Dennis Prager & Arianna Huffington debate Politics (4 of 4)

[andyz0007]

This woman is hopeless.

[2274brian]

No Dennis she won't allow you to marry your sister, but you may marry your brother if you'd like. LOL

[frickface1]

"I'm not patronizing you" LOL. Not that hard when she won't answer simple questions. Why is it that the left is okay with us changing the definition of marriage to accommodate two consenting adults but not okay changing the definition to accommodate three consenting adults that want to marry?

[Y2KCIA]

Dennis Prager completely destroys the pro-gay marriage argument. Nicely done!!

[bojiroland]

I'm personally offended that Ariana Huffington said she represents the MAINSTREAM view on ALL the issues raised. Unbelievable.

1: They briefly talked about healthcare. So 22% of mainstream!

2: They talked about gay marriage. That's mainstream in America? LOL

3: and on and on. Elitism makes me sick

[BelfastAtheist]

@bojiroland

Actually yes, the gay marriage issue has been raging on in America since the early 1960s. Don't be disingenuous..

Also, learn what Elitism means. Saying it doesn't make you sound smart, quite the converse actually.

[bojiroland]

@BelfastAtheist Raging on in America...by a small percentage. I know exactly what elitist means. It means using a top-down approach to change policy, rather than popular consent. That's how the Left has gotten its policy agenda across. Most Americans identity as conservative. These are facts

[johnowensjr1234]

I'm pretty sure the majority of americans would not support a father impregnating his daughter

[dovespin1]

prager is a dork, he's just rush jr. come on his argument that "what if he wants to marry his sister..." has nothing to do with gay marriage. loser

[upandopen]

Of course the argument is relevant. Almost no one wants to give those that are incestuous "equal rights" to marriage, because as a society we set standards about what marriage is. The same exact thing is true about gays. You can support changing the standard to include gays but not incestuous people, but then you are as much an anti-incestuous bigot as those who oppose gay marriage are anti-gay biggots.

(I'll whoop you without calling you a dork and loser).

[dovespin1]

excuse me i won't offend your sensibilities by calling prager a dork. you're going to take the high ground and try to whip me without name-calling. where's the fun in that? lol your friend rush likes to call people retards on the air? oh i forgot, sarah said he is using satire. LOL i think she forgot what satire means along the 6 yrs it took her to get her BA in communications.

[dovespin1]

ok , back to you my special sensitive friend. prager knows what huffington means by gay marriage but he wants to make the ridiculous assertion that she means the legislation would include incestuous people. listen to me upandopen, do you honestly believe that supporters of gay marriage actually want to protect incest? i assumed it was take for granted that incest is not a part of the legislation. come on now, this homophobia by the right wing has got to stop....

[dovespin1]

you know it is quite easy to create legislation that protects gay marriage and excludes incest. so what is the issue prager is making? it must be that marriage is a sacred institution that cannot be blemished by including gays. ok , well i don't what you call it, gay marriage or civil union or whatever, but as long as it has all the rights and privileges afforded traditional married couples. if prager and like-minded folks as yourself would dispute this then maybe you should...

[dovespin1]

...think about what this country stands for. oh i know you know that words and the meaning of the constitution, but i believe it means that we protect the rights of others in our country even when we don't agree with their beliefs at all. now, i know you'll say marriage is not a protection in the constitution, it is a religious construct, but the key is that marriage affords civil benefits that should not exclude these couples that wish to unite.

[dovespin1]

personally, i don't understand the gay mentality, but they are people and deserve all the rights, privileges, and benefits that marriage affords traditional couples. and if prager wants it not to be called marriage, that is quite fine, but it should have all the benefits of marriage, otherwise how can we call ourselves Americans? now the incest argument he made is just gross. we will deal with the incest movement when it gets here, yuck.

[upandopen]

@ dovespin1,

1. I dislike Rush Limbaugh.

2. I dislike Sarah Palin, but her BA took her 6 years in part because she was working while in college (she didn't get scholarships for being a minority).

3. I support gay marriage.

4. Prager supports gays having civil unions with equal rights (but not marriage).

5. Prager didn't say that legalization of gay marriage meant legalization of incest. He said that if opposing gay marriage is homophobia then opposing incestuous marriage is anti-incest bigotry.

[dovespin1]

gay marriage is being associated with incest, which is baffling. why? it's an arbitrary association. i'm not worried about being labeled an anti-incest bigot. incestuous marriage doesn't concern me. these people are sick and they weed themselves out. their children will be deformed and natural selection will take over. let the incestuous marry, doesn't bother me.

[dovespin1]

as long as it doesnt affect my lifestyle i don't care what people do in their bedrooms. how would you know if a couple is incestuous unless you're some kind of snoopy voyeur anyway

[johnowensjr1234]

Not giving a gay couple the title of marriage is probably the biggest slap in the face. That is basically saying "You're a second class citizen". I have never considered this a gay rights issue but rather a human rights issue. The argument with the incest doesn't work because the majority of Americans would agree that is immoral.

[dovespin1]

@johnowensjr1234 i agree, gay couple should have all the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of marriage. Incest has no bearing on that issue, but opponents of gay marriage attempt to associate them together. If anything, incest is mostly a heterosexual relationship, so what should it be more associated with? lol

[johnowensjr1234]

the right tries to use the "open the door" theory when it comes to gay marriage meaning it will open the door to anything, like marrying your dog for instance. The fact is, homosexuality is just as common as heterosexuality but is degraded and marginalized by the religious and ignorant.

[johnowensjr1234]

I also think they KNOW it won't bring negative consequences and won't affect their liberties but they continue to rage against it because of the right mentality (no progress, keep traditions, morality comes from religion, etc)

[dovespin1]

@johnowensjr1234 the "open the door" argument fails miserably. the is no good reason for gay marriage to be outlawed. if someone wants to marry their dog, then we can create laws to prevent that. just take them one at a time. but marriage between humans shouldn't be prevented. in a free society, the rights of all are protected. i find it hypocritical that this country was founded by those escaping persecution, yet now the religious-based conservatives are as intolerant as ever. wow! what balls!

[davsal89081]

@upandopen no one is debating incest. That's a cop out. If two people love each other let them get married and ruin their lifes. Some of these gay couples live together for a long time and want surviver rights and medical care rights. A civil union sounds alot like equal but separte laws in the south. Your good enough to get a civil union but not good enough to get married. Thanx for these videos you upload I have watch most of them.

[BelfastAtheist]

@upandopen

Are you really this fucking fatuous?

Jesus, my heart goes out to you.

[upandopen]

@BelfastAtheist Sorry, what are you referring to?

[mrpops09]

@dovespin1 your an idiot. he was making a point that marriage was set up as a set of standards. Arianna responded that whoever you want to marry is your prerogative and a civil right. He then proposed what would happen if he wished married his sister?

[dovespin1]

@mrpops09 yes, a set of civil standards that are reasonable. Two consenting adults, that are not related is reasonable. First cousins, siblings, and animals are not reasonable. Prager is trying to cloud the issue by bringing up incestuous and bestial relationships. These are obviously not the issue. Fuck off, all you right-wing bigoted assholes.

[mrpops09]

@dovespin1 Clown, Prager's point was completely valid and a good rebuttal to what was said. You are the one trying to cloud the issue which was "whoever you want to marry is your prerogative and a civil right"

[dovespin1]

@mrpops09 asshole, trying to win a point of semantics is not what's important. He very well knows what she meant.

[mrpops09]

@dovespin1 and you know very well what he meant. Just in case you don't, ill lay it out for you: Marriage is set up from a set of rules and social guidelines. For the most part, in American society, It stems from a religious origin, and Homosexuality doesn't fit within the confines of its definition or the culture of a nation who considers themselves "one nation under God". Good day sir

[dovespin1]

@mrpops09 thanks for dispensing with the name-calling, and I will extend the same courtesy. We fundamentally disagree. I believe that the rights of citizens surpasses any religious norms. The separation of church and state is absolutely essential for our society to work since not all citizens are of one religion, and some would be discriminated against. We don't have to call it marriage, just as long as those in a civil union have ALL the benefits afforded married hetero couples.

[mrpops09]

@dovespin1 i can agree with you when you state it like that

[harleybayo]

clearly you can here the diffrent stances on both sides ariana is not mainstream.

[dovespin1]

mainstream is boring, you gotta shake things up by picking a side and go with it. i like when people stand for something and defend it. i respect that, and not when they waffle and try to please everyone. what do you think?

[watermelonygoodness]

I hate when people advocate same-sex marriage and then say polygamy should be illegal. They should both be legal in a free country.

[dovespin1]

it's an attempt to cloud the issue by equating it with something that it's not. like when palin says the govt wants death panels that will kill your grandma. they do that to scare the uninformed and ignorant into supporting their views. regrettably, this is the type of tactic that works in the current political climate