I'm neutral toward gay marriage. BUT one's race, ethnicity, gender, religion, physical capability, and national origin IS NOT associated with filth and perversion like homosexuality and bisexuality is. So all you liberal, fruity, hippy, jungle loving, trailer trash, tree hugging, wiccan, low life, leftist shrimps need to realize that. It's undeniable that you're the same people that like obscene adult material, pre-marital intimacy, clothing optional places, promiscuity, etc in society. Sickos!
"Civil unions give them the same rigts as married couples."
No they don't. They have none of the equal protections afforded straight married couples. They can be denied partner benefits by companies, they are limited in inheritance laws, survivor benefits, tax law, child custody, hospital visitation, end-of-life decision-making etc., etc., etc. There is no equality at all. Plus, the word "marriage" itself. "Civil union" has to be explained; "marriage" doesn't. Seperate is not equal.
"Gays have exactly the same rights that I do. I have the right to form a marrriage with the woman of my choice who will have me. So do gays."
This is almost verbatim the same argument made against interracial marriage. "White people are just as limited as black people. It's exactly the same."
Ah, the "slippery slope" argument. That's a red herring. The question is not about polygamy, it's about same-sex marriage. Each question should be debated on its own merits. When we have that debate, each side can make it's own arguments, but acceptance of polygamy is not an inevitable consequense of same-sex marriage.
Being gay is not about "behavoir", it is about sexual orientation. One can be marrried and have a multitude of children, and still be gay. One can be celibate all his life, and still be gay. It has nothign to do with behavior. And it has nothing to do with choice.
"You never met anyone who said, I used to be Black." "Ha, ha, ha."
That's the "ex-gay" argument. There is no such thing as an "ex-gay." A so-called "ex-gay" is just a homosexual who has been shamed back into the closet.
there is no unequal protection under the law? does he know you can get fired for being gay but not for being straight. Does he know you can get dismissed for the military for being gay but not being straight, does he know gays can't donate blood but you cant if your straight..does he not realize he can marry who he Loves but not the gays? does he know ANYTHING about how unfair it is to be gay?? must be easy being straight... and shame on the black man for dismissing human rights, total FAIL.
@wetdream09 This isn't BALCK or WHITE thing, this is PEOPLE thing! You can look at that man and see that he is black, but I can't look at you and see your sexuality. I can't hide my color, but you can hide your sexuality! And by the way, don't you know it's easier being a white man, gay or not, than it is being a person of color and being gay? Remember, our white racist forefathers wrote laws protecting the interests of whites and to have control over people of color.
@Sepia1789 it may be easier but you're people got theyre rights decades ago, im still waiting for mine! and if you saw me youd know im gay! i dont hide myself and it is a people thing but being black doesnt chage that now, does it?
Okay, men and women are different but that still doesn't explain why a society shouldn't allow gay people to marry. Furthermore, getting married is about more than social acceptance. It effects taxes, getting a partner's health insurance, whether one can see a partner when he's in the hospital, etc. btw I'm a straight man. For me the gay marriage issue is about protecting the rights of a minority in society.
No, banning gay marriage is not like banning interracial marriage. It's COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. A black man and white woman are still a man and a woman. They get married to unite themselves and then eventually have children. A man and a man having sex? Getting married? It's unnatural for one, our bodies aren't like that. Also, all the major religions don't allow homosexuality. Legalizing homosexuality has really only come up recently. A new religion almost...
@QueinSiingah yes but how i see it is people are using the same arguments to deny gay marriage as they did for interracial marriage.
back in the day interracial marriage was attacked by the bible, just as the bible is being used to stop homosexual marriage. also people today are worried about the effect gay marriage will have on children, that argument was also used to deny interracial marriage.
Wow! This is so sad! I cannot believe how ignorant and close minded these people are! So frustrating. If only there was a way for these people to know what is feels like to be gay. Maybe they would finally understand what we are fighting for. Ugh! People like this make me sick.
@chickenbuttguesswhat Hey your close minded to the possibility that homosexuality is wrong morally. Are you saying your only open-minded if we move your side?
@Creationcreed I was born gay. If God had intended me to be gay, what could be morally wrong about it? Anyway, the moral issue here is that gay people are being denied equality, not that they are doing something morally wrong.
@chickenbuttguesswhat If God intended for you to be gay, YOUR RIGHT, it wouldn't b a sin. But because it is wrong according to the Bible, it wasn't intended. It wouldn't be right to punish someone that was born gay, or a liar, thief, etc. What rights are you trying to get? You can't call it marriage, by definition it is man&woman. If you call it somethin' else I wouldn't care.
@Creationcreed I don't believe in the Bible. In fact, a lot of people don't. I think it's funny that you put being gay into the same category as being a thief and a liar. I'm surprised you didn't throw murderer into the mix. I'm not hurting anyone. Gay people are simply asking to have the same rights through marriage that straight people have had for years. Of course it can be called marriage. Why do you care? It's not hurting you.
@chickenbuttguesswhat Lust doesn't hurt everyone, but it is a sin in the sight of God. Your moral standard confirms that the Bible is true. It says that people will surpress the truth, construct their own morality apar from God, justifying their sins, and fullfill their sinful desires. Now government can do whatever they want, but it is still against God's standard. If Gays do marry, that means later, there will be a pushing of that lifestyle on my kids in school through books, etc.
@Creationcreed Gay marriage has nothing to do with lust, it has to do with love. But, of course according to you it is impossible for two people of the same sex to be capable of love, right? Love isn't morally wrong last time I checked, but you're entitled to your opinion. I don't understand how my so called "lifestyle" is going to be pushed on kids in school. The concept of marriage has never been taught in school, gay or straight.
@chickenbuttguesswhat I didn't say lust was the same as homosexuality. But they are both sin in the sight of God. In schools there will be books that introduce gay characters, and other kids talking about their gay parents.
@Creationcreed Ok. Well, again, I don't agree. I'm sure there already are books like that in schools, but they aren't meant to push a "lifestyle" on the students, they're meant to introduce students to the differences found in people. It's no different than having a book that features black parents or divorced parents. It's not like by reading these books they're trying to indoctrinate these kids into believe one way or another about homosexuality. It's just meant to inform.
@Creationcreed Being gay, I know that the attraction/feelings I have towards men are natural. It is an inherit feeling inside myself. It is the same feeling that you would have towards someone of the opposite sex or your significant other. The only thing that makes me different from a straight person is that I am attracted to the same sex, while they are attracted to the opposite sex.
@chickenbuttguesswhat Again, by what standard? What standard says that it is not wrong? We can feel all kinds of things. People who are attracted to little child may have the same feelings. If feeling is your standard, then you can not condemn them.
@Creationcreed So, are you saying that something else besides myself has to tell me if it is wrong or right? Because I have my own standards. I don't need someone else to tell me that my standards are right or wrong. What standard tells you heterosexuality is right? The Bible? What if the Bible said heterosexuality was wrong, would you obey or would you still have relationships with the opposite sex? I know deep down that homosexuality is right. The God I know, loves me for me.
@chickenbuttguesswhat If morals come from yourself, then you cannot condemn anyone who says homosexuality is wrong, because that is how they feel, nor a pedaphile, nor a rapist, a person who liked to inflict pain on others since childhood...they all act on how they've felt naturally for years. I could say deep down I know homosexuality is wrong. The God I know, loves me enough to show me his standard. Am I wrong?
@Creationcreed Ok then, to each his own. It's clearly obvious that our beliefs aren't the same. For instance, I wouldn't put rapists and pedophiles into the same category as gays. If you want to believe homosexuality is wrong, you have that right. Are you wrong for thinking that? I think so. But that's my opinion. We all have opinions about things, that's a natural human quality. I can accept your difference of opinion, but I don't have to agree with it.
@chickenbuttguesswhat So, if to each his own, then you believe whatever someone feels is right to them, therefore it's right. But if you think opposite of another then...If a man has felt all things are his, throughout his life, and He decides to steal your possessions, and feel right in doing it. You would disagree, but you can't say he is wrong, therefore you shouldn't call the police, but cannot say your wrong for calling the police either...don't you see why this is a bit messed up um...
@chickenbuttguesswhat The theif can't even say that you killing is wrong neither, and what happens is that your both standing still or chaos happens. There has to be an overarching law to step in, because of the fact that everyone will go their own way morally.
@Creationcreed You're right. There are people that need a moral standard, because they don't have the capability to determine right from wrong. You have categorized homosexuality as a slippery slope going along with murder, pedophilia, etc., simply because you believe that God thinks it is wrong and is no different than than the former. Do you honestly believe that if gay marriage is made legal across the board, then eventually murder, pedophilia, and theft will be accepted?
@chickenbuttguesswhat According to the God who created all things, it is a sin against him to practice any sort of wickedness. God's standard is what I stand by. But you can't even say it is wrong for me to say that. Where does your moral standard come from? The Bible is beyond opinion and feelings. I may desire to commit adultery with a woman, but it would be against God. There are things that are wrong no matter how many vote Yes or No to this and that.
So the only reason you don't commit adultery is because God wouldn't like it? The problem is that you assume that without your idea of God there can be no moral code. I am agnostic, yet have a very clear concept of right and wrong. I have many atheist and gay friends, and they are some of the most moral and good people I have ever known. Some of the most hateful, judgmental, hypocritical, and morally bankrupt people I have met have been christian.
@AcidJack1973 I never said that Athiest couldn't be moral. They just can't tell me where it comes from or where they get their morality. And I am non of the hateful, judgmental, hypocrites you speak of. Well, I do judge people according the Bible, its not a sin to say what one is doing is wrong. People on the otherside do the same thing. I would tell someone that your an adultery, unless they say they are. I don't Prejudge, I judge with knowledge of an individual. I don't care if people judg me.
@AcidJack1973 We sinned against God, and so we deserve Hell, but God wanted to be merciful to us by sending His Son to die in our place: take our punishment. Because of that, He deserves our obedience to the Gospel, turning from sin, and trust Him. We love Him, because He first Loved Us. He doesn't deserve to be sinned against, rejected, and trampled upon in our daily lives. I turned from sin and trust in Him because of what He has done for me.
Those without a Bible learn their morals the same way anyone does: from their parents, teachers, friends, experience, and the world around them. You don't need a book to do that, but there are plenty of books out there with moral lessons other than the Bible.
I think it's a bit warped that you think that "we sinned against God, and so we deserve Hell." Hitler does, but not me, buddy.
@AcidJack1973 Morals come from your family, friends, experience, and the world. Checkout this video keyword(s): "Huntington Beach Open-Air #16 - Mark Spence & Shaw the atheist" ... What if I learned that rape is good from my family or friends, does that mean its right. There are people who learned how to be gang leaders and rob people by their experience, family, and friends.
Our morals ARE only as good as their sources, but there are plenty of bad values attributed to the Bible (used for centuries to justify wars, hatred/murder of homosexuals, sexism, the Inquisitions and other religious persecutions, etc.). Morals are only as good as the source or those who twist the source to fit their own beliefs/desires. There are good and bad christians, and good and bad agnostics/atheists. I do not consider the people in this video to be morally sound.
@AcidJack1973 Although the people justified many things, even Hilter used Catholicism for political reasons, Those are only misinterpretations of the Bible, that doesn't mean we have to conclude the Bible is wrong or false. Theres a scripture that says, "They will put you out of the synagogues. Indeed, the hour is coming when whoever kills you will think he is offering service to God. And they will do these things because they have not known the Father, nor me." Jn. 16:2,3
@AcidJack1973 Luke 16:15 says Christians r to love their enemies, do good to them, & pray 4 them who spitefully use us. The Crusaders and other who have committed atrocities in the name of Christianity were those who carried out their own agenda. So the Bible is not the problem. Athiest twist the scriptures too btw, to make the Bible say what its not to convince people not to trust the Bible.
Sounds like we're pretty much on the same page there. Personally, I find a lot of the old testament rather disturbing and wrong-headed, but you really can't go wrong with the teachings of Christ (whether you believe he was God's son or not). It's unfortunate that many (I would even say a majority of) people who call themselves Christians do not even remotely follow his teachings.
@AcidJack1973 In the Old Testament, the people where under a theocracy(God actually commanded some things to happen), we're not, neither were the people in the New Testament era. OTestament, they did stone people, but they didn't just do it for no reason nor immediately, nor were they lusting to do such thing. The people had a special convenant with God, so this particular nation was held to a higher standard.
@AcidJack1973 And any other nation outside of that convenant were not under that theocracy. God sent plagues(Pharoah), but God gave him 9 warnings to let His people go, but instead he got selfish like many do, and put his own people at risk, even costing his son's death. All he had to do was release them. People today are doing the same thing, you have to be willing to deny yourself(sexual desire) and take up your Cross and follow Him. It may cost acceptance among your homosexual friends, but...
@chickenbuttguesswhat For your question, murder is made legal: abortion. And many accept it, and changed the meaning of what is actually happening: "Therapy". People proclaim moral relativism, but they can't live that out. People live as though there is an objective moral law, but they don't want to recognize the Law giver. God has put his law in our hearts(conscience) that is why some of us haven't acted on every wicked thought, and may never act on certain ones.
@chickenbuttguesswhat We could go on on like this forever, but that just seems like a waste of time. Our beliefs are so different that we're never going to agree. You follow a moral code that you believe God has given you. I also try to follow a moral code that I believe God would approve of. Since I don't believe in the Bible, our moral codes aren't the same and our view of God isn't the same. There are so many different belief systems in the world and no two are going to look the same.
I think you should educate yourself on the actual laws and the implementations of those laws before you make bogus claims in front of so many people. Gay couples are absolutely NOT awarded the same rights as straight couples, ie: social security, spouse benefit packages, UNQUESTIONED HOSPITAL VISITS etc. etc...how can you determine these blantent inequalities to be mearly "lack of society's approval"? You also misspoke when you said being gay is a choice, if you had done your research there...
As for the polygamy, incest, pedophilia etc argument, these have all proven to be usually abusive, or just unhealthy for the people involved. The same cannot be said for homosexuality, which is one of the reasons why the world of psychology no longer recognize it as a disease.
As for saying "we both have the same rights" technically, the argument is asinine.
Same-sex couples want the right to marry the person they love and the person they actually find attractive- a right that straight couple do have. The only way that makes sense is if the speaker had the strong desire to be gay his whole life and "decided" against it so he could marry someone he was attracted. He didn't decide. He found women attractive. And had the right to marry the gender he wanted to.
No one is "equating" sexual orientation to race. They are, obviously, just highlighting the similarities. They are both unchangeable. And ya, there are people who could say "I used to be black"- Michael Jackson. As unnatural as that may seem, most (including the APA) would argue the same is true for small amount of homosexuals who claim to have changed. They are still gay. Most say so themselves. They only now try to stay away from it.
I'm sick of people telling me that my sexual orientation is a 'behaviour'
My sexuality is inborn and as innate in me as any heterosexual's.
If we started calling heterosexuality a 'behaviour' - imagine the uproar!
People hide behind politically correct bullshit instead of just saying ''gays shouldn't get married because the thought of same-sex activity makes me feel 'icky'
Heterosexuality is a behavior, just like homosexuality and bisexuality, there's no disputing those. Your emotions, attitudes, choices, etcetera are forms of human behavior.
Um, same sex marriages still happen in California, and those that occurred are still legal. Any Church can still perform a same sex marriage, but the couple is just discriminated against the legal protections.
Gays aren't deprived of the right to marry--only of the right to insist that a single-sex union is a "marriage." They don't want to accept or reject marriage on the same terms that it is available to everyone else. No one may marry a blood relative, a child, a person who is already married, or a person of the same sex. However much those restrictions may disappoint the incestuous, pedophiles, polygamists, and homosexuals, the issue is not discrimination. It is the nature of marriage itself.
"there's not a difference in a balck man and a white man!" Wow. That's not what they said when they were talking about how Interracial marriage is "Morally Wrong" just like gay marriage. Gay marriage is NOT like Interracial Marriage, but the FIGHT for Gay Marriage is EXACTLY the same as Interracial Marriage.
That's where you lose your battle at: when you align race with sexuality as being one in the same. A man and a woman regardless of race don't alter the foundation of marriage, so no, the fight isn't the same. That is not a very effective argument because one dealt with an intolerance for someone's race and another is human sexuality. They don't mesh together.
Anti-miscegenation laws were EUGENIC laws. When the Virginian Supreme court upheld the Racial Integrity Act of 1924 their justification was that the law served to "to preserve the racial integrity of its citizens," and to prevent "the corruption of blood," "a mongrel breed of citizens," and "the obliteration of racial pride..."
Their rational is the same as the one we currently use to prevent marriage between close blood relatives.
@fomi2008 Not really, I mean, gay isn't a race, anyone of any race can be gay, and a gay person could be racist, I don't know any that are but it's not impossible...
@fomi2008 That's because of ignorance and intolerance. A BLACK WOMAN and WHITE MAN embody what's known as HETEROSEXUALITY! In case you don't know, they're biologically different based on hormones. Race doesn't exist in the biological world, but man and woman do. Quit making this seem like it's a black or white thing, as if people in those kids of relationships owe you something. This is a PEOPLE thing!
RELIGION is a choice and it is protected. So even if Gay is a choice (its not...just saying that if it were) what makes your choice justified and mine not? Your choices are your choices and Mine are mine! Stop DISCRIMINATION!
Prior to the civil rights movement, everyone had the same rights, too - the right to marry someone of their own race. Why did those darn minorities have to make such a fuss?
a black man marrying a white woman = NOT CHOSEN BEHAVIOR.
In other words, a man deliberately makes a choice when he decides to marry another man, but a black man can't help but want to marry and have sex with a white woman. The fair skinned virgin is irresistible to the African-bred negro. It is NOT a choice; he was born with the primitive instinct to act carnally with the pure-of-heart Caucasian female!
Did you read my comment? They are both immutable characteristics. Race and sexual orientation are both characteristics that people cannot change. And more importantly they are characteristics that do not impinge upon one's ability to perform in society. Meaning any unequal treatment based on such a trait is discriminatory.
No it's not. Where do you think sexual attraction comes from? It's part of who we are. It's programmed into our minds and there is nothing we can do about it. Just like we can't do anything about our race.
Someone's racial composition is not synonymous with what someone does behind closed doors. A person's sexual preference can change as many times as they allow, but DNA cannot be altered. I realize discrimination works on both sides of that argument, but it's insulting comparing overt traits that were inherited through one's parents versus what someone voluntarily does with someone else.
Sexual orientation is not an act. Sexual orientation is a characteristic. Sexual orientation cannot be changed. One can choose not to follow their sexual orientation, but that is in no way the same thing. The origin of the traits is irrelevant. What matters is that both race and sexual orientation are immutable characteristics.
You seem to be overlooking the point. That's not concrete statement that a person cannot change their preference, when in fact a preference is neither something one has a distaste for.
Stick with human sexuality if you're going to make that argument, because how you feel towards someone of the same sex cannot be put into the category from what I inherited from my parents, grandparents, and so forth the moment I was conceived.
It's beyond a preference. Sexual orientation is a biological characteristic. Look at the way you are attracted to the opposite sex. Is that really just a preference? Do you prefer members of the other sax over members of the same sex the way you might prefer broccoli over peas?
I have a hard time believing that because many don't need a reason to like what they do it's something natural. Me, I don't have a sexual attraction towards women simple as that.
I have a close friend of mine who was "homosexual" but she has had relations with both sexes and is currently engaged to a man. So all of that is in her biological make-up? Biologically she's mulatto, but I doubt there's a biological concrete answer for her ambiguous orientation. Sounds more psychological than anything
There is undoubtably a genetic component to sexual orientation. Also, sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic regardless of how much of it is caused by genetics and how much is caused by nurture. You simply aren't attracted to women. Neither am I.
There is no difference between us being humans, but being being with someone of the same sex is another thing. Unless you're in my body you cannot tell me that I'm simply not attracted to females just like I cannot with you.
Why can't you understand that sexual orientation is not an act? I wasn't telling you that you aren't attracted to females. I was restating what you had just said. Read your last comment.
I didn't say SO was an act. I said it can be altered. And why can't you understand that orientation does not go hand and hand with something as trivial as phenotype?
You said, "There is no difference between us being humans, but being being with someone of the same sex is another thing." Being with someone is an act. It is not the same as being homosexual. Hence why I made the distinction in my previous comment. As I said earlier, genetics is a factor in sexual orientation. And also, sexual orientation cannot be altered. Someone can chose who to have sex with, but that is different than choosing their sexual orientation.
Xivled, you just don't' get it. Your attraction to people of your same gender is a choice, because you choose which gender to be born as. Your attraction to people of a different race, however, is not a choice, as you do not choose which race to be born as.
Likewise, gender-based attraction is a choice, as I can choose to find women attractive even though I'm a straight woman. Race-based attraction, however, is not a choice, as I can't possibly find a negro attractive. I was born that way.
Exactly, Sephia. How dare they compare interracial marriage to same-sex marriage!
Homo sexuality is a CHOICE, while interracial sexuality (sexual attraction to different-sex people) is NOT a choice! All black people are born with an uncontrollable urge to marry and procreate with white people because whites are so much smarter, better and purer than the general negro population. I mean, who can blame them!
I'm disgusted by the inaccurate analogy made by this video.
so, your mixed because your mother and father fell in love with one another and decided to start a family?
i'm guessing. there are other other possabilities, such and maybe your mother prefers black men and chose to exlpore and\or embrase her sexuality
i choose to assume the former, but both possabilities i guess are there in any relationship, be it between boy- girl, "black-white", christian-pagen, lady-tramp
"Behaviour" What/ Do they mean sex? What about gay and lesbians who are unable to have sex. Being gay is more than merely sex. Wow - Americans are still in the Dark Ages in psychology as well.
I get what you're saying Xivled, but the very fact that Americans deem it normal to vote on human rights (prop 8 and other anti-minority legislation) signifies to me that most Americans DO think that way. The fact that they voted in FAVOUR of such legislation is rather damning evidence. Sorry to be so judgemental, but it is rather hard not to be. Perhaps I need to actually LIVE in the US before I judge, but it seems to me that democracy is not quite understood there, which is a great irony.
I have spoken to dozens of people who voted for prop 8 and many of them regret it dearly. They were simply blinded by the lies set forth by religious interlopers. The voters were being told that this bill was dangerous for California and their children. The American people are not to blame. People are good at heart. We have an evolved psychological tendency towards it. The erroneous and illogical social disease of religion is to blame.
"please do not compare a behavior to what i am when i was born"
the best comment in the gay marriage argument. people always want to try to compare interracial marriage with gay marriage but the two have nothing in common and heres why...being black, is not wrong, but someone could be very right when they say being gay is wrong. interracial heterosexual marriage does not go against the definition of marriage, gay marriage does. its as simple as that people.
Wow you're thick. They are the same. Both sexual orientation and race are part of someone's nature. The definition of marriage was different in the state of Virginia up until the late 60s. Bans against interracial marriage didn't violate that unconstitutional definition of marriage either.
the definition of marriage in this argument is key. just because a state isnt specific in defining the word marriage, it doesnt mean that the definition of marriage wasnt already established somewhere else. if you werent ignorant, you would see that the concept of marriage actually originated from the bible, so as a society, we established the definition of marriage a long time ago as 1 man for 1 woman.
dont look to the state and how they define marriage, look to what has been long established.
The concept of marriage is not derived from the bible. Marriages have been going on in some form all over the world for a long time.
And besides just because something is old does not make it right. Marriage is a legal status. Marriage is entirely an issue of state. The Fourteenth Amendment grants same sex couples the right to marry. Not granting these couples their rights in discriminatory because sexual orientation is part of someone's nature.
Ok, so pedophillia, necrophillia, & beastiality are all a part of your nature, just like race? None of the above mentioned have any choice in the matter, is that what your saying?
Did you think about that comment before you posted it? Those are not parallels to same sex marriage. The benefits associated with marriage are dependent on one thing. That is that those receiving the benefits are a human couple. It's sad that I have to add human. One would think that would be assumed. And yet this stupid bestiality argument always pops up. An animal cannot be given marriage benefits. An animal cannot make medical decision on behalf of a partner or have custody over kids.
No, I wouldn't think it was a choice. I assume no one would choose to have a sexual obsession with children. The difference between homosexuality and pedophilia is that homosexuality bears no relation to an individual's ability to perform or contribute to society. The acts of a pedophile do harm society. What's the point you're trying to make?
Ok, what about the acts of a person having sex with a horse...what is that hurting? Necrophillia doesnt hurt anyone...sure its disrespectful, but its not hurting anyone. The point Im making is who who date is a choice. Who u have sex with is a choice. If I only date white women is that a choice? If I only date women who are into David Bowie is that a choice? Yes. & thats my point, who date/sleep with is your choice. Maybe u cant help a general attraction, but its u choose to go through with it.
CA Supreme Court: "A person's sexual orientation is so integral an aspect of one's identity, it is not appropriate to require a person to repudiate or change his or her sexual orientation in order to avoid discriminatory treatment." It's not a general attraction. Homosexuals are attracted to people of the same gender in the exact same way you are attracted to people of the opposite gender. Yes, it is a choice to engage in homosexual acts, but why shouldn't people be allowed to make that choice?
Exactly, psychotic. And Homosexuals obviously should CHOOSE not to act on their attraction to adult men and women. Instead, they choose to act on their lack of attraction to adult men and women, like heterosexuals do.
The comparison of bans of gay marriage to bans of interracial marriage does not compare LGBT to African Americans, it compares bigots to racists, which is a fair comparison.
The stories of LGBT and African Americans cannot be compared at all, however, just because blacks were treated much worse than gays does not mean that it is okay to deny some rights to gays.
Michael Jackson had a skin condition to which most of his skin was already changing in color, what fully black person do you know has changes their skin to fully white? NONE!!!
What part of GAY dont you understand? Gays are fundamentally different than straights. We can no more change who we are than blacks can. Unless you are gay you can NOT say you know that. Civil Unions are not the same thing. Separate is NOT equal!
No, I am not black...but the 2 are immutable! They can NOT be changed. America is about LIFE LIBERTY and the pursuit of HAPPINESS! You have no logical reason to deny gay couples EQUAL rights! It is your bigotry. Live and let live.
No they aren't immutable traits and you have no logical explanation for lumping who a person sleeps with versus something seen with the naked eye. It's an insult.
Explain to me the case with Anne Heche who was involved with Ellen DeGeneres and is now with a man? You say it's an immutable trait, right....
if marriage is all about reproduction then if a woman had her "tubes tied" or a man got the "snip" then they MUST be banned from marriage. While we are at it... we should require people who get married to sign a legal contract requiring them to reproduce... otherwise whats the point of being married? If anything i just said makes any sense to you... GTFO.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
youre just mad because everything that they have said is absolutely right. the definition of marriage is and always was one man for woman. interracial heterosexual marriage does not go against that, gay marriage does; so opposing heterosexual marriage based on any of the partner's race is wrong.
"the definition of marriage is and always was one man for woman."
STFU!!! Polygamy and slavery were the marriages of the day for the old testament. Greek and Roman societies had no problem with same-sex relationships. Marriage in the medieval times was purely an economic transaction, not even a religious sacrament. Your "sacred" tradition of marriage is only a century or so old.
is being gay simply behavior? studies have shown male homosexual's brains are more symmetrical as oppose to a hetero male's brain whose two halves differ in size slightly..the same goes for the female homosexual's brain (which is congruous to a hetero male's brain size) it appears to be biological and hardly a choice which can be stifled and discouraged habit-wise.
also, 'banning gay marriage is just like banning interracial marriage' is a perfectly valid analogy because both your race AND your sexual orientation are not a choice. and to the fucktard that pointed out gays have the same equal right to marry the opposite sex: how would you like it if the majority was gay and you were straight and you were denied the right to marry a woman? and a response to your objection to that was "you have the same right to marry the same sex as i do".
I fear you missed the moderator's point that sexuality is behavior, while race is innate from birth. Sexual orientation - developed in the womb or not - is different from sexual behavior, whether homo or hetero. Some individuals of both types are prone (or oriented) to promiscuity, but that behavior can (and should, I think most would agree) be controlled. I choose to act on my heterosexual orientation, but only with my wife. In other words, my sexuality is a behavior that I can control.
All sexuality is a choice, because it is behavior. Thoughts/tendencies/inclinations are a different matter - not until one engages in a behavior, are they accountable for that action. If I have pedophilic thoughts, I am guilty of nothing either morally or legally. If I was "born" a pedophile (or a polygamist, or promiscuous) I may not be able to control my thoughts, but wouldn't you agree I should control my actions? I'm not equating homosexuality with those, but just mean it's controllable.
What day did you choose to be heterosexual? When did you make that conscience choice? Homosexuals are a valuable part of nature, otherwise God would not have made me this way. He also made homosexual animals.
The mistake is that you have been misinformed about where homosexuals come from. Unless you are a homosexual you can not tell how you became that way. If you are gay....you know. I am an expert on homosexuality and how they came about.
So why would nature add a non-reproducing gene to 10% of our population? It was natures way of population control. Go forth be fruitful and multiply. Now after 2000 years of it is time to realize homosexuality has a purpose. We have a population explosion on earth and you are distroying it. Breed responsibly.
he still directly implied that sexual orientation is a choice by calling it behavior and saying it can't be compared to race which is innate. sure you don't have to act on it, but why should a homosexual not act on his/her feelings while a heterosexual can? is there any logical reasoning behind this? i'll answer for you: no. and do you have any evidence to support your claim that some are oriented to promiscuity? because i highly doubt this.
Thank you, but I'd rather answer for myself. There are always good reasons to restrict or deny desired behaviors if they are deleterious to ourselves or others. Promiscuity is certainly more prevalent in some than others, which proves that some are oriented to it. However, some that are oriented in that way choose to restrain themselves because of the dangers of the behavior, so it _can_ be controlled.
Sean2046, that analogy is insulting. That's like comparing an apple and a orange. They are two different things. At birth, something that's overt, I was a person of color. My parents are Creole, therefore, my biological make up is constructed into my DNA just as the generation before me. But you CANNOT compare someone who's black, asian, hispanic, obvious traits, to something nobody or very few would know unless you tell them.
if you read what i had said you'd understand that the analogy makes perfect sense in that i am arguing that both are something that is not a choice. of course there are differences but in the context i'm arguing in, they are perfectly analogous.
both these guys can go fuck themselves. it's either pure bigotry or pure idiocy on both their parts. civil unions don't include the same privileges as marriages in most states, even though they may in california. and separate but equal has never worked! it's no different than saying someone has the same right to sit in a theater, only.. they have to sit over there separate from everyone else. the same, but separate.
It absolutely blows my mind to see such well-spoken, good looking people spew such tripe to a massive and approving audience. Sad.
What a waste of intelligence. I mean, DUH what is this 1000 years ago? Live and let live dudes, marriage is not about 'what is socially accepted', its about 2 people who love eachother. There isn't anything more private and universally sacred than that. So what gives YOU the right to pick and choose the rules? Who do you think YOU are? Gosh.
I don't think their point is to prohibit 2 people loving each other, but to maintain a careful distinction about what marriage is and is not. Marriage is the foundation of society, as it is a microcosm of how diversity (man and woman) finds unity, and establishes the basis for healthy relationships. Also, it promotes procreation. If homosexuality disappeared, society would continue. The same cannot be said for heterosexuality. And who says you should get to pick the rules? :)
SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
Would you still consider entering into a matrimonial contract in California if SEC. 7.5 read, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California and is legally irrevocable under any and all circumstances"?
at "neenerpuss", first off, u must not have listened to the video because it clearly states that rights were never taken away from homosexuals. They have the same rights as everyone else(right to vote, etc...). Second, you can't "take the bible out of the equation" because marriage was created by and conducted under GOD, and homosexuality is rejected by GOD. Therefore, you can't ask a church to conduct a sin by allowing homosexuals to marry. Thats like asking the police to allow crime.
What part of "GAY" dont you understand? Marriage is a basic civil right. Rights were taken away. One day they could marry each other the next it was banned. Gays deserve the right to marry. If what you are saying is true that means that with enough "therapy" you could become gay. Second being gay is NOT a crime. We are talking about civil marriage. Therefore being gay is a suspect class and it is pure discriminiation.
First and foremost, marriage is not a civil right, nor was it ever. Marriage is an institution. With that being said, marriage, as an institution, is defined with exclusions in place, and once it becomes anything we want it to be, it is nothing at all. Allowing same-sex marriage would change the definition of marriage itself, opening it up for family union, adult/child union, human/animal union. Marriage will either have an enduring, unchanging definition, or it will have no definition.
I'm neutral toward gay marriage. BUT one's race, ethnicity, gender, religion, physical capability, and national origin IS NOT associated with filth and perversion like homosexuality and bisexuality is. So all you liberal, fruity, hippy, jungle loving, trailer trash, tree hugging, wiccan, low life, leftist shrimps need to realize that. It's undeniable that you're the same people that like obscene adult material, pre-marital intimacy, clothing optional places, promiscuity, etc in society. Sickos!
IcedCoffee81 6 months ago
Not really. One affirms marriage and the other redefines it.
depant77 10 months ago
By the way: Proponents of polygamy would have a great ally in the Bible.
TheStrong32 10 months ago
"Civil unions give them the same rigts as married couples."
No they don't. They have none of the equal protections afforded straight married couples. They can be denied partner benefits by companies, they are limited in inheritance laws, survivor benefits, tax law, child custody, hospital visitation, end-of-life decision-making etc., etc., etc. There is no equality at all. Plus, the word "marriage" itself. "Civil union" has to be explained; "marriage" doesn't. Seperate is not equal.
TheStrong32 10 months ago
"Gays have exactly the same rights that I do. I have the right to form a marrriage with the woman of my choice who will have me. So do gays."
This is almost verbatim the same argument made against interracial marriage. "White people are just as limited as black people. It's exactly the same."
TheStrong32 10 months ago
"Polygamy"
Ah, the "slippery slope" argument. That's a red herring. The question is not about polygamy, it's about same-sex marriage. Each question should be debated on its own merits. When we have that debate, each side can make it's own arguments, but acceptance of polygamy is not an inevitable consequense of same-sex marriage.
TheStrong32 10 months ago
Being gay is not about "behavoir", it is about sexual orientation. One can be marrried and have a multitude of children, and still be gay. One can be celibate all his life, and still be gay. It has nothign to do with behavior. And it has nothing to do with choice.
"You never met anyone who said, I used to be Black." "Ha, ha, ha."
That's the "ex-gay" argument. There is no such thing as an "ex-gay." A so-called "ex-gay" is just a homosexual who has been shamed back into the closet.
TheStrong32 10 months ago
@Sepia1789 Um ya. There is no "used to be gay" either. That's kind of my point.
ldspianoman 11 months ago
hahaa how hypocritical, one minute: "American's are very very tolerant on this issue... (of gay marriage)
Little while later: "We can compare Gay marriage to 9/11..."
don't believe me? It's right here in their goddam videos.
LittleMissAmbiguous 11 months ago
MICHEAL JACKSON!!!
o0Ahrey0o 11 months ago
there is no unequal protection under the law? does he know you can get fired for being gay but not for being straight. Does he know you can get dismissed for the military for being gay but not being straight, does he know gays can't donate blood but you cant if your straight..does he not realize he can marry who he Loves but not the gays? does he know ANYTHING about how unfair it is to be gay?? must be easy being straight... and shame on the black man for dismissing human rights, total FAIL.
wetdream09 1 year ago
@wetdream09 This isn't BALCK or WHITE thing, this is PEOPLE thing! You can look at that man and see that he is black, but I can't look at you and see your sexuality. I can't hide my color, but you can hide your sexuality! And by the way, don't you know it's easier being a white man, gay or not, than it is being a person of color and being gay? Remember, our white racist forefathers wrote laws protecting the interests of whites and to have control over people of color.
Sepia1789 11 months ago
@Sepia1789 it may be easier but you're people got theyre rights decades ago, im still waiting for mine! and if you saw me youd know im gay! i dont hide myself and it is a people thing but being black doesnt chage that now, does it?
wetdream09 11 months ago
blah blah blah you are wasting your breath...... gay marriage will be passed!
TheMhunky 1 year ago
Okay, men and women are different but that still doesn't explain why a society shouldn't allow gay people to marry. Furthermore, getting married is about more than social acceptance. It effects taxes, getting a partner's health insurance, whether one can see a partner when he's in the hospital, etc. btw I'm a straight man. For me the gay marriage issue is about protecting the rights of a minority in society.
cornelius386 1 year ago
And anyone who says I used to be gay is LYING!!!!!!! They were born gay, are still gay and will die gay!
TheMhunky 1 year ago
This, ladies and gentlemen, is what it looks like when ignorant, hypocritical, religious bigots gather.
incongruous2000 1 year ago
And it does not matter how you feel about it..... ITS HAPPENING!!!! Same-sex marriage will be passed.....like it or not!
TheMhunky 1 year ago
equate behavior to what someone is at birth or race? Umm, I have been gay since birth.... guess what you don't know ......unless you are gay!
TheMhunky 1 year ago
gay people are born gay too, i havent heard somebody say "i used to be gay" either, unless they were brainwashed by religious freaks
tuberio789 1 year ago
No, banning gay marriage is not like banning interracial marriage. It's COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. A black man and white woman are still a man and a woman. They get married to unite themselves and then eventually have children. A man and a man having sex? Getting married? It's unnatural for one, our bodies aren't like that. Also, all the major religions don't allow homosexuality. Legalizing homosexuality has really only come up recently. A new religion almost...
oxmarlenaxo 1 year ago
All gay people want is the same rights as you get: the right to inherit each other, the right to custody, the same tax breaks, etc.
hedgehogchick 1 year ago
I agree with all they said except one thing. There is one black man that went white.
firestorm10 1 year ago
SO QUESTION TO THE BLACK MAN IN THE VIDEO. WHEN DID YOU CHOOSE TO BE HETEROSEXUAL??????
dorianstark 1 year ago
gay people grow up in a society were everythng and everyone around them tells them they should be with the opposite sex
yet they still have relations with the same sex
that alone should tell you that being gay is not a choice
its a part of who they are
something they can't help
now being in an interracial relationship
Thats a choice
l9ois 1 year ago
That was an incredibly STUPID and OFFENSIVE QUESTION.
GRRRR how can an individual say that? You choose yourself to be
gay but you do not choose to be born bi-racial. This man needs to grow
up.!
QueinSiingah 1 year ago
@QueinSiingah yes but how i see it is people are using the same arguments to deny gay marriage as they did for interracial marriage.
back in the day interracial marriage was attacked by the bible, just as the bible is being used to stop homosexual marriage. also people today are worried about the effect gay marriage will have on children, that argument was also used to deny interracial marriage.
AceofDiamonds0 1 year ago
It amazing the arguments people will make to justify hatred and the imposition of their will and religious beliefs onto others.
AcidJack1973 1 year ago
Wow! This is so sad! I cannot believe how ignorant and close minded these people are! So frustrating. If only there was a way for these people to know what is feels like to be gay. Maybe they would finally understand what we are fighting for. Ugh! People like this make me sick.
chickenbuttguesswhat 1 year ago
@chickenbuttguesswhat Hey your close minded to the possibility that homosexuality is wrong morally. Are you saying your only open-minded if we move your side?
Creationcreed 1 year ago
@Creationcreed I was born gay. If God had intended me to be gay, what could be morally wrong about it? Anyway, the moral issue here is that gay people are being denied equality, not that they are doing something morally wrong.
chickenbuttguesswhat 1 year ago
@chickenbuttguesswhat If God intended for you to be gay, YOUR RIGHT, it wouldn't b a sin. But because it is wrong according to the Bible, it wasn't intended. It wouldn't be right to punish someone that was born gay, or a liar, thief, etc. What rights are you trying to get? You can't call it marriage, by definition it is man&woman. If you call it somethin' else I wouldn't care.
Creationcreed 1 year ago
@Creationcreed I don't believe in the Bible. In fact, a lot of people don't. I think it's funny that you put being gay into the same category as being a thief and a liar. I'm surprised you didn't throw murderer into the mix. I'm not hurting anyone. Gay people are simply asking to have the same rights through marriage that straight people have had for years. Of course it can be called marriage. Why do you care? It's not hurting you.
chickenbuttguesswhat 1 year ago
@chickenbuttguesswhat Lust doesn't hurt everyone, but it is a sin in the sight of God. Your moral standard confirms that the Bible is true. It says that people will surpress the truth, construct their own morality apar from God, justifying their sins, and fullfill their sinful desires. Now government can do whatever they want, but it is still against God's standard. If Gays do marry, that means later, there will be a pushing of that lifestyle on my kids in school through books, etc.
Creationcreed 1 year ago
@Creationcreed Gay marriage has nothing to do with lust, it has to do with love. But, of course according to you it is impossible for two people of the same sex to be capable of love, right? Love isn't morally wrong last time I checked, but you're entitled to your opinion. I don't understand how my so called "lifestyle" is going to be pushed on kids in school. The concept of marriage has never been taught in school, gay or straight.
chickenbuttguesswhat 1 year ago
@chickenbuttguesswhat I didn't say lust was the same as homosexuality. But they are both sin in the sight of God. In schools there will be books that introduce gay characters, and other kids talking about their gay parents.
Creationcreed 1 year ago
@Creationcreed Ok. Well, again, I don't agree. I'm sure there already are books like that in schools, but they aren't meant to push a "lifestyle" on the students, they're meant to introduce students to the differences found in people. It's no different than having a book that features black parents or divorced parents. It's not like by reading these books they're trying to indoctrinate these kids into believe one way or another about homosexuality. It's just meant to inform.
chickenbuttguesswhat 1 year ago
@chickenbuttguesswhat fair enough. How do you know homosexuality is right, morally? by what standard?
Creationcreed 1 year ago
@Creationcreed Being gay, I know that the attraction/feelings I have towards men are natural. It is an inherit feeling inside myself. It is the same feeling that you would have towards someone of the opposite sex or your significant other. The only thing that makes me different from a straight person is that I am attracted to the same sex, while they are attracted to the opposite sex.
chickenbuttguesswhat 1 year ago
@chickenbuttguesswhat Again, by what standard? What standard says that it is not wrong? We can feel all kinds of things. People who are attracted to little child may have the same feelings. If feeling is your standard, then you can not condemn them.
Creationcreed 1 year ago
@Creationcreed So, are you saying that something else besides myself has to tell me if it is wrong or right? Because I have my own standards. I don't need someone else to tell me that my standards are right or wrong. What standard tells you heterosexuality is right? The Bible? What if the Bible said heterosexuality was wrong, would you obey or would you still have relationships with the opposite sex? I know deep down that homosexuality is right. The God I know, loves me for me.
chickenbuttguesswhat 1 year ago
@chickenbuttguesswhat If morals come from yourself, then you cannot condemn anyone who says homosexuality is wrong, because that is how they feel, nor a pedaphile, nor a rapist, a person who liked to inflict pain on others since childhood...they all act on how they've felt naturally for years. I could say deep down I know homosexuality is wrong. The God I know, loves me enough to show me his standard. Am I wrong?
Creationcreed 1 year ago
@Creationcreed Ok then, to each his own. It's clearly obvious that our beliefs aren't the same. For instance, I wouldn't put rapists and pedophiles into the same category as gays. If you want to believe homosexuality is wrong, you have that right. Are you wrong for thinking that? I think so. But that's my opinion. We all have opinions about things, that's a natural human quality. I can accept your difference of opinion, but I don't have to agree with it.
chickenbuttguesswhat 1 year ago
@chickenbuttguesswhat So, if to each his own, then you believe whatever someone feels is right to them, therefore it's right. But if you think opposite of another then...If a man has felt all things are his, throughout his life, and He decides to steal your possessions, and feel right in doing it. You would disagree, but you can't say he is wrong, therefore you shouldn't call the police, but cannot say your wrong for calling the police either...don't you see why this is a bit messed up um...
Creationcreed 1 year ago
@chickenbuttguesswhat The theif can't even say that you killing is wrong neither, and what happens is that your both standing still or chaos happens. There has to be an overarching law to step in, because of the fact that everyone will go their own way morally.
Creationcreed 1 year ago
@Creationcreed You're right. There are people that need a moral standard, because they don't have the capability to determine right from wrong. You have categorized homosexuality as a slippery slope going along with murder, pedophilia, etc., simply because you believe that God thinks it is wrong and is no different than than the former. Do you honestly believe that if gay marriage is made legal across the board, then eventually murder, pedophilia, and theft will be accepted?
chickenbuttguesswhat 1 year ago
@chickenbuttguesswhat According to the God who created all things, it is a sin against him to practice any sort of wickedness. God's standard is what I stand by. But you can't even say it is wrong for me to say that. Where does your moral standard come from? The Bible is beyond opinion and feelings. I may desire to commit adultery with a woman, but it would be against God. There are things that are wrong no matter how many vote Yes or No to this and that.
Creationcreed 1 year ago
@Creationcreed :
So the only reason you don't commit adultery is because God wouldn't like it? The problem is that you assume that without your idea of God there can be no moral code. I am agnostic, yet have a very clear concept of right and wrong. I have many atheist and gay friends, and they are some of the most moral and good people I have ever known. Some of the most hateful, judgmental, hypocritical, and morally bankrupt people I have met have been christian.
AcidJack1973 1 year ago
@AcidJack1973 I never said that Athiest couldn't be moral. They just can't tell me where it comes from or where they get their morality. And I am non of the hateful, judgmental, hypocrites you speak of. Well, I do judge people according the Bible, its not a sin to say what one is doing is wrong. People on the otherside do the same thing. I would tell someone that your an adultery, unless they say they are. I don't Prejudge, I judge with knowledge of an individual. I don't care if people judg me.
Creationcreed 1 year ago
@AcidJack1973 We sinned against God, and so we deserve Hell, but God wanted to be merciful to us by sending His Son to die in our place: take our punishment. Because of that, He deserves our obedience to the Gospel, turning from sin, and trust Him. We love Him, because He first Loved Us. He doesn't deserve to be sinned against, rejected, and trampled upon in our daily lives. I turned from sin and trust in Him because of what He has done for me.
Creationcreed 1 year ago
@Creationcreed
Those without a Bible learn their morals the same way anyone does: from their parents, teachers, friends, experience, and the world around them. You don't need a book to do that, but there are plenty of books out there with moral lessons other than the Bible.
I think it's a bit warped that you think that "we sinned against God, and so we deserve Hell." Hitler does, but not me, buddy.
AcidJack1973 1 year ago
@AcidJack1973 Morals come from your family, friends, experience, and the world. Checkout this video keyword(s): "Huntington Beach Open-Air #16 - Mark Spence & Shaw the atheist" ... What if I learned that rape is good from my family or friends, does that mean its right. There are people who learned how to be gang leaders and rob people by their experience, family, and friends.
Creationcreed 1 year ago
@Creationcreed :
Our morals ARE only as good as their sources, but there are plenty of bad values attributed to the Bible (used for centuries to justify wars, hatred/murder of homosexuals, sexism, the Inquisitions and other religious persecutions, etc.). Morals are only as good as the source or those who twist the source to fit their own beliefs/desires. There are good and bad christians, and good and bad agnostics/atheists. I do not consider the people in this video to be morally sound.
AcidJack1973 1 year ago
@AcidJack1973 Although the people justified many things, even Hilter used Catholicism for political reasons, Those are only misinterpretations of the Bible, that doesn't mean we have to conclude the Bible is wrong or false. Theres a scripture that says, "They will put you out of the synagogues. Indeed, the hour is coming when whoever kills you will think he is offering service to God. And they will do these things because they have not known the Father, nor me." Jn. 16:2,3
Creationcreed 1 year ago
@AcidJack1973 Luke 16:15 says Christians r to love their enemies, do good to them, & pray 4 them who spitefully use us. The Crusaders and other who have committed atrocities in the name of Christianity were those who carried out their own agenda. So the Bible is not the problem. Athiest twist the scriptures too btw, to make the Bible say what its not to convince people not to trust the Bible.
Creationcreed 1 year ago
@Creationcreed
Sounds like we're pretty much on the same page there. Personally, I find a lot of the old testament rather disturbing and wrong-headed, but you really can't go wrong with the teachings of Christ (whether you believe he was God's son or not). It's unfortunate that many (I would even say a majority of) people who call themselves Christians do not even remotely follow his teachings.
AcidJack1973 1 year ago
@AcidJack1973 In the Old Testament, the people where under a theocracy(God actually commanded some things to happen), we're not, neither were the people in the New Testament era. OTestament, they did stone people, but they didn't just do it for no reason nor immediately, nor were they lusting to do such thing. The people had a special convenant with God, so this particular nation was held to a higher standard.
Creationcreed 1 year ago
@AcidJack1973 And any other nation outside of that convenant were not under that theocracy. God sent plagues(Pharoah), but God gave him 9 warnings to let His people go, but instead he got selfish like many do, and put his own people at risk, even costing his son's death. All he had to do was release them. People today are doing the same thing, you have to be willing to deny yourself(sexual desire) and take up your Cross and follow Him. It may cost acceptance among your homosexual friends, but...
Creationcreed 1 year ago
@chickenbuttguesswhat For your question, murder is made legal: abortion. And many accept it, and changed the meaning of what is actually happening: "Therapy". People proclaim moral relativism, but they can't live that out. People live as though there is an objective moral law, but they don't want to recognize the Law giver. God has put his law in our hearts(conscience) that is why some of us haven't acted on every wicked thought, and may never act on certain ones.
Creationcreed 1 year ago
@chickenbuttguesswhat We could go on on like this forever, but that just seems like a waste of time. Our beliefs are so different that we're never going to agree. You follow a moral code that you believe God has given you. I also try to follow a moral code that I believe God would approve of. Since I don't believe in the Bible, our moral codes aren't the same and our view of God isn't the same. There are so many different belief systems in the world and no two are going to look the same.
chickenbuttguesswhat 1 year ago
I think you should educate yourself on the actual laws and the implementations of those laws before you make bogus claims in front of so many people. Gay couples are absolutely NOT awarded the same rights as straight couples, ie: social security, spouse benefit packages, UNQUESTIONED HOSPITAL VISITS etc. etc...how can you determine these blantent inequalities to be mearly "lack of society's approval"? You also misspoke when you said being gay is a choice, if you had done your research there...
jlschnur 1 year ago
homosexuals are not asking for anything sprcial or new. they just want to have the same rights as hetrosexuals do.
do you hate homosexuals so much as to deny them the right to be happily married?
AceofDimonds0 2 years ago
Absolutely repulsive people.
nonameisacat 2 years ago 4
As for the polygamy, incest, pedophilia etc argument, these have all proven to be usually abusive, or just unhealthy for the people involved. The same cannot be said for homosexuality, which is one of the reasons why the world of psychology no longer recognize it as a disease.
ldspianoman 2 years ago 5
As for saying "we both have the same rights" technically, the argument is asinine.
Same-sex couples want the right to marry the person they love and the person they actually find attractive- a right that straight couple do have. The only way that makes sense is if the speaker had the strong desire to be gay his whole life and "decided" against it so he could marry someone he was attracted. He didn't decide. He found women attractive. And had the right to marry the gender he wanted to.
ldspianoman 2 years ago
this statements in this video are quite flawed.
No one is "equating" sexual orientation to race. They are, obviously, just highlighting the similarities. They are both unchangeable. And ya, there are people who could say "I used to be black"- Michael Jackson. As unnatural as that may seem, most (including the APA) would argue the same is true for small amount of homosexuals who claim to have changed. They are still gay. Most say so themselves. They only now try to stay away from it.
ldspianoman 2 years ago 5
@ldspianoman Silly, either you're black or not. There is no used to be Black, and the M.J. argument is flawed, because both of his parents are BLACK!
Sepia1789 11 months ago
No banning gay marriage is not like banning mixed marriage ass!
mrwhydontyouandi 2 years ago
I'm sick of people telling me that my sexual orientation is a 'behaviour'
My sexuality is inborn and as innate in me as any heterosexual's.
If we started calling heterosexuality a 'behaviour' - imagine the uproar!
People hide behind politically correct bullshit instead of just saying ''gays shouldn't get married because the thought of same-sex activity makes me feel 'icky'
It's still wrong but at least it's honest.
toddles9 2 years ago 5
Heterosexuality is a behavior, just like homosexuality and bisexuality, there's no disputing those. Your emotions, attitudes, choices, etcetera are forms of human behavior.
Sepia1789 2 years ago
Um, same sex marriages still happen in California, and those that occurred are still legal. Any Church can still perform a same sex marriage, but the couple is just discriminated against the legal protections.
Prop 8 is an epic FAIL!
Marriage Equality is an American Value.
theknowbody 2 years ago
Gays aren't deprived of the right to marry--only of the right to insist that a single-sex union is a "marriage." They don't want to accept or reject marriage on the same terms that it is available to everyone else. No one may marry a blood relative, a child, a person who is already married, or a person of the same sex. However much those restrictions may disappoint the incestuous, pedophiles, polygamists, and homosexuals, the issue is not discrimination. It is the nature of marriage itself.
wood9670 2 years ago
"there's not a difference in a balck man and a white man!" Wow. That's not what they said when they were talking about how Interracial marriage is "Morally Wrong" just like gay marriage. Gay marriage is NOT like Interracial Marriage, but the FIGHT for Gay Marriage is EXACTLY the same as Interracial Marriage.
fomi2008 2 years ago 14
That's where you lose your battle at: when you align race with sexuality as being one in the same. A man and a woman regardless of race don't alter the foundation of marriage, so no, the fight isn't the same. That is not a very effective argument because one dealt with an intolerance for someone's race and another is human sexuality. They don't mesh together.
Sepia1789 2 years ago
NO THEY ARE NOT!!!
I'm black & actually researched this.
Anti-miscegenation laws were EUGENIC laws. When the Virginian Supreme court upheld the Racial Integrity Act of 1924 their justification was that the law served to "to preserve the racial integrity of its citizens," and to prevent "the corruption of blood," "a mongrel breed of citizens," and "the obliteration of racial pride..."
Their rational is the same as the one we currently use to prevent marriage between close blood relatives.
wood9670 2 years ago
The white majority saw themselves as genetically superior. Much in the same way we see inbreed children as as genetically aberrant.
SCOTUS which overturned the Virginian court in Loving v. Virginia even recognized the natural teleology of marriage and the natural family.
They said marriage was a basic civil right because...[wait for it] it is "fundamental to our very existence and survival"
wood9670 2 years ago
@fomi2008 Not really, I mean, gay isn't a race, anyone of any race can be gay, and a gay person could be racist, I don't know any that are but it's not impossible...
robertsfunny1995 11 months ago
@fomi2008 That's because of ignorance and intolerance. A BLACK WOMAN and WHITE MAN embody what's known as HETEROSEXUALITY! In case you don't know, they're biologically different based on hormones. Race doesn't exist in the biological world, but man and woman do. Quit making this seem like it's a black or white thing, as if people in those kids of relationships owe you something. This is a PEOPLE thing!
Sepia1789 11 months ago
Christians standing up for whats right. Jesus stood up for us in a public forum, now its our turn to do the same.
darnold728 2 years ago
RELIGION is a choice and it is protected. So even if Gay is a choice (its not...just saying that if it were) what makes your choice justified and mine not? Your choices are your choices and Mine are mine! Stop DISCRIMINATION!
MARRIAGE EQUALITY FOR ALL!
neenerpuss 2 years ago 10
@neenerpuss It is a choice to sleep with whom you desire. It is your choice to be religious.
Sepia1789 11 months ago
So prejudiced.
These people have an extreme neurotic need to believe in mythology (ie. their precious religion).
And the fact that other people are different from them causes them to have a stroke.
erkekler 2 years ago 5
Prior to the civil rights movement, everyone had the same rights, too - the right to marry someone of their own race. Why did those darn minorities have to make such a fuss?
army103 2 years ago 5
In simple summary:
a man marrying a man = CHOSEN BEHAVIOR.
a black man marrying a white woman = NOT CHOSEN BEHAVIOR.
In other words, a man deliberately makes a choice when he decides to marry another man, but a black man can't help but want to marry and have sex with a white woman. The fair skinned virgin is irresistible to the African-bred negro. It is NOT a choice; he was born with the primitive instinct to act carnally with the pure-of-heart Caucasian female!
darcymayberry 2 years ago 2
that is the most unintelligent thing i have ever heard...i believe my I.Q has dropped after reading this
darnold728 2 years ago 3
How the fuck, can you claim you're sexual preference equal to someones race?
Fucking loser ass holes.
DOVEONE417 2 years ago
Because both sexual orientation and race are immutable characteristics doveone417.
Xivled 2 years ago 2
Bullshit.
Im mixed because my parents were black and white, you're gay because you find men attractive, completely different.
DOVEONE417 2 years ago
Did you read my comment? They are both immutable characteristics. Race and sexual orientation are both characteristics that people cannot change. And more importantly they are characteristics that do not impinge upon one's ability to perform in society. Meaning any unequal treatment based on such a trait is discriminatory.
Xivled 2 years ago 2
Yes I read you're comment, I agree you cannot change them, by you're self.
But to say you're inside lust are the same as someones skin is stupid
DOVEONE417 2 years ago
No it's not. Where do you think sexual attraction comes from? It's part of who we are. It's programmed into our minds and there is nothing we can do about it. Just like we can't do anything about our race.
Xivled 2 years ago 2
Someone's racial composition is not synonymous with what someone does behind closed doors. A person's sexual preference can change as many times as they allow, but DNA cannot be altered. I realize discrimination works on both sides of that argument, but it's insulting comparing overt traits that were inherited through one's parents versus what someone voluntarily does with someone else.
Sepia1789 2 years ago
Sexual orientation is not an act. Sexual orientation is a characteristic. Sexual orientation cannot be changed. One can choose not to follow their sexual orientation, but that is in no way the same thing. The origin of the traits is irrelevant. What matters is that both race and sexual orientation are immutable characteristics.
Xivled 2 years ago 2
You seem to be overlooking the point. That's not concrete statement that a person cannot change their preference, when in fact a preference is neither something one has a distaste for.
Stick with human sexuality if you're going to make that argument, because how you feel towards someone of the same sex cannot be put into the category from what I inherited from my parents, grandparents, and so forth the moment I was conceived.
Sepia1789 2 years ago
It's beyond a preference. Sexual orientation is a biological characteristic. Look at the way you are attracted to the opposite sex. Is that really just a preference? Do you prefer members of the other sax over members of the same sex the way you might prefer broccoli over peas?
Xivled 2 years ago
I have a hard time believing that because many don't need a reason to like what they do it's something natural. Me, I don't have a sexual attraction towards women simple as that.
I have a close friend of mine who was "homosexual" but she has had relations with both sexes and is currently engaged to a man. So all of that is in her biological make-up? Biologically she's mulatto, but I doubt there's a biological concrete answer for her ambiguous orientation. Sounds more psychological than anything
Sepia1789 2 years ago
There is undoubtably a genetic component to sexual orientation. Also, sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic regardless of how much of it is caused by genetics and how much is caused by nurture. You simply aren't attracted to women. Neither am I.
Xivled 2 years ago
There is no difference between us being humans, but being being with someone of the same sex is another thing. Unless you're in my body you cannot tell me that I'm simply not attracted to females just like I cannot with you.
Sepia1789 2 years ago
Why can't you understand that sexual orientation is not an act? I wasn't telling you that you aren't attracted to females. I was restating what you had just said. Read your last comment.
Xivled 2 years ago
I didn't say SO was an act. I said it can be altered. And why can't you understand that orientation does not go hand and hand with something as trivial as phenotype?
Sepia1789 2 years ago
You said, "There is no difference between us being humans, but being being with someone of the same sex is another thing." Being with someone is an act. It is not the same as being homosexual. Hence why I made the distinction in my previous comment. As I said earlier, genetics is a factor in sexual orientation. And also, sexual orientation cannot be altered. Someone can chose who to have sex with, but that is different than choosing their sexual orientation.
Xivled 2 years ago
Xivled, you just don't' get it. Your attraction to people of your same gender is a choice, because you choose which gender to be born as. Your attraction to people of a different race, however, is not a choice, as you do not choose which race to be born as.
Likewise, gender-based attraction is a choice, as I can choose to find women attractive even though I'm a straight woman. Race-based attraction, however, is not a choice, as I can't possibly find a negro attractive. I was born that way.
darcymayberry 2 years ago
Exactly, Sephia. How dare they compare interracial marriage to same-sex marriage!
Homo sexuality is a CHOICE, while interracial sexuality (sexual attraction to different-sex people) is NOT a choice! All black people are born with an uncontrollable urge to marry and procreate with white people because whites are so much smarter, better and purer than the general negro population. I mean, who can blame them!
I'm disgusted by the inaccurate analogy made by this video.
darcymayberry 2 years ago 2
Very nice!
army103 2 years ago
so, your mixed because your mother and father fell in love with one another and decided to start a family?
i'm guessing. there are other other possabilities, such and maybe your mother prefers black men and chose to exlpore and\or embrase her sexuality
i choose to assume the former, but both possabilities i guess are there in any relationship, be it between boy- girl, "black-white", christian-pagen, lady-tramp
fyphfoko 2 years ago
"Behaviour" What/ Do they mean sex? What about gay and lesbians who are unable to have sex. Being gay is more than merely sex. Wow - Americans are still in the Dark Ages in psychology as well.
nicksum29 3 years ago
By no means do these people represent Americans as a whole nicksum29.
Xivled 2 years ago
I get what you're saying Xivled, but the very fact that Americans deem it normal to vote on human rights (prop 8 and other anti-minority legislation) signifies to me that most Americans DO think that way. The fact that they voted in FAVOUR of such legislation is rather damning evidence. Sorry to be so judgemental, but it is rather hard not to be. Perhaps I need to actually LIVE in the US before I judge, but it seems to me that democracy is not quite understood there, which is a great irony.
nicksum29 2 years ago
I have spoken to dozens of people who voted for prop 8 and many of them regret it dearly. They were simply blinded by the lies set forth by religious interlopers. The voters were being told that this bill was dangerous for California and their children. The American people are not to blame. People are good at heart. We have an evolved psychological tendency towards it. The erroneous and illogical social disease of religion is to blame.
Xivled 2 years ago 2
I think this is where I saw a comment posted by QueenCharity. I said I'd make a video so here it is QC. TXd5IyHKWb0
Xivled 3 years ago
What if gays are born that way?
warjikin 3 years ago
"please do not compare a behavior to what i am when i was born"
the best comment in the gay marriage argument. people always want to try to compare interracial marriage with gay marriage but the two have nothing in common and heres why...being black, is not wrong, but someone could be very right when they say being gay is wrong. interracial heterosexual marriage does not go against the definition of marriage, gay marriage does. its as simple as that people.
gmussina 3 years ago
Wow you're thick. They are the same. Both sexual orientation and race are part of someone's nature. The definition of marriage was different in the state of Virginia up until the late 60s. Bans against interracial marriage didn't violate that unconstitutional definition of marriage either.
Xivled 3 years ago
the definition of marriage in this argument is key. just because a state isnt specific in defining the word marriage, it doesnt mean that the definition of marriage wasnt already established somewhere else. if you werent ignorant, you would see that the concept of marriage actually originated from the bible, so as a society, we established the definition of marriage a long time ago as 1 man for 1 woman.
dont look to the state and how they define marriage, look to what has been long established.
gmussina 3 years ago
The concept of marriage is not derived from the bible. Marriages have been going on in some form all over the world for a long time.
And besides just because something is old does not make it right. Marriage is a legal status. Marriage is entirely an issue of state. The Fourteenth Amendment grants same sex couples the right to marry. Not granting these couples their rights in discriminatory because sexual orientation is part of someone's nature.
Xivled 3 years ago
Ok, so pedophillia, necrophillia, & beastiality are all a part of your nature, just like race? None of the above mentioned have any choice in the matter, is that what your saying?
PsychoticSpasm 3 years ago
Did you think about that comment before you posted it? Those are not parallels to same sex marriage. The benefits associated with marriage are dependent on one thing. That is that those receiving the benefits are a human couple. It's sad that I have to add human. One would think that would be assumed. And yet this stupid bestiality argument always pops up. An animal cannot be given marriage benefits. An animal cannot make medical decision on behalf of a partner or have custody over kids.
Xivled 3 years ago
I never said it was the same thing, u didnt asnwer the question. Do necros, ect, have a choice^?
PsychoticSpasm 3 years ago
As for pedophilia, please explain how allowing same sex marriage would justify lowering the age of consent.
Xivled 3 years ago 2
It doesnt. Answer the question^.
DO....THEY...HAVE...A...CHOICE?
PsychoticSpasm 3 years ago
No, I wouldn't think it was a choice. I assume no one would choose to have a sexual obsession with children. The difference between homosexuality and pedophilia is that homosexuality bears no relation to an individual's ability to perform or contribute to society. The acts of a pedophile do harm society. What's the point you're trying to make?
Xivled 3 years ago 3
Ok, what about the acts of a person having sex with a horse...what is that hurting? Necrophillia doesnt hurt anyone...sure its disrespectful, but its not hurting anyone. The point Im making is who who date is a choice. Who u have sex with is a choice. If I only date white women is that a choice? If I only date women who are into David Bowie is that a choice? Yes. & thats my point, who date/sleep with is your choice. Maybe u cant help a general attraction, but its u choose to go through with it.
PsychoticSpasm 3 years ago
CA Supreme Court: "A person's sexual orientation is so integral an aspect of one's identity, it is not appropriate to require a person to repudiate or change his or her sexual orientation in order to avoid discriminatory treatment." It's not a general attraction. Homosexuals are attracted to people of the same gender in the exact same way you are attracted to people of the opposite gender. Yes, it is a choice to engage in homosexual acts, but why shouldn't people be allowed to make that choice?
Xivled 3 years ago 2
Exactly, psychotic. And Homosexuals obviously should CHOOSE not to act on their attraction to adult men and women. Instead, they choose to act on their lack of attraction to adult men and women, like heterosexuals do.
darcymayberry 2 years ago
Darcy. Idk want you're smoking.... but that made no fucking sense at ALL.
fomi2008 2 years ago
The comparison of bans of gay marriage to bans of interracial marriage does not compare LGBT to African Americans, it compares bigots to racists, which is a fair comparison.
The stories of LGBT and African Americans cannot be compared at all, however, just because blacks were treated much worse than gays does not mean that it is okay to deny some rights to gays.
blackmetalqueer 3 years ago 2
You can't just throw around words like "wrong" and "unnatural" as if they're forgone conclusions; PROVE that gay marriage is wrong and unnatural.
BionicDance 3 years ago 2
om fucking god you do see people say they used to be black look at michl jackson
cgw0west 3 years ago
Michael Jackson had a skin condition to which most of his skin was already changing in color, what fully black person do you know has changes their skin to fully white? NONE!!!
Dreamshade4ever 3 years ago
_yourfreegaywebsite[dot]c0m_
Now I like these? shiites.
lorainegress 3 years ago
What part of GAY dont you understand? Gays are fundamentally different than straights. We can no more change who we are than blacks can. Unless you are gay you can NOT say you know that. Civil Unions are not the same thing. Separate is NOT equal!
MARRIAGE EQUALITY FOR ALL!
neenerpuss 3 years ago 2
Nennerpuss And unless you're black as well, you can't put the two in the same category. Phenotype and sexuality aren't synonymous.
Sepia1789 2 years ago
No, I am not black...but the 2 are immutable! They can NOT be changed. America is about LIFE LIBERTY and the pursuit of HAPPINESS! You have no logical reason to deny gay couples EQUAL rights! It is your bigotry. Live and let live.
MARRIAGE EQUALITY FOR ALL!
neenerpuss 2 years ago
No they aren't immutable traits and you have no logical explanation for lumping who a person sleeps with versus something seen with the naked eye. It's an insult.
Explain to me the case with Anne Heche who was involved with Ellen DeGeneres and is now with a man? You say it's an immutable trait, right....
Sepia1789 2 years ago
if marriage is all about reproduction then if a woman had her "tubes tied" or a man got the "snip" then they MUST be banned from marriage. While we are at it... we should require people who get married to sign a legal contract requiring them to reproduce... otherwise whats the point of being married? If anything i just said makes any sense to you... GTFO.
nhhhgfghtyh 3 years ago
there are homosexual animals explain that? marriage is not the same as a partnership. married people get way more rights. look it up.
BrittanyRegina 3 years ago 3
This is bigoted bullshit at its best.
LiberalPrincess 3 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
youre just mad because everything that they have said is absolutely right. the definition of marriage is and always was one man for woman. interracial heterosexual marriage does not go against that, gay marriage does; so opposing heterosexual marriage based on any of the partner's race is wrong.
gmussina 3 years ago
i'm pretty sure marriage was never specifically defined as between a man and a woman until gay people started getting married.
BrittanyRegina 3 years ago 2
"the definition of marriage is and always was one man for woman."
STFU!!! Polygamy and slavery were the marriages of the day for the old testament. Greek and Roman societies had no problem with same-sex relationships. Marriage in the medieval times was purely an economic transaction, not even a religious sacrament. Your "sacred" tradition of marriage is only a century or so old.
blackmetalqueer 3 years ago
is being gay simply behavior? studies have shown male homosexual's brains are more symmetrical as oppose to a hetero male's brain whose two halves differ in size slightly..the same goes for the female homosexual's brain (which is congruous to a hetero male's brain size) it appears to be biological and hardly a choice which can be stifled and discouraged habit-wise.
davedoug 3 years ago
I bet they wouldn't agree with inter racial marriage fifty years ago as they do now.
AstroMen2911 3 years ago
also, 'banning gay marriage is just like banning interracial marriage' is a perfectly valid analogy because both your race AND your sexual orientation are not a choice. and to the fucktard that pointed out gays have the same equal right to marry the opposite sex: how would you like it if the majority was gay and you were straight and you were denied the right to marry a woman? and a response to your objection to that was "you have the same right to marry the same sex as i do".
Sean2046 3 years ago
I fear you missed the moderator's point that sexuality is behavior, while race is innate from birth. Sexual orientation - developed in the womb or not - is different from sexual behavior, whether homo or hetero. Some individuals of both types are prone (or oriented) to promiscuity, but that behavior can (and should, I think most would agree) be controlled. I choose to act on my heterosexual orientation, but only with my wife. In other words, my sexuality is a behavior that I can control.
kivettclan 3 years ago
Just like I choose to act on my homosexual orientation with my husband. In our monogamous relationship. Promiscuity is a choice, being gay is not.
neenerpuss 3 years ago
All sexuality is a choice, because it is behavior. Thoughts/tendencies/inclinations are a different matter - not until one engages in a behavior, are they accountable for that action. If I have pedophilic thoughts, I am guilty of nothing either morally or legally. If I was "born" a pedophile (or a polygamist, or promiscuous) I may not be able to control my thoughts, but wouldn't you agree I should control my actions? I'm not equating homosexuality with those, but just mean it's controllable.
kivettclan 3 years ago
What day did you choose to be heterosexual? When did you make that conscience choice? Homosexuals are a valuable part of nature, otherwise God would not have made me this way. He also made homosexual animals.
The mistake is that you have been misinformed about where homosexuals come from. Unless you are a homosexual you can not tell how you became that way. If you are gay....you know. I am an expert on homosexuality and how they came about.
neenerpuss 3 years ago
in what way are homosexuals valuable to nature? they can not within themselves add to society in anyway they are a civilizations dead end.
veritaslogos 3 years ago
So why would nature add a non-reproducing gene to 10% of our population? It was natures way of population control. Go forth be fruitful and multiply. Now after 2000 years of it is time to realize homosexuality has a purpose. We have a population explosion on earth and you are distroying it. Breed responsibly.
neenerpuss 3 years ago 3
how do you know that?
veritaslogos 3 years ago
he still directly implied that sexual orientation is a choice by calling it behavior and saying it can't be compared to race which is innate. sure you don't have to act on it, but why should a homosexual not act on his/her feelings while a heterosexual can? is there any logical reasoning behind this? i'll answer for you: no. and do you have any evidence to support your claim that some are oriented to promiscuity? because i highly doubt this.
Sean2046 3 years ago
Thank you, but I'd rather answer for myself. There are always good reasons to restrict or deny desired behaviors if they are deleterious to ourselves or others. Promiscuity is certainly more prevalent in some than others, which proves that some are oriented to it. However, some that are oriented in that way choose to restrain themselves because of the dangers of the behavior, so it _can_ be controlled.
kivettclan 3 years ago
ok stop your yapping and show me some EVIDENCE.
"Promiscuity is certainly more prevalent in some than others, which proves that some are oriented to it."
are you kidding me?! please tell me you weren't even trying there... that is not evidence.
give me evidence that homosexuality is "deleterious to ourselves and others".
Sean2046 3 years ago 3
Sean2046, that analogy is insulting. That's like comparing an apple and a orange. They are two different things. At birth, something that's overt, I was a person of color. My parents are Creole, therefore, my biological make up is constructed into my DNA just as the generation before me. But you CANNOT compare someone who's black, asian, hispanic, obvious traits, to something nobody or very few would know unless you tell them.
Sepia1789 3 years ago
if you read what i had said you'd understand that the analogy makes perfect sense in that i am arguing that both are something that is not a choice. of course there are differences but in the context i'm arguing in, they are perfectly analogous.
Sean2046 3 years ago
both these guys can go fuck themselves. it's either pure bigotry or pure idiocy on both their parts. civil unions don't include the same privileges as marriages in most states, even though they may in california. and separate but equal has never worked! it's no different than saying someone has the same right to sit in a theater, only.. they have to sit over there separate from everyone else. the same, but separate.
Sean2046 3 years ago
It absolutely blows my mind to see such well-spoken, good looking people spew such tripe to a massive and approving audience. Sad.
What a waste of intelligence. I mean, DUH what is this 1000 years ago? Live and let live dudes, marriage is not about 'what is socially accepted', its about 2 people who love eachother. There isn't anything more private and universally sacred than that. So what gives YOU the right to pick and choose the rules? Who do you think YOU are? Gosh.
madamemalello 3 years ago
I don't think their point is to prohibit 2 people loving each other, but to maintain a careful distinction about what marriage is and is not. Marriage is the foundation of society, as it is a microcosm of how diversity (man and woman) finds unity, and establishes the basis for healthy relationships. Also, it promotes procreation. If homosexuality disappeared, society would continue. The same cannot be said for heterosexuality. And who says you should get to pick the rules? :)
kivettclan 3 years ago
"CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
Would you still consider entering into a matrimonial contract in California if SEC. 7.5 read, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California and is legally irrevocable under any and all circumstances"?
DavidRobertLaman 3 years ago
at "neenerpuss", first off, u must not have listened to the video because it clearly states that rights were never taken away from homosexuals. They have the same rights as everyone else(right to vote, etc...). Second, you can't "take the bible out of the equation" because marriage was created by and conducted under GOD, and homosexuality is rejected by GOD. Therefore, you can't ask a church to conduct a sin by allowing homosexuals to marry. Thats like asking the police to allow crime.
Caliboi2489 3 years ago
What part of "GAY" dont you understand? Marriage is a basic civil right. Rights were taken away. One day they could marry each other the next it was banned. Gays deserve the right to marry. If what you are saying is true that means that with enough "therapy" you could become gay. Second being gay is NOT a crime. We are talking about civil marriage. Therefore being gay is a suspect class and it is pure discriminiation.
neenerpuss 3 years ago
First and foremost, marriage is not a civil right, nor was it ever. Marriage is an institution. With that being said, marriage, as an institution, is defined with exclusions in place, and once it becomes anything we want it to be, it is nothing at all. Allowing same-sex marriage would change the definition of marriage itself, opening it up for family union, adult/child union, human/animal union. Marriage will either have an enduring, unchanging definition, or it will have no definition.
Caliboi2489 3 years ago