I do not have the desire to fit in paragraph after paragraph of my argument for your amusement. What I have to offer is a gift in my eyes because of the nature my information. I have down this a lot long than you have and I am tired of going about it that way. If you want to display my argument after I give it in PM, then I don't care. But that's it. I see no know reason why it has to be any other way.
Absolutely great interview. It is a fact that denial of marriage equality has a negative impact on our families. It is also a fact that allowing us to marry would have absolutely no negative impact on anyone else. It's time for America to step out of the dark ages on this issue.
@Bearograp nobody's forcing gays to deny their attractions or raiding gay marriages in churches. Gays can freely express their feelings of love in a church and get all the benefits that come with marriage through civil unions down the future. however, as soon as you step outside the private realm of RELIGIOUS marriage and enter into the public sphere of CIVIL marriage, you are subject to the law and public opinion or vote because civil marriage is about public policy.
your analogy to homosexuality and race is misguided. Being gay may not be a choice but marriage is ALWAYS a choice and that's why we are here. the government doesn't ask you whether you are gay or straight. sexual orientation has nothing to do with the issue.you can't compare an immutable characteristic (race, gender, etc) to somebody's behavior. A lifestyle is not a minority. Jews, blacks, and women were discriminated against for who they were not for who they were having sex with.
Okay, America. We've done women's rights, black rights, and aboriginal rights (mostly, anyways). It's time to include gay rights. Canada made same-sex marriage legally federally over six years ago, and I'm very lucky to live here. But the U.S.A. is supposed to be the land of the free. Couldn't you move a little further towards such a simple concept? Marriage is between two consenting adults that are in love. How can you possibly ban something as beautiful as that?
nobody's forcing gays to deny their attractions or raiding gay marriages in churches. gays can freely express their feelings of love in a church and get all the benefits that come with marriage through civil unions down the future. however, as soon as you step outside the private realm of RELIGIOUS marriage and enter into the public sphere of CIVIL marriage, you are subject to the law and public opinion or vote because civil marriage is about public policy.
your analogy to homosexuality and race is misguided. Being gay may not be a choice but marriage is ALWAYS a choice and that's why we are here. the government doesn't ask you whether you are gay or straight. sexual orientation has nothing to do with the issue.you can't compare an immutable characteristic (race, gender, etc) to somebody's behavior. A lifestyle is not a minority. Jews, blacks, and women were discriminated against for who they were not for who they were having sex with.
@kenballer00 Yes, marriage is a choice. But it is also a right, at least for law-abiding citizens and other requirements. For a government to include "one man and one woman" into those requirements is a violation to the rights of the LGBT community, which counts as a minority because we were born this way. The right thing to do if you're gay is not to suppress those feelings and marry someone you don't love. It is injust to say to someone, "You can pretend to get married. but it doesn't count."
gays and lesbians have always been allowed to marry someone of the opposite-sex for the purpose of responsible procreation and rearing of children according to over a centuries worth of federal constitutional law. What your proposing we do is create extra special rights that exist outside the constitution and common sense to take care of a PERSONAL issue and accomodate the few instead of the greater good.
@kenballer00 Of course they've always been allowed to marry people of the opposite sex. What I am proposing is not extra special rights, because this would be allowing them to have the same rights as everyone else: the right to marry th person you love. Would you be satisfied if you were told you have the right to marry someone within your race, when you love a person of a different race? No, neither would I.
Your operating on a false premise. The state is not there to issue love licenses. The only purpose of civil marriage is to promote the continuation of society. We don't allow same sex marriage for the same reason we don't allow incest and polygamy. This is why it is a privilege, hence the word "license", because the state does have a right to discriminate against those type of relationships for legitimate state interests and not against interracial marriage because it affirms marriage.
Give me a good reason to believe that allowing gays to marry will have a negative effect on " the continuation of society" (as if people don't do anything else in bed.)
Sure, I actually can probably fullfill your request. However, If you want "good" reason and not just any reason, then I would have to give you my arguments in Private message. In addition, I actually don't think allowing gays to marry will have a negative effect because nobody is physically stopping them from getting married in the first place. But when it comes to redefining marriage to just two people, I think the negative effect is inconcievable.
Alright, forget it. I have no desire to squeeze in what I have to offer in a small space. I am here for serious conversation not games or persuading biased gay activist who have alterior motives.
Second, I don't know what institution you are referring to but it certainly is not marriage at least in this country and before it.
Serious conversations such as this one belong in the public sphere, so I see no reason why you should dodge the issue. Space? You can put your whole argument in different comments. It's not rocket science.
-"... persuading biased gay activist... "-
This gay activist was interested in having a conversation until you got pissed off for no reason.
federal constitutional law has been consistent throughout the history of marriage ranging from plural marriage ( Murphy v. Ramsey), from interracial marriage (Loving v Virginia), to even same sex marriage (Baker v. Nelson) that marriage is between one man and one woman and the purpose of it is to PROMOTE responsible procreation and rearing of children into a monogamous environment where there is two biological married parents.
gay marriage is about being able to visit people you love in the hospital or rights that are allowed other heterosexual rights in marriage. How would you feel if you had a child and had to adopt your own child in order to have any legal rights to protect or love that child?
what 2 people choose to do with their life is none of the governments business. Many other nations around the world do not make a big deal out of this, why do they care here? Let them get married. Its not like it hurts anyone or forces anyone to do anything they don't want to do. This is stupid.
The reason we have a system of checks and balances is so that majority groups cannot oppress minority groups by using voting power. The judicial system has overturned votes because the votes facilitated discrimination, which the judges (and many others) believe that is inherently unconstitutional.
These gentlemen are taking the risk of beeing assumed to be gay themselves because they defend gays rights. I don`t konw if they are or aren`t.... And I don`t care. Thanks to all politicians for having the guts to speak on this issue in this supporting way.
You know I had a thought... Isn't enforcing the bible's commentary about man/woman argument against this a serious violation of separation of church and state?
Maybe I'm wrong but that DOES seem to lean a bit hard on enforcing biblical law over american law.
It's "no big government, let the corporations control you, not the government." Still think it's funny that "small government" always seems to be the bigger brother. Pretty sure the Clinton administration wasn't copying all net traffic..
Society should apply things to all it's members. This is really no different at all to saying black and white people can't marry. The common "slippery slope" argument is strawman and ignorant at it's best. People cannot help the way they are born, homosexuality is proven genetic, whereas the "slope" cites things stemming from mental disorders such as bestiality and necrophilia.
Really, Mormons are a growing opinion pool, will they ban monogamy in favor of polygamy?
I understand people cant help the way there born. But thats irrelevant. Becayse were talking about getting marraied. Which isn't behavior at all, but an act...
bottom line 99% of the world isn't gay. For us to find there behavior odd makes perfect sense. Marriage is a straight thing. For us to have a say in is appropriate.
Actually 20-30% by overall statistics, not 1. It's only 1% in places where it's punishable by death, like Uganda and Arkansas.
And marriage is the social acceptance of a pairing, always has been, and to ban it for some people is to deny them what is commonly seen as human right in the free world.
Really, when we open things up to "well we think that is weird so stop it", you open Pandora's box. I think everyone knows how well prohibition in the 20's worked.
And when it's decided to deny people something based on the objections of a segment, it's very relevant. Be it an open vote or government decision, it's the same thing. The only real difference is getting plastered isn't usually seen as a human right. The only reason things should be banned is because they do harm, to the user or to others. It's simple discrimination in the case of Gay marriage.
we may not live in a theocracy, but we do live in a democracy. the first amendment does not apply to voters. Pastors, clergy, and religious leaders have every right to convey and express their moral vision onto their community and into the voting process. Prop 8 ,or any other amendment, would not did not and does not undermine the constitution because the government didn't put it into law, the people did, and whether they voted for it on religious grounds is no one's business but their own
@kenballer00 A majority of the south once considered interracial marriage wrong. Does that make it right to make interracial marriage illegal?
The point is that these laws infringe on the personal rights of people who have done nothing to deserve such discrimination. Not from a secular standpoint, at least.
How do you infringe on a right that doesn't even exist in the first place?
gays and lesbians have always been allowed to marry someone of the opposite-sex for the purpose of responsible procreation and rearing of children which is what the state promotes according to over a centuries worth of federal constitutional law. What your proposing we do is create extra special rights that exist outside the constitution and common sense.
@kenballer00 It is not just child-rearing that marriage is used for (although if gay couples are allowed to adopt, they could raise children too.) It's a social contract where two people agree to live together and stay together, love each other "until death" and all that good stuff. Otherwise, what would you say to hetero couples who choose to not have children?
The state is not there to issue love licenses. The only purpose of civil marriage is to PROMOTE responsible procreation and rearing of children. The same reason we don't allow same sex marriage is the same reason we don't allow incest and polygamist marriages. This is why it is a privilege, hence the word "license", because the state does have a right to discriminate against those type of relationships( not individuals) for legitimate state interests.
We can always make sure that civil unions have all the same rights (including adoption) down the future without having to redefining marriage for everyone.
@kenballer00 Or we could give them those same rights now. Marriage was defined solely as man and woman from the religious perspective. What is happening now is an attempt to narrow the definition on all levels.
We can argue about the state's interest and reproduction, but it comes down to the social aspect. I used to think "why can't they be satisfied with civil union?" too, but now I think "if I wouldn't be satisfied with a civil union why should I ask someone else to be?"
The state is not there to issue love licenses. The only purpose of civil marriage is to PROMOTE responsible procreation and rearing of children. The same reason we don't allow same sex marriage is the same reason we don't allow incest and polygamist marriages. This is why it is a privilege, hence the word "license", because the state does have a right to discriminate against those type of relationships( not individuals) for legitimate state interests.
Before governments risen, marriage was AND still is a religious ceremonial rite, which beneath the First Amendment, the USG has no business legislating against... To define marriage as being between ONE man and ONE woman violates my religious freedoms, and the religious freedoms of all those who do not follow one religion!
I've always been baffled by the "no more big government, unless it's keeping gay people from getting married" stance of the current conservative movement.
How about the "No governement spending unless it's on a war fought miles away that kills thousands of our soldiers and has no clear goals what so ever?" I find that pretty baffling too!
I do not have the desire to fit in paragraph after paragraph of my argument for your amusement. What I have to offer is a gift in my eyes because of the nature my information. I have down this a lot long than you have and I am tired of going about it that way. If you want to display my argument after I give it in PM, then I don't care. But that's it. I see no know reason why it has to be any other way.
kenballer00 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kenballer00
-"I do not have the desire to fit in paragraph after paragraph of my argument for your amusement."-
Fair enough, did it occur to you that I have no interest in reading an enormous PM(s)?
-"I have down this a lot long than you have... "-
That's funny, I never knew that we were acquaintances. Oh, that's right, you know zilch of what I've researched/read about. Sheesh.
JonathanTheAlchemist 2 months ago
Absolutely great interview. It is a fact that denial of marriage equality has a negative impact on our families. It is also a fact that allowing us to marry would have absolutely no negative impact on anyone else. It's time for America to step out of the dark ages on this issue.
TrevorBlack79 5 months ago
@Bearograp nobody's forcing gays to deny their attractions or raiding gay marriages in churches. Gays can freely express their feelings of love in a church and get all the benefits that come with marriage through civil unions down the future. however, as soon as you step outside the private realm of RELIGIOUS marriage and enter into the public sphere of CIVIL marriage, you are subject to the law and public opinion or vote because civil marriage is about public policy.
kenballer00 8 months ago
@Bea
your analogy to homosexuality and race is misguided. Being gay may not be a choice but marriage is ALWAYS a choice and that's why we are here. the government doesn't ask you whether you are gay or straight. sexual orientation has nothing to do with the issue.you can't compare an immutable characteristic (race, gender, etc) to somebody's behavior. A lifestyle is not a minority. Jews, blacks, and women were discriminated against for who they were not for who they were having sex with.
kenballer00 8 months ago
Okay, America. We've done women's rights, black rights, and aboriginal rights (mostly, anyways). It's time to include gay rights. Canada made same-sex marriage legally federally over six years ago, and I'm very lucky to live here. But the U.S.A. is supposed to be the land of the free. Couldn't you move a little further towards such a simple concept? Marriage is between two consenting adults that are in love. How can you possibly ban something as beautiful as that?
bluetooth333123 8 months ago
@bluetooth333123
nobody's forcing gays to deny their attractions or raiding gay marriages in churches. gays can freely express their feelings of love in a church and get all the benefits that come with marriage through civil unions down the future. however, as soon as you step outside the private realm of RELIGIOUS marriage and enter into the public sphere of CIVIL marriage, you are subject to the law and public opinion or vote because civil marriage is about public policy.
kenballer00 8 months ago
@blue
your analogy to homosexuality and race is misguided. Being gay may not be a choice but marriage is ALWAYS a choice and that's why we are here. the government doesn't ask you whether you are gay or straight. sexual orientation has nothing to do with the issue.you can't compare an immutable characteristic (race, gender, etc) to somebody's behavior. A lifestyle is not a minority. Jews, blacks, and women were discriminated against for who they were not for who they were having sex with.
kenballer00 8 months ago
@kenballer00 Yes, marriage is a choice. But it is also a right, at least for law-abiding citizens and other requirements. For a government to include "one man and one woman" into those requirements is a violation to the rights of the LGBT community, which counts as a minority because we were born this way. The right thing to do if you're gay is not to suppress those feelings and marry someone you don't love. It is injust to say to someone, "You can pretend to get married. but it doesn't count."
bluetooth333123 8 months ago
@bluetooth333123
gays and lesbians have always been allowed to marry someone of the opposite-sex for the purpose of responsible procreation and rearing of children according to over a centuries worth of federal constitutional law. What your proposing we do is create extra special rights that exist outside the constitution and common sense to take care of a PERSONAL issue and accomodate the few instead of the greater good.
kenballer00 8 months ago
@kenballer00 Of course they've always been allowed to marry people of the opposite sex. What I am proposing is not extra special rights, because this would be allowing them to have the same rights as everyone else: the right to marry th person you love. Would you be satisfied if you were told you have the right to marry someone within your race, when you love a person of a different race? No, neither would I.
bluetooth333123 8 months ago 2
@bluet
Your operating on a false premise. The state is not there to issue love licenses. The only purpose of civil marriage is to promote the continuation of society. We don't allow same sex marriage for the same reason we don't allow incest and polygamy. This is why it is a privilege, hence the word "license", because the state does have a right to discriminate against those type of relationships for legitimate state interests and not against interracial marriage because it affirms marriage.
kenballer00 8 months ago
@kenballer00
Give me a good reason to believe that allowing gays to marry will have a negative effect on " the continuation of society" (as if people don't do anything else in bed.)
JonathanTheAlchemist 2 months ago
@JonathanTheAlchemist
Sure, I actually can probably fullfill your request. However, If you want "good" reason and not just any reason, then I would have to give you my arguments in Private message. In addition, I actually don't think allowing gays to marry will have a negative effect because nobody is physically stopping them from getting married in the first place. But when it comes to redefining marriage to just two people, I think the negative effect is inconcievable.
kenballer00 2 months ago
@kenballer00
-"...then I would have to give you my arguments in Private message."-
Forget it, our conversation will be public.
-"But when it comes to redefining marriage... "-
The same institution that has evolved for centuries in Western Civilization and outside of it?
JonathanTheAlchemist 2 months ago
@JonathanTheAlchemist
Alright, forget it. I have no desire to squeeze in what I have to offer in a small space. I am here for serious conversation not games or persuading biased gay activist who have alterior motives.
Second, I don't know what institution you are referring to but it certainly is not marriage at least in this country and before it.
kenballer00 2 months ago
@kenballer00
-"I am here for serious conversation... "-
Serious conversations such as this one belong in the public sphere, so I see no reason why you should dodge the issue. Space? You can put your whole argument in different comments. It's not rocket science.
-"... persuading biased gay activist... "-
This gay activist was interested in having a conversation until you got pissed off for no reason.
-"... it certainly is not marriage... "-
Actually it is.
JonathanTheAlchemist 2 months ago
@JonathanTheAlchemist
federal constitutional law has been consistent throughout the history of marriage ranging from plural marriage ( Murphy v. Ramsey), from interracial marriage (Loving v Virginia), to even same sex marriage (Baker v. Nelson) that marriage is between one man and one woman and the purpose of it is to PROMOTE responsible procreation and rearing of children into a monogamous environment where there is two biological married parents.
kenballer00 2 months ago
gay marriage is about being able to visit people you love in the hospital or rights that are allowed other heterosexual rights in marriage. How would you feel if you had a child and had to adopt your own child in order to have any legal rights to protect or love that child?
RN4fostercare 1 year ago
what 2 people choose to do with their life is none of the governments business. Many other nations around the world do not make a big deal out of this, why do they care here? Let them get married. Its not like it hurts anyone or forces anyone to do anything they don't want to do. This is stupid.
CriesCyanide 1 year ago
The reason we have a system of checks and balances is so that majority groups cannot oppress minority groups by using voting power. The judicial system has overturned votes because the votes facilitated discrimination, which the judges (and many others) believe that is inherently unconstitutional.
LoonyLiberal6312 1 year ago 6
These gentlemen are taking the risk of beeing assumed to be gay themselves because they defend gays rights. I don`t konw if they are or aren`t.... And I don`t care. Thanks to all politicians for having the guts to speak on this issue in this supporting way.
elfray1 1 year ago 4
Odd way to concede an argument, Strawmen for everyone!
Darkfirebrand 1 year ago
You know I had a thought... Isn't enforcing the bible's commentary about man/woman argument against this a serious violation of separation of church and state?
Maybe I'm wrong but that DOES seem to lean a bit hard on enforcing biblical law over american law.
It's "no big government, let the corporations control you, not the government." Still think it's funny that "small government" always seems to be the bigger brother. Pretty sure the Clinton administration wasn't copying all net traffic..
Darkfirebrand 2 years ago
I'm not religious and even I think gay marriage is wrong...
dadecountyhustler305 1 year ago
@dadecountyhustler305
If you don't like Potatoes, should potatoes be banned? Or can you live normally without eating them?
It has absolutely no effect on people who are not gay, aside from those who make it their business.
Darkfirebrand 1 year ago
hmmm. Im not so sure about that comparsion.
Marriage plays a big role in society. Therefore society should make decisions by voting....
dadecountyhustler305 1 year ago
@dadecountyhustler305
Society should apply things to all it's members. This is really no different at all to saying black and white people can't marry. The common "slippery slope" argument is strawman and ignorant at it's best. People cannot help the way they are born, homosexuality is proven genetic, whereas the "slope" cites things stemming from mental disorders such as bestiality and necrophilia.
Really, Mormons are a growing opinion pool, will they ban monogamy in favor of polygamy?
Darkfirebrand 1 year ago
I understand people cant help the way there born. But thats irrelevant. Becayse were talking about getting marraied. Which isn't behavior at all, but an act...
bottom line 99% of the world isn't gay. For us to find there behavior odd makes perfect sense. Marriage is a straight thing. For us to have a say in is appropriate.
dadecountyhustler305 1 year ago
@dadecountyhustler305
Actually 20-30% by overall statistics, not 1. It's only 1% in places where it's punishable by death, like Uganda and Arkansas.
And marriage is the social acceptance of a pairing, always has been, and to ban it for some people is to deny them what is commonly seen as human right in the free world.
Really, when we open things up to "well we think that is weird so stop it", you open Pandora's box. I think everyone knows how well prohibition in the 20's worked.
Darkfirebrand 1 year ago
I find it hard to believe that more then 1 out of 5 people on earth are gay. lol
and stop with the irrelevant comparisons like prohibition and the Jim crow laws. 2 completely different categories...
dadecountyhustler305 1 year ago
@dadecountyhustler305
1 out of 5 is 20 percent.
And when it's decided to deny people something based on the objections of a segment, it's very relevant. Be it an open vote or government decision, it's the same thing. The only real difference is getting plastered isn't usually seen as a human right. The only reason things should be banned is because they do harm, to the user or to others. It's simple discrimination in the case of Gay marriage.
Darkfirebrand 1 year ago
@Darkfirebrand really in arkansas?
MamaMario13 1 year ago
@Darkfirebrand
"Society should apply things to all it's members."
come on man what kind of Stalin aggression is that???
I see on your profile your Canadian. I lol at you...
dadecountyhustler305 1 year ago
we may not live in a theocracy, but we do live in a democracy. the first amendment does not apply to voters. Pastors, clergy, and religious leaders have every right to convey and express their moral vision onto their community and into the voting process. Prop 8 ,or any other amendment, would not did not and does not undermine the constitution because the government didn't put it into law, the people did, and whether they voted for it on religious grounds is no one's business but their own
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 A majority of the south once considered interracial marriage wrong. Does that make it right to make interracial marriage illegal?
The point is that these laws infringe on the personal rights of people who have done nothing to deserve such discrimination. Not from a secular standpoint, at least.
DenoNomer 11 months ago
@DenoNomer
How do you infringe on a right that doesn't even exist in the first place?
gays and lesbians have always been allowed to marry someone of the opposite-sex for the purpose of responsible procreation and rearing of children which is what the state promotes according to over a centuries worth of federal constitutional law. What your proposing we do is create extra special rights that exist outside the constitution and common sense.
kenballer00 11 months ago
@kenballer00 It is not just child-rearing that marriage is used for (although if gay couples are allowed to adopt, they could raise children too.) It's a social contract where two people agree to live together and stay together, love each other "until death" and all that good stuff. Otherwise, what would you say to hetero couples who choose to not have children?
DenoNomer 11 months ago
@DenoNomer
The state is not there to issue love licenses. The only purpose of civil marriage is to PROMOTE responsible procreation and rearing of children. The same reason we don't allow same sex marriage is the same reason we don't allow incest and polygamist marriages. This is why it is a privilege, hence the word "license", because the state does have a right to discriminate against those type of relationships( not individuals) for legitimate state interests.
kenballer00 11 months ago
@kenballer00 I still don't see why you can't allow married gay couples to adopt children and rear them.
DenoNomer 11 months ago
@DenoNomer
We can always make sure that civil unions have all the same rights (including adoption) down the future without having to redefining marriage for everyone.
kenballer00 11 months ago
@kenballer00 Or we could give them those same rights now. Marriage was defined solely as man and woman from the religious perspective. What is happening now is an attempt to narrow the definition on all levels.
We can argue about the state's interest and reproduction, but it comes down to the social aspect. I used to think "why can't they be satisfied with civil union?" too, but now I think "if I wouldn't be satisfied with a civil union why should I ask someone else to be?"
DenoNomer 11 months ago 2
@kenballer00 and I forgot to mention the visitation rights thing, as per RN4fostercare's comment.
DenoNomer 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DenoNomer
The state is not there to issue love licenses. The only purpose of civil marriage is to PROMOTE responsible procreation and rearing of children. The same reason we don't allow same sex marriage is the same reason we don't allow incest and polygamist marriages. This is why it is a privilege, hence the word "license", because the state does have a right to discriminate against those type of relationships( not individuals) for legitimate state interests.
kenballer00 11 months ago
Before governments risen, marriage was AND still is a religious ceremonial rite, which beneath the First Amendment, the USG has no business legislating against... To define marriage as being between ONE man and ONE woman violates my religious freedoms, and the religious freedoms of all those who do not follow one religion!
Massagoth 2 years ago
Great interview--neither a conservative or liberal value, a human value.
MaryJesusJoseph 2 years ago 25
This has been flagged as spam show
Ron Paul on gay marriage (Dr. Paul says yes and even wins the Values Summit GOP Straw Poll!)
/watch?v=l1gzs27HswQ on gay marriage statement
/watch?v=ug1nZSI_fsA Values Straw Poll result conservation
Vote Ron Paul, President 2012! -- The anti-war candidate -- and champion of the Constitution!
vechorik 5 months ago
I've always been baffled by the "no more big government, unless it's keeping gay people from getting married" stance of the current conservative movement.
tvsshawn 2 years ago 17
How about the "No governement spending unless it's on a war fought miles away that kills thousands of our soldiers and has no clear goals what so ever?" I find that pretty baffling too!
HeyNonyNonymous 2 years ago