There would be no confusion on the part of the staff if their union was officially called a marriage. If you or your church doesn't think a gay marriage is legit, that's your first amendment right, and a marriage law for gay people wouldn't strip you of that right. But, there's no valid legal argument against allowing gay couples a government-recognized marriage.
Right, you mention the church's involvement. Since almost the entire country, majority of which is of some religion associates the word "marriage" to a husband/wife, it should not be applied to something contradictory, because it intrudes on the original meaning. If you are adamant about having verbally legal equality, then the word "marriage" should not be used anywhere in legal documents. Legally, everyone should be "united" then. Otherwise it's like amending the meaning of "Christmas".
I don't care what they call it in terms of the law, as long as it's the same term for gay and straight couples, and more importantly the rights are the same. Civil marriage licenses and religious marriage ceremonies are 2 different things and there is no law that says they have to go hand in hand. Just because the majority of the country is Christian, dosen't justify discrimination against a minority within the law.
@Ukrainatrain No, we're not on the same page. Like I said already. As long as it is called marriage for straight couples, then that is what it should be called for gay couples. A gay person wasting precious time in a hospital trying to explain to the staff what a civil union is before they can have visitation access and the right to make medical decisions is not equal treatment under the law. I have real functional reasons to support my side, and all you have is your stubborn "it's tradition."
@xothegirlz And by the way, discriminating against an entire group of people and justifying that discrimination is nothing less than bigotry, especially when there is no valid reason for said discrimination. Tradition is no where near a valid reason.
@xothegirlz you seem to be stuck on a notion that nobody would know what a civil union is when in fact that would be the most important news in the country. Plus no hospital would deny legal visitation rights especially with danger of being sued for it later. To tell you the truth. I'd be ok with legal documents referencing any kind of union hetero or homo as simply "union". Leave the secular terms for the secular legal papers.
@Ukrainatrain Wrong. I know many people know what one is, but not every one, and there is no confusion with what "marriage" entails. No matter how much you want to deny it the very thing that happened to this couple has happened to couples all over the country in civil unions and domestic partnerships. When it is called "marriage" (the term everyone understands), there will be no excuse to even delay for a second access which is automatically granted to straight married couples.
@xothegirlz you mean to tell me that if it says "union" instead of "marriage" on some legal document for both hetero and homosexual couple, this will make some nurse deny access to a sick partner? Give me a break... This one incident because of some incompetent person has been used as a main argument for you.
Like I said multiple times already, & getting sick of repeating it, I'm not going by this ! incident, but many. CU partners are also being denied health benefits at work. I also said multiple times already, that if they want to change the secular govt. marriage contract to "union" for both gays & straights, that will be fine w/ me. But creating separate terms for the 2 is not necessary, and yes, having 2 different names for what is supposed to be the same exact thing enables discrimination.
@Ukrainatrain ...It enables discrimination by causing genuine confusion & allowing for loopholes and feigned confusion by spiteful bigots. We don't need a separate term. Marriage in our culture has become about love & commitment, w/ children optional, & contrary to what many continue to believe, same sex couples are just as capable of that as straight ppl. I attended a rally in the NJ state house last week w/ couples who have been together for decades. They deserve the title of "married."
@xothegirlz and doing taxes myself enables tax fraud. Is it a huge problem in our society? not really, because there is a set of checks and balances in place. Just because something is possible, does't mean it will be a rampant occurrence, because despite different personal beliefs, most people abide by laws.
@Ukrainatrain Same-sex couples should have the same system, with the same rights, protections, benefits, and government treatment that heterosexual married couples get. I have cited several examples of how civil unions fail to do that. So now I've gotten into a whole tangled debate about the little nitpicking details with someone who I've just recalled by reading earlier comments cited the Bible. So even if I could prove we're being treated like less within the law, you'd still justify it.
So you can keep arguing cu's don't offer lesser treatment. But I'd rather be on the safe side & have marriage federally to make absolutely sure no gay couples are involuntarily separated from partners in hospitals or fail to get benefits straight couples have. In the end it's about making sure you don't validate our relationships. It's because you can't understand there's nothing wrong being gay. If you could, you'd have no issue w/ secular gay marriage.
@xothegirlz I cited the Bible? Hahaha really? can you jog my memory?
"Marriage" by definition is a traditional term. It is still closely related to Holy Matrimony, and rights across all religions that is meaningful to everyone but a small sliver of the population. Until now, secular laws did not contradict this definition so there was no conflict. If you want to change federal law, then we need to separate it from non secular terms. Therefore, and call it a "union" on paper for both types.
@Ukrainatrain "I cited the Bible? Hahaha really? can you jog my memory?" -confused you for another poster. ""Marriage" by definition is a traditional term." Again, tradition isn't a valid reason. "Until now, secular laws did not contradict this definition so there was no conflict." Secular laws are allowed to contradict religious ones in our secular nation "Therefore, and call it a "union" on paper for both types." Already said I agree as long as it is the same for gay and straight couples.
@xothegirlz You further prove your ignorance and bigotry when you compare a committed, monogamous relationship between 2 consenting adults to prostitution and adultery. I've never cheated on my girlfriend, who will someday be my wife, and I never will. Variations in sexual orientation are part of humankind and have always been. There's is absolutely no harm in accepting those identities other than heterosexual. There's nothing wrong with telling a kid he might have classmates with a...cont
@xothegirlz So, you went the "OMG, they're teaching it in schools!" route like so many do when I have these arguments with people. You also equated a healthy, functional, loving, monogamous same-sex relationship to the hurtful & dishonest act of committing adultery & the reckless and degrading practice of soliciting prostitutes. Congrats. You proved the exact argument I made that you are a bigot. You've attached negativity to an entire group of people that belongs to ppl who actually harm others
@xothegirlz So, with that, I'm really tired of arguing with a narrow-minded bigot. Go ahead and respond. I'll delete before I even read them. I'm not the type who can read someone shovel such nonsense and then not respond. I'm so thankful I'm gay, because my own feelings and experiences are proof the same fearful, hateful beliefs my mother had about gay people, which she tried to instill in me were wrong. That was major in showing me I could think for myself.
@xothegirlz By the way if you go to Massachusetts, where gay marriage has been allowed for a while, you will see the effects of it already. Little kids are taught that marrying a girl is the same as marrying a boy and that the parents are bigots for teaching otherwise. This is violation of parental rights. And your argument of fundamental rights can be applied to everything from adultery to prostitution. Just because you want it doesn't mean its right.
@Ukrainatrain Yeah, and I had 2 teachers tell me my junior year of high school before Civil Unions were legal in New Jersey that there's nothing wrong with gay people. They have always existed along side straight people in humankind their sexual orientation affects noone but them. You prove your bigotry when you whine and cry that we're so awful, little kids can't know we exist. By the way, i read up on that incident, and the religious right has twisted it in their propaganda.
@xothegirlz (cont.) different family than his, and that people shouldn't be treated poorly based on that. Schools all over the country are enacting multi-cultural & understanding diversity curriculum, so kids who grow up in an all-white neighborhood like i did, can be told from the get-go that they might encounter kids from different races, religions or different family dynamics, and none of these differences mean there is anything wrong with them or any reason to bully them.
@xothegirlz hahaha you will delete my response before reading, yet you call ME narrow minded. I have nothing against gays, I am just a believer that traditional marriage as an institution for eternal bond and procreation should be propagated. Just because so many people have perverted it doesnt mean its worthless. There are more people who value it than there are gays. This isnt about equal rights for you, it's about proving some personal self worth to your mother and the world.. continuing
@xothegirlz continuing.. I don't think the world would collapse with gay marriage or even polygamous marriage, which is another minority group being "denied their rights".. it's just a further dilution of a tradition that once served a purpose. OK, compromise it is, call it "civil union" for both gay AND straight marriage. Polygamists are next, I hope you support them!
@Ukrainatrain Gay marriage is not being taught in schools in MA in the way you are implying and teachers are certainly not telling students that their parents are wrong for having traditional views. the reality is, however, that public opinion is changing regarding gays and lesbians and the conservative viewpoint, which is obviously giving gays and lesbians the short end of the stick in society, is not being tolerated the way that it once was. You're belief hurts a lot of people. Period.
@pmw29206 they should be able to unite legally, but at no point should it be called a marriage. Government papers at this point should not contain the word matrimony and marriage for either straight or gay coulples. If you are willing the change the definition of marriage to accommodate gays then you have to be willing to do so for polygamy, otherwise you are a hypocrite.
@whotolduso Well, you bring up another argument all together, and that is whether we should still use the word marriage. I personally think it's silly and sad that people would redefine their own relationships to not allow gay people the word marriage. But in regard to your polygamy statement, it doesnt hold water. Straight people have the right to marry people whom they are biologically capable of loving Gay people don't have that right. It has nothing to do with the number of partners involved
@pmw29206 Why doesn't it? Many people are biologically capable of loving more than one person. If a man falls in love with more than one man or woman, why should we stand in the way of his happiness and force him to choose which relationship is more important?
@whotolduso Well, for the record, you don't choose your sexuality but you choose to be with multiple partners... People who choose to be in polygamous relationships do make a choice. Gay people didn't have a say in the matter. I think the problem here is you're tied up on the Biblical definition of marriage. Marriage is not strictly a Christian union; Christians just want claim it.
@pmw29206 You're right, heterosexual marriage is not Christian, its a custom practiced by every major religion, and accepted socially (which is why it was reflected legally with the traditional name and definition).
falling in love with two people is not a choice. Your heart sometimes chooses your happines for you. So since it doesn't affect you personally, and it's not proven to hurt anyone, what's the problem with opening it to them as well?
@whotolduso Tradition alone is not enough of a reason to deny people rights. No civil rights progress would happen if tradition were a valid reason to stop change. But at the end of the day, if 2 people -- or hell, 3, 4, 5 people -- decide to call their union a marriage, why do the rest of us get to tell them what to call it? If marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman to you, that's fine. Don't marry outside of those restrictions. But don't tell someone else what to call their own relationship.
@whotolduso As far as I'm concerned, when it comes to limiting peoples' rights in a country that prides itself on freedom (not to mention freedom of religion -- kinda knocks down your second paragraph a few pegs...), we need to have a valid reason to deny people the right to do something if it only affects them and really isn't anyone else's business. Gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone and makes a segment of the population incredibly happy. There's really no cons there if you think about it...
@pmw29206 wow, its so nice to see a reasonable youtube conversation for a change, instead of one filled with imaginary facts and tired rhetoric. Kudos to both of you.
@whotolduso Marriage means something different to different people. We all grow up wanting to fall in love and marry someone, but gay people don't get that option. I don't associate any religious ties to marriage. In my family growing up, marriage meant a loving connection. I see no reason why that same connection cannot be applied to gay people. Why allow one group's definition of marriage take precedent when that definition doesn't represent the whole population's view?
As a gay woman, who was raised with an intolerant view of homosexuals until I realized I was gay (thank god too, because it tought me to think for myself), I'm really sick of the ignorance. I'm tired of people coming at this issue (that shouldn't even be an issue) from every angle with lies, exxagerations, flawed and invalid arguments. Why don't they just come out and say, "We don't like you because you're different, and you threaten what we've been taught to believe"? It's just bigotry.
its not bigotry, its about a tradition. Changing "marriage" is changing it for everyone - the ones who care, and the ones who don't. And it jurts especially since its not about equality, its just about principle on the part of gays. If you want legal verbal equality, change everything to a "union" on legal documents. Don't involve a term that has religious association for a vast majority of the country in legal forms, and don't change it.
the problem was different state govt. The solution is to take govt out of marriage, eliminate the tax break and give only civil unions. Govt has no business being in marriage anyway.
First of all, marriage was for procreation of children and I know thousands marry with no intent to ever reproduce - they get married to confirm their commitment. Gay relationships also wish to have a union to confirm their commitment too. Civil unions don't work now because society seems ignorant to this - we need to educate society then!! Civil Unions DO work and it is our right given to us now by law!! Educate the hospitals - don't slander the Union itself. Adjust to the new changes!!
Well, I do not have anything about legal unions, why, because if these people are going to buy their stuff together, there must be some sort of laws protecting both parties if they choose to part.
to me, marriage is defined as something. It has a purpose. The purpose is to bring forth children that are legally recognized to be children of both partners, and that has been the founding stone of marriage since millenia.
Any other "reasons" that are laid down for marriage are folley. Marriage is not about love or whatever.
Actually single sex marriage does not work. Look at what happened in Massachusetts.
Once single sex marriage is law, the state pushes it down our throats starting form kindergarten on. Single sex "marriages" are not equal especially for children. Gay marriage equality is an oxymoron.
Marriage is not just about two people. If it was the institution of marriage would not have survived. Stephen Goldstein is a drama queen trying to mislead with constant exageration. He love to create any crisis
NOM is the organization that tells half-truths to scare people into thinking that when gay marriage becomes legal it will take away religious rights.
It would be another story entirely if they could tell the whole truth and make a convincing argument. But since they can't, they resort to scare tactics.
They are not telling the public the whole truth and you know it!
So find all your straight married couples who don't have children and don't want to have them and denounce them too. Marriage is about love, something you obviously don't understand.
Sure, sure. Love. Just keep telling yourself that. Marriages are about three things actually: The legal share of property. The legitimacy of children. The legitimacy of sex. Nothing more, nothing less. If you ask about love though, you can have love without marriage. I'm against adoption for gays, I just tell you this much. Civil unions however, give you the same legal benefits, or are supposed to give you the legal benefits. Without using the name "marriage".
Yes! I admit it! Heterosexuals molest more children than homo's. But it only because we outnumber you more than 10 to 1! Cars kill and injure more people than motorcycles, but does that make Cars more dangerous then motorcycles? NO! Motorcycles Kill and injure more people on a percentage basis the same way that homosexuals molest children at a higher rate than heterosexual men do!
Wrong, idiot. If you want to compare homosexual molestation to hetero molestation it's easy, go to the State of Texas sex offender website where they publish the age and sex of every victim. You'll see clearly in any random sample you take from any city that over 90% of molestations are men molesting female children.
So you're basically saying that you agree homosexuals aren't overrepresented as child molesters since the percentage of molesters who molest the same sex is the same the percentage of homosexuals in the population.
You probably just want to believe homosexuals molest more often because you were probably molested by a male so you have a grudge against homosexuals. Sorry. It's not the case. And chances are, if you were molested by a male, he was married or dating a woman and had repressed his sexuality for a number of years and had stunted attractions to children because of it. Anti-gay BS leads to more molestation than it prevents.
Well I'm certainly sorry you've had to go through all of that, but you've obviously got the attitude of a survivor as opposed to a victim...so you'll do well.
Pederasty isn't sanctioned by the LGBT. The LGBT "portal" just discusses forms of homosexuality throughout history. It doesn't "sanction" anything. And in fact, pederasty was rampant in ancient Greece and Rome because homosexuals weren't taught that their sexuality was normal. They were taught that they should marry the opposite sex...
...and as a result, many repressed their sexuality resulting in it being stunted, with their attractions remaining at the point of their origin...attraction to same sexed adolescence. And then of course when an adolescent is abused it often creates a "cycle of abuse" which involves additional ephebophilia on the part of the victim. In a society that accepted homosexuality, pederasty would be fairly rare.
Oh and if you're doing a paper on "Pederasty in the Modern World" and you want it to really have accurate relevant modern information, I would suggest contacting Dr. Andres Hernandez, PhD., who for years has run the Sex Offender Treatment Program for the Bureau of Prisons (The Federal Prison System). I believe he still holds the same position at Butner Federal Correctional Institution in Butner, NC. He has certainly seen and heard it all and would add a huge measure of validity to your thesis.
I'm an athiest and I'm against homosexual marriage. If they would put a ban on homoseuxal adoptions, I wouldnt have a problems with it. As long as no kids are involved, I dont see why htye cannot have the same rights as normal people.
Why the hell would it matter. Homosexuals raise children just as well as the rest of us. And can adopt if they aren't married as such. If anything, the adoptions taking place would be better off if marriage was allowed. -- I've seen no good atheistic arguments against gay marriage.
Have you seen ANY atheistic arguments against homosexual "marriage"? If we allow it, it could make it easier for them to adopt! Aside from the molestation issue, What about the poor child who has to grow up without a mother? Do you know how important the bond is between a male child and his mother!? Even a homosexual would admit a close bond with his mother. The poor kid has TWO DADS! I'm sure a few kids could make it through ok, but the majority would be hopelessly emotionally scarred.
What molestation issue? Most child molesters are straight by a huge margin. The kid could have two moms too. They've done studies, it doesn't emotionally scar children. They occasionally run into more homophobia than children raised by straight couples. But, that's it...
Yes! I admit it! Most child molesters are straight by a huge margin. But only because we outnumber you more than 10 to 1! Cars kill and injure more people than motorcycles, but does that make Cars more dangerous then motorcycles? NO! Motorcycles Kill and injure more people on a percentage basis the same way that homosexuals molest children at a higher rate than heterosexual men do!
And with two "moms" the child would be missing a father figure. Both boys and girls would suffer from this!!!!
* Gays are about 2% of the population. So 50:1 or so.
* I'm not gay, but am dumbfounded you think people can't agree with civil rights without it directly effecting you.
* The rates of molestation were per capita. There's no more per person molestation chance.
The studies conducted were pretty clear: No. There is no suffering induced by lacking some gender of parent. Homosexuals do perfectly fine jobs of raising children.
I'm not saying they wouldnt try to "do a good job". Role models are few and far between for a child of homosexual "marriage". It's about how mother and father relate, and psychological development that will teach the child how they will relate to the opposite sex, when THEY someday marry. Most homosexuals are they themselves children of NORMAL parents, and cant understand how HARD it would be if you couldn't choose parts from each parent to incorporate into their Psyche.
And again, there's no there there. The studies show that kids do just as fine physically, emotionally and psychologically with gay parents. The gender interactions are apparently not super important. You don't choose anything to incorporate into your psyche. Everything you've said is complete crap. I know this because studies have shown that homosexuals do exactly as well. In fact the decline in one parent homes is pretty minor, and you'd think that'd be worse than gay.
So what about a little girl, and she has two "MOMS", what about the bond between father and daughter, all the important things in life that a dad does with his daughter? and when she grows up, her relationships with men, are based on this relationship, whether good or bad, that she has with her father, but wait, this girl had NO FATHER!. Its a freakin vacuum! She has no idea how to relate to men!!
Gay couples tend to fit both gender roles quite well, but those roles are far less important that you are making them out to be... The majority of parents don't really teach their children in the least how to conform to the amorphous gender sterotypes, and those that try do it in such varying ways that you can't really concider one way a loss over the other. As long as they go to school they will learn like everyone elese.
a buddy of mine is a guy and has gay dads and he turned out just fine. He relates to women the same way any 22 year old straight male would. But then again everyone relates to the opposite sex in a different way. But his sex life is quite stable. So your point is quite flawed.
Tim,I see you in every topic on youtube about Homosexuality, What is it about this that attracts you to the pointt of not missing one vid on Homosexuality, be it gay marriage or gays in general?
Molestation is sick! But not all homesexual are evil. In fact however, the vast majority (80%) of caes are commited by a straight family member. That doesn't make all fathers child molesters either.
Yes."the vast majority (80%) of cases are committed by a straight family member" because heterosexuals comprise 93% of the population! 1 in 5 homosexuals could molest boys and teens and still not come near the numbers..
Heterosexuals could molest at a rate of 1 in 1000, and it would still look like heterosexuals molested more if you look at TOTAL PERCENTAGES.
There has been no statistical link with gay parents and child abuse, nore are the children even more likely to become gay themselves. The children come out just as emotionally healthy, and often even stronger, as any other children. The only real disadvantage I can see is that they may be more teased in school, but if you are a child prone to that then another grain of sand on the mound is not going to matter that much.
Yes! I admit it! Heterosexuals molest more children than homo's. But it only because we outnumber you more than 10 to 1! Cars kill and injure more people than motorcycles, but does that make Cars more dangerous then motorcycles? NO! Motorcycles Kill and injure more people on a percentage basis the same way that homosexuals molest children at a higher rate than heterosexual men do!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
If homosexuals are allowed to marry, it could make it easier for them to adopt! Aside from the molestation issue, What about the poor child who has to grow up without a mother? Do you know how important the bond is between a male child and his mother!? Even a homosexual would admit a close bond with his mother. The poor kid has TWO DADS! I'm sure a few kids could make it through ok, but the majority would be hopelessly emotionally scarred.
First off, the vast majority of pedophiles are heterosexual. Homosexuality and pedophilia are not the same thing. Secondly, there are a large number of children who grow up with only ONE parent. Studies indicate that children who grow up with two loving parents have several advantages (not the least of which is an economic advantage and an attention advantage). There is nothing to indicate that the sex of the parents has anything to do with anything.
I'm not agreeing with you but I'm gonna play along with your rules and logic here.
Stalin was straight, are straight people more inclined to kill people?
Hitler was a jew, is judaism directly connected with funny mustasches?
Gays might be fighting under the same banner for equality but you must realize that we're just as much of individuals as straight people. Of course a pedophile shouldn't be able to adopt, that goes with both gays and straights.
In 1990, the Journal of Homosexuality produced a special double issue devoted to adult-child sex, which was entitled "Male Intergenerational Intimacy".
Many pedophiles believe they are "born that way and cannot change".
I do not disagree with you that there are homosexual pedophiles. What I don't agree is where homosexuals run a higher risk to "become" pedophiles. And if you want to wave proof around, check out the early 1900 Europe where there were the people wanting to legalize pedophelia where prodominantly straight.
Just show me one (non-biased) study from the 1990 (or after) that states that homosexuals run a higher risk in becoming pedophiles.
And they're teaching the "gay" alternative to kids under 18.
"Officials at Deerfield High School in Deerfield, Ill., have ordered their 14-year-old freshman class into a "gay" indoctrination seminar, after having them sign a confidentiality agreement promising not to tell their parents."
..."This goes to the heart of the homosexual agenda. The professional propagandists in the 'gay-rights' lobby know the method all too well. If you can maintain control of undeveloped and impressionable youth and spoon-feed them misinformation, lies and half-truths about dangerous, disordered and extremely risky behaviors, then you can control the future and ensure that those behaviors are not only fully accepted, but celebrated."
I agree Jesus Camp is scary...but if you want to take all churches down because of a film about a place, then you need to look at events like Southern Decadence or any gay-pride parade as true representation of the gay lifestyle. Would you bring the kids to one of these events...no, they're too adult. Why is that?
I did copy/paste the above, that's why I left the quotes marks. They are from sites I usew to stay educated on the attacks to our children.
"any gay-pride parade as true representation of the gay lifestyle"
Ohh .. and I am sure mardi-gras encaptulates the entierty of the streight lifestyle .. moron.
"half-truths about dangerous, disordered and extremely risky behaviors"
Yea, concentual sex between two loving adults is extremely disordered. They should do the moral thing again and FORCE homosexuals to have unloving (little better than rape) sex with women while keep their lies hidden from their families. No harm in that.
yes, and the vast majority of vehicle accidents are in cars. Cars outnumber motorcycles more than 10 to 1, the same way we outnumber homosexuals by more than 10 to 1. By your logic you could say that motorcycles are safer than cars, but that is not the case.
I could throw the word redhead in place of homosexuals in that argument and it would in no way be any more or less valid. If you are going to try and justify the opression of an entire group of people you better have more to go on than entierly unfounded claims and completely irrelevent analogies.
Yes, another proof that bullies set the rules in our society. I ask of you to look outside of the states, sweden allows homosexuals (in a relationship of course) to adopt children and children within a homosexual relationship is somewhat common. There's no proof here that children are being more bullied than other kids. But then again, equality is key.
Now they've "de-classified" pedophilia as a mental problem...and attraction to young kids is OK, and if you don't like it, they call it "ageism" and call us intolerant.
And once again, pedophilia has nothing to do with homosexuality? Why you might ask? Because pedophilic acts hurts children, a practicing pedophile (cause there's a difference, ask any sex-educator, between practicing and non practicing) is sick AND are breaking the law. Homosexuality doesn't hurt the persons within the relationship. It's two concenting adults (or two minors).
Read reports of it.. instead of drawing parallels with no ground. PLEASE!
If it was that big of a deal, you guys should have had a will or given power of attorney, but don't use this to change the sanctity of marriage. Every part has it's purpose, Man and Woman.
Man and Woman have a purpose in procreation. There is no special purpose for distinct gender where love is concerned, and that's what marriage is about, or is supposed to be about. Otherwise, let's be sure to reserve marriage only to those who can and WILL have children -- no more licenses for the childfree, sterile or post-menopausal women! No more of those sweet stories of marriages between 80 year old high school sweethearts who reconnect after their first spouses die.
Further, the point is that the law in New Jersey DOES give registered domestic partners/civilly united partners the same rights of medical decision-making as married people, without powers of attorney, but those rights are denied, breeched and disregarded by those, like yourself, whose agenda puts their opinion about who deserves rights above the law and the concept of equality under the law.
Lastly, your marriage isn't changed one whit if others are given the same protection you enjoy. The only people who can violate the "sanctity" of your marriage are you and your spouse. Your marriage isn't affected by what other people do, if it were, then divorce, domestic violence, adultery and thoughtless, arranged and convenience marriages would be far more sanctity-destroying than loving marriages of committed partners who happen to be the same gender..
Take four heterosexual sexual men and women in there 30's and put them on and island, then take four homosexual men and women and do like wise, and then come to the island in 50 yrs, who's generation will be there? and who's won't?
And again, if that's your basis for the legal definition of marriage, then be sure to outlaw all marriages between people who do not want to have children or are not physically capable of it. If marriage does not have to involve reproduction, then limiting it to opposite sex couples doesn't make sense.
Thanks Pam for the link. I am a RN with 20 years of ICU experience and have seen this repeatedly first hand. I have asked my partner if he wants to get married, and he said yes. I have the application in my hand and we are now planning a February wedding. We live in Canada now, thank goodness, where our marriage is legal. However, I travel to the US often, and even with this piece of paper (Marriage Certificate) it is worth nothing in the eyes of most state laws. Very sad indeed.
:D HEY HEY HEY HEY i still duno what a civil union is..
Tobiwankanobie 10 months ago
I wonder how they are doing - I hope she made a full recovery and the trauma of all of this has diminshed
silentfades 1 year ago
civil unions are a crock of shit
Jeremiah5063 1 year ago
This isnt failure of civil unions, this is failure of the hospital staff to recognize a civil union.
Ukrainatrain 2 years ago
There would be no confusion on the part of the staff if their union was officially called a marriage. If you or your church doesn't think a gay marriage is legit, that's your first amendment right, and a marriage law for gay people wouldn't strip you of that right. But, there's no valid legal argument against allowing gay couples a government-recognized marriage.
xothegirlz 2 years ago
Right, you mention the church's involvement. Since almost the entire country, majority of which is of some religion associates the word "marriage" to a husband/wife, it should not be applied to something contradictory, because it intrudes on the original meaning. If you are adamant about having verbally legal equality, then the word "marriage" should not be used anywhere in legal documents. Legally, everyone should be "united" then. Otherwise it's like amending the meaning of "Christmas".
Ukrainatrain 2 years ago
I don't care what they call it in terms of the law, as long as it's the same term for gay and straight couples, and more importantly the rights are the same. Civil marriage licenses and religious marriage ceremonies are 2 different things and there is no law that says they have to go hand in hand. Just because the majority of the country is Christian, dosen't justify discrimination against a minority within the law.
xothegirlz 1 year ago
Ok so we are on the same page then. Call it union for everyone on a legal paper, "marriage" remains between husband and wife.
Ukrainatrain 1 year ago
@Ukrainatrain No, we're not on the same page. Like I said already. As long as it is called marriage for straight couples, then that is what it should be called for gay couples. A gay person wasting precious time in a hospital trying to explain to the staff what a civil union is before they can have visitation access and the right to make medical decisions is not equal treatment under the law. I have real functional reasons to support my side, and all you have is your stubborn "it's tradition."
xothegirlz 1 year ago
@xothegirlz And by the way, discriminating against an entire group of people and justifying that discrimination is nothing less than bigotry, especially when there is no valid reason for said discrimination. Tradition is no where near a valid reason.
xothegirlz 1 year ago
@xothegirlz you seem to be stuck on a notion that nobody would know what a civil union is when in fact that would be the most important news in the country. Plus no hospital would deny legal visitation rights especially with danger of being sued for it later. To tell you the truth. I'd be ok with legal documents referencing any kind of union hetero or homo as simply "union". Leave the secular terms for the secular legal papers.
Ukrainatrain 1 year ago
@Ukrainatrain Wrong. I know many people know what one is, but not every one, and there is no confusion with what "marriage" entails. No matter how much you want to deny it the very thing that happened to this couple has happened to couples all over the country in civil unions and domestic partnerships. When it is called "marriage" (the term everyone understands), there will be no excuse to even delay for a second access which is automatically granted to straight married couples.
xothegirlz 1 year ago
@xothegirlz you mean to tell me that if it says "union" instead of "marriage" on some legal document for both hetero and homosexual couple, this will make some nurse deny access to a sick partner? Give me a break... This one incident because of some incompetent person has been used as a main argument for you.
Ukrainatrain 1 year ago
Like I said multiple times already, & getting sick of repeating it, I'm not going by this ! incident, but many. CU partners are also being denied health benefits at work. I also said multiple times already, that if they want to change the secular govt. marriage contract to "union" for both gays & straights, that will be fine w/ me. But creating separate terms for the 2 is not necessary, and yes, having 2 different names for what is supposed to be the same exact thing enables discrimination.
xothegirlz 1 year ago
@Ukrainatrain ...It enables discrimination by causing genuine confusion & allowing for loopholes and feigned confusion by spiteful bigots. We don't need a separate term. Marriage in our culture has become about love & commitment, w/ children optional, & contrary to what many continue to believe, same sex couples are just as capable of that as straight ppl. I attended a rally in the NJ state house last week w/ couples who have been together for decades. They deserve the title of "married."
xothegirlz 1 year ago
@xothegirlz and doing taxes myself enables tax fraud. Is it a huge problem in our society? not really, because there is a set of checks and balances in place. Just because something is possible, does't mean it will be a rampant occurrence, because despite different personal beliefs, most people abide by laws.
Ukrainatrain 1 year ago
@Ukrainatrain Same-sex couples should have the same system, with the same rights, protections, benefits, and government treatment that heterosexual married couples get. I have cited several examples of how civil unions fail to do that. So now I've gotten into a whole tangled debate about the little nitpicking details with someone who I've just recalled by reading earlier comments cited the Bible. So even if I could prove we're being treated like less within the law, you'd still justify it.
xothegirlz 1 year ago
So you can keep arguing cu's don't offer lesser treatment. But I'd rather be on the safe side & have marriage federally to make absolutely sure no gay couples are involuntarily separated from partners in hospitals or fail to get benefits straight couples have. In the end it's about making sure you don't validate our relationships. It's because you can't understand there's nothing wrong being gay. If you could, you'd have no issue w/ secular gay marriage.
xothegirlz 1 year ago
@xothegirlz I cited the Bible? Hahaha really? can you jog my memory?
"Marriage" by definition is a traditional term. It is still closely related to Holy Matrimony, and rights across all religions that is meaningful to everyone but a small sliver of the population. Until now, secular laws did not contradict this definition so there was no conflict. If you want to change federal law, then we need to separate it from non secular terms. Therefore, and call it a "union" on paper for both types.
Ukrainatrain 1 year ago
@Ukrainatrain "I cited the Bible? Hahaha really? can you jog my memory?" -confused you for another poster. ""Marriage" by definition is a traditional term." Again, tradition isn't a valid reason. "Until now, secular laws did not contradict this definition so there was no conflict." Secular laws are allowed to contradict religious ones in our secular nation "Therefore, and call it a "union" on paper for both types." Already said I agree as long as it is the same for gay and straight couples.
xothegirlz 1 year ago
@xothegirlz You further prove your ignorance and bigotry when you compare a committed, monogamous relationship between 2 consenting adults to prostitution and adultery. I've never cheated on my girlfriend, who will someday be my wife, and I never will. Variations in sexual orientation are part of humankind and have always been. There's is absolutely no harm in accepting those identities other than heterosexual. There's nothing wrong with telling a kid he might have classmates with a...cont
xothegirlz 1 year ago
@xothegirlz So, you went the "OMG, they're teaching it in schools!" route like so many do when I have these arguments with people. You also equated a healthy, functional, loving, monogamous same-sex relationship to the hurtful & dishonest act of committing adultery & the reckless and degrading practice of soliciting prostitutes. Congrats. You proved the exact argument I made that you are a bigot. You've attached negativity to an entire group of people that belongs to ppl who actually harm others
xothegirlz 1 year ago
@xothegirlz So, with that, I'm really tired of arguing with a narrow-minded bigot. Go ahead and respond. I'll delete before I even read them. I'm not the type who can read someone shovel such nonsense and then not respond. I'm so thankful I'm gay, because my own feelings and experiences are proof the same fearful, hateful beliefs my mother had about gay people, which she tried to instill in me were wrong. That was major in showing me I could think for myself.
xothegirlz 1 year ago
@xothegirlz By the way if you go to Massachusetts, where gay marriage has been allowed for a while, you will see the effects of it already. Little kids are taught that marrying a girl is the same as marrying a boy and that the parents are bigots for teaching otherwise. This is violation of parental rights. And your argument of fundamental rights can be applied to everything from adultery to prostitution. Just because you want it doesn't mean its right.
Ukrainatrain 1 year ago
@Ukrainatrain Yeah, and I had 2 teachers tell me my junior year of high school before Civil Unions were legal in New Jersey that there's nothing wrong with gay people. They have always existed along side straight people in humankind their sexual orientation affects noone but them. You prove your bigotry when you whine and cry that we're so awful, little kids can't know we exist. By the way, i read up on that incident, and the religious right has twisted it in their propaganda.
xothegirlz 1 year ago
@xothegirlz (cont.) different family than his, and that people shouldn't be treated poorly based on that. Schools all over the country are enacting multi-cultural & understanding diversity curriculum, so kids who grow up in an all-white neighborhood like i did, can be told from the get-go that they might encounter kids from different races, religions or different family dynamics, and none of these differences mean there is anything wrong with them or any reason to bully them.
xothegirlz 1 year ago
@xothegirlz hahaha you will delete my response before reading, yet you call ME narrow minded. I have nothing against gays, I am just a believer that traditional marriage as an institution for eternal bond and procreation should be propagated. Just because so many people have perverted it doesnt mean its worthless. There are more people who value it than there are gays. This isnt about equal rights for you, it's about proving some personal self worth to your mother and the world.. continuing
Ukrainatrain 1 year ago
@xothegirlz continuing.. I don't think the world would collapse with gay marriage or even polygamous marriage, which is another minority group being "denied their rights".. it's just a further dilution of a tradition that once served a purpose. OK, compromise it is, call it "civil union" for both gay AND straight marriage. Polygamists are next, I hope you support them!
Ukrainatrain 1 year ago
@Ukrainatrain Gay marriage is not being taught in schools in MA in the way you are implying and teachers are certainly not telling students that their parents are wrong for having traditional views. the reality is, however, that public opinion is changing regarding gays and lesbians and the conservative viewpoint, which is obviously giving gays and lesbians the short end of the stick in society, is not being tolerated the way that it once was. You're belief hurts a lot of people. Period.
pmw29206 1 year ago
@pmw29206 they should be able to unite legally, but at no point should it be called a marriage. Government papers at this point should not contain the word matrimony and marriage for either straight or gay coulples. If you are willing the change the definition of marriage to accommodate gays then you have to be willing to do so for polygamy, otherwise you are a hypocrite.
whotolduso 1 year ago
@whotolduso Well, you bring up another argument all together, and that is whether we should still use the word marriage. I personally think it's silly and sad that people would redefine their own relationships to not allow gay people the word marriage. But in regard to your polygamy statement, it doesnt hold water. Straight people have the right to marry people whom they are biologically capable of loving Gay people don't have that right. It has nothing to do with the number of partners involved
pmw29206 1 year ago
@pmw29206 Why doesn't it? Many people are biologically capable of loving more than one person. If a man falls in love with more than one man or woman, why should we stand in the way of his happiness and force him to choose which relationship is more important?
whotolduso 1 year ago
@whotolduso Well, for the record, you don't choose your sexuality but you choose to be with multiple partners... People who choose to be in polygamous relationships do make a choice. Gay people didn't have a say in the matter. I think the problem here is you're tied up on the Biblical definition of marriage. Marriage is not strictly a Christian union; Christians just want claim it.
pmw29206 1 year ago
@pmw29206 You're right, heterosexual marriage is not Christian, its a custom practiced by every major religion, and accepted socially (which is why it was reflected legally with the traditional name and definition).
falling in love with two people is not a choice. Your heart sometimes chooses your happines for you. So since it doesn't affect you personally, and it's not proven to hurt anyone, what's the problem with opening it to them as well?
whotolduso 1 year ago
@whotolduso Tradition alone is not enough of a reason to deny people rights. No civil rights progress would happen if tradition were a valid reason to stop change. But at the end of the day, if 2 people -- or hell, 3, 4, 5 people -- decide to call their union a marriage, why do the rest of us get to tell them what to call it? If marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman to you, that's fine. Don't marry outside of those restrictions. But don't tell someone else what to call their own relationship.
pmw29206 1 year ago
@whotolduso As far as I'm concerned, when it comes to limiting peoples' rights in a country that prides itself on freedom (not to mention freedom of religion -- kinda knocks down your second paragraph a few pegs...), we need to have a valid reason to deny people the right to do something if it only affects them and really isn't anyone else's business. Gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone and makes a segment of the population incredibly happy. There's really no cons there if you think about it...
pmw29206 1 year ago
@pmw29206 wow, its so nice to see a reasonable youtube conversation for a change, instead of one filled with imaginary facts and tired rhetoric. Kudos to both of you.
evilgenius7193 1 year ago
@whotolduso Marriage means something different to different people. We all grow up wanting to fall in love and marry someone, but gay people don't get that option. I don't associate any religious ties to marriage. In my family growing up, marriage meant a loving connection. I see no reason why that same connection cannot be applied to gay people. Why allow one group's definition of marriage take precedent when that definition doesn't represent the whole population's view?
pmw29206 1 year ago
As a gay woman, who was raised with an intolerant view of homosexuals until I realized I was gay (thank god too, because it tought me to think for myself), I'm really sick of the ignorance. I'm tired of people coming at this issue (that shouldn't even be an issue) from every angle with lies, exxagerations, flawed and invalid arguments. Why don't they just come out and say, "We don't like you because you're different, and you threaten what we've been taught to believe"? It's just bigotry.
xothegirlz 2 years ago 2
I was not raised with intolerant views of homosexuality.
I'm not gay, but I find homosexual marriage stupid.
Stupid, because it degenerates the meaning of marriage.
I'm not religious btw.
azmhyr 2 years ago
xothegirlz
its not bigotry, its about a tradition. Changing "marriage" is changing it for everyone - the ones who care, and the ones who don't. And it jurts especially since its not about equality, its just about principle on the part of gays. If you want legal verbal equality, change everything to a "union" on legal documents. Don't involve a term that has religious association for a vast majority of the country in legal forms, and don't change it.
Ukrainatrain 2 years ago
the problem was different state govt. The solution is to take govt out of marriage, eliminate the tax break and give only civil unions. Govt has no business being in marriage anyway.
fromagevilain 2 years ago 3
First of all, marriage was for procreation of children and I know thousands marry with no intent to ever reproduce - they get married to confirm their commitment. Gay relationships also wish to have a union to confirm their commitment too. Civil unions don't work now because society seems ignorant to this - we need to educate society then!! Civil Unions DO work and it is our right given to us now by law!! Educate the hospitals - don't slander the Union itself. Adjust to the new changes!!
simplysal 2 years ago
horrible story i feel for those women, gays and lesbians go through unnecessary loops just to be treated fairly....what a god damn shame....
lyricallybrilliant 2 years ago
Well, I do not have anything about legal unions, why, because if these people are going to buy their stuff together, there must be some sort of laws protecting both parties if they choose to part.
But I still would refuse to call it marriage.
azmhyr 2 years ago
Well, that maybe does not work in the US.
But I'd still refuse to call it a marriage.
to me, marriage is defined as something. It has a purpose. The purpose is to bring forth children that are legally recognized to be children of both partners, and that has been the founding stone of marriage since millenia.
Any other "reasons" that are laid down for marriage are folley. Marriage is not about love or whatever.
It is about legal rights, and thats it.
azmhyr 2 years ago
Actually single sex marriage does not work. Look at what happened in Massachusetts.
Once single sex marriage is law, the state pushes it down our throats starting form kindergarten on. Single sex "marriages" are not equal especially for children. Gay marriage equality is an oxymoron.
Marriage is not just about two people. If it was the institution of marriage would not have survived. Stephen Goldstein is a drama queen trying to mislead with constant exageration. He love to create any crisis
Protectmarriagenj 2 years ago
Trying to mislead? Are you kidding me?
NOM is the organization that tells half-truths to scare people into thinking that when gay marriage becomes legal it will take away religious rights.
It would be another story entirely if they could tell the whole truth and make a convincing argument. But since they can't, they resort to scare tactics.
They are not telling the public the whole truth and you know it!
bearchewtoy75 2 years ago
So find all your straight married couples who don't have children and don't want to have them and denounce them too. Marriage is about love, something you obviously don't understand.
xothegirlz 2 years ago
azmhyr 2 years ago
Its not the terminology that's the problem its the difference in legal recognition.
liberapedia 3 years ago
They've fixed the hospital problem
RoronoaDracule 3 years ago
We have got to fix civil unions.
Yozi6414 3 years ago
fix civil unions?
why fix civil unions?
civil unions STILL wont give the same rights as marriage.
starryeyedbeautypie 2 years ago
Thank you for posting this. It pretty much gives a real world account to why it is totally not equal.
nclemente 3 years ago 8
This has been flagged as spam show
What candidate doesn't participate in the, "Who is the best Christian contest?"
Christian, Ron Paul, who won the Values Summit poll 2012!
Want safety in America, protect Israel, wipe out Muslims?
MUST SEE VIDEO /watch?v=BHrkc6EB6h0
Gay marriage? Ron Paul says "Yes" /watch?v=l1gzs27HswQ
Ron Paul re: pot and black/Latino Americans and racism:
/watch?v=nhP5PwG5Sks
vechorik 4 months ago
what does molesting children have to do with homosexuality?? NOTHING. There so so many ignorant people out there....it's sad actually.
reddz80 3 years ago
What the HELL Stephen...What the HELL wake up 2008 much...no slaves here.
RidiculousFunk 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Another reason why niggers are the spawn of the devil.
StephenAcosta 3 years ago
I can't hear shit.
klosterdev 3 years ago
this was hard to watch
mayaluvsmusic 3 years ago
Yes! I admit it! Heterosexuals molest more children than homo's. But it only because we outnumber you more than 10 to 1! Cars kill and injure more people than motorcycles, but does that make Cars more dangerous then motorcycles? NO! Motorcycles Kill and injure more people on a percentage basis the same way that homosexuals molest children at a higher rate than heterosexual men do!
TimothyRed1990 3 years ago
Wrong, idiot. If you want to compare homosexual molestation to hetero molestation it's easy, go to the State of Texas sex offender website where they publish the age and sex of every victim. You'll see clearly in any random sample you take from any city that over 90% of molestations are men molesting female children.
rpgboy22 3 years ago 7
Of course "90% of molestations are men molesting female children"
But that is only because we outnumber you more than 10 to 1!
Cars kill and injure more people than motorcycles, but does that make Cars more dangerous then motorcycles? NO!
Motorcycles Kill and injure more people on a percentage basis the same way that homosexuals molest children at a higher rate than heterosexual men do!
Also, lesbians so rarely molest, it makes the rate of male homosexual molesters EVEN HIGHER!!
TimothyRed1990 3 years ago
So you're basically saying that you agree homosexuals aren't overrepresented as child molesters since the percentage of molesters who molest the same sex is the same the percentage of homosexuals in the population.
rpgboy22 3 years ago 2
You probably just want to believe homosexuals molest more often because you were probably molested by a male so you have a grudge against homosexuals. Sorry. It's not the case. And chances are, if you were molested by a male, he was married or dating a woman and had repressed his sexuality for a number of years and had stunted attractions to children because of it. Anti-gay BS leads to more molestation than it prevents.
rpgboy22 3 years ago
and yes rpgboy,
I was molested at 13 by a known homosexual in town.
It's a horror I'll not soon forget.
He got less than a year in jail, and is still living in my home town.
I had to move away, becuase I dont want to run into him.
I'm studying pederasty and other perversions in college.
I will write my thesis on "Pederasty in the modern World"
Look up pederasty on wikipedia, its totally sanctioned by the LGBT! its even a LGBT portal!
TimothyRed1990 3 years ago
Well I'm certainly sorry you've had to go through all of that, but you've obviously got the attitude of a survivor as opposed to a victim...so you'll do well.
Pederasty isn't sanctioned by the LGBT. The LGBT "portal" just discusses forms of homosexuality throughout history. It doesn't "sanction" anything. And in fact, pederasty was rampant in ancient Greece and Rome because homosexuals weren't taught that their sexuality was normal. They were taught that they should marry the opposite sex...
rpgboy22 3 years ago
...and as a result, many repressed their sexuality resulting in it being stunted, with their attractions remaining at the point of their origin...attraction to same sexed adolescence. And then of course when an adolescent is abused it often creates a "cycle of abuse" which involves additional ephebophilia on the part of the victim. In a society that accepted homosexuality, pederasty would be fairly rare.
rpgboy22 3 years ago
Oh and if you're doing a paper on "Pederasty in the Modern World" and you want it to really have accurate relevant modern information, I would suggest contacting Dr. Andres Hernandez, PhD., who for years has run the Sex Offender Treatment Program for the Bureau of Prisons (The Federal Prison System). I believe he still holds the same position at Butner Federal Correctional Institution in Butner, NC. He has certainly seen and heard it all and would add a huge measure of validity to your thesis.
rpgboy22 3 years ago
how is a civil union differant then marriage
BlueberryhillCB 4 years ago
Essentially the same legaly, but you still run into a lot of wierd problems. Like this.
Jakemmx 4 years ago
sad... im all 4 gay union rights... only those religious 10th century fools would go against it and believe that ridiculous book of theirs
thelousyllama 4 years ago
I'm an athiest and I'm against homosexual marriage. If they would put a ban on homoseuxal adoptions, I wouldnt have a problems with it. As long as no kids are involved, I dont see why htye cannot have the same rights as normal people.
TimothyRed1990 4 years ago
Why the hell would it matter. Homosexuals raise children just as well as the rest of us. And can adopt if they aren't married as such. If anything, the adoptions taking place would be better off if marriage was allowed. -- I've seen no good atheistic arguments against gay marriage.
Tatarize 4 years ago
Have you seen ANY atheistic arguments against homosexual "marriage"? If we allow it, it could make it easier for them to adopt! Aside from the molestation issue, What about the poor child who has to grow up without a mother? Do you know how important the bond is between a male child and his mother!? Even a homosexual would admit a close bond with his mother. The poor kid has TWO DADS! I'm sure a few kids could make it through ok, but the majority would be hopelessly emotionally scarred.
TimothyRed1990 4 years ago
What molestation issue? Most child molesters are straight by a huge margin. The kid could have two moms too. They've done studies, it doesn't emotionally scar children. They occasionally run into more homophobia than children raised by straight couples. But, that's it...
Family is family.
Tatarize 4 years ago
Yes! I admit it! Most child molesters are straight by a huge margin. But only because we outnumber you more than 10 to 1! Cars kill and injure more people than motorcycles, but does that make Cars more dangerous then motorcycles? NO! Motorcycles Kill and injure more people on a percentage basis the same way that homosexuals molest children at a higher rate than heterosexual men do!
And with two "moms" the child would be missing a father figure. Both boys and girls would suffer from this!!!!
TimothyRed1990 4 years ago
* Gays are about 2% of the population. So 50:1 or so.
* I'm not gay, but am dumbfounded you think people can't agree with civil rights without it directly effecting you.
* The rates of molestation were per capita. There's no more per person molestation chance.
The studies conducted were pretty clear: No. There is no suffering induced by lacking some gender of parent. Homosexuals do perfectly fine jobs of raising children.
Tatarize 4 years ago
I'm not saying they wouldnt try to "do a good job". Role models are few and far between for a child of homosexual "marriage". It's about how mother and father relate, and psychological development that will teach the child how they will relate to the opposite sex, when THEY someday marry. Most homosexuals are they themselves children of NORMAL parents, and cant understand how HARD it would be if you couldn't choose parts from each parent to incorporate into their Psyche.
TimothyRed1990 4 years ago
And again, there's no there there. The studies show that kids do just as fine physically, emotionally and psychologically with gay parents. The gender interactions are apparently not super important. You don't choose anything to incorporate into your psyche. Everything you've said is complete crap. I know this because studies have shown that homosexuals do exactly as well. In fact the decline in one parent homes is pretty minor, and you'd think that'd be worse than gay.
Tatarize 4 years ago
So what about a little girl, and she has two "MOMS", what about the bond between father and daughter, all the important things in life that a dad does with his daughter? and when she grows up, her relationships with men, are based on this relationship, whether good or bad, that she has with her father, but wait, this girl had NO FATHER!. Its a freakin vacuum! She has no idea how to relate to men!!
TimothyRed1990 4 years ago
Gay couples tend to fit both gender roles quite well, but those roles are far less important that you are making them out to be... The majority of parents don't really teach their children in the least how to conform to the amorphous gender sterotypes, and those that try do it in such varying ways that you can't really concider one way a loss over the other. As long as they go to school they will learn like everyone elese.
Jakemmx 4 years ago
a buddy of mine is a guy and has gay dads and he turned out just fine. He relates to women the same way any 22 year old straight male would. But then again everyone relates to the opposite sex in a different way. But his sex life is quite stable. So your point is quite flawed.
mobilizenow86 3 years ago
Tim,I see you in every topic on youtube about Homosexuality, What is it about this that attracts you to the pointt of not missing one vid on Homosexuality, be it gay marriage or gays in general?
Clemburke1111 4 years ago
I usually skip the homosexuals videos that arent related to "marriage" "molestation" or "child abuse"
For the rest. this is war!
TimothyRed1990 4 years ago
Timothy, why is this war to you,,why not Illegal immagration or straight men raping women ,or any thing else ? why did you chose this subject?
Clemburke1111 4 years ago
I was molested by a homosexual pedophile at 13.
4 years ago
It's a horror I'll not soon forget.
TimothyRed1990 4 years ago
Timothy, I understand now. I no a friend who was molested by a pediophile when she was only 11, but that does not make all straight men bad.
Clemburke1111 3 years ago
Molestation is sick! But not all homesexual are evil. In fact however, the vast majority (80%) of caes are commited by a straight family member. That doesn't make all fathers child molesters either.
jorge0214 3 years ago
Yes."the vast majority (80%) of cases are committed by a straight family member" because heterosexuals comprise 93% of the population! 1 in 5 homosexuals could molest boys and teens and still not come near the numbers..
Heterosexuals could molest at a rate of 1 in 1000, and it would still look like heterosexuals molested more if you look at TOTAL PERCENTAGES.
TimothyRed1990 3 years ago
How much of the remaining percentage are committed by straight men who aren't members of the family?
klosterdev 3 years ago
There has been no statistical link with gay parents and child abuse, nore are the children even more likely to become gay themselves. The children come out just as emotionally healthy, and often even stronger, as any other children. The only real disadvantage I can see is that they may be more teased in school, but if you are a child prone to that then another grain of sand on the mound is not going to matter that much.
Jakemmx 4 years ago
Yes! I admit it! Heterosexuals molest more children than homo's. But it only because we outnumber you more than 10 to 1! Cars kill and injure more people than motorcycles, but does that make Cars more dangerous then motorcycles? NO! Motorcycles Kill and injure more people on a percentage basis the same way that homosexuals molest children at a higher rate than heterosexual men do!
TimothyRed1990 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
If homosexuals are allowed to marry, it could make it easier for them to adopt! Aside from the molestation issue, What about the poor child who has to grow up without a mother? Do you know how important the bond is between a male child and his mother!? Even a homosexual would admit a close bond with his mother. The poor kid has TWO DADS! I'm sure a few kids could make it through ok, but the majority would be hopelessly emotionally scarred.
TimothyRed1990 4 years ago
First off, the vast majority of pedophiles are heterosexual. Homosexuality and pedophilia are not the same thing. Secondly, there are a large number of children who grow up with only ONE parent. Studies indicate that children who grow up with two loving parents have several advantages (not the least of which is an economic advantage and an attention advantage). There is nothing to indicate that the sex of the parents has anything to do with anything.
bonjourmonfri 4 years ago
The father of "gay rights" Harry Hay, defended, marched with and supported NAMBLA til he died.
There is a HUGE connection between gays and pedophilia. They are now calling it "agesim" which to them is discrimination.
digammo 4 years ago
Ageism has to do with discriminating against someone because of their age...not pedophilia.
Do you have research that disputes what I wrote? Because you don't address it at all.
bonjourmonfri 4 years ago
I'm not agreeing with you but I'm gonna play along with your rules and logic here.
Stalin was straight, are straight people more inclined to kill people?
Hitler was a jew, is judaism directly connected with funny mustasches?
Gays might be fighting under the same banner for equality but you must realize that we're just as much of individuals as straight people. Of course a pedophile shouldn't be able to adopt, that goes with both gays and straights.
Tjarn110 4 years ago
In 1990, the Journal of Homosexuality produced a special double issue devoted to adult-child sex, which was entitled "Male Intergenerational Intimacy".
Many pedophiles believe they are "born that way and cannot change".
digammo 4 years ago
I do not disagree with you that there are homosexual pedophiles. What I don't agree is where homosexuals run a higher risk to "become" pedophiles. And if you want to wave proof around, check out the early 1900 Europe where there were the people wanting to legalize pedophelia where prodominantly straight.
Just show me one (non-biased) study from the 1990 (or after) that states that homosexuals run a higher risk in becoming pedophiles.
Tjarn110 4 years ago
And they're teaching the "gay" alternative to kids under 18.
"Officials at Deerfield High School in Deerfield, Ill., have ordered their 14-year-old freshman class into a "gay" indoctrination seminar, after having them sign a confidentiality agreement promising not to tell their parents."
What the....?
digammo 4 years ago
..."This goes to the heart of the homosexual agenda. The professional propagandists in the 'gay-rights' lobby know the method all too well. If you can maintain control of undeveloped and impressionable youth and spoon-feed them misinformation, lies and half-truths about dangerous, disordered and extremely risky behaviors, then you can control the future and ensure that those behaviors are not only fully accepted, but celebrated."
digammo 4 years ago
I recommend the American documentary "Jesus Camp" and you'll see indoctrination.
I don't really know anything about this, all i can find about it is the article which you probably copied and pasted here. Busted :p
Tjarn110 4 years ago 2
I agree Jesus Camp is scary...but if you want to take all churches down because of a film about a place, then you need to look at events like Southern Decadence or any gay-pride parade as true representation of the gay lifestyle. Would you bring the kids to one of these events...no, they're too adult. Why is that?
I did copy/paste the above, that's why I left the quotes marks. They are from sites I usew to stay educated on the attacks to our children.
digammo 4 years ago
"any gay-pride parade as true representation of the gay lifestyle"
Ohh .. and I am sure mardi-gras encaptulates the entierty of the streight lifestyle .. moron.
"half-truths about dangerous, disordered and extremely risky behaviors"
Yea, concentual sex between two loving adults is extremely disordered. They should do the moral thing again and FORCE homosexuals to have unloving (little better than rape) sex with women while keep their lies hidden from their families. No harm in that.
Jakemmx 4 years ago
Do you have young kids?
digammo 4 years ago
I have nieces and nephews. How come?
Tjarn110 4 years ago
yes, and the vast majority of vehicle accidents are in cars. Cars outnumber motorcycles more than 10 to 1, the same way we outnumber homosexuals by more than 10 to 1. By your logic you could say that motorcycles are safer than cars, but that is not the case.
TimothyRed1990 4 years ago
I could throw the word redhead in place of homosexuals in that argument and it would in no way be any more or less valid. If you are going to try and justify the opression of an entire group of people you better have more to go on than entierly unfounded claims and completely irrelevent analogies.
Jakemmx 4 years ago
they should be able to do what they like, as long as no children are harmed.
They should allow homosexual marriage if they put a ban on homosexual adoption.
This seems like an agreement that both repugnicans and democrats can get behind.
TimothyRed1990 3 years ago
That's because you assume homosexuals harm children ... and that warped stereotyping people like you don't...
Jakemmx 3 years ago
Yes, another proof that bullies set the rules in our society. I ask of you to look outside of the states, sweden allows homosexuals (in a relationship of course) to adopt children and children within a homosexual relationship is somewhat common. There's no proof here that children are being more bullied than other kids. But then again, equality is key.
Tjarn110 4 years ago
When I was a kid they use to give queers shock treatments, but it didn't help.
xxxxoxxxx9 4 years ago
yes, back in the 50's and before, the mental institutions were full of gays and "loose women", , did you think that was right?
ClemClemens1111 4 years ago
Now they've "de-classified" pedophilia as a mental problem...and attraction to young kids is OK, and if you don't like it, they call it "ageism" and call us intolerant.
Watch out...the world is getting sicker.
digammo 4 years ago
And once again, pedophilia has nothing to do with homosexuality? Why you might ask? Because pedophilic acts hurts children, a practicing pedophile (cause there's a difference, ask any sex-educator, between practicing and non practicing) is sick AND are breaking the law. Homosexuality doesn't hurt the persons within the relationship. It's two concenting adults (or two minors).
Read reports of it.. instead of drawing parallels with no ground. PLEASE!
Tjarn110 4 years ago
If it was that big of a deal, you guys should have had a will or given power of attorney, but don't use this to change the sanctity of marriage. Every part has it's purpose, Man and Woman.
15degrees 5 years ago
Man and Woman have a purpose in procreation. There is no special purpose for distinct gender where love is concerned, and that's what marriage is about, or is supposed to be about. Otherwise, let's be sure to reserve marriage only to those who can and WILL have children -- no more licenses for the childfree, sterile or post-menopausal women! No more of those sweet stories of marriages between 80 year old high school sweethearts who reconnect after their first spouses die.
thoughtful 5 years ago
And don't forget the mandatory semen analysis before any man can get hitched.......no swimmers, no license!
ukiedoc 4 years ago
sweetheart, whats the point of having a large population if no one is going to be happy?
Denise8318 4 years ago
Amen to that sister :D
Tjarn110 4 years ago
Further, the point is that the law in New Jersey DOES give registered domestic partners/civilly united partners the same rights of medical decision-making as married people, without powers of attorney, but those rights are denied, breeched and disregarded by those, like yourself, whose agenda puts their opinion about who deserves rights above the law and the concept of equality under the law.
thoughtful 5 years ago
Lastly, your marriage isn't changed one whit if others are given the same protection you enjoy. The only people who can violate the "sanctity" of your marriage are you and your spouse. Your marriage isn't affected by what other people do, if it were, then divorce, domestic violence, adultery and thoughtless, arranged and convenience marriages would be far more sanctity-destroying than loving marriages of committed partners who happen to be the same gender..
thoughtful 5 years ago
Take four heterosexual sexual men and women in there 30's and put them on and island, then take four homosexual men and women and do like wise, and then come to the island in 50 yrs, who's generation will be there? and who's won't?
15degrees 5 years ago
And again, if that's your basis for the legal definition of marriage, then be sure to outlaw all marriages between people who do not want to have children or are not physically capable of it. If marriage does not have to involve reproduction, then limiting it to opposite sex couples doesn't make sense.
thoughtful 5 years ago
That's awful. I hope that she recovered. It's a shame that what they've gone through is purely to give piece of mind to straight married couples.
enzedbrit 5 years ago
I just choked up! I always thought civil unions were enough... not any more.
elucida 5 years ago 2
what were you choking on?
zunk11 5 years ago
Heartbreaking.
lizriz 5 years ago
Thanks Pam for the link. I am a RN with 20 years of ICU experience and have seen this repeatedly first hand. I have asked my partner if he wants to get married, and he said yes. I have the application in my hand and we are now planning a February wedding. We live in Canada now, thank goodness, where our marriage is legal. However, I travel to the US often, and even with this piece of paper (Marriage Certificate) it is worth nothing in the eyes of most state laws. Very sad indeed.
vanhattan 5 years ago