is it me or is anna lookin at ben like she wants to jump his bones.? let the gays get married it isnt hurting my pockets, or endangering me. i just dont associate with them like i wouldnt associate with kkk members. let freedom live
what's trollish about my roll? I just disagree. I have been very polite and civil. Don't tell me that contrary to popular belief, intolerance turns out to NOT be the monopoly of conservatives... lol.
@vmoney65 Making this video's comment section your little pet project to espouse your own twisted views on homosexuality came across as trolling. You don't need an ENTIRE comments-page to defend your beliefs, no matter how civil.
Just what makes my views "twisted"? The fact that you don't agree? I have simply responded to those that responded to me. Politely and with civility... So because someone says something that I don't agree with, because it's a liberal board they should have the last word? Now what would the framers of the 1st amendment think about that? Although I _am_ done here, let the record show that I called neither YOU or anyone else a name, refuted what disagreed with and left unimpressed.
"There's very little doubt that it has a biological basis."
Inaccurate, the search for the biological basis of homosexuality continues to this day. Currently homosexuality is thought to be a complex interaction between genes and ENVIRONMENTAL factors. Gays compare themselves to black people to make their case, but what other than persecution is the basis of that comparison? Where are your FACTS? Or do you just make stuff up like many of you accuse conservatives of doing?
The federal and state governments shouldn't be in the business of defining or endorsing marriages to begin with but should instead be limited to recognizing civil unions regardless of sexual orientation.
This whole gay marriage issue is fucking stupid, we've got a lot more important issues on the plate.
@lowenklee by saying that civil unions are enuogh you're pretty much saying that brown v. board of education should be overturned. separate but equal has been prooved to be unequal and dicriminatory. due to equal protection and due prosess clauses, marriage have to be open for every consenting adult on equal basis.
Good thing I'm not saying separate but equal, the government shouldn't endorse marriages of any kind... heterosexual or homosexual. Marriage has always carried with it notions of religious association...as a tradition it should fall outside the government's mandate.
Then we can work towards define a criteria for "civil unions" thats fair and not predicated on a religious viewpoint.
Let the clerics and people of faith argue marriage on their own time.
leftist can NEVER say constitutional republic. it will introduce it into your vocabulary and you might just figure out what it means, and maybe even use it.
third: himosexualioty is a trait, not a behavior. just because we don't understand how it works, doesn't mean we have a right to discriminate against it. we didn't know everything about the human genome (and we still don't) in the 1960's, but you still ended discrimination against blacks. and guess what, even IF it turned out that homosexuality was a "choice" or a "behaviour" I would still be pro same sex marriage, due to the right of concenting adults to engage in any relationships they wish.
Cenk always talks about bringing facts to the discussion. What facts do you offer to support your view that homosexuality is a trait? And if it was a trait, why can't you tell me which babies are homosexual? I know which ones are black. Government already regulates the behavior of consenting adults-- polygamy, prostitution, plural marriage to name a few, and discrimination against blacks ended because it was unconstitutional. Change the constitution and we have no argument.
@vmoney65 What facts do you offer to prove that your heterosexuality is a trait???And if it was a trait, why can't you tell me which babies will be heterosexual? or which ones will be homosexual? "Government already regulates 2 consulting adults"
polygamy :applies to both hetero and homosexual polygamists: prostitution : applies both to Hetero and Homosexual prostitutes: .......
"the land of the free and the home of the brave" if you cant roll with it then your shit out of luck here.
First, the burden of proof is on those that want the change. Second, either the government has the right to regulate marriage OR IT DOESN'T. If it does, then anyone that feels slighted will claim that they are discriminated against. In the land of the free and the brave, one man/one woman is the law of he land just like abortion on demand. We all live with laws we don't like. I think my side was lazy and didn't argue effectively. They won't make that mistake again.
@vmoney65 Well dont make this mistake again..... with in the next 5 years, proposition 8 will reach the supreme court and what do you think the outcome will be?The rule in favor in basic civil rights? Or the rule in hatred and religious discrimination? And don’t sit there and tell me its not hatred because that’s just plain bull shit. With in the next 20 years ALL states will no longer have the power to prevent same sex marriage. Its just history man and the way of the great states.
Firstly, not everyone agrees that a civil right is at stake b/c not everyone agrees that homosexuality isn't a lifestyle. Lifestyles are OFTEN regulated by the government. I don't know what the future holds but I do know that gay marriage consistently fails nearly every LEGISLATIVE referendum in every state. I think it is because "marriage" has meant one thing to most people for 1000s of years. If gays want it changed, they should make a better case or invent a new word.
@vmoney65 Let me repeat myself, This WILL reach the supreme court and all state legislation will be over ruled. Marriage in the US does not mean the samething as it did 1000 years ago, for example, divorse- i can marry by morning divorse by noon and then remarry again at night. TV shoes like "Who wants to marry a millionair" and the bacholaret dont insult the instatute of marriage? seperation of church and state is very important if the US wishes to continue into the 21st century.
Look, we don't let adult siblings marry each other. We don't let parents marry their adult children. Why? Because we have standards that reflect our prevalent values. Gay marriage is having problems because it is not the prevalent value. As well it should because thousands of years of tradition should not be lightly overturned. It took a civil war, an amendment to the constitution and 100 years to change the status of blacks. What exempts gays from trial and sacrifice?
@vmoney65 As i continue to grow up in this world i see a big difference in the opinions of older generations compared to younger generations. If two gay people honestly share love for each other they should be able to marry, no matter if someones religious views said it was wrong or immoral. The defense of prop 8 said the same thing you said and guess what, they lost and prop 8 was lifted. Organized religion is rapidly dieing because it seems they focus on hate rater than love.
I propose the word "garry". If two gay people honestly share love for each other they should be able to "garry", and if they garry, I hope they have a happy garriage but the words marry and marriage already have definitions as far most are concerned. The only reason I can see to usurp the word marriage is to confuse people into accepting that which many do not accept which btw is their right not to accept. While some traditions should be overturned none should be lightly.
@vmoney65 redefine marriage? how does Bob and Jeff having a PRIVATE ceremonial marriage affect this world? how does it effect you? why is it that someones personal religious opinions get to inter fear with someones basic civil rights? Now im not saying you cant hate and disagree with gays, but in this land religion is separated from the laws of society and you can NOT take away anyones rights to the constitution- "we hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal".
@vmoney65 I slightly disagree. A lot of people draw false equivalence with incest. Incest is damaging to society. Homosexuality is not by all evidence. Not the same.
There is no rational basis against Homosexuality. There is a strong rational basis for being against incest.
Infact I would argue there is more of a rational basis for barring the relatively common cousin marriages than barring homosexuals.
It depends upon your perspective. If you're a royal of Europe, incest and cousin relations enabled you to consolidate your power. While incest introduces genetic defects, mating outside your gene pool can also introduce diseases, unwanted traits and defects. I don't defend it, I'm just saying that cases can be made for and against. Gay relationships complicate the areas of law related to child custody and welfare. Does the non-biological parent in a gay relationship pay child support?
@vmoney65 "incest and cousin relations enabled you to consolidate your power" - Lol and feudalism wasn't good for society.
" mating outside your gene pool can also introduce diseases" what on earth does that mean? Taking "gene pool" in your bizarre context to mean people within 30miles of where you were born, nothing could be wiser than mating outside your "gene pool".
Its not perspective at all, First cousin marriages are bad for society. It is scientific fact.
@purplefuzzythings hahahaha, took about blurring points and making things up to support a point you don't have.
It was never scientific fact any of racial nonsense people used to spout, it was merely pseudo-science of the same brand creationists use these days to claim Dinosaurs were here 4000yrs ago. No PHD scientist from reputable universities believe it.
On the other hand it is scientific fact incest in mammals leads to infertility. That would be THE END of the human race.
You're rather inflating what I said. I don't even know what side of the argument you were on, or how the argument started. The point was that anyone can say that something is scientific fact to support their position, but what you should do is actually point to the mechanism behind the effects of your claim, or offer some evidence.
@purplefuzzythings Its a 500char youtube post no evidence can possibly be provided. You have the name of the scientific. if you don't know about it Google it.
Once we declare the most gender discriminatory laws (marriage) "wrong", which gender discriminatory laws will fall next? Do we get rid of separate bathrooms? Do we admit men into sorrorities, women into fraternaties? No more ladies' gyms or locker rooms? Do we end honorable discharge for pregnancy? Assign women soldiers combat roles? Far fetched you say? Do you think the judge that ruled on a privacy case had any clue his ruling would be used to establish a "right to abortion"?
Ana, you hit it on the head. I know a lot of people who voted on Prop 8 without ever really knowing how the claims were true or false. I think people in general are automated when it comes to protecting kids. There's this kind of, "What? Hurt kids?!! Oh, hell no!" attitude, which isn't a bad thing, save cases where it's exploited.
So, Federal Court just made marriage legal in california. Since it was done in a federal court it's likely that, if his decision stands as the case is appealed, it will be applied to ALL states.
its funny how everyone starts talking about the law when it comes to the rights of gay marrige. and then argue about what the constution says, or means. it once allowed men to own other men until it was rightfully changed. then a few years later it had to be updated because it was
'unclear: on if slaves were americans or not...really. mypoint is that when are people going to pull their heads out of their asses and realize that poeple are people no mater what and if 2 dudes get married so TFW.
I don't think that's really the *fear*. Two couples of equivalent means go to adopt a child, one homosexual, one heterosexual. Competition is fierce, the heterosexual couple argues that children are not a consequence of homosexual unions and that because this was known to the homosexual couple they should be given preference. Do they have a point or not?
@vmoney65 seems like someones making an excuss. its wrong to discriminate, no matter what. and as for the questions of jobs. if the most qualified were hired 40 years ago after the civil rights movements there would be no need for other laws. the probelm is that the best werent hired. they might be black or a woman, now if their gay they have to hope for what were saying , that theyll be a minority.yeah. like i said when will the world wake up and stop ALL petty discriminations based on fear .
wrong to discriminate no matter what? already disproven. selective service discriminates, bathrooms discriminate, there are plenty of acceptable examples. There is reasonable discrimination and unreasonable discrimination. You feel that marriage is unreasonable discrimination, I respect that, I just don't agree with it. I do support civil unions. However, why don't civil unions scratch this itch again?
I'll say that I respect your views, but don't agree. I think it can be shown that there are many areas where gender discrim. works well in society (bathrooms,combat,etc) that might be threatened if the definition of marriage was altered. I think the science related to race is far more developed than the science related to sexual orientation invalidating comparisons between the two. For me there is enough difference between the relationships to justify different words to describe them.
@vmoney65 bathrooms? were defence for saying people cant get married because they are gay is because it will crack the fabric of society because no one will know were to go pee? OK
Here is the point: Either the government has the right to regulate marriage OR IT DOESN'T. If it does, (and most people agree that it does) then whomever doesn't fit whatever the standard is will CLAIM discrimination. Currently, homosexuals are the most vocal in their disagreement. Not everyone agrees that homosexuality is a STATUS, many believe it is a LIFESTYLE. The government is under no more of an obligation to endorse a LIFESTYLE than it is to endorse a RELIGION.
@vmoney65 ive seen that you like to comment just about every one to veiw, and spew your pionts. it would be funny if not so sad. do you not have a life outside of hateing gay peopel, is this you playing a HAGGERD or one of the dozen other noecons that hate gays so much, and come to find out they are? what are you hideing there buddy? all i have to say is that im glad my mother raised me not to hate someone that is gay. its sad really, your insanity, and your de-nile..which is not just a river.HA
I comment to those that respond. I don't hate gays and even support their unions, I just don't support calling them Marriages. As far as insanity and hatred go, I have been and continue to be nothing but civil to everyone here. America is not about agreement. We have different backgrounds, perspectives, and religions... suffice it so say that at least I am evolved enough to RESPECT the right of others to disagree, where it seems clear that many of you here ARE NOT.
@vmoney65 you say that not allowing people to marry is civil action? i say civil action has been defined in many ways throughout history,including those that would hold others down with the heel of their boot, and it is if fact, not civil. civil is being open minded enough to know that not everyone has YOUR outlook on life. you can hide behind being offened by my bluntness, but i stand by it unequivocally.
While the apple, the orange, and the grape may have their own ideas as to which is superior, the fact remains that apples are not oranges and oranges are not grapes. Likewise same sex unions are not opposite sex unions which is why it is legitimate to describe each using different terms. All societies set standards and codify their values. If I made plans to date a woman and a man misrepresented himself and showed up, that would be a deception. To be accurate, gays NEED their own term.
@vmoney65 whoa.. supriority.. were have i heard that before? someone makeing an excuss of why they should have the right to down another human being. and gays are that you know.. human beings. no matter how you try to rationalize gays as something else they are not only human beings but AMERICANS. and as to your other thoughts all i can say is your wasteland of ideas has been beaten before it will again. your not right and i feel bad that you have failed so badly at to what life is all about...
Another case, if homosexuality is deemed to be a 'status', will it become a protected status? A black, a woman, and a homosexual apply for a job, does hiring the homosexual count toward expanding diversity in the workplace or for the school or whatever. It's PRECEDENT. Precedents are often expanded in unforseen ways, sometimes for the better, sometimes not depending upon who you ask. How is generally accepted marriage law with its assumptions affected? Not so simple as it appears
Couldn't have seen that coming. :) But seriously, I just want someone to explain to me why this is a civil rights issue. Because the government won't recognize everything conscenting adults do? If so, it's at the bottom of a long list. Because people that don't meet the standard don't like it? No surprises there. Because being gay is like being black? A lot of folks disagree with that last one, including many blacks. For practical matters, civil unions aren't sufficient... why???
@vmoney65: It's a civil rights issue because the 14th amendment guarantees equal protection for all under the law, regardless of one's creed, sex, etc. If one group has a right another is denied, that latter group isn't equally protected. Re: civil unions, I don't know, but I'm one of those crazy folks who think gov't shouldn't get involved with marriage as it is mostly a religious institution.
The problem is that homosexuality isn't a creed, a race, or a gender. It's a sexual orientation and as such it is unresolved whether it is a status or a behavior. If its a behavior, it can be regulated as other behaviors are. I don't know that it is, but it doesn't seem that you could 'experiment' with a status as many claim to have experimented with homosexuality. Perhaps the government shouldn't be involved.
Humans are so dead set on distancing themselves from other animals that they forgo instinctual things that make a lot of sense. Marrying a younger women makes a lot of sense because she has more child bearing years. Having multiple partners allows for your genes to have a greater chance of being passed on by having more offspring. Humans even go against natural selection by allowing people with defective genes to live and reproduce. Morals are really just artificial instincts that people made up
As far as i'm concerned marriage has become corrupted as soon as it became a legal and financial thing. People should just marry friends they have platonic relationships with just to get the financial benefits. Getting married doesn't suddenly mean you love that person any more or less so why bother marrying for love at all. Just have an open marriage with a friend you have no romantic feelings for at all.
Sorry to have to break this to people but Cenk being on MSNBC, as well as the new advertisements throughout the videos are just one step closer to the end of the show as you knew it.. eventually Cenk will move on to greener pastures if given the opportunity, because it's obvious he values money above anything else.
It`s easy, man... and totally unfair to Ben. It`s because we all love Cenk so much: his progressive style, his balanced analysis on political issues and just his overall likable charisma. And Ben, poor guy, just has these giant shoes to fill. Ain`t fair to him, of course. But you have to admit that TYT is really about Cenk. No matter how good the next guy will be, he`ll always get crushed by Cenk`s imprint in fan`s hearts and minds.
If there was a scale to measure awkwardness and uncomfortableness ranging from 1 to 10 in a person, Ana would be about 14 when Ben started talking about her breasts and wanting to see her naked.
@ThePhatIndian hahahaha no kidding. I was suffering major second-hand embarrassment for everyone on the show, all viewers, and anyone who knows anyone who was on the show or watching it.
@ThePhatIndian I agree Phat. That was so sexist and uncomfortable for Ana.I thik Ben is a jerk and i want Cenk BACK. ( But im afraid hes gone for ever)
In the end, all I am saying is that societies have the right to regulate behavior and not everyone agrees as to what homosexuality is. Even Cenk has his spectrum theory. And if homosexuals ARE born as such, how can homosexuality be experimented with? You can't experiment with being black. Lastly, what argument can homosexuals make that doesn't more strongly apply to the right for muslims to have their multi-wife marriages recognized under the 1st Amendment? Where's the liberal uproar for them?
@vmoney65 "societies have the right to regulate behavior" societies dont have the right to descriminate, including against sexual identity. They can decide what is acceptable "behaviour" but it has to be based in fact, that prejuidice and misinformation. This court case is discerning the facts from the fiction. Again this is a civil rights issue. A segment of society is being denied the right to marry.
As for polygamy, we can draw lines between issues, but i dont have anything against it.
Societies discriminate all the time, by age and by gender. Men have to sign up for selective service prior to applying for financial aid for college, women don't. Why isn't that a civil rights issue? A woman can have an abortion to not become parents, men cannot opt not to pay. Why is that not a civil rights issue? Whether you have anything against Polygamy or not, Muslims are REGULATED to marriage to one partner. Why is that not a civil rights issue?
@vmoney65 Stawman after strawman after strawman. We talking about THIS issue. We are talking about the right to marriage. The right to have three, four five partners is an issue for another day. Right now muslims and everyone else has the right to marry whoever they want, unless they're gay. My only concern about marriage is the following: are they human? are they an adult? Do they consent? If its a yes to all three i dont see any reason not to marry and you certainly havent shown me one.
@Fangtorn First: incorrect: muslims and mormons can only marry a single partner of the opposite sex so they don't have the right to marry who they want as they want. This issue: This country has a standard. Some people don't like the standard for reasons of their own. It is easily shown that "conscenting adults" is an insufficient standard to invalidate all kinds of regulation in both related and unrelated areas. Besides that, you haven't answered why civil unions are insufficient.
@vmoney65 Also, plenty of young straight people experiment while in colleague. The point is you cant choose your sexuality, but while a young persons sexuality is developing from childhood, they can find themselves attracted to both sexes. Not everyone, but its fairly common. Its often said that a person doesnt know their sexually identity for sure until they're 21. Kids experiment in colleague to discover where their preference lies, if they find they like it, chances are they're gay.
Children can grow up abused from childhood, yet while we may feel badly for them we don't embrace their negative behavior later in life (if it manifests). Nobody (to my knowledge) knows exactly what homosexuality is or why it occurs. Those questions are answered for race. However, if granted access to civil unions, why the push for marriage except that acceptance be the goal vs. access to rights? A civil union says your union is different from marriage... and it is according to many.
The comparison between blacks and gays is flawed. One can look at a room full of babies and determine which ones are black, as of today no one can look at the same room of babies and tell which ones are gay. If homosexuality is a behavior, then it is valid for societies to determine which behaviors are acceptable. We have bans on poligamy, we have bans on marriage between adults and children. I find it interesting that liberals who normally don't oppose regulation oppose it in this case.
@vmoney65 Yeh i dont like it when people compare the gay issue to race. You can hide the fact that your gay, you cant hide being black or indian for example.
They have no choice, without the comparison it ceases to be a civil rights issue. We regulate behavior all of the time, thus IF homosexuality is a behavior it is subject to regulation. Muslims are allowed to marry multiple wives, where is the uproar that they can't do so in America especially where we have freedom of religion under the 1st Amendment? All discrimination is bad? Really? Why do we have separate bathrooms by gender? Will the world stop if a man uses a woman's john?
@MsDimplecheeks Descrimination is descrimination. There are varying degrees, but we should all agree that denying anyone their civil rights is equally reprehensible.
Most houses have gender neutral bathrooms, most public places do not. Rides in amusement parks have passenger requirements. We only allow people over 21 to drink, people over 16 to drive, people over 18 to smoke. Liberals tell us that a 14 yo has the right to an abortion, but not the right to drink, smoke, or vote in most states. We have sororities, fraternities, and other gender restricted organizations including gyms and religious orders. All discrimination is bad? Really?
@vmoney65 Remember that not all liberals hold the exact same views please. Im a liberal but im pro-life. All those things you listed have reason and logic behind their "descrimination". Some might be faulty logic, some might hold stupid reasons, but its fairly logical to have an age restriction on who can drive. It would be fairly harmful to society to have babies driving. There is however no logical reason, and no harm i can think of, between two consenting adults marrying.
There is no harm that I can think of for a Muslim or Morman having more than one conscenting partner... or even multiple men marrying multiple women especially if everyone is a conscenting adult or even a person marrying their pet (silly, but some folks do prefer pets to people)... You can make the case for any standard, but our society currently has ONE standard... and *anyone* not meeting that standard will feel hurt by it. It doesn't mean we should chuck the standard.
@vmoney65 I dont think your even reading my comments. I have no issue with polygamy. I think your using it as a strawman. We're not talking about polygamy, we can draw lines under issues, we could end Prohibition without legalising drugs so we can let two consenting adults marry without letting batty old women marry their jack russels. Just because our society has "one standard" doesnt make it right. We had "one standard" that didnt let blacks marry whites, we got that changed.
I have read your comments, and I know you have no issue with polygamy. It doesn't answer the ? why the muslims and the mormons don't have a stronger case than homosexuals because this discussion is about homosexual marriage and only homosexual marriage. We are talking about standards and the fact that many liberals don't like the current standard. Lots of people don't like the current standard and can make cases why it should be changed. That doesn't mean that it should be changed.
Actually, I wasn't talking about Islam's tolerance of homosexuality. What Fanghorn is avoiding is the concept of precedent where a decision made by a court is extended in an unforseen direction by another court... like say with Roe V Wade. Like the decision or not, many scratch their heads over that decision to this day... which is probably a partial explanation as to why conservatives fight so hard against this change.
@vmoney65 "What Fanghorn is avoiding" Im not avoiding anything. Societies can be wrong, people can be stupid. People voted for Prop 8 because they thought schools would turn kids into homosexuals. They removed the rights of other americans based on misinformation. This is a civil rights issue. The masses dont get decide who gets rights and who doesn't, it should be judged fairly by a court that can assess evidence logically and reasonably. Rights shouldnt be subject to public opinion.
Why is it a civil rights issue? Because some don't like the currently codified value? Your prop 8 analysis: grossly oversimplified. All societies codify their values, they can and have been wrong in the past, but why are they wrong now especially when many if most americans (including the President) support civil unions? Do you deny the possibility of unforseen and (to many) distasteful consequences arising from precedent or deny the lack of constitutional support as with blacks?
@vmoney65 Its a civil rights issue because we can marry who we love yet a large part of society is denied that right for no good reason other then "society doesnt like it" which seems to be your argument. So what if most americans support civil unions? Most americans wont be affected by civil unions. Civil unions arent equal to marriage. Im not sure what you mean by unforeseen consequences? I wish this victory for civil rights had come from the people rather then one judge, but i'll take it.
Why aren't civil unions equal to marriage? Why should you get to marry who you love according to your values and ANYONE ELSE not marry who they love according to theirs? "Society doesn't like it" is a gross oversimplification. Remember that a woman's "right to choose" was EXTENDED from a prior ruling about privacy. We are still divided over that case. Obviously, you don't seem to be campaigning against standards because you have them... just the ones that YOU don't like.
@vmoney65 civil unions are to marriage what "separate but equal" was in education. just like brown v. board of education overturned plessy v. ferguson and clearly stated that you can't have double standards without it becoming dicriminatory, civil unions are a discrimination of same sex couples. besides, if you watched the video (wich I doubt you did) ben clearly stated the reasons as to why ciliv unions where deemed unequal: due to the cultural meanings of marriage versus that of civil unions.
Perhaps I didn't watch Ben as closely as I should have, and I am willing to watch again... however the flaw of your analysis lies in that as humans we are far more interchangeable by race than we are by gender. Same sex marriage implies that there is no difference between men and women and their coupling. There is a difference just as there is a difference between men and women. Separate but equal works for bathrooms and for army combat. You disagree, I respect that.
@vmoney65 as for your rants on mormons and muslims: why indeed should we not expand the right to marry to polygamists? I'm all for it, and glad to have you with me on the cause. concenting adults should be free to engage in whatever unions they wish, regardless of religion playing a role or not. as to why we don't allow children to marry, it's simple: we don't deem children able to make the same independent and informed choices that adults are able to make.
It's not a rant, it's just a point... specifically it is the point that we all have standards and really no one is campaigning against standards... just the standards they don't like for the reasons that they don't like them. I find abortion/reproduction law to be extremely discriminatory in favor of women, but it is settled law... just as marriage continues to be despite the efforts of some to change it.
@vmoney65 I don't even get what you're trying to say. That people have their own reasons to have their own opinions? And that they promote their own opinions? Wow, a revolutionary fnding! Of course everyone has their own opinion. The question here is if you have the right to regulate other people behaviours based on personal opinions. I would say no. You are free to create and live by your own standards, but no person or state has the right to impose standards on anyone else.
One of the functions of the state is to impose standards, otherwise we'd live in anarchy. Some people don't think they should have to wear clothes but the state regulates their behavior. We have obscenity laws, we have drug laws, we have speeding laws. There are many places where society sets standards of conduct.
BUT really, no one here is seriously advocating denying the right of the state to set standards because we all have them... just the standards they don't like.
@vmoney65 of course there is always some morals that play into even the most fundamental laws. I would let anything be legal as long as it doesn't allow one person to infringe on another persons right/freedom (like with violence). I think what's crucial here is that same sex marriage doesn't really infringe on anyone else's rights. you still have freedom of religion, you still have the choice to marry an opposite sex person.
How does mandating that people wear clothes infringe on another person's right/freedom? You still have the freedom to wear clothes even if others do not. However, I am not against gay unions (I don't really care). I am against calling gay unions 'marriages' because it is exactly as confusing as calling a man a woman or a woman a man. Let gays get 'garried' and have happy 'garriages', let them NOT attempt to confuse people in such a way that devalues our gender differences.
@vmoney65 "Lots of people don't like the current standard and can make cases why it should be changed." If their case makes sense it should be changed. If a pedophile says he wants the right to marry a child, we say no, a child cant consent and would be harmed by it. If someone says i want to marry my dog, we say no, a dog cant consent to marriage. If a guy says i want to marry my boyfriend... what reason do i have to say no? Is desire to marry who he loves the same as the desire to marry a dog?
If their case makes sense to whom? What's a child? At the begining of the last century, children did everything adults did, including get married at young ages. What reason do you have to say no? The precedent that would be set that could have unforseen, unrelated, and potentially distasteful consequences. Besides some people do love their dogs more than other people. ;)
FYI: Actually I am not as disturbed by gay marriage as I am by a judge overturning legislative process without constitutional support. If it becomes legal, I'll live. I'll disagree with it but just like I generally disagree with abortion (willing to make the rape exception), I'll recognize it as settled law. I do think this is more about gays seeking acceptance for their lifestyle than their civil rights. Otherwise, civil unions wouldn't be so absent from the discussion.
@Fangtorn You omit the reason WHY blks got to marry whites... A constitutional AMENDMENT based upon an agreed upon STATUS that black people had as a condition of their birth. This is why the 14th amendment uses the word 'born' and the 15th mentions 'race' and 'color'. Thus bans on interracial marriage were unconstitutional. Nobody agrees about what homosexual status is let alone what it means. However, why again don't civil unions (supported by the president and most Americans) fit the bill?
@vmoney65 When whites and blacks had separate water fountains didn't they both provide water? Couldn't their separate schools have been of the same quality?
Simply by arbitrarily making a distinction between the some relationships makes them unequal.
Also, if civil unions would do everything that a marriage would, why not just call it marriage?
But there is a distinction between same sex and hetero relationships. Much of marriage law is based upon certain assumptions concerning children, property, and inheritance. Many of those assumptions do not hold for same sex couples to the degree that they hold for interracial couples. What rights and privileges will be extended based upon favorable same sex marriage rulings? Why do homosexuals need to usurp the "M" word instead of defining their own more accurate word?
@vmoney65 homosexuality is not a behaviour. a person doesn't act gay one day and then act straight the next day. behaviour training will not make a homosexual man straight, which is different then a drug addict being rehabilitated. homosexuality, and sexuality in general are a part of the human psyche that goes beyond behaviour, sexuality is an underlying foundation of behaviour.
I don't claim to know exactly what homosexuality is, but I doubt that you do either. I used the word 'IF' to indicate that its status is unresolved. Maybe it's a form of imprinting as seen with baby birds, who knows? What I do know is that its not like being black, white, asian, male, or female... why? Because I can easily identify the former at birth. Even Cenk himself has his *spectrum* theory. Besides, how do people "experiment" with homosexuality if it's not a behavior?
@vmoney65 We oppose it because it isn't polygamy, it isn't a marriage btw adults and children. It's two ADULTS who want to marry. The comparison btw polygamist/pedophiles is flawed. Take your authoritarian ideology and leave to Iran because in America society can't control the lives of others especially in regards to civil rights.
Not everyone agrees that a civil right is involved. Even in America, the definition of what a child is has changed over time. Meanwhile, the 1st amendment promises freedom of religion as a CIVIL RIGHT. In Islam, a man can marry more than one wife (all adults). Islam is a religion. Where's the uproar? Why is the marriage right of gays so sacred and the religious freedom of muslims so easily ignored? All societies codify their values and it is not authoritarian for them to do so.
@vmoney65 Homosexuality isnt just a "behaviour". This is a civil rights issue. Everyone has the right to marry who they love, except homosexuals. Liberals oppose this "regulation" because they believe its unjust. There are good, obvious reasons why adults shouldnt marry children, there isnt any good reason why two consenting adults cant get married simply because they are of the same sex. It doesnt hurt anyone, but denying same sex marriage does.
Lots of Mormans and Muslims love who they love too. Both old-style Mormanism and Islam are religions protected by the 1st Amendment. Do Muslims love their wives less? Where is your outrage for the discrimination against them? As for "children", biologically and economically there are plenty of good reasons why older men should be able to marry women considered to be "children" by this society. We just don't embrace them like some other cultures DO. All societies codify their values.
Besides, this isn't really about marriage because I doubt that there is much that marriage does for homosexual couples that the civil unions supported by most Americans couldn't also accomplish. This is about acceptance even without the kind of constitutional support that settled the issue for blacks. You want society to accept gay marriage, but poligamy and plural marriage is bad? I'd love to read the logical explanation for that.
I agree with Ben in most respects, but that consistency argument doesn't make any sense. What's the point? The Nazis were horribly consistent in many ways, too, but that doesn't make them any better.
@MrHarrylime79 In fact, the US is a constitutional republic. You should read the Constitution. It's pretty cool, gives us Equal Protection and everything, and a state CANNOT overrule it.
@MrHarrylime79 Except for that most countries (including our own) aren't direct democracies. So no, majority rule is not very common place in the world, though if enough people illuminate an issue, their elected officials (in the case of a republic like our own) often have no choice but to atleast pretend they are addressing it.
The only problem with Cenk being on MSNBC is now people like me could be accidently exposed to the pile of krap in the morning called Morning Joe. They were basically saying this morning that overturning prop 8 threatens marriages in North Dakota. What is wrong with these people?!
Gathering of the Vibes is a festival, just got back from there. Recommend it to anyone on the east coast, young and old. Family or wook drugbags, their is something for everyone.
does anyone know when two lesbians get married if they both become mrs and take one of their second names, or do they keep their maiden names and keep ms?
Keep up the awesome work!
fivequotes 1 month ago
august 4th is mah birfday :D
nyskate08 8 months ago
Where can this article be found? I want to read it.
yuukisama2001 1 year ago
How many appeal can their be in the Supreme court?
jeanselina 1 year ago
yet people are people are people and all are entitled to married and miserable.
pasaywuh 1 year ago
oh benn ur so quirky:P talking about anas boobs at 31 min lol.
RenatoandEric 1 year ago
"Ana you look really nice and you have excellent breasts..." Wth! The creepiness never ends.
Dorkopolis 1 year ago 2
Ana barely said anything during in this vid.
xSolraccarloSx 1 year ago
not enough ana.
TheElephantOpera 1 year ago
is it me or is anna lookin at ben like she wants to jump his bones.? let the gays get married it isnt hurting my pockets, or endangering me. i just dont associate with them like i wouldnt associate with kkk members. let freedom live
tsk209 1 year ago
@tsk209 All I heard was you comparing gays to KKK members.
Scompty 1 year ago
vmoney65 needs to slow his troll roll. I want to hear more remarks about Ben's unending awkwardness...
nanomagnetic 1 year ago
@nanomagnetic
what's trollish about my roll? I just disagree. I have been very polite and civil. Don't tell me that contrary to popular belief, intolerance turns out to NOT be the monopoly of conservatives... lol.
vmoney65 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@vmoney65 Making this video's comment section your little pet project to espouse your own twisted views on homosexuality came across as trolling. You don't need an ENTIRE comments-page to defend your beliefs, no matter how civil.
nanomagnetic 1 year ago
@nanomagnetic
Just what makes my views "twisted"? The fact that you don't agree? I have simply responded to those that responded to me. Politely and with civility... So because someone says something that I don't agree with, because it's a liberal board they should have the last word? Now what would the framers of the 1st amendment think about that? Although I _am_ done here, let the record show that I called neither YOU or anyone else a name, refuted what disagreed with and left unimpressed.
vmoney65 1 year ago
@vmoney65 Your factose intolerance is part of it. Since when is homosexuality a lifestyle? There's very little doubt that it has a biological basis.
You can trot out the 1st amendment all you want but that doesn't change your bad etiquette.
nanomagnetic 1 year ago
@nanomagnetic says:
"There's very little doubt that it has a biological basis."
Inaccurate, the search for the biological basis of homosexuality continues to this day. Currently homosexuality is thought to be a complex interaction between genes and ENVIRONMENTAL factors. Gays compare themselves to black people to make their case, but what other than persecution is the basis of that comparison? Where are your FACTS? Or do you just make stuff up like many of you accuse conservatives of doing?
vmoney65 1 year ago
@vmoney65
"Genes and environmental factors." Yeah, that's the basic biological argument. Nice self-pwn.
nanomagnetic 1 year ago
Comment removed
nanomagnetic 1 year ago
LOL
"Do you need DAHK-YEW-MINTZ to sign up with T-I-T?"
imlaughing2death 1 year ago
Ben, for the love of all that is holy, loose the "UHHS"!
Tripp393 1 year ago 2
The federal and state governments shouldn't be in the business of defining or endorsing marriages to begin with but should instead be limited to recognizing civil unions regardless of sexual orientation.
This whole gay marriage issue is fucking stupid, we've got a lot more important issues on the plate.
lowenklee 1 year ago
@lowenklee by saying that civil unions are enuogh you're pretty much saying that brown v. board of education should be overturned. separate but equal has been prooved to be unequal and dicriminatory. due to equal protection and due prosess clauses, marriage have to be open for every consenting adult on equal basis.
momijinohanako 1 year ago
@momijinohanako
Good thing I'm not saying separate but equal, the government shouldn't endorse marriages of any kind... heterosexual or homosexual. Marriage has always carried with it notions of religious association...as a tradition it should fall outside the government's mandate.
Then we can work towards define a criteria for "civil unions" thats fair and not predicated on a religious viewpoint.
Let the clerics and people of faith argue marriage on their own time.
lowenklee 1 year ago
jayar like cheez-its
supertito123 1 year ago
This guys says "Uh" way too much.Ana used to be real bad about it,but has gotten better.
jside 1 year ago
@jside Every 5th word at best...its painful to watch..LOL
davoid111 1 year ago
so guys... have you seen the sarah palin song? go watch it and comment... (they are serious.)
spaik007 1 year ago
Also we cannot imply having ideals are fun we must imply that the only way to have fun is get drunk and fuck something. seriously...
maj1kninja07 1 year ago
leftist can NEVER say constitutional republic. it will introduce it into your vocabulary and you might just figure out what it means, and maybe even use it.
maj1kninja07 1 year ago
Ok Some reports say that George H.W. Bush appointed him. So who really did appoint him? Not that it matters, still relevant either way.
sherrimule 1 year ago
ew smirnoff is nasty!!! grosss.
wetdream09 1 year ago
@TheCylob iraq*
murderedboy 1 year ago
@TheCylob reasonable to support the iraw war? also no.
murderedboy 1 year ago
third: himosexualioty is a trait, not a behavior. just because we don't understand how it works, doesn't mean we have a right to discriminate against it. we didn't know everything about the human genome (and we still don't) in the 1960's, but you still ended discrimination against blacks. and guess what, even IF it turned out that homosexuality was a "choice" or a "behaviour" I would still be pro same sex marriage, due to the right of concenting adults to engage in any relationships they wish.
momijinohanako 1 year ago
@momijinohanako
Cenk always talks about bringing facts to the discussion. What facts do you offer to support your view that homosexuality is a trait? And if it was a trait, why can't you tell me which babies are homosexual? I know which ones are black. Government already regulates the behavior of consenting adults-- polygamy, prostitution, plural marriage to name a few, and discrimination against blacks ended because it was unconstitutional. Change the constitution and we have no argument.
vmoney65 1 year ago
@vmoney65 What facts do you offer to prove that your heterosexuality is a trait???And if it was a trait, why can't you tell me which babies will be heterosexual? or which ones will be homosexual? "Government already regulates 2 consulting adults"
polygamy :applies to both hetero and homosexual polygamists: prostitution : applies both to Hetero and Homosexual prostitutes: .......
"the land of the free and the home of the brave" if you cant roll with it then your shit out of luck here.
DallasCowboyBrothers 1 year ago
@DallasCowboyBrothers
First, the burden of proof is on those that want the change. Second, either the government has the right to regulate marriage OR IT DOESN'T. If it does, then anyone that feels slighted will claim that they are discriminated against. In the land of the free and the brave, one man/one woman is the law of he land just like abortion on demand. We all live with laws we don't like. I think my side was lazy and didn't argue effectively. They won't make that mistake again.
vmoney65 1 year ago
@vmoney65 Well dont make this mistake again..... with in the next 5 years, proposition 8 will reach the supreme court and what do you think the outcome will be?The rule in favor in basic civil rights? Or the rule in hatred and religious discrimination? And don’t sit there and tell me its not hatred because that’s just plain bull shit. With in the next 20 years ALL states will no longer have the power to prevent same sex marriage. Its just history man and the way of the great states.
DallasCowboyBrothers 1 year ago
@DallasCowboyBrothers
Firstly, not everyone agrees that a civil right is at stake b/c not everyone agrees that homosexuality isn't a lifestyle. Lifestyles are OFTEN regulated by the government. I don't know what the future holds but I do know that gay marriage consistently fails nearly every LEGISLATIVE referendum in every state. I think it is because "marriage" has meant one thing to most people for 1000s of years. If gays want it changed, they should make a better case or invent a new word.
vmoney65 1 year ago
@vmoney65 Let me repeat myself, This WILL reach the supreme court and all state legislation will be over ruled. Marriage in the US does not mean the samething as it did 1000 years ago, for example, divorse- i can marry by morning divorse by noon and then remarry again at night. TV shoes like "Who wants to marry a millionair" and the bacholaret dont insult the instatute of marriage? seperation of church and state is very important if the US wishes to continue into the 21st century.
DallasCowboyBrothers 1 year ago
@DallasCowboyBrothers
Look, we don't let adult siblings marry each other. We don't let parents marry their adult children. Why? Because we have standards that reflect our prevalent values. Gay marriage is having problems because it is not the prevalent value. As well it should because thousands of years of tradition should not be lightly overturned. It took a civil war, an amendment to the constitution and 100 years to change the status of blacks. What exempts gays from trial and sacrifice?
vmoney65 1 year ago
@vmoney65 As i continue to grow up in this world i see a big difference in the opinions of older generations compared to younger generations. If two gay people honestly share love for each other they should be able to marry, no matter if someones religious views said it was wrong or immoral. The defense of prop 8 said the same thing you said and guess what, they lost and prop 8 was lifted. Organized religion is rapidly dieing because it seems they focus on hate rater than love.
DallasCowboyBrothers 1 year ago
@DallasCowboyBrothers
I propose the word "garry". If two gay people honestly share love for each other they should be able to "garry", and if they garry, I hope they have a happy garriage but the words marry and marriage already have definitions as far most are concerned. The only reason I can see to usurp the word marriage is to confuse people into accepting that which many do not accept which btw is their right not to accept. While some traditions should be overturned none should be lightly.
vmoney65 1 year ago
@vmoney65 redefine marriage? how does Bob and Jeff having a PRIVATE ceremonial marriage affect this world? how does it effect you? why is it that someones personal religious opinions get to inter fear with someones basic civil rights? Now im not saying you cant hate and disagree with gays, but in this land religion is separated from the laws of society and you can NOT take away anyones rights to the constitution- "we hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal".
DallasCowboyBrothers 1 year ago 2
@vmoney65 I slightly disagree. A lot of people draw false equivalence with incest. Incest is damaging to society. Homosexuality is not by all evidence. Not the same.
There is no rational basis against Homosexuality. There is a strong rational basis for being against incest.
Infact I would argue there is more of a rational basis for barring the relatively common cousin marriages than barring homosexuals.
CmdrTobs 1 year ago
@CmdrTobs
It depends upon your perspective. If you're a royal of Europe, incest and cousin relations enabled you to consolidate your power. While incest introduces genetic defects, mating outside your gene pool can also introduce diseases, unwanted traits and defects. I don't defend it, I'm just saying that cases can be made for and against. Gay relationships complicate the areas of law related to child custody and welfare. Does the non-biological parent in a gay relationship pay child support?
vmoney65 1 year ago
@vmoney65 "incest and cousin relations enabled you to consolidate your power" - Lol and feudalism wasn't good for society.
" mating outside your gene pool can also introduce diseases" what on earth does that mean? Taking "gene pool" in your bizarre context to mean people within 30miles of where you were born, nothing could be wiser than mating outside your "gene pool".
Its not perspective at all, First cousin marriages are bad for society. It is scientific fact.
CmdrTobs 1 year ago
Yes. We should follow "scientific fact" in dictating what members of our society can and cannot do.
I daren't mention old language on interracial marriages? Interclass marriages? Etc.
purplefuzzythings 1 year ago
@purplefuzzythings hahahaha, took about blurring points and making things up to support a point you don't have.
It was never scientific fact any of racial nonsense people used to spout, it was merely pseudo-science of the same brand creationists use these days to claim Dinosaurs were here 4000yrs ago. No PHD scientist from reputable universities believe it.
On the other hand it is scientific fact incest in mammals leads to infertility. That would be THE END of the human race.
CmdrTobs 1 year ago
You're rather inflating what I said. I don't even know what side of the argument you were on, or how the argument started. The point was that anyone can say that something is scientific fact to support their position, but what you should do is actually point to the mechanism behind the effects of your claim, or offer some evidence.
purplefuzzythings 1 year ago
@purplefuzzythings Its a 500char youtube post no evidence can possibly be provided. You have the name of the scientific. if you don't know about it Google it.
CmdrTobs 1 year ago
@CmdrTobs
Once we declare the most gender discriminatory laws (marriage) "wrong", which gender discriminatory laws will fall next? Do we get rid of separate bathrooms? Do we admit men into sorrorities, women into fraternaties? No more ladies' gyms or locker rooms? Do we end honorable discharge for pregnancy? Assign women soldiers combat roles? Far fetched you say? Do you think the judge that ruled on a privacy case had any clue his ruling would be used to establish a "right to abortion"?
vmoney65 1 year ago
@vmoney65 you're obfuscating the issue at hand.
CmdrTobs 1 year ago
so much for the will of the people
BorgKing001 1 year ago
Don't be surprised when the supreme court votes 5/4 in favor of prop 8!
scorpionkings 1 year ago
Another great episode!
Ana, you hit it on the head. I know a lot of people who voted on Prop 8 without ever really knowing how the claims were true or false. I think people in general are automated when it comes to protecting kids. There's this kind of, "What? Hurt kids?!! Oh, hell no!" attitude, which isn't a bad thing, save cases where it's exploited.
somethinguncreative 1 year ago
So, Federal Court just made marriage legal in california. Since it was done in a federal court it's likely that, if his decision stands as the case is appealed, it will be applied to ALL states.
DrQuijano 1 year ago
its funny how everyone starts talking about the law when it comes to the rights of gay marrige. and then argue about what the constution says, or means. it once allowed men to own other men until it was rightfully changed. then a few years later it had to be updated because it was
'unclear: on if slaves were americans or not...really. mypoint is that when are people going to pull their heads out of their asses and realize that poeple are people no mater what and if 2 dudes get married so TFW.
dungee13 1 year ago
@dungee13
I don't think that's really the *fear*. Two couples of equivalent means go to adopt a child, one homosexual, one heterosexual. Competition is fierce, the heterosexual couple argues that children are not a consequence of homosexual unions and that because this was known to the homosexual couple they should be given preference. Do they have a point or not?
vmoney65 1 year ago
@vmoney65 seems like someones making an excuss. its wrong to discriminate, no matter what. and as for the questions of jobs. if the most qualified were hired 40 years ago after the civil rights movements there would be no need for other laws. the probelm is that the best werent hired. they might be black or a woman, now if their gay they have to hope for what were saying , that theyll be a minority.yeah. like i said when will the world wake up and stop ALL petty discriminations based on fear .
dungee13 1 year ago
@dungee13
wrong to discriminate no matter what? already disproven. selective service discriminates, bathrooms discriminate, there are plenty of acceptable examples. There is reasonable discrimination and unreasonable discrimination. You feel that marriage is unreasonable discrimination, I respect that, I just don't agree with it. I do support civil unions. However, why don't civil unions scratch this itch again?
vmoney65 1 year ago
@dungee13
I'll say that I respect your views, but don't agree. I think it can be shown that there are many areas where gender discrim. works well in society (bathrooms,combat,etc) that might be threatened if the definition of marriage was altered. I think the science related to race is far more developed than the science related to sexual orientation invalidating comparisons between the two. For me there is enough difference between the relationships to justify different words to describe them.
vmoney65 1 year ago
@vmoney65 bathrooms? were defence for saying people cant get married because they are gay is because it will crack the fabric of society because no one will know were to go pee? OK
dungee13 1 year ago
@dungee13
Here is the point: Either the government has the right to regulate marriage OR IT DOESN'T. If it does, (and most people agree that it does) then whomever doesn't fit whatever the standard is will CLAIM discrimination. Currently, homosexuals are the most vocal in their disagreement. Not everyone agrees that homosexuality is a STATUS, many believe it is a LIFESTYLE. The government is under no more of an obligation to endorse a LIFESTYLE than it is to endorse a RELIGION.
vmoney65 1 year ago
@vmoney65 ive seen that you like to comment just about every one to veiw, and spew your pionts. it would be funny if not so sad. do you not have a life outside of hateing gay peopel, is this you playing a HAGGERD or one of the dozen other noecons that hate gays so much, and come to find out they are? what are you hideing there buddy? all i have to say is that im glad my mother raised me not to hate someone that is gay. its sad really, your insanity, and your de-nile..which is not just a river.HA
dungee13 1 year ago
@dungee13
I comment to those that respond. I don't hate gays and even support their unions, I just don't support calling them Marriages. As far as insanity and hatred go, I have been and continue to be nothing but civil to everyone here. America is not about agreement. We have different backgrounds, perspectives, and religions... suffice it so say that at least I am evolved enough to RESPECT the right of others to disagree, where it seems clear that many of you here ARE NOT.
vmoney65 1 year ago
@vmoney65 you say that not allowing people to marry is civil action? i say civil action has been defined in many ways throughout history,including those that would hold others down with the heel of their boot, and it is if fact, not civil. civil is being open minded enough to know that not everyone has YOUR outlook on life. you can hide behind being offened by my bluntness, but i stand by it unequivocally.
dungee13 1 year ago
@dungee13
While the apple, the orange, and the grape may have their own ideas as to which is superior, the fact remains that apples are not oranges and oranges are not grapes. Likewise same sex unions are not opposite sex unions which is why it is legitimate to describe each using different terms. All societies set standards and codify their values. If I made plans to date a woman and a man misrepresented himself and showed up, that would be a deception. To be accurate, gays NEED their own term.
vmoney65 1 year ago
@vmoney65 whoa.. supriority.. were have i heard that before? someone makeing an excuss of why they should have the right to down another human being. and gays are that you know.. human beings. no matter how you try to rationalize gays as something else they are not only human beings but AMERICANS. and as to your other thoughts all i can say is your wasteland of ideas has been beaten before it will again. your not right and i feel bad that you have failed so badly at to what life is all about...
dungee13 1 year ago
@dungee13
Another case, if homosexuality is deemed to be a 'status', will it become a protected status? A black, a woman, and a homosexual apply for a job, does hiring the homosexual count toward expanding diversity in the workplace or for the school or whatever. It's PRECEDENT. Precedents are often expanded in unforseen ways, sometimes for the better, sometimes not depending upon who you ask. How is generally accepted marriage law with its assumptions affected? Not so simple as it appears
vmoney65 1 year ago
@anthonygrg Yea and kinda boring , but hes a cutie so i watch him on mute.
mrncy227 1 year ago
Cheez-its are amazing.
EliteDoomer 1 year ago
i'm getting used to this guy.
xtericx 1 year ago
I'm sure you've already heard this (not that you'll read these comments), but FYI, Judge Vaughn Walker is gay.
abulafia24 1 year ago
@abulafia24
Couldn't have seen that coming. :) But seriously, I just want someone to explain to me why this is a civil rights issue. Because the government won't recognize everything conscenting adults do? If so, it's at the bottom of a long list. Because people that don't meet the standard don't like it? No surprises there. Because being gay is like being black? A lot of folks disagree with that last one, including many blacks. For practical matters, civil unions aren't sufficient... why???
vmoney65 1 year ago
@vmoney65: It's a civil rights issue because the 14th amendment guarantees equal protection for all under the law, regardless of one's creed, sex, etc. If one group has a right another is denied, that latter group isn't equally protected. Re: civil unions, I don't know, but I'm one of those crazy folks who think gov't shouldn't get involved with marriage as it is mostly a religious institution.
abulafia24 1 year ago
@abulafia24
The problem is that homosexuality isn't a creed, a race, or a gender. It's a sexual orientation and as such it is unresolved whether it is a status or a behavior. If its a behavior, it can be regulated as other behaviors are. I don't know that it is, but it doesn't seem that you could 'experiment' with a status as many claim to have experimented with homosexuality. Perhaps the government shouldn't be involved.
vmoney65 1 year ago
i almost fell for prop 8 with those ads saying that teachers were going to turn children into homos. later i found the fallacy in that argument.
xtericx 1 year ago
Ben is so awkward.
stratocaster440 1 year ago
Go Judge Vaughn Walker!
I'm amazed at how many comments are about Ben...people, come on PROP 8 OVERTURNED!
I mean this is big for civil rights!
Arkayem 1 year ago
Humans are so dead set on distancing themselves from other animals that they forgo instinctual things that make a lot of sense. Marrying a younger women makes a lot of sense because she has more child bearing years. Having multiple partners allows for your genes to have a greater chance of being passed on by having more offspring. Humans even go against natural selection by allowing people with defective genes to live and reproduce. Morals are really just artificial instincts that people made up
cutlass1234 1 year ago
As far as i'm concerned marriage has become corrupted as soon as it became a legal and financial thing. People should just marry friends they have platonic relationships with just to get the financial benefits. Getting married doesn't suddenly mean you love that person any more or less so why bother marrying for love at all. Just have an open marriage with a friend you have no romantic feelings for at all.
cutlass1234 1 year ago
Sorry to have to break this to people but Cenk being on MSNBC, as well as the new advertisements throughout the videos are just one step closer to the end of the show as you knew it.. eventually Cenk will move on to greener pastures if given the opportunity, because it's obvious he values money above anything else.
ruin3r 1 year ago
Bout time its been up here in Canada for a while now
CrucialDesignes 1 year ago
why does everyone hate Ben? he's smart and does a good job, occasionally funnier than Cenk.
conthemon 1 year ago 5
Yes and Faux News is informative. Sorry but his annoyances SHOULD be clear to everyone. lol
mefilmmaking 1 year ago
It`s easy, man... and totally unfair to Ben. It`s because we all love Cenk so much: his progressive style, his balanced analysis on political issues and just his overall likable charisma. And Ben, poor guy, just has these giant shoes to fill. Ain`t fair to him, of course. But you have to admit that TYT is really about Cenk. No matter how good the next guy will be, he`ll always get crushed by Cenk`s imprint in fan`s hearts and minds.
DerChaosmench 1 year ago
@conthemon oh hes never funnier than cenk. cenk is the TYT King
MMOareFTW 1 year ago
This is what America is all about. ABOUT FREAKIN' TIME!!!! This makes me so happy, it's truly an amazing day in our country.
redasscd 1 year ago 5
Seems like Cenk is going to be on this show less and less, I wonder if members are pissed?
GorgonLuvs8008135 1 year ago
I would to see a poll showing how people that support "pro-life" stances feel about capital punishment.
ThePhatIndian 1 year ago 3
If there was a scale to measure awkwardness and uncomfortableness ranging from 1 to 10 in a person, Ana would be about 14 when Ben started talking about her breasts and wanting to see her naked.
ThePhatIndian 1 year ago 8
@ThePhatIndian hahahaha no kidding. I was suffering major second-hand embarrassment for everyone on the show, all viewers, and anyone who knows anyone who was on the show or watching it.
sicklesickle 1 year ago
@ThePhatIndian I agree Phat. That was so sexist and uncomfortable for Ana.I thik Ben is a jerk and i want Cenk BACK. ( But im afraid hes gone for ever)
andiamoci22 1 year ago
@andiamoci22 I actually like Ben, but he definitely rambles on and doesn't know when to stop sometimes.
ThePhatIndian 1 year ago
In the end, all I am saying is that societies have the right to regulate behavior and not everyone agrees as to what homosexuality is. Even Cenk has his spectrum theory. And if homosexuals ARE born as such, how can homosexuality be experimented with? You can't experiment with being black. Lastly, what argument can homosexuals make that doesn't more strongly apply to the right for muslims to have their multi-wife marriages recognized under the 1st Amendment? Where's the liberal uproar for them?
vmoney65 1 year ago
@vmoney65 "societies have the right to regulate behavior" societies dont have the right to descriminate, including against sexual identity. They can decide what is acceptable "behaviour" but it has to be based in fact, that prejuidice and misinformation. This court case is discerning the facts from the fiction. Again this is a civil rights issue. A segment of society is being denied the right to marry.
As for polygamy, we can draw lines between issues, but i dont have anything against it.
Fangtorn 1 year ago
@Fangtorn
Societies discriminate all the time, by age and by gender. Men have to sign up for selective service prior to applying for financial aid for college, women don't. Why isn't that a civil rights issue? A woman can have an abortion to not become parents, men cannot opt not to pay. Why is that not a civil rights issue? Whether you have anything against Polygamy or not, Muslims are REGULATED to marriage to one partner. Why is that not a civil rights issue?
vmoney65 1 year ago
@vmoney65 Stawman after strawman after strawman. We talking about THIS issue. We are talking about the right to marriage. The right to have three, four five partners is an issue for another day. Right now muslims and everyone else has the right to marry whoever they want, unless they're gay. My only concern about marriage is the following: are they human? are they an adult? Do they consent? If its a yes to all three i dont see any reason not to marry and you certainly havent shown me one.
Fangtorn 1 year ago 2
@Fangtorn First: incorrect: muslims and mormons can only marry a single partner of the opposite sex so they don't have the right to marry who they want as they want. This issue: This country has a standard. Some people don't like the standard for reasons of their own. It is easily shown that "conscenting adults" is an insufficient standard to invalidate all kinds of regulation in both related and unrelated areas. Besides that, you haven't answered why civil unions are insufficient.
vmoney65 1 year ago
@vmoney65 Also, plenty of young straight people experiment while in colleague. The point is you cant choose your sexuality, but while a young persons sexuality is developing from childhood, they can find themselves attracted to both sexes. Not everyone, but its fairly common. Its often said that a person doesnt know their sexually identity for sure until they're 21. Kids experiment in colleague to discover where their preference lies, if they find they like it, chances are they're gay.
Fangtorn 1 year ago
@Fangtorn
Children can grow up abused from childhood, yet while we may feel badly for them we don't embrace their negative behavior later in life (if it manifests). Nobody (to my knowledge) knows exactly what homosexuality is or why it occurs. Those questions are answered for race. However, if granted access to civil unions, why the push for marriage except that acceptance be the goal vs. access to rights? A civil union says your union is different from marriage... and it is according to many.
vmoney65 1 year ago
The Ben was good today. Didn't like the Cheez-It ad, though.
therealcharismatron 1 year ago
The comparison between blacks and gays is flawed. One can look at a room full of babies and determine which ones are black, as of today no one can look at the same room of babies and tell which ones are gay. If homosexuality is a behavior, then it is valid for societies to determine which behaviors are acceptable. We have bans on poligamy, we have bans on marriage between adults and children. I find it interesting that liberals who normally don't oppose regulation oppose it in this case.
vmoney65 1 year ago
@vmoney65 Yeh i dont like it when people compare the gay issue to race. You can hide the fact that your gay, you cant hide being black or indian for example.
MsDimplecheeks 1 year ago
@MsDimplecheeks
They have no choice, without the comparison it ceases to be a civil rights issue. We regulate behavior all of the time, thus IF homosexuality is a behavior it is subject to regulation. Muslims are allowed to marry multiple wives, where is the uproar that they can't do so in America especially where we have freedom of religion under the 1st Amendment? All discrimination is bad? Really? Why do we have separate bathrooms by gender? Will the world stop if a man uses a woman's john?
vmoney65 1 year ago
@MsDimplecheeks Descrimination is descrimination. There are varying degrees, but we should all agree that denying anyone their civil rights is equally reprehensible.
Fangtorn 1 year ago
@Fangtorn Yeh i agree
MsDimplecheeks 1 year ago
@Fangtorn
Most houses have gender neutral bathrooms, most public places do not. Rides in amusement parks have passenger requirements. We only allow people over 21 to drink, people over 16 to drive, people over 18 to smoke. Liberals tell us that a 14 yo has the right to an abortion, but not the right to drink, smoke, or vote in most states. We have sororities, fraternities, and other gender restricted organizations including gyms and religious orders. All discrimination is bad? Really?
vmoney65 1 year ago
@vmoney65 Remember that not all liberals hold the exact same views please. Im a liberal but im pro-life. All those things you listed have reason and logic behind their "descrimination". Some might be faulty logic, some might hold stupid reasons, but its fairly logical to have an age restriction on who can drive. It would be fairly harmful to society to have babies driving. There is however no logical reason, and no harm i can think of, between two consenting adults marrying.
Fangtorn 1 year ago
@Fangtorn
There is no harm that I can think of for a Muslim or Morman having more than one conscenting partner... or even multiple men marrying multiple women especially if everyone is a conscenting adult or even a person marrying their pet (silly, but some folks do prefer pets to people)... You can make the case for any standard, but our society currently has ONE standard... and *anyone* not meeting that standard will feel hurt by it. It doesn't mean we should chuck the standard.
vmoney65 1 year ago
@vmoney65 I dont think your even reading my comments. I have no issue with polygamy. I think your using it as a strawman. We're not talking about polygamy, we can draw lines under issues, we could end Prohibition without legalising drugs so we can let two consenting adults marry without letting batty old women marry their jack russels. Just because our society has "one standard" doesnt make it right. We had "one standard" that didnt let blacks marry whites, we got that changed.
Fangtorn 1 year ago
@Fangtorn
I have read your comments, and I know you have no issue with polygamy. It doesn't answer the ? why the muslims and the mormons don't have a stronger case than homosexuals because this discussion is about homosexual marriage and only homosexual marriage. We are talking about standards and the fact that many liberals don't like the current standard. Lots of people don't like the current standard and can make cases why it should be changed. That doesn't mean that it should be changed.
vmoney65 1 year ago
@vmoney65
Islam is very vague on homosexuality. Some say if they lead celibate lives but marry that's okay. While others are more authoritarian on it.
pokeyugi13 1 year ago
@pokeyugi13
Actually, I wasn't talking about Islam's tolerance of homosexuality. What Fanghorn is avoiding is the concept of precedent where a decision made by a court is extended in an unforseen direction by another court... like say with Roe V Wade. Like the decision or not, many scratch their heads over that decision to this day... which is probably a partial explanation as to why conservatives fight so hard against this change.
vmoney65 1 year ago
@vmoney65 "What Fanghorn is avoiding" Im not avoiding anything. Societies can be wrong, people can be stupid. People voted for Prop 8 because they thought schools would turn kids into homosexuals. They removed the rights of other americans based on misinformation. This is a civil rights issue. The masses dont get decide who gets rights and who doesn't, it should be judged fairly by a court that can assess evidence logically and reasonably. Rights shouldnt be subject to public opinion.
Fangtorn 1 year ago
@Fangtorn
Why is it a civil rights issue? Because some don't like the currently codified value? Your prop 8 analysis: grossly oversimplified. All societies codify their values, they can and have been wrong in the past, but why are they wrong now especially when many if most americans (including the President) support civil unions? Do you deny the possibility of unforseen and (to many) distasteful consequences arising from precedent or deny the lack of constitutional support as with blacks?
vmoney65 1 year ago
@vmoney65 Its a civil rights issue because we can marry who we love yet a large part of society is denied that right for no good reason other then "society doesnt like it" which seems to be your argument. So what if most americans support civil unions? Most americans wont be affected by civil unions. Civil unions arent equal to marriage. Im not sure what you mean by unforeseen consequences? I wish this victory for civil rights had come from the people rather then one judge, but i'll take it.
Fangtorn 1 year ago
@Fangtorn
Why aren't civil unions equal to marriage? Why should you get to marry who you love according to your values and ANYONE ELSE not marry who they love according to theirs? "Society doesn't like it" is a gross oversimplification. Remember that a woman's "right to choose" was EXTENDED from a prior ruling about privacy. We are still divided over that case. Obviously, you don't seem to be campaigning against standards because you have them... just the ones that YOU don't like.
vmoney65 1 year ago
@vmoney65 civil unions are to marriage what "separate but equal" was in education. just like brown v. board of education overturned plessy v. ferguson and clearly stated that you can't have double standards without it becoming dicriminatory, civil unions are a discrimination of same sex couples. besides, if you watched the video (wich I doubt you did) ben clearly stated the reasons as to why ciliv unions where deemed unequal: due to the cultural meanings of marriage versus that of civil unions.
momijinohanako 1 year ago
@momijinohanako
Perhaps I didn't watch Ben as closely as I should have, and I am willing to watch again... however the flaw of your analysis lies in that as humans we are far more interchangeable by race than we are by gender. Same sex marriage implies that there is no difference between men and women and their coupling. There is a difference just as there is a difference between men and women. Separate but equal works for bathrooms and for army combat. You disagree, I respect that.
vmoney65 1 year ago
@vmoney65 as for your rants on mormons and muslims: why indeed should we not expand the right to marry to polygamists? I'm all for it, and glad to have you with me on the cause. concenting adults should be free to engage in whatever unions they wish, regardless of religion playing a role or not. as to why we don't allow children to marry, it's simple: we don't deem children able to make the same independent and informed choices that adults are able to make.
momijinohanako 1 year ago
@momijinohanako
It's not a rant, it's just a point... specifically it is the point that we all have standards and really no one is campaigning against standards... just the standards they don't like for the reasons that they don't like them. I find abortion/reproduction law to be extremely discriminatory in favor of women, but it is settled law... just as marriage continues to be despite the efforts of some to change it.
vmoney65 1 year ago
@vmoney65 I don't even get what you're trying to say. That people have their own reasons to have their own opinions? And that they promote their own opinions? Wow, a revolutionary fnding! Of course everyone has their own opinion. The question here is if you have the right to regulate other people behaviours based on personal opinions. I would say no. You are free to create and live by your own standards, but no person or state has the right to impose standards on anyone else.
momijinohanako 1 year ago
@momijinohanako
One of the functions of the state is to impose standards, otherwise we'd live in anarchy. Some people don't think they should have to wear clothes but the state regulates their behavior. We have obscenity laws, we have drug laws, we have speeding laws. There are many places where society sets standards of conduct.
BUT really, no one here is seriously advocating denying the right of the state to set standards because we all have them... just the standards they don't like.
vmoney65 1 year ago
@vmoney65 of course there is always some morals that play into even the most fundamental laws. I would let anything be legal as long as it doesn't allow one person to infringe on another persons right/freedom (like with violence). I think what's crucial here is that same sex marriage doesn't really infringe on anyone else's rights. you still have freedom of religion, you still have the choice to marry an opposite sex person.
momijinohanako 1 year ago
@momijinohanako
How does mandating that people wear clothes infringe on another person's right/freedom? You still have the freedom to wear clothes even if others do not. However, I am not against gay unions (I don't really care). I am against calling gay unions 'marriages' because it is exactly as confusing as calling a man a woman or a woman a man. Let gays get 'garried' and have happy 'garriages', let them NOT attempt to confuse people in such a way that devalues our gender differences.
vmoney65 1 year ago
@vmoney65 "Lots of people don't like the current standard and can make cases why it should be changed." If their case makes sense it should be changed. If a pedophile says he wants the right to marry a child, we say no, a child cant consent and would be harmed by it. If someone says i want to marry my dog, we say no, a dog cant consent to marriage. If a guy says i want to marry my boyfriend... what reason do i have to say no? Is desire to marry who he loves the same as the desire to marry a dog?
Fangtorn 1 year ago
@Fangtorn
If their case makes sense to whom? What's a child? At the begining of the last century, children did everything adults did, including get married at young ages. What reason do you have to say no? The precedent that would be set that could have unforseen, unrelated, and potentially distasteful consequences. Besides some people do love their dogs more than other people. ;)
vmoney65 1 year ago
@Fangtorn
FYI: Actually I am not as disturbed by gay marriage as I am by a judge overturning legislative process without constitutional support. If it becomes legal, I'll live. I'll disagree with it but just like I generally disagree with abortion (willing to make the rape exception), I'll recognize it as settled law. I do think this is more about gays seeking acceptance for their lifestyle than their civil rights. Otherwise, civil unions wouldn't be so absent from the discussion.
vmoney65 1 year ago
@Fangtorn You omit the reason WHY blks got to marry whites... A constitutional AMENDMENT based upon an agreed upon STATUS that black people had as a condition of their birth. This is why the 14th amendment uses the word 'born' and the 15th mentions 'race' and 'color'. Thus bans on interracial marriage were unconstitutional. Nobody agrees about what homosexual status is let alone what it means. However, why again don't civil unions (supported by the president and most Americans) fit the bill?
vmoney65 1 year ago
@vmoney65 When whites and blacks had separate water fountains didn't they both provide water? Couldn't their separate schools have been of the same quality?
Simply by arbitrarily making a distinction between the some relationships makes them unequal.
Also, if civil unions would do everything that a marriage would, why not just call it marriage?
Paulssassin 1 year ago
@Paulssassin
But there is a distinction between same sex and hetero relationships. Much of marriage law is based upon certain assumptions concerning children, property, and inheritance. Many of those assumptions do not hold for same sex couples to the degree that they hold for interracial couples. What rights and privileges will be extended based upon favorable same sex marriage rulings? Why do homosexuals need to usurp the "M" word instead of defining their own more accurate word?
vmoney65 1 year ago
@vmoney65 homosexuality is not a behaviour. a person doesn't act gay one day and then act straight the next day. behaviour training will not make a homosexual man straight, which is different then a drug addict being rehabilitated. homosexuality, and sexuality in general are a part of the human psyche that goes beyond behaviour, sexuality is an underlying foundation of behaviour.
Ballsooker0lol 1 year ago
@Ballsooker0lol
I don't claim to know exactly what homosexuality is, but I doubt that you do either. I used the word 'IF' to indicate that its status is unresolved. Maybe it's a form of imprinting as seen with baby birds, who knows? What I do know is that its not like being black, white, asian, male, or female... why? Because I can easily identify the former at birth. Even Cenk himself has his *spectrum* theory. Besides, how do people "experiment" with homosexuality if it's not a behavior?
vmoney65 1 year ago
@vmoney65 We oppose it because it isn't polygamy, it isn't a marriage btw adults and children. It's two ADULTS who want to marry. The comparison btw polygamist/pedophiles is flawed. Take your authoritarian ideology and leave to Iran because in America society can't control the lives of others especially in regards to civil rights.
fiendkracken1 1 year ago 2
@fiendkracken1
Not everyone agrees that a civil right is involved. Even in America, the definition of what a child is has changed over time. Meanwhile, the 1st amendment promises freedom of religion as a CIVIL RIGHT. In Islam, a man can marry more than one wife (all adults). Islam is a religion. Where's the uproar? Why is the marriage right of gays so sacred and the religious freedom of muslims so easily ignored? All societies codify their values and it is not authoritarian for them to do so.
vmoney65 1 year ago
@vmoney65 Homosexuality isnt just a "behaviour". This is a civil rights issue. Everyone has the right to marry who they love, except homosexuals. Liberals oppose this "regulation" because they believe its unjust. There are good, obvious reasons why adults shouldnt marry children, there isnt any good reason why two consenting adults cant get married simply because they are of the same sex. It doesnt hurt anyone, but denying same sex marriage does.
Fangtorn 1 year ago
@Fangtorn
Lots of Mormans and Muslims love who they love too. Both old-style Mormanism and Islam are religions protected by the 1st Amendment. Do Muslims love their wives less? Where is your outrage for the discrimination against them? As for "children", biologically and economically there are plenty of good reasons why older men should be able to marry women considered to be "children" by this society. We just don't embrace them like some other cultures DO. All societies codify their values.
vmoney65 1 year ago
@Fangtorn
Besides, this isn't really about marriage because I doubt that there is much that marriage does for homosexual couples that the civil unions supported by most Americans couldn't also accomplish. This is about acceptance even without the kind of constitutional support that settled the issue for blacks. You want society to accept gay marriage, but poligamy and plural marriage is bad? I'd love to read the logical explanation for that.
vmoney65 1 year ago
At 31:00 Ben says,
"Ana you look really nice, you have excellent breasts and I would like to see them. Naked. And then we would have sex".
I think he just wanted to get that off hiss chest.
AudioForAnarchists 1 year ago 6
@AudioForAnarchists haha hell yea everyone knows Ana has nice breasts
mchunuboy 1 year ago
I agree with Ben in most respects, but that consistency argument doesn't make any sense. What's the point? The Nazis were horribly consistent in many ways, too, but that doesn't make them any better.
gastfreund76 1 year ago
you better run over to cnbc. cenk is starting more fights than can be finished.
hahahhahahahahahahha......it isnt boring.
jumbobobcleo 1 year ago
I love that decision! LOVE IT! Now Stephen Colbert can officially marry the cock he likes. :D
quotendeutscher 1 year ago
Now I want cheez-its!
jbw470 1 year ago
Actually Ben in most countries majority rules in voting.
Whether you like it or not.
Not to say things can't be wrong from the majority but if something goes to a vote the biggest number wins whether it is right or wrong.
Democracy is great eh?
MrHarrylime79 1 year ago
@MrHarrylime79 In fact, the US is a constitutional republic. You should read the Constitution. It's pretty cool, gives us Equal Protection and everything, and a state CANNOT overrule it.
DanzoMB 1 year ago
@MrHarrylime79 that's called tyranny
xadam2dudex 1 year ago
@MrHarrylime79 Majority mob rule isn't a part of this country. (We aren't actually technically a democracy.)
eragon2121 1 year ago
@MrHarrylime79 Not in all cases, case in point...BUSH
Arkayem 1 year ago
@MrHarrylime79 Except for that most countries (including our own) aren't direct democracies. So no, majority rule is not very common place in the world, though if enough people illuminate an issue, their elected officials (in the case of a republic like our own) often have no choice but to atleast pretend they are addressing it.
PossessDismiss 1 year ago
The only problem with Cenk being on MSNBC is now people like me could be accidently exposed to the pile of krap in the morning called Morning Joe. They were basically saying this morning that overturning prop 8 threatens marriages in North Dakota. What is wrong with these people?!
smacdon 1 year ago 3
I agree with tyt as always, but Ben needs to let Ana talk...
fedumafication 1 year ago 4
Gathering of the Vibes is a festival, just got back from there. Recommend it to anyone on the east coast, young and old. Family or wook drugbags, their is something for everyone.
As far as TYT, Ana looks very good today.
youngbuck189 1 year ago
"Tough Nuggets"
Genius.
Brilliantshine 1 year ago 2
does anyone know when two lesbians get married if they both become mrs and take one of their second names, or do they keep their maiden names and keep ms?
jamieconon 1 year ago
I want some of Jayar's Cheez-its!
smashballbrawler 1 year ago 2
where's Cenk?
MPedroful 1 year ago
He's just not interesting to watch. Cenk is more dynamic and captivating.
JMarkD89 1 year ago
Ben isn't bad, but like anyone else, if you compare them to Cenk they're shit.
PsychedelicCollin 1 year ago