Ya know, I really love my dog, so I should be able to marry her right? I know it's different, but if gay marriage is allowed, it's going to act as a gateway to other marriages. The polygamists of the world, don't they have the "right" to get married. (no they don't) but they'll argue that they do. Where does it end? All that nonsense does is cause commotion. If people would just abide by laws constructed by our founding fathers, there wouldn't be as many social issues as there are today.
It's not like gay people are hurting anybody is it
But banning gay marriage is hurting people!
Why can't people just let them live their lives the way they want to like getting married if they want to.
Why the hell should the goverment decide whether 2 men/women should get married or not, its not their fucking lives. If 2 men/women love each other, and want to get married, then they should get married, everyone only gets 1 life, so why can't they let people spend it with who they want.
How is banning gay marriage hurting people? And how come gay marriage wasn't an issue 10-20 years ago? All of sudden people today feel that they have the "right" to do whatever it is they want to do. 10-20 years ago people would follow what abide by what our laws told them and didn't have to argue every law or decision made by the people we elect to make these decisions.
just like those uppity black people thought that they had a "right" to sit at a lunch counter with whites in the 50's?
and do you mean to say that 20 years ago people were all law-abiding and did what they were told? really? the 1980's? punk rock, cocaine, and ronald reagan!? were you even alive then?
the roles and rights of homosexuals has been the subject of law-makers since the world started turning.
the gay pride movement in the united states had it's start in the 1960's, with discussions about marriage soon after. just because the media, politicians, and agent provocateurs spin it up every four years in time with the election cycles does not mean that it is a brand new subject.
your rationale has glaring holes that a little research might help close.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I don't think I once said that the movement was non-existent. I simply stated that the issue is fully erupted in today's society, and that cannot be debated. And a typical comment by someone of your beliefs is to not keep debating the topic, but to attack the person who is stating his or her opinion.
i never attacked anyone, anyone's beliefs, and certainly never any eruptions. i merely was engaging in a constructive dialog about certain incongruities in the logic of your statements and suggested a valid way to enrich your mind and subsequent arguments via focused inquiries. hell, you could even use google!
furthermore, i hardly think you have an inkling as to the least of my beliefs. that cannot be dabated.
Just because they don't believe in it, it's not their lives, it's not like they have to have a gay marriage themselves. Just because a man loves another man or a woman loves another woman, they can't exactly help that can they, they can't help who they love, it's all part of nature, we are only human. If a man & a man (or females) want to spend the rest of their lives with each other because its their choice, then why the hell cant they, they have human rights.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
But you see, they only have those "rights" in a certain number of states. So those rights as you call them aren't as basic as you think. You cannot just say humans can do whatever it is they please and just say that they have human rights.
when the curly-aired lady says the thing about massachusetts adoption things she leaves out an important detail: The catholic adoption facilities were not closed down, they simply shut themselves down due to the fact that they would have to place children in same-sex homes. stupid, right?
oh wow... everyone who voted yes on 8 can go get tortured until they are about to die.... and be left there... and be tortured again... and again... and again.... and die! ahahah bitches, you will suffer!
why is religion getting mixed up in this? I think all mentions of "marriage" should be taken out of the state constitution and replaced with "civil union," because religious people are right, marriage is a religious sacrament. Thus, with the separation of church and state, the government should have nothing to do with marriage, whether it's between a heterosexual or homosexual couple. These civil unions should have the same benefits as a marriage currently does, according to the constitution.
Wow. What a great idea and approach to illustrate the bias in perspective of the yes on 8 campaign. So well done too. I wish this could have run on TV for months before the election.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Bias??? A black man and a white woman can't produce children? They can natural begin a family tree from generation to generation? But a gay couple can? I'm mixed black/white, I wouldn't be mixed if my parent were gay.
zigbone "Bias??? A black man and a white woman can't produce children?"
Bias tends not to see both(or more) sides of an argument. Not really sure what you're on about 'zigbone' but let me see if I can piece together a response that will incorporate your intended point.
A gay black man and a white lesbian can produce a child with or without a turkey baster. I've met the child and I'm not kidding.
Besides, gay folks aren't responsible for overpopulation which is a huge problem right now.
Either think before you post, or read the thoughts of others before you post. Your argument, that marriage is to have children, has repeatedly been shown to be invalid.
Barren women and sterile men can't have children. Post-menopausal women can't have children. By your reasoning, infertile people should not be allowed to get married.
Newsflash: the point of marriage is not to have children.
"We could have to teach that gay marriage is just as acceptable as heterosexual marriage!"
I'm so sorry that we need to teach children not to discriminate. Gay marriage-supporters should know better than to want children that aren't ignorant bigots from the beginning. [/sarcasm]
I hate to disappoint (oh wait, no I don't), but when something doesn't effect you, can you think you're doing the right thing by denying rights?
Please God... Hurry back. I can't take much more of this ignorant nonsense. I am the product of an inter-racial marriage. People that try to act like inter-racial marriage are just as sick as the people trying to act like Gay Marriage is cool.
Don't believe in God? Cool, God GIVES you that right, there is a price to pay for it which is the only reason anyone gets away with ANYTHING (FOR NOW). I can't wait to leave this Planet. It sucks (literally and figuratively). Swing Down Sweet Chariot.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Funny gays! Instead of getting their panties all in knots (OWW!!) over marrying, they should concentrate on making us the rest of the world laugh simply by being their naturally funny gay selves
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
ok you guys jus wana let you no diseases can come from gay sex which means id\f you do decide to have children then they can have a chance of being infected. this can happen 2 ur grandchildren and their children. only there will be a massive decrease in population because GAYS CANT HAVE KIDS! God designed our bodies for man and woman not man and man or woman and woman. so if you have any questions you can go ask a pastor that is walking in the word.
Newsflash: You can get diseases from heterosexual sex too.
More news: Not everyone shares your belief that some deity designed our bodies.
Why do you think there will be a massive decrease in population? Only about 2 to 10 percent of people are gay, and they're gay whether they're allowed to be or not.
So are you saying that anyone who can't have kids shouldn't marry? Say a woman is infertile and she wants to marry a man, should it be illegal for them to marry then, to?
Is it not written in the bible to respect and love others thou they differ from your self, more specifically"Your should love thy neighbor"? and that spreading hate is sin? well thats exactually what your doing. Did you ever stop and think that "Hey im hurting/ taking the rights away from one of gods children? Just because they're different from myself?" If you were god would you like your children to be discriminated against? I know i wouldn't.
Go on believing that, just don't force your particular Bronze Age convictions on the rest of us.
If you're so sure about it all, then let God sort it out on Judgment Day. I'll be happy to explain to him exactly why homosexuals deserve equal rights.
Okay, lets take a quick look at your logic. Lets have some southern states in the U.S. vote on whether marriage between African American men and women should be legal, or if marriage should be redefined as only between Caucasians.
(1) It is your personal conviction that kids deserve/need a male and female caretaker. Plenty of studies have shown that kids with same-sex parents are just as well off. Here in the Netherlands there are plenty of kids raised by gay couples. They're just fine.
(2) 'Marriage' is a concept that can and has been changed. Just like plenty of other words have changed through time.
(3) Democracy is not a tyranny of the majority. Minorities have rights too. The will of the people has limits.
God is intolerant of sin nobody will enter Gods kingdom sinning. I am totally intolerant of sinning! People who kill innocent children are evil! Abortion Homosexuals are wicked Liars, thieves ,drug addicts ,ect God hates wickedness , so then I do too! all these sinners will go to hell! Unless they ask Jesus to forgive them! And turn from sinning and start loving God! Then mercy will bestowed unto them! Jesus' love will be there and they will be saved! jn 7;24 read it
Haha you're funny - you should totally go on the road with that act, you do such a great impression of a bigot! New York would love you! Seriously, call an agent, that's comedy gold! :-D
Eternal life waits for all, which will you choose smoking or non smoking?
Hell is full of hate and agony. With just a tiny bit of wisdom you would not desire to be tormented for all of time.
The lust of this world has stole the blessed life to come that last forever.
Jesus loves you and can save you from evil don't let the devil own you soul. He hates GODs creation that means you. Jesus is the way. 'SOUNDS FROM HELL' go watch the movie youtube search. Please think about it.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
hehe Gay people Suck!...You think your little gayrriages will happen? hate to burst your bubble but, if a blue state like Cali opposed it...what makes you think other states will welcome fag marriages? HA HAA! im so happy we live in a ignorant Country :D
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
YES ON 8 ALL DAY CALIFORNIA DID A GREATT JOB.
I AM A PROUD ASS HOLE GET IT RIGHT GAY IS NOT A CHOICE IT'S WHAT YOUR SICC MIND MAKE YOU THINK THAT and i am tried of people saying they where born gay so you saying god made in perfect people i don't think so.... CONGRADULATIONS ON THE PEOPLE WHO CAME OUT AND VOTE THE RIGHT WAY WHICH WAS yes on 8 and i mean that.one man and one woman let god plan it.. I KNOW YOU GOING TO LASH OUT ON MY COMMENTS SO WHAT I DON'T CARE
Good thing there is a smart country like Canada that stands its ground for freedom and equality in Marriages. Love is Love is Love, who the hell are you to decide.
I support human rights - so yeah, I support heterosexual rights as much as I support gay rights and women's rights and bisexual rights and trans rights and white rights and black rights and latino rights and christian rights and buddhist rights and children's rights and the elderly's rights. We are all human, let's all support each others' rights.
We are not stopping you from believing what you believe. In the real world however, not everyone shares your convictions. If you're so sure about your religion, then let God sort it all out when we day or when Judgment Day comes around. In the meantime, don't discriminate. Don't force your views on others.
openairpreacher, I thought God specifically said that only He judges people? Sheesh. (I'm an Atheist, by the way.) Anyway, if other people 'sin,' why do you care? It isn't affecting you. Have a nice time in Heaven while everyone else parties in Hell. (Even if God does exist, the last thing I wanna do is spend an eternity praising him! That'd get old real fast!)
John 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.\\
Paul said judge;
1 Corinthians 5:13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person
. 1 Corinthians 6:2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?
When you're recording a voice over, not only do you not want to speak directly into the mic, but it helps to maybe speak through a shirt or piece of fabric softener. Nothing makes a video with a great point more unwatchable than mistakes like that.
This is not about civil rights, since most of the public is ready to give gays the same rights as married couples. This is about changing the definition of the word "marriage." You do not have the right to change the definition of the word, any more than I have the right to declare that from now on "blue" is the same thing as "red," and therefore the sky is red. Marriage is between a human man and a human woman, period. Gays can have something similar, but they cannot have the word "marriage."
Atrocious reasoning. Here's the exact same argument, using a different word:
"This is about changing the definition of the word 'citizen'. Citizenship is the status of American-born adult white males, period. Blacks can have something similar, but they cannot have the word 'citizen'."
Basically you're not giving a single argument. You're only restating your position that "gays can't use this word, because I say so!". All you are doing is admitting that you want them to be unequal.
Sure. But the evolution of word meanings cannot be forced, it's something that happens naturally as society evolves. Maybe someday society will think that "marriage" does not involve gender, but today is not that day, and nobody has the right (or ability) to force society to change the way it defines the word.
That is like saying "let's wait a while to remove slavery, until society is ready...let's not doing anything about it". There is active discrimination going on, so we must fight it.
If society thought that torture was justified, then it would be wrong. If society thinks that inequality is ok, then it is wrong. Democracy should not be a tyranny of the majority. Minority rights have to be protected as well.
Listen, these people already have the same rights as us.... They get benefits when their partner dies and all that jazz. Now all they want is for it to be called "marriage" WHO GIVES A FLYING FUDGENUGGET WHAT IT"S CALLED?!
All democrats want is more, more, more, more for ME.
Ya'll need to cool your heels, and just be happy with what you have.
Separate but equal huh? If you'd know anything about history, you would know that we've tried that in the past and it didn't exactly work.
Your argument boils down to "they shouldn't get the word marriage because they're gay". Since it's equality we're after, and since you don't care what it is called, I suggest that government does not recognize any marriage whatsoever. Only registered partnerships. Remove all legal recognition of the term 'marriage'.
I did in fact answer your question. I pointed out that what you are suggesting is the "separate but equal"-hypocrisy. History has clearly demonstrated how atrocious an idea that is.
Furthermore, marriage is a meaningful word. Gay couples want to be able to get married. Denying them that is simple discrimination. How would you feel if we'd take away your right to get married, replacing it with similar benefits? It's a whole different thing when you're on the receiving end of discrimination.
There is no "right to marry." Many people want to marry, but never get to. Marriage is a meaningful word, but history & society says it doesn't mean what you want it to mean. 2 men can't get "married" just as 1 man can't get pregnant. The word doesn't apply. You want to change the definition, but society isn't ready. So you want to force change using courts. But changing a word's meaning isn't a civil rights issue. You can't force society to think differently, that can only happen naturally.
What makes you think there is no "right to marry"? That is an easily refutable position: plenty of couples are getting married right now. They certainly have the right to get married if they want to. Therefore, gay couples should get that same right.
I've already refuted your "history & society says..." argument. History and society said that citizenship was reserved for whites. They said voting was only for adult white males. They said education was only for the elite. Your argument fails.
If each person has a "right to marry," then the government is responsible for providing them a partner. This does not happen, not everybody who wants to, gets to, therefore marriage is not a right. It is a priviledge that not everybody can have. As for citizenship, that word's definition has nothing to do with gender (or race), whereas the definition of marriage does involve gender. I demonstrated that with dictionary references. Your argument fails.
You are arguing against a straw man: I have never claimed that each person has a right to marry. I claim that adult couples have the right to do so. Rights are not always bestowed on individuals, they can belong to groups too (communal rights), and in the case of marriage the right belongs to couples.
You can't deny this, because it is so blatantly obvious: if an adult man and woman want to get married, then they can. Because they have the *right* to.
Sure I can. An adult man and an adult woman do not have the right to marry each other... if they are brother and sister, father and daughter, etc. Society and our government are empowered to put restrictions on who can marry, because as I said, marriage is a privilege, not a right.
You're failing at logic again. The reason that some adult couples are not allowed to get married is because of the harm that it can cause to others, such as the genetic problems caused by an incestuous coupling.
Since gay marriage does no harm to others, there is no reason to stop it from happening.
If government and society were to say "Christians can't get married, because it is a privilege we don't want them to have", you'd be screaming your lungs out.
Secondly, the definition of citizenship *used to* have to do with race. The definition of democracy *used to* have to do with gender. Not anymore though, that's the point!
Just as voting rights used to be restricted to males only, and just as access to education used to be restricted to the elite, so is marriage currently restricted to heterosexuals. This obvious discrimination won't stand of course.
You are confusing the definiton of a word, with elligibility. The definition of "citizen" remains unchanged. Who is elligible to become a citizen HAS changed. For example, the definition of "credit card" is different from who is elligible to GET a credit card. With marriage, gender is part of the definition of the word, before you ever get to who is deemed elligible to marry.
This is just semantics. You are pretending that the definition of marriage incorporates eligibility, whereas the definitions of citizenship or democracy don't. That's twisting the facts to suit your own needs.
Society long held that the definition of democracy was that adult tax-paying males would vote on government. This definition changed to "the right of adult citizens to vote". It changed to remove discrimination, just as marriage has to change to remove discrimination.
Debating abortion can be done with other vids, not this one. This one is about gay marriage. Of course you can compare same sex marriage with something else, but not with abortion.
So what are your arguments (or your best one) against same sex marriage? Because I haven't heard one yet and I don't think anyone else posted a valid one anywhere else here.
You and aperiontanagra have choosen to deem any and all arguments not valid. Restating your opposing view and claiming by fiat that therefore the opposing view is invalid does not lead to a win at the ballot box.
Why should the govt be in the business of decreeing who can/cannot be married? Govt has imposed itself on this social contract, the oldest from of social union. No one should have-or need to have-state sanction for a private relationship. The modern mistake is to think that important things must be planned, sponsored, reviewed, or licensed by the govt. My argument: get govt out of marriages and move to contracts as befits a secular, individualist republic at the dawn of the information age.
That's a good argument, and it is one that I fully agree with. It is not an argument in favour of Proposition 8 however, so you still have not provided a reason to deny gays their equal rights.
For matters such as taxes, inheritance, care/responsibility of/for kids, hospital visitation etc. it is clear that some form of registration for partners needs to occur. No need for that to be marriage.
The problem is that right now it IS called marriage by the law, and that only hetero's can get it.
So you agree that the Govt should be involved in the first place but believe that you should make a bad situation worse out of fairness? No thanks. I want to stop it, not expand it.
I agree that government should refrain from recognizing "marriage". It should however register partnerships - for reasons I mentioned (tax, inheritance etc.).
Since that is not the case however, there is an inequality. You are proposing to continue that inequality, to continue the discrimination.
No, my position is that govt shouldn't sanction marriage and give special rights to anyone couple. It is discriminatory to those who choose not to get married.
Yes, I get that position. I do think that hospital visitation rights, inheritance, and parenthood should be things that should be registered however. Not by calling it marriage, but some form of registration is necessary.
Sure. Make it a private contract between two individuals. If they wanted to contract for a traditional breadwinner/homemaker setup, with specified rules for property and alimony in the event of divorce, they could do so. Less traditional couples could keep assets separate and agree to share specified expenses. Those with assets to protect could sign prenuptial agreements that courts would respect. Contracts could be as individually tailored as other contracts are in our diverse capitalist world.
Another problem with this position: voting "yes on 8" actually did exactly that. Expanding marriage law. Now the state constitution defines exactly what it recognizes as marriage. Not a smart move to vote "yes" if your argument against gay marriage relies on "government shouldn't be involved in marriage anyway" (which is an extremely poor argument because it ignores reality and upholds discrimination among other problems).
If my choices are upholding discrimination or expanding it, Ill vote for upholding it. One of the frustrations with being a libertarian is that the solutions are not very implementable in the real world where everyone is grabbing for their perceived govt rights. It is my hope that the marriage issue will be so divisive that people will be forced to come up with a better solution. Prop 8 won't last forever- the demogrphs are against them- maybe 8yrs. Those for 8 will have to find a compromise.
Again: "yes on 8" actually means increasing government involvement in marriage, since it puts an official definition of what marriages to recognize in the state constitution. If your argument for denying gays the right to marry relies solely on not wanting the government to involve itself in marriage, then you should have voted against a proposition that puts more stuff about marriage in the constitution.
Obviously I see it differently. Prop 8 clarifies the existing discriminatory law. The courts expanded the discriminatory law by allowing more people to participate in marriage. A no vote would have affirmed that expansion.
Anyone reading the comments on this video can easily see that this is not true. We have not simply "deemed" any argument "not valid". We have demonstrated why they are not valid. Huge difference there.
You keep acting as if all we do is say "no, you're wrong". Since we're actively answering all the "yes on 8"-arguments we are clearly doing a lot more than that.
My intent is not to debate abortion but to demonstrate thru analogy that society decides to discriminate on many issues: whether a person shall live or not live based on an arbitrary point in time, if a person is a person or what *rights* a person has. Without the recognition of this, arguing against prop 8 solely because it is discrimination is going to fail. Of course it is discrimination. The debate is what is acceptable and the consequences of that decision.
Since I've already explained this a dozen times, I know that you still won't understand it. Nevertheless, I'm going to explain this to you again.
The abortion debate is not analogous to the gay marriage debate. This is because in the abortion debate the question is whether fetuses are human, and whether they are capable of possessing rights. These questions are of no concern in the gay marriage debate.
let me start off saying i have nothing against gays or lesibians if 8 didn't pass it wouldn't have bother me none. I did vote yes on 8 simple because i'm religious in beleive in what god has said in the bible i see protest in the aftermath putting what they want to quote from the bible leaving out other parts to justify their cause. Plus i don't like when they compare it to civil rights how can you compare the two you can be gay,vote,work and be what you wanna be except merry.
You seem to have done a great job at giving your post and vote absolutely no thought. Next time you vote in favour of discrimination, please stop and think about what you're doing.
It's fine that you believe your Bronze Age deity gets upset over people's sexual preference. It's not fine for you to enforce discrimination based on that believe.
Insulting people's religion, stating that they haven't given their position any thought and claiming they are discriminating helped galvanized support for the proposition.
Perhaps they did give it thought and came to a different conclusion than you and decided to vote for what has been common knowledge since the begining of time.
Trying to force change before society is ready has halted the movement.
Thanks for proving me right with your ignorant post. Some major flaws in your text:
(1) Religion should have nothing to do with it. Any human being with the slightest sense of decency would refrain from forcing his subjective views on others.
(2) What on Earth makes you think that gay marriage did not occur in antiquity?
(3) Stating that people who voted 'yes' gave their vote no thought is doing them a favour. If they did consider it, then they consciously chose to discriminate.
Ignorant post? LOL. In your narrow mind, anyone that doesnt think like you do is ignorant, has no decency and doesnt have any thought to the issue. I am very thankful for you angry, presumptive and pompous voters that do more to turn people away than you do to win the debate in the arena of ideas. As a result you now have an updated State Constitution. In your own pompous mind you think you have been proven right but (how nice to be your own judge), fool that you are, you have lost the war.
Yes, you made a very ignorant post. You did so again I might add.
Anyone voting in favour of taking away the rights of a group of people is indeed a bigot and has no decency, or otherwise hasn't bothered to think about what they were doing.
If you don't understand why equal rights matter, why the current inequality is discrimination, and why people get angry about discrimination, then you have a lot of learning to do.
Removing discrimination is not merely an "invented right", no matter how desperately you'll try to see it that way.
Opposing discrimination is not "smug self-righteousness", it is what any ethical human being should do.
Your way of arguing is absurd. Whether we lost the vote or not is completely irrelevant in regards to whether we are right or not. People who voted 'yes' are ignorant, bigots, or both. They're in the wrong, and history will clearly judge them so.
Indeed, opposing discrimination is not smug self-righteousness. Being convinced of one's own righteousness especially in contrast with the actions and beliefs of others is the very definition of self-righteousness.
If fiscal conservatives called for lower taxes for those that pay the most and their only argument was that to not agree with this position is discrimination and bigotry (intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices), do you think wed ever have a tax cut? And if they just yelled at those that disagree and called them ignorant because they didnt see that it is clearly wrong for 25% of the population to pay 86% of the taxes? Berating and insulting your opponent doesn't work.
You are clearly convinced that you are right and just as convinced that you have beat any opposing argument... but haven't convinced anyone of anything (to your way of thinking or that you have won the argument). Pssst- stating an argument is a stawman that is absurd isn't "demolishing" an argument... it is a deflection.
Yes, I am convinced that I am right. I happen to be convinced that discrimination is bad. You clearly disagree, since you so vocally support denying people equal rights.
Since there isn't a single argument in favour of denying gays the right to marry still standing, my side has won the argument. Can you find even one argument in all the hundreds of comments here that supports a 'yes'-vote yet went unanswered?
Okay, I've read you comments over the past 4 days. Here are you arguments that "demolished" any attempt to oppose you: "Absurd, strawman, bigot, no sense, ignorant, no decency, you have learning to do, irrelevant, history will judge you, believe your bonze age diety, forcing views, dumb, psychological, unbelievable, nonsense, not valid, ludicrous, hate".
Weak attempt at dodging my criticism. I did not ask for you to extremely selectively quote my posts. I asked for you to provide a single "Yes on 8"-argument that went unanswered.
One more time: that's NOT what I asked for. I asked you to provide "yes on 8" arguments which didn't get demolished. All attempts at arguments so far have been. Examples:
"It's unnatural"
- Invalid because (a) human behavior isn't constrained by what is natural, marriage is a good example of something unnatural AND (b) homosexuality frequently occurs in nature
...I am NOT arguing "homosexuality is ok because it occurs in nature". Don't respond as if that is my point. I was arguing that "homosexuality is unnatural" is a very bad argument, partially because it is in fact natural.
Sorry, when you wrote that the unnatural argument is invalid because (b) homosexuality frequently occurs in nature I thought you were making the argument that homosexuality is ok because it occurs in nature. Seemed pretty straight forward to me. It still does. But this is a sidebar anyhow because I dont take unnatural position.
You still don't understand what I was saying there? The initial post was quite clear, and the subsequent clarification should have removed all confusion.
Once again:
I gave an example of one of the hilariously bad arguments against homosexuality. The argument that it is 'unnatural'. I explained why that argument fails. One reason it fails is that homosexuality is in fact natural. So, again, I am NOT arguing that this means homosexuality is good. Only that the "unnatural" argument fails.
Here's another "strawman". There are many people believe abortion is murder. Clearly the unborn is alive. Society (and the courts) have arbitrarily said killing the unborn in the third trimester is okay but in the second is wrong. What about their civil rights? Isnt society imposing their views on them? A small majority decided it is okay to kill a living being the ultimate in discrimination.
(1) You seem to not understand what 'straw man' means.
(2) Society is not imposing its views on pro-lifers. Why not? Because no-one is forced to get an abortion! If you oppose abortion, then don't get one. Provide alternatives. Explain your view. You're free to do all that.
If you fail to understand why "Yes on 8" constitutes forcing your view on others, and why allowing abortions doesn't, then you fail to grasp a very elementary part of this debate.
(1) Again you fail to understand the distinction between calling something what it is, and insults. Pointing out that you seem to misunderstand what a straw-man is, is not an insult. It is merely stating an observation.
(2) The problem with your (2) obviously is that the whole point of the discussion about abortion is the definition of "person". It's not the definition of "life" that matters, it's the definition of "human".
(2) Sure. And society has made an arbitrary decision to say that the life is a person one day where the day before it is not. And the implications of that decision is the ability to kill the life. The point being that society decides what is acceptable/unacceptable. Society imposes its view on others. Society discriminates. And in order to truly win the debate you have to change society. Calling them murders or, in your case, bigots, hasnt worked.
As I have explained elsewhere, the two debates can not be compared.
Homosexuals are being denied their rights. The rights they are due as human beings.
You would argue that aborted fetuses are also being denied their rights. Therefore you say the debates are similar. This is quite clearly wrong. The debates are completely different, because it is exactly the question of whether fetuses are capable of having rights that is central in the abortion debate.
No, it is not CLEARLY wrong. It is only clear in YOUR mind that it is wrong because of your private views (which you wish to impose on others, much like those of Prop 8 have done to homosexuals). Simply because you chose to view an unborn as not human does not allow you to escape the argument of whether they have rights anymore than those that think homosexuality is a mental disorder allows them to escape the argument of them being allowed to be married. Thats changing the terms of the debate.
It is so extremely annoying to argue with people who don't read or understand the posts of people that disagree with them.
(1) The abortion debate centers on whether or not fetuses are human.
(2) The gay marriage debate centers on whether or not all humans should have equal rights.
The two debates are about different questions. Now stop your off-topic ranting and come with your arguments in favour of denying homosexuals equal rights. I've asked you for them many posts ago.
You have choosen to define the debate to suit your needs. I believe that this is one of the reasons the 'no on 8' groups have failed. They argue on their own terms and ignore the opposing views. Which means they aren't even engaging/debating. Which is fine if you already have the votes to win. But if you don't, you must engage the debate on the terms of the majority in order to change minds.
I've asked you time and again for your arguments in favour of denying gays equal rights. You simply won't give any.
Stating that we define the debate to suit our own needs is yet another absurd allegation from you. I've replied to all the 'yes on 8' arguments that have been offered.
(3) Clearly plants are alive. Is agriculture murder?
Pointing out that something is alive means little. The issue with abortion is the definition of 'human being'. It's not about what constitutes 'life', it's about what constitutes 'human'. Again you seem to misunderstand a fundamental aspect of a major debate.
It is a human being. To say otherwise is simply imposing your view on others. It is clearly arbitrary when one day it is illegal and the next day it is not.
(4) Not off topic. Society imposes it's views on others all the time. Society decides what is okay and what is not. This is a perfect example.
(3) Good job at AGAIN constructing a straw-man argument. You really have a poor grasp of logic and argumentation!
I did not say a baby is a plant. I demonstrated why your "but it is alive"-argument fails. A plant shares that characteristic with a baby, therefore that can't be the crux. Get it now?
(4) No, it is completely different. Allowing abortion does not force it's opponents to get abortions. Banning gay marriage DOES force a view on it's proponents. Huge difference.
...and the whole issue concerning abortion is whether or not we're dealing with humans there. The two cases are completely incomparable. With abortion the argument is about whether fetuses are human beings capable of having rights in the first place. With gay marriage the issue is whether homosexuals should be given equal rights. The issue is not whether they are able to have those rights. Completely different cases, and really quite obviously so.
I see them as a very similar. With abortion, some believe that the unborn is a human entitled to full and equal rights. Those opposed not only say the unborn doesnt have equal rights but go a step further and say it is not even human. At least with homosexuality it is generally accepted that they are entitled to full rights (as classically known) and the debate is only in the nuance of a social institution (now rebranded as a Right).
I've now explained several times why the two are different. People, like myself, in favour of allowing abortion do not say "the unborn don't have rights AND they're not even human anyway". Rather we say "the unborn don't have rights BECAUSE they're not human".
That is clearly not the case with homosexuality. With abortion the debate is about the question "what is human". With gay marriage the debate is about the question "should gays get the same rights as other people". Huge difference there.
The two are clearly different. I hope you agree with me that with gays there is no debate about whether they are counted as "human life" or not... :/ Which is what the debate on abortion really is about.
This is not the case with gay marriage. With that it is simply about giving them the same rights as heterosexuals.
I just barged in this discussion, could you post your reason for being against same-sex marriages (which I assume you are)?
You seem to be talking about a different proposition 8. This one eliminated the rights of gay couples to get married. That's discrimination. It's pretty simple, even though you seem unable to grasp it.
Actually it RESTORED things to the way they were before 4 judges decided to INVENT a "right" from the bench just months earlier. And now it is untouchable by judges. You'll now have to work on your powers of persuasion instead of insults. Good luck.
if you dont mind i like to point out why it passed. Gavin Newsom...The way they used him on the pro prop 8 commercials...Ill be driving then i hear the pro prop 8 commercial "WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT!"... I wanted to vote so bad on yes do to his arrogance in his voice...what a tool...But at the polls i think i made the right decision...its kind of wierd how for a state that voted democrat this prop passed...imagine a republican state?...whatever...I just hope things turn out good in the future
Ok...I still think homosexuality is wrong and it can be cured somehow....but...I still voted No on 8...looks like there was more people voting yes than i thought...It doesnt matter really if they have the same rights as us. I never got mugged or assaulted by a homosexual so why would i do them any harm right?...Im so sorry that they banned Gay marriages but can you please stop protesting on the streets...if im late one more time im fired^^...im sure this will be lifted someday so chill out guys.
It's sad that people really don't see the similarity.
GinnyStoleMyMan 1 year ago
Yeah America is also a land where people have their freedom of speech! Everyone had their own right to vote as they pleased so yeah idiot it is true!
riverchik21 1 year ago
Ya know, I really love my dog, so I should be able to marry her right? I know it's different, but if gay marriage is allowed, it's going to act as a gateway to other marriages. The polygamists of the world, don't they have the "right" to get married. (no they don't) but they'll argue that they do. Where does it end? All that nonsense does is cause commotion. If people would just abide by laws constructed by our founding fathers, there wouldn't be as many social issues as there are today.
mikeypryor 2 years ago
It's not like gay people are hurting anybody is it
But banning gay marriage is hurting people!
Why can't people just let them live their lives the way they want to like getting married if they want to.
Why the hell should the goverment decide whether 2 men/women should get married or not, its not their fucking lives. If 2 men/women love each other, and want to get married, then they should get married, everyone only gets 1 life, so why can't they let people spend it with who they want.
IamKellyy 2 years ago 2
How is banning gay marriage hurting people? And how come gay marriage wasn't an issue 10-20 years ago? All of sudden people today feel that they have the "right" to do whatever it is they want to do. 10-20 years ago people would follow what abide by what our laws told them and didn't have to argue every law or decision made by the people we elect to make these decisions.
mikeypryor 2 years ago
mikeypryor,
just like those uppity black people thought that they had a "right" to sit at a lunch counter with whites in the 50's?
and do you mean to say that 20 years ago people were all law-abiding and did what they were told? really? the 1980's? punk rock, cocaine, and ronald reagan!? were you even alive then?
whistlelocke 2 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
So you're saying that the gay marriage topic was as alive in the 70's and 80's as it is today?!
mikeypryor 2 years ago
mikeypryor,
in a word: yes.
the roles and rights of homosexuals has been the subject of law-makers since the world started turning.
the gay pride movement in the united states had it's start in the 1960's, with discussions about marriage soon after. just because the media, politicians, and agent provocateurs spin it up every four years in time with the election cycles does not mean that it is a brand new subject.
your rationale has glaring holes that a little research might help close.
good luck
whistlelocke 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I don't think I once said that the movement was non-existent. I simply stated that the issue is fully erupted in today's society, and that cannot be debated. And a typical comment by someone of your beliefs is to not keep debating the topic, but to attack the person who is stating his or her opinion.
mikeypryor 2 years ago
i never attacked anyone, anyone's beliefs, and certainly never any eruptions. i merely was engaging in a constructive dialog about certain incongruities in the logic of your statements and suggested a valid way to enrich your mind and subsequent arguments via focused inquiries. hell, you could even use google!
furthermore, i hardly think you have an inkling as to the least of my beliefs. that cannot be dabated.
whistlelocke 2 years ago
Its hurting Gay people because if gay people want to start a family by marryingf each other, the goverment wont allow them too, so its hurting them.
IamKellyy 2 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
But what about the people who don't believe in gay marriage? Wouldn't it "hurt" them too if gays were allowed to marry?
mikeypryor 2 years ago
How is it hurtng them?
Just because they don't believe in it, it's not their lives, it's not like they have to have a gay marriage themselves. Just because a man loves another man or a woman loves another woman, they can't exactly help that can they, they can't help who they love, it's all part of nature, we are only human. If a man & a man (or females) want to spend the rest of their lives with each other because its their choice, then why the hell cant they, they have human rights.
IamKellyy 2 years ago 7
This comment has received too many negative votes show
But you see, they only have those "rights" in a certain number of states. So those rights as you call them aren't as basic as you think. You cannot just say humans can do whatever it is they please and just say that they have human rights.
mikeypryor 2 years ago
I thought America is supposed to be the land of freedom, where people have their own human rights, haha, well guess thats not very true is it.
IamKellyy 2 years ago 14
yes!
jackedasangelnman 2 years ago
when the curly-aired lady says the thing about massachusetts adoption things she leaves out an important detail: The catholic adoption facilities were not closed down, they simply shut themselves down due to the fact that they would have to place children in same-sex homes. stupid, right?
TheDramaBomb 2 years ago 3
oh wow... everyone who voted yes on 8 can go get tortured until they are about to die.... and be left there... and be tortured again... and again... and again.... and die! ahahah bitches, you will suffer!
DefBrif 2 years ago
why is religion getting mixed up in this? I think all mentions of "marriage" should be taken out of the state constitution and replaced with "civil union," because religious people are right, marriage is a religious sacrament. Thus, with the separation of church and state, the government should have nothing to do with marriage, whether it's between a heterosexual or homosexual couple. These civil unions should have the same benefits as a marriage currently does, according to the constitution.
bmcd22 2 years ago
thants amazing.
I say they're limiting my rights i dont want my childern to know about heterosexual marrige it's agianst my religion lol.
seriously how is forcing thier relgion protecting freedom of relgion my relgion supports gay marrige
also its really not that big of a deal 1 day our children will say they really didnt let gays marry
just like we say now they really didnt let interracial marriges happen
athenarulz1 2 years ago
This is great.....no on prop 8!!
peace1970haileybury 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
There are significant differences between the sexes, there are not significant differences between two of the same sex of different races.
kaelsiemion 2 years ago
yeah but all souls are the same and all r looking for love
dont hate
there is no difference in love
take out relgion and there is no argument
athenarulz1 2 years ago 7
Good use of VocAlign.
freedom0f5peech 2 years ago
I heard Rebecca Watson!
freedom0f5peech 2 years ago 3
It's beautiful . . . but in court this would never hold . . . the interracial marriage Supreme Court case is soooooo specific
acorison 3 years ago
Wow. What a great idea and approach to illustrate the bias in perspective of the yes on 8 campaign. So well done too. I wish this could have run on TV for months before the election.
eVVVVV 3 years ago 7
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Bias??? A black man and a white woman can't produce children? They can natural begin a family tree from generation to generation? But a gay couple can? I'm mixed black/white, I wouldn't be mixed if my parent were gay.
zigbone 3 years ago
zigbone "Bias??? A black man and a white woman can't produce children?"
Bias tends not to see both(or more) sides of an argument. Not really sure what you're on about 'zigbone' but let me see if I can piece together a response that will incorporate your intended point.
A gay black man and a white lesbian can produce a child with or without a turkey baster. I've met the child and I'm not kidding.
Besides, gay folks aren't responsible for overpopulation which is a huge problem right now.
eVVVVV 3 years ago 4
good reply seriously look up top 10 reasons gay marrige should be banned
its so sarastic but true.
athenarulz1 2 years ago
Either think before you post, or read the thoughts of others before you post. Your argument, that marriage is to have children, has repeatedly been shown to be invalid.
Barren women and sterile men can't have children. Post-menopausal women can't have children. By your reasoning, infertile people should not be allowed to get married.
Newsflash: the point of marriage is not to have children.
ApeironTanagra 3 years ago 5
artifical births duh.
also its just to show they are discrimanating all couples and marriges do not produce children
infertil, old, and people who just dont want kids marry.
what about atheis they marry
athenarulz1 2 years ago
Goddammit, people are stupid.
I can't believe some of these arguments.
"We could have to teach that gay marriage is just as acceptable as heterosexual marriage!"
I'm so sorry that we need to teach children not to discriminate. Gay marriage-supporters should know better than to want children that aren't ignorant bigots from the beginning. [/sarcasm]
I hate to disappoint (oh wait, no I don't), but when something doesn't effect you, can you think you're doing the right thing by denying rights?
ICallKyo 3 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
fags should not have the right to live, let alone marriage.
GaysRscum 3 years ago
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Middle-Earth Zoo. Please don't feed the troll.
Sourdeed 3 years ago 10
nor should stupid white trash like gaysrscum
obamadidit2008 3 years ago
Where was these videos before prop 8 passed?
HOTnDiZZY 3 years ago
It was actually posted before it passed, but only by a few days.
Sourdeed 3 years ago
Please God... Hurry back. I can't take much more of this ignorant nonsense. I am the product of an inter-racial marriage. People that try to act like inter-racial marriage are just as sick as the people trying to act like Gay Marriage is cool.
Don't believe in God? Cool, God GIVES you that right, there is a price to pay for it which is the only reason anyone gets away with ANYTHING (FOR NOW). I can't wait to leave this Planet. It sucks (literally and figuratively). Swing Down Sweet Chariot.
MTXSHO9732vV8SHO 3 years ago
its swing low you idiot
Metaldude2084 3 years ago
Yeah... Swing Low. Plus, I can say what I feel like saying. Now!
Swing Down Sweet Chariot and let me ride...
I'm not afraid to die or be killed.
MTXSHO9732vV8SHO 3 years ago
did you know that were rascists and using our religion to stop Gods children from being happy!
irishperson101 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Funny gays! Instead of getting their panties all in knots (OWW!!) over marrying, they should concentrate on making us the rest of the world laugh simply by being their naturally funny gay selves
capon33 3 years ago
The disclaimer kinda weakens the whole thing. Trust that people will make the connection themselves, I say.
scottdracula 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
ok you guys jus wana let you no diseases can come from gay sex which means id\f you do decide to have children then they can have a chance of being infected. this can happen 2 ur grandchildren and their children. only there will be a massive decrease in population because GAYS CANT HAVE KIDS! God designed our bodies for man and woman not man and man or woman and woman. so if you have any questions you can go ask a pastor that is walking in the word.
dvelts15 3 years ago
Newsflash: You can get diseases from heterosexual sex too.
More news: Not everyone shares your belief that some deity designed our bodies.
Why do you think there will be a massive decrease in population? Only about 2 to 10 percent of people are gay, and they're gay whether they're allowed to be or not.
ApeironTanagra 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
faggot
Metaldude2084 3 years ago
Strong argument!
ApeironTanagra 3 years ago
perfect reply. the guy who posted that must be an idiot.
its one thing to be against same-sex marriage, but the logic they used.. wtf?
moogle301 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Faggot! fag Fag faggity fag fag! xD
Ignorant Pride Mutha Fucka!
Metaldude2084 3 years ago
"GAYS CANT HAVE KIDS!"
So are you saying that anyone who can't have kids shouldn't marry? Say a woman is infertile and she wants to marry a man, should it be illegal for them to marry then, to?
summzzxoxo 3 years ago 2
you fuckin idiot! gay people are gonna have sex whether or not they are married!
zekekh2fanatic 3 years ago
to all christians who are bashing homosexuality:
Is it not written in the bible to respect and love others thou they differ from your self, more specifically"Your should love thy neighbor"? and that spreading hate is sin? well thats exactually what your doing. Did you ever stop and think that "Hey im hurting/ taking the rights away from one of gods children? Just because they're different from myself?" If you were god would you like your children to be discriminated against? I know i wouldn't.
darknessislove342 3 years ago 3
Pannadol
Gays dont have rights to look forward too.
they have hell! and if your sinning you will too..
repent ask Jesus to save you!
Love God stop sinning
openairpreacher 3 years ago
Go on believing that, just don't force your particular Bronze Age convictions on the rest of us.
If you're so sure about it all, then let God sort it out on Judgment Day. I'll be happy to explain to him exactly why homosexuals deserve equal rights.
ApeironTanagra 3 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Kids deserve a father AND a mother... and Marriage does not deserve to have its definition changed.
The voters in California deserve to have their vote count.
Do you believe in OVERTURNING the will of the people?
FreedomAintFree1 3 years ago
Okay, lets take a quick look at your logic. Lets have some southern states in the U.S. vote on whether marriage between African American men and women should be legal, or if marriage should be redefined as only between Caucasians.
Case in point, you're an idiot.
ddrdan 3 years ago 3
(1) It is your personal conviction that kids deserve/need a male and female caretaker. Plenty of studies have shown that kids with same-sex parents are just as well off. Here in the Netherlands there are plenty of kids raised by gay couples. They're just fine.
(2) 'Marriage' is a concept that can and has been changed. Just like plenty of other words have changed through time.
(3) Democracy is not a tyranny of the majority. Minorities have rights too. The will of the people has limits.
ApeironTanagra 3 years ago 5
openairpreacher,**** u ****ing ***hole stfu!
npgisback 3 years ago
openairpreacher 3 years ago
Haha you're funny - you should totally go on the road with that act, you do such a great impression of a bigot! New York would love you! Seriously, call an agent, that's comedy gold! :-D
Pannadol 3 years ago
Whoa, God sounds like an asshole.
summzzxoxo 3 years ago
there is no hell or heaven...if there was this life would be irrelevant..
but ANYWAYS...gay marriage isnt goig to ruin your own marriage or your "fate"
religious people are so ignorant..(some)
TheWallaceA7X 3 years ago
Eternal life waits for all, which will you choose smoking or non smoking?
Hell is full of hate and agony. With just a tiny bit of wisdom you would not desire to be tormented for all of time.
The lust of this world has stole the blessed life to come that last forever.
Jesus loves you and can save you from evil don't let the devil own you soul. He hates GODs creation that means you. Jesus is the way. 'SOUNDS FROM HELL' go watch the movie youtube search. Please think about it.
dulosforchrist 3 years ago
abortion is no excuse for killing a innocent child.
you will go to hell
repent!
stop sinning
ask Jesus to forgive you
start loving children
openairpreacher 3 years ago
I don't know whether it's funny or sad that I can't even tell whether you're being serious or whether you're joking...
CaptainChaos 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
hehe Gay people Suck!...You think your little gayrriages will happen? hate to burst your bubble but, if a blue state like Cali opposed it...what makes you think other states will welcome fag marriages? HA HAA! im so happy we live in a ignorant Country :D
Metaldude2084 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
YES ON 8 ALL DAY CALIFORNIA DID A GREATT JOB.
I AM A PROUD ASS HOLE GET IT RIGHT GAY IS NOT A CHOICE IT'S WHAT YOUR SICC MIND MAKE YOU THINK THAT and i am tried of people saying they where born gay so you saying god made in perfect people i don't think so.... CONGRADULATIONS ON THE PEOPLE WHO CAME OUT AND VOTE THE RIGHT WAY WHICH WAS yes on 8 and i mean that.one man and one woman let god plan it.. I KNOW YOU GOING TO LASH OUT ON MY COMMENTS SO WHAT I DON'T CARE
MACCAPONE60 3 years ago
Good thing there is a smart country like Canada that stands its ground for freedom and equality in Marriages. Love is Love is Love, who the hell are you to decide.
ScrtSolstice 3 years ago 3
What the Fuck is a Canada?
Metaldude2084 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
WHAT DO WE WANT?
EQUAL RIGHTS FOR HETEROSEXUALS!
WHEN DO WE WANT THEM?
NOW!
copy and paste if you support straight rights!
paperkutz93 3 years ago
straight people already have all the rights they could want you dildo
killwhatyouadore 3 years ago
I support human rights - so yeah, I support heterosexual rights as much as I support gay rights and women's rights and bisexual rights and trans rights and white rights and black rights and latino rights and christian rights and buddhist rights and children's rights and the elderly's rights. We are all human, let's all support each others' rights.
Pannadol 3 years ago 3
Homosexuals are wicked
Liars, thieves ,drug addicts ,ect
God hates wickedness , so then I do too!
all these sinners will go to hell!
Unless they ask Jesus to forgive them!
And turn from sinning and start loving God!
Then mercy will bestowed unto them!
Jesus' love will be there and they will be saved!
openairpreacher 3 years ago
We are not stopping you from believing what you believe. In the real world however, not everyone shares your convictions. If you're so sure about your religion, then let God sort it all out when we day or when Judgment Day comes around. In the meantime, don't discriminate. Don't force your views on others.
ApeironTanagra 3 years ago
Openairpreacher you are fucked.
tpbricknw 3 years ago
openairpreacher, I thought God specifically said that only He judges people? Sheesh. (I'm an Atheist, by the way.) Anyway, if other people 'sin,' why do you care? It isn't affecting you. Have a nice time in Heaven while everyone else parties in Hell. (Even if God does exist, the last thing I wanna do is spend an eternity praising him! That'd get old real fast!)
TechnologyWitch 3 years ago
Jesus commands His people to Judge;
John 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.\\
Paul said judge;
1 Corinthians 5:13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person
. 1 Corinthians 6:2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?
openairpreacher 3 years ago
When you're recording a voice over, not only do you not want to speak directly into the mic, but it helps to maybe speak through a shirt or piece of fabric softener. Nothing makes a video with a great point more unwatchable than mistakes like that.
omgwtfwhoami 3 years ago
This is not about civil rights, since most of the public is ready to give gays the same rights as married couples. This is about changing the definition of the word "marriage." You do not have the right to change the definition of the word, any more than I have the right to declare that from now on "blue" is the same thing as "red," and therefore the sky is red. Marriage is between a human man and a human woman, period. Gays can have something similar, but they cannot have the word "marriage."
sgtdraino 3 years ago
Atrocious reasoning. Here's the exact same argument, using a different word:
"This is about changing the definition of the word 'citizen'. Citizenship is the status of American-born adult white males, period. Blacks can have something similar, but they cannot have the word 'citizen'."
Basically you're not giving a single argument. You're only restating your position that "gays can't use this word, because I say so!". All you are doing is admitting that you want them to be unequal.
ApeironTanagra 3 years ago
People invented the word, they can change it however they want. There are a great many words that no longer mean what they once did.
studylight. org/dic/kjd/ has a list of over 800 such words.
lovesshredbutcant 3 years ago
Sure. But the evolution of word meanings cannot be forced, it's something that happens naturally as society evolves. Maybe someday society will think that "marriage" does not involve gender, but today is not that day, and nobody has the right (or ability) to force society to change the way it defines the word.
sgtdraino 3 years ago
That is like saying "let's wait a while to remove slavery, until society is ready...let's not doing anything about it". There is active discrimination going on, so we must fight it.
If society thought that torture was justified, then it would be wrong. If society thinks that inequality is ok, then it is wrong. Democracy should not be a tyranny of the majority. Minority rights have to be protected as well.
ApeironTanagra 3 years ago
How do you measure when it is ready? Over 40% of California voted against prop 8.
lovesshredbutcant 3 years ago
Listen, these people already have the same rights as us.... They get benefits when their partner dies and all that jazz. Now all they want is for it to be called "marriage" WHO GIVES A FLYING FUDGENUGGET WHAT IT"S CALLED?!
All democrats want is more, more, more, more for ME.
Ya'll need to cool your heels, and just be happy with what you have.
jstardude 3 years ago
Separate but equal huh? If you'd know anything about history, you would know that we've tried that in the past and it didn't exactly work.
Your argument boils down to "they shouldn't get the word marriage because they're gay". Since it's equality we're after, and since you don't care what it is called, I suggest that government does not recognize any marriage whatsoever. Only registered partnerships. Remove all legal recognition of the term 'marriage'.
ApeironTanagra 3 years ago
You didnt answer my question, why do you want it to be called marriage if you already get all the benefits in your civil union!
jstardude 3 years ago
I did in fact answer your question. I pointed out that what you are suggesting is the "separate but equal"-hypocrisy. History has clearly demonstrated how atrocious an idea that is.
Furthermore, marriage is a meaningful word. Gay couples want to be able to get married. Denying them that is simple discrimination. How would you feel if we'd take away your right to get married, replacing it with similar benefits? It's a whole different thing when you're on the receiving end of discrimination.
ApeironTanagra 3 years ago
There is no "right to marry." Many people want to marry, but never get to. Marriage is a meaningful word, but history & society says it doesn't mean what you want it to mean. 2 men can't get "married" just as 1 man can't get pregnant. The word doesn't apply. You want to change the definition, but society isn't ready. So you want to force change using courts. But changing a word's meaning isn't a civil rights issue. You can't force society to think differently, that can only happen naturally.
sgtdraino 3 years ago
What makes you think there is no "right to marry"? That is an easily refutable position: plenty of couples are getting married right now. They certainly have the right to get married if they want to. Therefore, gay couples should get that same right.
I've already refuted your "history & society says..." argument. History and society said that citizenship was reserved for whites. They said voting was only for adult white males. They said education was only for the elite. Your argument fails.
ApeironTanagra 3 years ago
If each person has a "right to marry," then the government is responsible for providing them a partner. This does not happen, not everybody who wants to, gets to, therefore marriage is not a right. It is a priviledge that not everybody can have. As for citizenship, that word's definition has nothing to do with gender (or race), whereas the definition of marriage does involve gender. I demonstrated that with dictionary references. Your argument fails.
sgtdraino 3 years ago
You are arguing against a straw man: I have never claimed that each person has a right to marry. I claim that adult couples have the right to do so. Rights are not always bestowed on individuals, they can belong to groups too (communal rights), and in the case of marriage the right belongs to couples.
You can't deny this, because it is so blatantly obvious: if an adult man and woman want to get married, then they can. Because they have the *right* to.
ApeironTanagra 3 years ago
Sure I can. An adult man and an adult woman do not have the right to marry each other... if they are brother and sister, father and daughter, etc. Society and our government are empowered to put restrictions on who can marry, because as I said, marriage is a privilege, not a right.
sgtdraino 3 years ago
You're failing at logic again. The reason that some adult couples are not allowed to get married is because of the harm that it can cause to others, such as the genetic problems caused by an incestuous coupling.
Since gay marriage does no harm to others, there is no reason to stop it from happening.
If government and society were to say "Christians can't get married, because it is a privilege we don't want them to have", you'd be screaming your lungs out.
ApeironTanagra 3 years ago
Secondly, the definition of citizenship *used to* have to do with race. The definition of democracy *used to* have to do with gender. Not anymore though, that's the point!
Just as voting rights used to be restricted to males only, and just as access to education used to be restricted to the elite, so is marriage currently restricted to heterosexuals. This obvious discrimination won't stand of course.
ApeironTanagra 3 years ago
You are confusing the definiton of a word, with elligibility. The definition of "citizen" remains unchanged. Who is elligible to become a citizen HAS changed. For example, the definition of "credit card" is different from who is elligible to GET a credit card. With marriage, gender is part of the definition of the word, before you ever get to who is deemed elligible to marry.
sgtdraino 3 years ago
This is just semantics. You are pretending that the definition of marriage incorporates eligibility, whereas the definitions of citizenship or democracy don't. That's twisting the facts to suit your own needs.
Society long held that the definition of democracy was that adult tax-paying males would vote on government. This definition changed to "the right of adult citizens to vote". It changed to remove discrimination, just as marriage has to change to remove discrimination.
ApeironTanagra 3 years ago
Debating abortion can be done with other vids, not this one. This one is about gay marriage. Of course you can compare same sex marriage with something else, but not with abortion.
So what are your arguments (or your best one) against same sex marriage? Because I haven't heard one yet and I don't think anyone else posted a valid one anywhere else here.
Sabbieboeboe 3 years ago
You and aperiontanagra have choosen to deem any and all arguments not valid. Restating your opposing view and claiming by fiat that therefore the opposing view is invalid does not lead to a win at the ballot box.
combatoverridebutton 3 years ago
Just give me an argument.
Sabbieboeboe 3 years ago
Why should the govt be in the business of decreeing who can/cannot be married? Govt has imposed itself on this social contract, the oldest from of social union. No one should have-or need to have-state sanction for a private relationship. The modern mistake is to think that important things must be planned, sponsored, reviewed, or licensed by the govt. My argument: get govt out of marriages and move to contracts as befits a secular, individualist republic at the dawn of the information age.
combatoverridebutton 3 years ago
That's a good argument, and it is one that I fully agree with. It is not an argument in favour of Proposition 8 however, so you still have not provided a reason to deny gays their equal rights.
For matters such as taxes, inheritance, care/responsibility of/for kids, hospital visitation etc. it is clear that some form of registration for partners needs to occur. No need for that to be marriage.
The problem is that right now it IS called marriage by the law, and that only hetero's can get it.
ApeironTanagra 3 years ago
So you agree that the Govt should be involved in the first place but believe that you should make a bad situation worse out of fairness? No thanks. I want to stop it, not expand it.
combatoverridebutton 3 years ago
I agree that government should refrain from recognizing "marriage". It should however register partnerships - for reasons I mentioned (tax, inheritance etc.).
Since that is not the case however, there is an inequality. You are proposing to continue that inequality, to continue the discrimination.
ApeironTanagra 3 years ago
I won't expand something I disagree with in the interest of fairness.
combatoverridebutton 3 years ago
So if your position was:
"The government shouldn't be involved in education"
and current law was
"Blacks can't get access to public education"
and there was a proposition to
"Allow blacks equal access to public education"
...then you would vote against that proposition.
ApeironTanagra 3 years ago
No, my position is that govt shouldn't sanction marriage and give special rights to anyone couple. It is discriminatory to those who choose not to get married.
combatoverridebutton 3 years ago
Yes, I get that position. I do think that hospital visitation rights, inheritance, and parenthood should be things that should be registered however. Not by calling it marriage, but some form of registration is necessary.
ApeironTanagra 3 years ago
Sure. Make it a private contract between two individuals. If they wanted to contract for a traditional breadwinner/homemaker setup, with specified rules for property and alimony in the event of divorce, they could do so. Less traditional couples could keep assets separate and agree to share specified expenses. Those with assets to protect could sign prenuptial agreements that courts would respect. Contracts could be as individually tailored as other contracts are in our diverse capitalist world.
combatoverridebutton 3 years ago
Another problem with this position: voting "yes on 8" actually did exactly that. Expanding marriage law. Now the state constitution defines exactly what it recognizes as marriage. Not a smart move to vote "yes" if your argument against gay marriage relies on "government shouldn't be involved in marriage anyway" (which is an extremely poor argument because it ignores reality and upholds discrimination among other problems).
ApeironTanagra 3 years ago
If my choices are upholding discrimination or expanding it, Ill vote for upholding it. One of the frustrations with being a libertarian is that the solutions are not very implementable in the real world where everyone is grabbing for their perceived govt rights. It is my hope that the marriage issue will be so divisive that people will be forced to come up with a better solution. Prop 8 won't last forever- the demogrphs are against them- maybe 8yrs. Those for 8 will have to find a compromise.
combatoverridebutton 3 years ago
Again: "yes on 8" actually means increasing government involvement in marriage, since it puts an official definition of what marriages to recognize in the state constitution. If your argument for denying gays the right to marry relies solely on not wanting the government to involve itself in marriage, then you should have voted against a proposition that puts more stuff about marriage in the constitution.
ApeironTanagra 3 years ago
Obviously I see it differently. Prop 8 clarifies the existing discriminatory law. The courts expanded the discriminatory law by allowing more people to participate in marriage. A no vote would have affirmed that expansion.
combatoverridebutton 3 years ago
Anyone reading the comments on this video can easily see that this is not true. We have not simply "deemed" any argument "not valid". We have demonstrated why they are not valid. Huge difference there.
You keep acting as if all we do is say "no, you're wrong". Since we're actively answering all the "yes on 8"-arguments we are clearly doing a lot more than that.
ApeironTanagra 3 years ago
My intent is not to debate abortion but to demonstrate thru analogy that society decides to discriminate on many issues: whether a person shall live or not live based on an arbitrary point in time, if a person is a person or what *rights* a person has. Without the recognition of this, arguing against prop 8 solely because it is discrimination is going to fail. Of course it is discrimination. The debate is what is acceptable and the consequences of that decision.
combatoverridebutton 3 years ago
Since I've already explained this a dozen times, I know that you still won't understand it. Nevertheless, I'm going to explain this to you again.
The abortion debate is not analogous to the gay marriage debate. This is because in the abortion debate the question is whether fetuses are human, and whether they are capable of possessing rights. These questions are of no concern in the gay marriage debate.
ApeironTanagra 3 years ago
let me start off saying i have nothing against gays or lesibians if 8 didn't pass it wouldn't have bother me none. I did vote yes on 8 simple because i'm religious in beleive in what god has said in the bible i see protest in the aftermath putting what they want to quote from the bible leaving out other parts to justify their cause. Plus i don't like when they compare it to civil rights how can you compare the two you can be gay,vote,work and be what you wanna be except merry.
trustworthy31 3 years ago
You seem to have done a great job at giving your post and vote absolutely no thought. Next time you vote in favour of discrimination, please stop and think about what you're doing.
It's fine that you believe your Bronze Age deity gets upset over people's sexual preference. It's not fine for you to enforce discrimination based on that believe.
ApeironTanagra 3 years ago 2
Insulting people's religion, stating that they haven't given their position any thought and claiming they are discriminating helped galvanized support for the proposition.
Perhaps they did give it thought and came to a different conclusion than you and decided to vote for what has been common knowledge since the begining of time.
Trying to force change before society is ready has halted the movement.
combatoverridebutton 3 years ago
Thanks for proving me right with your ignorant post. Some major flaws in your text:
(1) Religion should have nothing to do with it. Any human being with the slightest sense of decency would refrain from forcing his subjective views on others.
(2) What on Earth makes you think that gay marriage did not occur in antiquity?
(3) Stating that people who voted 'yes' gave their vote no thought is doing them a favour. If they did consider it, then they consciously chose to discriminate.
ApeironTanagra 3 years ago
Ignorant post? LOL. In your narrow mind, anyone that doesnt think like you do is ignorant, has no decency and doesnt have any thought to the issue. I am very thankful for you angry, presumptive and pompous voters that do more to turn people away than you do to win the debate in the arena of ideas. As a result you now have an updated State Constitution. In your own pompous mind you think you have been proven right but (how nice to be your own judge), fool that you are, you have lost the war.
combatoverridebutton 3 years ago
Yes, you made a very ignorant post. You did so again I might add.
Anyone voting in favour of taking away the rights of a group of people is indeed a bigot and has no decency, or otherwise hasn't bothered to think about what they were doing.
If you don't understand why equal rights matter, why the current inequality is discrimination, and why people get angry about discrimination, then you have a lot of learning to do.
ApeironTanagra 3 years ago
If you don't understand the power of persuasion and how insults don't help, you'll continue to lose the debate.
Smug self righteousness doesn't win the vote. You lost the debate... who has a lot of learning?
combatoverridebutton 3 years ago
Removing discrimination is not merely an "invented right", no matter how desperately you'll try to see it that way.
Opposing discrimination is not "smug self-righteousness", it is what any ethical human being should do.
Your way of arguing is absurd. Whether we lost the vote or not is completely irrelevant in regards to whether we are right or not. People who voted 'yes' are ignorant, bigots, or both. They're in the wrong, and history will clearly judge them so.
ApeironTanagra 3 years ago
No desperation here. Honestly.
Indeed, opposing discrimination is not smug self-righteousness. Being convinced of one's own righteousness especially in contrast with the actions and beliefs of others is the very definition of self-righteousness.
combatoverridebutton 3 years ago
If fiscal conservatives called for lower taxes for those that pay the most and their only argument was that to not agree with this position is discrimination and bigotry (intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices), do you think wed ever have a tax cut? And if they just yelled at those that disagree and called them ignorant because they didnt see that it is clearly wrong for 25% of the population to pay 86% of the taxes? Berating and insulting your opponent doesn't work.
combatoverridebutton 3 years ago
What an absurd straw man argument you're constructing here. Don't pretend that 'insulting' the 'yes'-voters is all I'm doing.
(1) Read all my comments on this video. As you can see, I've demolished every attempt at an argument in favour of Prop 8.
(2) Telling someone who actively opposes gay rights that he is intolerant is not insulting him, it's calling things what they are.
The analogy in your comment makes no sense whatsoever.
ApeironTanagra 3 years ago
You are clearly convinced that you are right and just as convinced that you have beat any opposing argument... but haven't convinced anyone of anything (to your way of thinking or that you have won the argument). Pssst- stating an argument is a stawman that is absurd isn't "demolishing" an argument... it is a deflection.
combatoverridebutton 3 years ago
Yes, I am convinced that I am right. I happen to be convinced that discrimination is bad. You clearly disagree, since you so vocally support denying people equal rights.
Since there isn't a single argument in favour of denying gays the right to marry still standing, my side has won the argument. Can you find even one argument in all the hundreds of comments here that supports a 'yes'-vote yet went unanswered?
ApeironTanagra 3 years ago
Okay, I've read you comments over the past 4 days. Here are you arguments that "demolished" any attempt to oppose you: "Absurd, strawman, bigot, no sense, ignorant, no decency, you have learning to do, irrelevant, history will judge you, believe your bonze age diety, forcing views, dumb, psychological, unbelievable, nonsense, not valid, ludicrous, hate".
combatoverridebutton 3 years ago
Weak attempt at dodging my criticism. I did not ask for you to extremely selectively quote my posts. I asked for you to provide a single "Yes on 8"-argument that went unanswered.
ApeironTanagra 3 years ago
Those WERE your arguments. That wasn't an extreme selection... it represents the body of your arguments.
combatoverridebutton 3 years ago
One more time: that's NOT what I asked for. I asked you to provide "yes on 8" arguments which didn't get demolished. All attempts at arguments so far have been. Examples:
"It's unnatural"
- Invalid because (a) human behavior isn't constrained by what is natural, marriage is a good example of something unnatural AND (b) homosexuality frequently occurs in nature
"It goes against tradition"
- So did female suffrage, abolishing slavery etc.
ApeironTanagra 3 years ago
Many things occur in nature- murder, theft, etc... but society has imposed restrictions and penalties on behavior in humans.
combatoverridebutton 3 years ago
-_-
...I am NOT arguing "homosexuality is ok because it occurs in nature". Don't respond as if that is my point. I was arguing that "homosexuality is unnatural" is a very bad argument, partially because it is in fact natural.
ApeironTanagra 3 years ago
Sorry, when you wrote that the unnatural argument is invalid because (b) homosexuality frequently occurs in nature I thought you were making the argument that homosexuality is ok because it occurs in nature. Seemed pretty straight forward to me. It still does. But this is a sidebar anyhow because I dont take unnatural position.
combatoverridebutton 3 years ago
You still don't understand what I was saying there? The initial post was quite clear, and the subsequent clarification should have removed all confusion.
Once again:
I gave an example of one of the hilariously bad arguments against homosexuality. The argument that it is 'unnatural'. I explained why that argument fails. One reason it fails is that homosexuality is in fact natural. So, again, I am NOT arguing that this means homosexuality is good. Only that the "unnatural" argument fails.
ApeironTanagra 3 years ago
Anyway, back on topic. You have still not produced a single argument in favour of denying gays their equal rights.
ApeironTanagra 3 years ago
Here's another "strawman". There are many people believe abortion is murder. Clearly the unborn is alive. Society (and the courts) have arbitrarily said killing the unborn in the third trimester is okay but in the second is wrong. What about their civil rights? Isnt society imposing their views on them? A small majority decided it is okay to kill a living being the ultimate in discrimination.
combatoverridebutton 3 years ago
(1) You seem to not understand what 'straw man' means.
(2) Society is not imposing its views on pro-lifers. Why not? Because no-one is forced to get an abortion! If you oppose abortion, then don't get one. Provide alternatives. Explain your view. You're free to do all that.
If you fail to understand why "Yes on 8" constitutes forcing your view on others, and why allowing abortions doesn't, then you fail to grasp a very elementary part of this debate.
ApeironTanagra 3 years ago
(1) more insults
(2) I am talking about the rights of the person getting aborted.
combatoverridebutton 3 years ago
(1) Again you fail to understand the distinction between calling something what it is, and insults. Pointing out that you seem to misunderstand what a straw-man is, is not an insult. It is merely stating an observation.
(2) The problem with your (2) obviously is that the whole point of the discussion about abortion is the definition of "person". It's not the definition of "life" that matters, it's the definition of "human".
ApeironTanagra 3 years ago
(2) Sure. And society has made an arbitrary decision to say that the life is a person one day where the day before it is not. And the implications of that decision is the ability to kill the life. The point being that society decides what is acceptable/unacceptable. Society imposes its view on others. Society discriminates. And in order to truly win the debate you have to change society. Calling them murders or, in your case, bigots, hasnt worked.
combatoverridebutton 3 years ago
As I have explained elsewhere, the two debates can not be compared.
Homosexuals are being denied their rights. The rights they are due as human beings.
You would argue that aborted fetuses are also being denied their rights. Therefore you say the debates are similar. This is quite clearly wrong. The debates are completely different, because it is exactly the question of whether fetuses are capable of having rights that is central in the abortion debate.
ApeironTanagra 3 years ago
No, it is not CLEARLY wrong. It is only clear in YOUR mind that it is wrong because of your private views (which you wish to impose on others, much like those of Prop 8 have done to homosexuals). Simply because you chose to view an unborn as not human does not allow you to escape the argument of whether they have rights anymore than those that think homosexuality is a mental disorder allows them to escape the argument of them being allowed to be married. Thats changing the terms of the debate.
combatoverridebutton 3 years ago
It is so extremely annoying to argue with people who don't read or understand the posts of people that disagree with them.
(1) The abortion debate centers on whether or not fetuses are human.
(2) The gay marriage debate centers on whether or not all humans should have equal rights.
The two debates are about different questions. Now stop your off-topic ranting and come with your arguments in favour of denying homosexuals equal rights. I've asked you for them many posts ago.
ApeironTanagra 3 years ago
You have choosen to define the debate to suit your needs. I believe that this is one of the reasons the 'no on 8' groups have failed. They argue on their own terms and ignore the opposing views. Which means they aren't even engaging/debating. Which is fine if you already have the votes to win. But if you don't, you must engage the debate on the terms of the majority in order to change minds.
combatoverridebutton 3 years ago
I've asked you time and again for your arguments in favour of denying gays equal rights. You simply won't give any.
Stating that we define the debate to suit our own needs is yet another absurd allegation from you. I've replied to all the 'yes on 8' arguments that have been offered.
ApeironTanagra 3 years ago
(3) Clearly plants are alive. Is agriculture murder?
Pointing out that something is alive means little. The issue with abortion is the definition of 'human being'. It's not about what constitutes 'life', it's about what constitutes 'human'. Again you seem to misunderstand a fundamental aspect of a major debate.
(4) This is extremely off-topic.
ApeironTanagra 3 years ago
(3) A baby is a plant?
It is a human being. To say otherwise is simply imposing your view on others. It is clearly arbitrary when one day it is illegal and the next day it is not.
(4) Not off topic. Society imposes it's views on others all the time. Society decides what is okay and what is not. This is a perfect example.
combatoverridebutton 3 years ago
(3) Good job at AGAIN constructing a straw-man argument. You really have a poor grasp of logic and argumentation!
I did not say a baby is a plant. I demonstrated why your "but it is alive"-argument fails. A plant shares that characteristic with a baby, therefore that can't be the crux. Get it now?
(4) No, it is completely different. Allowing abortion does not force it's opponents to get abortions. Banning gay marriage DOES force a view on it's proponents. Huge difference.
ApeironTanagra 3 years ago
(4) Abortion clearly forces views (and by default, actions) on the unborn.
combatoverridebutton 3 years ago
...and the whole issue concerning abortion is whether or not we're dealing with humans there. The two cases are completely incomparable. With abortion the argument is about whether fetuses are human beings capable of having rights in the first place. With gay marriage the issue is whether homosexuals should be given equal rights. The issue is not whether they are able to have those rights. Completely different cases, and really quite obviously so.
ApeironTanagra 3 years ago
I see them as a very similar. With abortion, some believe that the unborn is a human entitled to full and equal rights. Those opposed not only say the unborn doesnt have equal rights but go a step further and say it is not even human. At least with homosexuality it is generally accepted that they are entitled to full rights (as classically known) and the debate is only in the nuance of a social institution (now rebranded as a Right).
combatoverridebutton 3 years ago
I've now explained several times why the two are different. People, like myself, in favour of allowing abortion do not say "the unborn don't have rights AND they're not even human anyway". Rather we say "the unborn don't have rights BECAUSE they're not human".
That is clearly not the case with homosexuality. With abortion the debate is about the question "what is human". With gay marriage the debate is about the question "should gays get the same rights as other people". Huge difference there.
ApeironTanagra 3 years ago
The two are clearly different. I hope you agree with me that with gays there is no debate about whether they are counted as "human life" or not... :/ Which is what the debate on abortion really is about.
This is not the case with gay marriage. With that it is simply about giving them the same rights as heterosexuals.
I just barged in this discussion, could you post your reason for being against same-sex marriages (which I assume you are)?
Sabbieboeboe 3 years ago
"vote my way or you're a bigot!"
Obviously that campaign did work so well.
combatoverridebutton 3 years ago
You seem to be talking about a different proposition 8. This one eliminated the rights of gay couples to get married. That's discrimination. It's pretty simple, even though you seem unable to grasp it.
ApeironTanagra 3 years ago
Actually it RESTORED things to the way they were before 4 judges decided to INVENT a "right" from the bench just months earlier. And now it is untouchable by judges. You'll now have to work on your powers of persuasion instead of insults. Good luck.
combatoverridebutton 3 years ago
cheese video
JUNIORTHREE 3 years ago
I just got this message from jstardude.
We are not judging them in any way shape or form. If you want to be gay, be gay, but do not get married and do not engage in homosexual activities.
It's their choice if they want to be gay. I don't see how my best friend being gay and getting married to his lover affects you in any way.
When do we get to vote on your marriage? It's unconstitutional. My cousin is overseas getting shot at to defend freedoms that we are watching fade.
I'm disgusted.
abstraktmetal 3 years ago
if you dont mind i like to point out why it passed. Gavin Newsom...The way they used him on the pro prop 8 commercials...Ill be driving then i hear the pro prop 8 commercial "WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT!"... I wanted to vote so bad on yes do to his arrogance in his voice...what a tool...But at the polls i think i made the right decision...its kind of wierd how for a state that voted democrat this prop passed...imagine a republican state?...whatever...I just hope things turn out good in the future
Alemirex 3 years ago
Ok...I still think homosexuality is wrong and it can be cured somehow....but...I still voted No on 8...looks like there was more people voting yes than i thought...It doesnt matter really if they have the same rights as us. I never got mugged or assaulted by a homosexual so why would i do them any harm right?...Im so sorry that they banned Gay marriages but can you please stop protesting on the streets...if im late one more time im fired^^...im sure this will be lifted someday so chill out guys.
Alemirex 3 years ago
But we can not wait til someday cause tomorrow is as good a day as any to be someday!
Also if your late to work because of protests you need to take the side streets. gezz man what do you do during the marathon.
bleudarkheart 3 years ago
call in sick :P
Alemirex 3 years ago
if i had a gay kid i'd Kill it!
Metaldude2084 3 years ago
hehehe
jstardude 3 years ago
Eff prop 8. Gays deserve