ATHEIST Brad Pitt on Bill Maher

[The True Adonis]

BRAD PITT RULZ!!!!!!!!

[The True Adonis]

[George Whorewell]

WOW Brad Pitt is an atheist!??!?!

Where can I sign up? 

[MB_722]

WOW Brad Pitt is an atheist!??!?!

Where can I sign up? 

LOL

[MCWAY]

Brad Pitt might want to get his facts straight.

The freedoms we have allow us to define marriage as we see fit. And our citizens have done that, time and time again.

Gays are free to live their lives, however they want. But, American citizens aren't require to recognize their arrangement as marriages, just as we aren't required to recognize polygamy, incestous relationships, or adult-child relationships.

Pitt's spiel about "no religion" is precisely why atheists have a tough time getting elected. They tend to be hostile towards people of faith. Since the lion's share of people believe (at least, nominally) in God, insulting them or their practice of religious expression is a rather stupid thing to do.

[Brixtonbulldog]

First, pot is for losers.  Kick the weed and stick with booze or coke.  We need winners here!

Second, WTF does a Hollywood actor know dick about? 

That being said I still like Pitt.  Very talented and likable man.

[Dos Equis]

Didn't watch the clip, but Pitt is a louse.  Good actor, but I could care less about his opinion on anything other than movies.  And even then I don't want his opinion.  Just shut up and go make another good Ocean's movie. 

[24KT]

Brad Pitt might want to get his facts straight.

The freedoms we have allow us to define marriage as we see fit. And our citizens have done that, time and time again.

Gays are free to live their lives, however they want. But, American citizens aren't require to recognize their arrangement as marriages, just as we aren't required to recognize polygamy, incestous relationships, or adult-child relationships.

Pitt's spiel about "no religion" is precisely why atheists have a tough time getting elected. They tend to be hostile towards people of faith. Since the lion's share of people believe (at least, nominally) in God, insulting them or their practice of religious expression is a rather stupid thing to do.

I doubt it will ever occur, considering how badly Bush & company policies screwed the Republican party... but let's say it does... with all the closet homos in the Republican party, ...what happens if they all of a sudden come out of the closet... and gay marriage becomes the norm. Would you have gay people telling you that heterosexual marriage should not be allowed? brad is right. The freedoms that allow us to practice our individual religions of choice, is the same freedom anti-gay marriage activists are treading on. When you diminish the rights for some, you diminish the rights for all.

[OzmO]

Didn't watch the clip, but Pitt is a louse.  Good actor, but I could care less about his opinion on anything other than movies.  And even then I don't want his opinion.  Just shut up and go make another good Ocean's movie. 

"Please no."

[Dos Equis]

"Please no."

Hey I liked them.     Second and third not as good as the first, but they were decent movies. 

[MCWAY]

I doubt it will ever occur, considering how badly Bush & company policies screwed the Republican party... but let's say it does... with all the closet homos in the Republican party, ...what happens if they all of a sudden come out of the closet... and gay marriage becomes the norm. Would you have gay people telling you that heterosexual marriage should not be allowed? brad is right. The freedoms that allow us to practice our individual religions of choice, is the same freedom anti-gay marriage activists are treading on. When you diminish the rights for some, you diminish the rights for all.

Listen to what you just said. First of all, gays telling people that marriage should not be allowed is ridiculous. Marriage, by is very nature, IS HETEROSEXUAL. Gay "marriage" is an abberation of such.

With that said, if people disagree on how marriage should be truly defined, they can settle that at the ballot box, in accordance with their state and the federal constitution.

What gays keep attempting to do is re-define marriage, while keeping the electorate out of the process, which is wrong. And, per the Supreme Court (courtesy of "Baker v. Nelson), there is no right to gay "marriage".

The questions for decision are whether a marriage of two persons of the same sex is authorized by state statutes and, if not, whether state authorization is constitutionally compelled.

Petitioners, Richard John Baker and James Michael McConnell, both adult male persons, made application to respondent, Gerald R. Nelson, clerk of Hennepin County District Court, for a marriage license, pursuant to Minn.St. 517.08. Respondent declined to issue the license on the sole ground that petitioners were of the same sex, it being undisputed that there were otherwise no statutory impediments to a heterosexual marriage by either petitioner.

The trial court, quashing an alternative writ of mandamus, ruled that respondent was not required to issue a marriage license to petitioners and specifically directed that a marriage license not be issued to them. This appeal is from those orders. We affirm.

1. Petitioners contend, first, that the absence of an express statutory prohibition against same-sex marriages evinces a legislative intent to authorize such marriages. We think, however, that a sensible reading of the statute discloses a contrary intent.

Minn.St. c. 517, which governs "marriage," employs that term as one of common usage, meaning the state of union between persons of the opposite sex. It is unrealistic to think that the original drafts-men of our marriage statutes, which date from territorial days, would have used the term in any different sense. The term is of contemporary significance as well, for the present statute is replete with words of heterosexual import such as "husband and wife" and "bride and groom" (the latter words inserted by L.1969, C. 1145, § 3, subd.3).

We hold, therefore, that Minn.St. c. 517 does not authorize marriage between persons of the same sex and that such marriages are accordingly prohibited.

Petitioners contend, second, that Minn.St. c. 517, so interpreted, is unconstitutional. There is a dual aspect to this contention: The prohibition of a same-sex marriage denies petitioners a fundamental right guaranteed by the Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution, arguably made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, and petitioners are deprived of liberty and property without due process and are denied the equal protection of the laws, both guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

These constitutional challenges have in common the assertion that the right to marry without regard to the sex of the parties is a fundamental right of all persons and that restricting marriage to only couples of the opposite sex is irrational and invidiously discriminatory. We are not independently persuaded by these contentions and do not find support for them in any decisions of the United States Supreme Court.......

The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, like the due process clause, is not offended by the state's classification of persons authorized to marry. There is no irrational or invidious discrimination. Petitioners note that the state does not impose upon heterosexual married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate, posing a rhetorical demand that this court must read such condition into the statute if same-sex marriages are to be prohibited. Even assuming that such a condition would be neither unrealistic nor offensive under the Griswold rationale, the classification is no more than theoretically imperfect. We are reminded, however, that "abstract symmetry" is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment.....

We hold, therefore, that Minn.St. c. 517 does not offend the First, Eighth, Ninth, or Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

The Supreme Court dismissed the plantiffs' appeal of this Minnesota court ruling on its merits, for want of a substantial federal question. That effectively is the same as if it deliberated and ruled in favor of the MN court, and such is binding on all lower courts. In other words, no state court can rule that marriage amendments violate the equal protection/due process clause of the US Constitution.


Since the Supreme Court has stated that defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman violates no constitutional statutes, if the people want to pass marrriage amendments, they can do so. Gay "marriage" supporters cannot claim that such "diminishes their rights".

What's really silly about Pitt's comments is that he acts as if marriage amendments just came out of the blue. They've been happening for several years, including those years he was MARRIED to Jennifer Aniston (and screwing around on her with Angelina Jolie). Now, all of sudden he claims he won't marry Jolie, until gay "marriage" is legalized nationwide........utterl y ridiculous.

[bigdumbbell]

i like bratt pitt and bill maher.  both are great americans.

[big L dawg]

lot of common sense between those two gentlemen.Something a majority doesn't have.

[Montague]

WOW Brad Pitt is an atheist!??!?!

Where can I sign up? 

...WTF does a Hollywood actor know dick about? 

That being said I still like Pitt.  Very talented and likable man.

Good actor, but I could care less about his opinion on anything other than movies.  And even then I don't want his opinion.  Just shut up and go make another good Ocean's movie. 

EXCELLENT quotes.
It’s truly rare to find someone who does not worship “celebrity” opinions. I was surprised to find so many in succession.
Are we still the minority, or are more people catching on?

[drkaje]

I doubt it will ever occur, considering how badly Bush & company policies screwed the Republican party... but let's say it does... with all the closet homos in the Republican party, ...what happens if they all of a sudden come out of the closet... and gay marriage becomes the norm. Would you have gay people telling you that heterosexual marriage should not be allowed? brad is right. The freedoms that allow us to practice our individual religions of choice, is the same freedom anti-gay marriage activists are treading on. When you diminish the rights for some, you diminish the rights for all.

That's a silly argument. Marriage isn't just about sex so redefining it isn't simply about what you call "homos".

Just because God gave someone a talent for acting doesn't mean they know dick about anything else. All those hollywood idiots need to STFU about politics and their offscreen thoughts. Only idiots or those with low/no self esteem would care what celebrities have to say.

[garebear]

That's a silly argument. Marriage isn't just about sex so redefining it isn't simply about what you call "homos".

Just because God gave someone a talent for acting doesn't mean they know dick about anything else. All those hollywood idiots need to STFU about politics and their offscreen thoughts. Only idiots or those with low/no self esteem would care what celebrities have to say.

Why do we have to listen to your opinions?

Why don't you shut up?

[drkaje]

Why do we have to listen to your opinions?

Why don't you shut up?

There's an old saying: Opinions are like assholes. Everybody has one and they usually stink.

Personally, the whole 'need to identify with celebrities' seems gay and I always wonder how stupid people wanting to do it are.

[Straw Man]

i like bratt pitt and bill maher.  both are great americans.

I agree.  They are both great Americans

Pitt is actually doing something to help the people of New Orleans when he could just kick back and relax, party, etc...

http://www.makeitrightnola.org/

Pitt and Maher have the same right to express their opinions as do the dopes that show up at town hall meeting screaming about death camps and how they want their country back (back to a way that only exist in their imagination).

Pitt and Maher probably pay more taxes than anyone on this board and Maher admitted on that show that he's be willing to pay more to help those who have less.

Kudos' to Maher for doing stuff like this:

[powerpack]

That's a silly argument. Marriage isn't just about sex so redefining it isn't simply about what you call "homos".

Just because God gave someone a talent for acting doesn't mean they know dick about anything else. All those hollywood idiots need to STFU about politics and their offscreen thoughts. Only idiots or those with low/no self esteem would care what celebrities have to say.

I agree

[garebear]

There's an old saying: Opinions are like assholes. Everybody has one and they usually stink.

Personally, the whole 'need to identify with celebrities' seems gay and I always wonder how stupid people wanting to do it are.

Your breath stinks.

[drkaje]

Your breath stinks.

Reads like a Brad Pits schmoe.

[gcb]

Yeah - all those Ronald Reagan fans need to shut up!

[Government_Controlled]

He's likeable, for sure. I know this has been asked before, but I've never understood the answer. When it comes to rights/freedoms, isn't there logical limitations that should apply? For instance, is really so that a person should have absolute freedom? I say no. Here's why. What if we allowed child molestors to practice their "right", would you agree to them doing so? Of course not. That is just one example of how rights/freedoms should be limited.

I know the argument will be, "yeah, but homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone". True, however, what if the original couple would have been gay? That would have been the end of mankind. For you ones that support homosexuality, that would mean non-existence for you. So, the question isn't is it a right/freedom, but that of, is it logical, reasonbale, good for the overall human race. There are allot of freedoms/rights that people would like to practice, however we all know, in the long run, it wouldn't be the best for humanity. I've got more, but I would like to get your opinion on this, as I'm just like the next freedom/right activist, I want my freedom/rights. Peace!



GC/DEA_AGENT

[big L dawg]

^^^to compare a molester to a homosexual is down right ignorant...^^^

and people being gay not able to reproduce is an illogical and moot point.Sorry but not every one believes the Adam & eve fairy tail(or Adam and Steve).the earth is overpopulated and theres millions of children in adoption agency's wishing they had a home here in the real world current day.your logic is flawed and filled with your religious agenda.

[pedro01]

I know the argument will be, "yeah, but homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone". True, however, what if the original couple would have been gay? That would have been the end of mankind. For you ones that support homosexuality, that would mean non-existence for you.

LMAO !

I feel fairly confident that if Adam was a raving cock-knocker and Eve a monster carpet-muncher that I'd still be here today.

I also believe that if Rapunzel hadn't had long hair, Snow White hadn't woken up and the Princess hadn't guessed Rumplestiltskins name that society would still be in one piece too.