Gay Rights Rally Washington DC October 11, 2009 pt.1

[CattivoRagazzo13]

LOL

[Utube7372009]

we are all unnatural in many ways none is perfect we are all fallen that is how God made us dont condemn and judge and I say this to christians as well me being a christian also.

[garysher3]

KAt-men who have sex with men ARE homosexuals!!

That's why the ARC doesn't want their blood donations - the risk of the blood being contaminated with HIV is far far too high

[garysher3]

Joey-statistically male homosexuals have a much higher probability of being HIV+ according to the CDC and most other health watchdogs.

Obviously the ARC thinks it's too big a risk to accept blood from male homosexuals

[DJKatAnimated]

Unfortunately, the idiot who thumbed up garysher3's comment, instead of using the common sense approach of thumbing down on sight is ignorant.

The American Red Cross has no desire to keep MEN having sex with MEN, not homosexuals, from donating blood. It is the Food and Drug Administration that stops these charitous men from donating. The ACR is fighting that.

Source:

npr(.)org/templates/story/stor­y(.)php?storyId=10540971

Remove the spaces and parenthesizes to view the link.

Fight the lies!

[garysher3]

Not one member of that choir can donate blood to the American Red Cross.

[JoeyBoya]

They are working on fixing that... They arent trying to be homophobic its just back when that was put in place it was the early 80s and it was because testing for HIV wasnt good and gay men had a much higher chance of carying the disease... but as you know medical establishments have made major progress and the gay community is no longer stigmatized with this disease its a problem to all of us

[garysher3]

Kat-yet again here we go.

If you accept that certain permutations of marriage should not be allowed then the case for redefining marriage for homosexuals is severely undermined.

[DJKatAnimated]

You aren't answering my question.

Is there no reasons to be against polygamy, incest, and bigamy? You're opposed to them, so you should have a reason.

If you don't have ANY reasons to be against them, obviously they'll pass! According to you, there is NOTHING stopping the above from happening NOW... other than "it's illegal", which you said wasn't a legitimate reason.

[MrAffair1]

Obviously there are reasons for not legitimising bigamy, polygamy, incest and all other variations of the existing definition of a legal marriage. Even secular and atheistic societies where religion plays no role still have marriage laws pretty much the same as our own. Some basic research should reveal to you the practical, biological and sociological reasons why traditional marriage has such wide-spread support.

[DJKatAnimated]

Can you name these secular and atheistic societies with "traditional" marriage?

If there are legitimate reasons to outlaw the very thing you oppose, you wouldn't have posted: "if you make an exception for one minority group, on what basis could you deny any other minority group."

Seeing as none of you have posted ANY reasons, it's mind-boggling that this slippery slope hasn't happened sooner.

P.S. "Traditional" marriage does not exist; it's a religious term, that does not follow history.

[garysher3]

Kat-yet again you have failed to come up with any reason why marriage could not be redefined for other minority groups if we agree to redefine it for homosexuals.

Why are you finding it so difficult?

[DJKatAnimated]

Begging the question is not an answer, garysher3, it's a fallacy.

I asked you.

[MrAffair1]

Bigamy, polygamy, incest and the other forms of non-traditional marriage are already outlawed and if you want to you can research the law-maker's reasoning for that legislation and why society supports it.

I don't have to justify why that is so, it is you who wants to change the status quo so it is incumbent on you to make a compelling case as to why it should be changed and why such a change would have no undesirable social and moral consequences.

[DJKatAnimated]

I already know why they're outlawed. To say that same-sex marriage would lead to the above completely disregards the history behind those laws.

I don't advocate for polygamy, pedophilia, incest, or polygamy, so why should I defend it? It was you who brought it up, yet you can't support your own argument -- don't shift the burden YOUR of evidence on me.

Legal recognition of same-sex marriage has nothing to do with morality, so we can immediately rule that out. Social consequences are not justif

[DJKatAnimated]

**Social consequences are not a justifiable reason.

....Especially when you've never actually given us a reason. It's all just vague, unknown rhetoric.

[MrAffair1]

"Traditional" marriage does not exist? Man-woman marriage is a universal human institution. It has existed in all cultures, religions and societies throughout human history. It is a fundamental social institution, deeply rooted in all societies, which has been tested and reaffirmed over thousands of years.

[DJKatAnimated]

Traditional marriage is a mere hoax, a masquerade, to inject religion into law.

It's pretty simple, really.

The "traditional" definition of marriage has only been around for ~200 years. If you're going to argue in favor of religion, societies, and cultures, then realize that pedophilia, incest, polygamy, even same-sex marriage, existed over these thousands of years.

It's a moot point, really.

[MrAffair1]

Ever heard of Communist China, The USSR and Nazi Germany? Just being homosexual was a Capital offence in those societies and same-sex marriage was completely out of of the question!

[DJKatAnimated]

Good thing this is the United States, huh? :\

[garysher3]

@DJKatAnimated Yep in the good ole US homosexuals are free to form choirs and sing in the streets.

It's just that the American Red Cross won't let them donate blood for obvious reasons.

[bullhonkeymofo]

get married! just dont do it in my church or ask for my Gods blessing.

[garysher3]

MrAffair-thanks for patiently explaining the obvious.

Unfortunately some people refuse to accept truth I fit doesn't conform with their minority yearnings.

The truth is we all have exactly the same right to marry and we are all subject to the exact same qualifying conditions.

No doubt polygamists and child marriage advocates feel equally miffed, as do many under 18's who want the right to vote.

[DJKatAnimated]

I wonder why polygamist and pedophiles aren't included in the legislation regarding same-sex marriage.

Possibly because they aren't.

Very nice distraction from the topic.

[MrAffair1]

And why confine the argument to marriage? No doubt people who like to speed are most unhappy about the current traffic laws which seem to favor people who obey the speed limits and what right does the State have to legislate who can and can't hold a driving licence?

[DJKatAnimated]

....Because we wouldn't be talking about marriage, we'd be talking about traffic law.......

[MrAffair1]

Although the subject is different is not the principle in Law the same? The State is acting in accordance with the wishes of the majority and setting certain restrictions and requirements that we all must follow? And although that may be unpopular with certain individuals or minority groups, it is best for society as a whole?

[DJKatAnimated]

No, it's not even close.

We don't only give tickets to straight people....

[MrAffair1]

But according to your argument neither is it "equal" because speedsters are not allowed to drive in the manner that they want to - the traffic laws seem to favor people who drive cautiously.

[DJKatAnimated]

Let's stop with the metaphors and stay with reality.

It was you that claimed homosexuals are treated equally under the law. I've shown you that is not the case.

If you want to extend your reach and say that it's unequal to everyone, thus being equal, that is a farce. Doesn't work that way. If you're going to argue against polygamy, incest, and others, I suggest you do so.

This Slippery Slope does not address the argument at all.

[MrAffair1]

Homosexuals are bound by the same qualifications and restrictions as to who they can marry as everyone else and that is: a member of the opposite sex who is single, of legal age, of sound mind and who freely consents to the marriage. The pro-homosexual marriage advocates have been incorrectly saying in effect that this does not apply to everybody, but it does. You have been arguing the fairness of it, but I have been arguing the universal application of it.

[MrAffair1]

But the traffic laws are applied equally to all, there['s not one set of speed limits for straight people and a different set for others.

Likewise all of us are bound by the existing marriage laws (until or unless those laws are changed) so in that respect the law is applied equally to all which is exactly what I've been saying all along.

[garysher3]

MrAffair-your logic is impeccable.

I have yet to encounter an advocate of redefining marriage for homosexuals who has any good reason why we would not then have to redefine marriage for bigamists, polygamists, the incestuous, etc.

Most prefer to dodge the issue because it undermines their argument, as with Kat.

[DJKatAnimated]

I'll ask you again, garysher3: Are you saying there's no reason to deny bigamy, polygamy, and incest?

I have yet to see anyone answer this question.

You and MrAffair avoid it like crazy.

[garysher3]

So Joe are you saying you suffer the same restrictions as polygamists, incestuous couples and pedophiles, who cannot necessarily marry whom they want either?

The legal benefits can be obtained using different methods.

And a married couple often ends up paying MORE tax than an unmarried couple.

We don't need to redefine marriage to alter hospital visitation rules!

[DJKatAnimated]

Why bring up pedophiles, garysher3, are you advocating for pedophilia? If not, I suggest you stop bringing up such irrelevant dribble, because none of the above have to do with same-sex marriage. In fact, it is merely a distraction from the topic.

With that said, there is absolutely no legal reason to keep homosexual couples from being legally married.

You've had 6 months to produce ONE legitimate reason, garysher3. You've failed miserably so far.

I await your retort, Mr. Pedophile.

[MrAffair1]

garysher3 is making the point that there are many kinds of relationships that cannot legally marry and it is therefore very relevant to the argument.

[DJKatAnimated]

Despite none of them being legislated or even considered.

How is that relevant? You'd have to be pretty insane to say such a thing.

[MrAffair1]

It's relevant because same sex unions are not the only ones affected, there are many others who also can't marry whomsoever they want to.

[DJKatAnimated]

Where exactly in this video is anyone advocating for bestiality, pedophilia, incest, or polygamy?

Let me further illustrate this irrelevance: in what state did same-sex marriage propose that the above must be considered? Where were the above passed? In which state were the above legislated?

I'll answer that for you: none.

So will you quit pretending that it has anything to do with this issue and stay on topic? Thank you.

[MrAffair1]

It makes no difference whether or not it is currently being advocated, if you make an exception for one minority group on what basis could you deny any other minority who decided that they too wanted the law changed to suit them?

[DJKatAnimated]

...So if it's not being advocated, then why are we even talking about it? That's what makes your argument irrelevant, a non-sequitir, you JUST admitted that it has nothing to do with same-sex marriage.

If there truly is no basis to deny marriage to this unnamed minority group, then it's obviously going to pass, regardless of same-sex marriage being legal.

[MrAffair1]

Who said there is no basis for having certain restrictions on who can marry whom?

[DJKatAnimated]

You just posted "if you make an exception for one minority group, on what basis could you deny any other minority group".

You didn't post this group's name, nor did you list any reasons, so I could only assume you were making an "anything-goes" argument.

Are you now taking back that quote or did you not realize that you've said it?

[MrAffair1]

Ok well what about bigamy and polygamy? If we have no basis to deny same sex marriage then on what basis could we or should we ban multiple-partner marriages?

[DJKatAnimated]

You...don't have any basis to deny same-sex marriage.

I don't advocate for polygamy or bigamy, so I wouldn't know if you have any basis. Judging by your post, you don't.

[MrAffair1]

You are avoiding the issue that if we make an exception for one then in fairness we would have to make an exception for all.

[Darkuser22]

Was this bigger then when Martin Luther King Jr. did his part many years ago?

[bullhonkeymofo]

why do gays call the bible hate speach? It does say that homosexuality is a sin but it also says that EVERYONE sins so............................­..........sin is sin. no true christian hates anyone. You can hate me for my faith or lifestyle but I will NEVER hate you. Seems like the agenda is to push for equal rights while oppressing and cursing christianity. hipocrites

[bullhonkeymofo]

sodomy is illegal

[DJKatAnimated]

Sodomy Laws ceased after the 2003 Supreme Court case of Lawrence vs. Texas, therefore sodomy is no longer illegal.

We also have a Separation of Church and State, thus making the bible completely irrelevant and useless in this issue... Unless you want to reinstate slavery, killing of homosexuals, and death of adulterers (including divorcees) found in the bible and Koran.

So, please, shove it.

As for the bible being hate speech, I need to ask where you've heard such an absurd thing. Canada?!

[garysher3]

joe-are you being deliberately disingenuous?

You can marry your girlfriend just like your brother can - that's equality.

Nobody can automatically marry the person they love, there are laws covering who you can marry and have sex with and they apply to everyone.

However, there are no laws proscribing who you can love so go for it

[garysher3]

Joe-in the case of the Gay Men's Chorus yes I can tell they are all sexual deviants

[joethemusician]

how exactly? are you a member of the Gay Men's Chorus? Have you had sex with them? Please enlighten me as to how you know them so Biblically, i mean well.

[MrAffair1]

Equal rights?

Don't the existing marriage laws apply equally to everyone?

They might not suit everyone but surely everyone is bound by them??

[joethemusician]

So it is equal that my brother can marry his girlfriend, but I cannot marry my boyfriend? He loves his girlfriend and i love my boyfriend. Why should he get to marry the person he loves more than anything in the world, but I cannot marry the person I love more than anyone in the world? I'm not exactly sure I see the equality there.

[MrAffair1]

Its equal in that none of us can marry absolutely anyone we want to. We are all restricted by the marriage laws as to who qualifies to be our spouse and we can either choose someone from that eligible group as defined by law or remain single or relate to our partner in a different way.

[joethemusician]

i'm sorry but you are flat out wrong. I should not have to relate to my partner in a different way that prevents me from being legally bound to them in the case of a medical emergency for one. What about taxes? mortgages? Adoption? I should be afforded the same legal rights with my partner as you are with yours. Its a shame people can be so small minded. Gay marriage is real and its time to stop fighting against it, welcome to the 21st century.

[MrAffair1]

Why not? If I wanted to marry my sister or have 10 wives I would have to relate to them in a different way that prevents me from being legally bound to them in the case of a medical emergency.

That would be my bad luck for through either choice or circumstances being in that type of relationship. What makes homosexuals a special case?

[DJKatAnimated]

Equal, how so? Are you suggesting that homosexuals marry to heterosexuals?

What exactly is the point of having those legal benefits of marriage, if they don't apply to your true spouse? You want homosexuals to marry a complete stranger or no one at all, which isn't equal, nor does it give them access to those rights.

You are suggesting that a family of two homosexuals and their child split up, because we must honor the current law...

For no reason what-so-ever...

Get real.

[MrAffair1]

No, I am saying that not even heterosexuals can marry anyone they please and homosexuals have the same choice as everyone else: marry someone it is legal to marry, stay single or have some kind of civil or private ceremony.

And where in law does it say you can't live together?

[DJKatAnimated]

Terrific.

I did not ask you about heterosexuals, or anyone, to have the ability to marry whoever they desired. I asked how the current marriage law is equal to homosexuals if it doesn't apply to them? I wanted to know how everyone is equal when they obviously don't share the same rights.

To say that everyone has the same rights insults the intelligence of those supporting same-sex marriage and assumes that the issue does not exist.

It is not about living together, it's about being equal.

[MrAffair1]

It's equal in that you have the same right to marry an eligible person of the opposite sex that everyone else has. I appreciate that is not what you want, but it is available should you have a change of preference.

What you really want is a special right that nobody currently has which is to marry a person of the same sex.

So we are all equal insofar as we can marry a person of the opposite sex if we so choose and we couldn't marry a person of the same sex if that was what we preferred.

[DJKatAnimated]

You are being hypocritical in that statement.

If anyone has a "special right" it is those who are heterosexual. Unfortunately, instead of seeing this irony, you say that everyone has the same right. Despite that being a dramatic lie, if it were true, then everyone would have the same right... to marry the same-sex...

This is not an argument; you are dancing around with words.

As I've said earlier, this is in no way equal to homosexual families.

[MrAffair1]

Are you saying that if you desired to marry someone it was legal to marry you would be denied? They would say sorry, but the marriage laws don't apply to you??

[bullhonkeymofo]

Get married! Just dont do it in my church or ask for my Gods blessing. Why do you idiots do that?

[DJKatAnimated]

No one does that. What the hell are you talking about?

[garysher3]

OK they may sing well but it's eerie looking at all those guys and realising they are all sexual deviants and perverts

[joethemusician]

so you can tell someone is a sexual deviant and a pervert just from looking at them? wow you have an amazing super ability! You should be on the TV show Heroes! You could save my childs LIFE!!!!!! Please, don't waste your time here on youtube! You must run to the police station and start pointing out all the perverts! Hurry! Someone's life could depend on it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[garysher3]

Homosexuals have all the same rights as normal people, and special legal privileges in many situations because homosexuals have been classified as a 'protected class'.

When will they stop whining and wallowing in their self-imposed victimhood?

[organics4me]

It's easier to play the victim than to admit the guilt they live with in knowing how twisted and unnatural their lifestyle is.

[DJKatAnimated]

Sure, we all have an opinion, no matter how stupid and unfounded - you can believe homosexuals are twisted. Believing that they all live the same, identical "lifestyle".

But.

How is homosexuality unnatural? I'd really like to know why dumbasses like you call it that.

If you bother to reply, do the following:

1) Define the word unnatural

2) Explain how homosexuality differs from this definition.

Hopefully, organics4me, you'll notice your own stupidity, fix it, and live a better life.

[supercock99]

@DJKatAnimated i love faggots. i have two in my trunk. they were really loud for a while but theyve since calmed down. i think ill use their flesh to upholster my couch

[supercock99]

@DJKatAnimated i love faggots. i have two in my trunk. they were really loud for a while but theyve since calmed down. i think ill use their flesh to upholster my couch

[ProtectYourFamily101]

gay people pay taxes too, equality!!,,not only for taxes,but for everything

[Thevoicedwoman]

GLBT PEOPLE NEED RIGHTS AND WE NEED THEM NOW!

WE WILL KEEP FIGHTING FOR THESE RIGHT!

STOP THE HATE!

LOVE DO NOT HATE!

LOVE LOVE LOVE

i'm a lesbian and I stand for EVERYONES RIGHTS!

CIVIL RIGHTS!

[AryanCircusClown]

HAha !!!!!!!

[Lysander910]

The microphones were poorly placed for the recording. This is a very fine Chorus...noted by the Washington Post as "one of the finest male choruses in the world."

[Waage83]

Good luck with that,

Your mom seems to like it.!

[Ga5524]

You're comparing apples to oranges. It's typical of right wingers like yourself to spew out a ridiculous statement.

[abortabraham]

God will strike them all dead! I prayed all day today! These fags are going to burn for eternity!

[BeantownJim]

demons on the plaza!

[3star2nr]

seeing this makes me think 2 things

1. Where the fuck are the no government intervention teabaggers to help the gays protest the government

2. Where the fuck were these people to form a pro health care rally.

To me it just shows where people priorities are. War, ok lets protest. LGBT ok protest, hate obama ok protest.

But fight for health care for all people nobody

[MoxNewsDotCom]

divide and conquer

[candykissmadness]

@3star2nr did you hear the beginning of this? a boy killed and tortured for being gay, thing is one thing at a time, euality comes before improving life.