On Tuesday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Maggie Rodriguez interviewed ‘Star Trek’ actor George Takei and his partner Brad Altman about their wedding following California legalizing gay marriage and asked: "George, how was the wedding? Was it everything you dreamed of?" At the end of the segment, Takei declared: "And may sweet equality live long and prosper," making the Star Trek Vulcan hand sign. Rodriguez showed her solidarity, making the hand sign back and replying: "Let me do it. Same to you." [audio excerpt here]
During the segment, Rodriguez asked about the California ballot initiative designed to overturn the state supreme court’s decision to legalize gay marriage: "But there's this proposition on the November ballot, which you're very familiar with, Proposition 8, that may allow California voters to essentially nullify your marriage if they vote for it. George, talk about what that would mean for your marriage and for you emotionally." Takei replied by denouncing the ballot initiative, yet praising democracy:
Well, first of all, we're not going to let it get there, we're going to fight it tooth and nail. Because it's against the basic fundamental ideals of democracy. You know, we're a pluralistic society and there are many, many faiths and beliefs here. Now we respect everybody's faiths, their right to their beliefs. But there's no right for any one faith group to write those -- their own particular beliefs into civil law that applies to everyone. That's not democracy. That's not the way it works in the American way. And we are going to make sure that democracy prevails here.
Rodriguez followed up: " So does that mean that you're going to try to keep it from ever getting on the ballot or you're going to make sure it doesn't pass?" Takei explained: "Oh, no. It is on the ballot." Rodriguez then asked: "That you cannot change?...So what you're going to do -- So how will you fight it? Will you start a petition or something?"
Altman later added: "I'm optimistic that Proposition 8's going to be defeated on November 4th on the California ballot." Takei then warned of potential unfair opposition:
However, you know, I warn everybody that we must not be confident. We've got to fight and run scared, because we don't know what kind of last-minute campaign they're going to throw at us. That's the way it happens in elections, and so we've got to be prepared. We're vigorously raising funds. We asked our guests for no gifts, but contributions to the HRC Wedding Registry and also to the Japanese American National Museum where we got married. It's -- and we got married in the democracy forum. We -- very consciously we chose that venue because we wanted our union to be in the forum of democracy.
Here is the full transcript of the segment:
8:30AM TEASER:
MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: Also coming up, 'Star Trek's' Mr. Sulu, George Takei got married, he married his long-time partner in California and this morning they're going to join us for an exclusive interview.
DAVE PRICE: That is very cool.
8:40AM SEGMENT:
MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: As we learned over the weekend, George Takei, Mr. Sulu from 'Star Trek,' married his longtime partner Brad Altman. They join us exclusively this morning from Los Angeles. Gentlemen, good morning and congratulations.
BRAD ALTMAN: Thank you very much.
GEORGE TAKEI: Good morning.
RODRIGUEZ: George, how was the wedding? Was it everything you dreamed of?
TAKEI: It was exquisite. It was magical. It's something we're going to remember for the rest our lives.
RODRIGUEZ: Brad, you've been married two whole days now. So how's married life?
ALTMAN: It's great but we've been busy sending out thank you e-mails to all of the musicians and singers and entertainers that helped make our wedding the best day of our lives.
TAKEI: He is obsessed with details.
RODRIGUEZ: A lot of people there or-
ALTMAN: About 200 people. It was a packed house.
RODRIGUEZ: Oh wow, big, big wedding. So let me ask you, George, what does this change legally?
TAKEI: It has made us equal to everybody and that makes a world of difference. We feel just fantastic.
RODRIGUEZ: Give me some examples, Brad, of how it has made you equal in the eyes of the law.
ALTMAN: Well, it's like any -- we're a long-term, well-established couple, we've been together more than 21 years and now in California we have marriage equality. Marriage is a fundamental right for all Californians and I'm legal and George is my husband and it makes a world of difference.
RODRIGUEZ: But there's this proposition on the November ballot, which you're very familiar with, Proposition 8, that may allow California voters to essentially nullify your marriage if they vote for it. George, talk about what that would mean for your marriage and for you emotionally.
TAKEI: Well, first of all, we're not going to let it get there, we're going to fight it tooth and nail. Because it's against the basic fundamental ideals of democracy. You know, we're a pluralistic society and there are many, many faiths and beliefs here. Now we respect everybody's faiths, their right to their beliefs. But there's no right for any one faith group to write those -- their own particular beliefs into civil law that applies to everyone. That's not democracy. That's not the way it works in the American way. And we are going to make sure that democracy prevails here.
RODRIGUEZ: So does that mean that you're going to try to keep it from ever getting on the ballot or you're going to make sure it doesn't pass?
TAKEI: Oh, no. It is on the ballot.
RODRIGUEZ: That you cannot change?
TAKEI: That we cannot.
RODRIGUEZ: So what you're going to do -- So how will you fight it? Will you start a petition or something?
TAKEI: Oh, well, no. We're -- it's on the ballot and it is going to be -- there is going to be a campaign. I think basically, the majority of Californians are fair, decent-minded people, and they will recognize the beauty of our marriage, the truth of our marriage, and they will not take it away from us.
ALTMAN: I'm optimistic that Proposition 8's going to be defeated on November 4th on the California ballot.
RODRIGUEZ: But-
TAKEI: However, you know, I warn everybody that we must not be confident. We've got to fight and run scared, because we don't know what kind of last-minute campaign they're going to throw at us. That's the way it happens in elections, and so we've got to be prepared. We're vigorously raising funds. We asked our guests for no gifts, but contributions to the HRC Wedding Registry and also to the Japanese American National Museum where we got married. It's -- and we got married in the democracy forum. We -- very consciously we chose that venue because we wanted our union to be in the forum of democracy.
RODRIGUEZ: Alright. George Takei and Brad Altman, thanks for joining us again this morning.
TAKEI: Thank you. And may sweet equality live long and prosper.
[RODRIGUEZ AND TAKEI EXCHANGE STAR TREK VULCAN HAND SIGN]
RODRIGUEZ: Let me do it. Same to you.
—Kyle Drennen is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.
Comments Policy
What exactly is the problem
September 16, 2008 - 16:21 ET by JasonCWhat exactly is the problem here? Your phrasing - "Takei replied by denouncing the ballot initiative, yet praising democracy" (my emphasis) seems to suggest that these two stances are at odds one another. But it's quite clear from his quoted remarks, as well as those of his husband, that they are able to articulate coherent, reasonable, and obviously personal reasons for being opposed to the initiative. All I can think of is that you're reading this as them saying that the initiative has no right to be there in the first place. I do not see that happening anywhere here. They, like anyone else, have every ethical and political right to organize and rally against the passing of a law that they feel is wrong, particularly one that flagrantly discriminates against them.
So again, I ask, is the crux of this article that you think Takei and Altman are being hypocritical (a stance which I will emphatically contest) or that Rodriguez seems to sympathize with their position (in which case, I have to ask "Who cares?" since these morning shows are about human interest topics and do not require objectivity from the hosts)?
"They seem to believe that high moral indignation offsets and indeed outweighs all deficiencies of punctuation, grammar, spelling, logic, and style. In support of this notion there's only the entire culture." -R.R.
who cares...? we care -
September 16, 2008 - 16:32 ET by TruthMongerwho cares...?
we care - it's liberal bias - and promotion of sexual perversion as well...
looking for sexual equality George? Get your ped friends onstage with you...
Journalism is the opium of the liberals
Ooh, Truthie, run your
September 16, 2008 - 17:41 ET by JasonCOoh, Truthie, run your "gays are morally equivalent with pedophiles" argument by me again. I could use a good laugh.
"They seem to believe that high moral indignation offsets and indeed outweighs all deficiencies of punctuation, grammar, spelling, logic, and style. In support of this notion there's only the entire culture." -R.R.
excellent counter
September 16, 2008 - 19:03 ET by TruthMongerexcellent counter argument:)!
very pursuasive
Journalism is the opium of the liberals
Do you really want me to
September 16, 2008 - 19:06 ET by JasonCDo you really want me to just counter-argue what you've written here? That's like giving Roger Federer a lob to mid-service court...
Articulate your position and I'll tell you why, as a person who supports homosexual rights, I do NOT feel compelled to support pedophiles.
Oh Sarah P... http://www.theonion....
ok, Jason - sex is
September 16, 2008 - 19:15 ET by TruthMongerok, Jason - sex is designed only for married people
sex outside of marriage is fornication - sinful
only men and women can marry
peds are about fornication, among other sinful things
gays are about fornication, among other sinful things
sinfully equal
now bedazzle me - i am ready
Journalism is the opium of the liberals
ok, Jason - sex is
September 17, 2008 - 07:00 ET by JasonCok, Jason - sex is designed only for married people
Designed? By who? Wait, nevermind. So are married people allowed to have any pleasure from it?
sex outside of marriage is fornication - sinful
OK
only men and women can marry
Haha, not true in Massachusetts. Marriage is as much a legal as religious institution. If your statement is based on Christianity, you would have to say that non-Christian marriages are invalid. Must suck to live in a pluralistic society, huh?
peds are about fornication, among other sinful things
gays are about fornication, among other sinful things
sinfully equal
Aha. So you equivocate pedophilia and homosexuality because they both constitute fornication, ie they are not recognized and sanctioned by your particular strain of belief.
There are a few glaring problems with this.
First, I do not see you railing against unwed heterosexual activity. Where were you to condemn Bristol Palin's moral failure, for instance? Yet, every time a homosexual topic comes up, you're there to chime in with your "homos = peds :) lololol" garbage. So why is it so different.
Second, it's rather disturbing that you condemn pedophilia according to what it is not, ie it is not godly marriage. So it's not relevant to you that pedophilia involves non-consent or at least coerced consent; that is, that it is usually (from a legal standpoint, always) rape. Or that it irreparably damages the child. Or that it involves legitimate psychiactric dysfunction on the part of the aggressor. Your problem with it is that it's "fornication". And your particularly warped sense of moral relativity, that simply because it can be stamped with the "fornication" label, and so can homosexuality - even when it takes place between two private, consenting citizens - the two are therefore equal, is lazy and hysterical and I would think that any conservative with an ounce of integrity and intellectual honesty, even if he or she is also opposed to gay marriage, would tell you you're flat-out wrong for constantly advancing that theory.
Oh Sarah P... http://www.theonion....
JasonC, Being that it is
September 17, 2008 - 08:21 ET by KarmaJasonC,
Being that it is a legal instituion, what beneficial purpose does marriage serve in society? Wouldn't it be wonderful to see a long line of unemployed divorce lawyers at the soup kitchen? Could this be accomplished by not recognizing any "marriage"? Think of the simplicity in every couple, or triple, or... using "current partner(s)" on legal forms and such.
As far as the Bristol Palin/homosexuality equivalence, would you propose we teach both as natural and acceptable occurences to students in K-12?
Benefits of marriage vary,
September 17, 2008 - 08:51 ET by JasonCBenefits of marriage vary, of course. There are legal benefits, there are those who feel it is the only way to be in a sexual relationship that is not sinful, and there are those who simply want the opportunity to declare their monogamous relationship in public. Still others have simply been conditioned by society to feel incomplete or inadequate if they are not married.
Of course, there is also reproduction, but technically marriage is not required whatsoever for that. It is generally agreed, however, that at least one of the three aforementioned benefits should be in place before children are born.
So, to answer your question, because the purpose of marriage is far-reaching and inexact, there is no simple way to justify its disrecognition. And since its purposes extend into the very heart of how the social order operates, I only see discrimination in disallowing gay couples to wed.
Concerning Bristol Palin, I don't understand your point here. My point to TM was simply that the way that he always jumps on gay issues as moral failings, despite the fact that he regards all forms of fornication as equally bad, exposes the obvious nature of his attitude toward homosexuality. Under his definition (which I think is ludicrous, by the way, I'm merely playing Devil's Advocate): Bristol = Child Rapist = Participant in a consensual gay relationship. Yet, despite this professed belief of moral equivalency, TM enthusiastically bashes homosexuals but is weirdly mum on more run of the mill, less "icky" incarnations of fornication. I'm not understanding your question about sex ed, especially since it encompasses K all the way through 12. But I don't think homosexuality has to be taught as explicitly natural and acceptable nor as an abomination. I think it should be explained in a completely straightforward manner, maybe starting in 6th grade, that homosexuals do exist in the world, and that it's not right to discriminate against them. That would really be it. Kids don't turn gay from learning about the existence of homosexuality.
Thanks for your post.
Oh Sarah P... http://www.theonion....
You seem to be arguing for
September 17, 2008 - 10:38 ET by KarmaYou seem to be arguing for legal status for gay marriage. So let's leave religion and feelings out of it. So, in a secular society, what is the benefit of marriage, in the legal sense?
If you, personaly, only see discrimination in not allowing gay couples to wed, would it not be possible for others, personaly, to see discrimination in not allowing multipl-partner or other forms of non-traditional marriage? Is it not generally agreed that marriage is between one man and one woman? Why is that?
My point with Bristol Palin is this. You appeared to equate the circumstances of her pregnancy with homosexuality in regards that there should be equal condemnation. One is being pushed to be acceptable and condoned while the other is not. Is it possible that there are those of us who do not condemn the individuals in either of these issues, but prefer neither be condoned or taught as acceptable?
You say there are those who simply want to declare their monogomous relationship in public. What is stopping them? Why do they need marriage? On the other hand, couldn't there be those who simply want to declare their form of non-traditional relationships in public also? Why would a secular society want to stop them from marriage?
You seem to be arguing for
September 17, 2008 - 13:48 ET by JasonCYou seem to be arguing for legal status for gay marriage. So let's leave religion and feelings out of it. So, in a secular society, what is the benefit of marriage, in the legal sense?
Tax benefits and enforced monogamy.
If you, personaly, only see discrimination in not allowing gay couples to wed, would it not be possible for others, personaly, to see discrimination in not allowing multipl-partner or other forms of non-traditional marriage? Is it not generally agreed that marriage is between one man and one woman? Why is that?
Gay people have proven themselves to be productive and responsible citizens, and not simply part of the culture of degeneracy with which they have long been stereotypically associated. There are tens of thousands of domestically-inclined gay couples in America. Yes, they could publicly express their monogamous commitment without it being called marriage. But the very fact that they are denied the recognition that any straight person can have, often many times over, is a slap in the face. Like it or not, marriage, not civil unions or other euphemistic arrangements, is the accepted way by which people in our social order make romantic commitments. I propose that we allow gay marriage as a big step toward transcending our history of ostracization and violence against homosexuals, and also because it would cost us nothing, monetarily or otherwise, to do so. I think that anyone who feels that it would cheapen or demean their heterosexual marriage is a fool who ought to examine his own relationship if it is so easily threatened.
Why other forms of non-traditional marriage do not fall into this category:
Multiple Partners: By definition, this would preclude monogamy, which is the foundation of marriage in our society.
Adults marrying Children: We have perfectly legitimate laws protecting children from the sexual advances of adults, and they preclude any discussion of a pedophile's "rights". That is why TM's ad nauseum argument is ridiculous.
People marrying animals: Animals cannot give consent or understand what they are entering into. Besides which, the number of people who would actually do this is negligible.
Incestuous Marriage: Society has a legitimate interest in preventing inbreeding. Aside from that, frankly, I don't really have a problem with it, if that's how people really want to swing.
My point with Bristol Palin is this. You appeared to equate the circumstances of her pregnancy with homosexuality in regards that there should be equal condemnation. One is being pushed to be acceptable and condoned while the other is not. Is it possible that there are those of us who do not condemn the individuals in either of these issues, but prefer neither be condoned or taught as acceptable?
You misunderstand my remarks about Bristol Palin. I do not condemn her either (although I take serious issue with the way she is being turned into an ideological tool for her mother's horrendous political platform, but that's obviously a debate for a different board). My comment was that, according to his very own model, TM ought to be condemning Bristol Palin. And I'm sure he would make some off-hand remark about teen pregnancy being sinful, but he surely has not lept to condemn that behavior and compare it to pedophilia every chance he's gotten.
Homosexuality is acceptable and should be condoned, because there is no stopping it. It is not a choice (even if acting upon it sexually is), it does not affect other people in any quantifiable way, and its morality is at best debatable. Teenage pregnancy, on the other hand, is based solely on one's actions. It is not merely the product of heterosexuality. It can be reduced with education about the obvious negative sides of getting pregnant so young, or contraceptives, or even, in some cases, abstinence-only education. Homosexuality is not an action in and of itself any more than being straight is. The question is, when a handful of kids in any given school admit to themselves that they're gay, what sort of environment do you want them to be in? Or to come out to? One in which they must feel ashamed and afraid of homophobnic reprisal, or one in which they can deal with it constructively?
You say there are those who simply want to declare their monogomous relationship in public. What is stopping them? Why do they need marriage? On the other hand, couldn't there be those who simply want to declare their form of non-traditional relationships in public also? Why would a secular society want to stop them from marriage?
I think I answered this above.
Oh Sarah P... http://www.theonion....
Tax benefits and enforced
September 17, 2008 - 15:41 ET by KarmaTax benefits and enforced monogamy.
Why give tax benefits just to married people? I'm sure everyone enjoys tax benefits. Why enforce monogamy? Who gets to make the rules?
Like it or not, marriage, not civil unions or other
euphemistic arrangements, is the accepted way by which people in our
social order make romantic commitments.
Like it or not, one man and one woman is the accepted definition of marriage in our social order.
Multiple Partners: By definition, this would preclude monogamy, which is the foundation of marriage in our society.
I believe a majority would say "one man and one woman" is the foundation of marriage in our society. Monogamy in and of itself is not.
Incestuous Marriage: Society has a legitimate interest in preventing
inbreeding. Aside from that, frankly, I don't really have a problem
with it, if that's how people really want to swing.
What is society's legitimate interest in preventing inbreeding? Wouldn't this have been impossible to avoid to get where we are today if Darwinism is correct? Since the number wanting to do this would be miniscule, what harm would it cause?
You misunderstand my remarks about Bristol Palin. I do not condemn her
either (although I take serious issue with the way she is being turned
into an ideological tool for her mother's horrendous political
platform, but that's obviously a debate for a different board).
I'm glad you don't condemn her. Parallel thoughts with yours, I take serious issue with gay-marriage being turned into an ideological tool for the Democrat's horrendous political platform. Different ideologies, different values, but you're right, it's a debate for another board.
Homosexuality is acceptable and should be condoned, because there is no
stopping it. It is not a choice (even if acting upon it sexually is),
it does not affect other people in any quantifiable way, and its
morality is at best debatable. Teenage pregnancy, on the other
hand, is based solely on one's actions. It is not merely the product
of heterosexuality. It can be reduced with education about the obvious
negative sides of getting pregnant so young, or contraceptives, or
even, in some cases, abstinence-only education.
With this line of thought you seem to infer homosexuality would be the prefered method of sexual release, at least for the "young", for the simple reason that no unplanned pregnancy can occur. Snarkiness aside, it sounds like a win-win strategy for the Democrat platform.
I didn't think either of our positions would change here, and I think I'm correct. It's interesting though; to try to see how others think. Other than calling some on this side of the debate "fools" for thinking as they do, you've been civil.
JasonC
September 16, 2008 - 16:39 ET by MrShyWhether the legal statutes of "marriage" should be revised to include the union of two men and two women -- no longer representing one man and one woman -- is not about discrimination.
Read the post below... I think that says it to a tee.
EDIT: I also agree with TM, above. To many -- and I mean many -- homosexual sex is a perversion. Liberals/PC types hate to hear that, and equate it with some form of hate-type discrimination. It's NOT.
NOW PLAYING:
Governor Palin Get Your Gun
hear hear - it's a health
September 16, 2008 - 16:48 ET by TruthMongerhear hear - it's a health issue actually - spiritual, emotional, and physical health - a rapidly spreading social virus right now- globally infecting us all
Journalism is the opium of the liberals
Do you have any facts to
September 16, 2008 - 17:08 ET by JesseJacksonIVDo you have any facts to back up that analysis of homosexuality?
why yes, and thank-you for
September 16, 2008 - 17:29 ET by TruthMongerwhy yes, and thank-you for asking:)!
here's a good one...
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1302
Journalism is the opium of the liberals
The Bible isn't really fact
September 16, 2008 - 17:38 ET by JesseJacksonIVThe Bible isn't really fact you know.
how is the Bible not fact,
September 16, 2008 - 18:39 ET by TruthMongerhow is the Bible not fact, i ask you?
do you have any facts to back this up..?!
Journalism is the opium of the liberals
i win again someone
September 16, 2008 - 18:43 ET by TruthMongeri win again
someone please gimme a challenge here:(
Journalism is the opium of the liberals
Well, if you're going to be
September 16, 2008 - 18:51 ET by JasonCWell, if you're going to be cocky, I must point out that the burden of truth is on YOU. For you, it is a matter of faith. If you have proof beyond that, we'd all be happy to see it. I could show you a piece of paper on which was written:
Dear Humans,
Homosexuality is OK.
-God
...but it woud be up to me to prove that it's "fact", not up to you to prove that it is not.
Parenthetically, that might be the most absurd reductio ad absurdum argument I've ever attempted on this site.
And besides which, the bible is, with all due respect, irrelevant to this conversation anyhow.
Oh Sarah P... http://www.theonion....
nope - the burden is on you
September 16, 2008 - 18:58 ET by TruthMongernope - the burden is on you to demonstrate that homosex is ok - as it goes against thousands of years of morality - starting with the Bible
its as relevant to me as your pro-homo faith is to you
Journalism is the opium of the liberals
There is no burden. They
September 16, 2008 - 19:03 ET by JasonCThere is no burden. They do what they want to do (sleep with the same gender). I do what I want to do (sleep with the opposite gender). What they do doesn't hurt me or anyone else who chooses not to be involved in it. And if they want to consecrate their commitment to monogamy, they should be able to. Just like any individual choice that Americans pride themselves on being accorded the right to make by virtue of a certain foundational document.
Simple as that.
Oh Sarah P... http://www.theonion....
this is not
September 16, 2008 - 19:26 ET by TruthMongerthis is your morality
mine is different
Journalism is the opium of the liberals
Jason C, Actually, it is
September 16, 2008 - 22:34 ET by LiberalliesJason C,
Actually, it is a matter of faith on your part, if this is what you believe, that the Bible is not real.
You have zero proof to show that the Bible is not true, right?
Your argument can be used against you.
Again, the burden of proof
September 17, 2008 - 09:11 ET by JasonCAgain, the burden of proof is on you. You can't just link me to random passages that decry homosexuality and say case closed. That is not argument. If you're going to say that one book's perspective is the end-all-be-all of a cultural (not theological) discussion, it is absolutely up to you to demonstrate that that text's arguments are not only worth listening to but worth considering the only think worth listening to. People who quote the Bible on this site very rarely articulate such things. They cut and paste a link and thing that they've argued something. But they have not. Again, take my ridiculous 'piece of paper' example to TM. It would be obscene to demand that he 'prove' it's not real rather than for me to prove it is. The problem is that those who use the Bible to justify any and all social issues tend to have only their faith in it to go on. And that's fine. I'm not interested in talking people out of their faith. What I will not sit back and accept without a fight, however, is those who inflict that faith upon the culture at large when they can't even reasonably argue for it. Or when those people veil their anxiety concerning homosexuality in absolute nonsense like "homosexuality is as bad as pedophilia because they're both perversions. It is irresponsible, unintellectual, and lazy. Unfortunately, it is also TM's stock and trade, so I've been compelled to argue against it over the last 15 hours. But telling me I have to 'disprove' the veracity of Christian philosophy in order to have this conversation is beyond absurd.
Oh Sarah P... http://www.theonion....
JasonC, No, no, you are
September 17, 2008 - 11:43 ET by LiberalliesJasonC,
No, no, you are the one making the accusation. You are putting the charge forth that the Bible is not real. The law works that those that make the accusation are the ones that need to prove their case, NOT the other way around.
You are charging Christians of using a false book to claim that homosexuality is wrong. You need to prove that the Bible is a false book.
The problem is, JasonC, that you believe that Christians are brainwashed by the Bible, right? and many Christians will tell you that you have been brainwashed by secular humanism and the materalistic, hedonistic world we live in.
You argue that it is discriminatory and not intellectually based to be against gay marriage. why? prove your case. You are too emotionally involved in this. Honestly, use logic, pure logic to argue your case. Remove the charge of discrimination, stop saying that those that oppose gay marriage are not intellects.
Furthermore, going beyond the Bible, you need to prove your case that homosexuality is good and beneficial for a community, for society.
One more thing about the Bible. It doesn't jive with your ridiculous piece of paper example, why? Because we Christians know that God is the author of the Bible. That piece of paper was but a mere man that wrote it.
However, I agree that in a secular society where we live today, you have to argue both the human side AND the spiritual side of things.
Furthermore, you need to do the same, your ridiculous piece of paper is EXACTLY what law makers in MAss. and California have done. they have grabbed a piece of paper, slapped on it that homosexual marriages are ok and shoved it down the throat of their citizens.
Question, why is that piece of paper worth more to you than the pieces of paper in the Bible?
I more or less addressed
September 17, 2008 - 13:51 ET by JasonCI more or less addressed the remarks in my reply to you below. Pressed for time, jsut decided to combine them. But let me reiterate here that I do not see Christians as brainwashed. Especially since I am one. I simply think they must step outside of using nothing but the Bible as a point of argument if they wish for those arguments to be taken seriously. It's the same reason why Intelligent Design will never be taken seriously so long as it continues to be associated with creationism and Evangelical zeal.
Gotta run...
Oh Sarah P... http://www.theonion....
Much of the bible is
September 16, 2008 - 18:45 ET by JasonCMuch of the bible is historical fact. And even if, for the sake of argument, I was to say that all of it is, that doesn't change the fact that what we take from it, the thematic content, is mutable and open to interpretation. That's why there are so many factions and denominations, yes? As any 1st-year English major could tell you, the plot is usually inarguable but the theme, the morality (if you will) to be taken from it, is always up for grabs.
Oh Sarah P... http://www.theonion....
sez you:) now for the
September 16, 2008 - 18:48 ET by TruthMongersez you:)
now for the rest of humanity...
Journalism is the opium of the liberals
So you're asked for "facts"
September 16, 2008 - 17:52 ET by JasonCSo you're asked for "facts" regarding a wildly exaggerated characterization of homosexuality and you give one and only one - a Bible passage. The fact that that display of hubris is followed by your particular signature line portends an irony at once weighty, unintentionally humorous, and sad.
"They seem to believe that high moral indignation offsets and indeed outweighs all deficiencies of punctuation, grammar, spelling, logic, and style. In support of this notion there's only the entire culture." -R.R.
how is the Bible not fact,
September 16, 2008 - 18:38 ET by TruthMongerhow is the Bible not fact, i ask you?
do you have any facts to back this up..?!
Journalism is the opium of the liberals
i win again someone
September 16, 2008 - 18:43 ET by TruthMongeri win again
someone please gimme a challenge here:(
Journalism is the opium of the liberals
See above, specifically my
September 16, 2008 - 18:53 ET by JasonCSee above, specifically my response to the identical post(s) you made to the one other poster on this thread who's not willing to consider gay people perverts.
Oh Sarah P... http://www.theonion....
JJ4 , Heres some from pink
September 16, 2008 - 17:32 ET by upcountrywaternews
The research found that in Denmark, where gay marriage was legal
between 1990 and 2002, married heterosexual men died at an average age
of 74.
The 561 married gay men died at an average age of 51.
It claims that engaging in "homosexual behaviour" reduces life span by up to 24 years.
Most gays i know SMOKE too. add this to that
In contrast, the lifespan of a smoker is only 7 years shorter than that of a non-smoker.
I know you do not want to hear that!
CLIMATE CRISIS
IranianUranium
Since when are "claims" the
September 16, 2008 - 17:45 ET by JesseJacksonIVSince when are "claims" the same things as facts?
JJ 4 Data dude that's what you wanted, and you can't stand it.
September 16, 2008 - 18:10 ET by upcountrywaterTypical jj "claims" whaaaaaat???
data
New Study Finds Early Death in Gay 'Marriages'
Because the study relied on long-term data instead of a one-time survey, it did not have a sampling margin of error.
CLIMATE CRISIS
IranianUranium
This is what you
September 16, 2008 - 18:26 ET by JesseJacksonIVThis is what you wrote:
It claims that engaging in "homosexual behaviour" reduces life span by up to 24 years.
Claims are not really facts.
Wow! One Danish study
September 16, 2008 - 17:57 ET by JasonCWow! One Danish study confirms all your pre-conceived prejudices! I'm convinced! By the way, what does this iron-clad information have to do with gay marriage, exactly? I mean, since homosexual behavior is the independent variable. And since when do conservatives support laws to protect people from possibly-detrimental behavior that affects only that individual? I guess you support banning trans fats too?
"They seem to believe that high moral indignation offsets and indeed outweighs all deficiencies of punctuation, grammar, spelling, logic, and style. In support of this notion there's only the entire culture." -R.R.
ignore these - the Bible is
September 16, 2008 - 18:42 ET by TruthMongerignore these - the Bible is way more factual than scientific medicine - hasn't changed in 2000 years..
Journalism is the opium of the liberals
The Bible can be
September 16, 2008 - 19:06 ET by JesseJacksonIVThe Bible can be interpreted many different ways, depending on what church you belong to.
And what does the Bible have to do with Gay marriage laws? Nothing.
the Bible is the foundation
September 16, 2008 - 19:11 ET by TruthMongerthe Bible is the foundation of our legal system
and it sez marriage is between a man and a women only
as is healthy sex
Journalism is the opium of the liberals
TM, Modern Science is on this Earth is Because of Christanity!
September 16, 2008 - 19:08 ET by upcountrywaterA wonderful book by Dinesh O'Souza "What's so great About Christianity"
Taking as my foil the anti-religious arguments of prominent atheists
like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and the others,
this book will show the following—1) Christianity is the main
foundation of Western civilization, the root of our most cherished
values. 2) The latest discoveries of modern science support the
Christian claim that there is a divine being who created the universe.
3) Darwin's theory of evolution, far from undermining the evidence for
supernatural design, actually strengthens it. 4) There is nothing in
science that makes miracles impossible. 5) It is reasonable to have
faith. 6) Atheism, not religion, is responsible for the mass murders
of history. 7) Atheism is often motivated not by reason but by a kind
of cowardly moral escapism. I end this book by showing what is unique
about Christianity and how our lives change if we become Christians.
This is not a time for Christians to turn the other cheek. Rather, it
is a time to drive the money-changers out of the temple. The atheists
no longer want to be tolerated. They want to monopolize the public
square and to expel Christians from it. They want political questions
like abortion to be divorced from religious and moral claims. They
want to control the school curricula, so that they can promote a
secular ideology and undermine Christianity. They want to discredit
the factual claims of religion, and they want to convince the rest of
society that Christianity is not only mistaken but also evil. They
blame religion for the crimes of history and for the ongoing conflicts
in the world today. In short, they want to make religion—and
especially the Christian religion—disappear from the face of the earth.
Hay TM like your tagline. :-)
CLIMATE CRISIS
IranianUranium
true dat science is an
September 16, 2008 - 19:10 ET by TruthMongertrue dat
science is an extension of the Bible - as are all studies and texts throughout history
Journalism is the opium of the liberals
JC, Trans-fats occur in nature, that make as much sense as
September 16, 2008 - 18:50 ET by upcountrywaterbanning Chlorine an element. still won't stop your buddies at greenpeace, tring to do just that.
We all have a responsibility to be environmental stewards. But that
stewardship requires that science, not political agendas, drive our
public policy.
My heart broken mother, and I lived THROUGH the "gay" lie, JasonC
My brother DIED at 34, all of his "close" friends are DEAD too .
If he got" married" maybe he could of lived to the ripe old age of 52..
One SOLID study is better than a Million opinions.
CLIMATE CRISIS
IranianUranium
But some jurisdictions are
September 16, 2008 - 19:00 ET by JasonCBut some jurisdictions are trying to ban trans fats because, although they constitute an individual choice, they are bad for you. Most conservatives and Civil Libertarians are pissed about it. Did you not know this?
Why is dying early from "being gay" (and by the way, homosexuality isn't what kills, it has more to do with a particular virus that happens to be more pervasive in the gay community) any different?
Oh Sarah P... http://www.theonion....
Yea JC 19 to 1, OR , 33 TO 1 sounds like craps to me.
September 16, 2008 - 19:45 ET by upcountrywaterBut iN' up with a very small germ
Globally, men who engage in homosexual sex are 19 times more likely to
contract HIV than the rest of the population, according to data
released at the International AIDS Conference.
Adding hydrogen to oil, ain't natural,
however it's all the same to the FDA
CLIMATE CRISIS
IranianUranium
OK, so this is your
September 17, 2008 - 06:47 ET by JasonCOK, so this is your argument against homosexuality? Against the "gay lie" whatever that means?
The stupefyingly obvious problem is that sexuality and desire are not pragmatic entities. If you (and this is assuming that you're a heterosexual male) found out tomorrow that heterosexual intercourse had, let's say a 40% risk of transmitting a deadly virus, and that homosexual intercourse was comparatively less risky, would you decide, "Well, guess I'd better be gay, just to be on the safe side"? Of course not! Because you can't flip a switch. What you are arguing against here is promiscuity, not homosexuality qua homosexuality. All we can change is our behavior. Sexuality itself is pretty much hardwired once you're about 5 years old.
Oh Sarah P... http://www.theonion....
Just say No to sex outside of marriage JasonC
September 17, 2008 - 13:00 ET by upcountrywaterHas nothing to do with being straight or gay..
CLIMATE CRISIS
IranianUranium
Gay marriage
September 16, 2008 - 22:54 ET by merlin61Dear Jason: In the beginning,God created man,
Adam. God saw that Adam needed a partner and
he created woman, Eve. God created them to
procreate and populate the earth. If he wanted
to promote homosexuality, he would have created
man and man, or woman and woman. Amen
Your logic is
September 17, 2008 - 06:42 ET by JasonCYour logic is stunning.
Oh Sarah P... http://www.theonion....
Mr. Shy, Excellent
September 16, 2008 - 17:29 ET by LiberalliesMr. Shy,
Excellent point, Pro-gay Liberals are always claiming that being against gay marriage is some how discrimination.
The problem with the pro-gay agenda is that it is opening up the doors to polygamists, incestual relationships, etc....
this is such a slippery slope thing. You can't claim discrimination regarding gay "marriages" and then oppose polygamy, incestual relationships, etc.
and don't come in here talking about that it is consensual, in many States and Countries the consensual age for sex is 12 years old. Don't tell me that a 12 year old can consent to this.
How can you compare
September 16, 2008 - 18:23 ET by JesseJacksonIVHow can you compare something between two consenting adults to polygamy and incest?
A man and a woman can marry, but that doesn't mean a man can marry two women. If the law says a man can marry a man, it wouldn't mean he can marry two men.
12 year olds shouldn't be able consent ot gay or staright sex.
I really don't get the problem with gay marriage, why does it bother people so much? What gay men, gay women, straight men and women do in their own homes is no ones elses business.
If you think homosexualtiy is perversion, than so is hetero sex really, since we all do many of the same things.
I'm gonna make one quick
September 16, 2008 - 18:26 ET by Clear thinkerI'm gonna make one quick comment, and then I'm out of this thread forever...
You are one sick dude!
Let’s Gore Al Gore
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
If you think homosexualtiy
September 16, 2008 - 18:35 ET by JasonCIf you think homosexualtiy is perversion, than so is hetero sex really, since we all do many of the same things.
Well, there is one fundamental difference...
but seriously, I do not consider homosexuality to be perverted. The psychiatric establishment hasn't listed it as a paraphilia in the DSM in decades, and as far as I can tell the only people who have a problem with it are Bible-thumpers and people who feel that it somehow threatens their own staunch straightness, and I don't really see any reason to let either group influence the way I think.
Oh Sarah P... http://www.theonion....
dude, you can put lipstick
September 16, 2008 - 18:37 ET by TruthMongerdude, you can put lipstick on a pig if you want to and...
you must support beastiality, right?
ournalism is the opium of the liberals
Explain to me again why I
September 16, 2008 - 18:42 ET by JasonCExplain to me again why I should? If I'm going to take the time to obliterate your moronic yet ubiquitous "homosexuality = pedophilia/bestiality/incest" position, I want to at least be sure I have all of the pertinent supporting arguments.
Oh Sarah P... http://www.theonion....
...Jason, i know that you
September 16, 2008 - 18:47 ET by TruthMonger...Jason, i know that you declaring me a moron makes you feel better - but at the end of the day my irrefuted logic is still here - bummer dude
I've studied your kind of agnostic secular logic extensively, and I understand it - have you studied any kind of my Bible logic - at all...?
Journalism is the opium of the liberals
First of all, I don't see
September 16, 2008 - 18:58 ET by JasonCFirst of all, I don't see you giving an explanation. Tell me how they're equivalent. I'm waiting.
And second, basing your 'logic' on a single, highly-ideological, accepted-purely-on-faith text is actually the antithesis of logic.
Every time there's a discussion of homosexuality in society, you insist on ruining it by insisting upon the Bible; no matter what the sub-topic or the issues surrounding it, that's you answer. I wish you'd realize that it contributes nothing to the dialogue. You're against it because the Bible says you should be. Got it. After that, since it's all you have to say, why not let the people who are open to other perspectives have a discussion?
Oh Sarah P... http://www.theonion....