Obama doesn't reprosent the LGBT community, he talks about "change", Obama the great censor bar, he isn't a good president all polotitions fail in some ways but don't go talking about change like a prophet if you can't back it up, he isn't a Humanist please people, you can't even leave a slightly critical comment on his youtube channel because he censors it, at least everyone knew Bush talked crap, look past the skin and see who he is, don't be racist in fear of being racist
@fannynoise, The president has absolutely done a great deal to further the cause of equal rights to homosexuals, and should be praised for that. This does not mean that the LGBT community doesn't have grounds to condemn this very hypocritical, evasive, political answer to a straight-forward question. "Yes," he aught to have said. "Calling homosexual couplings 'civil unions' is very akin to separate but equal. I can't believe I could have posited such an inane stance given my background."
If 'God' doesn't make mistakes, then why are gay people an 'abomination'?
I honestly can't believe people still follow a book written by a bunch of random people THOUSANDS of years ago. Obviously people were more close-minded back then. Get with this century people!
P.S. I was taught in school 'Gods' of people way back when were created to understand the world around them. Why would the Christian 'God' be any different?
@peanutman52 Obama got rid of anti-gay policies in the Military. That would redeem his slow move on equality for GLBT people...of course that (or anything the man does) would still NOT permit the likes of YOU to prise our President.
There is no pleasing those who are determined never to be pleased. We are moving on with or without you! Life's too short to keep appeasing the unappeasable. You should be ashamed of yourselves. Your hate for Obama is greater than your love for this country.
And the new testament does say being gay is an abomination!!!! looks like someone does not read or hasn't read and goes off of what they heard or read a long time ago. Nothing worse then a fag claiming to be a Christian and preaching to people false doctrine that only fits your lifestyle.
Get off that BS and get your twisted life in order
@assfukt. You are ass backwards!!!! Stop pretending to be intelligent and poisoning people with your false theology. The very nature of Christ is love indeed. God set standards and laws and CHOOSING to be gay you broke that law. Hence you bring destruction on yourself. So it's not Christ that's destroying you but you choosing again by your own free will to bring it on yourself.
@lavell0830 You are a perfect example why The United States is currently 18th in education among the 36 industrialized nations. Please go tell your parents that they failed you.
ehh idiots with their bible again... This is not religion its politics! Go pray or something as if we wana listen to u who wana tell us about god and how much he hates everyone xD
This approach is just complicating something that doesn't need to be complicated. Why make several new laws that allow the same rights as marriage to same-sex couples when it is easier and fairer to simply allow same-sex couples to obtain a marriage license and have to exchange vows with either a justice of the peace or an ordained minister (JUST LIKE MEN AND WOMEN DO NOW)?
@Chuck821000 Mm, well, I'd think it's because the United States is made up primarily of Christians. I guess it's just easier to refer to the country that way in terms of belief.
U have no understanding @all brother , why would christ come in the world who prayed to his father & his father was the one who gave moses the law's statues & commandments & christ in Matthew the 5th chapter 17th verse says he didn't come to destroy the law nor the prophets but to fullfill it !!! So don't give me that Christ tried to stand for gayness that's str8 wickednss & u better repent !!! & i'm telling u dat cause i love u brother ! Bless u !
THE BIBLE IS NOT LAW IN THIS COUNTRY! (NO RELIGION IS LAW IN THIS COUNTRY) IT IS A BELIEF, IT MAY BE LAW OR FACT FOR THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN IT, AND THAT IS FINE. FREEDOM OF RELIGION INCLUDES FREEDOM FROM RELIGION. IF YOU ARE A TAX PAYING AMERICAN CITIZEN THEN YOU ARE ENTITLED TO THE SAME RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES AS EVERY OTHER TAX PAYING AMERICAN CITIZEN!
"CITIZENS" HAVE NO "RIGHTS" YOU INBRED FUCKING REDNECK FUNDY DOLT!
WHERE THA FUCK DID YOU GET UR EDUCATION, UNDER A ROCK?
"PEOPLE" AS IN, "WE THE PEOPLE," HAVE ALL THE RIGHTS ENTITLED TO US, BUT "CITIZENS" AS YOU CALL YOURSELF, ONLY HAVE TAXES, WHY?
BECAUSE YOU ARE PROPERTY OF THE UNITED INCORPORATED-STATES OF AMERICA, YOU SIR, ARE A PRODUCT TRADED ON WALL STREET, A COMMODITY TO THE CORPORATION OF "AMERICA," YOUR ONLY PURPOSE IS TAXES.
Just because god loves some gay people, dont mean he is ok with them to be gay, he made some gay people gay as a curse dum ass, now meditate on that shit, and obama ass is gay, because he is supporting it and god doesnt assholes.
@lavell0830 How can you say gay people are a curse from god? I've honestly never heard of that before. As far as I know, god abhors the act of a man sleeping with another man . It's said to be a sin, yes, and I fully acknowledge that, but I haven't found anything in the bible that states that god hates gays and is against the attraction of one person to another of the same sex.
Though, if you have any evidence of what you said, I'd appreciate you sharing it.
I see why you call youself slime on yutube, you are a nasty ass delussional arrogant son of a bitch, god must have made your ass gay, and he is against it, and made gay people to be gay, beacause he made some people a curse, like your ass.
Jesus loves us, just like he loves straight people. He loves animals and plants as well. And of course, the elements. I love myself and I love my girlfriend and I would like to marry her one day. Please make that possible, Mr. President.
I'm christian. I don't think Obama should be our president due to his overspending. Continued occupation in Iraq and his want of involvement of Iran. I do, however, think that his idea about gay marriage is pretty much perfect. Now Ron Paul doesn't come with all the shitty economic and foreign ideals and he has almost the exact same view on gay marriage. Sooooooo.... Need I say more?
As a gay black brotha I can tell you I know a thing or two about the nonsense you fundies spew.
Jesus the ascended Master came into perfect oneness on Earth in the purest embodiment of love.
He was a flawless being of light who worked to purge the world from the impossibly strict Old Testament and knew the old ways a trillion times better than you.
Jesus realized fallen man could never reach GOD relying on such outdated biblical relics and killed for just such a notion.
@assfuckt Thank you! You are one of the many REAL Christians who actually love in the name of God and not in the name of hate and prejudice. There are too many Christians out there twisting the words of the Lord to their own way of thinking.
@Chuck821000 Alright, I've looked up all four references that you gave and I can see your reasoning. They all say that homosexuality is a detestable sin, yes, but not an unforgiveable sin. That said, I'd think that like all other sins, it was paid for when Jesus died on the cross. I know it also says that for commiting the sin, they should be killed, but wasn't it the same for stealing? That was in biblical times when most sins were punishable by death, it was the sin god hated, not the person.
Don't match this wickedness with saying this is a christian nation !!! Christian is supposedly christ like , what the hell is christ like about this abomination !!! Homosexuality is an abomination !!! Just switch the american slogan to Under Satan the united states stands , cause it's true ! The only freedom this country has is the freedom to sin ! str8 wickedness !!!
The New Testament doesn't say anything about gays being an abomination!!
Clearly to me, @Chuck821000 is an idiot of his own alleged doctrine, he is NOT a Christian, because Christian's don't apply the Old Testament except as a reference to what Jesus taught about God's perfect love for us and God's acceptance of everyone no matter what they do!
This is NOT "Universalism," this is true Christianity. Clearly Chuck821000 is a Muslim or Jew, only they use Old Testament!
@lavell0830 Yes I'm sure Jesus Christ himself came down from the heavens and proclaimed he would "bring destruction to the white house" for allowing people to get married to whom they love.
Even though these people were made by god. Oh by the way, it's wicked.
@lavell0830 Odd how Jesus would make a person gay, make another person gay, the two would fall in love, and then command that they spend their lives alone (or lying to themselves) because he finds their relationship unnatural and their existence is wrong, even though he made them that way. And is supposed to love everyone, unless he was just lying when he said all that. If only your extraordinarily closed minded views came with a closed mouth as well.
How could pure love "bring destruction" to anything?
Christ cannot do that, unless your personal savior is actually the Lord of Hell itself?
Something Christ could do however, is lift the hedge of protection off tha whitehouse and "allow" the forces of darkness free access to wreak havoc themselves, that's what pure evil does by its very nature, it kills, maims and destroys... But by His very nature, Christ won't "bring destruction."
You're certainly the shining superstar of exemplary intellect yourself! I see you've somehow managed to beat all-odds by superseding the dimwitted one-word comment of a 1st grade dropout!
Pat your ego on the back champion, you are the icon of atheist pride! Clearly no preschooler is your equal, no match, you've graduated to the Big Time, no grade-schooler is safe from defeat, total superior pwnage!
Damn dude, it would be so cool on the playground being YOU!
@assfuckt: Before you get thrown into a blind rage, realize that I wasn't talking to you. I was responding to lavell about how he thinks that "god" is going to destroy everything because people can love somebody. Now, judging by your response, I can tell your a person of a "write first, think later," policy. I'm not sure why you think i'm being some sort of "playground bully." Not only that, but you put me on a pedestal of the icon of atheist pride. Why, might I ask?
@assfuckt: Also, I am not out to get Christians. If you believe that, that's fine. What I don't like are people like lavell (or whatever his name was) going around a shouting warnings of the apocalypse. I really do hope that you'll realize this and try not to jump to conclusions next time.
I LIKE THE FACT THAT HIS MOTHER AND FATHER WERE MARRIED EVEN THOUGHT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN ILLEGAL IN MANY STATES FOR A BLACK MAN TO MARRY A WHITE WOMAN. IN HAWAII IT WAS REALLY NICE AND COOL FOR THEM TO GET MARRIED.
@JANETBERYMUSICSTUDIO SAID: "IT WOULD HAVE BEEN ILLEGAL IN MANY STATES FOR A BLACK MAN TO MARRY A WHITE WOMAN"
Are you an ALL CAPS IDIOT?
There is no such law in any of the fifty states of America, the last law banning interracial marriage ended in Arkansas back in 1969.
Either you time-traveled into 2012 from pre-1969 KKK era or you are just a blithering idiot spewing tha typical dumbed-down, inbred black-afro victimization card!
You know what we are all human beings and should have the right to do whatever we want as long as it isn't harming anyone. We are the only ones that have limitations on ourselves.
Obama and Hillary both believe in Gay Marriage, but wouldnt have gottin as many votes if they were open about that. In order to win, you have to lie sometimes :(
@AlexPreachesTruth I'm not a servant of your God, no, because yours seemed to be very hate filled. I serve a God and I serve his son who spoke words of love and acceptance.
I hope Obama loves gay people, I know I love gay people because there is no reason not to love them.
Finally, I have read those books of the Bible and nowhere does it say that Obama is the Antichrist.
there's nothing worse then commenting negatively on a video that is supporting gay marriage which is what i'm seeing here. you all haters who are wasting your fucked up time insulting obama as he is saying he supports the gay rights. if there's anyone you should be insulting its sarah palin and john mccain. obama is all for gay marriage and you all gay hating bastards are admitting you dont! when is it gonna get through to you that gays are just people. we're all just people. no more no less
@iridescentsquids - "I'm confused" Yes, u are and that's why I challenged u to talk to economist. As for adoption, I've already mentioned many orphans suffer from substance abuse, mental illness, etc. Govt policies typically target the most optimal solution. It is obvious u don't understand how world govts work and are ignorant in economics
@iridescentsquids - "state interest" Well, I've given u the evidence to state interest and yet, u don't get it?! Either there's a gross misunderstanding or do u think I'm lying? That's why I challenged u to talk to a economist to understand it. And if / when u talk to a lawyer, ask them if I'm wrong about the Loving court who dismissed gay marriage in Baker. The evidence is crystal clear
@zztstenglish "Either there's a gross misunderstanding or do u think I'm lying?"
My 2 cents, I think it's a combination of lack of curiosity of other's opinions and general adamancy regarding your own.
There are many state interests in marriage referenced by judges in various rulings, and yet you only focus on this one. Furthermore, you conveniently ignore the purpose of defining state interest in many of the cases where it is. Not sure you're sincerely interested in the subject.
@iridescentsquids - "admancy regarding your own" No, that's me trying to elucidate.
"many state interests in marriage referenced by judges in various rulings" Please submit those rulings except for Perry v Schwarznegger. I already read Perry v Schwarznegger
@zztstenglish I'm mostly familiar with the prop 22 ruling. To start: "the constitutionally based right to marry properly must be understood to encompass the core set of basic substantive legal rights and attributes traditionally associated with marriage that are so integral to an individual’s liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated or abrogated by the Legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process.... "cont
@zztstenglish (continued 2) ..."These core substantive rights include, most fundamentally, the opportunity of an individual to establish — with the person with whom the individual has chosen to share his or her life — an officially recognized and protected family possessing mutual rights and responsibilities and entitled to the same respect and dignity accorded a union traditionally designated as marriage."
So for openers a definition of marriage as a right (I know..doesn't address SS coupling)
@zztstenglish (cont 3) Now for a state interest: "As past cases establish, the substantive right of two adults who share a loving relationship to join together to establish an officially recognized family of their own — and, if the couple chooses, to raise children within that family — constitutes a vitally important attribute of the fundamental interest in liberty and personal autonomy that the California Constitution secures to all persons for the benefit of both the individual and society."
@zztstenglish So, you'll notice that the state interest (interest in liberty and personal autonomy...for the benefit of both the individual and society) and definition of marriage as a fundamental right.
Seems we are talking about state interest and definition of marriage simultaneously in our discussion. Although one does not = the other there is cross-over and need to avoid logical inconsistency between them.
I'm primarily pointing out alternative state interests to the one you focus on.
1. As u know, that only applies to CA. I think it'd be in everyone's best interest that this is settled in the supreme court immediately. I hope we can at least agree on that.
2. The closest supreme court case I can think of that resembles what u are talkin about is Lawrence v Texas. Are u familiar with it? If not, 1 consideration in it was adult consensual sex in their home violated their interests in liberty & privacy protected by the 14th. (part 1)
@zztstenglish 1"As u know, that only applies to CA." yes. Still, it's at least one state interest I know of you didn't mention...and I recall reading others in this case and others. It seems to me that there is no single clear-cut state interest in marriage, and to insist on a procreative interest exclusively requires a) justifying the procreative, and b) demonstrating all others to be invalid, including the raising of children who are only 1/2 related to parents or not at all. A tall order.
@zztstenglish The other use of the term 'state interest' refers to the government intervention into rights, to change or limit those right, which is why in the prop 22 ruling the consider whether homosexuals constitute a suspect class. They determined that strict scrutiny is required, meaning state interest must be compelling and necessary. Probably best to get you take on all this so far, as the risk of flying off track is too great as it is.
@iridescentsquids - (part 2) so it'd seem gays have their liberty and personal autonomy based on lawrence v texas, no?
3. "interest in liberty and personal autonomy" And therefore, logic compels us to subsidize marriage based on this reasoning? I realize u are supplying an alternative state interest but surely, the State doesn't need to subsidize marriage based on that reasoning?
@zztstenglish "3."interest in liberty and personal autonomy" And therefore, logic compels us to subsidize marriage based on this reasoning?
Logic compels us to allow people to make commitments to each other and for legal recognition of this decision (marriage laws/benefits, domestic partnership laws/benefits, etc. follow this logic). What legal obligations or benefits you believe this justifies is clearly a related issue, but the logic behind state recognition of such decisions is different.
@iridescentsquids - As stated, gays already have 'liberty' and 'personal autonomy' that was decided in Lawrence v texas. From an economic point-of-view, the state doesn't need to subsidize that. As for your other pt about marriage laws, I'm thankful u brought that up. Google an economic assessment of same sex marriage laws. Professor doug allan did a comprehensive study on it, illustrating a '1-size-fits-all' law doesn't work for both hetero and homo unions. check it out!
you might be wondering why the court defines a state interest that includes marriage but does not mention marriage exclusively. The preceding paragraphs (not quoted) explain that the benefits and rights established through domestic partnerships are nearly identical to that of marriage. They are recognizing the state interest shared between them which makes them nearly identical.
@lucasboden this is actually a good idea,church and state are separate when it comes to putting a manger in front of city hall,you see there is no profit in it,there is in licenses for marriage,a license for a right sounds absurd to me,so government should have civil unions,because government is supposed to protect rights for everybody,and religions will marry who they want,and those who are smart will live with one another without involving church or state.
Government marriage is a way of making you and your martial assets property of the state and lawyers,who in their right mind would fight for this as a right,please someone respond and explain I dont understand is love about tax deductions and insurance,is this the issue?or does it feel legitimate if the government says it is so,I really dont know pay for the right to love someone isnt that a little absurd,and dont give me the blood test argument, go to the doctor.I wouldnt do it again.
@1210catman "please someone respond and explain I dont understand"
It's actually a great question. It would be interesting to know WHY the state ever recognized marriage in the first place. But when we consider it historically it appears to me, at least at first glance, kind of obvious: People were already getting married regardless of any laws. All laws do is say "look, here are the rules for this behavior if you ever end up in court. These are the obligations, benefits, property rights, etc."
It makes more sense to me to think of it this way than the way many who oppose SSM tend to. Marriage was NOT invented because government saw a need for a labor force and thought this would meet that need. It's a varied tradition engrained in civilization that bleeds by necessity into laws which define it as a right and obligation.
Homosexual activists understand the power of words.
Please visit my channel to watch a one-minute video clip in which popular atheist author Richard Dawkins admits that homosexual activists "hijacked the word 'gay'".
The word "homosexual" is more appropriate and accurate because it, unlike the word "gay", actually describes the behavior/attraction/relationship being discussed.
The word "gay" helps homosexual activists push their agenda.
Marriage is a religious institution. Not a legal 1. If a church blesses any wedding including same-sex marriage, then the Govt. is bound to Recognize it n provide equal benefits! as simple as that!
Homosexuality is not illegal anymore, so the govt. is bound to recognize it! Or else its just PURE DISCRIMINATION! coz the constitution is not based on the Torah or bible. n its a free society!
if 2 people of the legal marriage age, they should b married. NO MATTER WHAT!
@idaman12345 actually it is.. in ancient rome n greece both opposite sex n same sex marriage was a bond created by god. the govt. got involved only for benefits.
in a nutshell(he can't say this outloud), what I am getting from this is that Obama sees that the people don't want gays to be able to get married right now, and that is too tough of an issue (Right now), but that if gays get all the rights (as did the blacks), they will eventually assimilate enough to get marraige rights in our culture
@iliveon That's pretty much his position, yeah. I can understand that. It's too divisive at this point. I think he should stand up for gay marriage, but my main concern is that he's not anti-gay. He's pro-gay, and has been a dream on this issue compared to Republicans.
@mitchthemich Ron Paul 2012. Obama is only bringing us World War III, the end of our freedoms, and the imminent economic collapse of the US. Not to mention that he is nothing more than a corporate puppet. He does not care about you. Vote for the candidate that will fight for YOU, not his criminal friends over on Wall Street.
Bloody Beast Obama, the Antichrist, will soon lead this nation in proud middle-finger-lifted rebellion against God Almighty and send this nation to hell where it belongs...
Honestly I think Obama would approve of gay marriage. It is just politics that prevents a politician from favoring gay marriage because obviously this is not popular amongst social conservatives. US government has never been completely secular and probably never will.
I personally support gay marriage and I think government has no place in this because marriage is a religious ceremony.
I'm glad i live in Australia - where the government doesn't make big deals of out this stuff - just society. Society has made 'marriage' to be the 'Ultimate Step in Love' where you are bound by papaer slips and a ring. I always thought ultimate love was laying together. When you desire eachother and shit. All people care about is the effect gays have on population numbers. But they shouldn't worry - I'm a girl and i wouldnt care if i fell inlove with a girl or a guy, i fell in love bro.
@GOOdGuyGreg1 - "Because the case came to the federal supreme court through mandatory appellate review (not certiorari), the summary dismissal constituted a decision on the merits and established Baker v Nelson as a precedent"
Until this case is overturned, THEN gay marriage can proceed. Otherwise, gay marriage is a sham. The evidence is crystal clear.
@zztstenglish yes there are parts of the constitution where it can be argued the other way but that is doesnt mean that one answer isnt better than the other. if you look at the example that you gave me, the two predominant arguments were procreation and child rearing because that was seemed to link with marriage. yet single parents are allowed in society to take care of their children so why cant two same sex partners take care of a child? and no study has confirmed same sex parents arent as
@GOOdGuyGreg1 - I apologize for the long reply in advance but u raise a lot of pts:
1. "a right pertaining to a particular religion" No, I did not make that assertion so your assumption is wrong. Besides, I'm aware of something called Seperation Of church & state
2. "Catholic priest/someone who has sworn themselves off sex" Search on wiki for Pastoral provision. or lookup Maronite or melkite who permit married priests but are catholic too. (part 1)
@zztstenglish in response to your first point, since the term marriage does not apply to any one religion and in some cases no religion at all, where does the idea that it must be between a man and a woman come into play when that is the view of many religions.
on the secod point, yes there are exceptions for priests but my point was some people cannot have kids for many reasons. you completely ignored my question if someone is infertile. the ability to reproduce is not a factor.
@GOOdGuyGreg1 1) I wasn't ignoring your statement. I just felt compelled to educate u on the catholic celibacy rule since it's a common misconception by the pubic & a LIE by the media. 2) "view of many religions" I know why but I cannot speak on behalf of all religions. Besides, it's irrelevant due to seperation of church & state. 3) "ignored my question on infertile" The state cannot take fertility tests before marriage since it'd be illegal due to privacy laws. it's ASSUMED
@zztstenglish yes lets cut down the points. i wont ask anymore.with regards to infertility, i know you cant take a test but i was merely dismissing one of the two major points of that 1976 case (i think it was then) where reproduction was wrongfully a key issue. on the fifth point, just because it is legal, doesnt mean its correct/morally right. by that logic if some abstract law saying that hypothetically parents must beat their kids, you'd agree because its legal.
@GOOdGuyGreg - 1) "no like i said, i dont believe in govt subsidies for marriage" But that's NOT what I asked. Your answer is about whether u support it or not. My question is WHY does the gov't do it? Answer: the gov't subsidizes marriage is to encourage procreation & raise kids who'll be the state's future workforce. Gay marriage doesn't further that policy since homosexuality is a biological dead end(except artificially which has been proven to be harmful). (part 1)
@zztstenglish yes and i dont agree with that reason of procreation. its not like the human race is going to slowly die out. the population is increasing exponentially. just because the govt endorses and even goes to the next step to subsize it, doesnt mean its reason are just or valid. and so what if a small percentage cant reproduce? if the state wants a higher population they should be more flexible with immigration laws. problem solved. dont take it out on the gay community
@GOOdGuyGreg 1) 'Population increasing exponentially' Oh, and have u researched overpopulation? Tell me, what's the optimum number the earth can sustain? How did we resolve the estrous cycle? How come u seem to know more about overpopulation than EU nations who gave $ to have kids
2) "Immigration laws. Problem solved" Immigration's a sub-optimal solution since there's cultural problems, language barriers, etc. gov't policies typically target the most optimal solution (part 1)
@zztstenglish yes the worlds population is increasing exponentially. you are retarded if you cannot see it. and i didnt say there was an optimum number but for many countries, more people means more job opportunities. when america had the highest immigration rate before the depression, its economy was booming. and with immagration, im from australia where we see immgration as essential due to our low population. so it depends where you come from.
@GOOdGuyGreg - "quadrapeligic should work" I did NOT say they should work. Ya I know many do not but my pt is SOME do work.
"immigration as essential" ya but it still has its problems that makes it sub-optimal. If anything,it's mostly good for cheap labor until 2nd generations come.
"doesn't matter if it yields no benefit" LOL! That's the DUMBEST thing I've ever heard. I have no further comment
@GOOdGuyGreg - "doesn't mean its correct/morally right" True but the reasoning behind the decision coincides with my 1st point. Or see Standhardt v Arizona ("excluding such couples from marriage could only be justified by a compelling state interest"). So what is the state's interest? They're obviously subsidizing it for a reason. I just gave u the reason in point 1. What would be the benefit to the state if no procreation's involved? answer: nothing. U want more info?
@zztstenglish "What would be the benefit to the state if no procreation's involved? answer: nothing"
There is a state interest in creating stronger family units, both for raising children and simply making life decisions as couples do without children. It's the same state interest in having opposite sex couples who can not have children biologically but who intend to adopt or have children by other means marry so as to create a more stable, formalized family unit.
Consider that procreative/family rights includes adoption and other means that are shared by both same sex and opposite sex couples. Just as adopted children would benefit from having a more stable, married opposite sex couple raise them, so would they benefit from having their same sex parents married.
@iridescentsquids - "should not be misunderstood to mean that marriage exists solely to serve the state's interests" Sure since marriage pre-existed the State. Some do it for religious reasons, etc. Furthermore, I'm speaking specifically in the context of what the court's were saying
@zztstenglish "Furthermore, I'm speaking specifically in the context of what the court's were saying"
Well, then you may have misunderstood the courts. State interest is a justification for the state altering or limiting the rights of individuals. The state needs varying degrees of justification in order to do that. An individual's liberties, including the right to marry, is constitutional in nature and does not exist BECAUSE of state interest. Again, I think your causality is mixed up.
@iridescentsquids - "includes adoption and other means" Adoption is a sub-optimal solution to labor needs. Many orphans suffer from substance abuse, mental illness, etc. People do it for altruistic reasons and the govt is NOT a charity organization. Adoption is not a good resource for labor. Govt policies typically target the most optimal solution
@zztstenglish "Adoption is a sub-optimal solution to labor needs."
1. So now marriage part of some kind of regulated social engineering project and not an individual's civil liberty?
It's ridiculous to argue that SSM should not be allowed because such couples may adopt. Orphans don't exist because people adopt! you need to rearrange your understanding of causality.
@GOdGuyGreg - It's like love before marriage. the gov't cannot legislate or enforce love; yet, we have arranged marriages going on where the couple haven't even met. Again, it's ASSUMED. 4) "ignored my statement that it has never been proven that 2 heterosexual parents are better" I'm skeptical about those studies due to a researcher's findings in 50 flawed studies. Google robert lerner same sex parenting. Also, google my daddy's name is donor (the 1st study of its kind on AI)
@zztstenglish effective as straight parents. also, with regards to procreation, would you deny the rights of marriage to a couple who is fertile? or a catholic priest/someone who has sworn themselves off sex? you are correct when you bring up that case with regards to the constitution but since then people have realised that some of the reasons for that decision are fallacious.
3. "single parents are allowed in society to take care of their children" Ya and we KNOW the bad effects it has had on society since 1/3 of single moms live in poverty (the last time I checked the stats). Yet u propose making a bad situation worse for the same myopic reasons?!
4. "reasons for that decision are fallacious" Well, until baker is overturned, THEN gay marriage can proceed; otherwise, it's a sham. (part 2)
@zztstenglish also some people get married and they choose not to have kids.
for the third point, yes single parents are statistically worse off but the point is it is legal and always will be and obviously two parents will be even better. and you ignored my statement that it has never been proven that 2 heterosexual parents are better than two same sex parents.
and for the 4th, you have to think for yourself. do you think the reasons it was dismissed was justified?
@GOOdGuyGreg1 - Here's some stats from pg 7-9 study: 45% agree their [artificial] conception bother them, 1.5 times likely to have mental problems, 2 times likely to have substance abuse and much, much more. Do those studies u support factor in this info? I think not. 5) "think for yourself" No, u think for yourself because LEGALLY, I'm right and u know it.
@GOOdGuyGreg1 - 6) "the point is it [single parenting] is legal" I know that but my pt is it has bad effects on society & u don't do that as gov't 7) "As for the reason it was dismissed" That's why I asked u the question why does the gov't subsidize marriage which u didn't give any proof on. it's not about promoting culture. Show me proof. It's obvious u don't know. Anyway, we're hitting alot of points...let's try and cut it down a bit.
@zztstenglish and no like i said, i dont believe in govt subsidies for marriage. why should tax money be spent when some people might not get married/choose not to get married? and if gays cant legally get married then that is a travesty. and i could disagree with those statistics: "Studies have found children do not require both a male and female parent," testified Michael Lamb, who heads Cambridge's Department of Social and Developmental Psychology.
@GOOdGuyGreg - (part 2) Subsidizing gay marriage with no procreation yields NO BENEFIT to the state. World gov'ts subsidize marriage for future labor all the time. For evidence, google russia's campaign to increase its birthrate or google EU nations offer incentives to have kids (this was cut recently due to the economic crisis). I have more info to support this assertion if u want.
2) "testified Michael lamb" then i suggest u review my daddy's name is donor study
@zztstenglish "World gov'ts subsidize marriage for future labor all the time."
The state interest discussion is important, but it should not be misunderstood to mean that marriage exists solely to serve the state's interest. Marriage is NOT all about a government effort to social engineer a stronger workforce. It provides a basic societal structure for making all kinds of life decisions (not just procreative), and, equally importantly, is an individual's constitutional right.
@iridescentsquids - "an individual's constitutional right" Ya which was ruled in Loving v Virginia. yet, the loving court itself rejected a due process & equal protection challenge to Minnesota's ban on gay marriage only a few yrs later. See Baker v Nelson. Evidently, the Loving court did NOT mean gay marriage when it declared marriage as a right
@zztstenglish "Evidently, the Loving court did NOT mean gay marriage when it declared marriage as a right"
I'm more familiar with the Prop 22 ruling in California. The majority largely accepted the plaintiff's contention that they had a fundamental right protected by the California Constitution’s due process and privacy clauses to marry the adult consenting partners of their choice, regardless of gender.
@iridescentsquids - "more familiar with the Prop 22 ruling in California" Ya, and hasn't CA stopped issuing ssm licenses since nov 17th since it's going to the 9th circuit. Anyway, I suggest u get familiar with Baker v Nelson. Here's a wiki quote: "limited marriage to different sex couples and that this limitation did not violate the United States constitution" After going to the SUPREME COURT, it was dismissed on its merits and "established Baker v Nelson as PRECEDENT"
@iridescentsquids - "yours seems odd" Oh, really? I have given evidence that world govts do it all the time. Google Russia's campaign to increase its birthrate. here's a quote from slate "Virtually every industrialized country has financial incentives to encourage procreation--tax deductions, family support programs, bonuses for children,etc" Or google EU nations offer incentives to have kids. Do u have counter evidence to refute my so-called 'theory?' (part 1)
@iridescentsquids "right exists independent of state interest" Well, the State does get involved since it sets the age, defines marriage laws, etc. Furthermore, as stated, marriage is not in the bill of rights and was only declared a right in Loving v Virginia which was the SAME supreme court who dismissed gay marriage in Baker. So your understanding of 'right' has been misunderstood.
@zztstenglish I have no doubt that there have been social-engineering projects centered around attempts to control birthrates, and marriage may very well have been considered in this context. But defining marriage with this narrow focus (as a regulator of labor force) is odd and unlike any commonplace definition. Do I have any evidence for this claim? I suppose that such a definition of marriage does not exist in any dictionary, U.S. legal arguments that I am (so far) aware of, or common speech.
@iridescentsquids - "attempts to control birthrates" Exactly....just like China's 1-child-policy, right?
'defining marriage with this narrow focus" well, throughout history, many have done it for religious reasons or royal families did it for dynastic reasons. So obviously, many do it for personal reasons. One can have those marriages but it does NOT mean the state must recognize it
@zztstenglish " One can have those marriages but it does NOT mean the state must recognize it"
Hmm..I guess the question you are getting at then, is why does the U.S. government (since, correct me if I'm wrong, we are considering SSM in the states here) recognize marriage at all?
I admit there are tons of gaps in my knowledge of marriage law in the U.S.. But I'm under the impression that marriage wasn't first recognized by the state based on a social-engineering rationale.
@zztstenglish "I have given evidence that world govts do it all the time."
So I have no issue with your claim that governments try to use marriage to regulate their labor force. Maybe they do. But to define marriage as a regulatory tool for social engineering is unusual. Is it possible to define it this way anyway? Sure. Knock yourself out. But ask any couple about to get married to define it, or any U.S. lawmaker or lawyer or judge, and you won't hear that definition.
@iridescentsquid "ask US lawmaker" See Loving v Virgina ("Marriage is...fundamental to our very existence and survival") See Skinner v Oklahoma ("Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the [human] race")
Marriage wouldn't be 'fundamental' to the 'existence' and 'survival' if it had nothing to do with procreation. Or see Standhardt v Arizona where it talks about denying gay marriage must be a COMPELLING STATE INTEREST that I've given u
@zztstenglish I understand under strict scrutiny the state interest must be compelling, and i have heard similar descriptions of state interest of marriage (not the same thing as a definition) to what you are siting.
Notice, however, that "marriage and procreation" does not simply mean marriage = procreation. I have heard takes on state interest very similar to this that recognize marriage as a building block of our society, and for raising children. Neither of these inconsistent with SSM.
@zztstenglish "COMPELLING STATE INTEREST that I've given u"
The compelling state interest is required to justify LIMITING the right to opposite sex couples. The proposed state interest of creating a societal structure for raising children is consistent with SSM.
A definition more consistent with the state interest you define, and less discriminatory, would simply be "only marriages consisting of couples capable of procreating, or raising a biological child of both parties, is recognized"
@iridescentsquids I wouldn't waste your time and energy with zztstenglish. He likes to use the same lines on different threads. Always post his worn out googling rhetoric..
He has nothing better to say, but be repetitious with his googles..
@iridescentsquids - "I have to check" Sure. Loving was in 1968 and Baker was in 1972
"as a regulator of labor" Then I invite u to ask any reputable economist if my info doesn't suffice
"ask US lawmaker" Well I gave u 2 rulings in Loving and Skinner. But see Singer v Hara. Marriage is 'for the purpose of encouraging propogation of the [human] race' Similarily, the 9th circuit noted gay "marriages never produce offspring" See Adams v Howerton
@zztstenglish Re the Singer v Hara and Baker v Nelson: The rationale for both rulings are contingent upon 1. homosexuals not being considered suspect class, and 2. equal rights protection not extending to sexual orientation. Both of these cases from the 70's differ on these points than cases today, like California's Prop 22. Equal rights protection have expanded (and continue to expand) on state and federal levels to include sexual orientation. In more recent cases homosexuals are suspect class.
@iridescentsquids - "Both of these cases from the 70's" Ah, yes..but the significance of Baker it went to the supreme court and was dismissed based on the merits of the lower courts decision. As binding precedent, lower courts cannot come to a contrary conclusion. Until it's overturned, THEN gay marriage can proceed. Otherwise, it's a sham (part 1)
@iridescentsquids - "your seems odd" Here's a quote from wiki on china's 1-child-policy "officially restricts MARRIED, urban couples to having only 1 child" and "the original intent of the 1-child-policy was economic...a steady labor rate, reducing unemployment" It is not as odd as u might think since world govts do it all the time
"building blocks of our society, and for raising children" Ya, now tell me what's the benefit to the state as a result of that? (continued)
@zztstenglish "It is not as odd as u might think since world govts do it all the time"
Like I said, I have no problem with your assertion that procreational social engineering occurs. But look at the china example you give: you are not describing a definition of marriage. All you are saying is that marriage can sometimes play a part in such efforts. This is NOT a definition of marriage.
Are you really asking what the state benefits might be for a couple raising children being married?
@iridescentsquids - remember, these kids will one day defend our nation, patrol our borders, etc. Gay marriage doesn't further that policy since homosexuality is a biological dead end (except artificially which has proven to be harmful). for evidence, lookup
@zztstenglish "Gay marriage doesn't further that policy since homosexuality is a biological dead end"
Completely irrelevant. Won't adopted children one day defend our nation, too? Will adopted children benefit from the couple raising them being married? Sure. Having such couples married is equally beneficial to the state, whether the couple is same or opposite sex. The benefit to the state is identical.
@iridescentsquids - "Won't adopted children one day defend our nation" As stated, adoption is a sub-optimal solution to the state's labor's needs. many suffer from mental illness from abuse, substance abuse, etc. People do it for altruistic reasons and the State is NOT a charity organization. Immigration is also sub-optimal. It has issues with cultural problems, language barriers, etc. It's mostly good for cheap labor until 2nd generations come along
@zztstenglish "adoption is a sub-optimal solution to the state's labor's needs"
sub-optimal to what? Foster homes?
Not just because of the speculative nature and special pleading fallacies to this argument, even if it were true this is FAR from a legit compelling state interest. You would need to demonstrate that somehow SSM would create more mental abuse, substance abuse, etc. and all you are saying is that adoption does this. So regulate adoption.
@iridescentsquids - "sub-optimal to what? Foster homes" READ AGAIN. Sub-optimal solution to the STATE'S LABOR NEEDS.
"speculative nature and special pleading fallacies" Then tell me why does the govt subsidize marriage? Do u think the govt subsidizes marriage for fun? Give me the logical reason or give me counter evidence to refute my 'speculative nature' I'm challenging u to ask any reputable economist since my proof doesn't seem to suffice
@zztstenglish "READ AGAIN. Sub-optimal solution to the STATE'S LABOR NEEDS."
Ugn...you are the one who needs to read again. you are arguing that adoption is sub optimal, but you aren't explaining what impact SSM has on adoption rates to justify limiting the right to marry to opposite sex couples only. If there is no relationship, your point about adoption is irrelevant.
@iridescentsquids - "you are the one who needs to read again" No, u DO because u said "sub-optimal to what? Foster homes?" which clearly indicates u don't know. Besides, many of these pro-gay parenting studies are bs. Google robert lerner same sex parenting. This research discovered 50 pro-gay parenting studies were seriously flawed so I question if gay can properly parent their own or adopted
@zztstenglish ""you are the one who needs to read again" No, u DO"
No, sorry you are simply ignoring my point.
Of what relevance is the adoption topic at all to whether SSM should be legal or not? Does it in any way inhibit a state interest? You haven't indicated any way. Are you arguing that adoption rates will increase if SSM is legal, or the number of biological families decrease? No. You simply have not demonstrated any relevance.
@irdescentquid - "right to marriage" I ALREADY debunked your pt that this is not a rights issue. The loving court (who declared marriage as a right) was the same court who dismissed gay marriage in Baker. FACT! Similarily, other courts around the world have found the same. Google EU court rules states not obliged to allow same sex marriage. here's a quote again: "The [EU] court found no violation of human rights.." So keep on with your rights pt but frankly, it's pathetic
@zztstenglish "Similarily, other courts around the world have found the same."
I realize your goal is to create the impression that you have this flood of evidence suggesting that SSM is unconstitutional. Firstly let me say that this is not a convincing method for arguing, as it makes clear you are adamant about your position no matter what mine might be. Second, we are both aware that there are ongoing court battles that suggest the matter is far from settled.
@iridescentsquids - "realize your goal is to create the impression" Oh, please...whatever, pal.
"and this has something (?) to do with state interest" As stated, we both agreed when u wrote marriage is "building blocks to society" for "raising children." Tell me, what's the benefit / payback to the State as a result of that? (part 1)
@zztstenglish "- side effects to artificial insemination
- my daddy's name is donor"
This isn't an argument against SSM, it's an argument against artificial insemination, which is legal, along with other procreative medicine, for both same and opposite sex couples. If you think there's a state interest in prohibiting artificial insemination, argue that enstead.
Again, to be consistent, and not discriminatory, you would have to be against any infertile opposite sex couple getting married.
@iridescentsquids - "an argument against SSM" No, no...my point was it's the only way for gays to procreate and meet the state's needs. yet, this is also sub-optimal since it's harmful. Why do u think the state doesn't recognize incest? Because it's been proven to be harmful since the union can yield deformed kids.
@zztstenglish "my point was it's the only way for gays to procreate and meet the state's needs. "
And (again) you are assuming marriage exists just to serve state interest, rather than as a right with limits imposed on it justified by state interest. Marriage does not exist just to serve state interests!
@iridescentsquids - "any infertile opposite sex couple" The state cannot take fertility tests before marriage. It'd be illegal since it'd violate privacy laws; hence, it is ASSUMED. See Standhardt v Arizona ("The state would have to inquire about that subject before issuing a license, thereby implicating constitutionally rooted privacy concerns")
@zztstenglish "It'd be illegal since it'd violate privacy laws; hence, it is ASSUMED."
Once again, you don't understand the purpose of state interest and you are using it inconsistently. You argued earlier that state interest essentially defines marriage...so it exists to serve a state interest. This is not correct, but my point is, if you are going to argue this, and that it's a procreative state interest, you HAVE the compelling state interest to argue to overturn privacy or any other right.
@iridescentsquids - "it exists to serve a state interest" No, I didn't. Consenting adults are free to live their lives any way they want. Nobody is stopping u from having a same sex partner (or whatever). It does NOT mean the State must recognize these unions
Obama doesn't reprosent the LGBT community, he talks about "change", Obama the great censor bar, he isn't a good president all polotitions fail in some ways but don't go talking about change like a prophet if you can't back it up, he isn't a Humanist please people, you can't even leave a slightly critical comment on his youtube channel because he censors it, at least everyone knew Bush talked crap, look past the skin and see who he is, don't be racist in fear of being racist
jacobhalo 2 hours ago
@fannynoise, The president has absolutely done a great deal to further the cause of equal rights to homosexuals, and should be praised for that. This does not mean that the LGBT community doesn't have grounds to condemn this very hypocritical, evasive, political answer to a straight-forward question. "Yes," he aught to have said. "Calling homosexual couplings 'civil unions' is very akin to separate but equal. I can't believe I could have posited such an inane stance given my background."
marshmello3455 22 hours ago
P.P.S. Keep religion OUT of politics.
Who people marry isn't your fuckin' business.
You don't like gay marriage? Then don't have one. End of story.
SammyXxMonster 1 day ago
@All religious people commenting on this.
If 'God' doesn't make mistakes, then why are gay people an 'abomination'?
I honestly can't believe people still follow a book written by a bunch of random people THOUSANDS of years ago. Obviously people were more close-minded back then. Get with this century people!
P.S. I was taught in school 'Gods' of people way back when were created to understand the world around them. Why would the Christian 'God' be any different?
Religion causes homophobia.
SammyXxMonster 1 day ago
@peanutman52 Obama got rid of anti-gay policies in the Military. That would redeem his slow move on equality for GLBT people...of course that (or anything the man does) would still NOT permit the likes of YOU to prise our President.
There is no pleasing those who are determined never to be pleased. We are moving on with or without you! Life's too short to keep appeasing the unappeasable. You should be ashamed of yourselves. Your hate for Obama is greater than your love for this country.
fannynoise 2 days ago
And the new testament does say being gay is an abomination!!!! looks like someone does not read or hasn't read and goes off of what they heard or read a long time ago. Nothing worse then a fag claiming to be a Christian and preaching to people false doctrine that only fits your lifestyle.
Get off that BS and get your twisted life in order
5starGeneral79 3 days ago
@assfukt. You are ass backwards!!!! Stop pretending to be intelligent and poisoning people with your false theology. The very nature of Christ is love indeed. God set standards and laws and CHOOSING to be gay you broke that law. Hence you bring destruction on yourself. So it's not Christ that's destroying you but you choosing again by your own free will to bring it on yourself.
5starGeneral79 3 days ago
@lavell0830 You are a perfect example why The United States is currently 18th in education among the 36 industrialized nations. Please go tell your parents that they failed you.
RedAndGoldSF49 3 days ago
ehh idiots with their bible again... This is not religion its politics! Go pray or something as if we wana listen to u who wana tell us about god and how much he hates everyone xD
DarkForceCastle 5 days ago 6
@KariyaYoshida But doesn't the Most High say once were forgiven we should not remain in our sin ????
Chuck821000 5 days ago
This approach is just complicating something that doesn't need to be complicated. Why make several new laws that allow the same rights as marriage to same-sex couples when it is easier and fairer to simply allow same-sex couples to obtain a marriage license and have to exchange vows with either a justice of the peace or an ordained minister (JUST LIKE MEN AND WOMEN DO NOW)?
amelia1amy1black 6 days ago
Freedom of Religion??? WOWWW !!! Then why does Obama call this a CHRISTIAN NATION THEN ?!?!?!?! WAKE UP !!!!
Chuck821000 6 days ago
Comment removed
KariyaYoshida 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Chuck821000 Mm, well, I'd think it's because the United States is made up primarily of Christians. I guess it's just easier to refer to the country that way in terms of belief.
KariyaYoshida 6 days ago
U have no understanding @all brother , why would christ come in the world who prayed to his father & his father was the one who gave moses the law's statues & commandments & christ in Matthew the 5th chapter 17th verse says he didn't come to destroy the law nor the prophets but to fullfill it !!! So don't give me that Christ tried to stand for gayness that's str8 wickednss & u better repent !!! & i'm telling u dat cause i love u brother ! Bless u !
Chuck821000 6 days ago
i think he should support gay marriage. he should be more sensitive to the issues of minorities rights!
mikeyloufreebush 1 week ago
THE BIBLE IS NOT LAW IN THIS COUNTRY! (NO RELIGION IS LAW IN THIS COUNTRY) IT IS A BELIEF, IT MAY BE LAW OR FACT FOR THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN IT, AND THAT IS FINE. FREEDOM OF RELIGION INCLUDES FREEDOM FROM RELIGION. IF YOU ARE A TAX PAYING AMERICAN CITIZEN THEN YOU ARE ENTITLED TO THE SAME RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES AS EVERY OTHER TAX PAYING AMERICAN CITIZEN!
peke1918 1 week ago
@peke1918
"CITIZENS" HAVE NO "RIGHTS" YOU INBRED FUCKING REDNECK FUNDY DOLT!
WHERE THA FUCK DID YOU GET UR EDUCATION, UNDER A ROCK?
"PEOPLE" AS IN, "WE THE PEOPLE," HAVE ALL THE RIGHTS ENTITLED TO US, BUT "CITIZENS" AS YOU CALL YOURSELF, ONLY HAVE TAXES, WHY?
BECAUSE YOU ARE PROPERTY OF THE UNITED INCORPORATED-STATES OF AMERICA, YOU SIR, ARE A PRODUCT TRADED ON WALL STREET, A COMMODITY TO THE CORPORATION OF "AMERICA," YOUR ONLY PURPOSE IS TAXES.
I AM A "FREEMAN" AND BEHOLDEN TO NO MAN!
assfuckt 6 days ago
Just because god loves some gay people, dont mean he is ok with them to be gay, he made some gay people gay as a curse dum ass, now meditate on that shit, and obama ass is gay, because he is supporting it and god doesnt assholes.
lavell0830 1 week ago
@lavell0830 How can you say gay people are a curse from god? I've honestly never heard of that before. As far as I know, god abhors the act of a man sleeping with another man . It's said to be a sin, yes, and I fully acknowledge that, but I haven't found anything in the bible that states that god hates gays and is against the attraction of one person to another of the same sex.
Though, if you have any evidence of what you said, I'd appreciate you sharing it.
KariyaYoshida 6 days ago
I see why you call youself slime on yutube, you are a nasty ass delussional arrogant son of a bitch, god must have made your ass gay, and he is against it, and made gay people to be gay, beacause he made some people a curse, like your ass.
lavell0830 1 week ago
Jesus loves us, just like he loves straight people. He loves animals and plants as well. And of course, the elements. I love myself and I love my girlfriend and I would like to marry her one day. Please make that possible, Mr. President.
Zorayda85 1 week ago
I'm christian. I don't think Obama should be our president due to his overspending. Continued occupation in Iraq and his want of involvement of Iran. I do, however, think that his idea about gay marriage is pretty much perfect. Now Ron Paul doesn't come with all the shitty economic and foreign ideals and he has almost the exact same view on gay marriage. Sooooooo.... Need I say more?
srprelle 1 week ago
@KariyaYoshida Genesis chapter 19 Leviticus 18:22 Leviticus 20:13 Romans 1: 26-27 1corinthians 6: 9-11 Must i need say more ????
Chuck821000 1 week ago
@Chuck821000
As a gay black brotha I can tell you I know a thing or two about the nonsense you fundies spew.
Jesus the ascended Master came into perfect oneness on Earth in the purest embodiment of love.
He was a flawless being of light who worked to purge the world from the impossibly strict Old Testament and knew the old ways a trillion times better than you.
Jesus realized fallen man could never reach GOD relying on such outdated biblical relics and killed for just such a notion.
assfuckt 6 days ago 2
@assfuckt Thank you! You are one of the many REAL Christians who actually love in the name of God and not in the name of hate and prejudice. There are too many Christians out there twisting the words of the Lord to their own way of thinking.
jackclewley1995 5 days ago
@Chuck821000 Alright, I've looked up all four references that you gave and I can see your reasoning. They all say that homosexuality is a detestable sin, yes, but not an unforgiveable sin. That said, I'd think that like all other sins, it was paid for when Jesus died on the cross. I know it also says that for commiting the sin, they should be killed, but wasn't it the same for stealing? That was in biblical times when most sins were punishable by death, it was the sin god hated, not the person.
KariyaYoshida 6 days ago
Don't match this wickedness with saying this is a christian nation !!! Christian is supposedly christ like , what the hell is christ like about this abomination !!! Homosexuality is an abomination !!! Just switch the american slogan to Under Satan the united states stands , cause it's true ! The only freedom this country has is the freedom to sin ! str8 wickedness !!!
Chuck821000 1 week ago
@Chuck821000 I'd like you to explain this: Homosexuality it an abomination. Why? I'm honestly asking you. Where does it say so?
Also, disagreeing with your Christian beliefs does not make something Satanic.
KariyaYoshida 1 week ago
@KariyaYoshida
The New Testament doesn't say anything about gays being an abomination!!
Clearly to me, @Chuck821000 is an idiot of his own alleged doctrine, he is NOT a Christian, because Christian's don't apply the Old Testament except as a reference to what Jesus taught about God's perfect love for us and God's acceptance of everyone no matter what they do!
This is NOT "Universalism," this is true Christianity. Clearly Chuck821000 is a Muslim or Jew, only they use Old Testament!
assfuckt 6 days ago
@Chuck821000 said: "str8 wickedness !!!"
You got that rite, straight people are wicked, and you're one of the most wicked, wickedly ignorant, that is...
They don't call us "America.. Land of the Slaves, Home of the Gays" for nothing!
You must be a follower of Islam, you only quote the Old Testament, you''re about as much of a Christ follower as I am straight.
What is it you hate about gays like me, that you fear about yourself?
Why else are you so fixated on all these gay issues??
assfuckt 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Chuck821000 said: "str8 wickedness !!!"
You got that rite, straight people are wicked, and you're one of the most wicked, wickedly ignorant, that is...
They don't call us "America.. Land of the Slaves, Home of the Gays" for nothing!
You must be a follower of Islam, you only quote the Old Testament, you''re about as much of a Christ follower as I am straight.
What is it you hate about gays like me, that you fear about yourself?
Why else are you so fixated on all these gay issues??
assfuckt 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Chuck821000 said: "str8 wickedness !!!"
You got that rite, straight people are wicked, and you're one of the most wicked, wickedly ignorant, that is...
They don't call us "America.. Land of the Slaves, Home of the Gays" for nothing!
You must be a follower of Islam, you only quote the Old Testament, you''re about as much of a Christ follower as I am straight.
What is it you hate about gays like me, that you fear about yourself?
Why else are you so fixated on all these gay issues??
assfuckt 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Chuck821000 said: "str8 wickedness !!!"
You got that rite, straight people ARE wicked, and you're one of the most wicked, wickedly ignorant that is...
They don't call us "America.. Land of the Slaves, Home of the Gays" for nothing!
You must be a follower of Islam, you only quote the Old Testament, you''re about as much of a Christ follower as I am straight.
What is it you hate about gays like me, that you fear about yourself?
Why else are you so fixated on all these gay issues??
assfuckt 6 days ago
They going to hell for allowing gay marriage, they are wicket, christ is going to bring destruction on the white house.
lavell0830 1 week ago
@lavell0830 wicket
UniversalHourglass 1 week ago
@lavell0830 Yes I'm sure Jesus Christ himself came down from the heavens and proclaimed he would "bring destruction to the white house" for allowing people to get married to whom they love.
Even though these people were made by god. Oh by the way, it's wicked.
artsynotes 1 week ago 11
@lavell0830 Odd how Jesus would make a person gay, make another person gay, the two would fall in love, and then command that they spend their lives alone (or lying to themselves) because he finds their relationship unnatural and their existence is wrong, even though he made them that way. And is supposed to love everyone, unless he was just lying when he said all that. If only your extraordinarily closed minded views came with a closed mouth as well.
Silme037 1 week ago
Comment removed
assfuckt 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lavell0830
SO MUCH IGNORANCE ON THESE GAY VIDEOS!
How could pure love "bring destruction" to anything?
Christ cannot do that, unless your personal savior is actually the Lord of Hell itself?
Something Christ could do however, is lift the hedge of protection off tha whitehouse and "allow" the forces of darkness free access to wreak havoc themselves, that's what pure evil does by its very nature, it kills, maims and destroys... But by His very nature, Christ won't "bring destruction."
assfuckt 6 days ago
Oh please his evil ass, you need to shut up, obama is african, not black dum dum.
lavell0830 1 week ago
@lavell0830: You certainly are a shining example of intellect. (-_-)
NoGodsNoOverlords 1 week ago
@NoGodsNoOverlords
You're certainly the shining superstar of exemplary intellect yourself! I see you've somehow managed to beat all-odds by superseding the dimwitted one-word comment of a 1st grade dropout!
Pat your ego on the back champion, you are the icon of atheist pride! Clearly no preschooler is your equal, no match, you've graduated to the Big Time, no grade-schooler is safe from defeat, total superior pwnage!
Damn dude, it would be so cool on the playground being YOU!
assfuckt 6 days ago
@assfuckt: Before you get thrown into a blind rage, realize that I wasn't talking to you. I was responding to lavell about how he thinks that "god" is going to destroy everything because people can love somebody. Now, judging by your response, I can tell your a person of a "write first, think later," policy. I'm not sure why you think i'm being some sort of "playground bully." Not only that, but you put me on a pedestal of the icon of atheist pride. Why, might I ask?
NoGodsNoOverlords 6 days ago
@assfuckt: Also, I am not out to get Christians. If you believe that, that's fine. What I don't like are people like lavell (or whatever his name was) going around a shouting warnings of the apocalypse. I really do hope that you'll realize this and try not to jump to conclusions next time.
NoGodsNoOverlords 6 days ago
I LIKE THE FACT THAT HIS MOTHER AND FATHER WERE MARRIED EVEN THOUGHT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN ILLEGAL IN MANY STATES FOR A BLACK MAN TO MARRY A WHITE WOMAN. IN HAWAII IT WAS REALLY NICE AND COOL FOR THEM TO GET MARRIED.
JANETBERYMUSICSTUDIO 1 week ago
@JANETBERYMUSICSTUDIO SAID: "IT WOULD HAVE BEEN ILLEGAL IN MANY STATES FOR A BLACK MAN TO MARRY A WHITE WOMAN"
Are you an ALL CAPS IDIOT?
There is no such law in any of the fifty states of America, the last law banning interracial marriage ended in Arkansas back in 1969.
Either you time-traveled into 2012 from pre-1969 KKK era or you are just a blithering idiot spewing tha typical dumbed-down, inbred black-afro victimization card!
See, ima cut rite thru dat bullshit, niqqa.
assfuckt 6 days ago
You know what we are all human beings and should have the right to do whatever we want as long as it isn't harming anyone. We are the only ones that have limitations on ourselves.
EricaKane2013 1 week ago
Obama and Hillary both believe in Gay Marriage, but wouldnt have gottin as many votes if they were open about that. In order to win, you have to lie sometimes :(
RodTalon0000 1 week ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Admit it Antichrist Obama!
You love gays and you know it! Any true servant of God sees your hate for God!
AlexPreachesTruth 1 week ago
@AlexPreachesTruth Wow, what is wrong with you?
LordDrew112 1 week ago
@AlexPreachesTruth I serve God and the only place where I see hate is in your words.
CircusoftheMoon 1 week ago
@CircusoftheMoon No hon, you're no servant of God.
Bloody Beast Obama is clearly the Antichrist spoken of in the Book of Revelation and Book of Dan...
AlexPreachesTruth 1 week ago
@AlexPreachesTruth I'm not a servant of your God, no, because yours seemed to be very hate filled. I serve a God and I serve his son who spoke words of love and acceptance.
I hope Obama loves gay people, I know I love gay people because there is no reason not to love them.
Finally, I have read those books of the Bible and nowhere does it say that Obama is the Antichrist.
CircusoftheMoon 1 week ago
@AlexPreachesTruth Just joking, vote Obama, piss on Fred Phelps grave when the joyful day arrives.
AIexPreachesTruth 4 days ago
What a political cop out answer. He's an asshole. I don't care how eloquently he tells you to go fuck yourself.
fmminformation 1 week ago
I agree with him!
karmalevel 2 weeks ago
there's nothing worse then commenting negatively on a video that is supporting gay marriage which is what i'm seeing here. you all haters who are wasting your fucked up time insulting obama as he is saying he supports the gay rights. if there's anyone you should be insulting its sarah palin and john mccain. obama is all for gay marriage and you all gay hating bastards are admitting you dont! when is it gonna get through to you that gays are just people. we're all just people. no more no less
keleic 2 weeks ago
@iridescentsquids - "I'm confused" Yes, u are and that's why I challenged u to talk to economist. As for adoption, I've already mentioned many orphans suffer from substance abuse, mental illness, etc. Govt policies typically target the most optimal solution. It is obvious u don't understand how world govts work and are ignorant in economics
zztstenglish 2 weeks ago
@zztstenglish "It is obvious u don't understand how world govts work and are ignorant in economics"
Actually, it appears you don't understand the purpose of state interest in the context of Constitutional law.
iridescentsquids 2 weeks ago
@iridescentsquids - "state interest" Well, I've given u the evidence to state interest and yet, u don't get it?! Either there's a gross misunderstanding or do u think I'm lying? That's why I challenged u to talk to a economist to understand it. And if / when u talk to a lawyer, ask them if I'm wrong about the Loving court who dismissed gay marriage in Baker. The evidence is crystal clear
zztstenglish 2 weeks ago
@zztstenglish "Either there's a gross misunderstanding or do u think I'm lying?"
My 2 cents, I think it's a combination of lack of curiosity of other's opinions and general adamancy regarding your own.
There are many state interests in marriage referenced by judges in various rulings, and yet you only focus on this one. Furthermore, you conveniently ignore the purpose of defining state interest in many of the cases where it is. Not sure you're sincerely interested in the subject.
iridescentsquids 2 weeks ago
@iridescentsquids - "admancy regarding your own" No, that's me trying to elucidate.
"many state interests in marriage referenced by judges in various rulings" Please submit those rulings except for Perry v Schwarznegger. I already read Perry v Schwarznegger
zztstenglish 2 weeks ago
@zztstenglish I'm mostly familiar with the prop 22 ruling. To start: "the constitutionally based right to marry properly must be understood to encompass the core set of basic substantive legal rights and attributes traditionally associated with marriage that are so integral to an individual’s liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated or abrogated by the Legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process.... "cont
iridescentsquids 2 weeks ago
@zztstenglish (continued 2) ..."These core substantive rights include, most fundamentally, the opportunity of an individual to establish — with the person with whom the individual has chosen to share his or her life — an officially recognized and protected family possessing mutual rights and responsibilities and entitled to the same respect and dignity accorded a union traditionally designated as marriage."
So for openers a definition of marriage as a right (I know..doesn't address SS coupling)
iridescentsquids 2 weeks ago
@zztstenglish (cont 3) Now for a state interest: "As past cases establish, the substantive right of two adults who share a loving relationship to join together to establish an officially recognized family of their own — and, if the couple chooses, to raise children within that family — constitutes a vitally important attribute of the fundamental interest in liberty and personal autonomy that the California Constitution secures to all persons for the benefit of both the individual and society."
iridescentsquids 2 weeks ago
@zztstenglish So, you'll notice that the state interest (interest in liberty and personal autonomy...for the benefit of both the individual and society) and definition of marriage as a fundamental right.
Seems we are talking about state interest and definition of marriage simultaneously in our discussion. Although one does not = the other there is cross-over and need to avoid logical inconsistency between them.
I'm primarily pointing out alternative state interests to the one you focus on.
iridescentsquids 2 weeks ago
@iridescentsquids
1. As u know, that only applies to CA. I think it'd be in everyone's best interest that this is settled in the supreme court immediately. I hope we can at least agree on that.
2. The closest supreme court case I can think of that resembles what u are talkin about is Lawrence v Texas. Are u familiar with it? If not, 1 consideration in it was adult consensual sex in their home violated their interests in liberty & privacy protected by the 14th. (part 1)
zztstenglish 1 week ago
@zztstenglish 1"As u know, that only applies to CA." yes. Still, it's at least one state interest I know of you didn't mention...and I recall reading others in this case and others. It seems to me that there is no single clear-cut state interest in marriage, and to insist on a procreative interest exclusively requires a) justifying the procreative, and b) demonstrating all others to be invalid, including the raising of children who are only 1/2 related to parents or not at all. A tall order.
iridescentsquids 1 week ago
@zztstenglish The other use of the term 'state interest' refers to the government intervention into rights, to change or limit those right, which is why in the prop 22 ruling the consider whether homosexuals constitute a suspect class. They determined that strict scrutiny is required, meaning state interest must be compelling and necessary. Probably best to get you take on all this so far, as the risk of flying off track is too great as it is.
iridescentsquids 2 weeks ago
@iridescentsquids - (part 2) so it'd seem gays have their liberty and personal autonomy based on lawrence v texas, no?
3. "interest in liberty and personal autonomy" And therefore, logic compels us to subsidize marriage based on this reasoning? I realize u are supplying an alternative state interest but surely, the State doesn't need to subsidize marriage based on that reasoning?
zztstenglish 1 week ago
@zztstenglish "3."interest in liberty and personal autonomy" And therefore, logic compels us to subsidize marriage based on this reasoning?
Logic compels us to allow people to make commitments to each other and for legal recognition of this decision (marriage laws/benefits, domestic partnership laws/benefits, etc. follow this logic). What legal obligations or benefits you believe this justifies is clearly a related issue, but the logic behind state recognition of such decisions is different.
iridescentsquids 1 week ago
@iridescentsquids - As stated, gays already have 'liberty' and 'personal autonomy' that was decided in Lawrence v texas. From an economic point-of-view, the state doesn't need to subsidize that. As for your other pt about marriage laws, I'm thankful u brought that up. Google an economic assessment of same sex marriage laws. Professor doug allan did a comprehensive study on it, illustrating a '1-size-fits-all' law doesn't work for both hetero and homo unions. check it out!
zztstenglish 1 week ago
@zztstenglish (sorry, one more addition)
you might be wondering why the court defines a state interest that includes marriage but does not mention marriage exclusively. The preceding paragraphs (not quoted) explain that the benefits and rights established through domestic partnerships are nearly identical to that of marriage. They are recognizing the state interest shared between them which makes them nearly identical.
iridescentsquids 2 weeks ago
Just take the friggin word "marriage" out of government vocabulary and give civil union certificates to both homos and heteros.
lucasboden 2 weeks ago
@lucasboden this is actually a good idea,church and state are separate when it comes to putting a manger in front of city hall,you see there is no profit in it,there is in licenses for marriage,a license for a right sounds absurd to me,so government should have civil unions,because government is supposed to protect rights for everybody,and religions will marry who they want,and those who are smart will live with one another without involving church or state.
1210catman 2 weeks ago
What a coward he is. No better than a right-wing nutjob.
TheBeepb00p 2 weeks ago
obama. its not 1961 anymore. your the same anti-gay message wrapped in a facade of tolerance
guytano2005 2 weeks ago
Government marriage is a way of making you and your martial assets property of the state and lawyers,who in their right mind would fight for this as a right,please someone respond and explain I dont understand is love about tax deductions and insurance,is this the issue?or does it feel legitimate if the government says it is so,I really dont know pay for the right to love someone isnt that a little absurd,and dont give me the blood test argument, go to the doctor.I wouldnt do it again.
1210catman 2 weeks ago
@1210catman "please someone respond and explain I dont understand"
It's actually a great question. It would be interesting to know WHY the state ever recognized marriage in the first place. But when we consider it historically it appears to me, at least at first glance, kind of obvious: People were already getting married regardless of any laws. All laws do is say "look, here are the rules for this behavior if you ever end up in court. These are the obligations, benefits, property rights, etc."
iridescentsquids 2 weeks ago
@1210catman (continued)
It makes more sense to me to think of it this way than the way many who oppose SSM tend to. Marriage was NOT invented because government saw a need for a labor force and thought this would meet that need. It's a varied tradition engrained in civilization that bleeds by necessity into laws which define it as a right and obligation.
iridescentsquids 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Homosexual activists understand the power of words.
Please visit my channel to watch a one-minute video clip in which popular atheist author Richard Dawkins admits that homosexual activists "hijacked the word 'gay'".
The word "homosexual" is more appropriate and accurate because it, unlike the word "gay", actually describes the behavior/attraction/relationship being discussed.
The word "gay" helps homosexual activists push their agenda.
lightandbeautiful 2 weeks ago
Nobody can shoot the bull like Obama
How about the black kid whose mother died because she didn't hv Obamacare !
us51841452 2 weeks ago
Marriage is a religious institution. Not a legal 1. If a church blesses any wedding including same-sex marriage, then the Govt. is bound to Recognize it n provide equal benefits! as simple as that!
Homosexuality is not illegal anymore, so the govt. is bound to recognize it! Or else its just PURE DISCRIMINATION! coz the constitution is not based on the Torah or bible. n its a free society!
if 2 people of the legal marriage age, they should b married. NO MATTER WHAT!
subhankarzac 3 weeks ago
@subhankarzac marriage is not a religious institution, if it was it would not predate any religion
idaman12345 3 weeks ago
@idaman12345 actually it is.. in ancient rome n greece both opposite sex n same sex marriage was a bond created by god. the govt. got involved only for benefits.
subhankarzac 2 weeks ago
I could be all wrong, maybe he is being an asshat and saying separate but equal... that is just a hypothesis giving him the benefit of the doubt
iliveon 3 weeks ago
in a nutshell(he can't say this outloud), what I am getting from this is that Obama sees that the people don't want gays to be able to get married right now, and that is too tough of an issue (Right now), but that if gays get all the rights (as did the blacks), they will eventually assimilate enough to get marraige rights in our culture
iliveon 3 weeks ago
@iliveon That's pretty much his position, yeah. I can understand that. It's too divisive at this point. I think he should stand up for gay marriage, but my main concern is that he's not anti-gay. He's pro-gay, and has been a dream on this issue compared to Republicans.
PurpleHoneyBear 3 weeks ago
OBAMA 2012 !!!!!!
Michthemitch 3 weeks ago
OBAMA 2012 !!!!
mitchthemich 3 weeks ago
@mitchthemich Ron Paul 2012. Obama is only bringing us World War III, the end of our freedoms, and the imminent economic collapse of the US. Not to mention that he is nothing more than a corporate puppet. He does not care about you. Vote for the candidate that will fight for YOU, not his criminal friends over on Wall Street.
krisp8888 3 weeks ago
Vote Obama.
AIexPreachesTruth 3 weeks ago
Bloody Beast Obama, the Antichrist, will soon lead this nation in proud middle-finger-lifted rebellion against God Almighty and send this nation to hell where it belongs...
AlexPreachesTruth 3 weeks ago
@AlexPreachesTruth Actually, what I meant to say was I'm a flaming fag that craves Fred Phelps crusty rectum.
AIexPreachesTruth 3 weeks ago
Honestly I think Obama would approve of gay marriage. It is just politics that prevents a politician from favoring gay marriage because obviously this is not popular amongst social conservatives. US government has never been completely secular and probably never will.
I personally support gay marriage and I think government has no place in this because marriage is a religious ceremony.
BigTrollShaman 3 weeks ago
I'm glad i live in Australia - where the government doesn't make big deals of out this stuff - just society. Society has made 'marriage' to be the 'Ultimate Step in Love' where you are bound by papaer slips and a ring. I always thought ultimate love was laying together. When you desire eachother and shit. All people care about is the effect gays have on population numbers. But they shouldn't worry - I'm a girl and i wouldnt care if i fell inlove with a girl or a guy, i fell in love bro.
Inyourface209 3 weeks ago 2
i like obama
xIEE7x 3 weeks ago
obama understands homosexuals intimately. hahaha lol
me25422 3 weeks ago
Google EU court rules states not obliged to allow same sex marriage
zztstenglish 3 weeks ago
@GOOdGuyGreg1 - "Because the case came to the federal supreme court through mandatory appellate review (not certiorari), the summary dismissal constituted a decision on the merits and established Baker v Nelson as a precedent"
Until this case is overturned, THEN gay marriage can proceed. Otherwise, gay marriage is a sham. The evidence is crystal clear.
zztstenglish 3 weeks ago
@zztstenglish yes there are parts of the constitution where it can be argued the other way but that is doesnt mean that one answer isnt better than the other. if you look at the example that you gave me, the two predominant arguments were procreation and child rearing because that was seemed to link with marriage. yet single parents are allowed in society to take care of their children so why cant two same sex partners take care of a child? and no study has confirmed same sex parents arent as
GOOdGuyGreg1 3 weeks ago
@GOOdGuyGreg1 - I apologize for the long reply in advance but u raise a lot of pts:
1. "a right pertaining to a particular religion" No, I did not make that assertion so your assumption is wrong. Besides, I'm aware of something called Seperation Of church & state
2. "Catholic priest/someone who has sworn themselves off sex" Search on wiki for Pastoral provision. or lookup Maronite or melkite who permit married priests but are catholic too. (part 1)
zztstenglish 3 weeks ago in playlist Favorite videos
@zztstenglish in response to your first point, since the term marriage does not apply to any one religion and in some cases no religion at all, where does the idea that it must be between a man and a woman come into play when that is the view of many religions.
on the secod point, yes there are exceptions for priests but my point was some people cannot have kids for many reasons. you completely ignored my question if someone is infertile. the ability to reproduce is not a factor.
GOOdGuyGreg1 3 weeks ago
@GOOdGuyGreg1 1) I wasn't ignoring your statement. I just felt compelled to educate u on the catholic celibacy rule since it's a common misconception by the pubic & a LIE by the media. 2) "view of many religions" I know why but I cannot speak on behalf of all religions. Besides, it's irrelevant due to seperation of church & state. 3) "ignored my question on infertile" The state cannot take fertility tests before marriage since it'd be illegal due to privacy laws. it's ASSUMED
zztstenglish 3 weeks ago
@zztstenglish yes lets cut down the points. i wont ask anymore.with regards to infertility, i know you cant take a test but i was merely dismissing one of the two major points of that 1976 case (i think it was then) where reproduction was wrongfully a key issue. on the fifth point, just because it is legal, doesnt mean its correct/morally right. by that logic if some abstract law saying that hypothetically parents must beat their kids, you'd agree because its legal.
GOOdGuyGreg1 3 weeks ago
@GOOdGuyGreg - 1) "no like i said, i dont believe in govt subsidies for marriage" But that's NOT what I asked. Your answer is about whether u support it or not. My question is WHY does the gov't do it? Answer: the gov't subsidizes marriage is to encourage procreation & raise kids who'll be the state's future workforce. Gay marriage doesn't further that policy since homosexuality is a biological dead end(except artificially which has been proven to be harmful). (part 1)
zztstenglish 3 weeks ago
@zztstenglish yes and i dont agree with that reason of procreation. its not like the human race is going to slowly die out. the population is increasing exponentially. just because the govt endorses and even goes to the next step to subsize it, doesnt mean its reason are just or valid. and so what if a small percentage cant reproduce? if the state wants a higher population they should be more flexible with immigration laws. problem solved. dont take it out on the gay community
GOOdGuyGreg1 3 weeks ago
@GOOdGuyGreg 1) 'Population increasing exponentially' Oh, and have u researched overpopulation? Tell me, what's the optimum number the earth can sustain? How did we resolve the estrous cycle? How come u seem to know more about overpopulation than EU nations who gave $ to have kids
2) "Immigration laws. Problem solved" Immigration's a sub-optimal solution since there's cultural problems, language barriers, etc. gov't policies typically target the most optimal solution (part 1)
zztstenglish 3 weeks ago
@zztstenglish yes the worlds population is increasing exponentially. you are retarded if you cannot see it. and i didnt say there was an optimum number but for many countries, more people means more job opportunities. when america had the highest immigration rate before the depression, its economy was booming. and with immagration, im from australia where we see immgration as essential due to our low population. so it depends where you come from.
GOOdGuyGreg1 3 weeks ago
@GOOdGuyGreg - "quadrapeligic should work" I did NOT say they should work. Ya I know many do not but my pt is SOME do work.
"immigration as essential" ya but it still has its problems that makes it sub-optimal. If anything,it's mostly good for cheap labor until 2nd generations come.
"doesn't matter if it yields no benefit" LOL! That's the DUMBEST thing I've ever heard. I have no further comment
zztstenglish 3 weeks ago
@GOOdGuyGreg - "doesn't mean its correct/morally right" True but the reasoning behind the decision coincides with my 1st point. Or see Standhardt v Arizona ("excluding such couples from marriage could only be justified by a compelling state interest"). So what is the state's interest? They're obviously subsidizing it for a reason. I just gave u the reason in point 1. What would be the benefit to the state if no procreation's involved? answer: nothing. U want more info?
zztstenglish 3 weeks ago
@zztstenglish "What would be the benefit to the state if no procreation's involved? answer: nothing"
There is a state interest in creating stronger family units, both for raising children and simply making life decisions as couples do without children. It's the same state interest in having opposite sex couples who can not have children biologically but who intend to adopt or have children by other means marry so as to create a more stable, formalized family unit.
iridescentsquids 3 weeks ago
@iridescentsquids (continued)
Consider that procreative/family rights includes adoption and other means that are shared by both same sex and opposite sex couples. Just as adopted children would benefit from having a more stable, married opposite sex couple raise them, so would they benefit from having their same sex parents married.
iridescentsquids 3 weeks ago
@iridescentsquids - "should not be misunderstood to mean that marriage exists solely to serve the state's interests" Sure since marriage pre-existed the State. Some do it for religious reasons, etc. Furthermore, I'm speaking specifically in the context of what the court's were saying
zztstenglish 3 weeks ago
@zztstenglish "Furthermore, I'm speaking specifically in the context of what the court's were saying"
Well, then you may have misunderstood the courts. State interest is a justification for the state altering or limiting the rights of individuals. The state needs varying degrees of justification in order to do that. An individual's liberties, including the right to marry, is constitutional in nature and does not exist BECAUSE of state interest. Again, I think your causality is mixed up.
iridescentsquids 3 weeks ago
@iridescentsquids - "includes adoption and other means" Adoption is a sub-optimal solution to labor needs. Many orphans suffer from substance abuse, mental illness, etc. People do it for altruistic reasons and the govt is NOT a charity organization. Adoption is not a good resource for labor. Govt policies typically target the most optimal solution
zztstenglish 3 weeks ago
@zztstenglish "Adoption is a sub-optimal solution to labor needs."
1. So now marriage part of some kind of regulated social engineering project and not an individual's civil liberty?
It's ridiculous to argue that SSM should not be allowed because such couples may adopt. Orphans don't exist because people adopt! you need to rearrange your understanding of causality.
iridescentsquids 3 weeks ago
@GOdGuyGreg - It's like love before marriage. the gov't cannot legislate or enforce love; yet, we have arranged marriages going on where the couple haven't even met. Again, it's ASSUMED. 4) "ignored my statement that it has never been proven that 2 heterosexual parents are better" I'm skeptical about those studies due to a researcher's findings in 50 flawed studies. Google robert lerner same sex parenting. Also, google my daddy's name is donor (the 1st study of its kind on AI)
zztstenglish 3 weeks ago
@zztstenglish effective as straight parents. also, with regards to procreation, would you deny the rights of marriage to a couple who is fertile? or a catholic priest/someone who has sworn themselves off sex? you are correct when you bring up that case with regards to the constitution but since then people have realised that some of the reasons for that decision are fallacious.
GOOdGuyGreg1 3 weeks ago
@GOOdGuyGreg1
3. "single parents are allowed in society to take care of their children" Ya and we KNOW the bad effects it has had on society since 1/3 of single moms live in poverty (the last time I checked the stats). Yet u propose making a bad situation worse for the same myopic reasons?!
4. "reasons for that decision are fallacious" Well, until baker is overturned, THEN gay marriage can proceed; otherwise, it's a sham. (part 2)
zztstenglish 3 weeks ago in playlist Favorite videos
@zztstenglish also some people get married and they choose not to have kids.
for the third point, yes single parents are statistically worse off but the point is it is legal and always will be and obviously two parents will be even better. and you ignored my statement that it has never been proven that 2 heterosexual parents are better than two same sex parents.
and for the 4th, you have to think for yourself. do you think the reasons it was dismissed was justified?
GOOdGuyGreg1 3 weeks ago
@GOOdGuyGreg1 - Here's some stats from pg 7-9 study: 45% agree their [artificial] conception bother them, 1.5 times likely to have mental problems, 2 times likely to have substance abuse and much, much more. Do those studies u support factor in this info? I think not. 5) "think for yourself" No, u think for yourself because LEGALLY, I'm right and u know it.
zztstenglish 3 weeks ago
@GOOdGuyGreg1 - 6) "the point is it [single parenting] is legal" I know that but my pt is it has bad effects on society & u don't do that as gov't 7) "As for the reason it was dismissed" That's why I asked u the question why does the gov't subsidize marriage which u didn't give any proof on. it's not about promoting culture. Show me proof. It's obvious u don't know. Anyway, we're hitting alot of points...let's try and cut it down a bit.
zztstenglish 3 weeks ago
@zztstenglish and no like i said, i dont believe in govt subsidies for marriage. why should tax money be spent when some people might not get married/choose not to get married? and if gays cant legally get married then that is a travesty. and i could disagree with those statistics: "Studies have found children do not require both a male and female parent," testified Michael Lamb, who heads Cambridge's Department of Social and Developmental Psychology.
GOOdGuyGreg1 3 weeks ago
@GOOdGuyGreg - (part 2) Subsidizing gay marriage with no procreation yields NO BENEFIT to the state. World gov'ts subsidize marriage for future labor all the time. For evidence, google russia's campaign to increase its birthrate or google EU nations offer incentives to have kids (this was cut recently due to the economic crisis). I have more info to support this assertion if u want.
2) "testified Michael lamb" then i suggest u review my daddy's name is donor study
zztstenglish 3 weeks ago
@zztstenglish "World gov'ts subsidize marriage for future labor all the time."
The state interest discussion is important, but it should not be misunderstood to mean that marriage exists solely to serve the state's interest. Marriage is NOT all about a government effort to social engineer a stronger workforce. It provides a basic societal structure for making all kinds of life decisions (not just procreative), and, equally importantly, is an individual's constitutional right.
iridescentsquids 3 weeks ago
@iridescentsquids - "an individual's constitutional right" Ya which was ruled in Loving v Virginia. yet, the loving court itself rejected a due process & equal protection challenge to Minnesota's ban on gay marriage only a few yrs later. See Baker v Nelson. Evidently, the Loving court did NOT mean gay marriage when it declared marriage as a right
zztstenglish 3 weeks ago
@zztstenglish "Evidently, the Loving court did NOT mean gay marriage when it declared marriage as a right"
I'm more familiar with the Prop 22 ruling in California. The majority largely accepted the plaintiff's contention that they had a fundamental right protected by the California Constitution’s due process and privacy clauses to marry the adult consenting partners of their choice, regardless of gender.
iridescentsquids 3 weeks ago
@iridescentsquids - "more familiar with the Prop 22 ruling in California" Ya, and hasn't CA stopped issuing ssm licenses since nov 17th since it's going to the 9th circuit. Anyway, I suggest u get familiar with Baker v Nelson. Here's a wiki quote: "limited marriage to different sex couples and that this limitation did not violate the United States constitution" After going to the SUPREME COURT, it was dismissed on its merits and "established Baker v Nelson as PRECEDENT"
zztstenglish 3 weeks ago
@zztstenglish "Anyway, I suggest u get familiar with Baker v Nelson. "
I should be more familiar with it. Obviously every case has it's particulars, so we may be comparing apples to oranges.
iridescentsquids 3 weeks ago
@iridescentsquids - "yours seems odd" Oh, really? I have given evidence that world govts do it all the time. Google Russia's campaign to increase its birthrate. here's a quote from slate "Virtually every industrialized country has financial incentives to encourage procreation--tax deductions, family support programs, bonuses for children,etc" Or google EU nations offer incentives to have kids. Do u have counter evidence to refute my so-called 'theory?' (part 1)
zztstenglish 3 weeks ago
@iridescentsquids "right exists independent of state interest" Well, the State does get involved since it sets the age, defines marriage laws, etc. Furthermore, as stated, marriage is not in the bill of rights and was only declared a right in Loving v Virginia which was the SAME supreme court who dismissed gay marriage in Baker. So your understanding of 'right' has been misunderstood.
zztstenglish 3 weeks ago
@zztstenglish I have no doubt that there have been social-engineering projects centered around attempts to control birthrates, and marriage may very well have been considered in this context. But defining marriage with this narrow focus (as a regulator of labor force) is odd and unlike any commonplace definition. Do I have any evidence for this claim? I suppose that such a definition of marriage does not exist in any dictionary, U.S. legal arguments that I am (so far) aware of, or common speech.
iridescentsquids 3 weeks ago
@iridescentsquids - "attempts to control birthrates" Exactly....just like China's 1-child-policy, right?
'defining marriage with this narrow focus" well, throughout history, many have done it for religious reasons or royal families did it for dynastic reasons. So obviously, many do it for personal reasons. One can have those marriages but it does NOT mean the state must recognize it
zztstenglish 3 weeks ago
@zztstenglish " One can have those marriages but it does NOT mean the state must recognize it"
Hmm..I guess the question you are getting at then, is why does the U.S. government (since, correct me if I'm wrong, we are considering SSM in the states here) recognize marriage at all?
I admit there are tons of gaps in my knowledge of marriage law in the U.S.. But I'm under the impression that marriage wasn't first recognized by the state based on a social-engineering rationale.
iridescentsquids 3 weeks ago
@zztstenglish "I have given evidence that world govts do it all the time."
So I have no issue with your claim that governments try to use marriage to regulate their labor force. Maybe they do. But to define marriage as a regulatory tool for social engineering is unusual. Is it possible to define it this way anyway? Sure. Knock yourself out. But ask any couple about to get married to define it, or any U.S. lawmaker or lawyer or judge, and you won't hear that definition.
iridescentsquids 3 weeks ago
@iridescentsquid "ask US lawmaker" See Loving v Virgina ("Marriage is...fundamental to our very existence and survival") See Skinner v Oklahoma ("Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the [human] race")
Marriage wouldn't be 'fundamental' to the 'existence' and 'survival' if it had nothing to do with procreation. Or see Standhardt v Arizona where it talks about denying gay marriage must be a COMPELLING STATE INTEREST that I've given u
zztstenglish 3 weeks ago
@zztstenglish I understand under strict scrutiny the state interest must be compelling, and i have heard similar descriptions of state interest of marriage (not the same thing as a definition) to what you are siting.
Notice, however, that "marriage and procreation" does not simply mean marriage = procreation. I have heard takes on state interest very similar to this that recognize marriage as a building block of our society, and for raising children. Neither of these inconsistent with SSM.
iridescentsquids 3 weeks ago
@zztstenglish "COMPELLING STATE INTEREST that I've given u"
The compelling state interest is required to justify LIMITING the right to opposite sex couples. The proposed state interest of creating a societal structure for raising children is consistent with SSM.
A definition more consistent with the state interest you define, and less discriminatory, would simply be "only marriages consisting of couples capable of procreating, or raising a biological child of both parties, is recognized"
iridescentsquids 3 weeks ago
@iridescentsquids I wouldn't waste your time and energy with zztstenglish. He likes to use the same lines on different threads. Always post his worn out googling rhetoric..
He has nothing better to say, but be repetitious with his googles..
karimmtorger 3 weeks ago
@iridescentsquids - "I have to check" Sure. Loving was in 1968 and Baker was in 1972
"as a regulator of labor" Then I invite u to ask any reputable economist if my info doesn't suffice
"ask US lawmaker" Well I gave u 2 rulings in Loving and Skinner. But see Singer v Hara. Marriage is 'for the purpose of encouraging propogation of the [human] race' Similarily, the 9th circuit noted gay "marriages never produce offspring" See Adams v Howerton
zztstenglish 2 weeks ago
@zztstenglish Re the Singer v Hara and Baker v Nelson: The rationale for both rulings are contingent upon 1. homosexuals not being considered suspect class, and 2. equal rights protection not extending to sexual orientation. Both of these cases from the 70's differ on these points than cases today, like California's Prop 22. Equal rights protection have expanded (and continue to expand) on state and federal levels to include sexual orientation. In more recent cases homosexuals are suspect class.
iridescentsquids 2 weeks ago
@iridescentsquids - "Both of these cases from the 70's" Ah, yes..but the significance of Baker it went to the supreme court and was dismissed based on the merits of the lower courts decision. As binding precedent, lower courts cannot come to a contrary conclusion. Until it's overturned, THEN gay marriage can proceed. Otherwise, it's a sham (part 1)
zztstenglish 2 weeks ago
@iridescentsquids - "your seems odd" Here's a quote from wiki on china's 1-child-policy "officially restricts MARRIED, urban couples to having only 1 child" and "the original intent of the 1-child-policy was economic...a steady labor rate, reducing unemployment" It is not as odd as u might think since world govts do it all the time
"building blocks of our society, and for raising children" Ya, now tell me what's the benefit to the state as a result of that? (continued)
zztstenglish 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@zztstenglish "It is not as odd as u might think since world govts do it all the time"
Like I said, I have no problem with your assertion that procreational social engineering occurs. But look at the china example you give: you are not describing a definition of marriage. All you are saying is that marriage can sometimes play a part in such efforts. This is NOT a definition of marriage.
Are you really asking what the state benefits might be for a couple raising children being married?
iridescentsquids 2 weeks ago
@iridescentsquids - remember, these kids will one day defend our nation, patrol our borders, etc. Gay marriage doesn't further that policy since homosexuality is a biological dead end (except artificially which has proven to be harmful). for evidence, lookup
- side effects to artificial insemination
- my daddy's name is donor
zztstenglish 2 weeks ago
@zztstenglish "Gay marriage doesn't further that policy since homosexuality is a biological dead end"
Completely irrelevant. Won't adopted children one day defend our nation, too? Will adopted children benefit from the couple raising them being married? Sure. Having such couples married is equally beneficial to the state, whether the couple is same or opposite sex. The benefit to the state is identical.
iridescentsquids 2 weeks ago
@iridescentsquids - "Won't adopted children one day defend our nation" As stated, adoption is a sub-optimal solution to the state's labor's needs. many suffer from mental illness from abuse, substance abuse, etc. People do it for altruistic reasons and the State is NOT a charity organization. Immigration is also sub-optimal. It has issues with cultural problems, language barriers, etc. It's mostly good for cheap labor until 2nd generations come along
zztstenglish 2 weeks ago
@zztstenglish "adoption is a sub-optimal solution to the state's labor's needs"
sub-optimal to what? Foster homes?
Not just because of the speculative nature and special pleading fallacies to this argument, even if it were true this is FAR from a legit compelling state interest. You would need to demonstrate that somehow SSM would create more mental abuse, substance abuse, etc. and all you are saying is that adoption does this. So regulate adoption.
iridescentsquids 2 weeks ago
@iridescentsquids - "sub-optimal to what? Foster homes" READ AGAIN. Sub-optimal solution to the STATE'S LABOR NEEDS.
"speculative nature and special pleading fallacies" Then tell me why does the govt subsidize marriage? Do u think the govt subsidizes marriage for fun? Give me the logical reason or give me counter evidence to refute my 'speculative nature' I'm challenging u to ask any reputable economist since my proof doesn't seem to suffice
zztstenglish 2 weeks ago
@zztstenglish "READ AGAIN. Sub-optimal solution to the STATE'S LABOR NEEDS."
Ugn...you are the one who needs to read again. you are arguing that adoption is sub optimal, but you aren't explaining what impact SSM has on adoption rates to justify limiting the right to marry to opposite sex couples only. If there is no relationship, your point about adoption is irrelevant.
iridescentsquids 2 weeks ago
@iridescentsquids - "you are the one who needs to read again" No, u DO because u said "sub-optimal to what? Foster homes?" which clearly indicates u don't know. Besides, many of these pro-gay parenting studies are bs. Google robert lerner same sex parenting. This research discovered 50 pro-gay parenting studies were seriously flawed so I question if gay can properly parent their own or adopted
zztstenglish 2 weeks ago
@zztstenglish ""you are the one who needs to read again" No, u DO"
No, sorry you are simply ignoring my point.
Of what relevance is the adoption topic at all to whether SSM should be legal or not? Does it in any way inhibit a state interest? You haven't indicated any way. Are you arguing that adoption rates will increase if SSM is legal, or the number of biological families decrease? No. You simply have not demonstrated any relevance.
iridescentsquids 2 weeks ago
@irdescentquid - "right to marriage" I ALREADY debunked your pt that this is not a rights issue. The loving court (who declared marriage as a right) was the same court who dismissed gay marriage in Baker. FACT! Similarily, other courts around the world have found the same. Google EU court rules states not obliged to allow same sex marriage. here's a quote again: "The [EU] court found no violation of human rights.." So keep on with your rights pt but frankly, it's pathetic
zztstenglish 2 weeks ago
@zztstenglish "Similarily, other courts around the world have found the same."
I realize your goal is to create the impression that you have this flood of evidence suggesting that SSM is unconstitutional. Firstly let me say that this is not a convincing method for arguing, as it makes clear you are adamant about your position no matter what mine might be. Second, we are both aware that there are ongoing court battles that suggest the matter is far from settled.
iridescentsquids 2 weeks ago
@iridescentsquids - "realize your goal is to create the impression" Oh, please...whatever, pal.
"and this has something (?) to do with state interest" As stated, we both agreed when u wrote marriage is "building blocks to society" for "raising children." Tell me, what's the benefit / payback to the State as a result of that? (part 1)
zztstenglish 2 weeks ago
@zztstenglish "Tell me, what's the benefit / payback to the State as a result of that?"
I'm confused. Are you saying that you don't see a state interest in having children raised by married parents as opposed to unmarried? Really?
iridescentsquids 2 weeks ago
@zztstenglish "- side effects to artificial insemination
- my daddy's name is donor"
This isn't an argument against SSM, it's an argument against artificial insemination, which is legal, along with other procreative medicine, for both same and opposite sex couples. If you think there's a state interest in prohibiting artificial insemination, argue that enstead.
Again, to be consistent, and not discriminatory, you would have to be against any infertile opposite sex couple getting married.
iridescentsquids 2 weeks ago
@iridescentsquids - "an argument against SSM" No, no...my point was it's the only way for gays to procreate and meet the state's needs. yet, this is also sub-optimal since it's harmful. Why do u think the state doesn't recognize incest? Because it's been proven to be harmful since the union can yield deformed kids.
zztstenglish 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@zztstenglish "my point was it's the only way for gays to procreate and meet the state's needs. "
And (again) you are assuming marriage exists just to serve state interest, rather than as a right with limits imposed on it justified by state interest. Marriage does not exist just to serve state interests!
iridescentsquids 2 weeks ago
@iridescentsquids - "any infertile opposite sex couple" The state cannot take fertility tests before marriage. It'd be illegal since it'd violate privacy laws; hence, it is ASSUMED. See Standhardt v Arizona ("The state would have to inquire about that subject before issuing a license, thereby implicating constitutionally rooted privacy concerns")
zztstenglish 2 weeks ago
@zztstenglish "It'd be illegal since it'd violate privacy laws; hence, it is ASSUMED."
Once again, you don't understand the purpose of state interest and you are using it inconsistently. You argued earlier that state interest essentially defines marriage...so it exists to serve a state interest. This is not correct, but my point is, if you are going to argue this, and that it's a procreative state interest, you HAVE the compelling state interest to argue to overturn privacy or any other right.
iridescentsquids 2 weeks ago
@iridescentsquids - "it exists to serve a state interest" No, I didn't. Consenting adults are free to live their lives any way they want. Nobody is stopping u from having a same sex partner (or whatever). It does NOT mean the State must recognize these unions
zztstenglish 2 weeks ago