Ellen DeGeneres asks McCain why he opposes gay marriage
tags:
Stumble ThisIMO, McCain looks a little uncomfortable when Ellen asks him to explain his opposition to gay marriage. Ellen does a great job of calmly yet effectively presenting her position.
X Greetings! You are not currently logged in, but please don't let that stop you from voting up any videos you like. :)
|
| |||||||||||||||
ellen,degeneres,mccain,gay marriage Ellen DeGeneres asks McCain why he opposes gay marriage
Comments  playlists with this video Political by kronosposeidon
who voted for this video kronosposeidon
- Gratefulmom
- siftbot
x101 - EDD
- chrisyf
Ellen DeGeneres Asks McCain Why He Opposes Gay Marriage Related Videos
| Watch this Video NextFriends O' the Sift  Subscribe Top 15 Election08 Sifters of All Time Top 1 Election08 Sifters of the Past Week Newest Appreciated Comments       | ||||||||||||||
marriage between a man and a woman is unique. You wanna know why? It's called reproduction. Go look it up.
Ellen might as well complain to God that he said "you can carry babies there, but you can't carry sperm there".
wow ellen attacked so weakly i found myself agreeing with mccain.
marriage between a man and a woman is unique. You wanna know why? It's called reproduction. Go look it up.
Ellen might as well complain to God that he said "you can carry babies there, but you can't carry sperm there".
uh, what ? What does reproduction have to do anything ? They just want the same status as a married couple. So if a man/woman couple are married, but the woman is barren, should they not be allowed to marry ?
I could see sanctifying marriage if we had some sort of population shortage, but we don't need to sanction breeding at this point.
Religion plays a large part in this. But it really shouldn't from a government point of view. Religion sanctifies a union between a man and a woman. However, the government (which also performs marriages) should be impartial to religious beliefs and allow civil unions between singular partners regardless of any issue.
Once you take gender and religion out of the picture, there is absolutely no reason why this couldn't be done. Civil unions are critically important in order to allow the same rights between same-sex partners the same rights as others, such as insurance, etc.
I think that's where he belongs.
It has been hard for me to form a concrete opinion on homosexuality. I was raised in an extremely conservative Christian home (all my dad's family is Jehovah's Witness...), went to church every Sunday and most Wednesdays. Participated in weekly church events (Awanas, etc.). My first paying job was at my church. When I got older, I taught Sunday School every week for a group of 3rd grade girls. So I've had that extremely conservative Christian "Homosexuality is bad / terrible / unnatural / whatever else" belief shoved down my throat for years. But at the same time, my youngest aunt is a lesbian. She's closer in age to me than she is to my mother, and so I've always identified with her. She's definitely my favorite of all the aunts, and I definitely want her to be happy. I am all for civil and legal contracts, but I don't believe that's all that marriage is. I guess I just really identified with this video, seeing my viewpoint on both sides.
But of course this is the United States, where the Constitution is nothing more than ink and cellulose, utterly meaningless next to the word of the all-mighty gawuhd.
I cannot stand this kind of ego rubbing bullshit..
"i believe we're all people" WOOOO YEAH YOU GO GIRL <applause>
"we're all humans" OH YEAHHHH YOU CALLED THAT ONE WOOOOOOOOOO <applause>
She's standing up for herself, good. Wait till she's done then give her the clap (fnar fnar). WHY are they applauding her for saying "we're all people" and "we're all the same"? What on earth is this applause and general manic screaming in aid of?
It's fucking mob mentality.. hive mind.. whatever you call it.. the overall IQ of the mob is equal to the IQ of it's lowest member. One idiot thinks "wow we really are all people - i never thought of that!" and everyone claps along with that idiot.
I'd say "save the applause for insights that deserve it", but they'd not know an intelligent comment if it smeared shit all over their car seat with them in it.
These discussions always make me think of another subject, along the same lines. What do sifters think of polygamy? As far as I know its outlawed in all 50 states, the arguments for allowing gay marriage would seem consistent with those to allow polygamy. The problem with polygamy has long been that its a vehicle that essentially forces young (sometimes underage) girls into marriage with older men, and offers them no way to get out of it; they're essentially slaves. I understand the goal of trying to protect those who can't or have little ability to protect themselves, but it would also seem there could be and are laws to prevent those things already. So is it right to make polygamy as a whole illegal?
I think the phrase Ellen was searching for was "separate, but equal."
Ah, good ol' Plessy vs. Ferguson. Thankfully Warren had a head on his shoulders when he stuck it down with Brown v. Board of Education. I think Eisenhower is still spinning in his grave...
Once you take religion out of it, it becomes a government recognized contract, a transmittal of rights. There should be no confusion between marriage and civil rights. The right of Gays to enter into a binding contract that transmits rights should be recognized by our government. A good step at compromise would be for the government to not be performing ceremonies or calling it marriage for any couple. Mail it in. If you want a ceremony talk to your preferred religion's local priest or, if atheist, make up your own ceremony for your friends and relatives to witness your commitment. Then we can move on to such crazy things as feeding the poor and world peace.
Hahahahaha! Presidents can't get even close to being elected in that country unless they claim to be christian, wishfull thinking dude!
I think over in england "marriage" has become a term without religion.. it's often referred to as "gay marriage" although the correct term is civil partnership.
That's probably exactly what you're saying i guess. Can't see it happening in america with the current "poligion" hybrid masquerading as politics.
The whole reason for marriage in our civilized age is two-fold: legal issues and territoriality. The first is all the money stuff, joint accounts, health care and so on. And the second is basically to, how shall I say, "mark our prey". That's my girl/guy, get your mitts off.
The religous reasons for marriage are obsolete. Most of us have moved on and the rest should too.
>> ^MINK:
wow ellen attacked so weakly i found myself agreeing with mccain.
marriage between a man and a woman is unique. You wanna know why? It's called reproduction. Go look it up.
Ellen might as well complain to God that he said "you can carry babies there, but you can't carry sperm there".
http://www.videosift.com/video/Marriage-is-about-and-nothing-else-matters
Anything can be married. This ice cream i'm eating right now is a fantastic marriage of chocolate, more chocolate, some other type of chocolate and some dog hairs because i dropped it on the floor but i'm damn well gonna eat it.
That said, gay marriage will likely become legalized in the USA in another few decades, even without rogue courts and activist judges.
When the politically-correct thugs o' tomorrow attempt to hide the negative consequences of gay marriage to society, I'll be there to expose their folly, just like pointing out Obama is an empty suit today.
CUE EVIL LAUGHTER.
what does the word matter?
exactly right my friend
Institutions hold weight and meaning, and this one pissed upon, is a simply the signs of the times.....retrograde, dying, bursting at the seams-
Marry away Mary Lacy, marry away Sappho Jasper-and then, as it has been throughout the history of societies.."Keep a lid on it."
"Mommy, why is that man kissing that other man?"
"Well Billy, their public display in the face of overwhelming contrary social mores, could be a frustrated and anarchistic protest-they do it perhaps, because they know that most of the people watching will be offended and uncomfortable...perhaps they did not get enough proper attention from their mothers and fathers, maybe their first sexual encounter at puberty was one with a person of the same sex, or maybe like all of earth's creatures, whose prime directive is continuation of the species, they we're simply BORN that way."
The strongest objectors to homosexuality are inevitably closet gays. Let it go, man. Or come out of the closet. You'll be happier.
This hallowed institution of marriage has a failure rate of over 50%! What exactly are you trying to defend?
we all are given in to our lusts as humans, some simply roll in them like dogs-ask those who know me, just how fucking gay i can be-how about a tongue-kiss?? MMMMMWWWANH!
What exactly is the failure rate of couples unprepared for life alone, much less, with someone else today, and who gives a fuck??
How about that same rate of couples married prior to the meltdown of societal mores in the sixties?
The damage has been done to marriage, not by it. And again, as I have stated before, MOST homosexuals do not approve of the actions of the more outspoken and political of the others-do some research-
and it is no small bit of synchronicity, that Degeneres, one of the most prominent spokes-bitches for the most radical gays, has had to hear "degenerate" most of her life-quite fitting, and prophetic, wouldn't ya say???
Fine and dandy. Please extend some of that live-and-let-live to tobacco and weed smokers, gun owners, plastic consumers (in all senses of the word plastic) junk food lovers, SUV drivers and people who don't want to work for the government half the year to pay a confiscatory high tax bill.
We need less of the "caring" being offered and more of the "not my business" being saved for gays.
EDIT: By the way, there is no "respectful disagreement". his opinions (which he is faking) are not really entitled to any respect, because they are ridiculous. Its like saying "I know you think the planet is sphere-shaped, but I respectfully think its banana-shaped, and its a complete deadlock." It isnt. in this case, Ellen is simply right, and you act a fool, McBain.
So i'll say "xD" and hope that'll defuse the situation.
All i can actually decipher is the bit where you say that gay people are gay because of an anarchistic drive, or a few other things. I'd just like to break the gay community down a little, as far as i know it (i'm not gay, i have some gay friends, in other words i'm no expert but i've seen a range);
(remember this is only how it breaks down in my head)
1) Attention seekers. Generally girls, younger. Mostly claim to be bisexual/kiss a girl to get blokes looking at her
2) Gays who enjoy the sex. Be it for the feeling of deviance or genuine pleasure from the act, they generally are only interested in 1 night stands.
3) Bisexuals who enjoy the sex. See above.
(both these categories usually end up having very brief relationships, and they're often bitchy)
4) Gays/bisexuals who are all about love in the truest form possible. Mostly bisexual by definition, they just fall in love with a person, and whatever sex that person is, that doesn't matter. Often sex is a secondary, tertiary, or less, factor for them. Sometimes sex isn't even in the relationship. Sometimes a bad experience with one gender will put them off that gender and they'll end up being exclusively gay/straight, but only because of the experience they've had.
Imo, 1 2 and 3 can all fuck off and die. I don't care about those people, they're wastrels and they actually disgust me with their fakeness.
4 are great. I'm straight, but other than a slightly higher interest in sex, i fit that description. I was once asked "if you fall in love with someone's personality, could you fall in love with a guy therefore?" and i said; i don't know. I think not, because i am interested in sex, and i am abhorred by the idea of me, personally, having gay sex. That's not to say i am abhorred by gay sex. Do what you want, yaknow?
What i conclude is that description 4 is a great type of person.. if only more people could judge on personality above anything else. But the fact is that we are able to make these choices and discuss this because we are driven to have sex. Everything around us is here because of sex. If we didn't want to fuck, we wouldn't be here.
So perhaps a mix of the two is the way forward!
(If anyone found this offensive, then you must fit category 1, 2 or 3, and i hate you.)
Further conclusion - anyone in a gay relationship long enough is probably a better person than most straight-married couples. They have a bigger right to marriage than those people!
my belief is simple, the classic marriage is a Christian ceremony, and many Christians interput the bible as labeling homosexuality as a sin, so to condone the joining of a homosexual couple in Christian marriage is legally requiring some one to do something that may be strictly against their interpitation of their religon, and i don't believe the government should have that right, (freedom of Religon) why not allow them to be married with all the same legal benifits as any other couple, but without it being necessarily a Christian marriage, there are many culture joinings of life mates besides the standard christian idea of marriage, and like ellen said, the love is the same, and that stands whether they were married as Christians or in anyother fashion...
and if anything i have said is either factually wrong, or has offended anyone please respectfully critize and correct, please do not flame
Consider this about homosexuality (from a completely non-religious point of view):
If genetics, chemistry, and/or biology has mandated that you be born with (for example) male genetalia, then it's for a very good damn reason. It's for the purpose of procreating the species. It's Darwinism, survival of the fittest. It's science. So if biology gives you a desire to bond with another male "romantically" (i.e. sexually) then it seems to be a clear indication that something biologically/chemically is broken in that specific organism, since it fails to do its part in perpetuation.
How a society goes about dealing with that organism (its place in the social order) is another matter altogether.
For example, in some religions, women can become priests. There are some that forbid it, some that allow it, but there are no *laws* forbidding it. The same thing should apply to gay marriage. If your church opposes it, that shouldn't stop my church from embracing it.
Tyrell, if it was a Darwinistic thing, homosexuality would not exist. Same sex couples don't exactly pass on their genes very well, ya know? Despite that, there is and has been a significant gay population throughout history. Whatever is "broken", and I agree that from a biological point of view it does appear that way, it must be something we all carry within our DNA and is triggered by something that is fairly common.
Anyway, you can't say that homosexuality shouldn't logically exist and therefor we won't let them marry. That's nonsensical. The proper response to someone different is to help them integrate if they want to, or embrace the difference if it does no harm. Exclusion and ostracism is only going to hurt us all in the long run.