If homosexual marriage become legal, then incestuous homosexual marries will become legal, then polygamists homosexual marriage will become legal, then heterosexual incestuous and polygamists marriage will become legal.
The argument is, consenting adults should be allowed to marry, that will slip to 3 consenting adults or consenting adults who are blood related. And I hope it does, there is no reason to denied marriage to polygamists and incestuous couples.
@Zoosexuality What? At one point did ZJ say that animals somehow don't reach adulthood??? EVERY living thing has an adulthood! My god, that's not even controversial, it's like saying the sky is blue, no shit animals have adulthoods. What does this have to do with the actual argument at hand?
@star3catcherSEQUEL ZJ is implying that it is wrong to construct relationships with non-human animals based on her belief that non-human animals equate in mentality with children. I am simply rebuking that.
actually, people married children all the time in the past (the virgin Mary, for example, was VERY young when she married Josef, and he was around 30 or even 40, while she was a mere 12 or 13)
@ZJemptv Why did you brought Poly into this? The slippery slope to stupidity involves incest, bestiality & pedophilia, since those 3 lack consenting adults. As Gay Marriage gains acceptance, there will be a debate about the legalization of Poly. There are Poly events & gatherings plus professional web & dating sites. This vid is very fustrating to hear, expecially after the approval of SB48 in California.
"The slippery slope to stupidity involves incest, bestiality & pedophilia, since those 3 lack consenting adults."←If you didn't know, incestuous relationships can happens between consenting adults and even of the same sex. But I guess LGTB are against 2 homosexual adult brothers that wants to get married, right?
Also, bestiality can happen between consenting adults as fully sexually mature animals do have the ability to consent to simple things like sex.
There was a guy who married a doll, and a guy who married a DS game. Oh it can happen, but who are you to judge if they do. Things just happen, get over it.
"If it were even possible for gay marriage to lead to polygamy, incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and so on, straight marriage would have set us down this path already."
If you think about, it, that has already happened.
People who engage in polygamy,incest, pedophilia tend to be straight, they arn't neccisarily more prone to it, it's probably becuase there tends to be more straight people around.
I don't know about zoophiles or bestialists though, I havn't seen those figures.
@livin4jesus0225 This goes back to what I said earlier. Please read my first post to this same statement of yours, and explain where you find it in error, if anywhere.
@livin4jesus0225 And I tried to explain to you why your reasoning was flawed.
If you are able to explain why my reasoning was flawed in regarding why your reasoning was flawed, then we can have a legitimate debate. I encourage you to do so if you are able, or, if not, to ask any other questions or problems you have with my orientation that I may explain those areas to you as well. Until then, it seems to me that we stand at an impasse, where I've given you reasoning you refuse to acknowledge.
@livin4jesus0225 No, you're a bigot for repeating the same statement over and over again (that all sex with animals is rape) even though I've explained to you why that's false.
Again, feel free to attack my reasoning, and we could have a legitimate debate. But just repeating a statement that I've explained is false without first showing that my reasoning is lacking or my evidence is insufficient in no uncertain terms is being willfully ignorant.
@livin4jesus0225 I already explained why that statement is false.
Repeating the same thing I've already explained as wrong isn't a legitimate debate tactic. You can argue the reasoning I used to refute that statement, but repeating the statement without doing so first I would say is willful ignorance.
@livin4jesus0225 Whether sexual or not, would be immoral. Which is generally not accepted as the case.
As for animals having "morals" about sex, personally, I think that your "morals" about sex are as arbitrary as they are irrelevant and unsupported by reason. This argument is circular. You require that one accept that such sex is immoral as part of your reasoning for why it is immoral.
@livin4jesus0225 That is, of course, not to say that sex with an animal outside of those circumstances is not moral.
I mean, if you are going to claim that sex is wrong because there is an authority difference, you're also required to say that choosing when to feed your dog, or take it for walks, or pet it, is also wrong.
Besides that, it's more than possible to respect wishes of another being, even if there is a power discrepancy. Otherwise all non-equal power relationships...
First off, your claim about authority is outright wrong. There are any number of ways I could go about explaining why it's wrong, but I'll give you a simple example.
Take the situation where someone has sex with an animal who is not subordinate. For example, a guard dog, a dog which hasn't been trained to be submissive to humans, a stray, or a wild animal. All four of those cases occur.
@livin4jesus0225 I never said it would lead to man and animal marriage, actually. I said that I think it would result in greater rights. Marriage is the least important of those rights.
To put it in another way, humans are generally not content with stagnation. We might disagree in the direction we need to go, but most tend to agree that staying where we are isn't going to get us anywhere.
If you give rights to homosexuals, that's not the end-all of civil rights. Eventually other issues will be brought up, and I feel that zoosexuality will be one of those issues.
Personally, I do think that allowing gay marriage will result in greater rights for zoophiles, although not directly.
I consider the bigotry to be a multiheaded beast. One of the heads is bigotry against homosexuality. And, while cutting off that head won't affect the "bigotry against zoosexuality" head, it will weaken the beast as a whole.
the weirdest thing about this argument, was before the gay marriage topic was big, a woman got married to the Burlin wall. Legitimately married to the Burlin wall and even changed her name to German for the Berlin Wall, before it was torn down obviously.
A very complicated subject, which I have not fully thought out yet, so... Anyone want to share their thoughts? Please try not to use religion or "God's word" as a reason to combat polygamy, because I really don't think anything having to do with religion is a reason why people shouldn't be able to devote their lives to certain people if they want to.
Polygamy with children is a much more complicated subject and I'm sure how one (or three) would make that work, but if they weren't considering having children, I don't see the problem. I, myself, prefer to be monogamous. But I think if three people all love each other very much, who's to say they can't be together? About marriage though... I'm not sure if the same amount of love stretched out between three people can be equivalent to total love for one other person. You know what? This (cont.)
I don't think polygamy is bad. As long as everyone agrees, I don't see the problem. Why does it only have to be two consenting adults? What's wrong with three, four, etc. consenting adults?
After being unable to preserve part of my Identity: Marriage = 1 man/1 woman, I would like to declare my allegiance to the Poly Community. Together we can erase to 2 consenting adults rule & restore the balance of power: a world where marriage means what all the peoples (not just GayS) say it is. I only ask the Polys to behave from now on. Thx you.
Thank you SO much for making this video. You have no idea how many times I've had this argument thrown at me. It's always "If you can explain why gays should get married, then you'll be able to explain how it is okay to marry your dog/sister/child etc" wtf?!?
Let's hope their little minds are able to figure out this mind boggling concept! Not getting my hopes up yet, but hey, you never know. 8)
@Shavarnarak Usually it's a male figure dominating many female figures in a condescending way... Not really too consentual, but hey, it's not my choice, not my life.
@emokidxrawr To be fair, that's just the archaic religious view of polygamy. The roots of monogamous marriage are no better. Plenty of people today live in happy polyamorous relationships with all sorts of gender arrangements. It has evolved into an egalitarian concept that aims to keep everyone in the relationship feeling loved without the drama of limited sexual freedom and the feelings of being property that some people might have in an exclusively monogamous relationship. To each their own.
@Shavarnarak Anyone who thinks polygamy is ok can't see the bigger picture. Imagine a group of people that believe marrying many people to one person is ok. What happens to their children? Within one or two generations the only way to perpetuate that way of thinking is incest, shunning, often times murder, and harsh indoctrination. A stable population cannot withstand one person taking multiple permanent partners. Look at any polygamist culture it always degrades to those things mentioned above.
@NucularRobit Polygamy could only increase chances of incest if mass amounts of people became polygamous, which I doubt would happen. And are you aware that there are plenty of people raising children in polyamorous households? In some cultures, whole communities are responsible for raising the children. In some cultures, only one person raises them. You're saying that a household of loving people can't do this? I may not be poly, but I support any consenting, loving relationships.
@JenjaRose909 "Mass" as you use it is a subjective term. Would you consider a whole community that is polygamist to be mass? Because that is how it is. Geneticists, sociologists, law enforcement, and the disowned men will all tell you it is destructive. Of course the guy with 10 wives and his brainwashed brides will tell you it is awesome and their children have great lives. Basic math, how does that sustain itself?
Why does it matter if polygamy is allowed? Some people feel they need more than one significant other in order to feel romantically satisfied. You can love multiple people at the same time and love them equally. If no one is getting hurt and everything is fully consensual, why shouldn't it be allowed?
You cant argue something is a right if it is not good for the body.Penetration of the anus causes tearing & bleeding of the soft tissues & can damage the sphincter muscles causing incontinence & anal prolapse.There is also a high concentration of disease causing organisms in the anus & the introduction of pathogens during the sex act itself exposing the participants to a spectrum of contagious diseases.Liberalism is based on facts & reason which they disreguard on this issue.
Sadly all those sad things such as polygamy, incest, pedophilia, bestiality, happened long before people started talking about Gay Marriage, so then, why hasn't the Heterosexual people done anything about it? They are too focused on Gay Marriage perhaps.
We don't need more children, do you have any idea how many are in foster homes now? Honestly we need to stop having kids and start focusing on raising the ones that are out there. The population is in no danger of declining anytime soon.
Right. Marriage is for child bearing. Which is why we don't allow infertile couples to get married. And why there is a mandatory quota of children that must be produced in return for a marriage license. Not to mention the human race is underpopulated and we NEED MORE CHILDREN.
@prolefeedprocessor Wrong. 7 billion people aren't underpopulated. And China is Overpopulated and marriage doesn't require children. People get married everyday all over the world and some never get children. Some of them are gay and others are straight couples.
Anyone remember in the 90s where something like 400 couples got married at the same time? If they all sad I do at the same time does that mean any of them could go to another's house and say "Technically i married your wife and I'm here to consumate"? Just saying they all got married the same time does that technically mean they all married each other? 800 people all married to each other lol
Yes we can explain how that's going to happen and I'll do the honours for you. It will to these because 1 sin leads to another. 1 minute gay marriage wouldn't be enough. The next society will get bored with gay marriage and then move on to other means of justifying their immoral lusts.
That is a misconception. That is something the media have cooked to mislead people like you. Forced marriges is an honour thing not a thing of religion. In fact doing such an act puts us in the hellfire for all eternity
@ExplorationB "our of kindness." Where is the evidence of this? Atheists behave morally because (a) that's how they were raised, and (b) most immoral behavior has civil penalties associated with it. For atheists, morality is just the optimal solution to the game of living in society. Let's not ennoble atheists without evidence, m'kay?
@TheQuranboy No actually good ppl have an inborn sense of right and wrong as well as empathy and I consider ppl who rely on this, as opposed to a book or powerful cosmic dicator, to make moral decisions are morally superior. I think even allowing the texts and a deity to overide these things for no other reason than a very powerful deity who controls wellbeing comands it, is selfish and egocentric
when we talk about gay marriage (or just marriage) we talk about freedom, the freedom to marry who you wish (who wishes to get married).
its possible to be in love with more than one person, and its also possible for those people to return such feelings, and consent to such a relationship, ive seen polyamorous families, and they all function perfectly and equally.
it should just be CONSENTING ADULTS, thats it
im not offended really, i greatly respect you, but i feel that you should address this.
The various fascist pricks of our society, throughout the years, have used this exact same argument to try to block black marriages. I'm not talking about inter-racial marriages, though they eventually used it for that TOO, but I mean they said it about allowing BLACK PEOPLE TO MARRY OTHER BLACK PEOPLE. Isn't that fucked up? Yeah. The issue with the 'extrapolation' fallacies regarding children and animals is, children and animals have no CONSENT, and CONSENT IS THE KEY. Polygamy... is otherwise.
We let cousins get married in the U.S. ^_^; So, whining that allowing gay marriage will lead to relatives marrying is a moot argument. Cousins (all the way up to 1st cousins) can marry. I think allowing that will lead to people arguing for other types of relatives to marry more than allowing same sex marriage.
I'm at the point I want to just ban MARRIAGE, and then all people would have to choose between single or civil union.
I don't think that discriminating against any form of sexuality is defensible.
Homosexuality is similar to paedophilia/foot fetish/etc etc ad infinatum because it is statistically a fringe form of sexuality. Statistically ''abnormal'', several standard deviations outside of the norm.
I can't honestly defend homosexuality without forcing myself to defend other sexualities as well. I am the better person for it- free from social taboo.
TheProf1988: Having opinions has no bearing on your worth as a person. Furthermore, it is not appropriate to group all so-called "fringe" sexual preferences, as there is a very SHARP dividing feature: Some are Physically/Mentally harmful. These, such as pedophilia and incest, are directly harmful to one or more of the participants, and are completely indefensible. Personally, I think feet are gross--but I'm relatively positive you can't point out anyone who is actually hurt by foot fetish.
Having the correct opinion does show worth. A man who is of the opinion that homosexuals are evil is evidently the worse person than the man who is tolerant of his fellow humans.
You are falling for the same social taboo that I was talking about. Incest is not harmful at all, what if the partnership is with two consenting adults? what right do you have to judge them. If you agree with this video then you must agree with me also.
Pedophilia is not mentally or physically harmful. You have fallen for the social taboo of ''paedohysteria'' that makes you automatically assume that people that are attracted to minors are also sociopaths and will inevitably end up molesting and/or raping.
Most of the arguments used by homophobes (e.g the gay lifestyle leads to murder, mental collapse etc) are used against pedophiles and they can be debunked in the same way.
In countries of the world that are untounched by western taboos there is no such thing as paedohysteria. They quite happily engage in coming of age sexual rituals that sometimes involve the whole tribe and they are not traumatised by it. You cant refute this point because it is unethical for you to employ the ethnocentric bias in your judgement of them.
free your ethnocentrism, free you taboo, free your mind.
In fact, in any instance where a relationship between a minor and an adult has taken place in this culture it has the distinct possibility of beaing healthy and productive.
see my video ''lesbian pedophile'' for my view on this. Ironically the law claims that it is trying to protect minors, yet it will force the minor to believe that he/she has been supremely harmed by this ''abuse''.
it is the social tabbo that creates the mental trauma.
Most human beings are antisexual. that is, they dont only hate pedophiles and gays but also heterosexuality.
People hate out of wedlock sex, they hate sex without procreation, they hate marriage between more than two people. ANy money in the world bets that you are intolerant of marriages that involve one man and several women or vice versa.
You arent morally superior because you believe in single marriage. *I* am morally superior because I am free from cultural indoctrination.
The phenomenon of paedohysteria actually creates more paedophiles. YOU as a society create these people.
Pedophiles could come forward to talk about how they feel at a very ealry stage of pedophilia- but if they come forward they will lose their family, friends, and job. the irresponsible air of pedohysteria creates a situation where they can never come forward to get help.
So the pedophile stews in their own thoughts for years and often develop depression. It is this serious psychopathology that causes them to ignore the moral barriers of society to progress to molestation.
If YOU people were sensible about sexuality all of that would NEVER happen. the blood is on YOUR hands.
Pedohysteria causes anxiety, if an adult is momentarily attracted to a young person in the street for example and they are also sufferers of free floating anxiety it can latch on to that attraction.
Now the OCD sufferer is stuck in a vicious cycle of obsessing over minors and masturbating (as a compulsion) to relieve the anxiety.
And once again, OCD pedophile CANNOt come forward because of the pedohysteria. If he came forward he would lose all of his life, be chemically castrated and thrown in jail.
The OCD sufferer will never even be able to diagnose that they have OCD and not pedophilia. so the blame still lies with you and your stupid culturally indoctrinated views.
And you claim that pedophilia/incest are harmful and indefensible?
excuse me! that is the same bullshit statment that the homophobic lobby at conservapedia say about homosexuality. the same stupid claims that are NEVER backed up.
We both can point out the flaws in their argument because they are 50 years out of date but I can point out the flaws in your argument because I am 50 years ahead of my time.
children cannot be expected to know the consequence of sex, any more than alcohol, and since 80% approx of incest will be heterosexual, there will be inbreeding
I am not talking about children, I am talking about adolescents. The fact that every country has different age of consent laws proves that there is not yet a logical distinction between adults and minors that can be universally verified.
Bad idea to compare sex to alcohol. In Britain you can drink alcohol from age 5 in a private residence (in small amounts).
This is an absurd argument against incest. Anyone with half a brain stem can point out the many forms of contraception.
After checking out your cannel it appears that you are young. I wouldn't have replied to you if I had known.
No offense, but I don't want to get into a debate of this nature with someone who is not as educated (by simple default) as me. I don't debate young creationists either, so no offense it's just my policy.
You can reply to me if you wish if you have a rebuttal, but I'm afraid I won't reply.
ZJ - Again, well worded, clear and articulate. Just one bit of constructive criticism, please research a bit more, and you might find a more powerful argument.
Specifically, Utah allowed polygamy up until 1862 when the US Congress outlawed it (yes there is a federal statute banning bigamy).
This can be seen as homosexuality specifically not causing polygamy as it was illegal in Utah until the US Supreme Court struck down all sodomy laws in 2003.
When a dog stands up and said competently says "I Do". We'll worry about that. But as it stands. Species and gender are two completely different entities. there are males and females of every species for a specific reason. If different genders didn't marry or atleast pair up neither of us would be here to have this discussion.
Similarly, removing gender restrictions from marriage is completely different from the prohibited degree of kinship, age, or species. (By the way, some states already allow first cousins to be married -- you could skip the whole gay marriage thing and directly oppose that if you're worried about what it could lead to.)
Also: Do you think that by banning marriage, this is somehow going to convince gay people to marry someone of the opposite sex? It will not.
The union of opposite gender was what the term marriage was created to define. First cousins, interesting. Do you think they should allow brother and sister to marry? why or why not.
No, I do not think it will make them marry the opposite sex... That doesn't make much sense.
Well, you said "If different genders didn't marry or atleast pair up neither of us would be here to have this discussion." Does marriage, and keeping marriage as a privilege for heterosexuals, have anything to do with that?
Namely, if it weren't for marriage being defined as straight-only, would dual-gender couples decide to just not get married? Or would they decide to marry someone of the same sex instead if this were an option? What is the purpose of making marriage for heterosexuals only?
I said nothing about keeping anything as a privilege. I am not advocating witholding rights. Simply wondering why an age-ond defintion must be modified rather than a new term be coined. Straight and Gay are two terms, are they not equal?
Assigning a different name to equal rights is disingenuous. Either you are refusing to recognize that they are, in fact, equal by insisting that they must use a different name, or if they do indeed have equal rights, using different names for each kind of marriage is pointless and accomplishes nothing other than making heterosexuals feel like they're somehow "special" because of their orientation.
is defining straight and gay pointless? They divide but are they not equal? Many things in society are defined seperately but are equal. You say "Tradition isn't an argument." Tradition is important. Tradition defines us. Embracing tradition is what paves the way for acceptance of other cultures' ways. You either take it or leave it, you don't pick and choose what suits you.
If you believe civil unions are acceptable, would you yourself be willing to forgo marriage in favor of getting "civil unioned" instead?
Tradition is never, in and of itself, a valid argument. "How things are" does not equate to "how things should be". And tradition does absolutely nothing to "pave the way for acceptance" of *anything* when you're using tradition to try and justify keeping things exactly the way they are now. Your concept of tradition is meant to preclude acceptance.
If a man and woman marrying was not the original definition of marriage, then yes, as long as my rights were equal, I would opt for the latter of course. I'd actually opt for coining a new term altogether as Civil Union sounds so courtroom-standard. Something else.
The "original definition of marriage" (marriage was not something that was intentionally defined thousands of years ago by some committee that got together and came up with the idea of men and women pairing up in committed relationships, so I'm going off historical trends) meant treating women as the property of the husband; this is why laws against marital rape are a relatively modern concept. I would rather have civil unions for everyone, instead of marriage limited to a privileged class.
Honestly. I'd opt for a new word to define the union period. Thus putting to rest the term of marriage with it's definition unaltered. I would rather see this than the definition changed.
It seems logical to me that everyone should just have civil unions. I mean, as far as the government is concerned, the language used in legal documents could just refer to everyone's marriage as a "civil union." And everyone's union would be equal in the eyes of the law, insurance, etc. Then, if you want to refer to it as a marriage in your daily life then of course you can do so. I'm straight and this seems okay to me, as long as it's clear that everyone's relationship is regarded as equal.
Basically we haven't, (until now with gay marriage_, opened the doors to deviations from the norm. The argument is where to draw the line. questions like "If a man can marry a man, why can't a man marry his sister?" and suddenly there is no argument against it except for the same things that can be argued against gay marriage (two consenting adults, can't help who you love, yadda yadda)
The problem with this argument is there's nothing to back it up. You can say "Legalizing gender-neutral marriage will lead to X, Y, and Z", but has it? It has not.
However if you say no to any marriage except a man and a woman of unrelated lineage and merely maintain the long-enstated standard there will never be any question.
No it will not "lead to" just as you stated, but rather soften the walls of that old standard for attack. Much like drilling holes in a support beam in a building will inevitably weaken it's ability to maintain structural integrity under stress. If marriage definition never gets holes drilled in it, it will stay strong.
What's your view on the overturning of anti-miscegenation laws, where a traditional definition of marriage was altered to be more relaxed? Does it concern you that perhaps this may have set a precedent and lead to same-sex marriage?
Not at all in that it was merely a formality that only became a significant issue for a small portion of the time that the idea marriage had been instilled and was, for the most part, a problem for very dissimilar races where the difference was apparant. Traditional definition even 100+ years ago does not state anything to do with race except perhaps in a very select few areas, but is very clear on stating the union of a man and a woman.
It's interesting that you think that's different, because at the time, people were making the same arguments: that removing race as a precondition to marriage would open the door to bestiality and all sorts of things. These fears never materialized. Now that we're working towards removing gender as a precondition to marriage, the same arguments are being reused. Why would there be any merit to them this time around?
Fair enough and you must also observe the time and era and racial issues that were a common entity during that overturn. However, as with my car anaology, One must agree that altering the position of gender in the definition of marriage is a much more profound and significant change that reaches heavily to all cultures globally as opposed to those that maintained and enforced any racial barrier.
The comparison miscegenation to gay marriage is likeness to changing the brand of tire on one's car compared to changing the brand of engine that car was built and intended to run with.
Why is discriminating by gender any more acceptable than discriminating by race? In one instance, people couldn't get married if their skin color didn't match. Nowadays, people can't get married because they don't have one of each set of genitals.
Skin color has played only a small role in only a few areas in in the history of marriage... Not so much are we talking about it being acceptable as being significant in history. Gender was one of the main players in the creation of marriage period and though has many religious standpoints, is also ensuring continuity or one's lineage, rearing of children and ultimately insuring the sustainability of one's people. Gender plays a profound role.
"is also ensuring continuity or one's lineage, rearing of children and ultimately insuring the sustainability of one's people. Gender plays a profound role."
And allowing same-sex marriage will not prevent dual-gender couples from doing any of that.
Granted. However taking an engine block, dropping it in a lake makes a handy place to tie a boat while fishing but the fact that a good many people utilize an old engine block this way does not warrant the definition of Engine Block to include "boat anchor or mooring" because it's not.
Civil Union allows for all the same rights, privelages, and recognition of marriage while maintaining "marriage" as it has always been defined. What is your opinion of Civil Union?
Your "engine" analogy has nothing to do with people getting married. It only assumes that we are somehow obligated to preserve the present definition of things and any change to anything is, by definition, bad. That is not an argument. If a civil union affords all the rights of marriage, why not call it marriage? "Separate but equal" is pointless -- if it's separate, it's not equal; if it's equal, there's no need to separate it.
not bad, but unnecessairy. We're right back where we started. If we change the definition of marriage to include gay marriage, what do we say when a man wants to marry his sister?
People marrying the opposite gender is what marriage is. The term would not exist without it thus it is the standard. The term was created to to define the act of uniting a man and a woman.
Definitions change over time because language changes over time and society changes over time and our terminology changes to reflect this. Multiple dictionaries already include same-sex marriage in the definition of marriage. Many states and countries also legally consider same-sex marriage to be just plain marriage. The term now defines more than dual-gender couples.
No. Do you feel that all change is bad? This is the sort of thing that ought to be judged on its own merits, not on the basis of things like "well, this is what it's *always* been". Tradition isn't an argument.
So if you say no to anything else, you'll never have to bend the bars but if you say yes to one.... then what do you do when the next one comes along and asks?
Hey, guess what? Incest, pedophilia, and all that jazz have been going on for *millennia* before people even *considered* legalizing gay marriage. All of this took place when only straight marriage was legal. So then, do you intend to actually explain why gay marriage has any relation to incest and child marriage?
Because it seems like your straight marriages are more to blame for that sort of thing. Guess what? You're not fucking special.
Hey, guess what? We already have polygamist marriage, incestrious marriage, and marriage to children, and we did that pretty well without the help of homosexuals.
Pleasure. What makes us feel good, what we're attracted to, what we want. No where near as controlled as most people assume it is. How many people have sex purely to reproduce? A minority in the face of how many have sex to begin with.
I really can't answer for someone else, and certainly can't be absolutely certain, but ZJ appears distinctly human to me. However, there are other possibilities: elf, pixie, nephilim, angel, imp, minor demon, pan-galactic being, or hallucination borne of longstanding alcohol abuse. Now that I think about, the possibilities are limited only by one's imagination. I generally find questions like "what are you" reflective of limited imagination as well.
I like the idea of pluristic marriage and I see no reason for it to be banned here in the 21st century. However, it should come with some extra taxation to pay for the social costs that could result. and to keep it on the fringe so that it doesn't disrupt other interests of the collective as a whole.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Its immoral plain and simple . If you allow 2 men to marry you can not stop the rest from following Its a moral issue . Ok so 2 men love each other , great why does that give them the right to marry . I love multiple women are you saying our love is any less valid than homosexuals . At least A polygamist has the beginings of being Hedrosexual.
Becuase marriage has a definition. It supposedly means two peope that love each other unite together, and that is what your priest would say right before you kissed and broke a bottle, depending on what you would do. They are two humans, in love. So what reason SHOULDN'T they get married? Because other people object? And why is it immoral to marry the one you love? If that's immoral, straight couples wouldn't get married etheir.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Just because I am sexually attracted to more than 1 woman , doesnt give me te right to marry more than one.Love is not the deciding factor . If you say we cant stop two people who love each other how can you leaglly stop 3 men that love each other , what because 3 men is just to sick says who says you?I love 2 women I should be allowed to marry multi women.
HOMOSEXUALLITY is not NORMAL.Giving the chance nature reproduces ASEXUALL not homosexual.Marriage =1 Man +1 woman.Thats its definition.
This is an equal rights issue. Imagine if you will: Two people love each other very much, one is dying. The other is not allowed to be in the ICU because they are not related. Is it fair to deny these people, that love each other, the right to attend to the other? No, it isn't fair. But there are more issues than just this one. Be sympathetic, or empathetic, or respect someone else for a change. Get over it.
If homosexual marriage become legal, then incestuous homosexual marries will become legal, then polygamists homosexual marriage will become legal, then heterosexual incestuous and polygamists marriage will become legal.
The argument is, consenting adults should be allowed to marry, that will slip to 3 consenting adults or consenting adults who are blood related. And I hope it does, there is no reason to denied marriage to polygamists and incestuous couples.
Equality for all consenting adults. :D
DogsneedpIeasuretoo 4 weeks ago
This video denies the factual reality that non-human animals can reach adulthood.
Zoosexuality 3 months ago
@Zoosexuality What? At one point did ZJ say that animals somehow don't reach adulthood??? EVERY living thing has an adulthood! My god, that's not even controversial, it's like saying the sky is blue, no shit animals have adulthoods. What does this have to do with the actual argument at hand?
star3catcherSEQUEL 1 month ago
@star3catcherSEQUEL ZJ is implying that it is wrong to construct relationships with non-human animals based on her belief that non-human animals equate in mentality with children. I am simply rebuking that.
Zoosexuality 1 month ago
Thank you SO MUCH
KendrixTermina 5 months ago
oops yes it has. no seriously it has.
Indian man marries dog - Telegraph
Great Balls of Scandal: How Jerry Lee Lewis' marriage to a 13-year-old wrecked his career
sorry i could not be asked to find more is there not one where a woman married a big weel?
Is it not fun how young people keep thinking the best and being wrong!
way2jaded1 6 months ago
actually, people married children all the time in the past (the virgin Mary, for example, was VERY young when she married Josef, and he was around 30 or even 40, while she was a mere 12 or 13)
lexalina132 6 months ago
@ZJemptv Why did you brought Poly into this? The slippery slope to stupidity involves incest, bestiality & pedophilia, since those 3 lack consenting adults. As Gay Marriage gains acceptance, there will be a debate about the legalization of Poly. There are Poly events & gatherings plus professional web & dating sites. This vid is very fustrating to hear, expecially after the approval of SB48 in California.
ImperialGenKlenner 7 months ago
@ImperialGenKlenner
"The slippery slope to stupidity involves incest, bestiality & pedophilia, since those 3 lack consenting adults."←If you didn't know, incestuous relationships can happens between consenting adults and even of the same sex. But I guess LGTB are against 2 homosexual adult brothers that wants to get married, right?
Also, bestiality can happen between consenting adults as fully sexually mature animals do have the ability to consent to simple things like sex.
DogsneedpIeasuretoo 4 weeks ago
Yeah, that's some classic slippery slope fallacy.
MrNobody47710 9 months ago
There was a guy who married a doll, and a guy who married a DS game. Oh it can happen, but who are you to judge if they do. Things just happen, get over it.
KrazyKazooie 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"If it were even possible for gay marriage to lead to polygamy, incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and so on, straight marriage would have set us down this path already."
If you think about, it, that has already happened.
People who engage in polygamy,incest, pedophilia tend to be straight, they arn't neccisarily more prone to it, it's probably becuase there tends to be more straight people around.
I don't know about zoophiles or bestialists though, I havn't seen those figures.
MissMysterics 1 year ago
Comment removed
MissMysterics 1 year ago
@livin4jesus0225 Goodbye then.
Clawdragoons 1 year ago
@livin4jesus0225 No, actually, you have just stated over and over again that it is rape, an abuse of authority, or otherwise immoral or sick.
I've addressed all three of those, and explained why they are incorrect.
Clawdragoons 1 year ago
@livin4jesus0225 First off, what does dogsneedpleasuretoo have to do with anything?
Second, you didn't do what I asked. You just repeated yourself again.
You aren't very good at debating, are you?
Clawdragoons 1 year ago
@livin4jesus0225 This goes back to what I said earlier. Please read my first post to this same statement of yours, and explain where you find it in error, if anywhere.
Clawdragoons 1 year ago
@livin4jesus0225 And I tried to explain to you why your reasoning was flawed.
If you are able to explain why my reasoning was flawed in regarding why your reasoning was flawed, then we can have a legitimate debate. I encourage you to do so if you are able, or, if not, to ask any other questions or problems you have with my orientation that I may explain those areas to you as well. Until then, it seems to me that we stand at an impasse, where I've given you reasoning you refuse to acknowledge.
Clawdragoons 1 year ago
@livin4jesus0225 No, you're a bigot for repeating the same statement over and over again (that all sex with animals is rape) even though I've explained to you why that's false.
Again, feel free to attack my reasoning, and we could have a legitimate debate. But just repeating a statement that I've explained is false without first showing that my reasoning is lacking or my evidence is insufficient in no uncertain terms is being willfully ignorant.
Clawdragoons 1 year ago
@livin4jesus0225 And my side doesn't continually repeat bigoted statements in the hope of passing them off as fact.
What's your point?
Clawdragoons 1 year ago
@livin4jesus0225 Three statements of opinion and one statement I've already explained as false.
If you don't have an argument, I suggest not replying. As it is, you're just making your own side look bad.
I'm not saying that in a mean way. I'm being serious. I think you are making your own side look bad, which is counterproductive for you.
Clawdragoons 1 year ago
@livin4jesus0225 I already explained why that statement is false.
Repeating the same thing I've already explained as wrong isn't a legitimate debate tactic. You can argue the reasoning I used to refute that statement, but repeating the statement without doing so first I would say is willful ignorance.
Clawdragoons 1 year ago
@livin4jesus0225 Whether sexual or not, would be immoral. Which is generally not accepted as the case.
As for animals having "morals" about sex, personally, I think that your "morals" about sex are as arbitrary as they are irrelevant and unsupported by reason. This argument is circular. You require that one accept that such sex is immoral as part of your reasoning for why it is immoral.
Clawdragoons 1 year ago
@livin4jesus0225 That is, of course, not to say that sex with an animal outside of those circumstances is not moral.
I mean, if you are going to claim that sex is wrong because there is an authority difference, you're also required to say that choosing when to feed your dog, or take it for walks, or pet it, is also wrong.
Besides that, it's more than possible to respect wishes of another being, even if there is a power discrepancy. Otherwise all non-equal power relationships...
Clawdragoons 1 year ago
@livin4jesus0225 Unfortunately, you're wrong.
First off, your claim about authority is outright wrong. There are any number of ways I could go about explaining why it's wrong, but I'll give you a simple example.
Take the situation where someone has sex with an animal who is not subordinate. For example, a guard dog, a dog which hasn't been trained to be submissive to humans, a stray, or a wild animal. All four of those cases occur.
Clawdragoons 1 year ago
@livin4jesus0225 Would you prefer to discuss the validity of that claim in the comments section here, or in private messages?
Clawdragoons 1 year ago
@livin4jesus0225 I never said it would lead to man and animal marriage, actually. I said that I think it would result in greater rights. Marriage is the least important of those rights.
Clawdragoons 1 year ago
To put it in another way, humans are generally not content with stagnation. We might disagree in the direction we need to go, but most tend to agree that staying where we are isn't going to get us anywhere.
If you give rights to homosexuals, that's not the end-all of civil rights. Eventually other issues will be brought up, and I feel that zoosexuality will be one of those issues.
Clawdragoons 1 year ago
Personally, I do think that allowing gay marriage will result in greater rights for zoophiles, although not directly.
I consider the bigotry to be a multiheaded beast. One of the heads is bigotry against homosexuality. And, while cutting off that head won't affect the "bigotry against zoosexuality" head, it will weaken the beast as a whole.
Clawdragoons 1 year ago
Maybe you already do have some empathy for them.
NoDefame 1 year ago
I think you should have some empathy for those who find you disturbing. I don't think it's all their fault.
NoDefame 1 year ago
the weirdest thing about this argument, was before the gay marriage topic was big, a woman got married to the Burlin wall. Legitimately married to the Burlin wall and even changed her name to German for the Berlin Wall, before it was torn down obviously.
SaffronSnape 1 year ago
I fail to see what is wrong with incest as long children don't result from it.
pierepresentative8 1 year ago
These are the stupidest arguments I've ever heard.
SaruCharmed 1 year ago
A very complicated subject, which I have not fully thought out yet, so... Anyone want to share their thoughts? Please try not to use religion or "God's word" as a reason to combat polygamy, because I really don't think anything having to do with religion is a reason why people shouldn't be able to devote their lives to certain people if they want to.
SaruCharmed 1 year ago
Polygamy with children is a much more complicated subject and I'm sure how one (or three) would make that work, but if they weren't considering having children, I don't see the problem. I, myself, prefer to be monogamous. But I think if three people all love each other very much, who's to say they can't be together? About marriage though... I'm not sure if the same amount of love stretched out between three people can be equivalent to total love for one other person. You know what? This (cont.)
SaruCharmed 1 year ago
I don't think polygamy is bad. As long as everyone agrees, I don't see the problem. Why does it only have to be two consenting adults? What's wrong with three, four, etc. consenting adults?
SaruCharmed 1 year ago
After being unable to preserve part of my Identity: Marriage = 1 man/1 woman, I would like to declare my allegiance to the Poly Community. Together we can erase to 2 consenting adults rule & restore the balance of power: a world where marriage means what all the peoples (not just GayS) say it is. I only ask the Polys to behave from now on. Thx you.
ImperialGenKlenner 1 year ago
Homosexuality is comparable to heterosexuality
because they both belong in the sexual orientation category.
with the only variable is the GENDER Of UR lover.
incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and polygamy DOESNT DEAL with the GENDER of ur lover.
ohnoyoudidntx 1 year ago
Thank you SO much for making this video. You have no idea how many times I've had this argument thrown at me. It's always "If you can explain why gays should get married, then you'll be able to explain how it is okay to marry your dog/sister/child etc" wtf?!?
Let's hope their little minds are able to figure out this mind boggling concept! Not getting my hopes up yet, but hey, you never know. 8)
NikiPaprika 1 year ago
Actually me, I don't mind polygamy.
Two consenting adults, three consenting adults, a billion consenting adults...
If they are consenting and they are adults, it's no one elses business!
Shavarnarak 1 year ago 5
@Shavarnarak Usually it's a male figure dominating many female figures in a condescending way... Not really too consentual, but hey, it's not my choice, not my life.
emokidxrawr 1 year ago
@emokidxrawr To be fair, that's just the archaic religious view of polygamy. The roots of monogamous marriage are no better. Plenty of people today live in happy polyamorous relationships with all sorts of gender arrangements. It has evolved into an egalitarian concept that aims to keep everyone in the relationship feeling loved without the drama of limited sexual freedom and the feelings of being property that some people might have in an exclusively monogamous relationship. To each their own.
JenjaRose909 1 year ago
@Shavarnarak Anyone who thinks polygamy is ok can't see the bigger picture. Imagine a group of people that believe marrying many people to one person is ok. What happens to their children? Within one or two generations the only way to perpetuate that way of thinking is incest, shunning, often times murder, and harsh indoctrination. A stable population cannot withstand one person taking multiple permanent partners. Look at any polygamist culture it always degrades to those things mentioned above.
NucularRobit 1 year ago
@NucularRobit Polygamy could only increase chances of incest if mass amounts of people became polygamous, which I doubt would happen. And are you aware that there are plenty of people raising children in polyamorous households? In some cultures, whole communities are responsible for raising the children. In some cultures, only one person raises them. You're saying that a household of loving people can't do this? I may not be poly, but I support any consenting, loving relationships.
JenjaRose909 1 year ago
@JenjaRose909 "Mass" as you use it is a subjective term. Would you consider a whole community that is polygamist to be mass? Because that is how it is. Geneticists, sociologists, law enforcement, and the disowned men will all tell you it is destructive. Of course the guy with 10 wives and his brainwashed brides will tell you it is awesome and their children have great lives. Basic math, how does that sustain itself?
NucularRobit 1 year ago
Why does it matter if polygamy is allowed? Some people feel they need more than one significant other in order to feel romantically satisfied. You can love multiple people at the same time and love them equally. If no one is getting hurt and everything is fully consensual, why shouldn't it be allowed?
DarrySunshine 1 year ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
You cant argue something is a right if it is not good for the body.Penetration of the anus causes tearing & bleeding of the soft tissues & can damage the sphincter muscles causing incontinence & anal prolapse.There is also a high concentration of disease causing organisms in the anus & the introduction of pathogens during the sex act itself exposing the participants to a spectrum of contagious diseases.Liberalism is based on facts & reason which they disreguard on this issue.
danmol78 1 year ago
Sadly all those sad things such as polygamy, incest, pedophilia, bestiality, happened long before people started talking about Gay Marriage, so then, why hasn't the Heterosexual people done anything about it? They are too focused on Gay Marriage perhaps.
Alenmore 2 years ago 4
3 wold conties imergation in the west we nead more children
john95250 2 years ago
We don't need more children, do you have any idea how many are in foster homes now? Honestly we need to stop having kids and start focusing on raising the ones that are out there. The population is in no danger of declining anytime soon.
Alenmore 2 years ago 6
You are soooo right.
caffisc 2 years ago
you mist the point marrage is for child berring
john95250 2 years ago
um... marriage is completely unnecessary for child- bearing. my parents had me before they were married.
MzDark 2 years ago 3
Right. Marriage is for child bearing. Which is why we don't allow infertile couples to get married. And why there is a mandatory quota of children that must be produced in return for a marriage license. Not to mention the human race is underpopulated and we NEED MORE CHILDREN.
prolefeedprocessor 2 years ago 59
you have balls thats what thay are fore
john95250 2 years ago
That's like saying you should get sick because you have an immune system.
prolefeedprocessor 2 years ago
@prolefeedprocessor I really hope that was satire.
fuduzan5562 1 year ago
@fuduzan5562
I think the fact that he says that there is a mandatory quota for childbirth in order to receive a license says it clearly enough.
dmgirl3000 1 year ago
@prolefeedprocessor Wrong. 7 billion people aren't underpopulated. And China is Overpopulated and marriage doesn't require children. People get married everyday all over the world and some never get children. Some of them are gay and others are straight couples.
livedandletdie 1 month ago in playlist More videos from ZJemptv
@livedandletdie I was being sarcastic. LOL I thought "we don't allow infertile couples to get married" would be the tip-off on that one.
prolefeedprocessor 1 month ago
Anyone remember in the 90s where something like 400 couples got married at the same time? If they all sad I do at the same time does that mean any of them could go to another's house and say "Technically i married your wife and I'm here to consumate"? Just saying they all got married the same time does that technically mean they all married each other? 800 people all married to each other lol
Shindai 2 years ago
Yes we can explain how that's going to happen and I'll do the honours for you. It will to these because 1 sin leads to another. 1 minute gay marriage wouldn't be enough. The next society will get bored with gay marriage and then move on to other means of justifying their immoral lusts.
TheQuranboy 2 years ago
Gay marriage isn't a "sin" or an "immoral lust".
ZJemptv 2 years ago
It's not a sin to you because your an atheist. In atheism anything goes.
TheQuranboy 2 years ago
Only if you think codes of conduct and ethical behavior can only come from religion.
ZJemptv 2 years ago
I don't think they do I know they do.
TheQuranboy 2 years ago
That's a shame -- it implies that religion is the only reason that people act ethically. That you'd be incapable of behaving yourself without it.
ZJemptv 2 years ago 4
Well you guys don't have religion and look at the way you lot are behaving.
TheQuranboy 2 years ago
Yes, just look at us: not trying to stop people from getting married because of a need to force our personal religious biases upon everyone else.
Terrible, isn't it?
ZJemptv 2 years ago 8
That is a misconception. That is something the media have cooked to mislead people like you. Forced marriges is an honour thing not a thing of religion. In fact doing such an act puts us in the hellfire for all eternity
TheQuranboy 2 years ago
Not if you don't believe in Hell.
I think you are unaware of the fact that Atheists hold moral beliefs and act in kindness not out of fear of damnation but our of kindness.
ExplorationB 2 years ago 32
@ExplorationB "our of kindness." Where is the evidence of this? Atheists behave morally because (a) that's how they were raised, and (b) most immoral behavior has civil penalties associated with it. For atheists, morality is just the optimal solution to the game of living in society. Let's not ennoble atheists without evidence, m'kay?
kmsoileau 1 month ago
@TheQuranboy No actually good ppl have an inborn sense of right and wrong as well as empathy and I consider ppl who rely on this, as opposed to a book or powerful cosmic dicator, to make moral decisions are morally superior. I think even allowing the texts and a deity to overide these things for no other reason than a very powerful deity who controls wellbeing comands it, is selfish and egocentric
1982mockingbird1982 1 year ago
well i disagree with you, do you really think therres something wrong with three, or four, consenting adults getting married?
Paradoxical003 2 years ago
when we talk about gay marriage (or just marriage) we talk about freedom, the freedom to marry who you wish (who wishes to get married).
its possible to be in love with more than one person, and its also possible for those people to return such feelings, and consent to such a relationship, ive seen polyamorous families, and they all function perfectly and equally.
it should just be CONSENTING ADULTS, thats it
im not offended really, i greatly respect you, but i feel that you should address this.
Paradoxical003 2 years ago 2
Ha ha ha.
This is so illogic.
ExplorationB 2 years ago
The various fascist pricks of our society, throughout the years, have used this exact same argument to try to block black marriages. I'm not talking about inter-racial marriages, though they eventually used it for that TOO, but I mean they said it about allowing BLACK PEOPLE TO MARRY OTHER BLACK PEOPLE. Isn't that fucked up? Yeah. The issue with the 'extrapolation' fallacies regarding children and animals is, children and animals have no CONSENT, and CONSENT IS THE KEY. Polygamy... is otherwise.
Stonehawk 2 years ago
We let cousins get married in the U.S. ^_^; So, whining that allowing gay marriage will lead to relatives marrying is a moot argument. Cousins (all the way up to 1st cousins) can marry. I think allowing that will lead to people arguing for other types of relatives to marry more than allowing same sex marriage.
I'm at the point I want to just ban MARRIAGE, and then all people would have to choose between single or civil union.
goescrunchxxx 2 years ago
I don't think that discriminating against any form of sexuality is defensible.
Homosexuality is similar to paedophilia/foot fetish/etc etc ad infinatum because it is statistically a fringe form of sexuality. Statistically ''abnormal'', several standard deviations outside of the norm.
I can't honestly defend homosexuality without forcing myself to defend other sexualities as well. I am the better person for it- free from social taboo.
TheProf1988 2 years ago
TheProf1988: Having opinions has no bearing on your worth as a person. Furthermore, it is not appropriate to group all so-called "fringe" sexual preferences, as there is a very SHARP dividing feature: Some are Physically/Mentally harmful. These, such as pedophilia and incest, are directly harmful to one or more of the participants, and are completely indefensible. Personally, I think feet are gross--but I'm relatively positive you can't point out anyone who is actually hurt by foot fetish.
Stonehawk 2 years ago
Having the correct opinion does show worth. A man who is of the opinion that homosexuals are evil is evidently the worse person than the man who is tolerant of his fellow humans.
You are falling for the same social taboo that I was talking about. Incest is not harmful at all, what if the partnership is with two consenting adults? what right do you have to judge them. If you agree with this video then you must agree with me also.
cont...
TheProf1988 2 years ago
Pedophilia is not mentally or physically harmful. You have fallen for the social taboo of ''paedohysteria'' that makes you automatically assume that people that are attracted to minors are also sociopaths and will inevitably end up molesting and/or raping.
Most of the arguments used by homophobes (e.g the gay lifestyle leads to murder, mental collapse etc) are used against pedophiles and they can be debunked in the same way.
TheProf1988 2 years ago
In countries of the world that are untounched by western taboos there is no such thing as paedohysteria. They quite happily engage in coming of age sexual rituals that sometimes involve the whole tribe and they are not traumatised by it. You cant refute this point because it is unethical for you to employ the ethnocentric bias in your judgement of them.
free your ethnocentrism, free you taboo, free your mind.
TheProf1988 2 years ago
In fact, in any instance where a relationship between a minor and an adult has taken place in this culture it has the distinct possibility of beaing healthy and productive.
see my video ''lesbian pedophile'' for my view on this. Ironically the law claims that it is trying to protect minors, yet it will force the minor to believe that he/she has been supremely harmed by this ''abuse''.
it is the social tabbo that creates the mental trauma.
TheProf1988 2 years ago
Most human beings are antisexual. that is, they dont only hate pedophiles and gays but also heterosexuality.
People hate out of wedlock sex, they hate sex without procreation, they hate marriage between more than two people. ANy money in the world bets that you are intolerant of marriages that involve one man and several women or vice versa.
You arent morally superior because you believe in single marriage. *I* am morally superior because I am free from cultural indoctrination.
TheProf1988 2 years ago
The phenomenon of paedohysteria actually creates more paedophiles. YOU as a society create these people.
Pedophiles could come forward to talk about how they feel at a very ealry stage of pedophilia- but if they come forward they will lose their family, friends, and job. the irresponsible air of pedohysteria creates a situation where they can never come forward to get help.
cont...
TheProf1988 2 years ago
So the pedophile stews in their own thoughts for years and often develop depression. It is this serious psychopathology that causes them to ignore the moral barriers of society to progress to molestation.
If YOU people were sensible about sexuality all of that would NEVER happen. the blood is on YOUR hands.
cont...
TheProf1988 2 years ago
But some pedophiles arent really even pedophiles.
Pedohysteria causes anxiety, if an adult is momentarily attracted to a young person in the street for example and they are also sufferers of free floating anxiety it can latch on to that attraction.
Now the OCD sufferer is stuck in a vicious cycle of obsessing over minors and masturbating (as a compulsion) to relieve the anxiety.
cont...
TheProf1988 2 years ago
And once again, OCD pedophile CANNOt come forward because of the pedohysteria. If he came forward he would lose all of his life, be chemically castrated and thrown in jail.
The OCD sufferer will never even be able to diagnose that they have OCD and not pedophilia. so the blame still lies with you and your stupid culturally indoctrinated views.
free yourself
TheProf1988 2 years ago
And you claim that pedophilia/incest are harmful and indefensible?
excuse me! that is the same bullshit statment that the homophobic lobby at conservapedia say about homosexuality. the same stupid claims that are NEVER backed up.
We both can point out the flaws in their argument because they are 50 years out of date but I can point out the flaws in your argument because I am 50 years ahead of my time.
good day and happy researching.
TheProf1988 2 years ago 2
children cannot be expected to know the consequence of sex, any more than alcohol, and since 80% approx of incest will be heterosexual, there will be inbreeding
arachnophile01 2 years ago
I am not talking about children, I am talking about adolescents. The fact that every country has different age of consent laws proves that there is not yet a logical distinction between adults and minors that can be universally verified.
Bad idea to compare sex to alcohol. In Britain you can drink alcohol from age 5 in a private residence (in small amounts).
This is an absurd argument against incest. Anyone with half a brain stem can point out the many forms of contraception.
TheProf1988 2 years ago
After checking out your cannel it appears that you are young. I wouldn't have replied to you if I had known.
No offense, but I don't want to get into a debate of this nature with someone who is not as educated (by simple default) as me. I don't debate young creationists either, so no offense it's just my policy.
You can reply to me if you wish if you have a rebuttal, but I'm afraid I won't reply.
Peace and happy YouTubing.
TheProf1988 2 years ago
ZJ - Again, well worded, clear and articulate. Just one bit of constructive criticism, please research a bit more, and you might find a more powerful argument.
Specifically, Utah allowed polygamy up until 1862 when the US Congress outlawed it (yes there is a federal statute banning bigamy).
This can be seen as homosexuality specifically not causing polygamy as it was illegal in Utah until the US Supreme Court struck down all sodomy laws in 2003.
YngMaji1 2 years ago
When a dog stands up and said competently says "I Do". We'll worry about that. But as it stands. Species and gender are two completely different entities. there are males and females of every species for a specific reason. If different genders didn't marry or atleast pair up neither of us would be here to have this discussion.
JunkMaster83 2 years ago
Similarly, removing gender restrictions from marriage is completely different from the prohibited degree of kinship, age, or species. (By the way, some states already allow first cousins to be married -- you could skip the whole gay marriage thing and directly oppose that if you're worried about what it could lead to.)
Also: Do you think that by banning marriage, this is somehow going to convince gay people to marry someone of the opposite sex? It will not.
ZJemptv 2 years ago
The union of opposite gender was what the term marriage was created to define. First cousins, interesting. Do you think they should allow brother and sister to marry? why or why not.
No, I do not think it will make them marry the opposite sex... That doesn't make much sense.
So
JunkMaster83 2 years ago
Well, you said "If different genders didn't marry or atleast pair up neither of us would be here to have this discussion." Does marriage, and keeping marriage as a privilege for heterosexuals, have anything to do with that?
Namely, if it weren't for marriage being defined as straight-only, would dual-gender couples decide to just not get married? Or would they decide to marry someone of the same sex instead if this were an option? What is the purpose of making marriage for heterosexuals only?
ZJemptv 2 years ago
I said nothing about keeping anything as a privilege. I am not advocating witholding rights. Simply wondering why an age-ond defintion must be modified rather than a new term be coined. Straight and Gay are two terms, are they not equal?
JunkMaster83 2 years ago
Assigning a different name to equal rights is disingenuous. Either you are refusing to recognize that they are, in fact, equal by insisting that they must use a different name, or if they do indeed have equal rights, using different names for each kind of marriage is pointless and accomplishes nothing other than making heterosexuals feel like they're somehow "special" because of their orientation.
ZJemptv 2 years ago
is defining straight and gay pointless? They divide but are they not equal? Many things in society are defined seperately but are equal. You say "Tradition isn't an argument." Tradition is important. Tradition defines us. Embracing tradition is what paves the way for acceptance of other cultures' ways. You either take it or leave it, you don't pick and choose what suits you.
JunkMaster83 2 years ago
If you believe civil unions are acceptable, would you yourself be willing to forgo marriage in favor of getting "civil unioned" instead?
Tradition is never, in and of itself, a valid argument. "How things are" does not equate to "how things should be". And tradition does absolutely nothing to "pave the way for acceptance" of *anything* when you're using tradition to try and justify keeping things exactly the way they are now. Your concept of tradition is meant to preclude acceptance.
ZJemptv 2 years ago
If a man and woman marrying was not the original definition of marriage, then yes, as long as my rights were equal, I would opt for the latter of course. I'd actually opt for coining a new term altogether as Civil Union sounds so courtroom-standard. Something else.
JunkMaster83 2 years ago
The "original definition of marriage" (marriage was not something that was intentionally defined thousands of years ago by some committee that got together and came up with the idea of men and women pairing up in committed relationships, so I'm going off historical trends) meant treating women as the property of the husband; this is why laws against marital rape are a relatively modern concept. I would rather have civil unions for everyone, instead of marriage limited to a privileged class.
ZJemptv 2 years ago
Honestly. I'd opt for a new word to define the union period. Thus putting to rest the term of marriage with it's definition unaltered. I would rather see this than the definition changed.
JunkMaster83 2 years ago
It will always boil down to an individual basis but on that note. I've got to go to bed. Work comes early.
Thanks for the debate.... Take care
JunkMaster83 2 years ago
It seems logical to me that everyone should just have civil unions. I mean, as far as the government is concerned, the language used in legal documents could just refer to everyone's marriage as a "civil union." And everyone's union would be equal in the eyes of the law, insurance, etc. Then, if you want to refer to it as a marriage in your daily life then of course you can do so. I'm straight and this seems okay to me, as long as it's clear that everyone's relationship is regarded as equal.
Ryan9145X 2 years ago
Basically we haven't, (until now with gay marriage_, opened the doors to deviations from the norm. The argument is where to draw the line. questions like "If a man can marry a man, why can't a man marry his sister?" and suddenly there is no argument against it except for the same things that can be argued against gay marriage (two consenting adults, can't help who you love, yadda yadda)
JunkMaster83 2 years ago
The problem with this argument is there's nothing to back it up. You can say "Legalizing gender-neutral marriage will lead to X, Y, and Z", but has it? It has not.
ZJemptv 2 years ago
However if you say no to any marriage except a man and a woman of unrelated lineage and merely maintain the long-enstated standard there will never be any question.
No it will not "lead to" just as you stated, but rather soften the walls of that old standard for attack. Much like drilling holes in a support beam in a building will inevitably weaken it's ability to maintain structural integrity under stress. If marriage definition never gets holes drilled in it, it will stay strong.
JunkMaster83 2 years ago
What's your view on the overturning of anti-miscegenation laws, where a traditional definition of marriage was altered to be more relaxed? Does it concern you that perhaps this may have set a precedent and lead to same-sex marriage?
ZJemptv 2 years ago
Not at all in that it was merely a formality that only became a significant issue for a small portion of the time that the idea marriage had been instilled and was, for the most part, a problem for very dissimilar races where the difference was apparant. Traditional definition even 100+ years ago does not state anything to do with race except perhaps in a very select few areas, but is very clear on stating the union of a man and a woman.
JunkMaster83 2 years ago
It's interesting that you think that's different, because at the time, people were making the same arguments: that removing race as a precondition to marriage would open the door to bestiality and all sorts of things. These fears never materialized. Now that we're working towards removing gender as a precondition to marriage, the same arguments are being reused. Why would there be any merit to them this time around?
ZJemptv 2 years ago
Fair enough and you must also observe the time and era and racial issues that were a common entity during that overturn. However, as with my car anaology, One must agree that altering the position of gender in the definition of marriage is a much more profound and significant change that reaches heavily to all cultures globally as opposed to those that maintained and enforced any racial barrier.
JunkMaster83 2 years ago
The comparison miscegenation to gay marriage is likeness to changing the brand of tire on one's car compared to changing the brand of engine that car was built and intended to run with.
JunkMaster83 2 years ago
Why is discriminating by gender any more acceptable than discriminating by race? In one instance, people couldn't get married if their skin color didn't match. Nowadays, people can't get married because they don't have one of each set of genitals.
ZJemptv 2 years ago
Skin color has played only a small role in only a few areas in in the history of marriage... Not so much are we talking about it being acceptable as being significant in history. Gender was one of the main players in the creation of marriage period and though has many religious standpoints, is also ensuring continuity or one's lineage, rearing of children and ultimately insuring the sustainability of one's people. Gender plays a profound role.
JunkMaster83 2 years ago
"is also ensuring continuity or one's lineage, rearing of children and ultimately insuring the sustainability of one's people. Gender plays a profound role."
And allowing same-sex marriage will not prevent dual-gender couples from doing any of that.
ZJemptv 2 years ago
Granted. However taking an engine block, dropping it in a lake makes a handy place to tie a boat while fishing but the fact that a good many people utilize an old engine block this way does not warrant the definition of Engine Block to include "boat anchor or mooring" because it's not.
Civil Union allows for all the same rights, privelages, and recognition of marriage while maintaining "marriage" as it has always been defined. What is your opinion of Civil Union?
JunkMaster83 2 years ago
Your "engine" analogy has nothing to do with people getting married. It only assumes that we are somehow obligated to preserve the present definition of things and any change to anything is, by definition, bad. That is not an argument. If a civil union affords all the rights of marriage, why not call it marriage? "Separate but equal" is pointless -- if it's separate, it's not equal; if it's equal, there's no need to separate it.
ZJemptv 2 years ago
not bad, but unnecessairy. We're right back where we started. If we change the definition of marriage to include gay marriage, what do we say when a man wants to marry his sister?
JunkMaster83 2 years ago
If we let people marry other genders, what will we say when they want to marry other species?
ZJemptv 2 years ago
People marrying the opposite gender is what marriage is. The term would not exist without it thus it is the standard. The term was created to to define the act of uniting a man and a woman.
JunkMaster83 2 years ago
Definitions change over time because language changes over time and society changes over time and our terminology changes to reflect this. Multiple dictionaries already include same-sex marriage in the definition of marriage. Many states and countries also legally consider same-sex marriage to be just plain marriage. The term now defines more than dual-gender couples.
ZJemptv 2 years ago
Everything changes with time.... Do you feel that all change is good?
JunkMaster83 2 years ago
No. Do you feel that all change is bad? This is the sort of thing that ought to be judged on its own merits, not on the basis of things like "well, this is what it's *always* been". Tradition isn't an argument.
ZJemptv 2 years ago
No, for example, stem cell research has endless medical possibilities. I do not, however, believe in change for the sake of change.
JunkMaster83 2 years ago
What is "change for the sake of change" and what does it mean to "not believe in" it?
ZJemptv 2 years ago
So if you say no to anything else, you'll never have to bend the bars but if you say yes to one.... then what do you do when the next one comes along and asks?
JunkMaster83 2 years ago
Gay marriage is just as bad as bestiality.
ninpo2006 2 years ago
Because a person suddenly becomes equivalent to an animal if they're the same gender as you.
ZJemptv 2 years ago
Let me rephrase my statement. Homosexuality is equally nasty as bestiality.
ninpo2006 2 years ago
@ninpo2006 Homosexuals don't think so. So just leave them alone. No one ever told you that you had to be one.
emokidxrawr 1 year ago
Hey, guess what? Incest, pedophilia, and all that jazz have been going on for *millennia* before people even *considered* legalizing gay marriage. All of this took place when only straight marriage was legal. So then, do you intend to actually explain why gay marriage has any relation to incest and child marriage?
Because it seems like your straight marriages are more to blame for that sort of thing. Guess what? You're not fucking special.
ZJemptv 2 years ago
So if you can legalize gay marriage why can't you legalize incest? and the ball starts to roll
JunkMaster83 2 years ago
Hey, guess what? We already have polygamist marriage, incestrious marriage, and marriage to children, and we did that pretty well without the help of homosexuals.
alexrousseau815 2 years ago
Don't forget the marriage with dead people.
gagnashdiak 2 years ago
My god, people seriously do that?!
alexrousseau815 2 years ago
Yep. I recently read an article about it, but forget if it was about Korea or China.
gagnashdiak 2 years ago
You're so witty.
hoodmilk 2 years ago
Because then we'll have to legalize christian lynching, and that'll be more popular.
Damn those slippery slopes, eh?
athywren 2 years ago 2
Okay, just make sure your penis never goes in the ass, or mouth, or between your hands.. Remember, it's for vagina
Mesquissto 2 years ago
Is that what god said?
metalshoes 2 years ago
WRONG, It's happening, give up.
Vwassel 2 years ago
a horse has a penis. Do you let it fuck you?
phantomdoodler 2 years ago
Pleasure. What makes us feel good, what we're attracted to, what we want. No where near as controlled as most people assume it is. How many people have sex purely to reproduce? A minority in the face of how many have sex to begin with.
TalynCo 2 years ago
I ask a simple question, and a nerd thumbs me down and says, "It doesn't matter."
FUCK that, and FUCK you, YouTube, and ALL of your ignorant, fatass, self absorbed losers.
Google Video fucking dominates this shit.
Oh, and FUCK YOU, ZJemptv.
hornet579 2 years ago
Thanks for watching!
ZJemptv 2 years ago
You're welcome.
Jesus Christ you responded fast...
hornet579 2 years ago
Are you a guy, or, a chick?...
Earrings?
hornet579 2 years ago
Obviously, it dosent matter.
biohazard93808 2 years ago
Is that the point? the speech is what matters!
corso2aube 2 years ago
Marriage is moronic across the board, gay or straight.
moopoo23 2 years ago 3
i came here to ask that as well. WTF.
PornStarJacqui 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
What are you?
muchtribulation 2 years ago
I really can't answer for someone else, and certainly can't be absolutely certain, but ZJ appears distinctly human to me. However, there are other possibilities: elf, pixie, nephilim, angel, imp, minor demon, pan-galactic being, or hallucination borne of longstanding alcohol abuse. Now that I think about, the possibilities are limited only by one's imagination. I generally find questions like "what are you" reflective of limited imagination as well.
RHYMEMAIDEN1 2 years ago 5
Well put - nice arguments against a non existant slippery slope.
targetta 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
lmao she plays this music in all these videos, she is an amazing troll
natebooce 2 years ago
I like the idea of pluristic marriage and I see no reason for it to be banned here in the 21st century. However, it should come with some extra taxation to pay for the social costs that could result. and to keep it on the fringe so that it doesn't disrupt other interests of the collective as a whole.
azezel2311 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
fuck you bitch
23580578 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Its immoral plain and simple . If you allow 2 men to marry you can not stop the rest from following Its a moral issue . Ok so 2 men love each other , great why does that give them the right to marry . I love multiple women are you saying our love is any less valid than homosexuals . At least A polygamist has the beginings of being Hedrosexual.
WretchedSketcher 2 years ago
Becuase marriage has a definition. It supposedly means two peope that love each other unite together, and that is what your priest would say right before you kissed and broke a bottle, depending on what you would do. They are two humans, in love. So what reason SHOULDN'T they get married? Because other people object? And why is it immoral to marry the one you love? If that's immoral, straight couples wouldn't get married etheir.
HokageHinata 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Just because I am sexually attracted to more than 1 woman , doesnt give me te right to marry more than one.Love is not the deciding factor . If you say we cant stop two people who love each other how can you leaglly stop 3 men that love each other , what because 3 men is just to sick says who says you?I love 2 women I should be allowed to marry multi women.
HOMOSEXUALLITY is not NORMAL.Giving the chance nature reproduces ASEXUALL not homosexual.Marriage =1 Man +1 woman.Thats its definition.
WretchedSketcher 2 years ago
This is an equal rights issue. Imagine if you will: Two people love each other very much, one is dying. The other is not allowed to be in the ICU because they are not related. Is it fair to deny these people, that love each other, the right to attend to the other? No, it isn't fair. But there are more issues than just this one. Be sympathetic, or empathetic, or respect someone else for a change. Get over it.
EchosofGodlessness 2 years ago 5