Arguments For And Against Same Sex Marriage (2/2)

[me25422]

caller was an idiot. I say idiot the way stimpy says it. ren and stimpy

[Xigano1]

The line between stupidity and bigotry is a fluid one ...

[Robobubbacunta]

The caller is a bigoted moron.

[Sheofthefire]

That guy was amazing.

"Argument 1"

"Rebuttal"

"Argument 2"

"Rebuttal"

"...argument one, slightly louder."

"...? Reminder of rebuttal earlier."

"Argument two, slightly louder."

".... -hangup-."

[ArrogantAtheist]

Atheists FTW!!

[darkenedkaven]

PS Bill learn to spell.

[darkenedkaven]

Straight people are disgusting.

[chrisrl]

i can't belive people like you, you really think that jesus would discriminate against someone because they love someone of the same sex? you disgust me. you are the kind of person that would have believed in slavery

[Aweman11]

The only argument against gay marriage that ever made sense to me was based solely on semantics. That argument has actually been taken away by webster's redefinition of marriage.

[mnewf2002]

Move to Canada Jen, You can marry either or here

[bamboo4tameshigiri]

Re: State

Litters of children make new tax payers.

[willowtreephoto]

i like this show.

[infidel100]

I'm not with the atheist guys at this time, there is someth

[mikecarpenter88]

That caller was freaking stupid. This was really annoying to watch.

[Katalyzt]

★★★★★

[Piscivorus]

If you love someone who loves you back, you are already married. Legal marriage is just another booby trap the government uses to track and control people. Nobody needs it.

[SoullessAtheist]

Really, it's just like all the licenses required by the government to do various things from fishing and driving to marriage and protesting. It's absurd. As long as people must have a license to do a thing, that thing can be denied to people.

[SoullessAtheist]

There are a great many heterosexual couples that can get married with absolutely no intention of ever having children.  There are homosexual couples that have no intention of producing/adopting children of their own but can't marry. It's clearly a discriminatory inconsistency to claim that marriage is to raise children but to allow non-procreative/non- adopting straight couples to marry anyway. Fallacy of Exclusion he's excluding the facts that would destroy his argument.

[ThatLoudGuyMike]

I don't understand why someone would care if two loving adults want to share their lives..

[meloveanna]

you say the caller is close minded, i think the atheists here are just the same.

[oggasteen]

so you really think the caller's argument stood up? that marriage is only for the purposes of raising children? that if you're not gonna have kids, there's no point of marriage? that even though gay couples can already adopt children without marriage, they wanna get married to adopt children? are you sure that's an open-minded interpretation of marriage?

either way, based off what you said earlier, i don't think you know what gay is anyway, so i suppose there's no point arguing with you.

[Chiger23]

The caller is so close minded..

[Katalyzt]

Indeed

[a68rebel]

Uh......A Male & a Female figure have been PROVEN scietifically to produce the most well-adjusted children. Are you guys now going against Science?

[HAPrime]

Please present your scientific PROOF, then wee can PEER REVIEW it and then if it stands up to the review then we can PROVE or DISPROVE something.

[a68rebel]

OK. Try evolution & biology in general. You should read up on some Richard Dawkins.

[oggasteen]

a68rebel: aren't those studies comparing homes with a mom+dad to single parent homes? doesn't that make them illegitimate models for homes with 2 same sex parents?

[47f0]

Comment on a68rebel's channel - "thanks for your support white power "

Explains a lot, doesn't it?

[Mathenaut]

Stats or it didn't happen.

[meloveanna]

technically only one of the women would be having a kid, the other has contributed nothing biologically, which would make her no more than a step parent. You also have to wonder what growing up in a household with 2 lesbians would be like? if they both have a hatred for men, that will likely be inherited by the child, boy or girl. I'm not saying they are all like that but there is not doubt some are.

[HeliosStation]

"You also have to wonder what growing up in a household with 2 white people would be like? if they both have a hatred for blacks, that will likely be inherited by the child, boy or girl. I'm not saying they are all like that but there is not doubt some are."

Just because some people in a specific subgroup are bigoted, that's no reason to refuse rights to the subgroup as a whole.

[oggasteen]

meloveanna: you have no idea what being gay is do you?...it's a same sex attraction, not a hatred for the opposite sex. are u threatened as a man? are you afraid lesbian feminazis are gonna take over the planet by indoctrinating their children to hate men?

and when you say "likely" that usually means 'most', not "some". so what evidence exactly are you basing these conclusions?

[shihouka]

@meloveanna

Excellent idea. We could apply this logic to all the racists, disfigured people, poor people, genetically inadequate people and people with below average intelligence. Future generations will thank us.

[kuroshashu]

Just a wee side note: look up the cuckold rate in your locality. There are many men who consider themselves and are considered to be the fathers of children to whom they've contributed nothing genetically.

[whoarentyou]

lesbians don't innately have an 'hatred for men', that's an assumption. just like gay men don't have a 'hatred for women', in correspondance, being heterosexual would therefor make you hate homosexuals, and therefor is a prejudice as well

so lets make it a crime for parents who have any racial, sexual, or religious prejudice to be able to raise children.

and also the biological contribution has NOTHING to do with what's on the birth certificate, you weren't even listening to what was said.

[whoarentyou]

another note is you technically would need no biological contribution to have children... if a woman is infertile and so is the man, and the woman could still carry a child, if not concieve, they still could carry and give birth to a child, without any biological information... or if they adopted said child, since they aren't legally recognized as a couple, they may have to file for parent status for that child separate and maybe have to pay a fee... i could be wrong on that one though

[kuroshashu]

Haha, I'm never going to get sick of Westboro...

Honestly, I don't support gay marriage because I don't support straight marriage. But, if you're going to have government sponsored inequality, you may as well make it equitable inequality and let the gays in too.

[fantasticalNINJA]

why dont u support marriage?

[kuroshashu]

A number of reasons really. I don't like using contracts to enforce my personal relationships; I don't like governments attempting what amounts to social engineering through tax-breaks and other incentives; I don't like the vestigial enforcement of "traditional" gender roles implicit in the institution and treatment of women as property to be traded.

That being said, I think it's human nature to drift from partner to partner and legal barriers ought not be erected against us doing that.

[Katalyzt]

Exactly★★★★★

[Catkeeper]

They really should have just asked him why he thinks same sex couples shouldn't marry.

The answer will have made it obvious that they weren't going to convince and saved them a lot of time, though it would be very nice if people like him coukd be persuaded.

[TalanOwens]

I felt bad for Jennifer, it seemed to get a little personal and the caller was being so ignorant. Gay people aren't seeking public approval as the caller suggests. Gay marriage is just about a discrepancy in the rights that are afforded to heterosexuals that aren't to gay people. It is unconstitutional and rather discriminatory. Following logic through gay people should have tax benifits since they are actually get less out of that country than straight people.