- Register |
- Login |
- Premium Memberships |
- Audio & Video Chat |
- Top Leakers |
- Faq |
- Contact Us |
- Set As Homepage |
- Advanced Search
- Sections:
- All |
- News/Politics |
- Middle East (Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran..) |
- Entertainment |
- Celebrity |
- Education |
- Citizen Journalism
Michael Savage on the Defeat of Gay Marriage Initiative
After three major defeats: Arizona, Florida and California, talk-show host Michael Savage discusses what is wrong with gay marriage with a gay caller.
Added: Nov 6 2008 In: news_politics
By: Mattsanchez 
- Views: 1130 |
- Votes: 0 |
- Recommendations: 0 |
- Comments: 15
- |
- Send to Friends |
Comments - sort by newest to oldest
The funny thing about the vote was that whites were 51-49 against it. But blacks were 70% against it. I guess they want civil rights for them, but nobody else.....
Posted Nov-6-2008 by "Patriotlimo1" (R)
Funny indeed. More blacks and hispanics voted against gay marriage. What's even funnier is a bunch of gays trying to riot.
Posted Nov-6-2008 by "ShadowankerdogKGB" (B)
Funny indeed. More blacks and hispanics voted against gay marriage. What's even funnier is a bunch of gays trying to riot.
The homos can get pretty violent. I heard they started burning their thongs when the rising cost of petroleum made vasoline skyrocket.
I guess Obama should give them a tax credit. Its not fair they have to pay more for it.
LOL Liberals suck ass....literally.
Posted Nov-6-2008 by "Patriotlimo1" (R)
Religion is a dying ideology, and it couldn't come any sooner. Religion, not logic rules the minds of the ignorant.
Posted Nov-6-2008 by "NeoConsSuck" (R)
i for gay rights, but savage makes a hell of a point
Posted Nov-6-2008 by "tytrig" (R)
of course! but fear not friend, the excuse train ends when it stops at 1600 pennsylvania.
Posted Nov-6-2008 by "tytrig" (R)
very well said
Posted Nov-7-2008 by "keithgeorge1" (R)
Exactly what point is that? He never actually got to the part where he explained how gay marriage is destructive for society. He says it's bad for the future because heterosexual couples can reproduce, but so what? There will be homosexual couples whether or not you let them get married. He seems to think homosexuality is spreading which is ridiculous, maybe more people are just accepting who they really are, which can only be healthy and thus healthy for society.
Posted Nov-7-2008 by "Tibor47" (R)
Exactly what point is that? He never actually got to the part where he explained how gay marriage is destructive for society. He says it's bad for the future because heterosexual couples can reproduce, but so what? There will be homosexual couples whether or not you let them get married. He seems to think homosexuality is spreading which is ridiculous, maybe more people are just accepting who they really are, which can only be healthy and thus healthy for society.
the point was, i believe, that the world has known marriage as one thing for thousands of years, and its selfish for people with acceptance issues to demand a change of the definition to suit their personal needs. of course there will remain gay couples, but its a legal issue of the language, in the binding contract that says, man, and woman.
Posted Nov-7-2008 by "tytrig" (R)
Exactly what point is that? He never actually got to the part where he explained how gay marriage is destructive for society. He says it's bad for the future because heterosexual couples can reproduce, but so what? There will be homosexual couples whether or not you let them get married. He seems to think homosexuality is spreading which is ridiculous, maybe more people are just accepting who they really are, which can only be healthy and thus healthy for society.
the point was, i believe, that the world has known marriage as one thing for thousands of years, and its selfish for people with acceptance issues to demand a change of the definition to suit their personal needs. of course there will remain gay couples, but its a legal issue of the language, in the binding contract that says, man, and woman.
Well that's arguable, but besides the point. He's saying gay marriage is 'destructive'. He never explains his arguement, well he tries with some ham-handed arguement about future generations, but it's mute because as you said there will remain gay couples it makes no difference to our reproductive capabilities as a society if they're married.
Posted Nov-8-2008 by "Tibor47" (R)
oh I see, he thinks if gay people get married all children will grow up to be gay and then no more babies. I guess I didn't understand because it's a pretty ludicrous argument.
Posted Nov-8-2008 by "Tibor47" (R)
Exactly what point is that? He never actually got to the part where he explained how gay marriage is destructive for society. He says it's bad for the future because heterosexual couples can reproduce, but so what? There will be homosexual couples whether or not you let them get married. He seems to think homosexuality is spreading which is ridiculous, maybe more people are just accepting who they really are, which can only be healthy and thus healthy for society.
the point was, i believe, that the world has known marriage as one thing for thousands of years, and its selfish for people with acceptance issues to demand a change of the definition to suit their personal needs. of course there will remain gay couples, but its a legal issue of the language, in the binding contract that says, man, and woman.
Well that's arguable, but besides the point. He's saying gay marriage is 'destructive'. He never explains his arguement, well he tries with some ham-handed arguement about future generations, but it's mute because as you said there will remain gay couples it makes no difference to our reproductive capabilities as a society if they're married.
i think we are on the same side, i dont think homosexuality is destructive, and im for civil unions...hell to be honest i dont think a marriage should be a legal binding contract. i dont think government of any kind has any right to who i love or dont love anymore.
Posted Nov-8-2008 by "tytrig" (R)
I totally agree, marriage should be about love. I guess the legality has to do with finances in the end. If only they could have the legal issues (tax exemption, resource pooling etc.) addressed some other way that's unconnected to marriage so that anyone living in the same household could benefit, not just heterosexual families? Then maybe gold digging would decrease? yeah... I don't know why I get so worked up about a radio show.
Posted Nov-8-2008 by "Tibor47"
BE VERY CAREFUL CRACKING TO DOOR FOR THE BEAST. IT MAKES IT EASIER FOR HIM TO PUSH THE DOOR OPEN...ALLOWING OTHERS RIGHTS TO BE TAKEN FROM THEM MAKES IT THAT MUUCH EASIER FOR THEM TO TAKE YOUR RIGHTS AWAY WHEN IT COMES TIME.
Posted Nov-14-2008 by "escape602"