If u love one someone go ahead get married. Leave religion out of it. I mean I'm straight but hey I'm openminded to whatever anybody wants to do. It's ur decision as a human being not follower in some faith. Separation of church and state yo.
yo WTF on my chemistry class there were two homosexuals sitting next to me! One put his arm on the other one's leg to get lotion. Omg that shit was gay. Then they were making out and one said "This is awkward" then they kept kissing. Then a girl that was just looking around saw the two gay guys kissing each other, and her face was like "EWWWW" LOL but if you ask me why I did not move it was because the sits were full FML!!!!
well socrates was put to death democratcly and went willingly to death i hope i have the courage of that man. but i dont dissgree with you on gays marriage.
What I don't get is what "defenders of marriage" are so worried about marriage between to men or two women it's not not were using there marital bed in which we have sex in
@gatekeepermkd Are you blind or just plain ignorant. The statement that marriage is between a man and a woman an that's what it was created for is not an AGRUMENT, it's a plain simple well known fact.
@DanD3815 It's not good enough. You're basically saying "The sky is blue because it's created to be blue". A 5-year-old can do better than that. Try harder next time.
@gatekeepermkd It IS good enough because that's what it IS..YOU are trying to make it something it's not and trying to over complicate it. It's as simple as how our bodies are constructed. They are made to reproduce and be attracted to the opposite sex. There's really no other explanation needed whether you want to accept it or not.
@gatekeepermkd first off..theres no "holy" mission to save anything..idk where the hell you pulled that from. Second off, who cares that the earth is populated..thats not the issue. third...again population and reproducing is not the issue. You missed the point which is the fact that our bodies are designed to be with the opposite sex, the other way around is a defect which is being forced on everyone. Its not Marriage, this isnt a regular couple no matter what you try to display it as.
@DanD3815 I thought we were discussing civil rights, now all of a sudden you're giving lessons on biology about some "design". Too bad scientists who actually have done researches disagree with you. Homosexuality has been excluded from the list of diseases by the Medical association a long time ago, so it's not considered a "defect".
Gay people are not asking for tolerance. Tolerance implies that one is tolerant while the other is tolerated. It maintains two different classes of people. In equality, tolerance becomes redundant.
In a society where all are equal, tolerance is no longer required, as no one is above or below another.
Equality will win. Stop promoting second class citizenship for gays by asking for tolerance. Gays are neither superior nor inferior, so they need no tolerance nor do they seek to tolerate.
Your arguement about the traditional union has some slight flaws bro.
Only the 2% aristocracy really did that, generally between the poorer classes it tended to just be finding someone bearable to help you work the feilds.
Also do you mean, the legal interpretation of marriage should be equal, or the religious interpretation of marriage should be equal as there is a big difference?
@nevascared123 gay people cant concieve a child. nor can people who are born infertile. should their right eb taken away to? even though they are straight?
@totallysickawesome no because that is just an unfortunate situation. There are NO TWO MEN ON THIS EARTH that can concieve a child. That is because you are not meant to. but anyway i dont care go and do what u want more women for me.
@nevascared123 haha no, you dont have more women, im bisexual. being gay is also an unfortunate situation. the world would be better if there were no gay people. but i could say the same for left-handed people. a 50 year old man and a 10 year old girl can conceive a child. two 30 year old men cant. which one is deserves to have a child? which one has the better relation? which one deserves rights?
@aehre2 Well whatever but not allowing gay people to marry is discrimination. Religion has no place in this...it should have no effect but it does sadly... : /
I have heard it both ways, that we are a Democracy, and that we are a Republic. But, Jefferson said that we are a Democratic Republic, which is a composite of both. Conservative religious people will never condone gay marriage. Democrats will never concede that gay marriage should be outlawed. People on the far left will often state that marriage is reactionary, and thus must be abolished along with the family. There isn't much that is going to change these opinions. What matters is power.
Demanding some kind of legal affirmation of gay "marriage" represents a crucial misunderstanding of what marriage IS, by definition as well as by societal imperiaive. The incessant, emotionally-charged objective of "gay rights gay marriage" is one of psychology nothing more. Wanting to feel apart of, understood, belonging, varified...etc It wouldn't be marriage, just stop. It would be something wholly apart, wholly divorced (excuse the pun) to what marriage is by nature. Understand that and the
Two hemispheres here, and they need to be defined.
Legality: marriage is an affirmed societal union to which the responsibilities of procreation and species advancement (high priority) are made attendant upon.
Morality (ought action): our individual biologies posses an effortlessly fluent clue to the goal and function of our body. The puzzle piece analogy is less crass than further explanation of this point.
Homosexuality is wrong and dangerous. Homosexuality comes from the devil. Homosexual: Sex, children and marriage is a disgrace. I'm against LGBT rights. Just remember, make the wrong decision, you'll burn in hell forever. FOREVER. It's your life
Though im not saying that im against this, I am looking forward to the government giving the same amount of rights. However, there is a clear cut definition on how a marriage is defined or perceived by the law. If the criteria for this is outside of this boundaries because it does not compose the actual society's definition of a family unit (father, mother and children)
We are a democratic country but it doesnt always mean we have to change laws, we have the ability to add laws for special cases
The problem how we see marriages is we combine the perception of the church as the unity within the marriage AND a civil union. In the eyes of the law. Marriage / civil union should have similarities in the rights of the law as it is a binding special contract. The issue that gays are pushing the term marriage is that there is somewhat more concrete that just saying civil unions. The problem is that traditionally, by law, marriage is indeed defined as something that is between a man and a woman
@BoyOmi3715 Wikipedia is actually as useful as its sources are. The article I linked and the aspects I referenced are well supported by their sources. Nice try.
I agree with u 100% What i dont get is people that say God wouldnt want this God hates Gay people but how do they know what God loves Is that because some 1000 years ago some Wrote a book God passed on a message that he loves everyone i think if God came down ehre and saw everything that was going on he would be very sad to see all this i mean come on God dosnt make mistakes here people if someone is gay they are born gay it isnt a life choice And if u say it isnt well how would u know unless u
@SmartBoy224 Orly? Did God come down to the White House and say "Homosexuality is WRONG!"? Ummm... NO He did NOT Who wrote the bible? His followers. Does it have an author? Not God exactly, Some guy(s) wrote it for him But how are you sure it then wasnt modified by someone else? No one knows Go study a bit more,will you? "Love thou neighbor as you love thyself" Gays are your neighbors
i like the 5th person gays shouldnt marry fuck them lol they should be kiled they r not born tht way they choose to be gay ur werent born with a dick in ur mouth hahah u choose to be gay and stop acting like u know everything about history
your unsure whether its a civil right issue or not, so you will dismiss him for that basis and you wont dismiss discrimination? wow you sure know how to make choices to your preference, regardless of the evidence out there. Forget getting yourself educated just dismiss anything pro gay because your not "sure"
well marriage is a "PERSONAL RIGHT" so yes its a right bitch, go get yourself educated i ain't gonna school your dumb bitch ass if your just going to dismiss this as well.
Symptoms of homophobia - When a faggot or dyke is present, the person must have rapid heart beat, feeling of panic, feeling of terror, shortness of breath, feeling of dread, trembling...Homophobia must be held to the same diagnostic criteria of all the other phobias: If not, it's not a phobia......NO ONE IS A HOMOPHOBIC...The term "homophobia" .is out right DECEIT...Gays have taken the term "phobia", lied about it and misused it as an insult weapon to verbally beat people into submission
I hate gay supportes their douches! Someone come help me argue with the douches on a video called "that's not gay" all the fags are flippin out on me. Their so fucking ignorent or howev you spell it.
@jo951000 First of all you are ignorant. <-btw that is how you spell it dumb ass. Hate is such a strong word and how can you hate someone you don't even know. The word you used "their" is incorrect. You meant to say they're. Wow. You are a great example of ignorant.
how can you put your penis in someone's shit then put it in his mouth, and yet think that it's a very pleasurable behavior. It's amazing on how we could be blinded to even eat each others shit. similar disgusting community would be the vampire community where members pleasure drinking blood
how can you put your penis in someone's shit then put it in his mouth, and yet think that it's a very pleasurable behavior. It's amazing on how we could be blinded to even eat each others shit. similar disgusting community would be the vampire community where members pleasure drinking blood
how can you put your penis in someone's shit then put it in his mouth, and yet think that it's a very pleasurable behavior. It's amazing on how we could be blinded to even eat each others shit. similar disgusting community would be the vampire community where members pleasure drinking blood
how can you put your penis in someone's shit then put it in his mouth, and yet think that it's a very pleasurable behavior. It's amazing on how we could be blinded to even eat each others shit. similar disgusting community would be the vampire community where members pleasure drinking blood
I wonder if gays know that the definition of marriage HAS been changed, and that this was the original definition:
ronunciation: 'mar-ij also 'mer-
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Old French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century
1 a : the state of being married b : the mutual relation of husband and wife : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family
@Sidney38SNJ Things are never going to change. We like them the way they are, and no buttpirates and cunt lickers are going to change that. Best advice
I can give, keep your perversity to yourself. Keep it in the closet.
In those links you provided, some of them did not work, wikipedia is a website where information is put in by anyone, so that's not reliable, and the other links about civil right: no where did it say anything about sexual orientation. Gays say they should have the right to gay marriage because they think it's right, so isn't it fair to say that those that want marriage to stay as it should have a say in it as well? The only fair way to make a decision is to vote fairly and we have.
I have yet to hear an argument against gay marriage that wasn't used against interracial marriage when states had laws against that. Same rhetoric repackaged over and over to support bias and prejudice.
Marraige is not just a religious or cultural institution.
Its a legal institution.
One person below asked, why make marraige the contract that gives rights between people automatically, why not just declare whoever you want whenever.
Acknowledging the special privilege people have with each other through marraige simplifies things. It generally leaves nothing to question.
And yes, life isnt ideal and often people are fightign over the unconscious, at least the married couple dont have to
It would likely be fine with most homosexuals to have civil unions instead of marraiges if that will give theists their sacred word, while giving homosexuals same social status and legal privileges that go with the marraige contracts
Sadly, in many states which have outlawed marraige, they have also outlawed anything resembling marraige including civil unions, from being allowed for homosexuals to take part in
In other states, civil unions still do not have equal privileges that marraige has
One of problem with the rights arguments that theists put forward is that the issue is, whether its a privilege or not, one group cannot be restricted from having the opportunity to partake in a privilege or right that another group has
If heterosexuals are able to get married, then homosexuals are able to get married. The gov cannot restrict the privilege or right of one group like that
Thats why even in states where homo marraige is illegal, when challenged in court its usually thrown out
Being gay I can understand the desire to marry BUT (and it's a huge but) the institution as a whole is failing miserably. So why not work towards the elimination of marriage for everyone instead? I'll tell you why because there is too much money involved in the marriage industry and the divorce industry. But why not allow everyone to bestow their benefits to whomever they want rather than creating a special class of people with special rights?
First off as far as I remember marriage is defined as between two people not between a man and a woman. Between a man and a woman was added when DOMA legislation was signed into law which I believe was under Clinton.
As far as it being a "right" we are suppose to have "equal treatment under the law" so technically if one person is entitled to marriage so are everyone else.
Historically marriage was used to retain real estate and wealth within a family and as you say not for emotional reasons.
Gay people suck? That's usually a compliment to us. ;-) We do it quite well, thankyouverymuch!
Anyway... I digress. A great rebuttal to the most common arguments. Considering that New York is considering gay marriage (since they already lose all their revenue out of state and then recognize that out of state marriage, which is just silliness), I'm sure you'll get to make another video on this topic soon enough.
We also shouldn't allow widows to marry the person they were married to before they died, for widows are defined as having been married to that person who was then deceased.
Further debunking the "traditional marriage" argument, many societies had marriage as one man and many women. Polygamy was common, so why is it illegal now? If someone wants to enter into a polygamous relationship and they are of legal age, I think it should be legal, why isnt it?. The "tradition" people speak of isnt much of a tradition at all. Government shouldnt be involved in marriage, only civil unions. Marriage should stay religious, and have no special privelages.
The US is a democracy, that happens to be republic. Democracy simply is a system where people vote for policy/representatives. A republic is a democratic system without a monarch as head of state. Democracy is to a Republic as Christianity is to Catholics, one is a subset of the other.
Initially, rights had to be created by consensus, it just so happens that in the US there are checks against the tyranny of the majority over rights, but not laws and legislation.
At what point in the origin of our country did the rights contained in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution that followed it get thrown to the populous for a vote?
Since what is commonly referred to as the Bill of rights is actually the first ten amendments to the constitution, they followed the formula by which those amendments are passed. First, they need to be proposed by a 2/3rds vote by each house of congress, and then ratified by three fourths of the US states.
Since the US is a representational democratic republic, the bill or rights can be said to have been passed on behalf of the population.
The bills themselves weren't, however, passed by means of populous' want of those amendments. They were taken into account the representatives of the people.
I cant speak of what the popular sentiment of the day was, but one short coming of representative democracy is that the general public only has direct input on government during elections or at the time of refereda. Other than that, the only input is through public pressure, threat of non reelection, and lobbying. At some point someone wont be happy and feel like the democratic system didnt work, such is the limitation of the world we exist in.
Fantastic video. I'm coming from James' suggestion and I am most definitely subscribing.
I'm in the middle of preparing a presentation for my Phil 205 Ethics class on Gay Marriage being permissible. I really like your perspective and black and white facts way of presenting points. Kudos!
Haha, thanks. We'll see how it goes. I think I present December 1 so I have a little while to pull it together. But I will definitely be looking at your video for a little guidance. Much appreciated :)
This is not a civil rights issue! I come across this every week. Every man and women has the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. That means nbody is taking that right away from you. The argument that many throw is that same sex marriage is inheritely too. But, who says it is. Besides, government has no inherit interests in promoting gay marriage.
As you said, every man and every woman has the right to enter into an exclusively heterosexual marriage. Exclusively heterosexual, get it? IT EXCLUDES HOMOSEXUALS.
It is not the government's job to promote one group of people over another. The government's sole job is to protect the liberties of each individual and therefore guarantee that each individual has equal rights, equal opportunity and protection under the law.
Guru, picture this: The president is about to sign a new law. This law states that nobody is allowed to go to church or read a bible.
You might see this as discrimination against Christians, but it's really not, because the same restriction applies to atheists, Muslims, etc., thus no particular group is being targeted. You're still allowed to be Christian, you just can't do Christian things.
Show me where my logic is flawed, yet yours is not.
I'm saying that via the structure of the guaranteed equality set forth by the bill of rights, straight into the constitution, it is in fact a revocation of the rights of homosexuals to disallow them from engaging in an allowance granted to all others (specifically because there is no negative consequence spawning from this allowance).
@TheLibertariansUnite, you should change your name then to lying sack of shit. if you truly believe that goverment should stay out of your wallet, shouldn't it stay out of our bedrooms too? and wouldn't they believe in minding their own business when it comes to morality issues
1) As Avi said, if 31 states voted that you wouldn't be allowed to get married, just because they don't like you, you'd flip your shit and demand equal treatment, an rightfully so under the constitution.
2) You have to justify the statement that marriage is between a man and a woman, and then you have to justify why the definition is sacred and can't be changed.
Liberalism is a mental disorder... These were some very weak arguments.
1.) Sigh.. Irrelevant hypotheticals... That can't happen because of the bill of rights. You can get married, but it is defined as being between a man and a woman. So nobody is discriminating against you.
2.) Marriage has always been between a man and a woman for thousands of years. How do you justify changing it because you want to? Those that want to keep marriage traditional don't have to justify anything.
Both the bill of rights and the shape of marriage have changed numerous times over the years. The only reason to deny homosexuals the right to marriage with each other is because of a deeply ingrained prejudice.
So essentially your justification for asserting that the definition of marriage can't be changed is the fact that it's been that way for a long time? That's a very weak position to take.
The justification for the argument that it should be changed, however, is because there is essentially no difference between a man marrying a woman and a man marrying a man. Unless you're speaking from a religious standpoint (in which case, fuck off), a guy marrying a guy doesn't mean anything to you. But it means EVERYTHING to them, and therefore it's a very unfair position for them to be in.
The only person a gay guy can marry is one that he would have absolutely no interest in. It sucks.
You criticize people for making, in your opinion, weak arguments, then you go and post a logical fallacy, argumentum ad antiquitum, as yours.
An appeal to tradition is a valid argument as to why Churches shouldn't change their definition of marriage, and IMO the 1st Amendment protects them from having to do so against their will, but it is an invalid argument as to why secular institutions, such as the government, should not recognize same sex marriages.
If gay marriage became legal, you, as an individual, would still have the freedom to define marriage for yourself as being between a man and a woman, and still have the freedom to act on that belief.
If you ban SSM, you are denying other individuals the freedom to define marriage for themselves as individuals, AND the freedom to act according to those beliefs
"You assist an evil system most effectively by obeying its orders and decrees. An evil system never deserves such allegiance. Allegiance to it means partaking of the evil. A good person will resist an evil system with his or her whole soul." - Mahatma Gandhi
Marriage has always been between a man and a woman, and according to the voters in 31 states it always will. 19 more to go, and the ones remaining aren't that liberal :)
Try asking those kids who get adopted by two gay men how they feel about their parents at age 16. You think they don't know what goes on in the bedroom across the hall at that age?
Won't affect the kids huh? What a liberal moron...
Libertarians believe in equal rights. You don't get special anything because you're gay.
The funny thing about this is that the whole "gay parents are weird" attitude is that its self-perpetuating. It's only an issue because people like you keep bringing it up. Granted, it's never going to be the norm, but the healthy development of a child is dependent on the ability of the parents to provide a loving and nurturing home, not the sexual orientation of the parents.
You think the children of interracial couples are ashamed of their parentage just because they're not in the majority?
(Furthermore, no, libertarians don't necessarily believe in equal rights. You've shown over and over again that you don't know what libertarianism means. Libertarians very well may believe in equal rights but its not an integral part of the political philosophy. Communism also stresses equal rights, yet communism and libertarianism are totally different.)
And in response to your final statement: research the differences between marriage and civil union and then stop talking.
Dylan please don't focus on what YOU THINK what I THINK. I want you to focus on the issue now and not some selfish hate filled hypothetical. Think Real life now:
Ask those kids who get adopted by two gay men how they feel about their parents at age 16. If you think they can walk around proud during the judgemental High School years you're naive, a moron, or both. Being normal is cool, being an outcast isn't.
I'm waiting for an answer as to when your rights were violated.
You're right, we should deny gay couples the right to have children because the kids might not be invited to the cool kids' parties. Are you serious?
And, again, the only reason gay couples are seen as weird is because PEOPLE LIKE YOU KEEP SAYING IT IS. If we lived in a more accepting society this wouldn't be an issue. You think gay couples are weird, so you think the kids will think it's weird, which feeds the opinion that it's weird. It's circular.
Also, you grossly generalize teenagers. The high school I went to was very pro-gay-rights, adoption and all. I realize personal anecdotes don't make great arguments, but since when is national policy decided on the basis of what we perceive to be cool for sixteen-year-olds?
(Ironically, libertarianism opposes pure democracy expressly for the reasons you mentioned. Libertarians oppose majority rule because it means that, say, 53% dictates the 47%'s lives. "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner."
Your little spiel about majority rule is very anti-libertarianism.)
Same-sex marriage doesn't force straight couples to get same-sex married. But the banning of same sex marriage prohibits gay people from getting married. It's a classic example of the 53% not being content with minding their own goddamn business - EVERYONE has to conform to their defenition of marriage.
Luckily I live in a province where you are allowed to get married straight or gay!!
Hope to see all of you Americans up here however I HOPE THAT IT IS PASSED THROUGH SHORTLY AS A NATIONAL LAW!! --- could we get with the hmmmm beginning of civilization??
Frankly, I've gotten sick of this whole argument anyway, and so I now prefer to take the lazy route and argue: "It doesn't matter if being gay is a choice or not, it's none of your fucking business anyway."
Not very convincing, I know, but I'm so goddamn lazy...
You are sexy when you get worked up, wanna get married? :) Anyway, great video Avi. The one that gets me is the "it isn't a right" thing when clearly under our system a privilege granted to some but not to others is unequal treatment under the law, and thus the right is "equal treatment under the law". Oh, and nice ending Avi!
If u love one someone go ahead get married. Leave religion out of it. I mean I'm straight but hey I'm openminded to whatever anybody wants to do. It's ur decision as a human being not follower in some faith. Separation of church and state yo.
TheFlow1001 4 days ago
your arguments make no sense
carlybrookexx 1 week ago
I'm against gay marriage because this is so wrong and stupid, God didn't invent it
thegapshow 1 month ago
yo WTF on my chemistry class there were two homosexuals sitting next to me! One put his arm on the other one's leg to get lotion. Omg that shit was gay. Then they were making out and one said "This is awkward" then they kept kissing. Then a girl that was just looking around saw the two gay guys kissing each other, and her face was like "EWWWW" LOL but if you ask me why I did not move it was because the sits were full FML!!!!
ucf2015 1 month ago
well socrates was put to death democratcly and went willingly to death i hope i have the courage of that man. but i dont dissgree with you on gays marriage.
SuperMonkeyGo 5 months ago
@aehre2 You forgot to support your opinion with arguments. Oh, wait why is that so? Because you can't think of any.
gatekeepermkd 6 months ago
Hes wants a big one up his .........
luketkin 6 months ago
What I don't get is what "defenders of marriage" are so worried about marriage between to men or two women it's not not were using there marital bed in which we have sex in
killzbitches 6 months ago
you enjoy penis.
ilovedagreenday 6 months ago
marriage is between a man and woman. Thats what it was created for, that's the idea.
gays can have civil union, but its not marriage.
DanD3815 7 months ago
@DanD3815 You didn't provide any valid arguments to support your opinion. Is it because you don't have any?
gatekeepermkd 6 months ago
@gatekeepermkd Are you blind or just plain ignorant. The statement that marriage is between a man and a woman an that's what it was created for is not an AGRUMENT, it's a plain simple well known fact.
DanD3815 6 months ago
@DanD3815 It's not good enough. You're basically saying "The sky is blue because it's created to be blue". A 5-year-old can do better than that. Try harder next time.
gatekeepermkd 6 months ago
@gatekeepermkd It IS good enough because that's what it IS..YOU are trying to make it something it's not and trying to over complicate it. It's as simple as how our bodies are constructed. They are made to reproduce and be attracted to the opposite sex. There's really no other explanation needed whether you want to accept it or not.
DanD3815 6 months ago
@DanD3815 So you're on a holy mission to save the human race from extinction. You must think you're doing a great favor to humanity.
First, according to the UN figures, the Earth is already overpopulated.
Second, there are many straight couples who are unable or unwilling to have children, but they still have the right to marry.
Third, same-sex marriage doesn't prevent straight people from reproducing.
gatekeepermkd 6 months ago
@gatekeepermkd first off..theres no "holy" mission to save anything..idk where the hell you pulled that from. Second off, who cares that the earth is populated..thats not the issue. third...again population and reproducing is not the issue. You missed the point which is the fact that our bodies are designed to be with the opposite sex, the other way around is a defect which is being forced on everyone. Its not Marriage, this isnt a regular couple no matter what you try to display it as.
DanD3815 6 months ago
@DanD3815 I thought we were discussing civil rights, now all of a sudden you're giving lessons on biology about some "design". Too bad scientists who actually have done researches disagree with you. Homosexuality has been excluded from the list of diseases by the Medical association a long time ago, so it's not considered a "defect".
gatekeepermkd 6 months ago
Gay people are not asking for tolerance. Tolerance implies that one is tolerant while the other is tolerated. It maintains two different classes of people. In equality, tolerance becomes redundant.
In a society where all are equal, tolerance is no longer required, as no one is above or below another.
Equality will win. Stop promoting second class citizenship for gays by asking for tolerance. Gays are neither superior nor inferior, so they need no tolerance nor do they seek to tolerate.
schlummieleinchen 8 months ago
The 14th amendment is there to protect the minority, regardless of what the majority thinks.
42Torch 8 months ago
Your arguement about the traditional union has some slight flaws bro.
Only the 2% aristocracy really did that, generally between the poorer classes it tended to just be finding someone bearable to help you work the feilds.
Also do you mean, the legal interpretation of marriage should be equal, or the religious interpretation of marriage should be equal as there is a big difference?
GeorgeL864 9 months ago
ok so tbh ur just chattin shit...answer me this....if being gay is right, why cant two men or two women concieve a child???
nevascared123 10 months ago
@nevascared123 gay people cant concieve a child. nor can people who are born infertile. should their right eb taken away to? even though they are straight?
totallysickawesome 10 months ago
@totallysickawesome no because that is just an unfortunate situation. There are NO TWO MEN ON THIS EARTH that can concieve a child. That is because you are not meant to. but anyway i dont care go and do what u want more women for me.
nevascared123 10 months ago
@nevascared123 haha no, you dont have more women, im bisexual. being gay is also an unfortunate situation. the world would be better if there were no gay people. but i could say the same for left-handed people. a 50 year old man and a 10 year old girl can conceive a child. two 30 year old men cant. which one is deserves to have a child? which one has the better relation? which one deserves rights?
totallysickawesome 10 months ago
@totallysickawesome tbh i really dont have a BIG issue with gay ppl but come on man bisexual? really? talk about greedy man.
nevascared123 10 months ago
@nevascared123 haha nah it just to up my chances of getting laid.
totallysickawesome 10 months ago
@nevascared123
Don't see how that is relevant?
GeorgeL864 9 months ago
@aehre2 Well whatever but not allowing gay people to marry is discrimination. Religion has no place in this...it should have no effect but it does sadly... : /
gaylolful 11 months ago
i don't understand are you against gay marriage or for it?
crazyrock16 11 months ago
@crazyrock16 read the title. it says he is for it haha.
totallysickawesome 10 months ago
I have heard it both ways, that we are a Democracy, and that we are a Republic. But, Jefferson said that we are a Democratic Republic, which is a composite of both. Conservative religious people will never condone gay marriage. Democrats will never concede that gay marriage should be outlawed. People on the far left will often state that marriage is reactionary, and thus must be abolished along with the family. There isn't much that is going to change these opinions. What matters is power.
JasonDamisch 11 months ago
fuck gay rights
gays are a threat to civilised society
they are sick evil and more likely to be pedofiles
harj2009 11 months ago
@TheLyricalChode An argument for the ages by a person with great English skills.
MrConverse827 11 months ago
debate dissolves...
Keatrocity 11 months ago
Demanding some kind of legal affirmation of gay "marriage" represents a crucial misunderstanding of what marriage IS, by definition as well as by societal imperiaive. The incessant, emotionally-charged objective of "gay rights gay marriage" is one of psychology nothing more. Wanting to feel apart of, understood, belonging, varified...etc It wouldn't be marriage, just stop. It would be something wholly apart, wholly divorced (excuse the pun) to what marriage is by nature. Understand that and the
Keatrocity 11 months ago
Two hemispheres here, and they need to be defined.
Legality: marriage is an affirmed societal union to which the responsibilities of procreation and species advancement (high priority) are made attendant upon.
Morality (ought action): our individual biologies posses an effortlessly fluent clue to the goal and function of our body. The puzzle piece analogy is less crass than further explanation of this point.
(cont)
Keatrocity 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Homosexuality is wrong and dangerous. Homosexuality comes from the devil. Homosexual: Sex, children and marriage is a disgrace. I'm against LGBT rights. Just remember, make the wrong decision, you'll burn in hell forever. FOREVER. It's your life
LongLiveIsrael0 11 months ago
Homosexuals are wrong. Its nothing personal but it goes against nature. It's Adam an eve. Not Adam and Steve
nazislayer2012 1 year ago
Though im not saying that im against this, I am looking forward to the government giving the same amount of rights. However, there is a clear cut definition on how a marriage is defined or perceived by the law. If the criteria for this is outside of this boundaries because it does not compose the actual society's definition of a family unit (father, mother and children)
We are a democratic country but it doesnt always mean we have to change laws, we have the ability to add laws for special cases
HanzoHattori23 1 year ago
The problem how we see marriages is we combine the perception of the church as the unity within the marriage AND a civil union. In the eyes of the law. Marriage / civil union should have similarities in the rights of the law as it is a binding special contract. The issue that gays are pushing the term marriage is that there is somewhat more concrete that just saying civil unions. The problem is that traditionally, by law, marriage is indeed defined as something that is between a man and a woman
HanzoHattori23 1 year ago
Wikipedia causes your argument lose credibility man. Use more credible resources to make your points.
BoyOmi3715 1 year ago
@BoyOmi3715 Wikipedia is actually as useful as its sources are. The article I linked and the aspects I referenced are well supported by their sources. Nice try.
JasperAvi 1 year ago 2
@BoyOmi3715
There were 3 other sources as well, and some of the wikipedia sources are incredibly well written.
GeorgeL864 9 months 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 -- and champion of the Constitution!
vechorik 3 months ago
I agree with u 100% What i dont get is people that say God wouldnt want this God hates Gay people but how do they know what God loves Is that because some 1000 years ago some Wrote a book God passed on a message that he loves everyone i think if God came down ehre and saw everything that was going on he would be very sad to see all this i mean come on God dosnt make mistakes here people if someone is gay they are born gay it isnt a life choice And if u say it isnt well how would u know unless u
Wentworth1970 1 year ago
@WhiteMexWolf you are so stupid. fucking white house. Homosexuality Is An Abomination And A Sin
SmartBoy224 1 year ago
Gay Marriage is stupid. Gay marriage is against God's law.
SmartBoy224 1 year ago
WhiteMexWolf 1 year ago
i like the 5th person gays shouldnt marry fuck them lol they should be kiled they r not born tht way they choose to be gay ur werent born with a dick in ur mouth hahah u choose to be gay and stop acting like u know everything about history
MrAvamonster1 1 year ago
@MrAvamonster1 R U gay??
iceribbongirl 1 year ago
@MrAvamonster1 Are you gay??
iceribbongirl 1 year ago
ur soooo cuteeeeee
Madelicious112 1 year ago
i love this vid so much!!
Bxg1549 1 year ago
There's nothing wrong with gay people... They can't do anything about it... You are it or not...
slakrop20 1 year ago 2
fuck gays
cmr123100 1 year ago
@TheLyricalChode What knowledge do you have about what the world was created "for"?
XforeverlongingX 1 year ago
@TheLyricalChode you're mature.
Stevhoe123 1 year ago
U need to settle down there psycho
colinrowley18 1 year ago
@TheLyricalChode
U need to settle down there psycho
colinrowley18 1 year ago
@aehre2
your unsure whether its a civil right issue or not, so you will dismiss him for that basis and you wont dismiss discrimination? wow you sure know how to make choices to your preference, regardless of the evidence out there. Forget getting yourself educated just dismiss anything pro gay because your not "sure"
well marriage is a "PERSONAL RIGHT" so yes its a right bitch, go get yourself educated i ain't gonna school your dumb bitch ass if your just going to dismiss this as well.
wetdream09 1 year ago
@TheLyricalChode
LOL
Thoroughly convincing argument.
JasperAvi 1 year ago 10
This has been flagged as spam show
Symptoms of homophobia - When a faggot or dyke is present, the person must have rapid heart beat, feeling of panic, feeling of terror, shortness of breath, feeling of dread, trembling...Homophobia must be held to the same diagnostic criteria of all the other phobias: If not, it's not a phobia......NO ONE IS A HOMOPHOBIC...The term "homophobia" .is out right DECEIT...Gays have taken the term "phobia", lied about it and misused it as an insult weapon to verbally beat people into submission
checkmcheckmcheckm 1 year ago
I hate gay supportes their douches! Someone come help me argue with the douches on a video called "that's not gay" all the fags are flippin out on me. Their so fucking ignorent or howev you spell it.
jo951000 1 year ago
@jo951000 LOL
JasperAvi 1 year ago
@jo951000 First of all you are ignorant. <-btw that is how you spell it dumb ass. Hate is such a strong word and how can you hate someone you don't even know. The word you used "their" is incorrect. You meant to say they're. Wow. You are a great example of ignorant.
iSmileWhenImSad 4 months ago
@jo951000 you know ignorance is bliss....you must be the happiest person in the world....
rimby1 3 months ago
gay therapy
yahmana 1 year ago
a new law should force gay people to seek therapy
yahmana 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
how can you put your penis in someone's shit then put it in his mouth, and yet think that it's a very pleasurable behavior. It's amazing on how we could be blinded to even eat each others shit. similar disgusting community would be the vampire community where members pleasure drinking blood
yahmana 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
how can you put your penis in someone's shit then put it in his mouth, and yet think that it's a very pleasurable behavior. It's amazing on how we could be blinded to even eat each others shit. similar disgusting community would be the vampire community where members pleasure drinking blood
yahmana 1 year ago
how can you put your penis in someone's shit then put it in his mouth, and yet think that it's a very pleasurable behavior. It's amazing on how we could be blinded to even eat each others shit. similar disgusting community would be the vampire community where members pleasure drinking blood
yahmana 1 year ago
how can you put your penis in someone's shit then put it in his mouth, and yet think that it's a very pleasurable behavior. It's amazing on how we could be blinded to even eat each others shit. similar disgusting community would be the vampire community where members pleasure drinking blood
yahmana 1 year ago
@Sidney38SNJ You're bound for disappointment then.
sessakag 1 year ago
I wonder if gays know that the definition of marriage HAS been changed, and that this was the original definition:
ronunciation: 'mar-ij also 'mer-
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Old French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century
1 a : the state of being married b : the mutual relation of husband and wife : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family
sessakag 1 year ago
@Sidney38SNJ Things are never going to change. We like them the way they are, and no buttpirates and cunt lickers are going to change that. Best advice
I can give, keep your perversity to yourself. Keep it in the closet.
sessakag 1 year ago
Most of America has voted no on 'Gay marriage'. The people have spoken, end of story. Stop whining and get on with life.
sessakag 1 year ago
In those links you provided, some of them did not work, wikipedia is a website where information is put in by anyone, so that's not reliable, and the other links about civil right: no where did it say anything about sexual orientation. Gays say they should have the right to gay marriage because they think it's right, so isn't it fair to say that those that want marriage to stay as it should have a say in it as well? The only fair way to make a decision is to vote fairly and we have.
sessakag 1 year ago
Soo TRUE
phins2011 1 year ago
You need to sleep! Your bags are so dark I can tell your tired
chefseb29 1 year ago
I have yet to hear an argument against gay marriage that wasn't used against interracial marriage when states had laws against that. Same rhetoric repackaged over and over to support bias and prejudice.
HeraclitusRocks 2 years ago
All sound arguments.
Thank you for your support of marriage equality.
filmstocker 2 years ago
u use big words
abbyinreallife 2 years ago
Comment removed
kerplunk288 2 years ago
Comment removed
kerplunk288 2 years ago
Thank you!!
cindylauryn 2 years ago
Occasionally I have heard a person whos anti-homosexual marraige say the gov shouldnt get involved at all.
But 2 issues.
If the gov didnt get involved that would effectively lift any restrictions theists could replace on homosexual marraige.
The church couldnt stop willing priests or judges from marrying homosexuals.
So getting the gov out of this would be the worst for the haters.
Now that would be favorable to many homosexuals, but theres also part 2 to consider
waltermh111 2 years ago
Marraige is not just a religious or cultural institution.
Its a legal institution.
One person below asked, why make marraige the contract that gives rights between people automatically, why not just declare whoever you want whenever.
Acknowledging the special privilege people have with each other through marraige simplifies things. It generally leaves nothing to question.
And yes, life isnt ideal and often people are fightign over the unconscious, at least the married couple dont have to
waltermh111 2 years ago
It would likely be fine with most homosexuals to have civil unions instead of marraiges if that will give theists their sacred word, while giving homosexuals same social status and legal privileges that go with the marraige contracts
Sadly, in many states which have outlawed marraige, they have also outlawed anything resembling marraige including civil unions, from being allowed for homosexuals to take part in
In other states, civil unions still do not have equal privileges that marraige has
waltermh111 2 years ago
One of problem with the rights arguments that theists put forward is that the issue is, whether its a privilege or not, one group cannot be restricted from having the opportunity to partake in a privilege or right that another group has
If heterosexuals are able to get married, then homosexuals are able to get married. The gov cannot restrict the privilege or right of one group like that
Thats why even in states where homo marraige is illegal, when challenged in court its usually thrown out
waltermh111 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
And this is how the end begins... when gays and atheists take over the world is sooned be condemned
Messo7 2 years ago
and who will condemn this world, your god?
quidproquo2004 2 years ago 2
when reality hits and religious brainwashing isnt allowed any more?
idaman12345 2 years ago
(cont)
Being gay I can understand the desire to marry BUT (and it's a huge but) the institution as a whole is failing miserably. So why not work towards the elimination of marriage for everyone instead? I'll tell you why because there is too much money involved in the marriage industry and the divorce industry. But why not allow everyone to bestow their benefits to whomever they want rather than creating a special class of people with special rights?
cityguyusa 2 years ago
First off as far as I remember marriage is defined as between two people not between a man and a woman. Between a man and a woman was added when DOMA legislation was signed into law which I believe was under Clinton.
As far as it being a "right" we are suppose to have "equal treatment under the law" so technically if one person is entitled to marriage so are everyone else.
Historically marriage was used to retain real estate and wealth within a family and as you say not for emotional reasons.
cityguyusa 2 years ago
woohoo! great video. the ending was particularly satisfactory.
seasecret658 2 years ago
I think I may have been a super meanie! :(
JasperAvi 2 years ago
@JasperAvi You were not mean at all bro.
At least its not acceptable for the haters to leave us bleeding to our death tied to a fence post anymore, but it wasn't that long ago either...
w3llphuqm3s1lly 1 year ago
Gay people suck? That's usually a compliment to us. ;-) We do it quite well, thankyouverymuch!
Anyway... I digress. A great rebuttal to the most common arguments. Considering that New York is considering gay marriage (since they already lose all their revenue out of state and then recognize that out of state marriage, which is just silliness), I'm sure you'll get to make another video on this topic soon enough.
So glad I subbed a few days ago.
AshaVahista 2 years ago
Yes, I'm anxiously looking forward to seeing how this goes in New York. And you're right, I'm sure there will be a video to follow that as well. :-D
Thanks!
JasperAvi 2 years ago
We should not allow bachelors to marry, for a bachelor is defined as one who is not married.
QED.
IAmTheScum13 2 years ago
Agreed.
We also shouldn't allow widows to marry the person they were married to before they died, for widows are defined as having been married to that person who was then deceased.
JasperAvi 2 years ago
Further debunking the "traditional marriage" argument, many societies had marriage as one man and many women. Polygamy was common, so why is it illegal now? If someone wants to enter into a polygamous relationship and they are of legal age, I think it should be legal, why isnt it?. The "tradition" people speak of isnt much of a tradition at all. Government shouldnt be involved in marriage, only civil unions. Marriage should stay religious, and have no special privelages.
kosmoincalgary 2 years ago
More great points.
JasperAvi 2 years ago
The US is a democracy, that happens to be republic. Democracy simply is a system where people vote for policy/representatives. A republic is a democratic system without a monarch as head of state. Democracy is to a Republic as Christianity is to Catholics, one is a subset of the other.
Initially, rights had to be created by consensus, it just so happens that in the US there are checks against the tyranny of the majority over rights, but not laws and legislation.
kosmoincalgary 2 years ago
At what point in the origin of our country did the rights contained in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution that followed it get thrown to the populous for a vote?
It certainly wasn't born of populous vote.
JasperAvi 2 years ago
Since what is commonly referred to as the Bill of rights is actually the first ten amendments to the constitution, they followed the formula by which those amendments are passed. First, they need to be proposed by a 2/3rds vote by each house of congress, and then ratified by three fourths of the US states.
Since the US is a representational democratic republic, the bill or rights can be said to have been passed on behalf of the population.
kosmoincalgary 2 years ago
The bills themselves weren't, however, passed by means of populous' want of those amendments. They were taken into account the representatives of the people.
JasperAvi 2 years ago
I cant speak of what the popular sentiment of the day was, but one short coming of representative democracy is that the general public only has direct input on government during elections or at the time of refereda. Other than that, the only input is through public pressure, threat of non reelection, and lobbying. At some point someone wont be happy and feel like the democratic system didnt work, such is the limitation of the world we exist in.
kosmoincalgary 2 years ago
This I take no issue with.
Thanks
JasperAvi 2 years ago
Fantastic video. I'm coming from James' suggestion and I am most definitely subscribing.
I'm in the middle of preparing a presentation for my Phil 205 Ethics class on Gay Marriage being permissible. I really like your perspective and black and white facts way of presenting points. Kudos!
rascalflattsgurl43 2 years ago
Thanks so much.
And good luck on the video!
Feel free to use any of the stuff I've said here and make sure to fact source.... See the side ---->
JasperAvi 2 years ago
Not video... "presentation"..... shit lol
JasperAvi 2 years ago
Haha, thanks. We'll see how it goes. I think I present December 1 so I have a little while to pull it together. But I will definitely be looking at your video for a little guidance. Much appreciated :)
rascalflattsgurl43 2 years ago
very good video man
MonsterMo44 2 years ago
I'm subscribing based his video alone.
Strong finish. I like that.
EquitoErgoSum 2 years ago
Thanks :)
JasperAvi 2 years ago
Awesome vid. Das told me about your channel. Subscribed.
TatsujinSan 2 years ago
Thanks much
James has good taste! :-D
JasperAvi 2 years ago
This is not a civil rights issue! I come across this every week. Every man and women has the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. That means nbody is taking that right away from you. The argument that many throw is that same sex marriage is inheritely too. But, who says it is. Besides, government has no inherit interests in promoting gay marriage.
ChessandAnimeGuru 2 years ago
See , that argument is so stupid and nonsensical I'm not even sure it's worth proving wrong.
JasperAvi 2 years ago
This is certainly an individual liberty issue.
As you said, every man and every woman has the right to enter into an exclusively heterosexual marriage. Exclusively heterosexual, get it? IT EXCLUDES HOMOSEXUALS.
It is not the government's job to promote one group of people over another. The government's sole job is to protect the liberties of each individual and therefore guarantee that each individual has equal rights, equal opportunity and protection under the law.
jonnyrocket77 2 years ago
That some of these arguments from hard core Christians (check out
ChessandAnimeGuru's page) are SO frickin' bad may prove helpful in the long run.
Now, does any high-school freshman or bright young person want to eviscerate this argument? It'd be good practice.
Edella 2 years ago
Jasper, allow me.
Guru, picture this: The president is about to sign a new law. This law states that nobody is allowed to go to church or read a bible.
You might see this as discrimination against Christians, but it's really not, because the same restriction applies to atheists, Muslims, etc., thus no particular group is being targeted. You're still allowed to be Christian, you just can't do Christian things.
Show me where my logic is flawed, yet yours is not.
IAmTheScum13 2 years ago
pwnd.
JasperAvi 2 years ago
You are awesome!
userjosh9874 2 years ago
Thanks :)
JasperAvi 2 years ago
I liked your well thought out argument. Good job!
jamiegreuber 2 years ago
2:18
Care to give an account from your belief system, as to how we might make meaningful this issue of "rights"?
To argue that they are constructs, relative in any way, by any means, would seem to remove the stool from the pleading here.
Theologica37 2 years ago
I'm saying that via the structure of the guaranteed equality set forth by the bill of rights, straight into the constitution, it is in fact a revocation of the rights of homosexuals to disallow them from engaging in an allowance granted to all others (specifically because there is no negative consequence spawning from this allowance).
JasperAvi 2 years ago
bootylicious vid, n1
sureup 2 years ago
Well Done :)
mruss4u 2 years ago
3 isnt even an argument! It's just an baseless assertion.
bobble12221 2 years ago
(The one in the sidebar that is, not your rebuttal!)
bobble12221 2 years ago
I've yet to hear a logical, rational argument against gay marriage.
bobble12221 2 years ago
Is this really that important of an issue? People should be heated about the falling value of the dollar and record deficits.
31 states say no to gay marriage. The people have spoken and they have said loud and clear NO GAY MARRIAGE NO GAY MARRIAGE NO GAY MARRIAGE.
Marriage is between a Man and a Woman. What is so hard to understand? What don't you get? You don't get special treatment because you are gay.
TheLibertariansUnite 2 years ago
@TheLibertariansUnite, you should change your name then to lying sack of shit. if you truly believe that goverment should stay out of your wallet, shouldn't it stay out of our bedrooms too? and wouldn't they believe in minding their own business when it comes to morality issues
MrRockythesquirrel 2 years ago 3
Agreed.
Libertarians support individuals, whether they are gay or straight, having the freedom to define marriage for themselves.
They do not support imposing a collectivist state enforced definition on society as a whole.
jonnyrocket77 2 years ago
I responded to all of these arguments in the video. Are you dense?
JasperAvi 2 years ago
1) As Avi said, if 31 states voted that you wouldn't be allowed to get married, just because they don't like you, you'd flip your shit and demand equal treatment, an rightfully so under the constitution.
2) You have to justify the statement that marriage is between a man and a woman, and then you have to justify why the definition is sacred and can't be changed.
dylantuzyk 2 years ago
Liberalism is a mental disorder... These were some very weak arguments.
1.) Sigh.. Irrelevant hypotheticals... That can't happen because of the bill of rights. You can get married, but it is defined as being between a man and a woman. So nobody is discriminating against you.
2.) Marriage has always been between a man and a woman for thousands of years. How do you justify changing it because you want to? Those that want to keep marriage traditional don't have to justify anything.
TheLibertariansUnite 2 years ago
1 comment should suffice to answer both of these:
Both the bill of rights and the shape of marriage have changed numerous times over the years. The only reason to deny homosexuals the right to marriage with each other is because of a deeply ingrained prejudice.
JasperAvi 2 years ago
So essentially your justification for asserting that the definition of marriage can't be changed is the fact that it's been that way for a long time? That's a very weak position to take.
dylantuzyk 2 years ago
The justification for the argument that it should be changed, however, is because there is essentially no difference between a man marrying a woman and a man marrying a man. Unless you're speaking from a religious standpoint (in which case, fuck off), a guy marrying a guy doesn't mean anything to you. But it means EVERYTHING to them, and therefore it's a very unfair position for them to be in.
The only person a gay guy can marry is one that he would have absolutely no interest in. It sucks.
dylantuzyk 2 years ago
You criticize people for making, in your opinion, weak arguments, then you go and post a logical fallacy, argumentum ad antiquitum, as yours.
An appeal to tradition is a valid argument as to why Churches shouldn't change their definition of marriage, and IMO the 1st Amendment protects them from having to do so against their will, but it is an invalid argument as to why secular institutions, such as the government, should not recognize same sex marriages.
jonnyrocket77 2 years ago
If gay marriage became legal, you, as an individual, would still have the freedom to define marriage for yourself as being between a man and a woman, and still have the freedom to act on that belief.
If you ban SSM, you are denying other individuals the freedom to define marriage for themselves as individuals, AND the freedom to act according to those beliefs
jonnyrocket77 2 years ago
You need to study up before you around proclaiming yourself to be a libertarian.
Being a disgruntled neo-con does not make you a libertarian.
jonnyrocket77 2 years ago 2
It's funny because he's taking a stance that is certainly not libertarian in the slightest
dylantuzyk 2 years ago
Marriage has always been between a man and a woman?
Read this: end0twikipediad0torgSLASHwikiSLASHHomosexuality#History
Liberalism is a mental disorder?!?
You call yourself a Libertarian?
Seriously, if you believe that, you CAN'T be a Libertarian. Go join the National Socialist Party.
Honestly, what kind of fool says that desiring personal freedom is a mental disorder?
(continued)
stormc1nd3r 2 years ago
"You assist an evil system most effectively by obeying its orders and decrees. An evil system never deserves such allegiance. Allegiance to it means partaking of the evil. A good person will resist an evil system with his or her whole soul." - Mahatma Gandhi
stormc1nd3r 2 years ago
Marriage has always been between a man and a woman, and according to the voters in 31 states it always will. 19 more to go, and the ones remaining aren't that liberal :)
Try asking those kids who get adopted by two gay men how they feel about their parents at age 16. You think they don't know what goes on in the bedroom across the hall at that age?
Won't affect the kids huh? What a liberal moron...
Libertarians believe in equal rights. You don't get special anything because you're gay.
TheLibertariansUnite 2 years ago
The funny thing about this is that the whole "gay parents are weird" attitude is that its self-perpetuating. It's only an issue because people like you keep bringing it up. Granted, it's never going to be the norm, but the healthy development of a child is dependent on the ability of the parents to provide a loving and nurturing home, not the sexual orientation of the parents.
You think the children of interracial couples are ashamed of their parentage just because they're not in the majority?
dylantuzyk 2 years ago
(Furthermore, no, libertarians don't necessarily believe in equal rights. You've shown over and over again that you don't know what libertarianism means. Libertarians very well may believe in equal rights but its not an integral part of the political philosophy. Communism also stresses equal rights, yet communism and libertarianism are totally different.)
And in response to your final statement: research the differences between marriage and civil union and then stop talking.
dylantuzyk 2 years ago
Dylan please don't focus on what YOU THINK what I THINK. I want you to focus on the issue now and not some selfish hate filled hypothetical. Think Real life now:
Ask those kids who get adopted by two gay men how they feel about their parents at age 16. If you think they can walk around proud during the judgemental High School years you're naive, a moron, or both. Being normal is cool, being an outcast isn't.
I'm waiting for an answer as to when your rights were violated.
TheLibertariansUnite 2 years ago
You're right, we should deny gay couples the right to have children because the kids might not be invited to the cool kids' parties. Are you serious?
And, again, the only reason gay couples are seen as weird is because PEOPLE LIKE YOU KEEP SAYING IT IS. If we lived in a more accepting society this wouldn't be an issue. You think gay couples are weird, so you think the kids will think it's weird, which feeds the opinion that it's weird. It's circular.
MY rights were never violated. I'm not gay.
dylantuzyk 2 years ago 6
Also, you grossly generalize teenagers. The high school I went to was very pro-gay-rights, adoption and all. I realize personal anecdotes don't make great arguments, but since when is national policy decided on the basis of what we perceive to be cool for sixteen-year-olds?
dylantuzyk 2 years ago 2
I'm a moron because I think that the government shouldn't be able to tell people whether they can or can't marry?
By the way, if you call yourself a Libertarian, and oppose gay marriage, you're obviously the moron.
Get anything special? Correction, gay people DON'T what anything special, they want to be able to marry, just like everyone else.
How big does an organization have to be for it to be able to tell you what you can and can't do in your personal life?
stormc1nd3r 2 years ago
Yet again, the neocon posing as a libertarian throws up a fallacious argument, and then, on top of that, proclaims to be able to divine the future.
jonnyrocket77 2 years ago
@jonnyrocket77 I'm really done, because this is really a non issue to me and the rest of that 53% majority rule.
To any regular person taken at face value, it's as simple as this: Everybody knows marriage is between a man and a woman. Duh!
Fly right and get with the program.
We'll see you guys at the voting booth in 2010? Maybe that's too soon. Ok maybe 2012 if you're good this time.
Or maybe we will see gay marriage pass either in your dreams or during Reality: The Next Generation.
TheLibertariansUnite 2 years ago
(Ironically, libertarianism opposes pure democracy expressly for the reasons you mentioned. Libertarians oppose majority rule because it means that, say, 53% dictates the 47%'s lives. "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner."
Your little spiel about majority rule is very anti-libertarianism.)
dylantuzyk 2 years ago
or 53 out of 100 voters disapprove of Gay Marriage and only 47 voters out of 100approve.
Seems like of those 100 voters everyone was represented equally. Where is this 2 on 1 majority you speak of?
Majority says No. Marriage is safe for another 2 years at the least, but realistically it is safe for another generation.
TheLibertariansUnite 2 years ago
Exactly my point. Think about the quote I posted.
Same-sex marriage doesn't force straight couples to get same-sex married. But the banning of same sex marriage prohibits gay people from getting married. It's a classic example of the 53% not being content with minding their own goddamn business - EVERYONE has to conform to their defenition of marriage.
Very un-libertarian.
dylantuzyk 2 years ago
Knowing what a Libertarian is, and how to pose a logically valid argument, seems to be a non issue for you as well.
Come back if, and when, those things do become an issue for you.
As to your "right" comment, here's a hint. By your support of the government regulating marriage, you fall to the left of true Libertarians.
jonnyrocket77 2 years ago
Luckily I live in a province where you are allowed to get married straight or gay!!
Hope to see all of you Americans up here however I HOPE THAT IT IS PASSED THROUGH SHORTLY AS A NATIONAL LAW!! --- could we get with the hmmmm beginning of civilization??
sucare1961 2 years ago
Frankly, I've gotten sick of this whole argument anyway, and so I now prefer to take the lazy route and argue: "It doesn't matter if being gay is a choice or not, it's none of your fucking business anyway."
Not very convincing, I know, but I'm so goddamn lazy...
I'll just link to this video from now on :D
dylantuzyk 2 years ago
That would certainly help get the message out :)
JasperAvi 2 years ago
very well said. favorited. (:
bonevillage 2 years ago
Thanks :)
JasperAvi 2 years ago
Are you feeling okay? Hope you are.
VioletKitty411 2 years ago
GO ON JASPER WITH YOUR BAD SELF :)
seoul75 2 years ago
Whoo!
JasperAvi 2 years ago
You are sexy when you get worked up, wanna get married? :) Anyway, great video Avi. The one that gets me is the "it isn't a right" thing when clearly under our system a privilege granted to some but not to others is unequal treatment under the law, and thus the right is "equal treatment under the law". Oh, and nice ending Avi!
ThePunkReturns 2 years ago
that's too funny - actually would love him for my daughter (ahem) ~
sucare1961 2 years ago
Another absolutely amazing video on this subject :) It is sad though... seems to have still gone over some heads.
tattooskin72 2 years ago
Well say it!
Agree 100%. You say it better than me (and now I copy your words as my owns =))
Cheers
PaiSand 2 years ago