Answering Zach Wahls' Case for Same-sex Marriage

[579steven]

Good video Alan! Many people need to see what really was being advance by Zack. Good way of sorting out the distortion of the people's understanding on what really took place..

[mwnau]

You are horrendous.

[Buckerooo]

Yarn.

[LoveThroughSong]

You make very valid points, but I think you're over interpreting Zach's speech. First of all, if we allow same-sex marriage, I think our culture will learn to accept it; second, I think Zach is just implying that making sure that the person you love loves you back. I like what you said, but I think you're going a little overboard with this.

[SuperNerd707]

I liked Zachs video b/c he shows, unknowingly, that the debate over same sex marriage is more philosophical. We can’t asses how a child turns out to be within the context of simply the sex of the parents. If that was the problem, then as a society we would ban couples (same sex or not) from having children who prove incompetent.We would have some testing procedure to see who could possibly be “good” parents. Also, we can’t close off a definition just b/c we don’t want to challenge another...

[jasonwojnicz]

And furthermore what of these heterosexual women out there that are using sperm banks to conceive out of wedlock? Are they any less a family? Are they not entitled to the "family" that they have chosen to have? Should these families not be protected by law? Should these women be forced to contact the donors and force them to be a father? I'm really tired of the same old backwards talk that the fundamentals of marriage and family have been the same through out history when it has NOT!

[jasonwojnicz]

Ok so how does this work for you. Revoke all Government Issued and Recognized "Marriage Licences" and only have civil registries. Honor killings have also been an institution used through out history to "strengthen a family". We managed to do with out this for some time now. Just so that you know "marriage" it self has been "redefined" and used in however way the currant society at the time needed it to function, through out history.

[Stan597]

Thanks for saying it plainly Brett!

[ummmeow]

plenty of kids turned out screwed up even if being raised by a traditional mother and father, and yeah, a lot of kids miss out when they are raised by a single parent, but i dont hear people crying out to deny those parents their rights to their children....there are so many things wrong with this argument that i dont see how it holds up except by people who are dying for a reason to block same-sex marriage.

[clubindiana4]

Sounds like somebody needs a tall glass of hater-aid!!!!

[anonleft]

Halfway in not a single compelling argument. You point out an exception doesn't prove the point - sure doesn't, but the repeated research that fails to find any evidence of disadvantage for children of same-sex couples short of that by those discriminating against their parents like you advocate DOES. I'm not going to bother with the second 7 minutes. If you can't find an argument in the first 7 that stands up to any scrutiny at all...

[tugboat2030]

7:30 The issue is Varnum v. Brien is that Iowa's marriage laws gave no distinction between the gender of the two people being married. All it limited marriage to was two people, not related closer than first cousins, that's it. What happened was people were interpreting this non-gender specific law to exclude same-sex marriage. The law didn't exclude them, and the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that people should not exclude them either.

[sofronio]

In your pro-traditional-family argument, you mention nothing of divorce. Isn't that taking a sledgehammer to the core institution of family too? Your thoughts...

[clubindiana4]

I love his argument!

If we make ashtrays out of Frito's....then gay marriage will sweep the land!

[Jamieishere1]

You additionally use a slippery slope fallacy with polygamy etc... which is.. a fallacy. Even ignoring it's fallacious nature, if allowing one thing due to having no consistently applicable principal via which to prevent it means a second thing should also be allowed... then there is no principal to deny either... so obviously both should be allowed anyway.

Please include a summary of your research claims findings from one of the major medical associations (and not just 1 on single parents).

[Jamieishere1]

I disagree with lagosz1... you spent waaaaaay too much time discussing how wonderful zach was and how this alone shouldn't convince us (tho you were right). Your point about him being a one off example could have also just been summarised as "It was a generalization based upon anecdotal evidence".

Marriage is a legal contract, hence defined by the state. I hope you don't seriously think ancient marriage was as it is today...

Neither love nor procreation are essential for marriage.

[daome2012]

The comm. box proves many of your points.

Alan Keyes put it this way "When people find concepts and definitions laughable,that means they want to engage in irrationality.

[clubindiana4]

@daome2012 "Alan Keyes put it this way"

Alan is such a great example. He raised a beautiful lesbian Daughter named Maya.

He threw her out and cut her off when she came out.....I guess he must find the "concepts and definitions" of the unconditional love of a parent "laughable".

[daome2012]

@clubindiana4

"...unconditional love of a parent..."

Actually...moral/cultural relativist' insisting that there *is* a definition, that all should use, is laughable.

"...I watched Big Love on HBO..."

Wow!?...poor soul.

[Jamieishere1]

@daome2012 Words and definitions change over time. Language naturally evolves. "Marriage" was derived from many other words, has been repeatedly redefined throughout history and is defined by the state given that it is a legal contract.

[daome2012]

@Jamieishere1

"Words and definitions change over time..."

So...by the time *i* reply to your post, *i* redefine the words that were intended to catechize me to post-modern thought to now affirm my position and...i "win"?...

Really!?

"...defined by the state..."

How about the words used in the contract?

[Jamieishere1]

@daome2012 No, over time meaning... over time... not spontaneously and in unison. Words change individually and gradually as there is a recognised need for them to do so, such as when centuries of religiously-reinforced prejudice starts to die down and individual rights come to be more thoroughly recognised, as they have done increasingly during modern history.

The words in a contract (which are chosen by the state) may likewise broaden in meaning etc, as time goes bye.

[Jamieishere1]

@daome2012 I believe it is judges job's to interpret the law and their interpretation may therefore change over time (which can include the setting of legal precedents, which affect all future similar rulings).

The law is also constantly changed and modified in instances where it is recognised to be inadequate or flawed, which is one of the primary functions of government.

Read Shakespeare or the KJV of the bible for definitive proof that words do change over time.

[athenabutterfly7]

Omg wish you would atop moving back and forth on the screen...its annoying! Anywho that's besides the point. I just lost 6 minutes of my life...cuz I stopped I after that. I am a single mother and my daughter is being raised without her father...should single motherhood be outlawed??? You're an idiot...

[logofreetv]

@athenabutterfly7 I don't think you listened properly to what he said.  You've made a ridiculous conclusion that is absolutely the opposite of what he said.

[clubindiana4]

I spent 15 minutes on this load of crap?

Gay marriage is bad because ashtrays are not food? Prefaced with more silly slippery slope drivel about incest and polygamy?

If this is the best you've got.....get ready for full gay marriage.

Being a bigot and promoting more hate mongering toward gays is OK...because blind people can't drive and children can't vote?

I want my 15 minutes back.

[logofreetv]

@clubindiana4 it seems that you are incapable of understanding simple arguments. Polygamy is already getting pushed (yet you claim it is "drivel") and what is it about male and female being complementary that is too difficult for you to understand? How is describing reality about the human body "promoting hate'? Sorry, but all I see is your own hatred.

[clubindiana4]

@logofreetv "Polygamy is already getting pushed"

So what? I watched Big Love on HBO....they seemed fine....whats the big deal?

"Genesis 4:19 And Lamech took unto him two wives. "

If the Bible teaches it....how bad can it be?

"male and female being complementary"

Congratulations....you've discovered heterosexuality...have you alerted the scientific community? How does this in any way reflect on the "male/male complement" of homosexuality? Keep trying.........

[duckynmumble]

@clubindiana4

"If the bible teaches [polygamy]...how bad can it be?"

The Bible DESCRIBES polygamy it doesn't PRESCRIBE it...two very very different words :)

[logofreetv]

@clubindiana4 no, the Bible DESCRIBES it, which is worlds away from commanding it. And given that you would not exist without male/female, I'm not going to argue with a stupid person.

[Jamieishere1]

@logofreetv I'll PM you regarding anatomical compatibility but I'll just point out that the premise that the possibility to which we are anatomically most efficiently predisposed is the only morally legitimate form of expression is unjustified.

Whether or not polygamy is "getting pushed" is a separate issue from whether or not ss marriage is. As you rightly said in your video, things should be considered on their merit, in this case, their OWN merit.

[logofreetv]

@Jamieishere1 your opening paragraph is pseudointellectual nonsense.Of course it is immoral to consider inherently infertile and unhealthy sexual practices OK, especially when one can plainly see how the human body works.Your attempted parsing of the issue in your second paragraph is also lacking in sound thinking.The point is that the SAME rationale can be used so therefore you cannot logically claim one is OK without opening the door to the other.The 2 are connected whether you like it or not.

[clubindiana4]

@logofreetv ".Of course it is immoral to consider"

Of course...it is not your place to define morality for others....therefore, your entire point is moot.

Epic Fail

[Jamieishere1]

@logofreetv That you failed to comprehend my point does not make it "pseudointellectual nonsense". You truly believe I would go to the trouble of constructing a meaningless sentence purely for some kind of pseudointellectual point scoring...?

It was likely a response to something in the video tho so sorry if it wasn't clear what I was responding to.

Whether or not the same rationale can be used to refute attacks on polygamy is irrelevant to whether or not it is a sound rationale.

[Jamieishere1]

@logofreetv Consequences that you find unpleasant do not invalidate a rationale. The rationale is invalidated if you can find fault with it. As I said (and you said in your video), things should be judged on their OWN merit.... consequences of them, that you may have an irrational aversion to tell us nothing about the validity of the rationale. Whether or not you can demonstrate the rationality of your aversion by successfully critiquing the rational is what tells us whether or not it works.

[Jamieishere1]

@logofreetv I'm not sure we're debating "sexual practises", though any claim that infertility invalidates a relationship obviously applies to all infertile (and post-menopausal) couples and post-menopausal people, just as much as to any same sex couple. Why is procreative potential an essential criterion of any relationship according to you?

If your problem is with sexual health then it's likely with (lack of) condom use more than anything else, which applies to all sexually active people.

[duckynmumble]

Wow! Well said!!! =) it's not about now, it's about how this can affect our future generations to come =) Thank you sir for giving this amazing point of view! God bless!

[Jamieishere1]

@duckynmumble Yes, perhaps ss marriage legalization will stop the persecution and bullying that ultimately leads to high LGBT teen suicide and other negative outcomes.

The assumption that it will negatively impact future heterosexual marriages seems to presume that homo relationships are inferior (and therefore bring down hetero ones), which basically confirms the entire argument that denying marriage to ss couples relegates them to and is indicative of 2nd class citizen status.

[duckynmumble]

@Jamieishere1

I don't see how ss marriage will decrease/stop LGBT teen suicide...there's people out there that seriously bully teens, and it's not only those in the LGBT community, that begins with the parents, that's why it's important to have a dad and mom that seek God because they will be guided in the right path...marriage has always been between a man and a woman, it's been that way since the first humans were in this world

[Jamieishere1]

@duckynmumble Having a separate partnership institution for LGBT people likely acts as a form of psychological legitimization in the minds of those that bully LGBT teens. People often refer to the legality of things when justifying stances on points of moral contention.

It's the kids of dad's and mom's that "seek God" that lead to a lot of the bullying because they teach their kid that "homosexuality is an abomination"... again potentially psychologically legitimizing mistreating LGBT people.

[duckynmumble]

@Jamieishere1

"the kids of dad's and mom's...lead to a lot of the bullying" hmmm I highly doubt that...unless those parents are going to a congregation that says to hate, then yeah those parents impose that....that's why it's important to understand the Bible...God doesn't say hate the SINNER...he says to HATE the SIN and LOVE the SINNER. People must understand that God is LOVE :)

[clubindiana4]

@duckynmumble "People must understand that God is LOVE :)"

How do you suppose Amelek felt about Gods love in Samuel 15:3 ?

"Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey"

I'm not feeling the love.

[duckynmumble]

@clubindiana4

lol...it wasn't Amelek, it was the Amalekites (people)...one thing, the Amalekites were responsible for ambushing God's people, the Israelites...they oppressed them and killed them...you can compare this to the war...the military is told to protect, so they gotta do their job and if it comes to that point to defend and the enemy is attacking, well they gotta defend...so technically it can show love, God is showin love for his ppl, lettin em know God's got their back

[clubindiana4]

@duckynmumble "God is showin love for his ppl, lettin em know God's got their back"

Mass murders make me feel so loved! How about you?

[duckynmumble]

@clubindiana4

The problem was that the Amalekites rebelled against God, they decided not to seek Him and do their own thing. I feel loved by God because I know He loves me, why do u think Jesus was sent to die on the cross? He died for all of us, to have the opportunity to be saved. It's like the parents, the parents aren't gonna allow their kids to continue in their mischievous ways, they'll be disciplined. God tried plenty of times with them but they still disobeyed

[clubindiana4]

@duckynmumble "God tried plenty of times with them but they still disobeyed"

I can relate to god on this one....I've been trying to enforce a policy change at work for several months and have been met with disobedience....should I just kill them all?

[duckynmumble]

@clubindiana4

lol nope =) maybe you should speak to each individual personally and see what the problem is as far as to why they wish not to follow the policy change. Is it something they're not used to? Is it something they rather not have? Is it something to benefit your workplace? =) Encourage them, don't kill them =)

[clubindiana4]

@duckynmumble "Encourage them, don't kill them =) "

Are you saying that god should have encouraged the Amalekites instead of slaughtering them?

[duckynmumble]

@clubindiana4

God had already shown all the people who He is, yet they [Amalekites] chose not to accept Him...God tries with everyone, Including the Amalekites, but since they didn't listen and rejected God as savior, God has the power to do as He wishes...He knows best, unlike us as humans :)

[clubindiana4]

@duckynmumble "God had already shown all the people who He is"

Has he?

Whats he need all those missionaries for then? Isn't that kind of a waste of effort?

[duckynmumble]

@clubindiana4

Sure has lol =) One by His inspired word which gives evidence for God and His son Jesus who was given up on the cross for the sins of ALL =) obviously you might not believe in the word of God but Jesus did live on this Earth so u must believe Jesus was actually someone who really did roam this Earth. Missionaries aren't a waste of time, they reach out to people by using the WORD of God to show them who God is =) because of missionaries people can come to know Christ =)

[clubindiana4]

@duckynmumble "evidence for God"

Evidence? What evidence? Should I turn on the news? Is there some new evidence?

[duckynmumble]

@clubindiana4

lol I'm not sure if u read my entire comment, but as I stated...The Bible is evidence, Jesus is evidence, this world and everything in it is evidence and so is the complex human body is evidence =) you could turn on the news but I think if you do most of the stuff you'll get out of it is about celebrities and whatnot. But all the evidence for God that we need is right before our eyes =)

[Jamieishere1]

@duckynmumble The congregations don't need to tell anybody to hate. They just need to instil the parents with a sense that telling their children that homosexuality is an abomination or some negative thing is a good idea. The parents pass on their biblically (church dogma) derived notion that "homosexuality = bad" to their kids, who then use this concept to justify bullying other people.

I've debated a LOT of heterosexists and religion is an almost constant theme.

[Jamieishere1]

@duckynmumble The vast majority of heterosexism comes from religious people either way. You seem to assume that your God is the right path... yet he is a mass murderer who commands all kinds of horrors in the bible.

Marriage has not always been a man and a woman... polygamy is sanctioned in the bible, which you likely attach great value to, for instance... see Exodus 21:10 and Deuteronomy 21:15-17 for instance.

[duckynmumble]

@Jamieishere1

Polygamy is DESCRIBED in the Bible...not PRESCRIBED =) two very different words just to let you know =) No where does it say a man must marry multiple women...so therefore, marriage HAS been between a man and a woman =)

[Jamieishere1]

@duckynmumble Polygamy is regulated and therefore sanctioned in the bible. Whether or not it is commanded or prescribed isn't relevant to whether or not it is a biblically acceptable variant of marriage, which therefore destroys your claim that marriage has always been between a man and a woman (especially if/when that claim is biblically based) and that this is the only (biblically) acceptable form of marriage.

Marriage has been between a man and as many women as he wanted...

[clubindiana4]

@duckynmumble "that's why it's important to have a dad and mom that seek God"

How will that help bullying when it is usually the christian children DOING the bullying? Who did you think that all the diversity training, gay education, etc... was being aimed at? Certainly not the gay children!

Why create more christian children when THEY are the problem?

".marriage has always been between a man and a woman"

Church Marriage maybe....secular marriage belongs to the people.

[duckynmumble]

@clubindiana4

spam I see...anyway, those "christian" children doing the bullying, I highly doubt it :) unless they were brought up by different values than the Bible, then yes, those "christian" children cause the bullying...the children that SEEK God and STUDY the Bible understand that GOD is LOVE, his ultimate commandment is to LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR, not bash on him...Love the sinner, hate the sin :) A true Christian knows love, the one that doesn't is being mislead

[clubindiana4]

@duckynmumble "unless they were brought up by different values than the Bible"

Different Christians = different perceptions of scripture(Westboro Church?)

Christians are actually going to court to retain their right to bully other non christian children in public schools.....bullying certainly seems like a christian value!

[duckynmumble]

@clubindiana4

Ah WBC, horrible interpretation of the Bible, they pull out scripture and leave it off to the side when instead they should focus on the entire thing :) "Christians are..going to court to retain their right to bully other non christian children in public schools" ummm when was this? what case? and from where? because I've certainly not heard of this at all =) bullying isn't a christian value, it's something people do because they're missing something in life...

[duckynmumble]

@clubindiana4

"Church marriage maybe.." Marriage was brought by God...so the only true marriage that is by God is by the church :) That's the type of marriage he honors :) secular/civil is by the people/govt which is approved by the ppl/govt not God :)

[duckynmumble]

@Jamieishere1

And sure maybe ss couple can raise a kid, but ultimately a mom and a dad are needed to be the role models in the child's life...What matters is that people seek Christ, so that they can know what God expects from us =) and i'm not speaking about a religion, i'm speaking about a relationship with Christ...marriage should be kept between a man and a woman

[Jamieishere1]

@duckynmumble Even had marriage always been 1 man 1 women etc etc, so what? Women have been hugely oppressed throughout most of history.... and we haven't had computers until very very recently. Should women therefore loose the right to vote or work etc and computers be banned?

Mom and dad are not necessarily needed, as you admit yourself. Single parents can adopt and studies show that LGBT parents parent just fine. There are also tonnes of kids awaiting adoption with no parents at all.

[duckynmumble]

@Jamieishere1

I think you're kinda straying away...women being able to vote and legalizing same sex marriage is two different things..like saying how to peel an orange and an apple...there are plenty of kids waiting adoption (since you strayed away I will too) yet there's plenty of young ppl out there having unprotected sex (which should be waited till marriage) and having kids instead of thinking straight, if they want kids adopt, if they wanna have sex get married :)

[Jamieishere1]

@duckynmumble Women being able to vote and work is an example of what was "traditionally" totally prohibited. That is it's relevance. I raised it because you were using a "it's always been a man and a woman" argument against ss marriage... I.E. an appeal to tradition. So, by referring to the "tradition" of oppressing women, I provide a counter-example to demonstrate the flaw in your principal (which is an unjustified principal in the first place just fyi).

[Jamieishere1]

@duckynmumble On Hate the sin, not the sinner... that manifests itself as mistreatment of LGBT people, regardless of how you phrase it.

The relevance of there being plenty of kids awaiting adoption is that it isn't the case that orphans are preventing ss couple adoption will assure that all kids are adopted by os couples... what actually happens is those kids just aren't adopted.

You misinterpreted my point as being me straying, which I have clarified above.

[duckynmumble]

@Jamieishere1

I don't see how hating the sin is a mistreatment of LGBT people...

Obviously there are plenty of children that aren't adopted. Some people see it as a hassle, others want their own...sadly not all children will be adopted...which can lead me to another important point of waiting to have sex till marriage...decreases the chances of having an unwanted baby at the time, just maybe, there wouldn't be as many children in need of parents

[Jamieishere1]

@duckynmumble Joshua and Judges aren't just separated, the first 2.5 chapters of Judges have been added in after the creation of the original, as I understand it.

"Hating the sin" involves passing legislation to restrict the freedoms of LGBT people, despite them having no negative impact upon those around them. It also involves indoctrinating kids in to the belief (among others) that homosexuality is immoral and therefore encouraging stigmatization, ostracization and bullying.

[duckynmumble]

@Jamieishere1

"homosexuality is immoral and therefore encouraging stigmatization, ostracization and bullying" well actually yes, homosexuality IS immoral, how is life supposed to produce between man and man or woman and woman? It shouldn't encourage bullying, disgrace or exclusion, Christians should understand to show love because God is love. I dont bully or exclude those that are lgbt community, i show them love and encourage them to find Christ n I know plenty of people that do the same as me

[Jamieishere1]

@duckynmumble YOU WROTE:

"how is life supposed to produce between a m/m or w/w?"

Your question here is not an argument. Why is procreation relevant here? Infertile couples can't procreate... so are they immoral?

Another counter example:

"How can brushing your teeth cause procreation?"

Conclusion: "Brushing your teeth is immoral".

Good for you, yet many people don't do the same as you and do bully etc LGBT people. You likely still oppose equal rights legislation and so are an enabler.

[duckynmumble]

@Jamieishere1

Totally messed up what I was meaning to say, forgive me. Homosexuality IS a sin, not because they can't procreate but because marriage is a gift from God for a man and a woman, hence creation with Adam and Eve. Hetero couples who can't have kids don't fall under immorality because they are living the life God intended for them, to be united as husband and wife.

The how is life supposed to procreate between m/m or w/w should've been separate, which we both know the answer to

[Jamieishere1]

@duckynmumble Np. Homosexuality may be a sin (if you mean according to your specific religious superstition) but of course you haven't presented/justified any reason to brand it immoral. Marriage is a separate issue but legal marriage is not a gift from God... religious marriage may well be, depending on your religion.

I'll PM you anyway because you raise multiple issues which 500 characters is insufficient for a response to.

[duckynmumble]

@Jamieishere1

"You likely still oppose equal rights legislation and so are an enabler"

Well technically we all have the same rights...a heterosexual person can get married...and so can a homosexual person...marriage is between a man and a woman, so we all have that right =) so by definition, heterosexuals and homosexuals have the same rights

[Jamieishere1]

@duckynmumble A relationship with a character in a very old book who, even if he did exist, has no contemporary historical evidence describing what he was actually like... doesn't sound like a particularly important goal.

Why not a relationship with Zeus, Thor, Ra, Krishna, Buddha, or Allah?

Asserting that marriage should be kept between a man and a woman is purely an assertion, not a justified argument.  "No it shouldn't" adds just as much to any debate as your statement... (nothing at all).

[duckynmumble]

@Jamieishere1

It is an old book :) He does exist, there are thousands of manuscripts that back up the Bible, some of them including the Dead Sea Scrolls (you could wikipedia that if u like). "Why not a relationship with..." because they're not God, simple as that :) and back to the beginning, marriage has always been between a man and a woman :) it has been like that till only recently that ppl been tryin to push same sex marriage, before that, man n woman have always married

[clubindiana4]

@duckynmumble (you could wikipedia that if u like)

Or not. Wikipedia is not a reliable source....using it does not help your credibility.

[duckynmumble]

@Jamieishere1

"copies of the bible itself..."

A full scroll of Isaiah which was dated between 100 to 200 BC matched up to our modern Bible by over 95% (minor errors being periods, commas, etc)...oh and the old testament wasn't in chronological order and had no chapters or verses...which can explain why joshua and judges was separated

[Jamieishere1]

@duckynmumble 95% isn't inerrancy and 100-200 BC and is at least 800 years after Isaiah was alive. It's only 1 book of the bible and it's OT, which Christians typically like to discount and is the book that tells us that humans are worthless to God (Isaiah 40:17).

"17 Before him all the nations are as nothing; they are regarded by him as worthless and less than nothing."

Biblical scholars also attribute more than 3 authors to the book of Isaiah.

[duckynmumble]

@Jamieishere1

Idk what christians discount the book of Isaiah, I know I dont and I know many people that love that book "the book that tells us that humans are worthless to God (Isaiah 40:17)" lol this is what happens when it's taken out of context :) It's not that humans are worthless to God, it's that without God how can human life be possible? Were u there when he created everything? Without God we are as nothing...you should consider reading at least the entire chp before pickin n choosin

[Jamieishere1]

@duckynmumble Marriage has not always been between a man and a women. The bible sanctions polygamy such as in Exodus 21:10 and Deuteronomy 21:15–17 and marriage was traditionally a man giving a woman (effectively his property) to another man, often for some form of financial agreement. That's why we still have the tradition today of the father giving away his daughter...

Similarly, in Deuteronomy 22:28-29, if a rapist is caught he must pay the victims father 50 shekels and marry her...

[Jamieishere1]

@duckynmumble Even were you correct that marriage always was between a man and a woman... that would still be irrelevant because what has happened in the past has no bearing on whether or not it is right. Women have been oppressed throughout most of history, denied the vote, the right to work etc thanks in large part to biblical dogma E.G. 1 Timothy 2:12-13. Does this mean that we should continue to deny women the vote and right to work now? No.

All improvement requires change.

[clubindiana4]

@duckynmumble "ultimately a mom and a dad are needed to be the role models in the child's life.."

Really? Jefrey Dahlmer had a mom and a dad....How about Timothy McVey? He had a fine Christian upbringing?

What are you basing your claims on?

[duckynmumble]

@clubindiana4

Actually, Timothy Mcveigh's parents divorced...wait, so did Dahlmer's...Dahlmer was an alcoholic by high school...hmmm Christian upbringing? I doubt, wikipedia doesn't tell me much cuz really I never heard of them till now. As you can see, they didn't have both a mom and dad, this could've affected their way of thinking because the absence of a parent, so yes, as i said before ultimately a mom and dad are needed as role models

[clubindiana4]

@duckynmumble "Actually, Timothy Mcveigh's parents divorced"

So....you are saying that heterosexual divorce creates serial killers???? And yet it's legal and accepted! Gay marriage shouldn't be a problem!

[duckynmumble]

@clubindiana4

Ah so many things to respond to and so little time...anyway

"heterosexual divorce creates serial killers?" uhhh no haha...divorces create problems, sadly. It might not create a serial killer but it creates an absence in a child's life...causing them to find other means of coping...whether it's bullying, drugs, alcohol, killing, so on and so forth. Again, emphasizing the importance of God in a family's life, they'd be able to focus on how to fix fam problems

[duckynmumble]

@clubindiana4

And I base my claims on personal experience, witnessing others, and small research here and there :) But most importantly, having God is the best upbringing...those that study the Bible, not those that go by emotion and by what false teachers claim...With God people change, for the good :) parents are needed

[clubindiana4]

@duckynmumble "But most importantly, having God is the best upbringing..."

That has been repeatedly proven false. Christian countries are consistently among THE MOST violent...as compared with Jainism. Even Islam is considered less violent.

[duckynmumble]

@clubindiana4

What Christian countries are "among THE MOST violent"?

[s2Trigga]

Very well thought out argument. It is good to know there are intelligent people.

What i will say to defend same sex marriage, is that homosexual individuals and couples are second class citizens for being denied the right to marry. It is already enough that same sex couples get discriminated against by people with verbal abuse and physical abuse which have led to murders

The definition of marriage by law of the united states is between two people. Polygamy is therefore voided.

[logofreetv]

@s2Trigga But why just two people? Who are you to deny those who love each other the right to marriage?

[Jamieishere1]

@logofreetv Regarding polygamy, you wrote:

"But why just two people? Who are you to deny those who love each other the right to marriage?"

If you disagree with polygamy then it is your job to answer this, not a proponent of ss marriage's (unless they too share your viewpoint on this matter).

Oh and I couldn't PM you, the silly new layout = no visible PM option :s.

[logofreetv]

@Jamieishere1 no, you are not understanding logic. Once a 'formula' is declared valid for all of reality, you cannot them dismiss unwanted outcomes in other areas. It is simply ignorant to claim that the same argument proposed for the ss crowd cannot be used elsewhere. The point is that because it does cause problems elsewhere, that makes the logic invalid. Consider it this way -I am highlighting an obvious side-effect - already observed in places - and you are just putting your head in the sand

[Jamieishere1]

@logofreetv I do not dismiss unwanted outcomes, I am simply not debating them at this time. I do not consider it relevant that the same argument for ss marriage can be used elsewhere, until it is established that those other possibilities to which it applies are immoral etc. I.E. I'm waiting for you to establish the immorality of polygamy before I care (or need) to comment. However, if you insist, I currently see no problem with polygamy.

[Jamieishere1]

@logofreetv Feel free to now demonstrate a problem with (biblically sanctioned) polygamy. However, if you feel both it and ss couples have problems then it's a waste of time to diverge in to another topic... simply demonstrate the problem with ss couples.instead.

The argument's against ss marriage either fail or do not. If they therefore also fail against polygamy, whoopty doo... polygamy is fine too. That there are no valid arguments against 2 separate issues doesn't make them the same.

[swinginman91]

IM sorry i could only make it halfway through before realizing this guy has no argument. Food is food regardless of how we define it? IM sorry that is a bunch of BULL SHIT!. everything can be defined. and as for marriage: marriage defined or described? im pretty sure we cant describe anything unless it has a definition. for the two are proportional/related to each other. you CAN define something by describing it. this video is full of empty cliches at least Zach was more rhetorical and logical.

[clubindiana4]

@swinginman91 "i could only make it halfway through"

I wish I had read your comment first....I suffered through the whole thing.

Gay marriage has been legal in Denmark for 25 years.....and they STILL can't come up with ONE valid negative effect?

What will these idiots do for a hobby once gays have full equality?

[swinginman91]

@clubindiana4 Im sorry you had to suffer through all of it! and to answer your question by the time gays have full equality, religion will also have evolved and so whatever religion hates then is what these idiots will do for a hobby

[logofreetv]

@swinginman91 Really? Can you change the definition of the word 'sun' or 'asteroid'? Or do they simply describe what already pre-existed?

[Jamieishere1]

@logofreetv You can change the word "sun" or "asteroid" based upon new evidence/knowledge gathered about these things. Say we take a new type of measurement, revise an existing one or find something we believe can only reasonably be classified as an asteroid but that is excluded by a criterion of the current definition... then we change the definition.

Of course this applies even more to marriage, which is a total human construct, which changes over time.

[logofreetv]

@Jamieishere1 Of course you can change the word, but the actual thing described has not changed one iota. You have missed the point. 'Marriage' simply describes the heterosexual coupling and commitment needed to maintain civilisation. (and please don't reply with the idiotic argument that unmarried couples can have sex too. The legal obligations associated with sex were recognised centuries ago as necessary) Marriage is what it is and you are attempting to destroy it.

[Jamieishere1]

@logofreetv Yes the thing described has changed... if marriage changes from only potentially involving 2 members of the opposite sex to potentially also involving 2 members of the same sex... that's a change.

How does a person destroy marriage? That you can invent definitions that specify heterosexuality is irrelevant. 1) It is defined in numerous ways and 2) it can be redefined.

Are you possibly appealing to "tradition"/historical precedent?

Your personal definition is not objective.

[swinginman91]

@logofreetv of course we can change the definition of those words. words have changed definitions for thousands of years. changing a definition is just solely based on how the word is used. if words only had one definition, there wouldnt exist the diverse Symantec Ranges we have now. now as for the origins of definitions they surely do have a history of describing what it initially meant. like the word sun means "to shine"or for asteroid: "planet-like." Words evolve like everything else.

[logofreetv]

@swinginman91 You don't get it do you? The sun is the sun is the sun is the sun - regardless of what word you actually use. For example the word might be different in different languages, but the actual reality is still the same. So marriage is what it is and trying to call something that isn't marriage the same means the word loses meaning the same way if you tried to force people calling a car the 'sun' would. You understand now?

[swinginman91]

@logofreetv you say marriage has two requirements: reproduction, and commitment. well i agree with one of those. Commitment is crucial but it doesnt only exist in heterosexual relationships. and we both know not all heterosexual marriages reproduce or have any kids whether due to being barren or life choices not to have kids. SO your requirement of reproduction in marriage is void, it does not exist. homosexual relationships can be called marriage because they have commitment.

[swinginman91]

@logofreetv and words won't lose a meaning just because we use it in a different way. again refering back to the semantic ranges we can study. so i could call the "shining bright thing in the sky" a car and it would be perfectly valid. it wont lose meaning at all. its simply a new expression/variable to represent something else.

[Gary4Gary4]

Well, he made the speech as an attempt to combat the bigotry that gay and lesbian parents face from people much like yourself. I'm glad that you were able to get it through your head that gay and lesbian parents are "capable" of raising kids but his speech meant so much more.As a child being raised in a same sex household, he is not the "exception". What he was trying to convey is that he is the "norm" and that there is nothing wrong with having two gay parents. Gay parents deserve equal respect

[logofreetv]

@Gary4Gary4 Excuse me? Where was the bigotry? That is just your invention. The point you are refusing to acknowledge is that it is not about individuals, but about what is good for society. What if the opponents brought out someone severely damaged by homosexual 'parents'? Could I then say that is the 'norm'? And even further - does that person deserve your respect? Or do you just say, that is not real? I think you need to examine your own assumptions.

[Jamieishere1]

@logofreetv American Psychological Association:

"In summary, there is no evidence to suggest that lesbian women or gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of lesbian women or gay men is compromised relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents."

[logofreetv]

@Jamieishere1 Given that the APA has effectively dismissed itself from credible opinions on the subject of homosexuality, that quote is utterly worthless. 7 billion people on the planet, ALL of them a result of heterosexual activity, and a bunch of activists giving themselves credentials expect me to be cowed by the effective claim that homosexual activity is normal? Ridiculous! CREDIBLE studies show that children as a group do better by every social indicator with a married mum & dad. FAIL.

[clubindiana4]

@logofreetv "CREDIBLE studies show that children as a group do better by every social indicator with a married mum & dad. FAIL."

LMAO!!! Go ahead and post a link to your pretend "studies" liar!

[Jamieishere1]

@logofreetv The APA have dismissed itself from credible opinions on this subject because they don't happen to corroborate your opinion?

Ya... 7 billion.... too many already tbh. Your point isn't clear though it seems to be suggestive of the notion that "procreation is inherently good".

The APA is the largest mental health organization in the world... hardly "a bunch of activists".

Why is normality relevant?

Children "do better" than what? as a result of what? Marriage? 2 parents?

[maddashecc]

Thank you for this video, I'm going to share it and post it on my website. Do you mind if I upload it to my channel? I'll do it, but if you want me to remove it, please let me know and I will.

[skinnyveganboy]

we don't need a step by step tutorial of how to listen to youtube videos. thanks bye



[brgulker]

People are impressed by him because of who he is and who raised him.

Not his clothes. Not his looks.

And pithy? Unreal.

Missing. The. Point.

[queenrage1]

This is an amazing response. I'm not an emotional driven person, so Zach Wahls appeals for same-sex marriage made me roll my eyes and want to give a curt response. However, you presented the counter-argument is a very simple and beautiful response. Bravo! I will use this method in the future.

[akkitrah]

Conclusion

In summary, there is no evidence to suggest that lesbian

women or gay men are unfit to be parents or

that psychosocial development among children of

lesbian women or gay men is compromised relative

to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not

a single study has found children of lesbian or gay

parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect

relative to children of heterosexual parents.

American Psychological Association

[katieand23]

"You can't answer the question if gay parents can raise a healthy and successful and well adjusted child by simply looking at Zach Wahls"

FALSE. In fact that is exactly what Zach proved. That gay parents can indeed raise a health/successful and well adjusted child. Sure he might not have proven that ALL gay parents can do so, but he already proved homophobes wrong- they said "gay parents can't raise healthy/successful/well adjusted children". He is the living proof of it.

[24boilers]

@katieand23 I don't think you understand the point he made. As he said, yes, Zach "proved" that same-sex parents CAN possibly raise a successful child. However, this is an exception. We can't just point at ONE example and say, "Look, it can be done! Legalize it!" That's an awful way to form our public policies.

[swinginman91]

@24boilers Its only an exception because its not legal yet. If we legalize gay marriage and let them adopt, then they will raise kids like every straight couple, or single parent. ALL studies dealing with human activity forms a normal curve. and the same will be with gays raising kids. half of them will raise healthy kids above the mean and half will be below the mean for health. and remember public policies are made to progress society and legalizing gay marriage will do that

[lagosz1]

This was presented very intelligently, persuasively, & respectfully.You made many points I had never thought about. At first the length of your video worried me that there would be a lot of unnecessary information that could be summed up more concisely. I was very surprised to see the exact opposite. It's amazing how Zach's speech could say so much to move the heart in one direction in such a short amount of time, but to educate and truly inform the mind it takes a bit longer. Great presentation

[mattreisetter]

For the record, Iowa never "codified same-sex marriage into the law". The legislature never took action and the governor never signed a law. Yet in Iowa same-sex marriages are still done -- even though 595.2 of the 2012 Iowa Code Book still stipulates that marriage is between a man and a woman. Why? The Iowa Supreme Court unconstitutionally forced same-sex marriage onto Iowans without "we the people" having any say, whether through a vote of the people, or through a vote of the legislature.

[HotLemonGrenade]

Beautifully said.

[manwiththelowend]

Bravo! A calm and well reasoned response to emotionalism and irrationality!

[DCSaffel]

well said! Thank you! It was hard to get past the emotional plea.

[nowaydudebook]

great stuff. thank you;-)

[Figsx]

very good points!!