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."
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
I must agree with Michael
August 19, 2008 - 12:57 ET by pocomocoI 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 ForeverOnTheRightSadly, 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 NortonalecAlso, 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 allanfIsn'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 KillgraveWolfcastle: 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 iveseenitallPray for our nation.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
Yes, ivseenitall, pray for
August 19, 2008 - 13:12 ET by ForeverOnTheRightYes, 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 candanceThese 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 TheGingermanI 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 flashkingHave 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 Bunkhave 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 TheGingermanWhy 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 TruthMongerif 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 TheGingermanMonger 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 Bunkmarriage. 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 TheGingermanDee - 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 candanceAs 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 TheGingermanCandance - 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 candanceDee 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 TheGingermanCandance - 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 bigtimerIt 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 TheGingermanMs. 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 bigtimerIt 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 TheGingermanOh 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 bigtimerginger....
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 Bunkreligious 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 TheGingermanDee - 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 TheGingermanI 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 1I 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 BunkYou 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 Bunkif 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 bassndudeDee, 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 BunkThat 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 1You 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 BunkFirst - 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 botgmarriage 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 1Yeah, 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 ArrowAnd 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 shawn228I 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 candanceThis 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 shawn228I 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 ArrowWelcome to the Cabaret.
I ♣ my seal
Restless, I never argued
August 20, 2008 - 17:02 ET by TheGingermanRestless, 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 1People 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 TheGingermanRestless, 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.
okay ginger
August 19, 2008 - 20:14 ET by candanceI'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 TheGingermanYou'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 TruthMongerin 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 ArrowI'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 TheGingermanCool - 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 ArrowA 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 TheGingermanRight 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 ArrowIt 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 TruthMongerwho's on first?
Watt
August 19, 2008 - 21:15 ET by Cool ArrowW att;s on Second
I ♣ my seal
Ginger - I have no idea what Cools position is
August 19, 2008 - 21:09 ET by Dee Bunkhe'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 ArrowAll 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 BunkI'm completely fine with elderly people getting married.
Really?
August 20, 2008 - 03:58 ET by Cool ArrowYou 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 bigtimerHi 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 candanceHe 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 Bunkthese 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 Bunkhe 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 bigtimerDee....
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 TheGingermanDee - 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 Bunkhe 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 1Look 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 Bunkdetail - 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 1My 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 ArrowThe 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