Brad Pitt

[Thunder]

Look what is making headline across Yahoo!.

Brad Pitt donates money to support gay marriage

LOS ANGELES - Brad Pitt has donated $100,000 to fight California's November ballot initiative that would overturn the state Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage.

It's the first time voters will be asked to ban same-sex marriage in a state where gay couples already have won the right to wed. Same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts and California.

It's the first time voters will be asked to decide the issue in either California or Massachusetts — the states where gays have won the right to wed.

"Because no one has the right to deny another their life, even though they disagree with it, because everyone has the right to live the life they so desire if it doesn't harm another and because discrimination has no place in America, my vote will be for equality and against Proposition 8," Pitt said Wednesday.

Trevor Neilson, Pitt's political and philanthropic adviser, told The Associated Press that Pitt was surprised that his colleagues in the entertainment industry had not donated more money to support the battle against Proposition 8.

Earlier in the week, Pitt and Angelina Jolie announced they donated $2 million to help fight HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis in Ethiopia.

Brad Pitt donates money to support gay marriage - Yahoo! News

[Thunder]

Anything think he impress Shania yet?

[Intrepid]

Anything think he impress Shania yet?

Am I missing something? Why would he need/want to impress Shania? (I can only assume you mean Shania Twain)

[Thunder]

Ohwooh, you think you're special
Ohwooh, you think you're something else

Ok, so you're Brad Pitt...

That don't impress me much!
So you got the looks but have you got the touch?
(Now) Don't get me wrong, yeah I think you're alright
But that won't keep me warm in the middle of the night
That don't impress me much!

[Intrepid]

Oh I see....you were making a joke.

[jstanthrnme]

Whoa, pal. getting a little carried away.

do you Feel Like a Woman?

[Karried]

omg... LOL

[oneforone]

I guess this means Brad has a man in mind he wants to marry. I guess Angelina will no longer the backdoor when he comes knocking.

[NativeOkie]

Thunder.
The voters of California already voted as to what marriage is.
The few rogue judges overturned the We the People.
Talk about voter dis-infranchisement.

[kevinpate]

Support for the ability to be legally wed irrespective of the partner's gender has been a rather public position by Pitt, and Jolie as I recall, for some time.

When someone supports a cause, any cause, and has the ability to put his/her money where the heart is, it's not too amazing that it happens.

[FritterGirl]

I agree with Kevin. No news flash here. He and Angelina have both been very public on this stance for some time. I guess I'm not seeing the big deal here.

How is this any different from other celebrities giving to other causes, or even our own local millionaires/billionaires giving to causes they support? It's not, except that Brad Pitt's name is in the news more often.

Guess I won't expect to see Mssrs. Pitt and Aubrey McClendon sharing their views over dinner any one of these days.

[buckt]

Because no one has the right to deny another their life, - Does this include the life of the unborn...Brad??

"everyone has the right to live the life they so desire if it doesn't harm another"
Wow - I bet drug users and prostitutes are thrilled with that mind set!

Weird - just weird IMO

[Oh GAWD the Smell!]

Because no one has the right to deny another their life, - Does this include the life of the unborn...Brad??

"everyone has the right to live the life they so desire if it doesn't harm another"
Wow - I bet drug users and prostitutes are thrilled with that mind set!

Weird - just weird IMO

Talk about taking something out of context and jumping to wild conclusions.

WOW.

[Insider]

Because no one has the right to deny another their life, - Does this include the life of the unborn...Brad??

"everyone has the right to live the life they so desire if it doesn't harm another"
Wow - I bet drug users and prostitutes are thrilled with that mind set!

Weird - just weird IMO

NO ONE, especially the government, should EVER be able to tell a woman what she can and can't do with her body. Whether you think abortion is right or wrong, that is your opinion. You have no right to tell a woman that she can't do it because you think it is wrong. If you think it is wrong, then don't do it. But you should not prevent someone else who may need this, for any reason, not to have access to it.

What if your 17 year old daughter got pregnant. Whould you allow her to have it? Probably not... What if having said baby would kill your daughter (for some medical reason), would you allow her to have the abortion? Probably... There is always a reason that an abortion may be needed, so do not make it illegal when it may be something that is needed, whether it be a reason that you agree with or not.

[MadMonk]

NO ONE, especially the government, should EVER be able to tell a woman what she can and can't do with her body.

But your whole premise is wrong. The problem is that it's not just your body. We aren't talking about getting piercings or tatoos here. There's another life involved and the law should have a say, regardless of past judiciary mistakes.

Whether you think abortion is right or wrong, that is your opinion. You have no right to tell a woman that she can't do it because you think it is wrong. If you think it is wrong, then don't do it. But you should not prevent someone else who may need this, for any reason, not to have access to it.

I guess the main thing is whether or not you view the baby as a life form inside you. If you do, then you would have to come to terms with taking a life, if you don't then I suppose you must look at it as a procedure to remove a tumor.

What if your 17 year old daughter got pregnant. Whould you allow her to have it? Probably not...

I've thought about this situation a lot because I have a daughter that will some day be sexually active (man, just typing that makes my stomach knot up). Barring any medical reasons to abort (one of the few reasons I can understand), I would want her to have it and if she's not ready or interested in raising a child (what 17yr old is?), then put the child up for adoption. It's the least onerous of two very difficult options.

What if having said baby would kill your daughter (for some medical reason), would you allow her to have the abortion? Probably... There is always a reason that an abortion may be needed, so do not make it illegal when it may be something that is needed, whether it be a reason that you agree with or not.

You have a good point. I agree that if there is medical need, then you have to do what you have to do. In such cases there are no good answers, but it should be the rare exception, rather than the routine rule.

Another thread derails! Sorry Thunder!

[Thunder]

I've thought about this situation a lot because I have a daughter that will some day be sexually active (man, just typing that makes my stomach knot up). Barring any medical reasons to abort (one of the few reasons I can understand), I would want her to have it and if she's not ready or interested in raising a child (what 17yr old is?), then put the child up for adoption. It's the least onerous of two very difficult options.

Another thread derails! Sorry Thunder!

Adoption? You are her father! Why don't you and your wife take care of the baby, since it is the blood in the family and when she is ready, she will take over.

Derailed? Nah! I'm not aganist that stuff. It is fine to read any discussions.

[Thunder]

Buckt, I do wonder about that one specific part. Why is the government so controlling about the sex part? People earn money and they can do what they want with their money. Their body is their own, not a property of the government, so if they choose to use their body to earn money, then let them. It doesn't hurt us. I don't really see the crime in having sex for money or paying money for sex.

[Insider]

Buckt, I do wonder about that one specific part. Why is the government so controlling about the sex part? People earn money and they can do what they want with their money. Their body is their own, not a property of the government, so if they choose to use their body to earn money, then let them. It doesn't hurt us. I don't really see the crime in having sex for money or paying money for sex.

As much of a fight as this may start, I agree. If we (as a country) were to legalize protitution, the women and men who partake can be protected. The industry can be monitored and the prostitutes can be tested, thus protecting both the givers and the takers. I am not saying I would EVER use a service such as this, but there are plenty of people who do and who would, so the government can just step in and protect the people who are doing this, since they are and will continue to do so, whether it is legal or not. Also, the government can tax (income tax) the money that is made.

[FritterGirl]

As much of a fight as this may start, I agree. If we (as a country) were to legalize protitution, the women and men who partake can be protected. The industry can be monitored and the prostitutes can be tested, thus protecting both the givers and the takers. I am not saying I would EVER use a service such as this, but there are plenty of people who do and who would, so the government can just step in and protect the people who are doing this, since they are and will continue to do so, whether it is legal or not. Also, the government can tax (income tax) the money that is made.

Insider, you make an excellent point here. I hate bringing up the dreaded "E" word (Europe), but there are several countries in Europe (France, Belgium and the Netherlands among them), where prostitution is perfectly legal and CONTROLLED by the state.

Not only are these working women "salaried," they pay taxes, they are required, by law to use condoms and other forms of protection, and they must undergo monthly medical screenings. It's certainly a great step up from the gal on the street corner.

I'm not saying that it is "right," (frankly I'm nonplussed about the issue), but look at the economics. If there were a way to make it "legal," stricter controls could be put on it, and the government may find a new source of income tax revenue.

As for the moral argument that making it legal would make it more available, I disagree. While it might make it more organized, anyone who really wants to find this type of service as it stands need only go to the street corner in certain parts of town, hop online, or for that matter fly to Nevada, and they can pretty much find whichever pleasure they seek.

[jstanthrnme]

it can't be taxed....

[FritterGirl]

it can't be taxed....

Services in general aren't taxed (assuming you mean "sales" tax). I guess it all falls where you stand on whether prostitution is a "product" or a "service."

[Oh GAWD the Smell!]

Services in general aren't taxed (assuming you mean "sales" tax). I guess it all falls where you stand on whether prostitution is a "product" or a "service."

Either way, it's "labor" and I *know* that can't be taxed.

[jstanthrnme]

(assuming you mean "sales" tax)

I was thinking income tax.

[Generals64]

Poor Brad was born in Shawnee...Also, Brad Pitt works athe Wal-Mart distribution center in pauls Valley......Maybe he's going back and be an OKIE>>>>don't you know that poor guy at wal-mart has caught heck over his name?

[Insider]

I do agree with what you have said, that there are many options available. However, I just do not think that it is the governments place (or mine) to tell a woman what she can and can't do with her body. If she believes that abortion is murder, then she will not have one and will have the baby. If she doesn't feel that it is murder, then she has the right to have an abortion. Not to mention the other possibilities that make abortion necessary (medical, incest, rape, etc). I do not think that it can be made illegal because if it is made illegal, people will still have it done. But it will be done in unsafe conditions with no safety controls in place.