James K. Olson

California's Legal Secret Marriage Racket

Bigamists Among Us, Olson

Now you call it madness (but I call it love)

Burgos Case Mirrors Mcmartin Trial

Cheaters Among Us, Olson

Prosecutor Lori Frugoli Makes California History

http://sf.broowaha.com/article.php?id=3870, http://reno.broowaha.com/article.php?id=3630,

http://sf.broowaha.com/article.php?id=1873,

http://reno.broowaha.com/article.php?id=3481,

http://reno.broowaha.com/article.php?id=3687,

http://sf.broowaha.com/article.php?id=2900,

http://reno.broowaha.com/article.php?id=3690,

http://reno.broowaha.com/article.php?id=3334, http://reno.broowaha.com/article.php?id=3749

Normalizing Sin

August 19, 2008 - 17:35 ET by AtTheWaterCooler

I have linked to this post from ... http://www.jeremiahf... ... Mainstream Media - Normalizing Sin

More liberal nonsense

August 19, 2008 - 20:32 ET by Edward

Gun Controllers Among Us, Marin County California Courts, http://reno.broowaha.com/article.php?id=3749. Most liberal Marin County Ca has repeatedly thumbed their nose at the US Constitution, then imposed their illegal actions onto a Nevada citizen. What's next?

Ms. Timer, I love where you

August 19, 2008 - 21:38 ET by TheGingerman

Ms. Timer, I love where you claim I was trying to split Dee and Candance.

Truly hilarious. Dee said Marriage is only about Children. She created the wedge with Candance, not me.

I went against Dee, which means I supported Candance.

Dee is wrong. No amount of your support will change that. She claimed marriages without children are not fulfilling the sole purpose of marriage.

The fact that you are defending her and trying to make me the villian while I was supporting Candance shows that you have no interest in legitimate discussion. That's a shame.

I said nothing of the sort Ginger

August 19, 2008 - 21:49 ET by Dee Bunk

and Candance and I had no disagreement. I did not say that people who don't have children aren't fulfilling their marriage. That's a separate religious issue of which I haven't commented on. I've said that the only reason for Government to be involved in giving special rights to married people is to encourage a stable environment to raise children.

You have no interest in discussion - only telling people if they don't agree with Gay marriage they must hate Gay people. How idiotic. I have relatives and friends who are Gay.

W hy do you hate single mothers? Why can't they get married to their Mom or dad so that they can get insurance benefits for themselves and their babies? Why do you hate people who are celibate? Why should they be discriminated against? Why do you hate sisters who want to live with their sister for ever and never get married? Why do you hate everyone but Gay people? What a hater.