Chuck Norris Likens Prop 8 Fight To Anarchy

The truth is that the great majority of Prop. 8 advocates are not bigots or hatemongers. They are American citizens who are following 5,000 years of human history and the belief of every major people and religion: Marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman. Their pro-Prop. 8 votes weren't intended to deprive any group of its rights; they were safeguarding their honest convictions regarding the boundaries of marriage.

Full article

reply to post by warrenb


Interestng Wiki related story on Chuck and his importance to our country:

The special anniversary tribute refutes many myths about the period and American history. According to the entry, the American Revolution was in fact instigated by Chuck Norris, who incinerated the Stamp Act by looking at it, then roundhouse-kicked the entire British army into the Atlantic Ocean. A group of Massachusetts Minutemaids then unleashed the zombie-generating T-Virus on London, crippling the British economy and severely limiting its naval capabilities.

Wikipedia Celebrates 750 Years Of American Independence
Founding Fathers, Patriots, Mr. T. Honored
July 26, 2006 | Issue 42•30
February 16, 2008
NEW YORK—Wikipedia, the online, reader-edited encyclopedia, honored the 750th anniversary of American independence on July 25 with a special featured section on its main page Tuesday...The commemorative page is one of the most detailed on the site, rivaling entries for Firefly and the Treaty Of Algeron for sheer length. Subheadings include "Origins Of Colonial Discontent," "Some Famous Guys In Wigs And Three-Cornered Hats," and "Christmastime In Gettysburg." It also features detailed maps of the original colonies—including Narnia, the central ice deserts, and Westeros—as well as profiles of famous American historical figures such as Benjamin Franklin, Special Agent Jack Bauer, and Samuel Adams who is also a defensive tackle for the Cincinnati Bengals.

www.theonion.com...

It's interesting when "left wing" actors speak up, they are wimps (many are) but when this guy speaks, people think he's a politician.

ColoradoJens

reply to post by ColoradoJens


your using the Onion as a news source? rofl

I do sincerely hope your joking

Go Chuck, Go.

I would love to see Chuck roundhouse Sean Penn into the next decade.

Funny how he fails to mention Massachusetts and Connecticut...

I still fail to see how Chuck gained such stratospheric popularity to an extent where he is a go to point for social and political issues.

reply to post by warrenb

I agree with Mr.Norris concerning his opinion on the likely views of voters on this subject.I do not,however,agree with the assumption that marriage is any kind of a "sacred" union.It may have existed in this sense in the past,but certainly not anymore in our western world.The last time I checked the divorce rate in this country,it was hovering around 50%.That means at least half of married people no longer consider marriage a sacrosanct irreversible action.I personally could care less.I simply think that this issue could be solved by some kind of a list that people could file with the state as far as people they would trust as far as insurance,right to visit if sick,power of attorney etc.etc.no matter what the relationship.Gay lover or straight, wife,weekend tail,who cares.As long as the individual concerned believes that the other person has their best interests at heart.

reply to post by warrenb


Come on WarrenB - you know I was...now, I know the Prop 8 issue is hot right now and discussion/debate are always valued - I simply question the source of Chuck Norris. As another poster referenced, I too would like to see him roundhouse Sean Pean back to Venezuela; but that doesn't mean I take what he says at face value. Don't get me wrong; I love Walker Texas Ranger re-runs on the bible channel @ 5:00 with Grandma and all...

ColoradoJens

He actually did say that, and he is right.

The behavior of the losing side has been nothing short of anarchy. They are attempting to bully their way, instead of fighting this ian allowable ways.

I don't give a damn what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms, so long as in is between consenting adults.

I do give a damn about marriage. Historically, marriage has been between a man and a woman, not two people of the same sex.

I believe gays should have inheritance rights, the right to hold medical power of attorney, etc.

But NOT marriage.

And if any invade my church, I'll do my best to beat them into the ground.

Perhaps no one deserves special government treatment or privileges simply for choosing to have an officiated ceremony of union. What business does the government have rewarding, or regulating, such behavior in the first place?

[edit on 19-11-2008 by TravelerintheDark]

Agreed

As for Chuck Norris, I don't care what he thinks any more than I care what Alec Baldwin or Sean Penn thinks.

I don't take my political cues from celebrities

Originally posted by MemoryShock
I still fail to see how Chuck gained such stratospheric popularity to an extent where he is a go to point for social and political issues.

Since when is Sean Penn, Matt Damon, Barbara Streisand, Alex Baldwin (and the rest of his freaky family), Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, and the rest of Hollyweird "go to" points?

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
It's interesting when "left wing" actors speak up, they are wimps (many are) but when this guy speaks, people think he's a politician.

It's funny too that when "left wing" actors speak up, the media and other people are quick to dismiss their opinions as just that.

But when "right wing" actors speak up, the media and others decry their opinions and attack them like they are politicians.

These people are actors and commentators, not politicians. They have opinions just like we do and they should be treated as such.

Let them speak and take it for what it's worth. Just because they are famous doesn't make their opinions any more valid than ours.

[edit on 19-11-2008 by nyk537]

as has already been pointed out - if it's such a hallowed and sacred institution - then why such high divorce and adultery rates? this has to be proof enough that many that legally marry don't treat marriage as "sacred". where do those who can't practice what they preach get off preaching to others?

if i was gay i know i'd be damned angry and frustrated at the blatant discrimination forced on them. personally i don't see why the religious zealots get to call this one because as far as i'm concerned they have no right to shove their bull**** beliefs down others throats; but ...

if they must have their "sacred" marriage to themselves, why don't gays just compromise and call their unions something else instead of 'marriage'? over here we call legalized relationships between gay people 'civil unions'. it's basically the same thing as marriage and gives those relationships pretty much the same rights as marriage.

I married and divorced my second wife by the same court judge. I don't recall any religious ceremony and content.

I do think religious organizations should have a right by their own beliefs to refuse to marry a gay couple just as much as they refused to marry my second wife and I because we were not members and had been counselled by them.

It did anger me though, because they used their belief system as if by their own law or interpretation and yet church members are obligated to pledge financial offering s or "Taxes" to these same church organizations.

What they did in California by giving and taking away these new rights was idiotic and set up these people to possibly riot in such a negative economic time. Church orginizations having allegedly spent huge amounts of money was to me an illegal act of seperation of church and state.

It should have never been allowed on the ballot with so many other more important issues like the economy. This was as if lobbying by these elite religious groups.

I believe these people should have the righ of civil unions, but not to reinterpret and change church doctrine. These people as if expect gods blessings through a legal court is also a violation of church and state by changing the known "religious and moral" understanding and definition of marriage.


As I said: I was married by a court judge, not a minister or clergy. State marriage and church marriage should be seperate. People who are transgendered can legally marry, can't they?

reply to post by warrenb

who are following 5,000 years of human history and the belief of every major people and religion: Marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman.

Religion shouldn't get a say in law, not in a secular nation that has a constitution that forbids this.

Gays being married has actually been around a long time, so this traditional argument is considerably faltering. (Thanks to another poster for pointing out this information that I am now citing)

Civil unions between male couples existed around 600 years ago in medieval Europe, a historian now says.
...
For example, he found legal contracts from late medieval France that referred to the term "affrèrement," roughly translated as brotherment. Similar contracts existed elsewhere in Mediterranean Europe, Tulchin said.

In the contract, the "brothers" pledged to live together sharing "un pain, un vin, et une bourse," (that's French for one bread, one wine and one purse). The "one purse" referred to the idea that all of the couple's goods became joint property. Like marriage contracts, the "brotherments" had to be sworn before a notary and witnesses, Tulchin explained. www.msnbc.msn.com...

One of the recurring clichés of the same-sex marriage debate is that the very notion of such a thing is a radical departure from anything entertained before in human history. Nothing, however, could be further from the truth. In many cultures and in many eras, the issue has emerged-and the themes of the arguments are quirkily similar. Same-sex love, as Plato's Symposium shows, is as ancient as human love, and the question of how it is recognized and understood has bedeviled every human civilization. In most, it has never taken the form of the modern institution of marriage, but in some, surprisingly, it has. In seventeenth-century China and nineteenth-century Africa, for example, the institution seems identical to opposite-sex marriage.
...
In Native American society, marriage between two men was commonplace, but its similarity to contemporary lesbian and gay marriages is far from evident. And today in a number of foreign countries, laws extending civil marriage to gay and lesbian couples have been or will soon be enacted. Judge for yourself what this might mean for our current convulsion. One thing emerges clearly: this issue is not a modern invention.
...
What follows is from an eleventh-century Greek manuscript labeled Grottaferrata G.B.), and I have inserted some of the significant original Greek words in transcription.

Office for Same-Sex Union www.enotalone.com...

I guess like the Prop 8 people, Chuck doesn’t know much about history. How about civil rights history? How about the trend is leaning increasingly in our favor? If people standing up for their rights that don’t lawfully affect others is anarchy then give me anarchy baby, give it to me now.

Don’t people see? This man is just another person fueling the “us against them” mentality. Let it tear us to shreds if you must, the government will thank you for it by punishing all of us; because we refuse to stand divided on important issues that affect all of us, instead we are taking sides over tinier issues that successfully distracts us. Ignorance, on both sides, is now dominant. Hurray America.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 19-11-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]

[edit on 19-11-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]

The only thing more fearsome than Mr. Norris' fists and feet of fury, is his atrocious acting. For the love of all that's holy, heed the man's words before he decides to put out another tv series!