The arguments in this video would expand the scope of government and would be just as legitimate as an argument for state licensing of any type of marriage imaginable. The only proper Libertarian argument is that the state has no business licensing marriages of ANY shape or form.
These guys are lying through their teeth about this issue. The change that's taken place is the result of federal takeover of marriage and family law. It was accompanied by an absolute loss of civil rights. Everyone has lost the right to marry. Rather than battling to push government out of this private sphere, particularly the unconstitutional and extremely destructive intrusion of federal government, they're pushing it further. This action is as anti-libertarian as it gets.
im pro-gay marriage. i just get turned off by the idea when i hear a lot of the other things liberal fight for. i question why i should support something that they want because most of the other things they are in favor of i am starkly opposed to.
@ConorJNixon gay people want nothing else than equality. if its something that a gay person want, then that doesn't mean you can stereotype the whole community. gay people have dreams and ambitions just like anyone else.
If anyone, or any group can redefine any legal term of art to fit how they wish to have the word defined, then all rule of law and order is null and void. i.e. Rape would no longer would be rape if the rapist wanted to redefined the word "consent". It could then be said If one person consents then consent was given therefore there was no rape, it was consensual sex.
As a libertarian I disagree with CATO on this one. Liberty is guaranteed to individuals and not to groups whether they are of two or of many. In denying this fundamental libertarian principle, CATO has fallen prey to "group think" and have unwittingly advocated expansion of the scope and power of the federal government over individual liberties and free markets. Sorry CATO, this is a disingenuous, misleading video is uncharacteristicly beneath you. Gay marriage creates more "corporate" welfare.
@firstatheist I realize this requires a bit of thinking but if you favor a group of people over an individual, by its definition it is considered corporate.
•Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state
•Creating "family partnerships" under federal tax laws, allowing divisioin of business income among family
•Receiving exemptions from estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
•Creating life estate trusts restricted to married couples
explanation denied. Its called equality and you've taken the debate into a bizarre realm of tax code equivocation. Anyway, civil unions have the same tax exemptions and privileges as marriages do so you're argument is irrelevant and -I'll say it again - a non sequitur.
@firstatheist Civil unions and gay marriage are legal constructs like corporations, created by the state. Straight marriages transcend the state and have done so throughout history without regard to borders. Libertarians like myself think that CATO has denied its principles by encouraging the expansion of the power and scope of the federal government in this matter. In this video they catered to a populist demand rather than remaining on principle of limited government.
Straight marriages don't transcend the state. A marriage license is a legal contract issued by the state. They don't exist outside of the state unless your referencing the religious component of marriages which has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Granting a civil liberty to one group of citizens and denying to another with no rational basis is unconstitutional and, I would argue, betrays civil libertarianism.
@firstatheist In fact, they do transcend the state, because regardless of tribe, nation, religion or race, straight marriage is the human norm and to deny that is irrational. State licensure is an acknowledgement of an institution existing beyond the state itself and a desire to capitalize on it and in some cases control it. Denying or granting group civil liberties requires constitutional change regardless of its rationality, e.g.; racial and women's sufferage, Amendments 15 & 19.
Marriage is a tradition that has changed in definition and practice over time. It is not, nor has it ever been the roll of the state to enforce or endorce tradition. Your definition of licensure is flawed. passports, visas, DL's, Birth Certificates, SSN's, and - i would argue- marriage contracts are all examples of licensure that are intrinsicaly tied to the state and do not, by definition, exist outside of it. The 14th amendment already gaurantees gays marriage equality.
@firstatheist I'm not sure I'm getting your argument. First you say the state has no role in marriage tradition enforcement, then you claim that the marriage must be licensed by the state as an enforceable contract. Regarding the 14th amendment, gay males are free to marry as long as it is to a woman, and lesbian women are free to marry as long as it is to a man. They are not denied that right and have access to it equally. The 14th amendment does not make all relationships equal.
The state has no role in the RELIGIOUS COMPONENT of marriage which is a private marriage just as private religious views have no role in the civil contract of marriage. The debate is over the equal civil access to marriage equality.
Parody:
Blacks have the freedom to marry as long as its to someone of their own race.
Women have the freedom to marry as long as its with someone their parents consent to.Gays have the freedom to marry as long as its with someone straight.
@firstatheist Actually the better parody would be: people of any race can play basketball, people of any gender can play basketball, but people who insist on using a football instead and want the government to enforce it damage the game of basketball. Eventually basketball dies.
Marriage is simply a secular contract between two consenting adults endorsed by the state. This includes homosexuals.
Basket and football are games invented for recreation and have nothing to do with a couple contracting a relationship before the state. Your analogy doesn't hold up nor does it inform the subject under discussion.
One more thing, your argument necessarily advocates abolishing marriage altogether in which case you'd at least be consistent. However, if you opposed marriage equality for gays but want to leave it intact for straights then you're engaging in special pleading and discrimination.
@firstatheist As to discrimination and special pleading, I suspect both you and I and even the government all engage in it. For example, would you allow marriage equality for plural marriages? How about between siblings or close relatives? Between parents and children? The question really is where to draw the line. Like it or not, not all relationships are socially or culturally or religiously equal. Total equality under the law may not be especially desirable either.
@BunkyC36 Would you prefer previous definitions of marriage that existed in biblical times where men and multiple women ( or young girls) were united, and where all the females were the property of their husbands? Or where marriage had to be between people of like race or religion?
Would you like us to revert to old definitions of voters in democracies to land-owning males? Or to being white men?
Words evolve in their meaning with time. Marriage used to be a contract of property transfer. Before the 20th century women gave up their civil liberties when entering a marriage contract. Before the 1960's marriage was defined in several southern states as a union only between a man and a women of the same race.
This is why we still print dictionaries today, because language is dynamic and fluid.
I've been a fan of Cato for a long time, but they've been infiltrated - these people are liars. Marriage was redefined in 1993 (POPS v Gardner) to federal "social policy" in order to protect Washington State's (and other states) "right" to benefit from huge amounts of pork offered in support of an arbitrary and unconstitutional federal intrusion into marriage and family law. This effectively eliminated civil rights related to marriage and family and allows arbitrary government intrusion.
I hope people understand that Loving v. Virginia had nothing to do with so-called "gay marriage" and had everything to do racism in the south. There is absolutely NO RELATION between the two, whether you are for or against so-called "gay marriage".
Loving had to do with making sure there was an equal application of the law. This does have relation to same sex marriages. If marriage is a right that is backed up by law, then there is a compelling case to be made that equal protection of the law is exercised for same sex couples.
You use Dennis Prager's argument that one cannot anaogize race to sex because there are differences between men and women. It is not the case. It is a matter of equality before the law.
I agree with getting the government out of marriage. I agree people should be able to marry whoever they want to. I can't see any harm caused by same sex marriage. I don't agree that that laws against same sex marriage are discrimination. They apply equally to all people. It doesn't matter if you are gay or straight, such laws prohibit you from marrying somebody of the same sex. What are unequal are the desires of gay or straight people.
How can a lawyer be described as "a good lawyer" when he/she can not answer the simple question "how is heterosexual marriage harmed by homosexual marriage?" Simple, by dilution in and of the value of the marriage rights and obligations. No direct harm, but certainly harmed.
@Dummfixer What's diluted? What rights and obligations are diluted? The "obligations" are already diluted by this thing called "divorce". How is someone else's heart-felt marriage a dilution of the institution at all?
OK, once upon a time most everyone aspired to have Cadillac, that is until 1981 when they introduced the Cimarron. No longer did the brand have that air of exclusivity it had before. Traditional marriage fits that same image of exclusivity, in my opinion.
As for as heart-felt, take away the legal issues and the demand for inclusion would go away, again - in my opinion.
Unfortunately, a consequence of a free society is that only direct violation of rights are punishable by government. Indirect violations, as alleged for SSM, do not count.
If all indirect "harms" counted, then society would be at a standstill.
Besides, who determines what is "harm" or who is more "harmed?" These are not easy questions that can be answered.
It may not be that they are irrational. I think it more that they see this issue through a different lens, perhaps a more defensive lens. The majority of folks who do not support SSM do not do so to be irritating or to show hate. They do so because they believe they are defending something important.
Not allowing same sex marriage may as well be as immoral as slavery. You make them seem like lower overall people, which they are not. You make yourselves seem better than them, which you are not. You have the right to be with anyone you want, and to share the title of married together.
It has been commonly agreed that you are offensive to civil society. But it's not so easy to enact a constitutional ban on moronic bigotry dressed up as academic pronouncements.
And what exactly is so 'sacred' about the straight marriages that happen drunkenly in Las Vegas?
Abnormal becomes normal, normal becomes abnormal and the whole of the law and even the social customs and norms of the society become confused, leading to social anarchy and possibly even political and economic chaos. The downward spiral increases, people take the laws into their own hands, everyone does what is right in their own eyes, and the nation literally ceases to be.
(Part 3) And when that happens, the law has become a vehicle for the offender and not the offended. It has been commonly agreed that homosexual behavior is offensive to civil society because of it's numerous negative impacts and the terrible example it would set for those trying to interpret the law in later years. Once the offender is no longer the offender, the person being offended becomes the offender. (See Part 4)
(Part 2) Unfortunately Moral Relativism has become a factor in deciding what is legit and what isn't. Unfortunately this will lead to things being legalized that have never been legal before in the history of the world. When morality has been removed from the picture in law, Justice will also be removed. A tragic picture of this is when a house robber is sueing his neighbor for not handing over his property to him. Another tragic picture is children literally being drafted into bordellos.
Modern Law has trappings of ancient laws and customs that have literally been around for thousands of years. The ones that survive into modern times have been shown to have a positive moral benefit to society. All cultures and religions celebrate marriage between one man and one woman as the norm. Marriage between one man and one woman is the very foundation of a moral and civilized society and it has been for thousands of years. (See Part 2)
@GershomMontana2006 Slavery and discrimination against women have also been part of the foundation of "moral and civilised societies for thousands of years". It's only post-Enlightenment secular culture that is throwing off the religious strictures that support these hateful inequities.
The Nazis weren't a secular "culture." The Nazis were overwhelmingly Christian. Hitler was a devout Catholic. On the belt buckle of every SS soldier contained the words "Gott mit uns" which means "God is with us." About 70% of Chinese still practice some form of Taoism. Soviet Russia was definitely atheistic. So you're batting about 33.33% accuracy.
@mattrferr Then your not really a libertarian are you.
Libertarians are rational people are there has been no evidence that gay and lesbian parents cannot raise happy and healthy children, therefore there is no reason to oppose it.
No, if 'all men are created equal' then they all equally have the right to marry and if they have that right then they have the right to choose who they marry regardless of the qualities of that person (ie race, gender, orientation, religion, philosophy). The rational basis for opposing this: homophobia and wanting to go to wedding and have Jon and Steve show up. In other words it makes some people uncomfortable. I say get over it and your UNAmerican if you don't support marriage for all.
I don't think it was hard to contemplate at all 15 years ago. As individuals we are free, according to Libertarian philosophy and if we are gay so what, and getting married increases our right to happiness. So in fact the constitution supports our individual constitutional rights.
As someone previously stated... Cato keeps avoiding the issue; the government take-over of marriage and family. When the racial marriage decision was made, the fundamental right to marry referred to the "sacred private institution" of marriage. Legally, the absorption of the private institution into government programs killed all the related rights and special status of marriage. Cato is conning us by not confronting this problem and pretending to support civil rights.
the declaration of independence dose not demand that all people be made equal,but that they were given specific inalienable rights, like life liberty and the pursuit of happiness!
@ABGAN100 It says "All men are created equal." Are you that dense? Exactly. Pursuit of Happiness. And being able to marry the person you love and have spent your life together with buliding a family and a life together is in pursuit of happiness. Just admit that you are wrong and give up. You cannot win against the forces of love and justice. Your evil bigotry will never win against what is good and true and right.
@phoenix1985 Are you dense? how dose altering the definition of marriage equate to equality? are you saying that unless the definition of marriage is changed homosexuals will be incapable of pursuing happiness, are you saying the homosexual couples who have remained happily together for half a century with out a marriage certificate have never really been happy that it was all just in their heads.
@ABGAN100 Are you really that dense? It's not altering anything. It's making the definition what it is: 2 adults who love each other and which to spend the rest of their lives together. Gay couples deserve the same rights as straight couples. The right to have their relationship recognized for what it is: equal to heterosexual relationships in every way. They are entitled to equal protection under the law. What part of that are you incapable of grasping? Does your bigotry run that deep?
@phoenix1985 if that were the accepted definition then there would be no argument, but it has not been the definition of marriage, marriage has for at least the past 235 year sense the founding of this nation been defined as a union between a man and a woman! and again it is for the democracy to decide the definition of marriage and the majority still want the definition to remain the same, and unless you can change the mind of the majority it will remain the same.
@phoenix1985 are you saying that homosexuals will not be happy till they take away the rights of Christians to define marriage? so for homosexuals to obtain happiness they must take away the happiness of Christians and Jews & all other religions who want the definition of marriage to remain the same. so where is the equality do Christians and Jews and all the other religions who want the definition of marriage to remain the same to be defined as half humans! dose the DOI not apply also to them?
@ABGAN100 Christians have no right to define marriage! Marriage is a civil, not a religious issue. I have said this countless times. What are you not getting? First off, its not all other religions that support your definition of marriage. And not even all Christians support your definition either. Granting same sex couples equal rights takes nothiing away from Christianity or any other religion. It is not a religious issue. It is a civil issue. Alteast try and figure that out you lazy bastard.
@ABGAN100 What is wrong with you? You keep bringing up the same arguements time and time again. And I keep disproving them time and time again. And yet you continue to bring them up. It's ridiculous and pathetic. Either come up with something new or just stop entirely. You are nothing more than a nuisance to me and everyone else on the internet. Like I said. Come up with something new, admit your wrong, or just stop entirely. Your choice, just pick one already.
@phoenix1985 and you've never disproved my arguments. just because you say it is so doesn't make it so! the only thing you've accomplished is to prove you cannot make a rational non emotional argument! and to make up for you inadequacy you resort to name calling and invectives.
@ABGAN100 I have disproven your arguements time & time again. Just because you are too blind and stupid to realize that doesn't change that fact. I have given logical, reasonable, & emotional agruements to every single point you have made & proven every single 1 of them wrong. You are just too bigoted & full of yourself to see it. I have won. You have lost. Admit it & move on before you make an even bigger fool of yourself than you already have. Face it, against love & justice you cannot win.
@phoenix1985 you've not disprove my argument. you're just incapable of comprehending the argument because you believe that for people to marry they must be in love! so like a child incapable of rational non emotional thought you continue you label all those who do not agree with you as evil,bigots, again where on the government certificate for marriage do the word love and honor exist?
@ABGAN100 I've disproven your arguements time and time again. You are just to blind to see it. So we should let any man and woman, who dont even know each other get married but deny a gay couple who have known each other for years the right to get married? What kind of fucked up logic is that? I label no one. You are a bigot. That is a fact by the very definition of the word. Where on the government certificate does it say "must be 1 man and 1 woman"? Nowhere.
@phoenix1985 you've not disprove my argument. you're just incapable of comprehending the argument because you believe that for people to marry they must be in love! so like a child incapable of rational non emotional thought you continue you label all those who do not agree with you as evil,bigots, again where on the government certificate for marriage do the word love and honor exist?
@phoenix1985 you've not disprove my argument. you're just incapable of comprehending the argument because you believe that for people to marry they must be in love! so like a child incapable of rational non emotional thought you continue you label all those who do not agree with you as evil,bigots, again where on the government certificate for marriage do the word love and honor exist?on a marriage license the words groom and bride are indicated!
@ABGAN100 Marriage is about creating a LOVING and HAPPY place to raise children. And yes Gay people do have and raise children. They also take in the unwanted children left by you straighties. Marriage without love isnt a marriage. Yes that is an emotional arguement. And your arguement that tradition must be upheld is equally emotional and not based on logic and reason. Traditions change. They are constantly changing. Get with the times or be left behind with only your hate to comfort you.
@ABGAN100 Your arguement that religions should define marriage is even more emotional and not based on facts, reason, or logic. You fail on all counts. So do us all a favor and just stop. Stop being a bigot. Stop making a fool of yourself. Stop defending a hate-filled doomed cause. Stop being on the wrong side of history. Stop being against equality. Just stop.
Good video, I was wondering if you guys could weigh in on that if marriage rights are upheld, is it constitutional then to force churches to both recognize and perform ceremonies or be legally punished for refusal to do so? I am curious also on the marriage rights on persons internationally. I would like some info and possible feedback in regards immigration limitations for legally recognized marriages overseas and whether it is constitutional. Any links or info would help, thanks.
@phoenix1985 Secondly that same sex couples are the standard bearers of successful relationships. Guess again! Statistics show that same sex couples separate as much as straight relationship. Studies have shown that homosexuals are more prone to promiscuity! Your argument of love is the ONLY thing that matters is false & incomplete!
@phoenix1985 Read carefully. Sex was not put forth as the definition of a relationship nor is love the end all be all litmus test. Neither is falling out of love or unsuccessful relationships which by the way happens with same sex couples too be the defining definition for normal natural relationship. You posited two things by your simple argument. Polygamist, incestuous, bestiality relationships, among others that are unnatural & taboo are valid because of love. (Cont.)
It's not about equality it about changing the accepted definition of marriage as defined as a union between a man and a woman, any other type of union should be considered a Civil Union, and Civil Unions can be given the same government granted fiscal rights as marriage!
@ABGAN100 Are you from the 1950's? Cause even back then they realized that "seperate but equal" doesn't work. Either the government should grant every couple a marriage license, or should grant every couple a civil union license. It is about equality. All American citizens are granted equal protection under the law and that is what this comes down to.
@phoenix1985 the only difference between a civil union and marriage is the definition! the law can provide the same privileges to a couple who have a civil union.by your logic we shouldn't have separate restrooms for men and women everyone should use the same restroom! otherwise men and women could not be considered equal!
@ABGAN100 No it isnt. There are a large number of benefits offered to married couples that arent offered to civil unioned couples. So you like the "seperate but equal" idea even though we got rid of it in the 50s. The reason men and women have different bathrooms is they are different. There is no difference between a heterosexual couple that loves each other and a homosexual couple that loves each ohter. Your arguement is pointless and stupid. Get with the 21st century. Love is the future.
@phoenix1985 civil unions laws can be made to mirror marriage law, & your logic is non logic how can men & women be different & (a man and a woman marring be the same as a man and a man marring?) or a woman and a woman? It has everything to do with sex, and definition! I'm a christian and the laws that god has set forth for his children do not change just because its the 21centry, you might as well do away with all morality and get rid of marriage completely make theft and murder acceptable!
@ABGAN100 Marriage is about love, not sex. Marriage existed years before Christianity, so why should Christians be the ones who get to decide what it is or isnt? By that logic, since Pagans created it, Pagans should be allowed to define what marriage is or isnt. And, since I am a Pagan, that makes me more qualified than you. Allowing marriage equality will not do away with all morality. That is the same arguement they used against interracial marriage in the 50s. Didnt apply then, doesnt now.
@phoenix1985 so if the sole requirement for marriage is love than any one should be able to marry anyone or any thing you should be able to marry your dog or cat, have multiple wife's or husbands hell we might as do away with all morality, mass murders love to kill so they should be allowed to kill, thief's love to steal so they should be allowed to steal, just throw away all society norms and shared moral beliefs, as long as they love what they do it should be permitted!
@ABGAN100 Now come on. Are we going to have a serious arguement here or not. Not one point you made has any validity to it whatsoever. It's about 2 adults of consenting age choosing to spend the rest of their lives together in love. By your logic any man and woman should get married, regardless of wether they love each other or not, as long as they have the right genitalia. I'm not even going to respond to your other "points" because they have no validity whatsoever.
@phoenix1985 why should one group who are in the minority be allowed to take usurp the beliefs of another group who are in the majority? why should a minority be able to tell the majority how marriage should be defined or practiced,by that logic we should give the NAZI party halve the seats in congress so that they will have a fair chance of influencing the laws of this nation.
@ABGAN100 So you are comparing gays to Nazis now? Even thought Nazis are far right and killed gays during the Holocause you sick freak. African Americans are in the minority. And they used to be denied equal rights too. Didn't make it right then and doesn't make denying a minority equal protection under the law as guaranteed by the Constitution right now. Your arguements are nothing more than the satyrical rants of a confirmed bigot who cannot deal with logic and truth.
@ABGAN100 I also notice how you had no come back for my arguement of how Pagans created marriage, not Christianity, and therefore should be the ones to decide what it means. Why? Because you know I am right and you are wrong. You have no come back for a factual arguement. All you have is just more right wing bullshit nonsense that matters not at all to any sane rational person. Just give up you simple minded fool. You've already lost.
@phoenix1985 Pagans are a small minority group we live in a democracy this has nothing to do with who invented marriage and according to Christians god created marriage! and Adam and eve were the first humans and the first married couple! who would have therefor would have predated the Pagans. regardless the debate is on the current an most accepted definition of marriage and weather it should be changed! currently most Americans do not want any change in how marriage is defined!
@ABGAN100 Yes they do. But history and facts say Pagans invented marriage thousands of years before Christianity. And our decisions are supposed to be based on facts. Adam and Eve are a myth, not based on facts. And we have no proof that, if they even existed, they were married. As the years go by more and more Americans support marriage equality. A large minority, and in some polls a majority, support marriage equality. Face it. Your archaic definition of marriage is dead. Let it rest in peace.
@ABGAN100 The fact that you even brought up Adam and Eve shows how illogical and irrational you really are. Adam and Eve is Christianity's Creation MYTH. With no basis in facts. We live in a Democracy not a theocracy. Freedom of religion means freedom from religion. One religion does not have the right to dictate what marriage is or isnt. And there are a large number of Christians who support marriage equality too. So you cannot say all Christians are against it. Face it, you have no arguement.
@phoenix1985 their is nothing illogical or irrational about it I was merely stating a religious belief that many people if not the majority hold in the US! weather it is myth of fact is irrelevant their in no proof that people are genetically disposed to homosexuality yet many people believe that homosexuality is not a choice but a genetic disposition. and its not just one religion that has determined the definition of religion a large number of religions also hold the same belief.
@ABGAN100 First of all its there, not their. Learn to spell. The majority of the scientific community believes homosexuality is genetic. And I'll believe them because their theories are based on scientific study not religious poppycock. A large number of religions? 3 religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Those are the only 3, and not everyone in those religions agrees with you. And again, since Pagans came up with marriage, we should get to decide what makes a marriage and what doesnt
@phoenix1985 there is no such thing as scientific consensuses it ether is or is not science is not based on a conscious it's based on evidence! and my spelling has nothing to do with the strength of my argument that's like saying that a person is wrong because of the color of their skin! and if you could read I've not said that everyone in those religions are against gay marriage Just the majority, for one simple reason because it goes against their doctrine!
@ABGAN100 Yes there is. And i didnt say bad spelling hurt your arguement. I just said it shows laziness. Slavery is supported in the Christian Bible (Leviticus 25:44-45). So doesn't abolishing slavery go against their religious doctrine. And its in the same book that condemns homosexuality along with a long list of other innane laws that no one follows anymore. Why? Because they are stupid! How does 2 people sharing their lives together in a bond of love against their religion?
@phoenix1985 and how is it a small minority group should have the right to determine what Marriage is? when the majority of people have changed their beliefs about marriage then democracy will change the definition of marriage, but for the time being that is not the case and i never argued that all Christians are against marriage equality only that the majority are! along with the Jews, and Muslims. and a number of other religions!
@ABGAN100 Hey, you were the one who made the arguement that Christianity should be the ones to decide what marriage is because they invented it. I just proved they didn't. Only then did you have a problem with it. People would have voted against interracial marriage 50+ years ago. It took a group of smart, intelligent, non bigoted individuals to see that stopping it was wrong. The same case applies now. Name some of these other religions. Because most smaller religions support marriage equality.
@phoenix1985 I was not making the argument that Christianity should decide the fate of marriage but that the majority via a democratic process. and I never said that Christianity was created by Christians and most religions in the US do not support gay marriage if they did it would be legal throughout the US today!
@ABGAN100 And again, 50+ years ago the majority would have voted against interracial marriage. 100 years ago most people would have voted against giving women the right to vote. In both instances it took a group of smart, forward thinking, caring individuals to see an injustice and fight against it. The same applies here. People are seeing an injustice imposed by a slight majority and are fighting against it. Only the big 3 are against marriage equality. Most others arent.
@phoenix1985 nether interracial marriage or the right to vote went against the religious doctrines of Christianity or Judaism the two main religions in america same sex marriage dose! so unless the majority of Jews and Christians abandon their beliefs and as long as they remain in the majority in the US and the decision is left up to a democratic process its not likely for gay marriage to be made legal through out the states!
@ABGAN100 Bible says having slaves is okay. So apparantly abandoning slavery goes against Christian doctrine. Jesus said nothing about homosexuality being a sin. Nothing. And aren't Christians supposed to base their religion of HIS teachings? It's not about abandoning their beliefs. It's about realizing that God loves us all and wants us all to be happy (and dont bring up kids or animals, its just pathetic). More and more people are for marriage equality every year. It's only a matter of time.
@phoenix1985 this argument is worthless it doesn't matter weather you think gays should be allowed to marry or not! the question is weather a minority group should be able to determine the fate of marriage over the majority you can argue all you want about what you think the doctrine and beliefs of a people are but unless they agree with you your argument is worthless!
@ABGAN100 No, what matters is wether or not the majority has the right to deny equal rights as guaranteed by our Constitution to a minortiy that has done nothing wrong. More and more people support marriage equality every year. It's about justice and equality. Not about majority or minority. The sooner you come to realize this the sooner you will evolve onto a higher stage of thinking. Right now you are trapped in outdated, outmoded, archaic definitions of morality that are useless and wrong.
@phoenix1985 their is nothing in the constitution about gay marriage, no matter how much you want their to be their are no constitutional amendments concerning gay marriage. name a single constitutional amendment that would guarantee the right of gays to call their civil unions marriage! it dose not exist!
@ABGAN100 How about "liberty and justice for all" or are those just words to you? How about "equal protection under the law" or are those just words to you as well? Gays can get married in several states. It's only a matter of time before gays will be able to get married nation wide. More and more people support marriage equality every year. You have already lost the war, you are just to stubborn to admit it. Remember this: Love always wins. Which means you will lose.
@phoenix1985 the phrase "liberty and justice for all is a saying not a constitutional amendment! now your just grasping at straws, and equal protection under the law is not relevant to the question of marriage! civil unions can be constructed in such a way so as to give gay unions the same rights, privileges, protections, and costs of marriage! and their for their is no need to change the currently accepted definition of marriage!
@ABGAN100 "Liberty and Justice for all" is in the frigging Constitution itself you moron! Equal protection under the law does apply to marriage. Again you argue for "seperate but equal" a policy they figured out didnt work in the 50s. You keep bringing up the same arguements I've already disproven time and time again. There is a need to change the definition because the current definition is discriminatory. Face it. Love wins. You lost. Give up cause youve already lost.
@phoenix1985 your not going to be able to convince religious people who believe in the currently accepted definition of marriage to change that definition so as to appease a minority just as I doubt I could convince you that the definition of marriage should remain the same. people will argue that to change the definition of marriage would be tantamount to showing their disdain for god laws. they would say that god has said that if ye love me keep my commandments,
@ABGAN100 So should we have kept slavery since God sanctions it. Should we kill people who plant 2 different crops side by side like God says to do? Should we kill people who work on Sunday like God says to do? Stop bringing up God. It just cheapens your arguements, and they are pretty pathetic to begin with. Marriage existed before Christianity and will exist long after it's gone. This is about love. Once you figure that out maybe you might just grow up a little.
@phoenix1985 you truly are an idiot where in the bible dose it say the god sanctioned slavery where in Christianity dose it say to kill, in fact in the ten commandants it clearly states tho shalt not kill. your arguing on issues of christian and Jewish doctrine that you clearly do not understand!
@ABGAN100 You apparntly don't know the bible as well as you think you moron. "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property." (Leviticus 25:44-45) Same book that condemns homosexuality. Jesus said nothing about homosexuality. So you are arguing Jewish doctrine as well.
@ABGAN100 Did you not read my last post dickhead? Fine, I'll post it again. "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property." (Leviticus 25:44-45).
@ABGAN100 As for the killing: "For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him." (Leviticus 20:9). That's just one of many. Do your fucking research you lazy bastard and read the damn book.
@phoenix1985 your obviously one of those people who think the health care is a right, or that it is the responsibility of the wealthy to take care of the poor weather they want to or not, you believe that a government has the right to dictate to people what they can eat,think,how much money they can make, how they must spend their money etc. as long at they stick to your definition of right or equal.
@ABGAN100 Don't put words in my mouth or assume anything about me you prick. You don't know me at all. I do not think the government has the right to dictate how people can act and thnk. That's what the right does, not the left. Do try and get atleast some facts straight before you start spewing off more of your bullshit. Cause, honestly, its pretty patheric. I also notice how you have no come back for the Bible supporting slavery. Maybe its because YOU WERE WRONG!
@phoenix1985 I'm not putting word in your mouth I'm merely drawing a conclusion based on you arguments. the fact is you were advocating the the government take a part in determining how people think and act, by forcing them to change the definition of marriage for a minority! and that is exactly what the left dose exactly opposite to what true conservatives believe and do! and your the one who needs to prove the bible supports slavery, because your the one making the allegation.
@ABGAN100 And I could draw a conclusion that you are an ignorant hate-filled bigot based on your arguements. Sometimes the government does have to take a stand and do the right thing. Think most Americans were for getting involved in WW1 or 2? No. Conservatives try to tell people who they can and cannot marry. They try to tell a woman she must have a child she doesnt want. They are the ones who want to get into your homes and personal lives for all the wrong reasons.
@ABGAN100 How about every single thing you said? You didnt even know that "liberty and justice for all" was in the Constitution! I apparantly have a much clearer understanding of the words than you do. I know what conservatism is. It is pure vile evil. Hello moron! It's Republicans fighting against marriage equality. I do not like abortion either, but I do not have the right to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body. You are ignorant and a bigot and every word you say supports it.
@phoenix1985 give an example,again your making baseless accusations, and the phrase liberty and justice for all. is found in the pledge of allegiance. not the constitution! the problem with liberals like you is not that your ignorant it's just that you know so much that isn't so!
@ABGAN100 Give an example. How about the fact you want to deny a minority a basic human right just because they are different. I'm ignorant. Throughout history its always been the intelligent liberals who have been enlightened. The explorers, inventors, and philosophers. All liberals. If people like you had their way the world would still be flat, we'd still be using horse and buggy, we wouldnt have reached the moon, and modern medicine would not exist. You try to destroy everything good.
@phoenix1985 first of all how is marriage a basic human right? second When did I say that I wanted to deny anyone of their basic human rights,third the definition of Bigot: a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief or opinion. by that definition you are the bigot, by saying the Christians should not be allowed to preserve the definition of marriage! that your definition should be the accepted definition of marriage. you are intolerant of their beliefs!
@ABGAN100 Christians denying marriage equality preserves nothiing except fear, bigotry, prejudice, hatred, and intlerance. You cannot call someone standing up to intolerance, it just doesnt work. All American citizens are entitled to "equal protection under the law" Allowing one group of people to get married and another not to just because they are different is intolerance. It's not a religious issue. Marriage is a civil right. If religions dont want to accept it thats their problem.
@phoenix1985 again you continue to use words that your haven't a clue as to their meaning! and insist that marriage is a basic human right, and you continue to show your intolerance for christian,Muslim and Jewish beliefs. and like all liberals you continue to use words like fear, prejudice, hatred and intolerance, to describe them with out even a basic understanding of the definition of most of those word or any proof that they apply.
@ABGAN100 I clearly have a better understanding of their definitions than you do. You have shown a complete lack of understanding on any basic human level. You can deny all you want. Everyone can see what you are: just another hate-filled, narrow-minded bigot using relgion to justify his own hatred of a people who have done nothing to hurt him and want to take nothing away from him. Marriage is a civil right granted by the government and shouldnt be denied to anyone on the basis of gender.
@phoenix1985 prove it tell me the definitions and then show me you can correlate the definition with your argument! you keep making statements that you can not back! quote any thing I have written and show me how it is any of the the things you say it is! your all talking points no logic!
@ABGAN100 I quote "It has everything to do with sex, and definition! I'm a christian and the laws that god has set forth for his children do not change just because its the 21centry." You think marriage is about sex. Marriage is about love. That you cannot see that makes you an ignorant bigot. You are just too blind to see it. You are so far beneath even the lowest level of contempt. All my points are logical. You want to defend nothing except your own hatred and prejudice.
@phoenix1985 you've not defined ignorant or bigot nor have you explained how what it is I said could be considered either. you simply made a statement as if all that flows between your lips is gold. perhaps you should get an education first and then when you learn to make a logical argument return, better to remain silent and be thought a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt!
@ABGAN100 If you don't know the definition of ignorant or bigot than you are the one who needs the education, not I. I have an education. One you sorely need and apparantly lack. I have given logical arguements. All you can give me is religion and tradition. Religion doesnt apply and traditions change. Yes it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt. So why dont youdo us all a favor and be silent you ignorant simple minded bigoted fool.
@phoenix1985 i know the definition of Ignorant and bigot I just want to verify that you do! and given that you continue to refuse to prove that you understand the definitions i can only conclude that you do not know them! and that your hate filled rhetoric is just a symptom of your ignorance!
@ABGAN100 Ignorant: definition: You. Bigot: Defintition: You. Can I make it more simple than that? I'm hate filled? You are the one who wants to deny a civil right to a minority who has done nothing to you for no other reason than you can. You are sick, twisted, vile little creature. Born in ignorance, fear, bigotry, prejudice, and intolerance. Were you born a bigot or just raised that way? Seriously, with each post you just sink lower and lower on the evolutionary scale you sick little worm.
@phoenix1985 you continue to prove my Point with every word your post I find my self amazed at the sheer stupidity of your comments, you refuse to define bigot, prejudice,intolerance,fear,sick,twisted,or how anything Ive said applies to those words. of coarse sense you can not define those word and you use those words like catch phrases or slogans,or the f word, it wouldn't be possible for you to to show a logical correlation to the things i have said.
@ABGAN100 Just because you are too stupid to see how you are the very example of every single one of those words isn't my fault. You want to deny a civil right to a minority that has done nothing to you for no other reason than you can. That is how you define every single one of those words. I have already shown a logical connection to every thing you have said many times. Just because you are too stupid, foolish, and moronic to see it isn't my problem. Just accept it. Love wins. You lose.
@phoenix1985 you have reduced your self down to name calling because this is obviously your last resort given you lack the ability to make a salient and logical argument. and even your name calling lacks credibility given your lack of ability to define the very words you use!
@ABGAN100 I have given many logical and sound arguements. You just cannot respond to them. The only arguements you have given are relgiion and tradition. Relgion doesnt apply and traditions change. Every arguement I have given has been based on sound logic. Every arguement of yours Ive already disproven time and time again has been based on fear, ignorance, and intolerance. If you want to know the definitions then go use a dictionary you pathetic simple minded blinded by hate fool.
@phoenix1985 not once have you proffered a definition to prove you comprehend the words you are using! nor have you used those definitions to back your assertions, even now you continue to refuse to prove you know the definition of the words you have used I.e. bigot,intolerance,etc. you continue on with with the same narrative.like a brainless member of a mob shouting out slogans like "bush lied kids died" completely devoid of facts,and free from logic.
@ABGAN100 All of my arguements have been based on facts and logic. Yours have been based on religion and intolerance. I have a bridge made of steel to stand on, while you stand in a sinking ship but refuse to abandon it because it is tradition. Lets face it. You have not offered one single logical, reasonable, or fact based arguement. You are just too blind to see it. I am done argueing with you. You will never see how blind and evil you really are.
@ABGAN100 You will continue to live your life, filled with evil, fear, bigotry, prejudice, and intolerance. You will continue to spread a message of hate and evil across the world. All in the name of tradition and religion. You are a sickening example who doesnt even deserve to be called a human being. You would deny a civil right to a group of people who have done nothing to hurt you simply because you can. I'm done with you. You cannot argue intelligently.and you don't even try. Youre pathetic
@ABGAN100 1: I already knew that. 2: All those apply to you. 3: Good for you to finally look those up and learn their meanings. Here's a cookie for you.
@phoenix1985 i know the definition of Ignorant and bigot I just want to verify that you do! and given that you continue to refuse to prove that you understand the definitions i can only conclude that you do not know them! and that your hate filled rhetoric is just a symptom of your ignorance!
@ABGAN100 prove it what have I said that was ignorant or bigoted? you haven't a leg to stand on you use words like ignorance and bigot with out even a clear understanding of there meaning! you don't even know what conservationism is! it wasn't conservatives who were telling people who they could or could not marry it was democrats! if a woman doesn't want a child than she shouldn't get pregnant!
@ABGAN100 I am done with you. Since you clearly are incapable of holding an intelligent, logical, fact based conversation using facts and reason I am ending this. Why I even wasted my time on you I will never know. Bigots never change. Once a bigot always a bigot. It's like trying to argue with a hate-filled, narrow-minded, bigoted wall. It's not worth my or anyone else's time to try. Just know this. Love always wins. It may take years but Love always wins. Which means you will always lose.
@phoenix1985 you never got started over and over I've challenged you to prove your assertions I even gave you the definitions so you could make a salient argument, but instead of proving your intelligence you chose to vomiting out slogans and using name calling with the hope that anyone reading your posts will for go all logic and reason and act on emotion. your no better then members of the KKK spurting out slogans to justify their beliefs.
@ABGAN100 I have proven my points time and time again. You are just too blind to see it. You are the one like the KKK, using religion to justify a message of bigotry and hate as "God's will," You already know you have lost this arguement. Why can't you let it go? Are you so immature you cannot admit defeat when it is staring you right in the face? It would be laughable if it weren't so pathetic. I tried logic. I tried reason. I even tried emotion. But all you can come back with is nonsense.
@phoenix1985 this conversation is worthless your so stuck in your narrative that you can not see the vast gaps in your argument. or the total lack of reason or logic, I've provided the Webster definitions of the words you used to describe me and you've not even attempted to create a premise based on those definitions! on top of this you persist in name calling like some frustrated 5 year old that has been told they cant have ice cream for dinner! grow up learn to argue like an adult.
@ABGAN100 Yes this conversation is worthless. And you are the one who makes it worthless. There are no gaps in my arguement while yours is filled with holes. I have shone total reason and logic where you hide behind religion. I have explained my premise to you several times. That you are too stupid to understand it is not my problem. You are the one who cannot argue like an adult. I have used logic and reason and emotion. You have used religion and tradition, both non-arguements.
@ABGAN100 Just face it. You lost the moment you brought religion into this. You have not been able to create one credible or even remotely logical or reasonable arguement. I have countered every arguement you have given and you have been unable to counter a single one of mine. Just accept it. You lost. You failed the very second you entered this. Because you have no arguement. All you have is your own bigotry and prejudice. Stop wasting both our time and go hide in your sad pathetic little world
@phoenix1985 at last your showing your motivation behind your argument "you lost the moment you brought up religion" your a religious bigot! every one of your statements can now be attributed to your religious bigotry!
@ABGAN100 Again: WRONG! I happen to be a very religious person. I am just also a very logical and reasonable person who belives in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Seperation of Church and State. I am a reasonable enough person to see that religion should not be used as justification to deny a group of people their civil rights. You cannot call me a bigot. A bigot calling someone else a bigot is just denying your own bigotry that you cannot accept. Face it. You are a bigot. Move on.
@phoenix1985 you could call your self the pope but that would not change the fact that your a religious bigot, or the fact that your decoration of " you lost the moment you brought up religion" is bigoted! definition Bigot:a person who is intolerant of any differing creed,belief or opinion. your denying the religious people the right to define marriage, and the phrase separation of church and state dose not exist in the constitution.
@ABGAN100 Being intolerant of the intolerant doesnt make you intolerant. Hating a Nazi for being a Nazi doesnt make you a hateful person. Marriage is a civil issue. It has nothing to do with religion. Religion should have no say in a civil issue. Are you fucking Retarded? Thomas Jefferson wrote that the 1st Amendment erected a "wall of separation" between the church and the state. A founding Father put it in there. Face facts. Grow up. And move on. You cannot win against Love and what is right.
@phoenix1985 the 1st amendment in it's entirety "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "so where is this magical wall of separation of church and state found in the constitution?
@ABGAN100 Does the Declaration of Independence mean nothing to you. It says "All men are created equal." That is what I am fighting for. That is what you are fighting against. If you hate the American ideal so much than leave and go to a theocratic country where you can be a bigot all you like. I'm sure you love it there amongst your own kind. But this is America: Land of the Free and Home of the Brave. The Brave stand up. They stand up to ignorant hate filled bigots like you. Face it and leave.
@ABGAN100 The Declaration of Independence says: "All men are created equal." That mandates marriage equality. Or does the DOI not matter to you? Womens right to vote was not voted on. Desegregation was not voted on. Both were done because it was the right thing to do. Just as marriage equality is now. So the minority of gay people who dont want marriage equality have the right to deny it to the majority of gay people who do? You just contradicted yourself hypocrite.
Clear, well documented and irresistible logic - just what I expect from Cato. Thanks, guys.
TheAuntieBa 3 days ago
Gay marriage is an oxymoron!
fxnooodle 6 days ago
@fxnooodle
nope
marriage in general is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship.
Definitions have varied depending on culture.
Paletero336 3 days ago
youtube.com/watch?v=zI904lx9p_M
TwoHusbandsSince1976 1 week ago
The arguments in this video would expand the scope of government and would be just as legitimate as an argument for state licensing of any type of marriage imaginable. The only proper Libertarian argument is that the state has no business licensing marriages of ANY shape or form.
rickl7069 1 week ago
These guys are lying through their teeth about this issue. The change that's taken place is the result of federal takeover of marriage and family law. It was accompanied by an absolute loss of civil rights. Everyone has lost the right to marry. Rather than battling to push government out of this private sphere, particularly the unconstitutional and extremely destructive intrusion of federal government, they're pushing it further. This action is as anti-libertarian as it gets.
rogerfgay 1 week ago
40 people (and counting) are secretly gay, but are so homophobic they couldn't stand themselves if they came out of the closet.
mockingbird187 1 week ago
im pro-gay marriage. i just get turned off by the idea when i hear a lot of the other things liberal fight for. i question why i should support something that they want because most of the other things they are in favor of i am starkly opposed to.
ConorJNixon 1 week ago
@ConorJNixon gay people want nothing else than equality. if its something that a gay person want, then that doesn't mean you can stereotype the whole community. gay people have dreams and ambitions just like anyone else.
azza943 2 days ago
If anyone, or any group can redefine any legal term of art to fit how they wish to have the word defined, then all rule of law and order is null and void. i.e. Rape would no longer would be rape if the rapist wanted to redefined the word "consent". It could then be said If one person consents then consent was given therefore there was no rape, it was consensual sex.
BunkyC36 2 weeks ago
As a libertarian I disagree with CATO on this one. Liberty is guaranteed to individuals and not to groups whether they are of two or of many. In denying this fundamental libertarian principle, CATO has fallen prey to "group think" and have unwittingly advocated expansion of the scope and power of the federal government over individual liberties and free markets. Sorry CATO, this is a disingenuous, misleading video is uncharacteristicly beneath you. Gay marriage creates more "corporate" welfare.
DeltaHulk 3 weeks ago
@DeltaHulk
Gay marriage creates more corporate welfare? This is youtube and you've managed to stand above all others in non sequitur statements.
firstatheist 2 weeks ago
@firstatheist I realize this requires a bit of thinking but if you favor a group of people over an individual, by its definition it is considered corporate.
•Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state
•Creating "family partnerships" under federal tax laws, allowing divisioin of business income among family
•Receiving exemptions from estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
•Creating life estate trusts restricted to married couples
DeltaHulk 2 weeks ago
@DeltaHulk
explanation denied. Its called equality and you've taken the debate into a bizarre realm of tax code equivocation. Anyway, civil unions have the same tax exemptions and privileges as marriages do so you're argument is irrelevant and -I'll say it again - a non sequitur.
firstatheist 2 weeks ago
@firstatheist Civil unions and gay marriage are legal constructs like corporations, created by the state. Straight marriages transcend the state and have done so throughout history without regard to borders. Libertarians like myself think that CATO has denied its principles by encouraging the expansion of the power and scope of the federal government in this matter. In this video they catered to a populist demand rather than remaining on principle of limited government.
DeltaHulk 2 weeks ago
@DeltaHulk
Straight marriages don't transcend the state. A marriage license is a legal contract issued by the state. They don't exist outside of the state unless your referencing the religious component of marriages which has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Granting a civil liberty to one group of citizens and denying to another with no rational basis is unconstitutional and, I would argue, betrays civil libertarianism.
firstatheist 2 weeks ago
@firstatheist In fact, they do transcend the state, because regardless of tribe, nation, religion or race, straight marriage is the human norm and to deny that is irrational. State licensure is an acknowledgement of an institution existing beyond the state itself and a desire to capitalize on it and in some cases control it. Denying or granting group civil liberties requires constitutional change regardless of its rationality, e.g.; racial and women's sufferage, Amendments 15 & 19.
DeltaHulk 2 weeks ago
@DeltaHulk
Marriage is a tradition that has changed in definition and practice over time. It is not, nor has it ever been the roll of the state to enforce or endorce tradition. Your definition of licensure is flawed. passports, visas, DL's, Birth Certificates, SSN's, and - i would argue- marriage contracts are all examples of licensure that are intrinsicaly tied to the state and do not, by definition, exist outside of it. The 14th amendment already gaurantees gays marriage equality.
firstatheist 2 weeks ago
@firstatheist I'm not sure I'm getting your argument. First you say the state has no role in marriage tradition enforcement, then you claim that the marriage must be licensed by the state as an enforceable contract. Regarding the 14th amendment, gay males are free to marry as long as it is to a woman, and lesbian women are free to marry as long as it is to a man. They are not denied that right and have access to it equally. The 14th amendment does not make all relationships equal.
DeltaHulk 1 week ago
@DeltaHulk
The state has no role in the RELIGIOUS COMPONENT of marriage which is a private marriage just as private religious views have no role in the civil contract of marriage. The debate is over the equal civil access to marriage equality.
Parody:
Blacks have the freedom to marry as long as its to someone of their own race.
Women have the freedom to marry as long as its with someone their parents consent to.Gays have the freedom to marry as long as its with someone straight.
firstatheist 1 week ago 2
@firstatheist Actually the better parody would be: people of any race can play basketball, people of any gender can play basketball, but people who insist on using a football instead and want the government to enforce it damage the game of basketball. Eventually basketball dies.
DeltaHulk 2 days ago
@DeltaHulk
Marriage is simply a secular contract between two consenting adults endorsed by the state. This includes homosexuals.
Basket and football are games invented for recreation and have nothing to do with a couple contracting a relationship before the state. Your analogy doesn't hold up nor does it inform the subject under discussion.
firstatheist 2 days ago
@DeltaHulk
One more thing, your argument necessarily advocates abolishing marriage altogether in which case you'd at least be consistent. However, if you opposed marriage equality for gays but want to leave it intact for straights then you're engaging in special pleading and discrimination.
firstatheist 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
DeltaHulk 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@firstatheist As to discrimination and special pleading, I suspect both you and I and even the government all engage in it. For example, would you allow marriage equality for plural marriages? How about between siblings or close relatives? Between parents and children? The question really is where to draw the line. Like it or not, not all relationships are socially or culturally or religiously equal. Total equality under the law may not be especially desirable either.
DeltaHulk 2 weeks ago
WOW - what a wonderful video. Thank you for sharing these wise words with the world. best wishes in your fight for full equality and nothing less.
MrPinkcarpet 3 weeks ago 5
MAR'RIAGE, n. [L.mas, maris.] The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life.
What other words in our language may be changed to fit someone's personal preferences???
BunkyC36 3 weeks ago
@BunkyC36 Would you prefer previous definitions of marriage that existed in biblical times where men and multiple women ( or young girls) were united, and where all the females were the property of their husbands? Or where marriage had to be between people of like race or religion?
Would you like us to revert to old definitions of voters in democracies to land-owning males? Or to being white men?
mikenbondi 3 weeks ago
@BunkyC36
Words evolve in their meaning with time. Marriage used to be a contract of property transfer. Before the 20th century women gave up their civil liberties when entering a marriage contract. Before the 1960's marriage was defined in several southern states as a union only between a man and a women of the same race.
This is why we still print dictionaries today, because language is dynamic and fluid.
firstatheist 2 weeks ago
I've been a fan of Cato for a long time, but they've been infiltrated - these people are liars. Marriage was redefined in 1993 (POPS v Gardner) to federal "social policy" in order to protect Washington State's (and other states) "right" to benefit from huge amounts of pork offered in support of an arbitrary and unconstitutional federal intrusion into marriage and family law. This effectively eliminated civil rights related to marriage and family and allows arbitrary government intrusion.
rogerfgay 3 weeks ago
I hope people understand that Loving v. Virginia had nothing to do with so-called "gay marriage" and had everything to do racism in the south. There is absolutely NO RELATION between the two, whether you are for or against so-called "gay marriage".
dthomas9444 3 weeks ago
@dthomas9444
Loving had to do with making sure there was an equal application of the law. This does have relation to same sex marriages. If marriage is a right that is backed up by law, then there is a compelling case to be made that equal protection of the law is exercised for same sex couples.
You use Dennis Prager's argument that one cannot anaogize race to sex because there are differences between men and women. It is not the case. It is a matter of equality before the law.
ceefiveceefive 3 weeks ago
I agree with getting the government out of marriage. I agree people should be able to marry whoever they want to. I can't see any harm caused by same sex marriage. I don't agree that that laws against same sex marriage are discrimination. They apply equally to all people. It doesn't matter if you are gay or straight, such laws prohibit you from marrying somebody of the same sex. What are unequal are the desires of gay or straight people.
goose1077 3 weeks ago
How can a lawyer be described as "a good lawyer" when he/she can not answer the simple question "how is heterosexual marriage harmed by homosexual marriage?" Simple, by dilution in and of the value of the marriage rights and obligations. No direct harm, but certainly harmed.
Dummfixer 3 weeks ago
@Dummfixer What's diluted? What rights and obligations are diluted? The "obligations" are already diluted by this thing called "divorce". How is someone else's heart-felt marriage a dilution of the institution at all?
airy3que 3 weeks ago
@airy3que
OK, once upon a time most everyone aspired to have Cadillac, that is until 1981 when they introduced the Cimarron. No longer did the brand have that air of exclusivity it had before. Traditional marriage fits that same image of exclusivity, in my opinion.
As for as heart-felt, take away the legal issues and the demand for inclusion would go away, again - in my opinion.
Dummfixer 3 weeks ago
@Dummfixer
Unfortunately, a consequence of a free society is that only direct violation of rights are punishable by government. Indirect violations, as alleged for SSM, do not count.
If all indirect "harms" counted, then society would be at a standstill.
Besides, who determines what is "harm" or who is more "harmed?" These are not easy questions that can be answered.
ceefiveceefive 3 weeks ago
35 dislikes? 35 people watching this video are irrational.
romeodublin 3 weeks ago 15
@romeodublin
It may not be that they are irrational. I think it more that they see this issue through a different lens, perhaps a more defensive lens. The majority of folks who do not support SSM do not do so to be irritating or to show hate. They do so because they believe they are defending something important.
ceefiveceefive 3 weeks ago
Not allowing same sex marriage may as well be as immoral as slavery. You make them seem like lower overall people, which they are not. You make yourselves seem better than them, which you are not. You have the right to be with anyone you want, and to share the title of married together.
ARandomJoe 2 months ago
@GershonMontana2006
It has been commonly agreed that you are offensive to civil society. But it's not so easy to enact a constitutional ban on moronic bigotry dressed up as academic pronouncements.
And what exactly is so 'sacred' about the straight marriages that happen drunkenly in Las Vegas?
BrianBozic 3 months ago
Abnormal becomes normal, normal becomes abnormal and the whole of the law and even the social customs and norms of the society become confused, leading to social anarchy and possibly even political and economic chaos. The downward spiral increases, people take the laws into their own hands, everyone does what is right in their own eyes, and the nation literally ceases to be.
GershomMontana2006 4 months ago
(Part 3) And when that happens, the law has become a vehicle for the offender and not the offended. It has been commonly agreed that homosexual behavior is offensive to civil society because of it's numerous negative impacts and the terrible example it would set for those trying to interpret the law in later years. Once the offender is no longer the offender, the person being offended becomes the offender. (See Part 4)
GershomMontana2006 4 months ago
(Part 2) Unfortunately Moral Relativism has become a factor in deciding what is legit and what isn't. Unfortunately this will lead to things being legalized that have never been legal before in the history of the world. When morality has been removed from the picture in law, Justice will also be removed. A tragic picture of this is when a house robber is sueing his neighbor for not handing over his property to him. Another tragic picture is children literally being drafted into bordellos.
GershomMontana2006 4 months ago
Modern Law has trappings of ancient laws and customs that have literally been around for thousands of years. The ones that survive into modern times have been shown to have a positive moral benefit to society. All cultures and religions celebrate marriage between one man and one woman as the norm. Marriage between one man and one woman is the very foundation of a moral and civilized society and it has been for thousands of years. (See Part 2)
GershomMontana2006 4 months ago
@GershomMontana2006 Slavery and discrimination against women have also been part of the foundation of "moral and civilised societies for thousands of years". It's only post-Enlightenment secular culture that is throwing off the religious strictures that support these hateful inequities.
mikenbondi 3 weeks ago
@mikenbondi You mean post-Enlightenment secular cultures like Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia and Communist China, right?
DeltaHulk 3 weeks ago
@DeltaHulk
The Nazis weren't a secular "culture." The Nazis were overwhelmingly Christian. Hitler was a devout Catholic. On the belt buckle of every SS soldier contained the words "Gott mit uns" which means "God is with us." About 70% of Chinese still practice some form of Taoism. Soviet Russia was definitely atheistic. So you're batting about 33.33% accuracy.
firstatheist 2 weeks ago
@firstatheist So then, Christianity gave rise to the Nazis and Taoism put Communist China in power? An interesting redaction of history it seems.
DeltaHulk 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ron Paul on gay marriage (Dr. Paul says yes and even wins the Values Summit GOP Straw Poll!)
/watch?v=l1gzs27HswQ on gay marriage statement
/watch?v=ug1nZSI_fsA Values Straw Poll result conservation
Vote Ron Paul, President 2012! -- The anti-war candidate!
vechorik 4 months ago in playlist gaymarriage
I am a libertarian! Family. The idea of gay and lesbian parents makes me uncomfortable.
I'd say that social pressure to keep children under traditional marriage is healthy.
mattrferr 5 months ago
@mattrferr Then your not really a libertarian are you.
Libertarians are rational people are there has been no evidence that gay and lesbian parents cannot raise happy and healthy children, therefore there is no reason to oppose it.
majikalacity 4 months ago
No, if 'all men are created equal' then they all equally have the right to marry and if they have that right then they have the right to choose who they marry regardless of the qualities of that person (ie race, gender, orientation, religion, philosophy). The rational basis for opposing this: homophobia and wanting to go to wedding and have Jon and Steve show up. In other words it makes some people uncomfortable. I say get over it and your UNAmerican if you don't support marriage for all.
Foreshadow44 5 months ago
I don't think it was hard to contemplate at all 15 years ago. As individuals we are free, according to Libertarian philosophy and if we are gay so what, and getting married increases our right to happiness. So in fact the constitution supports our individual constitutional rights.
Foreshadow44 5 months ago
As someone previously stated... Cato keeps avoiding the issue; the government take-over of marriage and family. When the racial marriage decision was made, the fundamental right to marry referred to the "sacred private institution" of marriage. Legally, the absorption of the private institution into government programs killed all the related rights and special status of marriage. Cato is conning us by not confronting this problem and pretending to support civil rights.
alm260 7 months ago
the declaration of independence dose not demand that all people be made equal,but that they were given specific inalienable rights, like life liberty and the pursuit of happiness!
ABGAN100 7 months ago
@ABGAN100 It says "All men are created equal." Are you that dense? Exactly. Pursuit of Happiness. And being able to marry the person you love and have spent your life together with buliding a family and a life together is in pursuit of happiness. Just admit that you are wrong and give up. You cannot win against the forces of love and justice. Your evil bigotry will never win against what is good and true and right.
phoenix1985 7 months ago
@phoenix1985 Are you dense? how dose altering the definition of marriage equate to equality? are you saying that unless the definition of marriage is changed homosexuals will be incapable of pursuing happiness, are you saying the homosexual couples who have remained happily together for half a century with out a marriage certificate have never really been happy that it was all just in their heads.
ABGAN100 7 months ago
@ABGAN100 Are you really that dense? It's not altering anything. It's making the definition what it is: 2 adults who love each other and which to spend the rest of their lives together. Gay couples deserve the same rights as straight couples. The right to have their relationship recognized for what it is: equal to heterosexual relationships in every way. They are entitled to equal protection under the law. What part of that are you incapable of grasping? Does your bigotry run that deep?
phoenix1985 7 months ago
@phoenix1985 if that were the accepted definition then there would be no argument, but it has not been the definition of marriage, marriage has for at least the past 235 year sense the founding of this nation been defined as a union between a man and a woman! and again it is for the democracy to decide the definition of marriage and the majority still want the definition to remain the same, and unless you can change the mind of the majority it will remain the same.
ABGAN100 7 months ago
@phoenix1985 are you saying that homosexuals will not be happy till they take away the rights of Christians to define marriage? so for homosexuals to obtain happiness they must take away the happiness of Christians and Jews & all other religions who want the definition of marriage to remain the same. so where is the equality do Christians and Jews and all the other religions who want the definition of marriage to remain the same to be defined as half humans! dose the DOI not apply also to them?
ABGAN100 7 months ago
@ABGAN100 Christians have no right to define marriage! Marriage is a civil, not a religious issue. I have said this countless times. What are you not getting? First off, its not all other religions that support your definition of marriage. And not even all Christians support your definition either. Granting same sex couples equal rights takes nothiing away from Christianity or any other religion. It is not a religious issue. It is a civil issue. Alteast try and figure that out you lazy bastard.
phoenix1985 7 months ago
@ABGAN100 What is wrong with you? You keep bringing up the same arguements time and time again. And I keep disproving them time and time again. And yet you continue to bring them up. It's ridiculous and pathetic. Either come up with something new or just stop entirely. You are nothing more than a nuisance to me and everyone else on the internet. Like I said. Come up with something new, admit your wrong, or just stop entirely. Your choice, just pick one already.
phoenix1985 7 months ago
@phoenix1985 and you've never disproved my arguments. just because you say it is so doesn't make it so! the only thing you've accomplished is to prove you cannot make a rational non emotional argument! and to make up for you inadequacy you resort to name calling and invectives.
ABGAN100 7 months ago
@ABGAN100 I have disproven your arguements time & time again. Just because you are too blind and stupid to realize that doesn't change that fact. I have given logical, reasonable, & emotional agruements to every single point you have made & proven every single 1 of them wrong. You are just too bigoted & full of yourself to see it. I have won. You have lost. Admit it & move on before you make an even bigger fool of yourself than you already have. Face it, against love & justice you cannot win.
phoenix1985 7 months ago
@phoenix1985 you've not disprove my argument. you're just incapable of comprehending the argument because you believe that for people to marry they must be in love! so like a child incapable of rational non emotional thought you continue you label all those who do not agree with you as evil,bigots, again where on the government certificate for marriage do the word love and honor exist?
ABGAN100 7 months ago
@ABGAN100 I've disproven your arguements time and time again. You are just to blind to see it. So we should let any man and woman, who dont even know each other get married but deny a gay couple who have known each other for years the right to get married? What kind of fucked up logic is that? I label no one. You are a bigot. That is a fact by the very definition of the word. Where on the government certificate does it say "must be 1 man and 1 woman"? Nowhere.
phoenix1985 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@phoenix1985 you've not disprove my argument. you're just incapable of comprehending the argument because you believe that for people to marry they must be in love! so like a child incapable of rational non emotional thought you continue you label all those who do not agree with you as evil,bigots, again where on the government certificate for marriage do the word love and honor exist?
ABGAN100 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@phoenix1985 you've not disprove my argument. you're just incapable of comprehending the argument because you believe that for people to marry they must be in love! so like a child incapable of rational non emotional thought you continue you label all those who do not agree with you as evil,bigots, again where on the government certificate for marriage do the word love and honor exist?on a marriage license the words groom and bride are indicated!
ABGAN100 7 months ago
@ABGAN100 Marriage is about creating a LOVING and HAPPY place to raise children. And yes Gay people do have and raise children. They also take in the unwanted children left by you straighties. Marriage without love isnt a marriage. Yes that is an emotional arguement. And your arguement that tradition must be upheld is equally emotional and not based on logic and reason. Traditions change. They are constantly changing. Get with the times or be left behind with only your hate to comfort you.
phoenix1985 7 months ago
@ABGAN100 Your arguement that religions should define marriage is even more emotional and not based on facts, reason, or logic. You fail on all counts. So do us all a favor and just stop. Stop being a bigot. Stop making a fool of yourself. Stop defending a hate-filled doomed cause. Stop being on the wrong side of history. Stop being against equality. Just stop.
phoenix1985 7 months ago
Good video, I was wondering if you guys could weigh in on that if marriage rights are upheld, is it constitutional then to force churches to both recognize and perform ceremonies or be legally punished for refusal to do so? I am curious also on the marriage rights on persons internationally. I would like some info and possible feedback in regards immigration limitations for legally recognized marriages overseas and whether it is constitutional. Any links or info would help, thanks.
XLibertyOrDethX 7 months ago
Gay people must now fight and fight hard for the recognition of their rights.
Gay people live under an oppressive system and those whose use the
law to stigmatize, oppress and exclude never give up their power
voluntarily. We are moving to a world of less exclusion and more understanding
and empathy one step at a time.
Pilgrim812 7 months ago
@phoenix1985 Secondly that same sex couples are the standard bearers of successful relationships. Guess again! Statistics show that same sex couples separate as much as straight relationship. Studies have shown that homosexuals are more prone to promiscuity! Your argument of love is the ONLY thing that matters is false & incomplete!
edisciple 8 months ago
@phoenix1985 Read carefully. Sex was not put forth as the definition of a relationship nor is love the end all be all litmus test. Neither is falling out of love or unsuccessful relationships which by the way happens with same sex couples too be the defining definition for normal natural relationship. You posited two things by your simple argument. Polygamist, incestuous, bestiality relationships, among others that are unnatural & taboo are valid because of love. (Cont.)
edisciple 8 months ago
32 people are bigots.
FadingThought 8 months ago
It's not about equality it about changing the accepted definition of marriage as defined as a union between a man and a woman, any other type of union should be considered a Civil Union, and Civil Unions can be given the same government granted fiscal rights as marriage!
ABGAN100 8 months ago
@ABGAN100 Are you from the 1950's? Cause even back then they realized that "seperate but equal" doesn't work. Either the government should grant every couple a marriage license, or should grant every couple a civil union license. It is about equality. All American citizens are granted equal protection under the law and that is what this comes down to.
phoenix1985 8 months ago
@phoenix1985 the only difference between a civil union and marriage is the definition! the law can provide the same privileges to a couple who have a civil union.by your logic we shouldn't have separate restrooms for men and women everyone should use the same restroom! otherwise men and women could not be considered equal!
ABGAN100 8 months ago
@ABGAN100 No it isnt. There are a large number of benefits offered to married couples that arent offered to civil unioned couples. So you like the "seperate but equal" idea even though we got rid of it in the 50s. The reason men and women have different bathrooms is they are different. There is no difference between a heterosexual couple that loves each other and a homosexual couple that loves each ohter. Your arguement is pointless and stupid. Get with the 21st century. Love is the future.
phoenix1985 8 months ago
@phoenix1985 civil unions laws can be made to mirror marriage law, & your logic is non logic how can men & women be different & (a man and a woman marring be the same as a man and a man marring?) or a woman and a woman? It has everything to do with sex, and definition! I'm a christian and the laws that god has set forth for his children do not change just because its the 21centry, you might as well do away with all morality and get rid of marriage completely make theft and murder acceptable!
ABGAN100 8 months ago
@ABGAN100 Marriage is about love, not sex. Marriage existed years before Christianity, so why should Christians be the ones who get to decide what it is or isnt? By that logic, since Pagans created it, Pagans should be allowed to define what marriage is or isnt. And, since I am a Pagan, that makes me more qualified than you. Allowing marriage equality will not do away with all morality. That is the same arguement they used against interracial marriage in the 50s. Didnt apply then, doesnt now.
phoenix1985 8 months ago
@phoenix1985 so if the sole requirement for marriage is love than any one should be able to marry anyone or any thing you should be able to marry your dog or cat, have multiple wife's or husbands hell we might as do away with all morality, mass murders love to kill so they should be allowed to kill, thief's love to steal so they should be allowed to steal, just throw away all society norms and shared moral beliefs, as long as they love what they do it should be permitted!
ABGAN100 8 months ago
@ABGAN100 Now come on. Are we going to have a serious arguement here or not. Not one point you made has any validity to it whatsoever. It's about 2 adults of consenting age choosing to spend the rest of their lives together in love. By your logic any man and woman should get married, regardless of wether they love each other or not, as long as they have the right genitalia. I'm not even going to respond to your other "points" because they have no validity whatsoever.
phoenix1985 8 months ago
@phoenix1985 why should one group who are in the minority be allowed to take usurp the beliefs of another group who are in the majority? why should a minority be able to tell the majority how marriage should be defined or practiced,by that logic we should give the NAZI party halve the seats in congress so that they will have a fair chance of influencing the laws of this nation.
ABGAN100 8 months ago
@ABGAN100 So you are comparing gays to Nazis now? Even thought Nazis are far right and killed gays during the Holocause you sick freak. African Americans are in the minority. And they used to be denied equal rights too. Didn't make it right then and doesn't make denying a minority equal protection under the law as guaranteed by the Constitution right now. Your arguements are nothing more than the satyrical rants of a confirmed bigot who cannot deal with logic and truth.
phoenix1985 8 months ago
@ABGAN100 I also notice how you had no come back for my arguement of how Pagans created marriage, not Christianity, and therefore should be the ones to decide what it means. Why? Because you know I am right and you are wrong. You have no come back for a factual arguement. All you have is just more right wing bullshit nonsense that matters not at all to any sane rational person. Just give up you simple minded fool. You've already lost.
phoenix1985 8 months ago
@phoenix1985 Pagans are a small minority group we live in a democracy this has nothing to do with who invented marriage and according to Christians god created marriage! and Adam and eve were the first humans and the first married couple! who would have therefor would have predated the Pagans. regardless the debate is on the current an most accepted definition of marriage and weather it should be changed! currently most Americans do not want any change in how marriage is defined!
ABGAN100 7 months ago
@ABGAN100 Yes they do. But history and facts say Pagans invented marriage thousands of years before Christianity. And our decisions are supposed to be based on facts. Adam and Eve are a myth, not based on facts. And we have no proof that, if they even existed, they were married. As the years go by more and more Americans support marriage equality. A large minority, and in some polls a majority, support marriage equality. Face it. Your archaic definition of marriage is dead. Let it rest in peace.
phoenix1985 7 months ago
@ABGAN100 The fact that you even brought up Adam and Eve shows how illogical and irrational you really are. Adam and Eve is Christianity's Creation MYTH. With no basis in facts. We live in a Democracy not a theocracy. Freedom of religion means freedom from religion. One religion does not have the right to dictate what marriage is or isnt. And there are a large number of Christians who support marriage equality too. So you cannot say all Christians are against it. Face it, you have no arguement.
phoenix1985 7 months ago
@phoenix1985 their is nothing illogical or irrational about it I was merely stating a religious belief that many people if not the majority hold in the US! weather it is myth of fact is irrelevant their in no proof that people are genetically disposed to homosexuality yet many people believe that homosexuality is not a choice but a genetic disposition. and its not just one religion that has determined the definition of religion a large number of religions also hold the same belief.
ABGAN100 7 months ago
@ABGAN100 First of all its there, not their. Learn to spell. The majority of the scientific community believes homosexuality is genetic. And I'll believe them because their theories are based on scientific study not religious poppycock. A large number of religions? 3 religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Those are the only 3, and not everyone in those religions agrees with you. And again, since Pagans came up with marriage, we should get to decide what makes a marriage and what doesnt
phoenix1985 7 months ago
@phoenix1985 there is no such thing as scientific consensuses it ether is or is not science is not based on a conscious it's based on evidence! and my spelling has nothing to do with the strength of my argument that's like saying that a person is wrong because of the color of their skin! and if you could read I've not said that everyone in those religions are against gay marriage Just the majority, for one simple reason because it goes against their doctrine!
ABGAN100 7 months ago
@ABGAN100 Yes there is. And i didnt say bad spelling hurt your arguement. I just said it shows laziness. Slavery is supported in the Christian Bible (Leviticus 25:44-45). So doesn't abolishing slavery go against their religious doctrine. And its in the same book that condemns homosexuality along with a long list of other innane laws that no one follows anymore. Why? Because they are stupid! How does 2 people sharing their lives together in a bond of love against their religion?
phoenix1985 7 months ago
@phoenix1985 and how is it a small minority group should have the right to determine what Marriage is? when the majority of people have changed their beliefs about marriage then democracy will change the definition of marriage, but for the time being that is not the case and i never argued that all Christians are against marriage equality only that the majority are! along with the Jews, and Muslims. and a number of other religions!
ABGAN100 7 months ago
@ABGAN100 Hey, you were the one who made the arguement that Christianity should be the ones to decide what marriage is because they invented it. I just proved they didn't. Only then did you have a problem with it. People would have voted against interracial marriage 50+ years ago. It took a group of smart, intelligent, non bigoted individuals to see that stopping it was wrong. The same case applies now. Name some of these other religions. Because most smaller religions support marriage equality.
phoenix1985 7 months ago
@phoenix1985 I was not making the argument that Christianity should decide the fate of marriage but that the majority via a democratic process. and I never said that Christianity was created by Christians and most religions in the US do not support gay marriage if they did it would be legal throughout the US today!
ABGAN100 7 months ago
@ABGAN100 And again, 50+ years ago the majority would have voted against interracial marriage. 100 years ago most people would have voted against giving women the right to vote. In both instances it took a group of smart, forward thinking, caring individuals to see an injustice and fight against it. The same applies here. People are seeing an injustice imposed by a slight majority and are fighting against it. Only the big 3 are against marriage equality. Most others arent.
phoenix1985 7 months ago
@phoenix1985 nether interracial marriage or the right to vote went against the religious doctrines of Christianity or Judaism the two main religions in america same sex marriage dose! so unless the majority of Jews and Christians abandon their beliefs and as long as they remain in the majority in the US and the decision is left up to a democratic process its not likely for gay marriage to be made legal through out the states!
ABGAN100 7 months ago
@ABGAN100 Bible says having slaves is okay. So apparantly abandoning slavery goes against Christian doctrine. Jesus said nothing about homosexuality being a sin. Nothing. And aren't Christians supposed to base their religion of HIS teachings? It's not about abandoning their beliefs. It's about realizing that God loves us all and wants us all to be happy (and dont bring up kids or animals, its just pathetic). More and more people are for marriage equality every year. It's only a matter of time.
phoenix1985 7 months ago
@phoenix1985 this argument is worthless it doesn't matter weather you think gays should be allowed to marry or not! the question is weather a minority group should be able to determine the fate of marriage over the majority you can argue all you want about what you think the doctrine and beliefs of a people are but unless they agree with you your argument is worthless!
ABGAN100 7 months ago
@ABGAN100 No, what matters is wether or not the majority has the right to deny equal rights as guaranteed by our Constitution to a minortiy that has done nothing wrong. More and more people support marriage equality every year. It's about justice and equality. Not about majority or minority. The sooner you come to realize this the sooner you will evolve onto a higher stage of thinking. Right now you are trapped in outdated, outmoded, archaic definitions of morality that are useless and wrong.
phoenix1985 7 months ago
@phoenix1985 their is nothing in the constitution about gay marriage, no matter how much you want their to be their are no constitutional amendments concerning gay marriage. name a single constitutional amendment that would guarantee the right of gays to call their civil unions marriage! it dose not exist!
ABGAN100 7 months ago
@ABGAN100 How about "liberty and justice for all" or are those just words to you? How about "equal protection under the law" or are those just words to you as well? Gays can get married in several states. It's only a matter of time before gays will be able to get married nation wide. More and more people support marriage equality every year. You have already lost the war, you are just to stubborn to admit it. Remember this: Love always wins. Which means you will lose.
phoenix1985 7 months ago
@phoenix1985 the phrase "liberty and justice for all is a saying not a constitutional amendment! now your just grasping at straws, and equal protection under the law is not relevant to the question of marriage! civil unions can be constructed in such a way so as to give gay unions the same rights, privileges, protections, and costs of marriage! and their for their is no need to change the currently accepted definition of marriage!
ABGAN100 7 months ago
@ABGAN100 "Liberty and Justice for all" is in the frigging Constitution itself you moron! Equal protection under the law does apply to marriage. Again you argue for "seperate but equal" a policy they figured out didnt work in the 50s. You keep bringing up the same arguements I've already disproven time and time again. There is a need to change the definition because the current definition is discriminatory. Face it. Love wins. You lost. Give up cause youve already lost.
phoenix1985 7 months ago
@phoenix1985 your not going to be able to convince religious people who believe in the currently accepted definition of marriage to change that definition so as to appease a minority just as I doubt I could convince you that the definition of marriage should remain the same. people will argue that to change the definition of marriage would be tantamount to showing their disdain for god laws. they would say that god has said that if ye love me keep my commandments,
ABGAN100 7 months ago
@ABGAN100 So should we have kept slavery since God sanctions it. Should we kill people who plant 2 different crops side by side like God says to do? Should we kill people who work on Sunday like God says to do? Stop bringing up God. It just cheapens your arguements, and they are pretty pathetic to begin with. Marriage existed before Christianity and will exist long after it's gone. This is about love. Once you figure that out maybe you might just grow up a little.
phoenix1985 7 months ago
@phoenix1985 you truly are an idiot where in the bible dose it say the god sanctioned slavery where in Christianity dose it say to kill, in fact in the ten commandants it clearly states tho shalt not kill. your arguing on issues of christian and Jewish doctrine that you clearly do not understand!
ABGAN100 7 months ago
@ABGAN100 You apparntly don't know the bible as well as you think you moron. "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property." (Leviticus 25:44-45) Same book that condemns homosexuality. Jesus said nothing about homosexuality. So you are arguing Jewish doctrine as well.
phoenix1985 7 months ago
@phoenix1985 you've not proven anything again where in the bible dose god promote slavery or say tho shalt have slaves. or kill? where?
ABGAN100 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ABGAN100 Did you not read my last post dickhead? Fine, I'll post it again. "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property." (Leviticus 25:44-45).
phoenix1985 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ABGAN100 As for the killing: "For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him." (Leviticus 20:9). That's just one of many. Do your fucking research you lazy bastard and read the damn book.
phoenix1985 7 months ago
@phoenix1985 your obviously one of those people who think the health care is a right, or that it is the responsibility of the wealthy to take care of the poor weather they want to or not, you believe that a government has the right to dictate to people what they can eat,think,how much money they can make, how they must spend their money etc. as long at they stick to your definition of right or equal.
ABGAN100 7 months ago
@ABGAN100 Don't put words in my mouth or assume anything about me you prick. You don't know me at all. I do not think the government has the right to dictate how people can act and thnk. That's what the right does, not the left. Do try and get atleast some facts straight before you start spewing off more of your bullshit. Cause, honestly, its pretty patheric. I also notice how you have no come back for the Bible supporting slavery. Maybe its because YOU WERE WRONG!
phoenix1985 7 months ago
@phoenix1985 I'm not putting word in your mouth I'm merely drawing a conclusion based on you arguments. the fact is you were advocating the the government take a part in determining how people think and act, by forcing them to change the definition of marriage for a minority! and that is exactly what the left dose exactly opposite to what true conservatives believe and do! and your the one who needs to prove the bible supports slavery, because your the one making the allegation.
ABGAN100 7 months ago
@ABGAN100 And I could draw a conclusion that you are an ignorant hate-filled bigot based on your arguements. Sometimes the government does have to take a stand and do the right thing. Think most Americans were for getting involved in WW1 or 2? No. Conservatives try to tell people who they can and cannot marry. They try to tell a woman she must have a child she doesnt want. They are the ones who want to get into your homes and personal lives for all the wrong reasons.
phoenix1985 7 months ago
Comment removed
ABGAN100 7 months ago
@ABGAN100 How about every single thing you said? You didnt even know that "liberty and justice for all" was in the Constitution! I apparantly have a much clearer understanding of the words than you do. I know what conservatism is. It is pure vile evil. Hello moron! It's Republicans fighting against marriage equality. I do not like abortion either, but I do not have the right to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body. You are ignorant and a bigot and every word you say supports it.
phoenix1985 7 months ago
@phoenix1985 give an example,again your making baseless accusations, and the phrase liberty and justice for all. is found in the pledge of allegiance. not the constitution! the problem with liberals like you is not that your ignorant it's just that you know so much that isn't so!
ABGAN100 7 months ago
@ABGAN100 Give an example. How about the fact you want to deny a minority a basic human right just because they are different. I'm ignorant. Throughout history its always been the intelligent liberals who have been enlightened. The explorers, inventors, and philosophers. All liberals. If people like you had their way the world would still be flat, we'd still be using horse and buggy, we wouldnt have reached the moon, and modern medicine would not exist. You try to destroy everything good.
phoenix1985 7 months ago
@phoenix1985 first of all how is marriage a basic human right? second When did I say that I wanted to deny anyone of their basic human rights,third the definition of Bigot: a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief or opinion. by that definition you are the bigot, by saying the Christians should not be allowed to preserve the definition of marriage! that your definition should be the accepted definition of marriage. you are intolerant of their beliefs!
ABGAN100 7 months ago
@ABGAN100 Christians denying marriage equality preserves nothiing except fear, bigotry, prejudice, hatred, and intlerance. You cannot call someone standing up to intolerance, it just doesnt work. All American citizens are entitled to "equal protection under the law" Allowing one group of people to get married and another not to just because they are different is intolerance. It's not a religious issue. Marriage is a civil right. If religions dont want to accept it thats their problem.
phoenix1985 7 months ago
@phoenix1985 again you continue to use words that your haven't a clue as to their meaning! and insist that marriage is a basic human right, and you continue to show your intolerance for christian,Muslim and Jewish beliefs. and like all liberals you continue to use words like fear, prejudice, hatred and intolerance, to describe them with out even a basic understanding of the definition of most of those word or any proof that they apply.
ABGAN100 7 months ago
@ABGAN100 I clearly have a better understanding of their definitions than you do. You have shown a complete lack of understanding on any basic human level. You can deny all you want. Everyone can see what you are: just another hate-filled, narrow-minded bigot using relgion to justify his own hatred of a people who have done nothing to hurt him and want to take nothing away from him. Marriage is a civil right granted by the government and shouldnt be denied to anyone on the basis of gender.
phoenix1985 7 months ago
@phoenix1985 prove it tell me the definitions and then show me you can correlate the definition with your argument! you keep making statements that you can not back! quote any thing I have written and show me how it is any of the the things you say it is! your all talking points no logic!
ABGAN100 7 months ago
@ABGAN100 I quote "It has everything to do with sex, and definition! I'm a christian and the laws that god has set forth for his children do not change just because its the 21centry." You think marriage is about sex. Marriage is about love. That you cannot see that makes you an ignorant bigot. You are just too blind to see it. You are so far beneath even the lowest level of contempt. All my points are logical. You want to defend nothing except your own hatred and prejudice.
phoenix1985 7 months ago
@phoenix1985 you've not defined ignorant or bigot nor have you explained how what it is I said could be considered either. you simply made a statement as if all that flows between your lips is gold. perhaps you should get an education first and then when you learn to make a logical argument return, better to remain silent and be thought a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt!
ABGAN100 7 months ago
@ABGAN100 If you don't know the definition of ignorant or bigot than you are the one who needs the education, not I. I have an education. One you sorely need and apparantly lack. I have given logical arguements. All you can give me is religion and tradition. Religion doesnt apply and traditions change. Yes it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt. So why dont youdo us all a favor and be silent you ignorant simple minded bigoted fool.
phoenix1985 7 months ago
@phoenix1985 i know the definition of Ignorant and bigot I just want to verify that you do! and given that you continue to refuse to prove that you understand the definitions i can only conclude that you do not know them! and that your hate filled rhetoric is just a symptom of your ignorance!
ABGAN100 7 months ago
@ABGAN100 Ignorant: definition: You. Bigot: Defintition: You. Can I make it more simple than that? I'm hate filled? You are the one who wants to deny a civil right to a minority who has done nothing to you for no other reason than you can. You are sick, twisted, vile little creature. Born in ignorance, fear, bigotry, prejudice, and intolerance. Were you born a bigot or just raised that way? Seriously, with each post you just sink lower and lower on the evolutionary scale you sick little worm.
phoenix1985 7 months ago
@phoenix1985 you continue to prove my Point with every word your post I find my self amazed at the sheer stupidity of your comments, you refuse to define bigot, prejudice,intolerance,fear,sick,twisted,or how anything Ive said applies to those words. of coarse sense you can not define those word and you use those words like catch phrases or slogans,or the f word, it wouldn't be possible for you to to show a logical correlation to the things i have said.
ABGAN100 7 months ago
@ABGAN100 Just because you are too stupid to see how you are the very example of every single one of those words isn't my fault. You want to deny a civil right to a minority that has done nothing to you for no other reason than you can. That is how you define every single one of those words. I have already shown a logical connection to every thing you have said many times. Just because you are too stupid, foolish, and moronic to see it isn't my problem. Just accept it. Love wins. You lose.
phoenix1985 7 months ago
@phoenix1985 you have reduced your self down to name calling because this is obviously your last resort given you lack the ability to make a salient and logical argument. and even your name calling lacks credibility given your lack of ability to define the very words you use!
ABGAN100 7 months ago
@ABGAN100 I have given many logical and sound arguements. You just cannot respond to them. The only arguements you have given are relgiion and tradition. Relgion doesnt apply and traditions change. Every arguement I have given has been based on sound logic. Every arguement of yours Ive already disproven time and time again has been based on fear, ignorance, and intolerance. If you want to know the definitions then go use a dictionary you pathetic simple minded blinded by hate fool.
phoenix1985 7 months ago
Comment removed
ABGAN100 7 months ago
@phoenix1985 not once have you proffered a definition to prove you comprehend the words you are using! nor have you used those definitions to back your assertions, even now you continue to refuse to prove you know the definition of the words you have used I.e. bigot,intolerance,etc. you continue on with with the same narrative.like a brainless member of a mob shouting out slogans like "bush lied kids died" completely devoid of facts,and free from logic.
ABGAN100 7 months ago
@ABGAN100 All of my arguements have been based on facts and logic. Yours have been based on religion and intolerance. I have a bridge made of steel to stand on, while you stand in a sinking ship but refuse to abandon it because it is tradition. Lets face it. You have not offered one single logical, reasonable, or fact based arguement. You are just too blind to see it. I am done argueing with you. You will never see how blind and evil you really are.
phoenix1985 7 months ago
@ABGAN100 You will continue to live your life, filled with evil, fear, bigotry, prejudice, and intolerance. You will continue to spread a message of hate and evil across the world. All in the name of tradition and religion. You are a sickening example who doesnt even deserve to be called a human being. You would deny a civil right to a group of people who have done nothing to hurt you simply because you can. I'm done with you. You cannot argue intelligently.and you don't even try. Youre pathetic
phoenix1985 7 months ago
@phoenix1985 for your education,
bigot: a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
intolerant: unable or unwilling to tolerate or endure.
Prejudice: an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge,thought or reason.
ABGAN100 7 months ago
@ABGAN100 1: I already knew that. 2: All those apply to you. 3: Good for you to finally look those up and learn their meanings. Here's a cookie for you.
phoenix1985 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@phoenix1985 i know the definition of Ignorant and bigot I just want to verify that you do! and given that you continue to refuse to prove that you understand the definitions i can only conclude that you do not know them! and that your hate filled rhetoric is just a symptom of your ignorance!
ABGAN100 7 months ago
@ABGAN100 prove it what have I said that was ignorant or bigoted? you haven't a leg to stand on you use words like ignorance and bigot with out even a clear understanding of there meaning! you don't even know what conservationism is! it wasn't conservatives who were telling people who they could or could not marry it was democrats! if a woman doesn't want a child than she shouldn't get pregnant!
ABGAN100 7 months ago
@ABGAN100 I am done with you. Since you clearly are incapable of holding an intelligent, logical, fact based conversation using facts and reason I am ending this. Why I even wasted my time on you I will never know. Bigots never change. Once a bigot always a bigot. It's like trying to argue with a hate-filled, narrow-minded, bigoted wall. It's not worth my or anyone else's time to try. Just know this. Love always wins. It may take years but Love always wins. Which means you will always lose.
phoenix1985 7 months ago
@phoenix1985 you never got started over and over I've challenged you to prove your assertions I even gave you the definitions so you could make a salient argument, but instead of proving your intelligence you chose to vomiting out slogans and using name calling with the hope that anyone reading your posts will for go all logic and reason and act on emotion. your no better then members of the KKK spurting out slogans to justify their beliefs.
ABGAN100 7 months ago
@ABGAN100 I have proven my points time and time again. You are just too blind to see it. You are the one like the KKK, using religion to justify a message of bigotry and hate as "God's will," You already know you have lost this arguement. Why can't you let it go? Are you so immature you cannot admit defeat when it is staring you right in the face? It would be laughable if it weren't so pathetic. I tried logic. I tried reason. I even tried emotion. But all you can come back with is nonsense.
phoenix1985 7 months ago
@phoenix1985 this conversation is worthless your so stuck in your narrative that you can not see the vast gaps in your argument. or the total lack of reason or logic, I've provided the Webster definitions of the words you used to describe me and you've not even attempted to create a premise based on those definitions! on top of this you persist in name calling like some frustrated 5 year old that has been told they cant have ice cream for dinner! grow up learn to argue like an adult.
ABGAN100 7 months ago
@ABGAN100 Yes this conversation is worthless. And you are the one who makes it worthless. There are no gaps in my arguement while yours is filled with holes. I have shone total reason and logic where you hide behind religion. I have explained my premise to you several times. That you are too stupid to understand it is not my problem. You are the one who cannot argue like an adult. I have used logic and reason and emotion. You have used religion and tradition, both non-arguements.
phoenix1985 7 months ago
@ABGAN100 Just face it. You lost the moment you brought religion into this. You have not been able to create one credible or even remotely logical or reasonable arguement. I have countered every arguement you have given and you have been unable to counter a single one of mine. Just accept it. You lost. You failed the very second you entered this. Because you have no arguement. All you have is your own bigotry and prejudice. Stop wasting both our time and go hide in your sad pathetic little world
phoenix1985 7 months ago
@phoenix1985 at last your showing your motivation behind your argument "you lost the moment you brought up religion" your a religious bigot! every one of your statements can now be attributed to your religious bigotry!
ABGAN100 7 months ago
@ABGAN100 Again: WRONG! I happen to be a very religious person. I am just also a very logical and reasonable person who belives in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Seperation of Church and State. I am a reasonable enough person to see that religion should not be used as justification to deny a group of people their civil rights. You cannot call me a bigot. A bigot calling someone else a bigot is just denying your own bigotry that you cannot accept. Face it. You are a bigot. Move on.
phoenix1985 7 months ago
@phoenix1985 you could call your self the pope but that would not change the fact that your a religious bigot, or the fact that your decoration of " you lost the moment you brought up religion" is bigoted! definition Bigot:a person who is intolerant of any differing creed,belief or opinion. your denying the religious people the right to define marriage, and the phrase separation of church and state dose not exist in the constitution.
ABGAN100 7 months ago
@ABGAN100 Being intolerant of the intolerant doesnt make you intolerant. Hating a Nazi for being a Nazi doesnt make you a hateful person. Marriage is a civil issue. It has nothing to do with religion. Religion should have no say in a civil issue. Are you fucking Retarded? Thomas Jefferson wrote that the 1st Amendment erected a "wall of separation" between the church and the state. A founding Father put it in there. Face facts. Grow up. And move on. You cannot win against Love and what is right.
phoenix1985 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@phoenix1985 the 1st amendment in it's entirety "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "so where is this magical wall of separation of church and state found in the constitution?
ABGAN100 7 months ago
@ABGAN100 Does the Declaration of Independence mean nothing to you. It says "All men are created equal." That is what I am fighting for. That is what you are fighting against. If you hate the American ideal so much than leave and go to a theocratic country where you can be a bigot all you like. I'm sure you love it there amongst your own kind. But this is America: Land of the Free and Home of the Brave. The Brave stand up. They stand up to ignorant hate filled bigots like you. Face it and leave.
phoenix1985 7 months ago
Comment removed
ABGAN100 7 months ago
@ABGAN100 The Declaration of Independence says: "All men are created equal." That mandates marriage equality. Or does the DOI not matter to you? Womens right to vote was not voted on. Desegregation was not voted on. Both were done because it was the right thing to do. Just as marriage equality is now. So the minority of gay people who dont want marriage equality have the right to deny it to the majority of gay people who do? You just contradicted yourself hypocrite.
phoenix1985 7 months ago