What is Digg?Sponsored by Threadless
114 Comments
- LilJimmyNordin, on 04/19/2009, -6/+63The storm isn't gathering, it's here. It's raining *****, and that video is soaking wet.
- inactive, on 04/19/2009, -7/+60"Gathering Storm?" More Like Lingering Drizzle. Frank Rich exposes just how out of touch the anti-gay marriage opponents are in their latest attempt to sway publican opinion in their direction. And, boy did they fail.
- Anomaly100, on 04/19/2009, -4/+55I loved Stephen Corbert's video on this. He's outrageously funny. The original bigoted video/commercial is pathetic. The people in it are not real life folks speaking about how the gay marriage issue would truly effect them....unless it affects ACTORS!! The gay community is suffering from approx 1400 different right infringements. If a man dies, he can not leave his significant other, the apt they BOTH lived in if he's not on the lease, or it's rent controlled. He will be evicted. If they insurance, the same insurance affordable to everyone else, they won't get it. Not for the same price. It's for married couples. The list goes on and my point is this: None of these things would affect hetero couples, their children or their kids schools. On that note, pfft!
- Diefree, on 04/19/2009, -6/+55People are seeing anti gay rights people for what they are, anti civil rights bigots.
- C0ntraRadical, on 04/19/2009, -2/+21The Gathering Storm? We were warned about this years ago:
"It's Raining Men! Hallelujah! - It's Raining Men! Amen!
I'm gonna go out to run and let myself get
Absolutely soaking wet!
It's Raining Men! Hallelujah!
It's Raining Men! Every Specimen!
Tall, blonde, dark and lean
Rough and tough and strong and mean" - pintomp3, on 04/19/2009, -4/+22This comic says it best:
http://cedarlounge.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/gay ... - WhiteCloud, on 04/19/2009, -1/+18If you really want to see some spectacular rhetorical gymnastics, try asking a gay marriage bigot about interracial marriage.
- MrChunks, on 04/19/2009, -0/+16I'm a "gay marriage supporter" as you call it. I don't believe polygamy is right/for me but I wouldn't oppose it. It's not my place to oppose it. It doesn't affect me one iota.
- JoEBlack982, on 04/19/2009, -3/+19If you don't believe in same sex marriage, then don't marry somebody of the same sex. -Wanda Sykes
- bsmang, on 04/19/2009, -0/+15So as long as you see someone as deficient, then it's appropriate for society to be bigoted against them? That sounds nice and logical.
- SpeedyThing, on 04/19/2009, -2/+17Looks like the anti-gay marriage brigade are out in force here on Digg today - busily digging down any comments that mock them. Fortunately for us, as the article suggests, they are increasingly in the minority.
- HisNoodly, on 04/19/2009, -1/+16I disagree with your statement.
I don't try to outlaw it.
See the difference, there? - sarahlee, on 04/19/2009, -3/+17Maybe we owe them some thank, 'cause I think they must do it for our entertainment. Don't forget:
http://digg.com/politics/NOM_Launches_2M4M_Really - RanIntoTheDevil, on 04/19/2009, -0/+14Denying equal rights to a group of human beings who have a sexual orientation that is naturally different than yours is bigotry. Wanting to give that group equal rights can never be bigotry.
- MrChunks, on 04/19/2009, -0/+14We didn't find it, it found us. We were quite happily minding our own business. Pretty much like this group of wankers should be doing.
- sb66, on 04/19/2009, -4/+18At first I was against gay marriage; but then I quickly realized that truly supporting freedom meant not setting boundaries for others on issues that don't hurt anyone else.
- WhiteCloud, on 04/19/2009, -0/+14WTF does this even mean?
- RanIntoTheDevil, on 04/19/2009, -0/+14There is no reason for you to not like gay people. Even if a gay person killed your family, that is just one person out of many great, kind, and intelligent people in the gay community. You are a bigot.
- eir574, on 04/19/2009, -0/+13The issue is not whether people who oppose same sex marriage also oppose interracial marriage. It's the contortions they go through when they're reminded that they're making the very same arguments that people who were against interracial marriage made.
To take one example, opponents of same sex marriage frequently say that homosexuals have the same marriage rights as the rest of us: they can marry someone of the opposite gender. That exact argument was made against interracial marriage (everyone had the same rights as everyone else -- the right to marry someone of the same race). The fact that the law is being applied equally to everyone doesn't mean that everyone is being treated equally under the law.
Then there's the argument that it doesn't matter whether homosexuals deserve to marry one another because we could never, ever change the supposedly traditional definition of marriage. Once upon a time not so very long ago, people were convinced that the traditional definition of marriage included a stipulation that the spouses must be of the same race. They argued that this was fundamentally a part of the definition of marriage that could not be changed. - ironhide, on 04/19/2009, -1/+14I could care less about polygamy as long all all involved are consenting (and are of legal age to consent)
That pretty much knocks out most of the Utah crazies. - kotatsu, on 04/19/2009, -3/+16Utterly disgusting. These people are the scum of the planet, they should be shown up as the vile, repulsive, hateful figures they are.
- redcolumbine, on 04/19/2009, -5/+18FTA: "More startling still was the abrupt about-face of the Rev. Rick Warren, the hugely popular megachurch leader whose endorsement last year of Proposition 8, California’s same-sex marriage ban, had roiled his appearance at the Obama inaugural. Warren also dropped in on Larry King to declare that he had “never” been and “never will be” an “anti-gay-marriage activist.” This was an unmistakable slap at the National Organization for Marriage, which lavished far more money on Proposition 8 than even James Dobson’s Focus on the Family. "
- clvngodess, on 04/19/2009, -2/+15Oh yeah! Their naivete is really amusing. 2M4M and Rainbow Coalition. Makes me wonder if they even hired a p.r. team or advertising shills who are at least evil or wicked enough to do the homework regarding such things. Or maybe the agency folks are having fun at their expense. Hmm. (Gotta love them advertising jerks, they are evil!)
- SpeedyThing, on 04/19/2009, -1/+13Let me guess ignorance is bliss eh? If you don't know about it then it won't happen - right?
Why not teach your kids about gay sex? Give them the information and let them make their own informed decisions. Isn't that how people become responsible? - TheNik, on 04/19/2009, -1/+13It is exactly like prohibition, but just not a criminal offense. There have been a lot of things in history that were "never considered before," but that doesn't mean their change isn't important. I'm sure you're still reeling from the legalization of interracial marriage, huh?
- sugarazor, on 04/19/2009, -1/+13Here we go again:
Polygamy, in and of itself, is not really a problem. There's nothing illegal about a married man bringing other women into his home and having a relationship with each of them. So long as we're not dealing with the religious cult brand of polygamy that usually results in child rape, domestic abuse and/or human trafficking, what goes on in the bedrooms of consenting adults is their own business.
That said, there are legal issues with polygamy that do not affect monogamous marriage. If you think divorce is ugly now, imagine trying to settle it with two, three or twelve partners: property rights, child custody, alimony, it would be a nightmare for the courts to try to figure this out. Further, polygamy offers a much easier path to abuse the system through tax breaks, immigration, and welfare, so it's probably the safest bet that we continue to keep polygamy illegal as it amplifies the issues of monogamous marriage and raises a slew of new ones.
Got any other anti-gay marriage myths you'd like me to debunk? I can do all of them since there is no logical, legal argument against it. - sugarazor, on 04/19/2009, -0/+12I'm pretty sure the only thing that's deficient is you. Your little rant sounds like someone who's never met a gay person in their life or is completely lacking in any sort of human decency.
- clvngodess, on 04/19/2009, -7/+19What is they say about the Law of Attraction (if you're a christian, it's also from the prophecy of Isaiah as I've read) and all that stuff? Oh yeah, paraphrasing, that which you focus on, that which you put your energy towards is what you attract. So, with all the energy, effort, money, and legislation that these Stormy Rainbow Coalition folks are manifesting, it makes me wonder if they are gay, have a fetish about being gay, gay sex, or anything gay for that matter. Seriously. It's sick. They need to focus on their own families, spouses, sex lives, and such and leave the rest of us alone.
- eir574, on 04/19/2009, -0/+12" The status quo on this issue is fine by me."
Since the status quo is so important to you and we're all supposed to be happy with it no matter what, are you equally upset that people wanted to overturn the status quo to make interracial marriages legal? - ironhide, on 04/19/2009, -0/+11Find me a horse that can express consent and get back to me.
- graemee, on 04/19/2009, -4/+15The Bigots’ Last Hurrah is a tea party.
- eir574, on 04/19/2009, -0/+11"Whats wrong with discrimination its only a natural instinct we have because we are competing for resources and if gays get married they will get things like discounts on insurance "
Why don't you take that a step further and insist that only white people can marry? After all, it's exactly the same argument you're making. Restrict marriage so that you can benefit from the fact that fewer people are allowed to marry. If you're not white, go ahead and substitute whatever race you like. - Volfie99, on 04/19/2009, -2/+13Last?? Hardly. There will always be bigots, as long as there are humans on the planet.
- inactive, on 04/19/2009, -5/+16Generations in the future will look back at this and scoff.
- SpeedyThing, on 04/19/2009, -1/+12Yup - give people the facts, and the freedom to make their own decisions.
Personally I'm not gay. I am happily married to a lovely woman and will hopefully have kids in the future.
I hope they too will be given all the facts and the freedom to make their own choice - whatever makes them happy. - sugarazor, on 04/19/2009, -0/+10In English, please. I don't speak Miss South Carolina... do the gay people have maps?
- inactive, on 04/19/2009, -0/+10You don't understand basic civics, do you, randy? Judges are unelected for a reason.
- LonelyTylenoL, on 04/19/2009, -3/+13Hurrah.
- ironhide, on 04/19/2009, -0/+10http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/07 ...
"She argues that female macaques may enhance their social position through homosexual intimacy which in turn influences breeding success. Parish says, "Taking something that's nonreproductive, like mounting another female—if it leads to control of a resource or acquisition of a resource or a good alliance partner, that could directly impact your reproductive success." - inactive, on 04/19/2009, -0/+10And what's wrong with polygamy?
- sugarazor, on 04/19/2009, -0/+9Let's break down your comment:
"If disagreeing equals hatred and bigotry and these things are wrong. Then you are all wrong for disagreeing with people opposed to homosexual marriage."
Using your logic, people who disagreed with slavery were wrong. The anti-gay marriage crusaders have absolutely no argument against gay marriage. None, at all, whatsoever. Gay marriage affects no one but those who are getting gay married. Trying to keep people from getting married simply because they're gay is hatred and bigotry. There's no difference between this and trying to keep an interracial couple from getting married simply because they're not the same race.
I suppose the point you were horribly trying to make is that people who are opposing bigotry are bigoted. Yes, I am bigoted against bigots... I am not so tolerant than I tolerate intolerance. - sugarazor, on 04/19/2009, -0/+9Worst... logic... ever. I am saddened there are at least six people who dugg up something so absurd.
- inactive, on 04/19/2009, -0/+9I vote the latter.
- eir574, on 04/19/2009, -0/+9Do you also feel that society should discriminate against people who have other types of, um, "malfunctioning mechanisms?" I have people in my family with six toes per foot. Do you want to prevent them from marrying? How about infertile people, people who are born with ambiguous genitalia, or people whose genitalia are not consistent with their sex chromosomes?
- Verchiel77, on 04/19/2009, -4/+13Great column from Frank Rich.
Something profoundly inspiring about seeing the spittle-flecked anti-gay masses reduced to heading further out on the fringe to gnash their teeth in impotent rage. - pintomp3, on 04/19/2009, -1/+10Because it's raining men!
- zip22, on 04/19/2009, -1/+9The digg shortened link forces up a registration page. without the diggbar, there is no registration required.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/19/opinion/19Rich.h ... - LonelyTylenoL, on 04/19/2009, -3/+10Here ya go.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/17/the-colbe ... - eir574, on 04/19/2009, -1/+8"But I don't desecrating sacred rituals in the process either do I?"
Did you get married in a church? If so, would that ceremony have meant less to you if you knew that two homosexuals were being married by a justice of the peace at the same time? If the meaning of your marriage is dependent on what other people do, then your marriage must not mean much to you at all.
Does marriage also mean less to you because people are allowed to go to Las Vegas, marry on a whim, and then divorce two days later? Does it mean less to you because people who don't see marriage as a religious ritual are allowed to marry? No? It's only in certain cases that you drag out the "you're making my marriage less special" argument?
You ignore the fact that marriage is both a religious and a civil institution. Would you feel any better if we called the civil institution of marriage by a different name (for everyone, including heterosexual couples)? - sawardracing5, on 04/19/2009, -0/+7It reminds me of a fellow my now-husband and I used to rent to when we were living-in as he finished his undergrad degree. Guy was basically a decent person, although a total horn dog with women and never used protection if he could avoid it (ended up with a baby was not ready for but was at least devoted to). But a total homophobe. We would all get together at a local college-town coffee shop, which was one of the few places in a conservative southern NM town where people could be themselves, whatever that was, including gay or lesbian. He irritated me so one night obsessing about whether the waitstaff were checking him out that I finally snapped at him to "Get over it, there are better looking asses for these guys to check out."
-
Show 51 - 100 of 114 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 