22 Words

Minnesotans United for All Families hear they beat the marriage amendment

November 8, 2012 | By Abraham | 34 comments

After the elections in Minnesota, many of the people involved in campaigning against the marriage amendment (which would have banned gay marriage constitutionally) were gathered to hear the results. Unfortunately, the results were too slow in coming to stay up for.

In this clip, it’s 1:45 in the morning and Richard Carlbom, campaign manager for Minnesotans United for All Families is telling supporters to go home and get some rest, when suddenly…

(via BuzzFeed)

Like 22 Words on Facebook

34 Comments

        1. dsimathguy says:

          I’d say everything good is packing its bags and leaving the USA. Even Wrong can’t stand how bad it’s getting.

  1. tonicclonic says:

    Yay for progress and equality! I’m from Washington (the Evergreen State… lol) and it looks like R-74 is going to pass here. If we could just get those darn ballots tallied.

    1. dsimathguy says:

      If you think progress is going against how we were made to do whatever we feel like, then you have an IQ lower than a potato.

      1. tonicclonic says:

        I can understand that you’d be butt-hurt about same sex marriage winning so triumphantly in these states, but comparing my intelligence to that of a delicious potato is just ridiculous.

  2. Greg says:

    Don’t limit the freedom to marry!! Great! I can marry my brother! Or my mom! Or a couple of guys if I feel like it, right? No limits!

    1. Mary says:

      Greg, why do you have a problem with 2 people who LOVE each other committing to be WITH each other and CARE for each other?

  3. bbweis says:

    I want to know something… Why do gay people get more rights than genuinely married men and women? Gee, this country is pretty screwed..

    1. kmac says:

      I’d say you just demonstrated how screwed up it can be without intending to. All the best in your ‘genuine’ marriage.

    2. tonicclonic says:

      They don’t get more rights. They’re trying to get equal rights. They’re hoping to someday live in a world where closed minded people don’t look at their lifestyles as disgusting and “wrong”.

      I’m guessing you’re straight, so have you ever been in public with your opposite sex loved one and experienced the pain of someone looking at you with scorn for holding his/her hand? Have you ever been afraid to hug them because you might be verbally shamed? Have you been turned away from a church whith the reason “sorry, we don’t perform marriage ceremonies for straight couples”?

      Love, acceptance and undertanding are progress. Hatred, fear and intolerance will only ground us in the past.

      1. Juanny says:

        You make it sound like the past was a monolith, and that it was completely bad. There’s no fear or hatred on my part, but certainly intolerance. You’re not tolerant of everything, you just don’t admit it. Now, of course, you’ll say you’re “intolerant of intolerance,” but of course the logical conundrum doesn’t bother you, as homosexuality being biologically, morally, and socially illogical doesn’t bother you.

        I also think you and I would disagree both on the definition and the practice of “love,” “understanding,” and particularly “progress.” Homosexuality isn’t a new issue, it’s been dealt with for thousands and thousands of years, and the vast majority of societies got it right, including secular ones, and a slight few didn’t.

        Your use of words like “love” are meaningless; they don’t refer to anything. What you’re talking about is sex, or at least romantic desire. I love a lot of people with whom I neither need to wed nor have sex. Saying that the “other side” is against love is absurd and a mischaracterization.

        You’ve simply categorized people who disagree with you and dehumanized them as “intolerant,” something you are. I don’t think people who identify as gay are any less human than I, I simply think there are social and moral imperatives necessary for both the thriving and security of humans. These restraints and limitations are, again, something you agree with, assuming you are against, say, rape. I’m not comparing rape and homosexuality, I’m merely acknowledging that you must, assuming you are not an anarchist (which itself has limitations, but is an argument for another day), agree that certain boundaries must be upheld within any society. That being said, you would agree that there are lines that must be drawn, we simply disagree on where those lines ought to be. I suppose it’s just easier to think of yourself as super loving and compassionate, and “them” as bigoted and full of hate and fear.

        I don’t think the way I do out of hate or fear, but of love for people in general. It is good and loving that people be restrained from doing whatever they want, and this is particularly true of human sexuality. It is the reason we’re all here, after all. Sex and marriage can be great things, for individuals and society as a whole, but they can also be incredibly destructive.

        1. dsimathguy says:

          Thank you Juanny! I can’t stand when people on the internet think their way is loving and everyone else’s way is hateful. I think same-sex marriage should remain a crime because it leads to HIV/AIDS spreading and has been morally wrong for… well, forever. If every single species in the world has male/female relations, why do humans suddenly think it’s fine to go the completely wrong way? We were made for male/female relations, I think it’s a crime against humanity to ignore it and do whatever we want.

        2. tonicclonic says:

          I did not say everything in the past was bad. We wouldn’t be here today without the many great accomplishments made by our ancestors. However, I really think we can do without the hatred and intolerance that some people show toward people of the GLTC community.
          Furthermore, I didn’t say I was tolerant of EVERYTHING. I would really appreciate if you would stop putting words in my mouth. I am intolerant of undercooked onions in my omelets, parents who bring their babies to horror movies and lumpy pillows. I am put off by your argument that homosexuality is biologically, morally and socially “illogical”. That is your opinion, not a fact.
          When I used the word “love” I meant it as “love thy neighbor”, not “go out and f*ck thy neighbor even if they’re the same sex as you and you don’t swing that way”. And I never used the term “other side”, I’m not trying to divide the sides more than they already are. I was trying to point out to bbweis that gay people might not have it as easy as s/he thinks.

          1. Juanny says:

            “I did not say everything in the past was bad.”

            Then why you’d say hatred, fear, and intolerance will “ground us in the past”? You’re suggesting that the past is full of hatred, fear, and intolerance, right? What am I missing here?

            “I really think we can do without the hatred… ”

            Agreed…

            “… and intolerance that some people show toward people of the GLBT community.”

            What makes intolerance bad? You just said “I didn’t say I was tolerant of EVERYTHING.” So why do you use “intolerance” derogatorily? Unless you’re steeped in some serious self-loathing.

            “I would really appreciate if you would stop putting words in my mouth.”

            Don’t worry, I’m not.

            “I am put off by your argument that homosexuality is biologically, morally and socially ‘illogical.’ That is your opinion, not a fact.”

            Instead of just saying it’s an opinion that puts you off and not dealing with it, why don’t you provide me some reasons that it is logical? And it’s not merely opinion. Biologically, homosexuality makes no sense as it is useless in sexually dimorphic species. Sexual dimorphism alone ought to explain enough about how human sexuality functions, and ought to function. Things are never that easy though, right? Morally, there simply isn’t any ethical system within which homosexuality is acceptable, except moral relativism, and moral relativism is self-defeating. If you can provide a wholly consistent and universal ethic within which homosexuality is acceptable, I’d love to hear it. And socially, again, homosexuality serves no function, especially considering that no children will be produced. That’s not to say that children are the only focus of marriage, but it is the primary one of any society. If it wasn’t, there wouldn’t be any “society.” So, these things combined simply don’t allow for the acceptance of homosexuality, let alone gay marriage.

            “When I used the word ‘love’ I meant it as ‘love thy neighbor’, not ‘go out and f*ck thy neighbor even if they’re the same sex as you and you don’t swing that way.”

            See? Using the word love here was pretty misleading on your part. Makes discussions like this hard, especially when “love” is your primary argument.

            “I never used the term ‘other side’, I’m not trying to divide the sides…”

            You didn’t have to. By setting up the dichotomy between “love” and “hatred;” “acceptance” and “fear;” “progress” and the past, you’ve made the division, and I cannot fathom that division being made between anything other than you, the people on your side, and others on the opposite side.

            “I was trying to point out to bbweis that gay people might not have it as easy as s/he things.”

            I don’t even know where this comes from. Where was it suggested that they have it easy? I’m confused with this last sentence.

          2. Allan Crowson says:

            So there are animals that display homosexual behavior. And?

            There are animals that abandon and/or eat their young. Does that make it a pattern for appropriate human behavior?

        3. Carr says:

          “Your use of words like ‘love’ are meaningless; they don’t refer to anything. What you’re talking about is sex, or at least romantic desire.”

          By far the most ignorant thing you could have said:

          A) You cannot assume the person’s intent in the word love. You could attempt to use context to infer it, but there is no indication that they are talking about sex rather than emotional love.

          B) Actually, you are the one that is concentrated on the sexual act than the emotional connection since you immediately went to discard the emotional connection you have with others in lieu of the physical (or lack thereof) connection.

          C) “[T]hey don’t refer to anything” and “what you are talking about is sex” directly contradict each other.

          D) Finally, it’s impressive that you not only characterize their opinion on the marriage topic as “illogical” but also their use of language entirely.

          1. Juanny says:

            “You cannot assume the person’s intent in the word love.”

            This is exactly my point. It’s the most common argument in favor of gay marriage, that we should not keep people from loving one another, but then they can’t even define it.

            “You could attempt to use context to infer it, but there is no indication that they are talking about sex rather than emotional love.”

            That’s why I brought up the love I have with others. I love my dad, but I don’t need, nor should I, marry him. I was making the distinction that tonicclonic left vague.

            “Actually, you are the one that is concentrated on the sexual act than the emotional connection since you immediately went to discard the emotional connection you have with others in lieu of the physical (or lack thereof) connection.”

            What is homosexuality outside of physical attraction or romantic desire? The word “homosexuality” IS the distinction between emotional love and sex. If there’s no romantic desire, all we’re talking about is the same love I have for my dad and, again, I don’t need to marry him.

            “‘[T]hey don’t refer to anything’ and ‘what you are talking about is sex’ directly contradict each other.”

            Clearly you can see that my point is the problem of vagueness in the argument, right? This is basic.

            “Finally, it’s impressive that you not only characterize their opinion on the marriage topic as ‘illogical’ but also their use of language entirely.”

            If you can show me gay marriage is logical, I’m willing to admit I’m wrong. But I’m not wrong. It makes no sense. It is illogical. And language is a tricky, and very important, part of communicating. In fact, it may be one of the most important parts of communicating. That’s why I harped on it.

  4. girl says:

    HEY PEOPLE! LISTEN UP!

    I was raised around and by people like this ‘Juanny’; know them, love them and even respect them in many ways-

    but the point here really is: some of these ‘issues’ are magnificent things that go beyond ‘ultimate truth’ and ‘scientific deduction’ and can not add up for some minds because they seem to defy ‘reason’ and logic based on what is ‘obvious’.

    The best and most freeing thing you can feel towards them is: compassion.

    No, really.

    Because, ultimately, what a sad way to exist on this magic planet, eh?

    1. Juanny says:

      “Beyond” what is true and reasonable? What, pray tell, is “beyond” truth? What is “beyond” logic?

      It is good and loving to tell people the truth. It is good and loving to the person receiving it, as well as to society in general.

      1. John says:

        Excellent, and I agree 100%. Now, maybe you should try re-examining your raging ignorant bigotry and fact-free nonsense, in terms of your newfound “truth is good” and “logic should be used” position.

        1. Juanny says:

          Fact-free? Sexual dimorphism isn’t a fact? The contradictions inherent in moral relativism aren’t fact?

          Nice non-argument. Calling me a raging, ignorant bigot is the equivalent of a playground “doodiehead.” Ad hominem doesn’t look good on you. If you can get beyond name calling and provide reasons to change my position, I’ll consider them.

  5. Galina says:

    I have one thing to say if you don’t like gay marriage then don’t get gay married but in sure anyone is living a 100% perfect life that they may tell others how to live there’s…

  6. Galina says:

    **anyone who is not living 100% perfect life may not tell anyone else how to live there’s. sorry for the typo

  7. outlet says:

    Im certain other folks will agree, you will be accomplishing a fantastic task. In case you ever launch your individual product or service, Ill be the first a single to buy. As you understand what youre executing. Make Money With Fiverr

Leave a Reply

As seen on Huffington Post, CNN, BuzzFeed, New York Times, Scientific American, Mentalfloss, USA Today, Funny or Die, Gawker, Gizmodo, Laughing Squid, Boing Boing, Hot Air, Jezebel, Neatorama

About 22 Words

22 Words collects a blend of everything from the serious and creative to the silly and absurd. As your source for the crazy, curious, and comical side of the web, 22 Words can be counted on to share funny and fascinating viral content as well as more obscure (but equally interesting) pictures, videos, and more.

© 2014 | 22 Words

Privacy Policy

Close This Window Close