Jay-Z, Gay Marriage: Obama's New Stance Is 'The Right Thing To Do' (VIDEO)

[pig love]

I'm glad this image is funny to you

 

[swendro]

Originally Posted by Pig Love

I'm glad this image is funny to you

Your shtick is really wearing thin tho. I know you just watched Zeitgeist for the first time last week, but we all watched it several years ago. Fema camps/ "fast and furious"/9-11 was in an inside job. Yeah we know. You can stop with this in every post. You think you're enlightening us, but you're not. Log off NT and go back to your conspiracy wanking websites.

 

[Jordan8]

I just wish black Americans had the convenience of "hiding" their skin while letting gay Americans go through centuries of hell and let them die by thousands fighting for civil liberties for all. And then black people "came out" of hiding when it was safer after the country had soften up a bit because images of hundreds of gay people being hung and being sprayed with hoses has softened Americans hearts. Now its ok for blacks to come prancing out demanding stuff and comparing fighting for one civil luxury to almost a thousand years discrimination & murder. Most of you are white so I can sorta understand the passion because this is the first a white man has been denied a luxury in this country. Welcome to the party

 

[flatbushfiyah23]

Originally Posted by Nowitzness41

Originally Posted by FlatbushFiyah23

Originally Posted by Nowitzness41

What a hypocrite, you know damb well hes only saying this and backing him because hes black. It bugs the crap outta me how so many people back him and agree with everything he says just because of his skin color- talking about "thats my president" - why? Are you full of crap and talk out your behind like he does too?

Clearly you know nothing.

Clearly, you're an Obama fan. Aside from liking him, what the hell has he done except for continue to bury us into the hole that Clinton and Bush started? We're broke as a joke dude, say what you want- its getting worse. People just lining up for free checks from our broke@z$ government. Its called writing hot checks, we dont even have the money- yet spending even more is going to fix the problem.

Clearly you miss my point. In each one of your statements you make assumptions based on nothing. You assume Jay and others agree with Obama just because he is black.....are there people who do that? Sure there are but here Jay gave HIS reasoning and you still make assumptions as to why he agrees as if you know what is in the mindset of Jay or any other person who agrees with Obama on this issue. Then you assume I am an Obama fan without any information. All you are doing here is making assumptions and you know what they say about those who assume. Therefore, once again clearly you know NOTHING.

 

[veintisiete]

self-pitying black people

 

[chickencurry4eva]

Originally Posted by Nowitzness41

Originally Posted by FlatbushFiyah23

Clearly you miss my point. In each one of your statements you make assumptions based on nothing. You assume Jay and others agree with Obama just because he is black.....are there people who do that? Sure there are but here Jay gave HIS reasoning and you still make assumptions as to why he agrees as if you know what is in the mindset of Jay or any other person who agrees with Obama on this issue. Then you assume I am an Obama fan without any information. All you are doing here is making assumptions and you know what they say about those who assume. Therefore, once again clearly you know NOTHING.

Not bad, but lets think about this. My assumption is based on the fact that after 20 years of being in the media, Jay decides to step out on a limb within a week after Mr Obama does- hmmmmm

. He can give all the reasons he wants, its just politics- Im down for Jay trying to bring some unity and positivity to the black community- I just think its BS that it has to be so racially motivated. I do know things though, as do you- maybe you arent an Obama fan, but your first response to my post made it seem otherwise (you were quick to throw darts in my direction over something that you didnt agree with). Maybe we both brought our own opinions and views into reading one another's statement, and fogged them up. But i dont see either one of us as being wrong- we're just motivated by different things and see things differently. We're a reflection of our past though dude, dont make the claim that i know nothing just because you dont agree with my take.

He didn't "step out on a limb" -Jay was asked for his opinion on the subject in an interview with CNN and he expressed how he felt....he didn't make an official statement just to comment on the issue.  He backed up his statement, not by expressing that he's pro-gay, pro-black, or anti-white - he simply stated that he's anti-discrimination and that's a fair, relevant, and respectable assertion.

I'm not sure what the issue is here, but ok carry on fam.

 

[pig love]

Originally Posted by swendro88

Originally Posted by Pig Love

I'm glad this image is funny to you

Your shtick is really wearing thin tho. I know you just watched Zeitgeist for the first time last week, but we all watched it several years ago. Fema camps/ "fast and furious"/9-11 was in an inside job. Yeah we know. You can stop with this in every post. You think you're enlightening us, but you're not. Log off NT and go back to your conspiracy wanking websites.

You know about the FEMA camps? Oh you're right, those are stupid.

Edit: These are fun coffins

    

 

[rko2004]

Originally Posted by an dee 51o

Originally Posted by ILL LEGAL OPERATION

Why couldn't they take their civil unions and be done with this issue years ago?
What's with the relentless efforts to call it a "marriage?"

It's not a marriage, and I don't support anything or anybody calling it such...

...no one's against their equality, but I'll always be against calling that union a "marriage."

Because Christians seem to think they invented marriage. No, sorry. That was occurring long before Jesus.

Marriage and religion go hand and hand though. Take the label of Christians off for a second and you have people who believe in God and now believe his son is Jesus Christ/Savior.

The belief in God and marriage predates Christ walking this earth.

Now I'm not arguing gays being allowed to marry. This is setting the record straight.

But to the original topic. I forgot who said it a page or two ago, but I told Lobotomybeats and others before. I wouldn't stand in the way of gays marrying. I also wont stand in a rally with them for it.

I think Dirty said a year or so back, let them marry but leave it up to the churches and etc to decide if they want to marry them. Leave it at that.

Now if they want to start pressing the issue on churches NOT marrying them then we have a whole other issue.

We'll all have to answer for the lives we lived at some point in the future.

 

[calypso chanta]

Pretty much sums it up.

 

[vatech733]

Learned this from an episode of Louie season 1...

The "F" word for homosexuals is often referred to its definition of "a bundle of sticks", but what I didn't know until this episode where one of Louie's gay comedian friends stated that back in the 1500 and 1600s when the 'witches' were burned they used "bundles of sticks" to ignite the fire that burned the witches. BUT, homosexuals were also thrown in to ignite the fire and that is why today they are referred to as flaming "F-words".....

So to the people that are saying these are completely different issues, they really aren't in regards to being denied civil rights and treated as actual human beings. They are not the same when compared race versus homosexuality because they aren't technically the same, but they kind of are at the same time...

 

[flatbushfiyah23]

Originally Posted by Nowitzness41

Originally Posted by FlatbushFiyah23

Clearly you miss my point. In each one of your statements you make assumptions based on nothing. You assume Jay and others agree with Obama just because he is black.....are there people who do that? Sure there are but here Jay gave HIS reasoning and you still make assumptions as to why he agrees as if you know what is in the mindset of Jay or any other person who agrees with Obama on this issue. Then you assume I am an Obama fan without any information. All you are doing here is making assumptions and you know what they say about those who assume. Therefore, once again clearly you know NOTHING.

Not bad, but lets think about this. My assumption is based on the fact that after 20 years of being in the media, Jay decides to step out on a limb within a week after Mr Obama does- hmmmmm

. He can give all the reasons he wants, its just politics- Im down for Jay trying to bring some unity and positivity to the black community- I just think its BS that it has to be so racially motivated. I do know things though, as do you- maybe you arent an Obama fan, but your first response to my post made it seem otherwise (you were quick to throw darts in my direction over something that you didnt agree with). Maybe we both brought our own opinions and views into reading one another's statement, and fogged them up. But i dont see either one of us as being wrong- we're just motivated by different things and see things differently. We're a reflection of our past though dude, dont make the claim that i know nothing just because you dont agree with my take.

Jay was simply asked a question by CNN because it is a hot button issue right now and he answered it. Its not like he strategically chose to come out and do this. I think if you think that then you are reaching a bit and thats where we differ. I understand where you are coming from where people use the media as a platform to jump on certain issues just to be politically correct (and I am not fond of that either)....however I just don't think this is one of those cases.

 

[ill legal operation]

Originally Posted by TimCity2000


finally, the discussion about gay marriage. frankly, i probably will never get married. but i'd like to have that option. and i get the distinction between civil unions and marriage. it's a touchy situation. to have two things be the same in everything but name sounds a little like "separate but equal." so maybe the answer is that the government can grant ANY couple a civil union (regardless of sex, recognized by all states, equal benefits, etc) and we leave marriage to the churches (basically just a symbolic act). the main problem here is that the term "marriage" carries cultural importance with it beyond religion, so i think a lot of people would object to giving churches essentially a monopoly on that word. or we do the opposite and let the government continue to issue "marriage licenses" and let the churches call their ceremonies whatever they want to.  personally, i don't know that i would care.

I admit my stance on "civil unions"/"gay marriage" sounds exactly like "separate but equal" because at it's core, that's what it is...

...I'm not under the belief that the African American human and civil rights struggles are one in the same with the civil and human rights struggles of homosexuals, so I have no qualms about taking a "separate but equal" approach here.

Am I against homosexuals receiving all the same rights, benefits, and privileges granted to a comparable heterosexual couple? Not in the least bit...

...am I against homosexuals adopting children and saving them from a childhood confined to an orphanage or (in the worst case scenario) abusive foster care? Not at all.

On this site you and I have had similar conversations before (which is why I only quoted a portion of your reply - we've covered the other issues you brought up, so there's no need to rehash them), and my only concern is the same as it was months prior: what's with this the relentless insistence from the majority of the LBGT community in calling a homosexual union a "marriage?"

For millions of Americans and myself included (and I'm only concerning myself with this issue as it relates to our country), the definition of a marriage is a covenant between and man, woman, and God; and for the record, that definition is not exclusive to Christians. Jews, Muslims, etc. have similar foundations on the same institution, so all of this asinine "Bible thumping" talk from various NTers does nothing but highlight their gripe with Christianity, but that's a topic that's been beat to death on this sneaker forum and so again, there's no point in rehashing it...

...when the cards are laid on the table and it's agreed that homosexuals should enjoy the same rights as heterosexual married couples, but the rebuttal is a nonnegotiable desire upon using the term "marriage"...

...you then realize that this fights isn't about equality at all, this fight is about a title and changing the definition of that title.

What's in a name?

 

[Mark Antony]

Why does this bug yall? when you go home, shut your door, is the issue present?
lobotomybeats wrote:

---

Nothing like a good ol 'whose had it worse' pissing match. It always strikes me weird that African Americans are trying to monopolize civil rights movements. Get over yourself! DOES ANYONE EVER DISAGREE THAT AFRICAN AMERICANS WERE PERSECUTED WORSE? Has anyone ever denied that? The irrelevancy astounds me. Jesus @$%@*!% christ, it seems to me that those who have been persecuted would be the first to empathize with someone receiving false judgments! There is no prize to the 'We had it worse' argument. The prize is in equality. It sickens me that gets overlooked due to groups not wanting to detract from their own past struggles. WE GET IT! You had it worse, now look inside yourself to at least recognize the similarities.




Indeed, it's so surreal to me that the severity of it keeps getting brought up.  No one's denying it, bottomline is, discrimination is discrimination and as a group that's been so heavily discriminated against, it's a shame that instead of understanding another man's plight, you deny it like we hold some sort of monopoly against being discriminated against.  
 




[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/font]

 

[wsdesigner14]

...you then realize that this fights isn't about equality at all, this fight is about a title and changing the definition of that title.

What's in a name?


No, not at all. Marriage does not equal a covenant between a man, a woman, and God, especially not in the U.S. where marriage is a status that carries with it numerous civil benefits and rights.

As an atheist, I can marry another atheist and our "union" would be considered a marriage as long as we fill out all of the paperwork and pay the associated fees. Without having a priest or a similar religious figure conduct the ceremony, my wife and I would still be considered married, both under the law, and by our friends, families, and community.

To those opposed to gay marriage, this fight is about changing traditions and redefining cultural practices. Yet, crucially, they seem to forget that their particular religious or cultural tradition did not "invent" nor does not "own" the word and practice of marriage. In a nation that has entrenched in its constitution a separation between church and state, we should not invoke religion to discriminate against a minority group.

 

[heliumclinton]

Originally Posted by wsdesigner14

...you then realize that this fights isn't about equality at all, this fight is about a title and changing the definition of that title.

What's in a name?

No, not at all. Marriage does not equal a covenant between a man, a woman, and God, especially not in the U.S. where marriage is a status that carries with it numerous civil benefits and rights.

As an atheist, I can marry another atheist and our "union" would be considered a marriage as long as we fill out all of the paperwork and pay the associated fees. Without having a priest or a similar religious figure conduct the ceremony, my wife and I would still be considered married, both under the law, and by our friends, families, and community.

To those opposed to gay marriage, this fight is about changing traditions and redefining cultural practices. Yet, crucially, they seem to forget that their particular religious or cultural tradition did not "invent" nor does not "own" the word and practice of marriage. In a nation that has entrenched in its constitution a separation between church and state, we should not invoke religion to discriminate against a minority group.

Thank you. I honestly didn't know people still thought marriage was only a church thing. 

 

[shoefreakbaby]

Originally Posted by an dee 51o

Originally Posted by ILL LEGAL OPERATION

Why couldn't they take their civil unions and be done with this issue years ago?
What's with the relentless efforts to call it a "marriage?"

It's not a marriage, and I don't support anything or anybody calling it such...

...no one's against their equality, but I'll always be against calling that union a "marriage."

Because Christians seem to think they invented marriage. No, sorry. That was occurring long before Jesus.

Yes because "Christians" are the only ones standing against this.

I dont see a difference between civil Union and marriage, if they allowed the civil unions why cant they allow the marriage.

It doesn't makes sense, let them get married already so we can tackle other issues 

 

[boys noize]

Originally Posted by RKO2004

Originally Posted by an dee 51o

Originally Posted by ILL LEGAL OPERATION

Why couldn't they take their civil unions and be done with this issue years ago?
What's with the relentless efforts to call it a "marriage?"

It's not a marriage, and I don't support anything or anybody calling it such...

...no one's against their equality, but I'll always be against calling that union a "marriage."

Because Christians seem to think they invented marriage. No, sorry. That was occurring long before Jesus.

Marriage and religion go hand and hand though. Take the label of Christians off for a second and you have people who believe in God and now believe his son is Jesus Christ/Savior.

The belief in God and marriage predates Christ walking this earth.

Now I'm not arguing gays being allowed to marry. This is setting the record straight.

But to the original topic. I forgot who said it a page or two ago, but I told Lobotomybeats and others before. I wouldn't stand in the way of gays marrying. I also wont stand in a rally with them for it.

I think Dirty said a year or so back, let them marry but leave it up to the churches and etc to decide if they want to marry them. Leave it at that.

Now if they want to start pressing the issue on churches NOT marrying them then we have a whole other issue.

We'll all have to answer for the lives we lived at some point in the future.

RKO, I don't know if your stance has changed over the years but this post came across differently than ones I had read before from you. Maybe I just didn't notice.
Anyway, what you said is fair and respectable. I also don't think you'll have anything to worry about as far as the government stepping in and trying to change anything in the church. Separation of church and state does still exist. Maybe the hangup between the religious and being able to get with the idea of marriage equality is the confusion over what it means in this country? Gay marriage does not cheapen Christian marriage, just as a Muslim marriage or an atheist marriage doesn't cheapen a Christian marriage.

 

[deuce king]

Originally Posted by Nowitzness41

Originally Posted by Deuce King

Yes, he is my president at the moment- and I support him as such

 
That's good to hear

.

and I didnt back him in the last election and wont in this upcoming one either

That's not good to hear.

I cant tell you how many people in my city I have argued with who acknowledge that he has made things worse



Other than our national debt growing, what exactly has Obama made worse from prior??  I see your point somewhat on folks voting for him just because, but at the end of the day if people feel like Obama is the lesser of two evils then I see nothing wrong with that. 
Thats what he has made worse, continually trying to write hot checks to spur the economy and get us out of debt just isn't working (and doubt it ever will). The country revolves around money, and Bush broke us- now Obama is burying us in debt (its gonna be ugly when we get older, very few will ever get to retire and any benefits will be out the window for the most part. As for the "lesser of 2 evils", sadly, thats what it has become- yet  neither side is going to get anything productive done. Im not backing Romney either (and sure as heck didnt back McCain and Nalin Palin), I would rather see an independent get the nod- but we know that wont happen since elections run solely on funding from those with selfish interests nowadays. Its all just a show, and it seems like Jay Z is just adding to the show and pandering to one side (albeit for unity and trying to better his own race- nothing wrong with that i suppose). This topic just kinda bugged me initially, but hey- politics as usual. Its all good- im glad to see that you are open-minded about things and that you're not trying to burn me at the stake for what i said




No doubt champ, I see where your coming from. As far as I'm concerned with our discussion your cool to walk the streets.

 

[shoefreakbaby]

You know what's crazy as far as churches so many couples who are not ordained by God get married all the time.
Couples who don't even go to church or are not practicing in their beliefs yet come to church and get married. What is the difference between that and marrying gays in churches
Lol just noticed that

 

[scarsorscabs]

Originally Posted by shoefreakbaby

You know what's crazy as far as churches so many couples who are not ordained by God get married all the time.
Couples who don't even go to church or are practicing in their beliefs yet come to church and get married. What is the difference between that and marrying gays in churches
Lol just noticed that

The idea that marriage is a covenant before God is such %@%$%$@*, it's just a cop out and another weak justification to discriminate against gays.  I know multiple people who are not religious and were married in a church, others who lied to a priest during pre-cana, lived in sin prior to marriage, etc.
I've made the same point as you before and nobody seems to have an answer.  Why aren't/weren't Christians up in arms over those who are non-believers getting married rather than a civil union?  Crickets.

 

[lobotomybeats]

Originally Posted by RKO2004

Originally Posted by an dee 51o

Originally Posted by ILL LEGAL OPERATION

Why couldn't they take their civil unions and be done with this issue years ago?
What's with the relentless efforts to call it a "marriage?"

It's not a marriage, and I don't support anything or anybody calling it such...

...no one's against their equality, but I'll always be against calling that union a "marriage."

Because Christians seem to think they invented marriage. No, sorry. That was occurring long before Jesus.

But to the original topic. I forgot who said it a page or two ago, but I told Lobotomybeats and others before. I wouldn't stand in the way of gays marrying. I also wont stand in a rally with them for it.

I think Dirty said a year or so back, let them marry but leave it up to the churches and etc to decide if they want to marry them. Leave it at that.

Now if they want to start pressing the issue on churches NOT marrying them then we have a whole other issue.

I admire your growth, RKO.  You haven't always been this open-minded in regards to homosexual rights. Well done.

Your point about anyone pressuring the churches to marry homosexuals is kind of rhetorical though. That will never happen.

 

[shoefreakbaby]

ScarsOrScabs wrote:
I've made the same point as you before and nobody seems to have an answer.  Why aren't/weren't Christians up in arms over those who are non-believers getting married rather than a civil union?  Crickets.


One of the churches I go to the pastor prays and fast for months before he marries anyone and if he doesn't feel right marrying you, he says he cant do it.

 But he doesn't tell them not to do it

For the most part  its same reason why religious people ignore the hundreds of verses on fornication but solely pay attention to the less than 10 about homosexuality.

People aren't comfortable with homosexuality 

 

[7thave btn 31stn33rd st]

[h1][/h1]

[h1] When Same-Sex Marriage Was a Christian Rite [/h1]
Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual. Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale University’s history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).

These church rites had all the symbols of a heterosexual marriage: the whole community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar was conducted with their right hands joined, holy vows were exchanged, a priest officiatied in the taking of the Eucharist and a wedding feast for the guests was celebrated afterwards. These elements all appear in contemporary illustrations of the holy union of the Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE) and his companion John.

Original Article or http://

A Kiev art museum contains a curious icon from St. Catherine's Monastery on Mt. Sinai in Israel. It shows two robed Christian saints. Between them is a traditional Roman ‘pronubus’ (a best man), overseeing a wedding. The pronubus is Christ. The married couple are both men.

Is the icon suggesting that a gay "wedding" is being sanctified by Christ himself? The idea seems shocking. But the full answer comes from other early Christian sources about the two men featured in the icon, St. Sergius and St. Bacchus, two Roman soldiers who were Christian martyrs. These two officers in the Roman army incurred the anger of Emperor Maximian when they were exposed as ‘secret Christians’ by refusing to enter a pagan temple. Both were sent to Syria circa 303 CE where Bacchus is thought to have died while being flogged. Sergius survived torture but was later beheaded. Legend says that Bacchus appeared to the dying Sergius as an angel, telling him to be brave because they would soon be reunited in heaven.

While the pairing of saints, particularly in the early Christian church, was not unusual, the association of these two men was regarded as particularly intimate. Severus, the Patriarch of Antioch (AD 512 - 51 explained that, "we should not separate in speech they [Sergius and Bacchus] who were joined in life". This is not a case of simple "adelphopoiia." In the definitive 10th century account of their lives, St. Sergius is openly celebrated as the "sweet companion and lover" of St. Bacchus. Sergius and Bacchus's close relationship has led many modern scholars to believe they were lovers. But the most compelling evidence for this view is that the oldest text of their martyrology, written in New Testament Greek describes them as "erastai,

 

[lobotomybeats]

Originally Posted by cartune

I just wish black Americans had the convenience of "hiding" their skin while letting gay Americans go through centuries of hell and let them die by thousands fighting for civil liberties for all. And then black people "came out" of hiding when it was safer after the country had soften up a bit because images of hundreds of gay people being hung and being sprayed with hoses has softened Americans hearts. Now its ok for blacks to come prancing out demanding stuff and comparing fighting for one civil luxury to almost a thousand years discrimination & murder. Most of you are white so I can sorta understand the passion because this is the first a white man has been denied a luxury in this country. Welcome to the party

So please tell me this, is it more offensive to draw comparisons between the two struggles as many activists do, or is it more offensive for you to use your ancestor's struggles to belittle, denigrate, and mock someone else's struggles?  You constantly feign being offended by a group  making these comparisons because they were never lynched or sprayed by hoses. Yet here you are co-opting past struggles, struggles that you yourself have never endured, to make a point against a group just wanting equality! If homosexuals were granted the same rights that you have, would you somehow be offended that they didn't have to go through lynchings and being sprayed by hoses to attain those rights?  Would those rights be less valid and less reason to celebrate because, as you see it, they didn't go through the same hells to be seen as equal? You use examples of atrocities you haven't ever endured to say someone's struggles were so superior that comparisons can't be made! $$@+%+#, please, dude!

Homosexuals aren't trying to take away from the struggles of African Americans.  Nope, they just want the same kind of equality that your ancestors wanted.  They want to be accepted despite the obvious differences.  If you fail to see the similarities you are more clueless than I previously thought, which is saying a whole hell of a lot.


Oh and since when did homosexuals all become white?  Obviously you haven't ever heard of the stereotypes that surrounded AIDS originally...

 

[retro23j]

Originally Posted by vatech733

Learned this from an episode of Louie season 1...

The "F" word for homosexuals is often referred to its definition of "a bundle of sticks", but what I didn't know until this episode where one of Louie's gay comedian friends stated that back in the 1500 and 1600s when the 'witches' were burned they used "bundles of sticks" to ignite the fire that burned the witches. BUT, homosexuals were also thrown in to ignite the fire and that is why today they are referred to as flaming "F-words".....

So to the people that are saying these are completely different issues, they really aren't in regards to being denied civil rights and treated as actual human beings. They are not the same when compared race versus homosexuality because they aren't technically the same, but they kind of are at the same time...

Reading this and then remembering a NTer saying that Jordan called Kwame Brown a bundle of sticks in the Jordan is a jerk thread all makes sense now.