@Leviwosc: We care what heterosexuals say because heterosexuals are the ones who are controlling the vote for homosexuals having the right to marry you asshole. She's simply trying to get people to understand which everyone should do. This is why its called a debate.
To every person who says, "Yeah, but homosexuality isn't natural and isn't about reproducing." I say "since when has marriage been about naturalness or reproduction?" If it weren't for your narrow views (mostly religiously made narrow), you might realize that marriage is about a relationship between two people. When you deny the privilege of marriage, you deny the relationship.
People who are called 'homosexual' ( a clinical term) in their aim or orientation are a considerable minority and have the right to intimate recognised legal or blessed civil unions alongside the tradtional norm of 'heterosexual' marriage whether that's religious or secular , defacto couples could have the choice to make a committment. Societal integration or even child rearing adoption then would be safer.She makes a succinct point or two here of the fear stategy oft' raised by conservatives.
@iDiegoTV actually, homosexual behavior is know among at least 1000 species, and even if there wasnt, why cant people make their own choices about who they want to be with
@Mandalore06 I have a number of friends who are homosexual, and I think I can answer your question with two responses:
1. First I'd like to state that you are making an generalization, saying that all gay people "make such a production of being gay." Albeit there are cases where this is true, that number could only be in the minority.
2. Today, the idea of being homosexual is foreign, even repulsed, by some people. It is the perception of others that leads to this "production".
The guys at her side just seem like the guys I have the urge to punch in the face on a monthly basis. I just want to give those guys a punch in the face and give that woman a hug for standing up for a deprived community,
Watch FRONTLINE video called "The Architect" about Karl Rove on PBS website and you will understand why Gay marriage has the most important issue of our time in the face of so many more important things.
It has nothing to do with gay people. It's only a GOTV measure employed by political consultants. The issue is cleverly used by both parties for fundraising and to drive the party base to vote. It has nothing to do with gay people.
@TruthAlwaysHerts i'v seen your profile and all you seem to manage to do is spread hate with your comments what do you get out that? And why are you searching videos that relates to LGBT in the first place?
@GoGoPooerRangers I dont spread hate, I spread the Truth. Truth is faggots dont' like the truth. Gay marriage is for man and woman. I am tired of retarded people who still want to redefine marriage. Hence my comments. I live in a country where there is free speech. If a faggot is able to free speech, so am I.
@TruthAlwaysHerts I'm quoting you "Gay marriage is for a man and a woman".?
And if you just listened to this video clearly marriage inst going to be redefined Your definition of marriage, it might just be different from same-sex marriage. If your not gay then don't marry a gay person simple as that. Why are you searching for videos that relates to lgbt? if you think quoting you again "faggots are dumb sissies" which by the way is such a compelling statement and a good use of free speech, NOT!
@GoGoPooerRangers YOu must be a faggot, you cant even aregue your point. Gay marriage is not legal, so faggots can go under a rock and cry... you wont get sympathy from me.... Truth hurts
@TruthAlwaysHerts U don't seem to have a logical explanation for ur disapproval of same sex couples being granted the right to marry. All u seem to manage is spew disgusting vile out. But i get it ur frustrated because u seem to lack compassion, ur just a sad pathetic bigot. Ur comments are just insults, by the way calling me a faggot is really proving your point . Once again u manage to stray away from my question y are u searching videos that relate to lgbt? Let me guess cause you have no life
@GoGoPooerRangers Same sex marriage in priciple does not make any sense because procreation cannot take place. My argument is very sound. You obviously are too dumb to understand the principles that renders marriage between a man and a woman. DUmbass faggot
@TruthAlwaysHerts It seems to me that if the straight community cannot show a compelling reason to deny the institution of marriage to gay people, it shouldn't be denied. And such simple, nebulous declarations are hardly a compelling reason. They're really more like an expression of prejudice than any kind of a real argument. The concept of not denying people their rights unless you can show a compelling reason to do so is the very basis of the American ideal of human rights.
@TruthAlwaysHerts Marriage is for procreation? no it inst you dumb ass. The proponents of that argument are really hard pressed to explain why, if that's the case, that infertile couples are allowed to marry. I, for one, would love to be there when the proponent of such an argument is to explain to his post-menopausal mother or impotent father that since they cannot procreate, they must now surrender their wedding rings!
@TruthAlwaysHerts That would be fun to watch! Again, such an argument fails to persuade based on the marriages society does allow routinely, without even a second thought. I clearly understand the principles you douche! AGAIN WHY ARE U SEARCHING VIDEOS THAT RELATE TO LGBT? U STILL HAVENT MANAGED TO ANSWER IT? DUMASSSSSSSSSSSSS!
@TruthAlwaysHerts Let's get over our aversion to what we oppose for silly, irrational reasons, based on ignorance and faulty assumptions, and make ours a more just and honorable society, finally honoring that last phrase from the Pledge of Allegance; "With liberty and justice for all."
@GoGoPooerRangers YOu stil haven't provided any good reasons ... that is why you are a dumbass issy faggot and I a =m not. I would hate be a faggot and be sissy like you
@TruthAlwaysHerts you probably are a closet case who is just filled with self loathing but i digress. U clearly are an idiot who just doesnt want to understand how much of a fucking douche u are. There really is no point in arguing with you because all you seem to do as i mentioned in my very first comment is spread HATE! If you died tomorrow the world would be a better place, but then again i dont wish death upon anyone even a homophobic narrow minded imbecile.
@GoGoPooerRangers oooh,, temper temper ... faggots always get so emotionally distraught .... there,, there,, everything will be alright .... what a dumbass faggot !!
@TruthAlwaysHerts what a dumbass bigot! im the one with the temper? im not the one calling someone a faggot on every comment. Wow, with your brains, I bet it took you all day to come up with that! you know I feel bad for you. you must be so miserable! always hating on ppl and all. you are truly an unhappy person so I forgive you!
@TruthAlwaysHerts I'd hate to call you ignorant and do name calling. Because if I did, I'd be using the same tactics that you are using to convince us we're wrong. I can only express sorrow that you are not a compassionate human being who does not wish to see a peaceful world. You can't change people from being gay. They will always be there. You will, unfortunately, always disapprove of their presence. Learn to let go and realize that someone else being gay doesn't affect your life.
@TruthAlwaysHerts please expand this. you're not saying much here. Even if it is a sham, how does this sham affect your daily life? It doesn't. Someone being gay somewhere else won't make your life any worse. Let them be, and gays will let you be. It's a win win scenario. I consider myself to be a pretty happy person, and I'm around gay people everyday. You are too. You just don't notice it. How old are you? Has anyone taught that this is the way to view gays? Or did you decide this for yourself
@TruthAlwaysHerts Tell me were you born a bigot or just raised that way? Gays are sissies huh? How about the gay man who cracked the Nazi code during WW2? How about the thousands of gay servicemen and women discharged under DADT. Are you in the military? Are you fighting to defend our country and our rights? You are the only sissy I see here.
@TruthAlwaysHerts Marriage is for any 2 non related consenting adults who love each other. That is the definition of marriage. Your bullshit definition doesnt mean a damn to anyone with a brair, heart, or soul. 3 things you clearly lack.
Does anything you just typed have anything to do with the quality of what shes saying?...i listen to what people say and judge the content of their words regardless of whether or not their a celebrity!...if u think her point or argument is bad then by all means tell us what you think!?
@16242T, well put. Even if we did consider homosexuality something worthy of trying to reverse, nothing could make that harder than first condemning the proclivity itself as vile and depraved, thus demonizing the participants. There no reason for it past the desire to be cruel or controlling. This is why I have such great contempt for the outspoken anti-gay people. Their phenomenal recklessness does an astonishing amount of damage to so many completely innocent and already disadvantaged people.
This woman is dishonest. Same sex marriage is an oxymoron. Its like square circles. Does she think the law should make no distinctions based on sex? What about age or consanguinity?
@66605, I disagree. Marriage is just a contract that defines a family out a formal relationship between two or more people. Their sex isn't even relevant if they wish to have children since there are avenues to acquire them that do not require any reproductive abilities by members of the family whatsoever. Marriage is a purely civic technology, that's all.
yeah gays are cool. havent you seen will and grace? la de da de da. Gays just want the same privledges.... oh and the extra privledge of sodomy!!! yay!!
The main problem, as I understand it, with people being opposed to 2 consenting adults marrying is not a matter of religion but a matter of feeling insecure as human beings. Those who oppose same sex marriage the most vehemently then cower behind sacred text and use these same texts to "prove" their point. But they are not really "proving" their case against same sex marriage; rather, they demonstrate the depth of their own insecurities as human beings.
Don't you just love the way she begins her argument by presuming to speak for her opponents? If you don't want to redefine marriage then leave it alone. The title of this video is a bold-faced lie & she spends a minute & forty-nine seconds trying to convinces us that it's not. Typical Liberal linguistic Tap-dance. At first Gays just wanted tolerance. Now that they've got that they want same-sex marriage. If they get that too it will not stop there. Homosexuality = corruption of spirit....sorry.
@ananiasacts so if you want I can elaborate on the subject. I'm sick and tired to hear that "it's cool to be gay" is teached to children. It's not cool at all.It's an evolutionary dead end, is a mutation, is an illness, it's not normal. So again please do not advertise this cancer on the streets or anywhere as being cool or fashionable or anything like that. It's not cool it's not great is as cool as having your leg amputated.
@dumbnetworks, I think the fact that homosexuality occurs in hundreds of different species proves it is a perfectly natural and normal phenomenon. You're just wrong to say that there is something sick about it. And what makes you so contemptuous, and worthy of extreme hatred, is that you'll allow your ignorance and personal prejudice to justify doing harm to people you don't know and pose no threat to you. Even though I think you're scum I would fight to defend your right to stay that way.
@ananiasacts wtf do you talk about? what harm to people? I never said doing any harm... I think you are imagining your own talk partner and probably talk to that imaginary friend of yours every day... I wrote there exactly what I mean. What ignorance? what threat to me? I'm reading your comment and is not adressed to what I said... You don't make any sense. Go to a doctor or something maybe you are "sick" too. I will repeat what I said but you can read it again, if it was removed I will post it.
@dumbnetworks, demonizing gay people is harmful all by itself, even if you really aren't religious (which I doubt, why else would you be against gays?) But you're only revealing how deeply ignorant and careless you are as a person. It's obvious that you know very little about how evolution works, biology, human sexuality, or anything else that is actually relevant to the issue of whether homosexuality is abnormal or not. The medical industry doesn't consider it so, that should be enough for you.
@ananiasacts Look the medical industry has some issues dealing with people who want to make a sex change cause they got too much or less hormones, in the wound. Its more or less complicated than this of course. And I am not "ignorant" .Nowadays everyone use this word on the net and it loses its meaning. What I am saying it might be considered radical or something like that, but I don't like to hide behind my finger in saying the truth, even if you like it or not...
@dumbnetworks, So you're suggesting we discard what the many thousands of experts who make up the medical industry has to say about it favor of your homophobic conclusions? No thanks. I prefer to believe you are just an ignorant little ass-wipe who hates gay people. The latter is simply far more likely to be true.
@ananiasacts "you're suggesting we discard what the many thousands of experts who make up the medical industry" I DID NOT SAY THAT... damn you are a fool dude incredible. thanks god its all written cause I would realy think I don't know what I said... wtf is wrong with you?
@ananiasacts I read a LOT about how evolution works and I like the subject... but that doesn't take anything away from what I said. I agree that they have the same rights as I do. I am not better or worse than anyone of them, BUT again lets not forget what is this...and one more thing. The "medical industry" doesn't consider it as an illness (openly) is because they can't do SHIT about it... YET! but programing a new born is just arround the corner. Who will want a gay kid? I might ask u?
@dumbnetworks, if you knew even a little bit about evolution you would not consider homosexuality abnormal. I think you're phenomenally ignorant, and most likely just lying about your faith. I've encountered too many Christians who regularly lie about their faith to avoid being written of as clueless imbeciles to trust your remarks. What possible reason could you have for persecuting gay people if you aren't religious? It you don't consider it a sin against god then why persecute gay people?
@ananiasacts you are a retard and you are probably lying about your faith too. You believe that homosexuality is like a cloth what you wear on sunday morning. and again! I DID not said ANYTHING ABOUT PERSECUTING GAY PEOPLE! you are a moron and u probably work in the media cause they are teached to put words in peoples mouths. If you say it 100 times doesn't mean that I said it you farthead! I think YOU ARE CLUELESS
@ananiasacts So again! because you might be a little slow... Gay people are born with this problem, and they can't do shit about it yet! (the doctors I mean) I told you that too you fkin moron. And probably in the near future you won't see many of them cause of genetical engeneering,I told you that already, you dickface. Gayness is the same deviant behaviour like zoophilia or pedophilia for instance. These are all genetic issues unslovable by education.
@ananiasacts and adressing to what you have said that it occurs to animals and that makes it "normal"... look... its not normal. Sometimes you see animals born with two heads... that's not normal either. You are attacking me and others. I stated a fact, you like it or not. I told u once I'm telling you again, gays should't advertise their illness as being cool or fashionable! because is an sickness mutation, abnormality, evolutionary DEAD END! Can you read?? STUPID?
@dumbnetworks, You're simply wrong. Something that occurs with the frequency of homosexuality (around 10% of the population) is--by definition--normal. That it occurs with roughly the same frequency in literally hundreds of other species is proof that it's simply another of very many traits that we experience to different degrees. Like musical ability. Or fashion sense. I don't mind your contempt in the least--I admire honesty and openness. Your opinion is no less welcome here than my own.
@ananiasacts is by definition normal? where is that definition? I told you why is not normal. wtf can't you grasp it? If it occurs doesn't make it normal. I did not demonize them or anything what you don't get? I am not religious either, why would I write you about evolution? I have the feeling that you have a clichee answer to anyone who is usualy a bigot creationist of some sort... take your head out of ur ass for a second and read what I wrote there.
@dumbnetworks, I can understand what you said, but I disagree with it. What makes homosexuality perfectly normal IS its frequency in the population. Every trait that occurs with sufficient frequency (above say 1 in 50 or so) can be considered part of the normal range. You wouldn't call someone in the bottom 2% of intelligence as abnormal. So why consider non-heterosexuality (which occurs several times more frequently than that) as abnormal? By your definition, ALL recreational sex is abnormal.
@ananiasacts you say "by my definition all recreational sex is abnormal" umm NO. I didn't say that... I see that you are used to put your own words in others mouth. I already told you 15 times tha what you said I didn't stated in any of my comments. you either are stupid or just too ignorant to understand what I wrote there.
@dumbnetworks, but you removed the comment that proves you're a liar and a hypocrite. If you weren't such an ignorant asshole you wouldn't need to remove so many of your own comments.
Few things seem to condemn religion more than its stance on homosexuality. It is mind boggling that people who realize that their sexuality is not negotiable can convince themselves that someone else's is. How cruel do you have to become to persecute others for being handicapped? It's unconscionable that we tolerate the institutionalized demonization of roughly a tenth of our population. Doing so should cost an organization its tax exempt status. Gays should not be made to fund their enemies.
Well, if we have "Gay Parades" down mainstreet, we need to be fair and host "Straight Parades" and "Interracial Parades" and "Beastiality Parades" and all sorts of different sexual preferences. I don't think we should be parading our sexual habits down main street.
What should be respected is your Liberty to what you want, and we should be left alone to that. Sex is and should always be a private experience.
@DJTmaq, Why tolerate the sort of scum who persecute handicapped people for something they cannot control? Is you sexuality open to negotiation? Why do you believe someone else's is?
@ananiasacts Those handicapped people want to redefine staircases, parking spots, etc. and every redblooded amurcan must stand up and protect traditional transportation against the radical handicapped agenda.
@andid, I reckon that endeavoring to err on the side of kindness is almost always the most efficient and cost effective technique for resolving a conflict.
@andid, but as she points out, you could say that about every cultural change. Each step along the path towards greater civil liberties has led to great progress for all of humanity. There is simply no reason to even consider homosexuality abnormal, it occurs in hundreds of species with roughly equal frequency. I'm an American too, and feel the principle of our nation demands that we support civil rights and a parity of opportunity for all people, regardless of things like race or sexuality.
@andid, You're going to have to get a lot better at it if you want people to mistake you for something as filthy as the average phony Christian who shows up in places like this to exercise their puerile contempt for gays.
@ananiasacts Did you not mistake me for an average filthy Christian? Ah well, it's fun because you can be as stupid as you want and people can still mistake you for legitimate. poeslawandallthat
Nothing in the definition of democracy says that only white men can vote. If all men died, women could still carry on a democracy. However, marriage has historically been a thing of the church which defines it as between a man and woman. I think people forget this and only consider marriage as a social construction.
More and more its losing its religous significants (thank god) but it still has its roots in christianity. I prefer your definition of marriage, but it isnt historically accurate
I am in total favour of gay marriage....but the whole ' not trying to redefine' argument is poorly put. Woman didn't REDFINE voting because voting was not NECESSARILY a male endeavour, its just that woman were considered not smart (or whatever the flawed logic was) enough to vote. AfroAmericans were stifled by RACISM, not by the denial that black folk ATE.
Allowing homosexuals to get married WILL REDFINE because marriage is BY DEFINITION between a man and woman. Lets get our REDEFINE ON!
@TonyTheSamurai "because marriage is BY DEFINITION between a man" And democracy is by definition a system where white men get to vote ... There's a huge semantic difference disturbing this issue. A definition is BS. Marriage, voting, freedom, sex, ... So F definition and look at what marriage is: An institution to facilitate a couple to live together in harmony. So where do gays change this?
Tony, it's only a redefinition, because you choose to define marriage as such. If we instead go by a neutral definition like: "The union of 2 consenting adults" no redefinition is needed. It's only an issue because you and others insists it to be this somewhat arbitrary "man and woman" definition.
@Aaberg123 I don't prefer the 'man and woman' definition, otherwise i wouldn't be so adament about redefinition. But my 'man and woman' definition comes both from 'marriage: the christian tradition' and 'marriage: the history thereof'. You cant just define something contrary to its origins and previous manifesations. Sometimes things are as they are and not the way you and i want them to be.
@TonyTheSamurai, we redefine things all the time. I don't understand what you are saying. Who is harmed if we simply ignore the sexes of the couple being married? How does this change the essence of what a marriage is: a contract between two people that defines a family. What difference does it make what sexes they are? What part of personhood is based on genitals? Should people completely incapable of sex be disallowed marriage? We should be encouraging the creation of families.
@ananiasacts By making two people of the same sex NO ONE (except hyper-conservatives who cant handle change) is harmed but you ARE redefining the essence of marriage (being between a man and a woman, see: history, christianity).
I'm FOR the redefinition. My OP said I have a problem with denying it as a redefinition. Whether or not a child needs both a male and female parental unit is a question for sociologists and psychologists.
@TonyTheSamurai, You're being inane. The meaning of marriage hasn't changed one whit: it is still the definition of "family" (a group of people related by blood or marriage.) I have no idea why you think it has changed at all. Or even why such a thing would matter to anyone. Should we sue the people who invented mechanical computers for stealing a word that used to refer to people? It's the exact same thing. Do you think anyone was stupid enough to complain about such a change when it happend?
@ananiasacts My argument is nuianced and so I understand why you would accuse me of being inane. The definition of marriage hasnt changed IF we go by your definition (which is to deny the religious society that [i'm glad] we no longer live in). Try looking back 100 years andyou'll observe the religious element present in marriage. No one would or should complain if it is redefined and it DOESNT MATTER to any progressive open thinker (which i consider myself to be). But dont DENY the redefinition
@TonyTheSamurai, How many concepts are refined each year? A great many of them are. Why single out marriage to make an issue of it? It seems particularly disingenuous because that aspect of marriage (heterosexuality) has literally NOTHING to do with the reason people get married, nor with the legal or civic impact that a marriage has on a couple. I don't deny that in some minds it can be construed as a change--but its a meaningless point. No part of the civic consequence has changed at all.
@ananiasacts Homosexual marriage is 'singled out' because i saw this video and that was my response to it. The point is important because it is the minds that WOULD consider it a change that are holding progress (such as gay marriage rights) back. It isnt people that consider marriage a purely civil/legal union that need convincing.
@TonyTheSamurai, If that is true, then why not point out how meaningless their complaint is? No one considered any other form of emancipation to be a redefinition of some underlying concept, like voting, or eating out. You seem to be supporting the anti-gay agenda by acknowledging that they have a legitimate complaint--that something precious to them has been lost. When, in fact, nothing relevant to them has actually changed at all. They are still completely free to believe whatever they wish.
@ananiasacts Because its not ineffective! It may be a dumb backward hick ideology, but dumb backward hicks VOTE! Just because everyone at your (and my) dinner parties agrees with GM it doesn't mean that society will move that way and that change will be enacted. The complaint isn't legitimate in that its morally sound but it is legitimate in that it EXISTS! As for your final 'out of sight' style point, you wouldn't allow what you considered 'immoral' to continue, so why would rednecks?
@TonyTheSamurai, Took me a while to find this: "Cott explained that domestic partnerships cannot substitute for marriage because domestic partnerships do not have the same social and historical meaning as marriage and that much of the value of marriage comes from its social meaning. Peplau testified that little of the cultural esteem surrounding marriage adheres to domestic partnerships." In other words, if you are right--if it is a redefinition--that only makes GM that much more legitimate.
@ananiasacts I don't know where you got that quote, but the conclusion you draw "In other words, if you are right--if it is a redefinition--that only makes GM that much more legitimate." is totally consistant with what i'm saying.
It IS a definition and recognition of gay marriage is completely moral, societally beneficial and criminally overdue.
@TonyTheSamurai, it's from the Judge's ruling that overturned Proposition 8's new definition of marriage. In it he addresses that issue pointing of that it is most definitely NOT a redefinition of what marriage is--and precisely WHY gays want the right to be married in the first place--because there is no substitute for it--because a civil union is NOT a marriage. "Marriage" is not being redefined in the slightest. What it actually means has nothing to do with the sex of the parties being wed.
@ananiasacts I havent seen the address and i can't conclude what you concluded from the quote you gave BUT you are still trying to convince ME that it isn't a redefinition. I'm saying it is the people that use the REDEFINITION as a basis for REJECTING same sex marriage rights who are the problem here! I DO consider it a redefinition and a couldn't give a damn, in fact i'm GLAD its being redefined. But unless you engage in the debate in the terms of dissenters you'll never win them over!
@TonyTheSamurai, the courts ruling is easy to find online (Perry v Schwarzenegger, Case No. C 09-2292 VRW.) and convers this issue starting around page 17. I am not sure we're talking about the same thing. That which motivates marriage, that which the distinction of being married confers (its utility,) and that which the state is permitted to recognize and regulate has nothing to do with the sex of the participants involved. I'm saying it doesn't matter what marriage means in common usage...
@TonyTheSamurai, ... in terms of the legal semantics of the state of marriage there is no change whatsoever. It the common usage of the term is an entirely unrelated issue that has no bearing whatsoever on this discussion. Dissenters can vote for incompetent legislation till the cows come home. That's probably a wise use of their time. It won't affect anything. They aren't going to be able to overrule the constitution, nor have it changed to explicitly demonize the people they love to hate.
Sorry, but your limited scope and frame of reference is hindering your understanding. Why do you even need to reference religious tradition, when it's a secular act, with secular legal repercussions? To give credence to religion on this matter, is to render legitimacy to their invalid premisses.
All you need to know is this: You live in a secular society with equal protection under the law. From this point onwards, religious arguments becomes meaningless.
@Aaberg123 If you think I'm saying that you can oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds, you're wrong. You cannot deny that marriage has its origins in religious beliefs (as once upon a time society was largely based on religious beliefs).
In comtemporary society it is much more about the social union than the religious implications (for the vast majority anyway). My argument is that it is a REDEFINITION from this old religious view of marriage into a current secular definition.
Marriage has already been "redefined" as a secular institution, in most countries at least 100 years ago. Churches cannot, without the state, marry people.
I don't know if you are suggesting this, but it would be great if the state got out of the business of marriage altogether, and administered civil unions ONLY. Leave "marriage" to the religious, and they can be happy.
@lexave I'm glad, and I concede that to find the referent marriage you have to look further back than society normally does.But i think its worth mentioning because thats how far hyper-conservatives (and bigots) will go and these are the main opponents.The idea of administering civil unions has crossed my mind before.If it came down to it, i will ALWAYS vote for recognition of gay couples.The lack of legal recognition is embarassing in 2010,but maybe leave 'marriage' to the god-fearers
@TonyTheSamurai "marriage: the history thereof" -- I suggest you look at the long history of polygamy. The Old Testament is full of it, and Jesus did not contradict it (Matthew 5:17).
As to redefinition: Of course things are redefined! For instance, "property" no longer includes the traditional meaning of slaves.
@lexave I agree with everything you said, and it appears you agree with everything I said. I agree that religious doctrine is full of practices which seem absurdly immoral these days. I agree with your exclamation - 'Of course things are redefined!' Which would lead us both to conclude that same-sex marriage is a REDEFINITION of marriage, a beneficial and moral and criminally-delayed REDEFINITION.
The only person that does not agree is Cynthia Nixon who denies the redefinition.
@TonyTheSamurai I'm sorry, but "definition" depends on context. The phrase used by bigots is never "it redefines the legal meaning of marriage", which would be defensible. It's always "it redefines marriage with respect to my tradition/history/religion", which is bogus.
You misrepresent Cynthia. When women were allowed to vote, it legally meant redefining "voting". But it didn't mean redefining what we mean by the grander sense of "voting": the way to select a representative in a democracy.
"you are not authorized to speak on behalf of western civilization"
I think I understand history enough to make that call, western marriage, and marriage everywhere else, has been a union between 2 or more people of OPPOSITE genders.
Oh, and I just enjoy being pedantic sometimes. I'm not really opposed to legalizing SSM because I'm a libertarian at heart, but i'm not afraid to say that it is wrong.
"I think I understand history enough to make that call, western marriage, and marriage everywhere else, has been a union between 2 or more people of OPPOSITE genders."
Actually gay marriages did exist in ancient times, they were not very common, however. It's nothing new that the Abrahamic religions have monopolised on the concept of marriage amongst many other things..
@migkillertwo Uhm, how can more than two people of opposite genders get married? Hate to point this out, but with only two genders, only one heterogeneous combination is possible: M+F.
Of course, if you were a true libertarian, you'd allow people to come up with whatever marriage contracts they wished. (And I'd agree with you.)
Gays Don't Want to Redefine Marriage? get a dictionary from the 1950's, look up "redefine" and then look up "marriage". marriage being between a man and a woman was intrinsic to the concept of marriage. black people weren't allowed to eat out but that wasn't intrinsic to the concept of eating out, and the same goes for woman voting. you can either redefine marriage or re-right history.
Just go to Utah, India, or any muslim country. Not to mention the millions of people around the world who do it in secret, because who they love is somehow the government's business.
@lexave well yea, mainly several women maried to one man and vice versa in some parts of asia. never same sex marriages though. plus - these marriages all happened either outside of western culture and there for do not fall under the western, christianity derived, definition of marige or they happened before the creation of the modern english language and ussage of the word marriage. whats the problem with coming up with a new word any way? a rose by any other name etc etc
@rickwoodall So are these polygamous families unified or not?? If they are single families, then surely the women are married into the family, and hence to each other, just as they are married to the man.
About western culture: read your holy books again! How many wives did David have?
What's in a name? Calling something by a different word stigmatizes it. Imagine if the civil rights revolution resulted in blacks having equal rights to whites but not being called "people". Just a word, eh?
@lexave I would be happy to define the polygamous groups as being married and I would be happy to define same sex couples as being married. but in doing so i would be redefining the word marriage as it is traditionally understood. but who cares? words are redefined all the time. thats how languages evolve. david dint live in the west or in a western culture.
@lexave calling something by a different name can stigmatize people but i think that saying people shouldnt be able to define a word or subject based on their beliefs (how ever crazy they might be) if a far worse type of stigmatization
@lexave well your argument was that "Calling something by a different word stigmatizes it" pretty much implies that you have a problem with what people chose to call things/people. and being that we are talking about the definition of a word in a semi political context for you to say "You can indeed call people whatever you wish, but it's none of the government's business" destroys you own argument.
@rickwoodall No. I make it quite clear. It's simple: 1. Using special words for people can stigmatize. 2. The government should NOT be in the business of stigmatizing.
What people do in their private minds is none of my business...
Yeah, very good point!
twinkie13st 2 months ago
@Leviwosc: We care what heterosexuals say because heterosexuals are the ones who are controlling the vote for homosexuals having the right to marry you asshole. She's simply trying to get people to understand which everyone should do. This is why its called a debate.
toxicfirex 4 months ago
She was the only woman up there! She is so beast, I love her.
Kirandera 7 months ago
@phoenix1985 Someone who keeps up with Kathy Griffin standup and knows who Alan Turing is? Call me.
livelycolor 7 months ago
To every person who says, "Yeah, but homosexuality isn't natural and isn't about reproducing." I say "since when has marriage been about naturalness or reproduction?" If it weren't for your narrow views (mostly religiously made narrow), you might realize that marriage is about a relationship between two people. When you deny the privilege of marriage, you deny the relationship.
drfoxcourt 9 months ago
Why do gays care about the opinions of heterosexuals. :-s Heterosexuals aren't any better than gays are.
Leviwosc 9 months ago
People who are called 'homosexual' ( a clinical term) in their aim or orientation are a considerable minority and have the right to intimate recognised legal or blessed civil unions alongside the tradtional norm of 'heterosexual' marriage whether that's religious or secular , defacto couples could have the choice to make a committment. Societal integration or even child rearing adoption then would be safer.She makes a succinct point or two here of the fear stategy oft' raised by conservatives.
Nuiceltico 1 year ago
Tradition is always best, we should go back to slavery, women oppression, and no air conditioning!
colorzebra689 1 year ago
Actually someone DID redefine "eating out" at some point, but whether they were african american I cannot say.
Clearie552 1 year ago 5
ADAM SAVAGE!
gionnan1495 1 year ago
22 people think black people redefined sitting at lunch-counters.
Aerlenbach 1 year ago
BOOM! HEADSHOT!
ih8numberinusernames 1 year ago
Missing the point completely.
1guyiknow 1 year ago
@iDiegoTV my dog ix gay.
mobman47 1 year ago
This lady is amazing.
leewolfgang 1 year ago 7
@iDiegoTV actually, homosexual behavior is know among at least 1000 species, and even if there wasnt, why cant people make their own choices about who they want to be with
jonathan113100 1 year ago
@jonathan113100 Fine, but I wish they would keep it to themselves. My question is: Why do they feel the need to make such a production of being gay?
Mandalore06 1 year ago
@Mandalore06 I have a number of friends who are homosexual, and I think I can answer your question with two responses:
1. First I'd like to state that you are making an generalization, saying that all gay people "make such a production of being gay." Albeit there are cases where this is true, that number could only be in the minority.
2. Today, the idea of being homosexual is foreign, even repulsed, by some people. It is the perception of others that leads to this "production".
MrEdLoop 1 year ago
Adam savage sent me here
Just10tb 1 year ago 32
The guys at her side just seem like the guys I have the urge to punch in the face on a monthly basis. I just want to give those guys a punch in the face and give that woman a hug for standing up for a deprived community,
yalinegurl1 1 year ago 16
Watch FRONTLINE video called "The Architect" about Karl Rove on PBS website and you will understand why Gay marriage has the most important issue of our time in the face of so many more important things.
avmsf 1 year ago
It has nothing to do with gay people. It's only a GOTV measure employed by political consultants. The issue is cleverly used by both parties for fundraising and to drive the party base to vote. It has nothing to do with gay people.
avmsf 1 year ago
Gay marriage is a push poll issue used during political campaigns. It has nothing with gay pele
avmsf 1 year ago
Gay marriage is an oxymoron.
avmsf 1 year ago
faggots are dumb sissies... they should move to auzzie land... oops, thats taken already
TruthAlwaysHerts 1 year ago
@TruthAlwaysHerts i'v seen your profile and all you seem to manage to do is spread hate with your comments what do you get out that? And why are you searching videos that relates to LGBT in the first place?
HATERS TO THE LEFT!
GoGoPooerRangers 1 year ago
@GoGoPooerRangers I dont spread hate, I spread the Truth. Truth is faggots dont' like the truth. Gay marriage is for man and woman. I am tired of retarded people who still want to redefine marriage. Hence my comments. I live in a country where there is free speech. If a faggot is able to free speech, so am I.
TruthAlwaysHerts 1 year ago
@TruthAlwaysHerts I'm quoting you "Gay marriage is for a man and a woman".?
And if you just listened to this video clearly marriage inst going to be redefined Your definition of marriage, it might just be different from same-sex marriage. If your not gay then don't marry a gay person simple as that. Why are you searching for videos that relates to lgbt? if you think quoting you again "faggots are dumb sissies" which by the way is such a compelling statement and a good use of free speech, NOT!
GoGoPooerRangers 1 year ago
@GoGoPooerRangers YOu must be a faggot, you cant even aregue your point. Gay marriage is not legal, so faggots can go under a rock and cry... you wont get sympathy from me.... Truth hurts
TruthAlwaysHerts 1 year ago
@TruthAlwaysHerts U don't seem to have a logical explanation for ur disapproval of same sex couples being granted the right to marry. All u seem to manage is spew disgusting vile out. But i get it ur frustrated because u seem to lack compassion, ur just a sad pathetic bigot. Ur comments are just insults, by the way calling me a faggot is really proving your point . Once again u manage to stray away from my question y are u searching videos that relate to lgbt? Let me guess cause you have no life
GoGoPooerRangers 1 year ago
@GoGoPooerRangers Same sex marriage in priciple does not make any sense because procreation cannot take place. My argument is very sound. You obviously are too dumb to understand the principles that renders marriage between a man and a woman. DUmbass faggot
TruthAlwaysHerts 1 year ago
@TruthAlwaysHerts Who says who marriage is to be defined by? The married? The marriable?
GoGoPooerRangers 1 year ago
@TruthAlwaysHerts It seems to me that if the straight community cannot show a compelling reason to deny the institution of marriage to gay people, it shouldn't be denied. And such simple, nebulous declarations are hardly a compelling reason. They're really more like an expression of prejudice than any kind of a real argument. The concept of not denying people their rights unless you can show a compelling reason to do so is the very basis of the American ideal of human rights.
GoGoPooerRangers 1 year ago
@TruthAlwaysHerts Marriage is for procreation? no it inst you dumb ass. The proponents of that argument are really hard pressed to explain why, if that's the case, that infertile couples are allowed to marry. I, for one, would love to be there when the proponent of such an argument is to explain to his post-menopausal mother or impotent father that since they cannot procreate, they must now surrender their wedding rings!
GoGoPooerRangers 1 year ago
@TruthAlwaysHerts That would be fun to watch! Again, such an argument fails to persuade based on the marriages society does allow routinely, without even a second thought. I clearly understand the principles you douche! AGAIN WHY ARE U SEARCHING VIDEOS THAT RELATE TO LGBT? U STILL HAVENT MANAGED TO ANSWER IT? DUMASSSSSSSSSSSSS!
GoGoPooerRangers 1 year ago
@TruthAlwaysHerts Let's get over our aversion to what we oppose for silly, irrational reasons, based on ignorance and faulty assumptions, and make ours a more just and honorable society, finally honoring that last phrase from the Pledge of Allegance; "With liberty and justice for all."
GoGoPooerRangers 1 year ago
@GoGoPooerRangers YOu stil haven't provided any good reasons ... that is why you are a dumbass issy faggot and I a =m not. I would hate be a faggot and be sissy like you
TruthAlwaysHerts 1 year ago
@TruthAlwaysHerts you probably are a closet case who is just filled with self loathing but i digress. U clearly are an idiot who just doesnt want to understand how much of a fucking douche u are. There really is no point in arguing with you because all you seem to do as i mentioned in my very first comment is spread HATE! If you died tomorrow the world would be a better place, but then again i dont wish death upon anyone even a homophobic narrow minded imbecile.
GoGoPooerRangers 1 year ago
@GoGoPooerRangers you still have no argument. Faggots like you never make any sense
TruthAlwaysHerts 1 year ago
@TruthAlwaysHerts U dont make any sense you dumbass! My argument is perfectly justified so why dont u do me a favor and GO TO HELL! u fucking prick.
GoGoPooerRangers 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GoGoPooerRangers oooh,, temper temper ... faggots always get so emotionally distraught .... there,, there,, everything will be alright .... what a dumbass faggot !!
TruthAlwaysHerts 1 year ago
@TruthAlwaysHerts what a dumbass bigot! im the one with the temper? im not the one calling someone a faggot on every comment. Wow, with your brains, I bet it took you all day to come up with that! you know I feel bad for you. you must be so miserable! always hating on ppl and all. you are truly an unhappy person so I forgive you!
GoGoPooerRangers 1 year ago
@TruthAlwaysHerts I'd hate to call you ignorant and do name calling. Because if I did, I'd be using the same tactics that you are using to convince us we're wrong. I can only express sorrow that you are not a compassionate human being who does not wish to see a peaceful world. You can't change people from being gay. They will always be there. You will, unfortunately, always disapprove of their presence. Learn to let go and realize that someone else being gay doesn't affect your life.
SirJamestheIII 1 year ago
@SirJamestheIII HOMOSEXUALITY IS A SHAM !!!
TruthAlwaysHerts 1 year ago
@TruthAlwaysHerts please expand this. you're not saying much here. Even if it is a sham, how does this sham affect your daily life? It doesn't. Someone being gay somewhere else won't make your life any worse. Let them be, and gays will let you be. It's a win win scenario. I consider myself to be a pretty happy person, and I'm around gay people everyday. You are too. You just don't notice it. How old are you? Has anyone taught that this is the way to view gays? Or did you decide this for yourself
SirJamestheIII 1 year ago
@SirJamestheIII Faggots want way too much, now they want same sex marriage. What a sham, marriage is only for man and woman. Gays are sissies.
TruthAlwaysHerts 1 year ago
@TruthAlwaysHerts says the guy hiding behind a computer :P
MansonFan64 1 year ago
@MansonFan64 I dont get it... dont we all hide behind a computer... let's see you expose yourself
TruthAlwaysHerts 1 year ago
@TruthAlwaysHerts Tell me were you born a bigot or just raised that way? Gays are sissies huh? How about the gay man who cracked the Nazi code during WW2? How about the thousands of gay servicemen and women discharged under DADT. Are you in the military? Are you fighting to defend our country and our rights? You are the only sissy I see here.
phoenix1985 7 months ago
@TruthAlwaysHerts Marriage is for any 2 non related consenting adults who love each other. That is the definition of marriage. Your bullshit definition doesnt mean a damn to anyone with a brair, heart, or soul. 3 things you clearly lack.
phoenix1985 2 months ago
@TruthAlwaysHerts Your a coward typing all these comments of hatred behind your computer. why dont you show your face you self loathing piece of shit
GoGoPooerRangers 1 year ago
@TruthAlwaysHerts Honestly sounds like you're just afraid of some butt sex. That's cute.
PoptartNoJutsu 1 year ago
@PoptartNoJutsu yeah, I do not want shit to be all over my cock. And I do not want shit breath. I love having pussy breath though.....
TruthAlwaysHerts 1 year ago
@Dogsneedpleasuretoo well, can you write all your, nonsense in one comment please?
dumbnetworks 1 year ago
Bravo Cynthia! Well-said!
MikeScott21 1 year ago
beautifully said!
jiggymonkey 1 year ago
And who is she anyway and why now everybody is listening to her? Ahh because she starred in Sex and the City. That's it lol
ThePhotobot 1 year ago
@ThePhotobot
Does anything you just typed have anything to do with the quality of what shes saying?...i listen to what people say and judge the content of their words regardless of whether or not their a celebrity!...if u think her point or argument is bad then by all means tell us what you think!?
silverdude1 1 year ago
@16242T, well put. Even if we did consider homosexuality something worthy of trying to reverse, nothing could make that harder than first condemning the proclivity itself as vile and depraved, thus demonizing the participants. There no reason for it past the desire to be cruel or controlling. This is why I have such great contempt for the outspoken anti-gay people. Their phenomenal recklessness does an astonishing amount of damage to so many completely innocent and already disadvantaged people.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
It's all about religions preaching love while spreading seeds of hatred.. Religions want to dictate their moral values on all of us.
sigmet61 1 year ago
This woman is dishonest. Same sex marriage is an oxymoron. Its like square circles. Does she think the law should make no distinctions based on sex? What about age or consanguinity?
66605 1 year ago
@66605 Correct. The law should in general not discriminate.
What reason for discrimination in this case?
lexave 1 year ago
@66605, I disagree. Marriage is just a contract that defines a family out a formal relationship between two or more people. Their sex isn't even relevant if they wish to have children since there are avenues to acquire them that do not require any reproductive abilities by members of the family whatsoever. Marriage is a purely civic technology, that's all.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
omg this is so gay
Phelan666 1 year ago
@Phelan666, maybe that's why they can charge people to see it.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
The Brian guy looks like a total jerk. I hate him already...
renaudldw88 1 year ago
if men want to shove their penises up the bum of other men, then good on them. only when there is consent between the 2 of course.
ih8mcfly 1 year ago
yeah gays are cool. havent you seen will and grace? la de da de da. Gays just want the same privledges.... oh and the extra privledge of sodomy!!! yay!!
tremulent 1 year ago
The main problem, as I understand it, with people being opposed to 2 consenting adults marrying is not a matter of religion but a matter of feeling insecure as human beings. Those who oppose same sex marriage the most vehemently then cower behind sacred text and use these same texts to "prove" their point. But they are not really "proving" their case against same sex marriage; rather, they demonstrate the depth of their own insecurities as human beings.
MethodicalMadness 1 year ago
Don't you just love the way she begins her argument by presuming to speak for her opponents? If you don't want to redefine marriage then leave it alone. The title of this video is a bold-faced lie & she spends a minute & forty-nine seconds trying to convinces us that it's not. Typical Liberal linguistic Tap-dance. At first Gays just wanted tolerance. Now that they've got that they want same-sex marriage. If they get that too it will not stop there. Homosexuality = corruption of spirit....sorry.
Texcentric 1 year ago
Comment removed
dumbnetworks 1 year ago
@dumbnetworks, why not? You advertise your illness, why shouldn't they do the same? Or are you advocating hypocrisy deliberately?
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@ananiasacts I don't advertise anything. I leave them alone If they leave me alone.
dumbnetworks 1 year ago
@dumbnetworks, So you're a liar as well as a hypocrite? What motivated your prior comment then? I think you just like to hate other people.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@ananiasacts so if you want I can elaborate on the subject. I'm sick and tired to hear that "it's cool to be gay" is teached to children. It's not cool at all.It's an evolutionary dead end, is a mutation, is an illness, it's not normal. So again please do not advertise this cancer on the streets or anywhere as being cool or fashionable or anything like that. It's not cool it's not great is as cool as having your leg amputated.
dumbnetworks 1 year ago
@dumbnetworks, I think the fact that homosexuality occurs in hundreds of different species proves it is a perfectly natural and normal phenomenon. You're just wrong to say that there is something sick about it. And what makes you so contemptuous, and worthy of extreme hatred, is that you'll allow your ignorance and personal prejudice to justify doing harm to people you don't know and pose no threat to you. Even though I think you're scum I would fight to defend your right to stay that way.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@ananiasacts wtf do you talk about? what harm to people? I never said doing any harm... I think you are imagining your own talk partner and probably talk to that imaginary friend of yours every day... I wrote there exactly what I mean. What ignorance? what threat to me? I'm reading your comment and is not adressed to what I said... You don't make any sense. Go to a doctor or something maybe you are "sick" too. I will repeat what I said but you can read it again, if it was removed I will post it.
dumbnetworks 1 year ago
@dumbnetworks, demonizing gay people is harmful all by itself, even if you really aren't religious (which I doubt, why else would you be against gays?) But you're only revealing how deeply ignorant and careless you are as a person. It's obvious that you know very little about how evolution works, biology, human sexuality, or anything else that is actually relevant to the issue of whether homosexuality is abnormal or not. The medical industry doesn't consider it so, that should be enough for you.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@ananiasacts Look the medical industry has some issues dealing with people who want to make a sex change cause they got too much or less hormones, in the wound. Its more or less complicated than this of course. And I am not "ignorant" .Nowadays everyone use this word on the net and it loses its meaning. What I am saying it might be considered radical or something like that, but I don't like to hide behind my finger in saying the truth, even if you like it or not...
dumbnetworks 1 year ago
@dumbnetworks, So you're suggesting we discard what the many thousands of experts who make up the medical industry has to say about it favor of your homophobic conclusions? No thanks. I prefer to believe you are just an ignorant little ass-wipe who hates gay people. The latter is simply far more likely to be true.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@ananiasacts "you're suggesting we discard what the many thousands of experts who make up the medical industry" I DID NOT SAY THAT... damn you are a fool dude incredible. thanks god its all written cause I would realy think I don't know what I said... wtf is wrong with you?
dumbnetworks 1 year ago
@ananiasacts I read a LOT about how evolution works and I like the subject... but that doesn't take anything away from what I said. I agree that they have the same rights as I do. I am not better or worse than anyone of them, BUT again lets not forget what is this...and one more thing. The "medical industry" doesn't consider it as an illness (openly) is because they can't do SHIT about it... YET! but programing a new born is just arround the corner. Who will want a gay kid? I might ask u?
dumbnetworks 1 year ago
@dumbnetworks, if you knew even a little bit about evolution you would not consider homosexuality abnormal. I think you're phenomenally ignorant, and most likely just lying about your faith. I've encountered too many Christians who regularly lie about their faith to avoid being written of as clueless imbeciles to trust your remarks. What possible reason could you have for persecuting gay people if you aren't religious? It you don't consider it a sin against god then why persecute gay people?
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@ananiasacts you are a retard and you are probably lying about your faith too. You believe that homosexuality is like a cloth what you wear on sunday morning. and again! I DID not said ANYTHING ABOUT PERSECUTING GAY PEOPLE! you are a moron and u probably work in the media cause they are teached to put words in peoples mouths. If you say it 100 times doesn't mean that I said it you farthead! I think YOU ARE CLUELESS
dumbnetworks 1 year ago
@ananiasacts So again! because you might be a little slow... Gay people are born with this problem, and they can't do shit about it yet! (the doctors I mean) I told you that too you fkin moron. And probably in the near future you won't see many of them cause of genetical engeneering,I told you that already, you dickface. Gayness is the same deviant behaviour like zoophilia or pedophilia for instance. These are all genetic issues unslovable by education.
dumbnetworks 1 year ago
@ananiasacts and adressing to what you have said that it occurs to animals and that makes it "normal"... look... its not normal. Sometimes you see animals born with two heads... that's not normal either. You are attacking me and others. I stated a fact, you like it or not. I told u once I'm telling you again, gays should't advertise their illness as being cool or fashionable! because is an sickness mutation, abnormality, evolutionary DEAD END! Can you read?? STUPID?
dumbnetworks 1 year ago
@dumbnetworks, You're simply wrong. Something that occurs with the frequency of homosexuality (around 10% of the population) is--by definition--normal. That it occurs with roughly the same frequency in literally hundreds of other species is proof that it's simply another of very many traits that we experience to different degrees. Like musical ability. Or fashion sense. I don't mind your contempt in the least--I admire honesty and openness. Your opinion is no less welcome here than my own.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@ananiasacts is by definition normal? where is that definition? I told you why is not normal. wtf can't you grasp it? If it occurs doesn't make it normal. I did not demonize them or anything what you don't get? I am not religious either, why would I write you about evolution? I have the feeling that you have a clichee answer to anyone who is usualy a bigot creationist of some sort... take your head out of ur ass for a second and read what I wrote there.
dumbnetworks 1 year ago
@dumbnetworks, I can understand what you said, but I disagree with it. What makes homosexuality perfectly normal IS its frequency in the population. Every trait that occurs with sufficient frequency (above say 1 in 50 or so) can be considered part of the normal range. You wouldn't call someone in the bottom 2% of intelligence as abnormal. So why consider non-heterosexuality (which occurs several times more frequently than that) as abnormal? By your definition, ALL recreational sex is abnormal.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@ananiasacts you say "by my definition all recreational sex is abnormal" umm NO. I didn't say that... I see that you are used to put your own words in others mouth. I already told you 15 times tha what you said I didn't stated in any of my comments. you either are stupid or just too ignorant to understand what I wrote there.
dumbnetworks 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ananiasacts so now tell me mr. gayfest why are you saying I'm a liar and hypocryte?
dumbnetworks 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dumbnetworks, but you removed the comment that proves you're a liar and a hypocrite. If you weren't such an ignorant asshole you wouldn't need to remove so many of your own comments.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
that's actually on of rare good answers i've heard in a long time.
aandreya 1 year ago 2
I thought US was over this already. Here in Canada this was discussed years ago. Everybody can get marry here and the page was turned.
etniko 1 year ago
@etniko, We have a much more toxic brand of religious scum here in America.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@etniko
See, that's one of the reasons I like Canada.
yalinegurl1 1 year ago
No, all we want is free and unfettered access to your kids.
GBS990 1 year ago
@GBS990, That's easy. Just become a Catholic priest.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
i want to inform the reader that the the asshole on the right is listening attentively
sexdrugsRnR 1 year ago
How PC of Fora to edit out the guys response.
Andybaby 1 year ago
@Andybaby
No it was just decent of them.
rubberbaby00 1 year ago
Few things seem to condemn religion more than its stance on homosexuality. It is mind boggling that people who realize that their sexuality is not negotiable can convince themselves that someone else's is. How cruel do you have to become to persecute others for being handicapped? It's unconscionable that we tolerate the institutionalized demonization of roughly a tenth of our population. Doing so should cost an organization its tax exempt status. Gays should not be made to fund their enemies.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@ananiasacts Interesting analogy: you equate homosexuality with being disabled.
Asiablue 1 year ago
@Asiablue, More like disadvantaged. If only because the selection of potential mates is so much smaller.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
She's brilliant, never thought about it the way she put it. I am going to see the rest of this video
martin692006 1 year ago
@martin692006, Let us know what you think of it. I'm not willing to pay for it, but I'd like to hear it.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
Well, if we have "Gay Parades" down mainstreet, we need to be fair and host "Straight Parades" and "Interracial Parades" and "Beastiality Parades" and all sorts of different sexual preferences. I don't think we should be parading our sexual habits down main street.
What should be respected is your Liberty to what you want, and we should be left alone to that. Sex is and should always be a private experience.
DJTmaq 1 year ago
@DJTmaq, Why tolerate the sort of scum who persecute handicapped people for something they cannot control? Is you sexuality open to negotiation? Why do you believe someone else's is?
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@ananiasacts Those handicapped people want to redefine staircases, parking spots, etc. and every redblooded amurcan must stand up and protect traditional transportation against the radical handicapped agenda.
andid 1 year ago
@andid, I reckon that endeavoring to err on the side of kindness is almost always the most efficient and cost effective technique for resolving a conflict.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
Kind people want to redefine my morality and every redblooded amurcan must stand up and protect traditional ethics against the radical kind agenda.
andid 1 year ago
@andid, but as she points out, you could say that about every cultural change. Each step along the path towards greater civil liberties has led to great progress for all of humanity. There is simply no reason to even consider homosexuality abnormal, it occurs in hundreds of species with roughly equal frequency. I'm an American too, and feel the principle of our nation demands that we support civil rights and a parity of opportunity for all people, regardless of things like race or sexuality.
ananiasacts 1 year ago 2
@ananiasacts I iz just trollin
andid 1 year ago
@andid, You're going to have to get a lot better at it if you want people to mistake you for something as filthy as the average phony Christian who shows up in places like this to exercise their puerile contempt for gays.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@ananiasacts Did you not mistake me for an average filthy Christian? Ah well, it's fun because you can be as stupid as you want and people can still mistake you for legitimate. poeslawandallthat
andid 1 year ago
Nothing in the definition of democracy says that only white men can vote. If all men died, women could still carry on a democracy. However, marriage has historically been a thing of the church which defines it as between a man and woman. I think people forget this and only consider marriage as a social construction.
More and more its losing its religous significants (thank god) but it still has its roots in christianity. I prefer your definition of marriage, but it isnt historically accurate
TonyTheSamurai 1 year ago
she rocks - great analogy
CartervonRiedel 1 year ago
well said
mrx0066600 1 year ago
I am in total favour of gay marriage....but the whole ' not trying to redefine' argument is poorly put. Woman didn't REDFINE voting because voting was not NECESSARILY a male endeavour, its just that woman were considered not smart (or whatever the flawed logic was) enough to vote. AfroAmericans were stifled by RACISM, not by the denial that black folk ATE.
Allowing homosexuals to get married WILL REDFINE because marriage is BY DEFINITION between a man and woman. Lets get our REDEFINE ON!
TonyTheSamurai 1 year ago
@TonyTheSamurai "because marriage is BY DEFINITION between a man" And democracy is by definition a system where white men get to vote ... There's a huge semantic difference disturbing this issue. A definition is BS. Marriage, voting, freedom, sex, ... So F definition and look at what marriage is: An institution to facilitate a couple to live together in harmony. So where do gays change this?
wimscheers 1 year ago
@TonyTheSamurai
Tony, it's only a redefinition, because you choose to define marriage as such. If we instead go by a neutral definition like: "The union of 2 consenting adults" no redefinition is needed. It's only an issue because you and others insists it to be this somewhat arbitrary "man and woman" definition.
Aaberg123 1 year ago
@Aaberg123 I don't prefer the 'man and woman' definition, otherwise i wouldn't be so adament about redefinition. But my 'man and woman' definition comes both from 'marriage: the christian tradition' and 'marriage: the history thereof'. You cant just define something contrary to its origins and previous manifesations. Sometimes things are as they are and not the way you and i want them to be.
TonyTheSamurai 1 year ago
@TonyTheSamurai, we redefine things all the time. I don't understand what you are saying. Who is harmed if we simply ignore the sexes of the couple being married? How does this change the essence of what a marriage is: a contract between two people that defines a family. What difference does it make what sexes they are? What part of personhood is based on genitals? Should people completely incapable of sex be disallowed marriage? We should be encouraging the creation of families.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@ananiasacts By making two people of the same sex NO ONE (except hyper-conservatives who cant handle change) is harmed but you ARE redefining the essence of marriage (being between a man and a woman, see: history, christianity).
I'm FOR the redefinition. My OP said I have a problem with denying it as a redefinition. Whether or not a child needs both a male and female parental unit is a question for sociologists and psychologists.
TonyTheSamurai 1 year ago
@TonyTheSamurai, You're being inane. The meaning of marriage hasn't changed one whit: it is still the definition of "family" (a group of people related by blood or marriage.) I have no idea why you think it has changed at all. Or even why such a thing would matter to anyone. Should we sue the people who invented mechanical computers for stealing a word that used to refer to people? It's the exact same thing. Do you think anyone was stupid enough to complain about such a change when it happend?
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@ananiasacts My argument is nuianced and so I understand why you would accuse me of being inane. The definition of marriage hasnt changed IF we go by your definition (which is to deny the religious society that [i'm glad] we no longer live in). Try looking back 100 years andyou'll observe the religious element present in marriage. No one would or should complain if it is redefined and it DOESNT MATTER to any progressive open thinker (which i consider myself to be). But dont DENY the redefinition
TonyTheSamurai 1 year ago
@TonyTheSamurai, How many concepts are refined each year? A great many of them are. Why single out marriage to make an issue of it? It seems particularly disingenuous because that aspect of marriage (heterosexuality) has literally NOTHING to do with the reason people get married, nor with the legal or civic impact that a marriage has on a couple. I don't deny that in some minds it can be construed as a change--but its a meaningless point. No part of the civic consequence has changed at all.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@ananiasacts Homosexual marriage is 'singled out' because i saw this video and that was my response to it. The point is important because it is the minds that WOULD consider it a change that are holding progress (such as gay marriage rights) back. It isnt people that consider marriage a purely civil/legal union that need convincing.
TonyTheSamurai 1 year ago
@TonyTheSamurai, If that is true, then why not point out how meaningless their complaint is? No one considered any other form of emancipation to be a redefinition of some underlying concept, like voting, or eating out. You seem to be supporting the anti-gay agenda by acknowledging that they have a legitimate complaint--that something precious to them has been lost. When, in fact, nothing relevant to them has actually changed at all. They are still completely free to believe whatever they wish.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@ananiasacts Because its not ineffective! It may be a dumb backward hick ideology, but dumb backward hicks VOTE! Just because everyone at your (and my) dinner parties agrees with GM it doesn't mean that society will move that way and that change will be enacted. The complaint isn't legitimate in that its morally sound but it is legitimate in that it EXISTS! As for your final 'out of sight' style point, you wouldn't allow what you considered 'immoral' to continue, so why would rednecks?
TonyTheSamurai 1 year ago
@TonyTheSamurai, Took me a while to find this: "Cott explained that domestic partnerships cannot substitute for marriage because domestic partnerships do not have the same social and historical meaning as marriage and that much of the value of marriage comes from its social meaning. Peplau testified that little of the cultural esteem surrounding marriage adheres to domestic partnerships." In other words, if you are right--if it is a redefinition--that only makes GM that much more legitimate.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@ananiasacts I don't know where you got that quote, but the conclusion you draw "In other words, if you are right--if it is a redefinition--that only makes GM that much more legitimate." is totally consistant with what i'm saying.
It IS a definition and recognition of gay marriage is completely moral, societally beneficial and criminally overdue.
TonyTheSamurai 1 year ago
@TonyTheSamurai, it's from the Judge's ruling that overturned Proposition 8's new definition of marriage. In it he addresses that issue pointing of that it is most definitely NOT a redefinition of what marriage is--and precisely WHY gays want the right to be married in the first place--because there is no substitute for it--because a civil union is NOT a marriage. "Marriage" is not being redefined in the slightest. What it actually means has nothing to do with the sex of the parties being wed.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@ananiasacts I havent seen the address and i can't conclude what you concluded from the quote you gave BUT you are still trying to convince ME that it isn't a redefinition. I'm saying it is the people that use the REDEFINITION as a basis for REJECTING same sex marriage rights who are the problem here! I DO consider it a redefinition and a couldn't give a damn, in fact i'm GLAD its being redefined. But unless you engage in the debate in the terms of dissenters you'll never win them over!
TonyTheSamurai 1 year ago
@TonyTheSamurai, the courts ruling is easy to find online (Perry v Schwarzenegger, Case No. C 09-2292 VRW.) and convers this issue starting around page 17. I am not sure we're talking about the same thing. That which motivates marriage, that which the distinction of being married confers (its utility,) and that which the state is permitted to recognize and regulate has nothing to do with the sex of the participants involved. I'm saying it doesn't matter what marriage means in common usage...
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@ananiasacts ...and dissenters CAN VOTE!!!
TonyTheSamurai 1 year ago
@TonyTheSamurai, ... in terms of the legal semantics of the state of marriage there is no change whatsoever. It the common usage of the term is an entirely unrelated issue that has no bearing whatsoever on this discussion. Dissenters can vote for incompetent legislation till the cows come home. That's probably a wise use of their time. It won't affect anything. They aren't going to be able to overrule the constitution, nor have it changed to explicitly demonize the people they love to hate.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@TonyTheSamurai
Sorry, but your limited scope and frame of reference is hindering your understanding. Why do you even need to reference religious tradition, when it's a secular act, with secular legal repercussions? To give credence to religion on this matter, is to render legitimacy to their invalid premisses.
All you need to know is this: You live in a secular society with equal protection under the law. From this point onwards, religious arguments becomes meaningless.
Aaberg123 1 year ago
@Aaberg123 If you think I'm saying that you can oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds, you're wrong. You cannot deny that marriage has its origins in religious beliefs (as once upon a time society was largely based on religious beliefs).
In comtemporary society it is much more about the social union than the religious implications (for the vast majority anyway). My argument is that it is a REDEFINITION from this old religious view of marriage into a current secular definition.
TonyTheSamurai 1 year ago
@TonyTheSamurai I understand now the angle you are taking.
Marriage has already been "redefined" as a secular institution, in most countries at least 100 years ago. Churches cannot, without the state, marry people.
I don't know if you are suggesting this, but it would be great if the state got out of the business of marriage altogether, and administered civil unions ONLY. Leave "marriage" to the religious, and they can be happy.
lexave 1 year ago
@lexave I'm glad, and I concede that to find the referent marriage you have to look further back than society normally does.But i think its worth mentioning because thats how far hyper-conservatives (and bigots) will go and these are the main opponents.The idea of administering civil unions has crossed my mind before.If it came down to it, i will ALWAYS vote for recognition of gay couples.The lack of legal recognition is embarassing in 2010,but maybe leave 'marriage' to the god-fearers
TonyTheSamurai 1 year ago
@TonyTheSamurai "marriage: the history thereof" -- I suggest you look at the long history of polygamy. The Old Testament is full of it, and Jesus did not contradict it (Matthew 5:17).
As to redefinition: Of course things are redefined! For instance, "property" no longer includes the traditional meaning of slaves.
lexave 1 year ago
@lexave I agree with everything you said, and it appears you agree with everything I said. I agree that religious doctrine is full of practices which seem absurdly immoral these days. I agree with your exclamation - 'Of course things are redefined!' Which would lead us both to conclude that same-sex marriage is a REDEFINITION of marriage, a beneficial and moral and criminally-delayed REDEFINITION.
The only person that does not agree is Cynthia Nixon who denies the redefinition.
TonyTheSamurai 1 year ago
@TonyTheSamurai I'm sorry, but "definition" depends on context. The phrase used by bigots is never "it redefines the legal meaning of marriage", which would be defensible. It's always "it redefines marriage with respect to my tradition/history/religion", which is bogus.
You misrepresent Cynthia. When women were allowed to vote, it legally meant redefining "voting". But it didn't mean redefining what we mean by the grander sense of "voting": the way to select a representative in a democracy.
lexave 1 year ago
Very concise.
hoodmilk 1 year ago
Bravo Cynthia, Bravo!
Megan6945 1 year ago
@daveff66
"you are not authorized to speak on behalf of western civilization"
I think I understand history enough to make that call, western marriage, and marriage everywhere else, has been a union between 2 or more people of OPPOSITE genders.
Oh, and I just enjoy being pedantic sometimes. I'm not really opposed to legalizing SSM because I'm a libertarian at heart, but i'm not afraid to say that it is wrong.
migkillertwo 1 year ago
@migkillertwo
"I think I understand history enough to make that call, western marriage, and marriage everywhere else, has been a union between 2 or more people of OPPOSITE genders."
Actually gay marriages did exist in ancient times, they were not very common, however. It's nothing new that the Abrahamic religions have monopolised on the concept of marriage amongst many other things..
therock27374 1 year ago
@migkillertwo Uhm, how can more than two people of opposite genders get married? Hate to point this out, but with only two genders, only one heterogeneous combination is possible: M+F.
Of course, if you were a true libertarian, you'd allow people to come up with whatever marriage contracts they wished. (And I'd agree with you.)
lexave 1 year ago
"how can more than two people"
polygamy
migkillertwo 1 year ago
Gays Don't Want to Redefine Marriage? get a dictionary from the 1950's, look up "redefine" and then look up "marriage". marriage being between a man and a woman was intrinsic to the concept of marriage. black people weren't allowed to eat out but that wasn't intrinsic to the concept of eating out, and the same goes for woman voting. you can either redefine marriage or re-right history.
rickwoodall 1 year ago
@rickwoodall Get a history book, and you'll see plenty of marriages between more than two people.
lexave 1 year ago
@lexave
You don't even need a history book.
Just go to Utah, India, or any muslim country. Not to mention the millions of people around the world who do it in secret, because who they love is somehow the government's business.
hoodmilk 1 year ago
@lexave well yea, mainly several women maried to one man and vice versa in some parts of asia. never same sex marriages though. plus - these marriages all happened either outside of western culture and there for do not fall under the western, christianity derived, definition of marige or they happened before the creation of the modern english language and ussage of the word marriage. whats the problem with coming up with a new word any way? a rose by any other name etc etc
rickwoodall 1 year ago
@rickwoodall So are these polygamous families unified or not?? If they are single families, then surely the women are married into the family, and hence to each other, just as they are married to the man.
About western culture: read your holy books again! How many wives did David have?
What's in a name? Calling something by a different word stigmatizes it. Imagine if the civil rights revolution resulted in blacks having equal rights to whites but not being called "people". Just a word, eh?
lexave 1 year ago
@lexave I would be happy to define the polygamous groups as being married and I would be happy to define same sex couples as being married. but in doing so i would be redefining the word marriage as it is traditionally understood. but who cares? words are redefined all the time. thats how languages evolve. david dint live in the west or in a western culture.
rickwoodall 1 year ago
@lexave calling something by a different name can stigmatize people but i think that saying people shouldnt be able to define a word or subject based on their beliefs (how ever crazy they might be) if a far worse type of stigmatization
rickwoodall 1 year ago
@rickwoodall Who has said people shouldn't be able to use words any way they like?? Please, don't attack an straw man.
You can indeed call people whatever you wish, but it's none of the government's business.
Let's not forget: this is about government discrimination. Private parties can continue to think whatever they want.
lexave 1 year ago
@lexave well your argument was that "Calling something by a different word stigmatizes it" pretty much implies that you have a problem with what people chose to call things/people. and being that we are talking about the definition of a word in a semi political context for you to say "You can indeed call people whatever you wish, but it's none of the government's business" destroys you own argument.
rickwoodall 1 year ago
Comment removed
lexave 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rickwoodall No. I make it quite clear. It's simple: 1. Using special words for people can stigmatize. 2. The government should NOT be in the business of stigmatizing.
What people do in their private minds is none of my business...
lexave 1 year ago
@lexave i must congratulate you. that is undoubtedly the most bizarre statement i have ever heard
rickwoodall 1 year ago
@rickwoodall I'm sorry your comprehension ability is so low.
lexave 1 year ago
@rickwoodall PS