What’s Up With Keith Olbermann’s Three Finger Salute to Carrie Prejean?
Last night on Countdown, Keith Olbermann did another in a long series of segments castigating former Miss California Carrie Prejean, but he added a little something extra at the end.
He signs off the segment, in which he discusses the sex tape that features Prejean “by herself,” with a two, then three, fingered “Girl Scout” salute. Where to begin?
Here’s the segment. Keith’s salute is at the very end, and doesn’t appear in MSNBC’s version of the clip:
The gesture is either a fairly obvious attempt at shock humor, or an accidental one. Given MSNBC’s history of thinly-veiled entendre, and the context here, I’d say it’s the former. It’s ironic that he uses a Girl Scout salute as the fig leaf since, unlike the Boy Scouts of America, the Girl scouts don’t discriminate against gay people.
“The fact that she sent a sex video to her boyfriend doesn’t make her a hypocrite, it makes her an awesome girlfriend.”
The joke is likely to delight many of Prejean’s detractors, embittered toward her over her support of California’s Proposition 8. Just as surely, it will offend many others who observe the double standard that Prejean points out in the segment. I find it emblematic of the wrongheadedness of the anti-Prejean narrative.
The Carrie Prejean story began with an honest answer to a divisive question at a beauty pageant. Asked if she believed that same-sex marriage should be legal in all 50 states, she stated her personal belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman, but also said that she was happy to live in a country where people can choose “same-sex marriage or opposite marriage.” As Jake Tapper pointed out, this position hews closely to that of President Obama.
She was immediately and viciously attacked by Perez Hilton, the judge who asked the question, using vile misogynist slurs. The rest of the media piled on by mocking her use of the term “opposite marriage,” elevating her to the status of media martyr. It was only then that she became useful to the National Organization for Marriage, and decided to support the dissolution of thousands of legal marriages.
The response to this was to make fun of her breasts, compare her to a Nazi and a dog, leak R-rated pictures of her, and now, delight in the revelation of this sex tape. The point of this is supposed to be to expose her as a hypocrite, which eludes me somewhat. She’s a model, so how do breast implants and sexy pictures make her a hypocrite? The fact that she sent a sex video to her boyfriend doesn’t make her a hypocrite, it makes her an awesome girlfriend. No, the real point was to embarrass and humiliate her. The effect was not to silence, but to amplify her.
What makes Carrie Prejean a hypocrite is her insistence that she wants to protect marriages by supporting laws that destroy them. If the left had focused more on that, and less on destroying her personally, Carrie Prejean would be a dim memory now. Instead, they get to be wrong right alongside her.
46 comments
ChrisNH says: Well, something finally made this perpetually enraged Liberal media hack smile. This is a teachable moment, as it were.
straitshooter says: You can always count on Keith “Stay Classy” Olbermann to forget the boundaries of decency because he can’t resist bashing a young woman who was foolish enough to stand by an opinion he disagrees with. I’m sure he would find it very funny if someone passed around a snapshot of him masturbating during his awkward teenage years.
Can someone please explain to me why anyone with a national megaphone (right-leaning, left-leaning or otherwise) would act like this? Does it speak toward a general pathology toward women that Olbermann has a history of such statements toward Prejean, Michelle Malkin and Sarah Palin. He really seems to delight in personal attacks against women when it would be so easy to limit his commentary to poking holes in their political positions. While he ripped into characters such as Mark Sanford (and rightly so), I never remember him indulging in scatalogical or graphic sexual humor to demean the man.
I keep hoping people at MSNBC (perhaps even noted feminist Rachel Maddow) might speak up and say, “I think Carrie Prejean is dead wrong, both morally and politically, for her stance on gay marriage, but as civilized people, we can draw a line there. Comments on her breasts and her teen-aged sexual escapades are out of line and should not be tolerated.”
Olbermann owes Prejean, and all women, an apology for his crass and unnecessarily vicious words.
TfT says: Olbermann will never apologize and no one in the management team there will make him. This is just what MSNBC is — a scum bucket of sick people. I’m glad to see that Tommy agrees that Olbermann has gone over the line. Perhaps you could request a comment from MSNBC management about these antics and ask them when they will force Olbermann to apologize for his disgusting behavior.
The only thing I respect about Olbermann is he spent wisely on his hairpiece. He didn’t cut corners and didn’t go the cheap “critter on the head” way. Other than that he’s a tool who has been fired from so many jobs it’s hard to keep count. Does anyone really take this tool seriously! I guess his ratings really tell the real story.
http://www.olbermannwatch.com/
TfT says: I look forward to Glynnis M and Rachel S weighing in on this, or will they be silent?
DragonScorpion says: Ah, so I’m not the only that noticed this. I wrote about it on my blog last night after watching the show on DVR. I was curious to see if others would pick up on it or if perhaps I was being a bit too imaginative.
I agreed with much of what you said here, Mr. Christopher. Though I have to disagree with you when you remarked, “The point of this is supposed to be to expose her as a hypocrite, which eludes me somewhat. She’s a model, so how do breast implants and sexy pictures make her a hypocrite?”
You see, that’s just it, she IS a model. What makes her hypocritical is in claiming one thing and then doing another.
I’ll explain. While I don’t find anything inherently wrong in making a career out of being a contestant in beauty pageants, strutting your stuff in bikinis on national TV or getting breast enlargements, I certainly find something inherently hypocritical to do these things whilst claiming (as she does in her book) that, “our bodies are temples of the Lord. We should earn respect and admiration for our hearts, not for showing skin to look sexy”.
Her lifestyle clearly conflicts with her espoused beliefs. It is this, in addition to what you mentioned in your post that establishes her as a hypocrite.
I do think you are making an excellent point, though, that her critics should stop making all this so personal and instead criticize the rationale she espouses. Which I should add, is quite inconsistent on her part.
The point is, it is perfectly legitimate to criticize people’s viewpoints, in spite of those who selectively claim that challenging or disputing someone’s opinions or beliefs somehow equates with “censorship”.
ImNotBlue says: Slime.
KiKi says: Tommy Christopher,
“What makes Carrie Prejean a hypocrite is her insistence that she wants to protect marriages by supporting laws that destroy them.” In YOUR opinion, not the majority who disagree with you.
ImNotBlue says: Hey… KiKi… who’s that popular guy who believes essentially what Prejean believes about gay marriage? I know he’s very popular right now… what’s his name. Oh year, Barack Obama… who doesn’t support gay marriage.
Personally, I’m all for gay marriage… but the fact that the left made Prejean out to be a villain, while ignoring Obama’s own stance, is FAR more hypocritical than anything Prejean has thus far said or done.
bill says: What gets me is that Perez Hilton probably commits some of the grossest sexual acts imaginable on a daily basis. Sodomy and fellatio are just the warm-up. If she’s unfit to be Miss Cal. then he’s unfit to judge.
germ says: I would say let’s start a boycott of Olbermann’s advertiser’s but then again, they must get a really good deal to advertise to his 5 viewers.
Tommy Christopher says: Kiki,
you said ““What makes Carrie Prejean a hypocrite is her insistence that she wants to protect marriages by supporting laws that destroy them.” In YOUR opinion, not the majority who disagree with you.”
This is not a matter of opinion, it’s a fact. Proposition 8 sought to nullify thousands of legal marriages.
TfT says: INAL, but reading this “In the Strauss v. Horton case, the court upheld Proposition 8, but allowed existing same-sex marriages to stand (under the Grandfather clause principle).”
Magic Dog says: I presume that the “salute” was satirizing Prejean’s masturbation video, which the Christian right wing loves because she’s hot, stupid, and conservative. It’s the perfect combo, no?
“The fact that she sent a sex video to her boyfriend doesn’t make her a hypocrite, it makes her an awesome girlfriend.”
Actually, whether it is fair or not, the act of making an explicit, nude video of oneself masturbating and sending it over a telecommunications network when you are 17 years old or younger makes you guilty of the production and distribution of Child Pornography under federal law in the U.S.A., and that is a felony with a five year mandatory minimum sentence. Many young women are already facing much longer sentences than that for far less explicit photos and videos than the one Ms. Prejean made. For reasons not clear to me, many of the same people who support these laws child porn laws being used to punish children are also opposed to gay marriage.
dmn says: The court did uphold the existing marriages, but the proponents of Prop 8 made it very clear that their intent was to end those marriages as well. When she said she was glad to live in a country that allows both same-sex marriage and “opposite” marriage, she didn’t. That is not this country. It is some states, but not the country. She was then put in the position of being able to act on her beliefs. Did she act to allow gay marriage even though she doesn’t believe in it? No, she acted to ban gay marriage. Saying that you are glad to live in a country that allows same-sex marriage and then campaign against it is, by definition. hypocritical.
I can’t watch the video because he makes me sick, but my guess is he saw the video. he is taunting her and sending her a signal that he witnessed her performance.
considering she was 17, he thus viewed child pornography.
i think he should be arrested.
dmn says:
November 11, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Miss South Carolina also said, “I personally believe that U.S. Americans are unable to do so because, um, some people out there in our nation don’t have maps and, uh, I believe that our, uh, education like such as, uh, South Africa and, uh, the Iraq and everywhere like such as, and I believe that they should, uh, our education over here in the U.S. should help the U.S., uh, should help South Africa and should help Iraq and the Asian countries, so we will be able to build up our future.”
… I don’t think they always know what they are saying at that particular moment.
Pat Doherty says: Mr. Christopher
I disagree with with much of what you say politically, but I consider you an intelligent, thoughtful, rational writer. Do your intelligent, thoughtful, rational friends on the left take this man seriously? Olbermann is not a journalist; he simply rips stories from Media Matters, Crooks and Liars, etc., then overwrites them to suit a self-affirming pseudo-intellectual pedantry. The sanctimonious, vituperative way in which he delivers his “Special Comments” suggests someone eager to take on the Right, yet alone in the realm of prominent political opinion shows, he utterly refuses to entertain opposing views on Countdown. Most troubling is Olbermann’s manifest pathology regarding women he finds ideologically disagreeable, which has been documented on conservative blogs for years. I would very much appreciate reading your opinion vis a vis Olbermann.
CaptainAmerica says: Tommy Boy claims:
Kiki,
you said ““What makes Carrie Prejean a hypocrite is her insistence that she wants to protect marriages by supporting laws that destroy them.” In YOUR opinion, not the majority who disagree with you.”
This is not a matter of opinion, it’s a fact. Proposition 8 sought to nullify thousands of legal marriages.>>
She does want to protect actual marriage. She, like the majority of us in the United States do not recognize gay marriage as a legitimate marriage. She’s no hypocrite on that case. She is trying to protect actual marriage against the destructive forces in this country like the evil CA Supreme Court who invalidated the will of the people in May of 2008 by a 4-3 vote.
—
California first explicitly defined marriage as a state between a man and woman in 1977.[9] That year, the California State Legislature passed a law that said that marriage is a “personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman”. While no previous California legislation contained explicit language regarding sex or gender, California law prior to 1959 explicitly prohibited marriage between people of different races. Many other states prohibited interracial marriage until 1967, when the United States Supreme Court ruled this unconstitutional, in the case Loving v. Virginia. [10]
In 2000, voters passed ballot initiative Proposition 22 with a margin of 61%, which changed California Family Code to formally define marriage in California between a man and a woman. Prop. 22 was a statutory change via the initiative process, not a constitutional change via the initiative process.
In 2004, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom performed same-sex marriages in his city, which were subsequently judicially annulled. This case, and some others, eventually led to a decision announced on May 15, 2008 of the California Supreme Court, which by a 4-3 vote struck down Proposition 22.[11]
Prior to the May 2008 state supreme court decision, opponents of same-sex marriage had already begun their efforts to qualify Prop. 8 for the ballot. Their reasoning at the time was that since Prop. 22 was only a statute, it was subject to judicial review in a way that an amendment to the constitution would not be.[12],[13],[14]
http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=California_Proposition_8_%282008%29
CaptainAmerica says: Keith would have to use three fingers because one of his former lovers is on record about what a terrible lover he is. I guess all his screaming and lying is to make up for his huge shortcomings
KiKi says: I live in California Mr.Christopher. I have voted in every election since this issue has been put on the ballot. The will of the voters of California are and were that marriage is defined as between one man and one woman. Just because some Donkey in San Francisco decided he was not going to respect the law and the will of the people, didn’t make them legal marraiges.
Check this out, I just got a Robo call from ACORN babbling about Fox News and the Right Wing. LoL
Magic Dog, you see Carrie is conservative? Why, because she’s for marriage between a Man and a Woman? That doesn’t make one conservative. If anything she’s apolitical. She’s just finding certain TV networks are giving her some time because other ones have misrepresented what she originally said. As far as I’m concerned she’s kind of stupid because she keeps digging herself even deeper each time she opens her mouth. Frankly I wish she’d shut up and go away. If the media spent a tenth of the time reporting on ACORN or Unemployment rather than Miss Carrie we might learn something. Instead the very lame stream media wants to do obama’s bidding and side track us from the real issues by wasting time on Carrie. Larry King Not Alive last night devoted a show to her. Why? Why not devote time to the real issues of the day. I know why, it would embarrass the “muslim” in chief.
tedneb says: .
It’s astonishing to me how much of the media breathlessly reports every one of Ms. Prejean’s latest revelations, triumphantly trumpeting every sordid detail as yet another nail in the coffin of conservatism.
Memo to the media: Ms. Prejean is nobody. She is not a leader, not a party representative, not a government official. Neither her rise nor fall represents anything beyond the media’s ambivilance toward substance.
Its strange how the morals of a young girl with no real power merit national headlines, yet the daily dalliances and illegal indiscretions of no less than Congressman and Committee Chair Barney Frank are irrelevant and off limits.
jcl54 says: Kiki, you and the thankfully dwindling “majority” of voters who wish to discriminate against same-sex couples have it all wrong – at least with respect to the tenets that our country was founded on and what’s written in our constitution. If you want to define your religious union as only between a man and a woman, or between a man a woman a dog and a goat, well that’s up to you and your religious community. Luckily, in this country, we protect freedom of religion, so you are allowed to define a religious union however you want. However, all legal marriages in this country are “civil unions”. With the marriage contract come certain rights. In order to get married in the US, you need to get a license issued by the state, and have an appropriate witness, and that’s it. Trying to impose your own religious standards on everyone in the country is just what our constitution is designed to prevent. The lawmakers who pass laws legalizing same-sex unions, against the “will of the people”, are right to do so. Or perhaps you would like to change our country from a democracy to a theocracy.
If you are opposed to same-sex marriage, then don’t marry someone of the same sex. But don’t try and force your religious values on others.
Reading through these comments I’m fascinated by so many who don’t seem to get that…. while you have the right to say what you believe, when what you believe – if acted upon — victimizes someone else, then you can expect to be attacked in return for your troubles! When you believe that limiting the ability of gays to enjoy the same rights and freedoms as heterosexuals, then your beliefs are no longer mere opinions that need be respected as just the other side of the debate. If your beliefs hurt other people who are not hurting you then you deserve to be knocked over and sat upon until you get a clue!
I see FOX news defenders repeatedly claiming that FOX simply tells the other side of the story. Hold on there! When there are facts to tell, there isn’t two sides to the story. There’s the facts….and then there’s political spin and outright distortions or lies. And all too frequently FOX, Limbaugh, and other conservative leaders seem unable to deal with the truth about the world, opting instead to tell lies. This they do while disparaging those who tell the facts, dissing them as left-wing, liberal liars. Not even the university educated scholars have escaped this miracle disclaimer of theirs. Now the world’s two best sources of factual – rather than rumor or second-hand tellings of events, have been /conveniently/ taken over by liberals, thus making it easier for conservatives to ignore any and all facts that might force them to reconsider their preconceptions.
Yes, the university professors tend to be liberal. That’s what knowing the truth does to a person!
Grammie says: Gary Williams says:
November 12, 2009 at 5:27 pm
I’m sure glad you were not the deciding the vote when our forefathers wrote our Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Sheesh, no wonder we are in such a mess.
I don’t mean to slash cold water on your self righteous screed BUT it is only your opinion that thousands of years of western civilization has been based on erroneous “facts”.
Erroneous facts like evolution I take it? And what about the Constitution or Bill Of Rights? How did the interpretation that they somehow give Christians the right to impose their will on others get squeezed out of that?
marigrace says: Gay people have the same rights and freedoms that everyone else in America has. They have the right and freedom to marry someone of the opposite sex; however, they choose not to make use of that freedom. Therefore, the real issue is not about denying homosexuals the right to marry, but about denying them additional rights. Gay people have the same freedoms or rights that heterosexuals have, but they want more. Marriage is not just anything people want to make it, but something in particular. It isn’t arbitrary and it isn’t defined by society, but rather marriage is recognized by society for what it is.
The government doesn’t afford anyone the right to marry their sibling, their child, or more than one person, and because of this no doubt those who engage in incestuous relationships, pedophiles, and polygamists are quite disappointed. Its discrimination to say that two people of the same sex can’t marry each other in the same way that its discrimination to say a man can’t marry his sister, but this type of discrimination is appropriate based on the purpose and nature of marriage itself. In light of this fact, on what basis should the right to marry a person of the same sex be given to the homosexual? They want additional rights, not equal rights. Gay people like the douche-bag Hilton, would love to deny people the right to free speech on the issue.
marigrace says: Gary williams said….
How did the interpretation that they somehow give Christians the right to impose their will on others get squeezed out of that?
FYI, it isn’t just christians who want to keep the age old institution of marriage between one man and one woman. Japan is one of the least religious countries in the world and that nation has outlawed gay marriage.
Indeed! If you go around the world you’ll find that the same places that have strongly conservative values are also the ones where religion plays a major part in society. For instance wherever Creationism is the official doctrine ( Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, Congo, etc.) you’ll also find their stand on homosexuality is precisely what US conservatives want to see. IOW, the Taliban believe as you do. The rest of us do not.
As for equating gay marriages with incest, there’s absolutely nothing at all similar to it. Incestuous relations are taboo here and around the world because it reflects a very real biological down-side in that the children of incestuous relations are far and away more likely to suffer from physical defects; a result of compounded genetic inheritances. The result of such behavior is clearly harmful to someone else and should therefore not be tolerated.
Homosexual unions OTOH need not worry about a genetically defective child ever being born. What they want out of society is simply the same rights to inheritance law;, to write off taxes; or jointly pay into insurance plans, or any of the other benefits that society has deemed useful to grant life-partners of more traditional unions. That’s all they want and that’s what you conspire to deny them. You want to penalize them for not conforming to your own beliefs. Their beliefs do not hurt you in any way other than your psychological distaste for their lifestyle. The solution to that is simple. Don’t think about them! They’ll get along just fine without your interference in their affairs.
Grammie says: “Gary Williams says:
November 12, 2009 at 5:49 pm
Erroneous facts like evolution I take it? And what about the Constitution or Bill Of Rights? How did the interpretation that they somehow give Christians the right to impose their will on others get squeezed out of that?”
“For instance wherever Creationism is the official doctrine ( Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, Congo, etc.) you’ll also find their stand on homosexuality is precisely what US conservatives want to see.”
Gary, what is all this about creationism and the onerous effect of religion on governments and society you are in the wrong place.
I assumed that you were a man of at least average intelligence and worded my reply to you based on that obviously flawed assessment of you. So, let me lay it out to you as I would if I was talking to someone who needs every i dotted and t crossed or they can’t follow the argument.
I don’t mean to slash cold water on your self righteous screed BUT it is only your opinion that thousands of years of western civilization (and many older and other civilizations) adherence to marriage as a union of a man and a woman only is something that is intrinsically wrong. Virtually every civilization throughout history has ordered itself around the construct that heterosexual marriage is the best way for a society to function and provide for the future of all its people.
marigrace says: Gary Williams,
I think you misread my comment.. Only 7% of Japan is religious, yet they have banned gay marriage.
joyceann says: This guy is frightening…I know Liberalism is a mental disorder and Liberals in general are acutely angry, jealous, close minded and cruel…but this guy goes beyond the ‘normal’ Liberal Beast. I bet if he had a private detective following him, it wouldn’t be long before he is in Prison.
Oh really? Projection is another strong tendency of the conservative; a state of mind that is more a syndrome appearing as a result of under-developed cognitive skills thereby leaving an adult with many of the authoritarian tendencies very young children use in their relationship with their parent /guardian, and which are usually discarded as the child progresses into adulthood. Not so the conservative however. If you don’t believe me, go to Google Scholar (weeds out merely opinion-based garbage) and type “Conservatism and/or authoritarianism”
A small sample of the scientific literature:
“It appears that conservatism has pathological dimensions manifested in violence and distorted psycho-sexual development” (Boshier, 1983, p. 159). This is supported by a study conducted by Walker, Rowe, and Quincey (1993) in which there was a direct correlation between authoritarianism and sexually aggressive behavior. An investigation done by Muehlenhard (1988) revealed that rape justification and aggression toward subordinate individuals was much higher in traditional (conservative personality) than non-traditional personalities.
Boshier noted that by scoring high on the C-Scale, the conservative seemed to be demonstrating his hostility toward others, which was also a characteristic demonstrated by most criminal offenders.
Persons who had a dogmatic belief in religions and adhered to the teachings of absolutist and perfectionistic religious groups, tended to be more frequently and more intensely emotionally disturbed than those who followed less dogmatic religion (Ellis, 1986). Authoritarianism and religious fundamentalism were positively correlated, with scores on authoritarianism significantly related to those on ethnic and racial prejudice, hostility toward homosexuals, and punitiveness. According to Parker, dogmatism and orthodox belief were incompatible with ethical acuity.
McClosky noted that, “Conservatism is not the doctrine of the intellectual elite or of the more intelligent segments of the population, but the reverse. By every measure available to us, conservative beliefs are found most frequently among the uniformed, the poorly educated, and the less intelligent”.
Boshier found that conservatism was inversely related to the educational level of the offender. The more highly educated tended to be less conservative. The more that an individual was educated the less conservative he/she was likely to become. “The negative association between educational level and measures of conservatism have been recognized for years” (Schuman, Bobo, and Krysan, 1992, p. 379).
Sanford related the data of Adelson in which “he found that early adolescents are highly authoritarian, with significant reduction occurring in middle and late adolescence-largely because of cognitive development” (p. 163). Since the offender had limited cognitive development, the educational efforts would conceivably have assisted in reducing the conservatism of that offender. At that point in time, rather than reduce the amount of conservatism of the offender, the prison environment tended to increase it by its emphasis on many of the characteristics found in the conservative personality.
McClosky, H. (1958). Conservatism and personality. American Political Science Review, 52, 27-45.
Muehlenhard, C. (1988). Misinterpreted dating behaviors and the risk of date rape. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 6(1), 2-37.
Sanford, N. (1973). Authoritarian personality in contemporary perspective. In J. N. Knutson (Ed.), Handbook of Political Psychology (pp. 139-170). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Wilson, G. (1973). The psychology of conservatism. New York: Academic Press.
Wylie, L., & Forest, J. (1992). Religious fundamentalism, rightwing authoritarianism and prejudice. Psychological Reports, 71, 1291-1298.
ImNotBlue says: Gary Williams says:
November 12, 2009 at 10:25 pm
Thanks Gar-bear. But next time you just copy/paste something from a blue-blog, just give us the think. It saves space and time… and lets everyone know that you’ve abdicated your thought to another group of people.
If I wanted to post as KOS, I’d do that. Try to keep their stuff there… but thanks for playing.
KiKi says: jcl54 says:
‘Kiki, you and the thankfully dwindling “majority” of voters who wish to discriminate against same-sex couples have it all wrong’
Dwindling? Maybe, maybe not. As more Latinos and African-Americans exercise their right to vote as evidenced in the last election, gay marriage was not an issue they were in favor of.
Also, keep your religion bashing crap to yourself, I didn’t make any mention of religion.
Pat Doherty: well written and correct.
CCRider says: Ms. Prejean is not a victim, nor is she powerless. She chose to be a beauty queen, a public figure, so she should not be shocked that when folks don’t like what she says or does they are going to disapprove publicly. And as such a figure if she has sex tapes that surface, she has to deal with that too. It turns out she was 20 when she made them. I feel for her that the man she sent them to is so disrespectful that he makes them public, but again, she is complicit in this sad affair. Also she has spoken before conservative political groups. I agree that she seems to have been apolitical before but now the ultra right is using her as a heroine for her anti-gay marriage statement. There are many hypocritical statements in her appearances & in the parts of the book that I saw, and she should be called on those, and exposed as a shallow thinker, an arrogant woman who thinks she is above being judged for the same things she judges others for.
As for Olbermann. I find he disses just as many men as women & just as brutally. Many of his interviews are informative & he makes no pretense that he is trying to balance both sides of an arguement. He is an avowed progressive & I’d rather know where he’s coming from than have him pretend he is unbiased. Yes, he is sometimes over the top, but I find that humorous. I would be insulted, angry, as sme of you seem to be, if he was dishonest, but that isn’t the case. There are many “personalities” on news networks today & there is often more truth in what they present than in the network evening snippets. I find it a relief from Couric and the other nightly news anchors.
tedneb says: .
Gary Williams: the answer to a question nobody asked.
DragonScorpion says: I decided to check this thread again because I had a feeling that it would veer off subject and be turned into yet another debate about equal rights for homosexuals and same-sex marriage. And, sure enough… Well, I’m game.
Grammie says:
November 12, 2009 at 8:12 pm
~”I don’t mean to slash cold water on your self righteous screed BUT it is only your opinion that thousands of years of western civilization (and many older and other civilizations) adherence to marriage as a union of a man and a woman only is something that is intrinsically wrong.”~
Did you know that same-sex marriages did take place in the ancient world, including Greece and Rome? The Codex Theodosianus of early Christian Rome prohibited same-sex marriage under penalty of death, and it is unlikely that this was merely an attempt to be proactive in case such a marriage should ever happen, hypothetically. There is also 17th century China, 19th century Africa and evidence of same-sex marriages in other parts of Europe.
Rare? I’ll give you that. But not non-existent as some folks like to believe. The concept most definitely was not invented in the 20th century.
By the way, slavery used to be common among the civilizations of the world. And pretty common down South not so long ago, as well. Fortunately, a segment of the nation fought to get rid of slavery, and had to thwart “state’s rights” in the process. But, I’d argue, we’re a better country for it.
A segment of the nation, also fought segregation. There was much kicking and screaming and gnashing of teeth, but, this injustice too, was eventually eliminated one difficult step at a time.
The legislative bodies of some states removed anti-miscegenation laws prior to the Supreme Court case that would eliminate it from the nation as a whole (though recently a justice of the peace in Louisiana still thought he had a duty to impose it). And in California some “activist judges” overruled the anti-miscegenation laws there. Unfortunately, bans on interracial marriage or interracial cohabiting, though not always consistently enforced, were still on the books in more than 18 states. And that’s just how many conservative, tradition-lovin’ folk wanted to keep it.
Again, fortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court managed to strike down anti-miscegenation laws nationwide in 1967. There was certainly much doom and gloom and invoking tradition and religion that accompanied this observance of egalitarianism, but, the sky didn’t fall and while interracial marriage is fairly common these days, I, for one, don’t think we’re a bit worse for it.
You, like others, keep invoking the necessity of strictly enforcing this male/female marriage paradigm on the basis that it is “the best way for a society to function and provide for the future of all its people”. Impossible though it may be for you to comprehend, I think it’s more than safe to say that the population of the United States, as well as every other nation on this planet, is in no danger of dying off due to same-sex relationships nor same-sex marriage. Now I can’t prove that, other than to point to those countries which have legalized same-sex MARRIAGE and draw to your attention that they are not now rampant with same-sex marriage, opposite-sex marriage hasn’t been outlawed, and procreation is still taking place in abundance…
I would add that no one could have probably made an airtight case that allowing interracial marriage would not immediately lead to the elimination of “racial purity”. Quite the opposite, many scientists theorize that in time racial distinction will be a thing of the past. A lot of racists are very upset about this inevitability, but fortunately they’ll all be dead by then.
DragonScorpion says: marigrace says:
November 12, 2009 at 9:04 pm
~”Gay people have the same rights and freedoms that everyone else in America has. They have the right and freedom to marry someone of the opposite sex; however, they choose not to make use of that freedom. Therefore, the real issue is not about denying homosexuals the right to marry, but about denying them additional rights.”~
Let’s apply this rationale to the most comparable example to same-sex marriage and see what happens when interracial marriage is the issue:
: : People involved in interracial relationships have the same rights and freedoms that everyone else in America has. They have the right and freedom to marry someone of the same race; however, they choose not to make use of that freedom. Therefore, the real issue is not about denying minorities or interracial couples the right to marry, but about denying them additional rights. : :
When anti-miscegenation laws were removed or overruled, this did not afford “additional rights” to minorities, it established that race, or the racial make-up of a couple, could not be used as a disqualification for their marriage. Now one could look at it differently. One could say that allowing interracial marriage gave an “additional right” to racial minorities or to interracial couples, but this would be incorrect. Allowing interracial marriage does not A) deny any rights to non-interracial couples or marriages, B) does not exclude the majority race or non-interracial couples from participating.
In other words, you & everyone else are free to engage in an interracial marriage. You & everyone else are free not to. The choice is there for all, no one is excluded. That’s fair, that’s equal, that’s egalitarian. To simply deny interracial marriage, however, though it may mean nothing to those couples who are racially similar, would deny couples who are racially different and want to commit to a marriage the right to do so. That would be unfair, unreasonable, and as the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1967, unconstitutional.
The same applies here. No one is forcing you to participate in a same-sex marriage. Rather, same-sex couples are seeking to have the legal ability to choose to participate in it themselves. Something which people like yourself want to continue to deny them. It truly is that simple.
Really, it is ironic that you bring up “additional rights” when the reality here is that you are in point of fact advocating that marriage be exclusive to opposite-sex couples and heterosexuals only. This would, by default, establish marriage as an additional right for heterosexuals that homosexuals are effectively denied. And, no, it isn’t legitimate to expect homosexuals to somehow develop a romantic attraction for opposite-sex persons anymore than it would be to expect you to develop a romantic attraction to same-sex persons or to expect interracial couples to go find a partner of a similar race. Individuals fall in love with those whom their innate sensibilities draw them to.
If you are going to deny equal protection under the law and due process to homosexuals and same-sex couples you really need a much stronger argument than your own personal comfort level, your religious beliefs, or your opinions on what is traditional.
DragonScorpion says: marigrace says: “It isn’t arbitrary and it isn’t defined by society, but rather marriage is recognized by society for what it is.”~
That is incorrect. You may believe this from a theological point of view, but that would still be limited to your religion and those religions which share that belief. Even if ALL the world’s religions shared this view, which they don’t, this would still only be from a theological perspective.
Some religious authorities used to argue (some still do) against inter-religious marriages. Some pastors used to refuse to marry interracial couples on the grounds it defies “God’s plan”. They can debate such issues until they are blue in the face. But it isn’t churches that decide civil marriage in this country, it is the government that decides this.
To elaborate further, some religious bodies and civilizations accept(ed) polygamous marriages. You can choose to reject those as being ‘improper’, but their society embraced them. That makes their view relevant and renders your and mine moot.
And while I won’t go into detail about it because I’m sure you can fill in your own details, the structure of marriages, the role of the partners in marriages, the sort of conditions which must be met to make a marriage binding, the conditions on which a marriage can be annulled have all changed substantially over the millennia from culture to culture and time period to time period. Really, this notion of some timeless institution that has always been the same is a myth. So, no, actually, marriage isn’t just an “is” that societies simply recognize as some universal constant, marriage IS what authorities determine that it is.
~”FYI, it isn’t just christians who want to keep the age old institution of marriage between one man and one woman. Japan is one of the least religious countries in the world and that nation has outlawed gay marriage.”~
When I see this sort of argument I always wonder just what sort of spin will be offered when one of these examples legalizes same-sex marriage… You can certainly attempt to argue that we should look to the Japanese as an example why same-sex marriage should be banned, but your opponents can just as easily cite countries in which same-sex marriage is legal…
~”They want additional rights, not equal rights. Gay people like the douche-bag Hilton, would love to deny people the right to free speech on the issue.”~
What a BS sweeping generalization you’ve discovered. I can agree that Perez Hilton is a narcissistic douche-bag, yes, but Perez Hilton no more represents the gay community than Carrie Prejean represents Christendom.
I will definitely take you to task if you intend to argue that all gay people seek to deny others the right to free speech… Honestly, this coming from the likes of you who are advocating that homosexuals be denied equal access to the same rights and privileges that heterosexuals enjoy. What ironic hypocrisy.
jcl54 says: Kiki,
I’m not bashing religion at all. Merely using hyperbole – and a little joke – to make a point. Sorry if I offended you. All that I wrote is quite valid. I will definitely bash any that attempt to force their own values (religious or not) on others. The notion that marriage should only be between a man and a woman is almost always associated with and defended by religious beliefs, so it’s not unreasonable to bring religion into the argument.
marigrace says: Homosexuality and race cannot be compared. The one is a choice, the other is not.. There are ex-gay people, which is a clear indicator that homosexuality is not genetic, as race is.
DragonScorpion says: @Marigrace:
I disagree that homosexuality is completely different from race because I know first hand that same-sex attraction is (at least in most cases) innate. By the way, in logical debate comparisons are ALWAYS made between two things which are different but similar, not identical. Even if you were correct in asserting that homosexuality were a choice, that’s separate from the issue that discrimination against homosexuals and against people by race have the same motivations and principles behind them. While it’s a general social norm by now that discrimination against race is wrong (which in recent memory was not the case), it is not so for homosexuals today. Comparisons should bring light to this discrepancy, and give people a reason for opposing discrimination, whatever form it takes.
That aside, interracial marriage and same-sex marriage actually are very comparable as the same amount of “choice” is involved in both. Afterall, while people don’t choose their race, nor do they choose their orientation (I’d be interested to see when you chose yours), people do choose their marital partners. Of course, unlike you, I realize that people don’t choose who they are attracted to, but regardless, I fully believe that the choice should be ours alone.
Lastly, no, there are no ex-gay people. There are people with mild same-sex attractions who try same-sex relationships because they’ve had some bad experiences in opposite-sex relationships, and there are bisexual people who are predominately oriented to the opposite sex but think themselves gay for a time perhaps in some attempt to be different, and there are people who are so ridden with shame and guilt that they will try every sort of “therapy” they can find to”cure” themselves of an innate orientation and their attempts to do so fails, but there are no “ex-gay” people anymore than there are ex-hetero people or ex-interracially coupled people.
Job hunting?
Use our proprietary jobs tool to access the largest pool of jobs aggregated from around the country.
Bill O’Reilly Defends Fox News News VP Who Gave His Tea Party Opinion
Bill O'Reilly spent several segments last night discussing the tea party movement and attempting to defend Fox News VP of News and Washington managing editor Bill Sammon for his blanket statement about the mainstream media's 'hatred' of the partying. It included a contentious interview with Politico executive editor Jim VandeHei, a talk with Brit Hume (who previously held Sammon's job) and a "Talking Points" opening (including some 'original reporting').
Keith Olbermann, Jon Stewart Fail to Eviscerate Sarah Palin
Hyperbole must be over. How else does one explain the extremely disappointing bits that Jon Stewart and Keith Olbermann did on Sarah Palin last night? Handed (thank you, I'm here all week) 3 days of Palin material that rivaled anything George W. Bush ever gave them, Olbermann could barely manage a molecule of spittle, let alone a lather, and Stewart deployed his seldom-used Nerf™ jokes.
More TV headlines:
»Colbert: ‘Sarah Palin is a F***king Retard’ »5
»Enraged, Rachel Maddow Explains ‘Racist History’ Tea Party Is Embracing »7
»Superbowl MVP Drew Brees on Letterman (with Baby Brees Backstage!)
»Welcome, @CraigyFerg! Craig Ferguson Joins Twitter »2
»Jay Leno Explains The Letterman Promo: “A Good Joke Is A Good Joke” »6
© 2010 Mediaite, LLC | About Us | Advertise | Newsletter | Privacy | User Agreement | Disclaimer | Power Grid FAQ | Contact | Archives | 
RSS
