i'm straight and i believe in God and i support equality..I support gay marriage we are all God's children and are free to make choices lets kick the republicans out of office....go gay people...im so proud of you guys...you guys are the true american...i'm crying im so proud of you guys ...wow i feel it in my heart that you are great people...
"President Obama was elected cashing our checks and making promises to our community, but so far he has failed to be the "fierce advocate" for gay rights that he said he would be." — Yeah, that's not the only thing he lied about, but then, he's a politician, what else did anyone ignorantly expect. I don't believe any of them anymore. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
@quintessential37 I used to think that and in some ways do. But, because 'marriage' has been legal for so long, the only way to give equality to gays is to make 'marriage' available to them. But I don't think churches should be forced to provide it.
Why is did the Urband Rednecks trying to always act like they should persecute homos when the preists and pastors they support molet little boys. I found that an Irony.
Those were gay people praying in the end? What? How can you be gay and Christian? The Bible clearly states that homosexuality is an abomination. God hates fags. This is a fact. Can't be gay and Christian. Leviticus 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination."
I'm not a Christian, so I don't believe this intolerant garbage, but if you are Christian, you have to believe this. It's the word of God. Don't be a hypocrite.
Those were gay people praying in the end? What? How can you be gay and Christian? The Bible clearly states that homosexuality is an abomination. God hates fags. This is a fact. Can't be gay and Christian. Leviticus 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination."
I'm not a Christian, so I don't believe this intolerant garbage, but if you are Christian, you have to believe this. It's the word of God. Don't be a hypocrite.
Gays should be allowed to marry because it's not my business to tell them that they can't. It's a shame more people on the left and right can't learn to respect the freedoms of all people, whether or not they themselves wish to exercise those same freedoms.
@nnjhansen If the groups are consenting adults, the government has no right or duty to restrict their freedoms to push one agenda or the other. You don't have to like gay marriage, you don't have to think gays are doing the right or wrong thing, you just have to respect that they have the right to live their lives in the way they choose, and they should the same for you.
@raohthekenoh The moment a couple asks the state to involve itself in their relationship by recognizing and licensing it, the people of the state have the right to set conditions for that recognition and license. Otherwise, there is no purpose in issuing the license.
@nnjhansen and so long as those people are consenting adults, the state has no right to infringe upon their right to get that license. I personally wouldn't care either way except for the fact that married couples share many benefits that their unmarried counterparts do not. It's not like any state actually restricts marriage between a man and a woman, you can get drunk and get married in vegas and every state in the union recognizes it, not too many conditions there.
@nnjhansen so if the conditions are essentially arbitrary can we go back to not allowing interracial marriages? The point is, the government shouldn't be in the business of condoning one sort of relationship over another, if you're going to give the benefits to one group of consenting adults for being consenting adults, you have no real reason to deny it to another group.
@raohthekenoh The conditions are not arbitrary, they are reasonably related to a legitimate state interest. If one type of relationship is generally able to satisfy that interest and others are not, it is completely legitimate for the state to limit the license to that type of relationship that can.
@nnjhansen If the government can sanction one kind of relationship then they can arbitrarily support or withdraw support from any relationship for the "greater good". any delineation from consenting adults is a COMPLETELY arbitrary reason. We let men and women who have known each other for less than a day marry one another but deny adults who are in a loving and committed relationship the same right? It's not the government's business to play kingmaker.
@raohthekenoh The reason is NOT arbitrary. Marriage exists as a civil institution because it serves a societal function. The man and woman who have known each other for a single day CAN, as a general rule, satisfy that interest. The same sex couple in a loving and committed relationship cannot. It is the government's business to set conditions for the licenses it issues that are related to the societal reason the state issues the license.
@raohthekenoh Allow a noted philosopher and court to answer.
“But for children, there would be no need of any institution concerned with sex.”
“[I]t is through children alone that sexual relations become of importance to society, and worthy to be taken cognizance of by a legal institution.” Bertrand Russell
Since marriage was instituted to address the fact that sexual contact between a man and a woman naturally can result in pregnancy and childbirth" Hernandez v Robles, NY Court of Appeals 2006
@nnjhansen Except that you can have children without being married and childless couples are allowed to be married as well. Even if one or both of the members of the marriage are physically incapable of it. Children are not the only reason we have marriage in a society. Further, It would be easier for gay couples to adopt children if they were able to get married.
@raohthekenoh Children are the primary reason that the state is involved in marriage. Of course you can have children without being married but society believes it best that they be had in the context of a stable and loving relationship between the mother and the father, hence marriage.
The exception of a few individuals who cannot personally have children does not negate the general rule that opposite sex couples can have children.
@nnjhansen The primary reason for marriage is whatever reason the two people involved in it wish for it to be. Many couples don't choose to have them at all, they are not less married than any couple that chooses to do so. I am in complete agreement that a two parent home is best for children, thus allowing gay couples to marry and adopt children more easily suits this purpose very well.
@raohthekenoh You seem to forget that marriage is not simply a contract between 2 parties but 3. The state is a party to marriage (that is why it issues the license) and it is entitled to have it's own purpose for entering it independent of the others'.
It is NOT simply 2 adults that are best but a mother & a father. No same sex couple can provide that.
@nnjhansen so what it boils down to is that you simply don't feel gay people are equal to straight people. And to the point that you can't respect their desires to live their lives and have to interfere with that.
@raohthekenoh No, what it boils down to is that the relationship between a man and a woman is unique in its potential consequence to society. It has nothing to do with any individual not being equal to anyone else.
The lack of a marriage license does not interfere with anyone living their life.
@nnjhansen It's not your job to legislate what is "best" for people. And to be truthful you have no proof of a man and a woman raising better children than any other two parent home, so what you say is essentially based on your own religious beliefs, no actual proof.
Obviously lack of a marriage license for some people and issuing it to others is obviously interfering with some people's lives, because they are protesting it. And if the government does legalize it, does that make it right now?
@raohthekenoh It is the job of the people of the state to decide which relationships serve the state's interests. Whose job should it be? Whether the opinoins of the people of the state are informed by their religion is irrelevant.
How does the lack of a marriage license interfer in your life?
@nnjhansen unfortunately if i read the comments carefully, a child's parents don't have to be married just to love each other and have a healthy relationship
@nnjhansen but what about people who rush marriage and those who only marry because of pregnancy, ended up regretting it. And people use marriage in order to get a divorce and caused some to people to be robbed blind out of everything. I am not trying to say marriage is bad but love is like a game of russian roulette.
@nnjhansen i gone off topic sorry, but as i read deeper in your comments i notice that you seem to agree with allowing couples as raohthekenoh said only meet one day and get married but not allow homosexual people to have the same right if i am understanding properly right?
@civilarchangel Homosexuals have the exact same ability to get married as heterosexuals. The conditions and restrictions on marriage apply to all people equally. Marriage is not a perfect institution, nor is it perfectible. Redefining marriage to allow two people of the same sex to enter it will not make it stronger but will completely divorce it from its societal purpose.
@nnjhansen "Redefining marriage?" Not at all. Lakota chief Crazy Horse had one or two male spouse(s) and many other Native American nations also had same-sex marriages. Ethnographers have documented this. Some examples: Omahas, Zapotecs, Mohaves, Crow, Ojibwas, Winnebagos, Yumas and Timucuas. Other cultures too: In 17th century Fukian Province China, same-sex marriages between gay men seem to have been common. And in West Africa; "woman marriage[s]" --a practice by many tribes in the past.
@nnjhansen Ooooh, so close to a logical statement, then you went and brought up redefining marriage which no one has proposed. Marriage is what it is, couples of the same sex are prohibited from taking part in marriage. That is the law. The law says nothing about what marriage is. It only talks about who can participate. Also, "societal purpose"? According to whom? You don't get to "pronounce" that and make it so.
Alderson, Kevin; Lahey, Kathleen A. (2004). Same-Sex Marriage: The Personal and the Political. Insomniac Press. p. 16. ISBN 978-1-894663-63-2. This book lists several types of same sex marriage that have been sanctioned over the centuries. But that only addresses your claim. My claim is that the law only describes "who may marry" not "what marriage is". I think I'm correct about that, though I have no reference. In any case, that is what I mean. Also, "societal purpose" is still on the table.
@jcisbell Until the past decade there has been no history of same sex marriage in our nation's history or in our Common law tradition. Federal law defines marriage as "only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife." State laws obviously vary but for example CA defines marriage as "a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman" and in NC it "is created by the consent of a male and female person."
@nnjhansen In that, they are right. It's easy to gather fear based support. Yet, there is nothing to fear. Even "changing the definition" would do nothing to you or me. If I'm wrong, tell me how, please.
@jcisbell “But for children, there would be no need of any institution concerned with sex.”...
“[I]t is through children alone that sexual relations become of importance to society, and worthy to be taken cognizance of by a legal institution.” Bertrand Russell,Marriage & Morals
“The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family" Baker v. Nelson, (Minn. 1971)
@nnjhansen Well, I appreciate you citing some interesting quotes. However, respectfully, these opinions do not persuade. They are opinions. My opinion differs and is, in my opinion (which I can defend) more valid.
@jcisbell Your opinion, unlike those of the numerous courts (which cite the legislative record) is not indicative of society's intention regarding marriage as demonstrated by the intent of the legislature in passing the various marriage statutes.
What do you believe society's interest in marriage is?
@nnjhansen Society's interest as recorded by a study? If so, I don't know. If you mean, what do I think it should be, I don't know that I have a strong opinion about that. I'm only concerned with individual liberty in this case. I think society has an interest in preserving the principal of equal rights and the pursuit of happiness. I do recognize that many people and courts believe gays should not marry. That's what the discussion is about. Majority opinion has NEVER defined what is right.
@jcisbell Civil marriage is a legal institution intended to serve a societal/state interest, that is why the state is involved and issues a license. I am asking what you believe that interest is.
If marriage is meant to serve the interest which it has been acknowledged to serve throughout our history, it is reasonable to condition marriage on a general capacity to satisfy that interest. That means one man and one woman is the only relationship that can satisfy the interest.
@nnjhansen (Pt 1) The thing about an 'argument', even a logical one like yours, is that it always depends upon definitions. A 'trick' to appearing to have made a good argument is to 'control' the definitions. I don't accept your definitions as 'all inclusive'. That is, they don't cover all relevant cases. I've already answered your question, but you want to force me to answer regarding the 'states' interest and you imply that the ONLY reason for the state to issue a marriage license.. (see Pt 2)
@nnjhansen (Pt 2) .. is in its own interest. Not so. The state exists to serve its citizens - all citizens. A basic element of any society is compromise. Not everyone can do what they want IF it hurts or impedes another to a measurably, agreed upon harmful degree. Societal interest in marriage also includes simple service to the individual. People 'want' to marry, to pursue happiness. That's their right. As to state's interest; it can be argued that it is best to allow gay marriage.
@jcisbell Your concept of civil marriage requires no state input at all. Nothing stops people from pursuing their happiness in the absence of a license from the state. The marriage license adds nothing but include the state in the relationship. If you do not want the state included, do not ask it to become involved.
The state issues licenses to further society's interests, not those of the individual licensee.
@nnjhansen We obviously disagree and I'd be happy to leave it at that. But you keep saying things that either aren't true or that you've already said - with no evidence. I actually agree that the state should have no part in marriage. SHOULD NOT, but they do. As such, the ONLY way for gay people to have FULL equality is to be allowed to marry. Not only insurance benefits, hospital visits and decision making, property rights, but societal participation without having to face prejudice. (more)
@nnjhansen I never said I don't want the state included. I said the state's interests are not the only interests that matter. The state has an obligation to provide equal access to it's citizens. I don't even know what "state's interests' would be WITHOUT consideration for individual rights. You can't make a thing so by merely repeating it.
@jcisbell The state interests are the only one's that matter with regard to the state's involvement.
The state is obligated to provide equal access, not equal results. Everyone has the same access to marriage. If, for reasons of your own, you choose not to satisfy the state's requirements for marriage then the state has no obligation to change the requirements.
What are the state's interests in the issuance of any license? Surely they exist independent of individual rights.
I'm sorry, but I can't see why it can't be called 'marriage'. If we kept the definition of marriage the same throughout history, an inter-racial couple wouldn't be able to get married.
@fleskfan100 Marriages between races have always been accepted from the most remote antiquity, but were unlikely to uy cultural isolation, the only cases that were given were arranged marriages of kings and ambassadors marriages. I do tego anything against marriages between different races, but it is true that when this practice is wide cultures disappear, the clearest example some countries in South America.
@fleskfan100 With regard to naming or marriage to the union of homosexuals, many religious people are against them for it. Anyway, good comment and Happy New Year
@zperra You can have a civil divorce, but with God (or gods, as religion) as a witness, according to ancient standards of all people, you can only pledge once eternal fidelity. The rest are additions of modernity.
It's funny how most people who identify themselves as "liberals" or "democrats" (I'm probably talking about you here) know just as little about politics and how the world works as teapartiers. The only thing most "liberals" and "democrats" have on republicans and teapartiers is a better sense of fashion.
It's the truth and you know it. Before you call me out on this, go read a book and learn something more about politics other than "LEFT IS BETTER THAN RIGHT!!!" simple-minded crap.
Frankly, I don't pretty understand, why do gays need or should have marriage right. Since as I see it, it is meant to regulate the family creation and children raising. Well, there might be some sort of institution to fix legal issues concerning gay couple, but it should surely differ from ordinary marriage.
I disagree with your view on what marriage is based upon, but besides that, why should marriage be any different? Homosexuals can raise a family as well as anyone else.
Ya know what would be great. If all the Left bashing Right and Right bashing Left videos cancelled each other out. Like the thumbs up/thumbs down thing. There would be a lot less hate on here.
Ya know what would be great. If all the Left bashing Right and Right bashing Left videos cancelled each other out. Like the thumbs up/thumbs down thing. There would be a lot less hate on here.
@capcity8000 You do love to see your thoughts on the computer screen don't you, because its obvious you don't respect anyone but yourself enough to listen.
I am not against gays or anything, but marriage is a religous ceremony, and there is separation from church and state. The state should not be able to choose who gets married or not. If a religion denies gay marriage, then they have every right to so. And if parents don't want their children to learn about it, then that is their right as well.
@UberDeathTurtle The difference here is that gay marriage doesn't force a church or religion to recognize gay marriage, this is just about the states. When the ballot says "Force churches to perform gay services" then there would be an issue with religion, but the only issue with religion right now is people with a religious stigma against gays. Schools don't have to educate people on being gay, a gay youth advocate, is for helping -gay youth- or kids with questions. Kids ask questions.
@sevenvt I understand and everything. I am not against gays, but I just don't see the importance of getting married other than religious choice. I know plenty of hetero couples that aren't married and raise their family just fine. Marriage is a hassle lol, and it is just a religious title.
@UberDeathTurtle Its mostly about rights as a legal family member and not as a roommate, they don't get the same rights if their partner dies when they arent married, theres a lot to be had from marriage under the law, most of it is about protecting property and getting the full rights of a spouse, not really the "image" of being married.
I really don't care what consenting adults do in private, but-
Fact 1- If you believe in evolution you know the purpose of sex is reproduction.
Fact 2- Two creatures of the same sex cannot reproduce thus thwarting this basic biological drive.
Fact 3- This means two same sex creatures forming a mating bond have an extremely serious biological or psychological flaw acting against a natural law, to reproduce.
Fact 4- Any biological or physical entity built on a faulty foundation must fail.
@leestauf First off you say belief in evolution like it's a debatable subject. But if you want to throw out the argument of sex in nature, then I'll say this. There are many animals that practice sex without the purpose of reproduction, take the primate bonobos who have frequent orgies. You also might want to look into the many creatures in the animal kingdom who exhibit homosexual tendencies.
@mnutt12 I just don't like people making false arguments. Provide some hard proof and facts. Perhaps those frequent orgies are natures way of getting fertile females and males together for reproduction? And, there are NO homosexual animals. Dogs identify each other through smell. That is not a homosexual tendency. Young bull elephants gather together for protection, not because their gay. A dog will hump a pillow following a blind powerful natural urge to reproduce. That's not "gay".
@leestauf I said nothing about homosexual animals, I said tendencies. And about dogs well you presented those foolish examples yourself. My point was however, that you should not equate evolution with love and human emotion. What makes our species unique, is our ability to decipher from wrong, and separate this from our natural instincts. We frown upon rape, murder, incest and thievery all of which are rampant in the animal kingdom.
@mnutt12 I simply gave examples of arguments I have heard attempting to make homosexuality "normal". They are silly aren't they?! So exactly what are these "tendencies" you refer to? And you are correct. We have the ability to see right and wrong. Good and evil. These are exactly the qualities/abilities that many employ to argue that homosexuality is abnormal and leads to further degradation in the moral arena. The very ones that many gay/pro gay supporters say should be denied.
@leestauf I said nothing about homosexual animals, I said tendencies. Just research the subject you'll find plenty of examples. My point however was that you shouldn't equate evolution with love and human emotion. What makes our species unique is our ability to decipher right from wrong, and separate this from our natural instincts. That's why we frown upon murder, rape incest and thievery, all of which are rampant in the animal kingdom.
@leestauf You should replace "purpose" with "function" as purpose implies an intent, where evolution never intended anything, only people intend, it is theoretically just what turned up due to many circumstances. Biological drive also drives some animals to eat their young. Fact 3 is on par with any explanation for religion or a bearded guy who created everything for white people. Show us the flaw, besides your "intent" to procreate.
Fact 4- The only failure will be genetic progeny of parents
@sevenvt Purpose/function, whatever. Semantics. And there is probably a good reason for some animals eating their young at some point. Lack of food, meaning either the young die or all do? #3 has absolutely nothing to do with religion. A natural law would simply be a requirement for survival of the species. Not that nature would or could care, but continuation of the species would be at stake. So in nature a homosexual bonding would break that "natural" law.
@leestauf Even If the purpose/function of life is simply to survive and reproduce mindlessly and without reason, an entity that cannot/will not reproduce because it is attracted to something it cannot reproduce with has a basic biological flaw. I don't think this can be logically denied.
to bobbypatz. Sorry, I wasn't joking. I know, sometimes the Truth eats at us for a long, long time..........doesn't it?
You've just been minstered to. I hope someday you will make that U Turn by repenting and overcome that "invisible demon" who has enslaved you to living a Life of Sin...
I'm never voting Democrat ever again. They have proven to be no better than the Republicans in anyway. Obama is every bit the War Hawk that Bush ever was.
Opposing gay marriage is about a rabid, unflinching hatred of homosexuals. Of course, they will endlessly dress it up like it's something else, using bullshit arguments about religion and protecting marriage. When those arguments fall apart, which they always do, they fall back on complete fabrications about the terribly imperiled children.
God does love even Gay Folk, However he does not approve of their Gay Sexuality.
Sometimes I think Gay folk get scripture confused and think that to Love someone means to accept their UnGodly Lifestyle. He Hates Gay Sexuality but Loves the Sinner.that is why we have hope through Repentence.
@capcity8000 God hates? Jesus Hates? I think you've confused the scripture. Just remember, Jesus was the Jewish messiah, you are just tagging along on their failed and rejected savior and misreading their favorite book (old testament duh.) When you go back to being jewish, then you can pretend you know what God or Jesus feels about homosexuality.
@capcity8000 I think ALL folk get confused by scripture, especially you. If I had a god, I'd pray for you, because you are lost beyond all compare, but since I don't... I'll just imagine that someday you and yours will just fade away and the ignorance that surrounds you will go with you.
God does love even Gay Folk, However he does not approve of their Gay Sexuality.
Sometimes I think Gay folk get scripture confused and think that to Love someone means to accept their UnGodly Lifestyle. He Hates Gay Sexuality but Loves the Sinner.that is why we have hope in Repentence.
I could never understand why a gay would accept an intolerant and hateful religion. I know that people care about one another on a very fundamental level, but a gay that loves christianity is comparable to a jew that loves nazism.
hypothetically if i was married, how is it that 2 females or 2 males getting married going to affect my marriage??? its doesn't in anyway. let them marry. people need quit using religion as a means to say that it's wrong for two people of the same sex to get married.
Funny how the polygamists in rural Utah and Colorado get such a bad rap yet sexual promiscuity is so accepted. I can go around the globe laying chicks and even impregnating them and I'm a stud, but NO if you want to have a consensual, committed relationship then you must be whacked. LOL, I'm not at all condoning polygamy, I'm just saying we are hypocrites. You watch, with how much we're skewing the original definition of marriage eventually we'll have to legalize marriage for the polygamists too
Right when I saw those commercials im like "are you fuckin wit me righ now?" they act like being gay is a disease that will turn into a pandemic. Having gay marriage isn't gunna change anything.
I see a breakdown when they turn to faith and pray and sing praise... employing religion (an enemy of gay rights) to win rights is not even a way of fighting fire with fire. I'm surprised they don't realize the absurdities & hatred of gays in the Bible. They should press for marriage to be a government constitution and not a religious constitution. Gay marriage is a short-run focus, but universal unions should be a long-run goal (and should be pushed for international recognition among govts.).
Why the hell is this stuff even on the ballot? I don't understand it. The only defense people have against gay marriage is a religious point. Which shouldn't be in the government at all. Honestly i'm a heterosexual man. And I support gay marriage, why shouldn't two people who love each other get married? Does it really effect you if gay people are married? If it does you're an ignorant bigot. And since when the hell do they teach marriage in school? Maybe it'll be good if your kid is tolerant =P
@StirItUP1973 This stuff is on the ballot because it is a political question properly answered politically. Marriage exists as a social institution because it furthers a societal interest and the people are the proper judges of whether two men or two women (or three men or two women ans a man for that matter) can satisfy that interest.
@valleyshrew Totally! All that business about ministering to thieves and prostitutes - not relevant at all, right? Compassion for the sanctimonious and Crusades for everyone else, that's what Jesus was about, alright!
@Squishy876 He also condemned homosexuality as an abomination in Romans, 1 Corinthians, and Timothy. Now back to your question, what would Jesus do? Well I'm sure He would do exactly what Maine voters did last November and condemn it by passing prop1.
@Squishy876 Unlike homosexuality, it prohibits those things only in the old testament, the same old testament Christians haven't been required to follow in thousands of years.
@thejmeister88 No, that was the dude a 1000 years ago, back in the dark ages, when all the books were lost and barbarians were roaming the lands, back when white people in churches were the only ones reading and writing in latin... back when the books were first compiled and most likely written... thats who codemned it, the same people who bought positions in the church and sent children to take back the holy land, you people.
Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination
Matthew 5-17,18,19
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven
@derekdb2 Matthew 7:1-7:8 Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
@Frenetic45 And yet... you use the quote to judge... and to preach at people. I'm sure theres nothing contrary there at all. Don't mind us thinking humans.
@derekdb2 Leviticus spoke pretty good old english. I bet every word of the translated bible from the brown races has served you right hasn't it? You certainly know when to quote it, and I bet you lock your doors when anyone two shades darker walks your way.
@Squishy876 im not religious thats why im gonna tell you the truth: in the bible its says god thinks homosexuality its bad, no gay marriage, but hes ok with racism, sorry but you can just read it
@bobbypatz I wouldn't bother getting in a intelligent debate with a deeply pious man. Most are so far off the deep end there's no chance of getting through to them.
@Squishy876 and i support equality, because its the RIGHT thing to do, i dont take my beliefs from books like harry potter, science fiction, well at least in harry potter everyone is accepted DUMBLEDORE IS GAY
@Squishy876 all of Christs teaching were addressed to the people of ISRAEL the chosen people. when Christ said love ones neighbor he was speaking that fellow israelites to love each other as they were brothers
Christ repeatedly referred to non Israelites especially white Europeans as Heathens, swine, worms, and rabid dogs and prophesied that he would bring down the roman empire
"behold i come with a sword" Christ second coming the sword is a symbol of swift justice meaning heads will roll
@Squishy876 Going farther than that there are many passages of the bible that are mainly about gay fancies, that are passed off as strong friendships because they are of the same gender that if they were not the same gender would be considered some of the best romances within the bible.
we'll look back on this, and be ashamed of our homophobia and discrimination. they have as much right to get married as anyone else, and i don't see how homosexuals getting married affects anyone at all. the sanctity of marriage my ass, that's a bunch of bullshit.
@ultimatetalesfan19 Ding ding, thats because these people aren't attacking anyone... or answering "incorrectly" about their wish to have rights, that would be pretty hard. LOL
These people have a stake in this political movement that is aimed against their equality, tea partiers just think its another reason to break out the tailgate party equipment and take a day off from looking for a job, or an education.
Do you people really think it is that hard to make a baby? People do it all the time. If the entire world becomes homosexual(just for sake of argument) men will still produce sperm and women will still produce eggs. And when it gets to the point where everyone is a homosexual, technology will be so much better, making cloning and test tube babies a snap, even easier than artificial insemination.
i'm straight and i believe in God and i support equality..I support gay marriage we are all God's children and are free to make choices lets kick the republicans out of office....go gay people...im so proud of you guys...you guys are the true american...i'm crying im so proud of you guys ...wow i feel it in my heart that you are great people...
Flash02021990 4 months ago 4
Well edited. You are very talented
CARSONART 5 months ago
1:37 Wtf is that guy eating?
TheEllampalli 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"President Obama was elected cashing our checks and making promises to our community, but so far he has failed to be the "fierce advocate" for gay rights that he said he would be." — Yeah, that's not the only thing he lied about, but then, he's a politician, what else did anyone ignorantly expect. I don't believe any of them anymore. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
VideoExpostulations 8 months ago
Actually, marriage is a religious ritual and should not be supported by the gavernment. Civil unions should be the law for all.
quintessential37 8 months ago
@quintessential37 very true
kellyannabama 7 months ago
@quintessential37 I used to think that and in some ways do. But, because 'marriage' has been legal for so long, the only way to give equality to gays is to make 'marriage' available to them. But I don't think churches should be forced to provide it.
jcisbell 6 months ago
Music for Airports! Good Choice.
nearfantastica8888 9 months ago
wow.... bless your patience nnjhansen!!!
sipescook 10 months ago
Why is did the Urband Rednecks trying to always act like they should persecute homos when the preists and pastors they support molet little boys. I found that an Irony.
fatfatat444 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Those were gay people praying in the end? What? How can you be gay and Christian? The Bible clearly states that homosexuality is an abomination. God hates fags. This is a fact. Can't be gay and Christian. Leviticus 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination."
I'm not a Christian, so I don't believe this intolerant garbage, but if you are Christian, you have to believe this. It's the word of God. Don't be a hypocrite.
afriend90 10 months ago
Those were gay people praying in the end? What? How can you be gay and Christian? The Bible clearly states that homosexuality is an abomination. God hates fags. This is a fact. Can't be gay and Christian. Leviticus 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination."
I'm not a Christian, so I don't believe this intolerant garbage, but if you are Christian, you have to believe this. It's the word of God. Don't be a hypocrite.
afriend90 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Get a peace to your life with an Latino girl rockmycity.info
annajuikjuikol 11 months ago
Gays should be allowed to marry because it's not my business to tell them that they can't. It's a shame more people on the left and right can't learn to respect the freedoms of all people, whether or not they themselves wish to exercise those same freedoms.
raohthekenoh 11 months ago
@raohthekenoh Whose business is it to decide which types of relationships the state will license?
nnjhansen 11 months ago
@nnjhansen If the groups are consenting adults, the government has no right or duty to restrict their freedoms to push one agenda or the other. You don't have to like gay marriage, you don't have to think gays are doing the right or wrong thing, you just have to respect that they have the right to live their lives in the way they choose, and they should the same for you.
raohthekenoh 11 months ago
@raohthekenoh The moment a couple asks the state to involve itself in their relationship by recognizing and licensing it, the people of the state have the right to set conditions for that recognition and license. Otherwise, there is no purpose in issuing the license.
nnjhansen 11 months ago
@nnjhansen and so long as those people are consenting adults, the state has no right to infringe upon their right to get that license. I personally wouldn't care either way except for the fact that married couples share many benefits that their unmarried counterparts do not. It's not like any state actually restricts marriage between a man and a woman, you can get drunk and get married in vegas and every state in the union recognizes it, not too many conditions there.
raohthekenoh 11 months ago
@raohthekenoh No one has a right to a license. All licenses are granted upon meeting the conditions set for that license.
Married couples get the benefits you speak of precisely because the meet the conditions for the license.
nnjhansen 11 months ago
@nnjhansen so if the conditions are essentially arbitrary can we go back to not allowing interracial marriages? The point is, the government shouldn't be in the business of condoning one sort of relationship over another, if you're going to give the benefits to one group of consenting adults for being consenting adults, you have no real reason to deny it to another group.
raohthekenoh 10 months ago
@raohthekenoh The conditions are not arbitrary, they are reasonably related to a legitimate state interest. If one type of relationship is generally able to satisfy that interest and others are not, it is completely legitimate for the state to limit the license to that type of relationship that can.
nnjhansen 10 months ago
@nnjhansen If the government can sanction one kind of relationship then they can arbitrarily support or withdraw support from any relationship for the "greater good". any delineation from consenting adults is a COMPLETELY arbitrary reason. We let men and women who have known each other for less than a day marry one another but deny adults who are in a loving and committed relationship the same right? It's not the government's business to play kingmaker.
raohthekenoh 10 months ago
@raohthekenoh The reason is NOT arbitrary. Marriage exists as a civil institution because it serves a societal function. The man and woman who have known each other for a single day CAN, as a general rule, satisfy that interest. The same sex couple in a loving and committed relationship cannot. It is the government's business to set conditions for the licenses it issues that are related to the societal reason the state issues the license.
nnjhansen 10 months ago
@nnjhansen So what is the societal interest that it is serving?
raohthekenoh 10 months ago
@raohthekenoh Allow a noted philosopher and court to answer.
“But for children, there would be no need of any institution concerned with sex.”
“[I]t is through children alone that sexual relations become of importance to society, and worthy to be taken cognizance of by a legal institution.” Bertrand Russell
Since marriage was instituted to address the fact that sexual contact between a man and a woman naturally can result in pregnancy and childbirth" Hernandez v Robles, NY Court of Appeals 2006
nnjhansen 10 months ago
@nnjhansen Except that you can have children without being married and childless couples are allowed to be married as well. Even if one or both of the members of the marriage are physically incapable of it. Children are not the only reason we have marriage in a society. Further, It would be easier for gay couples to adopt children if they were able to get married.
raohthekenoh 10 months ago
@raohthekenoh Children are the primary reason that the state is involved in marriage. Of course you can have children without being married but society believes it best that they be had in the context of a stable and loving relationship between the mother and the father, hence marriage.
The exception of a few individuals who cannot personally have children does not negate the general rule that opposite sex couples can have children.
nnjhansen 10 months ago
@nnjhansen The primary reason for marriage is whatever reason the two people involved in it wish for it to be. Many couples don't choose to have them at all, they are not less married than any couple that chooses to do so. I am in complete agreement that a two parent home is best for children, thus allowing gay couples to marry and adopt children more easily suits this purpose very well.
raohthekenoh 10 months ago
@raohthekenoh You seem to forget that marriage is not simply a contract between 2 parties but 3. The state is a party to marriage (that is why it issues the license) and it is entitled to have it's own purpose for entering it independent of the others'.
It is NOT simply 2 adults that are best but a mother & a father. No same sex couple can provide that.
nnjhansen 10 months ago
@nnjhansen so what it boils down to is that you simply don't feel gay people are equal to straight people. And to the point that you can't respect their desires to live their lives and have to interfere with that.
raohthekenoh 10 months ago
@raohthekenoh No, what it boils down to is that the relationship between a man and a woman is unique in its potential consequence to society. It has nothing to do with any individual not being equal to anyone else.
The lack of a marriage license does not interfere with anyone living their life.
nnjhansen 10 months ago
@nnjhansen It's not your job to legislate what is "best" for people. And to be truthful you have no proof of a man and a woman raising better children than any other two parent home, so what you say is essentially based on your own religious beliefs, no actual proof.
Obviously lack of a marriage license for some people and issuing it to others is obviously interfering with some people's lives, because they are protesting it. And if the government does legalize it, does that make it right now?
raohthekenoh 10 months ago
@raohthekenoh It is the job of the people of the state to decide which relationships serve the state's interests. Whose job should it be? Whether the opinoins of the people of the state are informed by their religion is irrelevant.
How does the lack of a marriage license interfer in your life?
nnjhansen 10 months ago
@nnjhansen How does the opposite interfere in your life?
natnollen 10 months ago
@natnollen Are you asking how having a marriage license interferes in my life?
nnjhansen 10 months ago
@nnjhansen the lack of a marriage lisence interferes with the lives of the people who don't get be married...
bluepinkyellogreen 10 months ago
@bluepinkyellogreen How?
nnjhansen 10 months ago
@nnjhansen unfortunately if i read the comments carefully, a child's parents don't have to be married just to love each other and have a healthy relationship
civilarchangel 10 months ago
@civilarchangel And society instituted marriage specifically to foster that loving, stable, and healthy relationship between parents.
nnjhansen 10 months ago
@nnjhansen but what about people who rush marriage and those who only marry because of pregnancy, ended up regretting it. And people use marriage in order to get a divorce and caused some to people to be robbed blind out of everything. I am not trying to say marriage is bad but love is like a game of russian roulette.
civilarchangel 10 months ago
@civilarchangel I fail to see the point you are trying to make? Is it that is a licensing scheme is not perfect, it is not useful?
nnjhansen 10 months ago
@nnjhansen i gone off topic sorry, but as i read deeper in your comments i notice that you seem to agree with allowing couples as raohthekenoh said only meet one day and get married but not allow homosexual people to have the same right if i am understanding properly right?
civilarchangel 10 months ago
@civilarchangel Homosexuals have the exact same ability to get married as heterosexuals. The conditions and restrictions on marriage apply to all people equally. Marriage is not a perfect institution, nor is it perfectible. Redefining marriage to allow two people of the same sex to enter it will not make it stronger but will completely divorce it from its societal purpose.
nnjhansen 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nnjhansen "Redefining marriage?" Not at all. Lakota chief Crazy Horse had one or two male spouse(s) and many other Native American nations also had same-sex marriages. Ethnographers have documented this. Some examples: Omahas, Zapotecs, Mohaves, Crow, Ojibwas, Winnebagos, Yumas and Timucuas. Other cultures too: In 17th century Fukian Province China, same-sex marriages between gay men seem to have been common. And in West Africa; "woman marriage[s]" --a practice by many tribes in the past.
seahorse05 10 months ago
@nnjhansen Ooooh, so close to a logical statement, then you went and brought up redefining marriage which no one has proposed. Marriage is what it is, couples of the same sex are prohibited from taking part in marriage. That is the law. The law says nothing about what marriage is. It only talks about who can participate. Also, "societal purpose"? According to whom? You don't get to "pronounce" that and make it so.
jcisbell 6 months ago
@jcisbell Redefining marriage is precisely what is being proposed.
The law does say what marriage is, at the federal level and in most states.
The societal purpose of marriage has been recognized by courts, legislatures, philosophers, scholars, and the people for centuries.
nnjhansen 6 months ago
Alderson, Kevin; Lahey, Kathleen A. (2004). Same-Sex Marriage: The Personal and the Political. Insomniac Press. p. 16. ISBN 978-1-894663-63-2. This book lists several types of same sex marriage that have been sanctioned over the centuries. But that only addresses your claim. My claim is that the law only describes "who may marry" not "what marriage is". I think I'm correct about that, though I have no reference. In any case, that is what I mean. Also, "societal purpose" is still on the table.
jcisbell 6 months ago
@jcisbell Until the past decade there has been no history of same sex marriage in our nation's history or in our Common law tradition. Federal law defines marriage as "only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife." State laws obviously vary but for example CA defines marriage as "a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman" and in NC it "is created by the consent of a male and female person."
nnjhansen 6 months ago
@nnjhansen In that, they are right. It's easy to gather fear based support. Yet, there is nothing to fear. Even "changing the definition" would do nothing to you or me. If I'm wrong, tell me how, please.
jcisbell 6 months ago
@jcisbell “But for children, there would be no need of any institution concerned with sex.”...
“[I]t is through children alone that sexual relations become of importance to society, and worthy to be taken cognizance of by a legal institution.” Bertrand Russell,Marriage & Morals
“The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family" Baker v. Nelson, (Minn. 1971)
nnjhansen 6 months ago
@nnjhansen Well, I appreciate you citing some interesting quotes. However, respectfully, these opinions do not persuade. They are opinions. My opinion differs and is, in my opinion (which I can defend) more valid.
jcisbell 6 months ago
@jcisbell Your opinion, unlike those of the numerous courts (which cite the legislative record) is not indicative of society's intention regarding marriage as demonstrated by the intent of the legislature in passing the various marriage statutes.
What do you believe society's interest in marriage is?
nnjhansen 6 months ago
@nnjhansen Society's interest as recorded by a study? If so, I don't know. If you mean, what do I think it should be, I don't know that I have a strong opinion about that. I'm only concerned with individual liberty in this case. I think society has an interest in preserving the principal of equal rights and the pursuit of happiness. I do recognize that many people and courts believe gays should not marry. That's what the discussion is about. Majority opinion has NEVER defined what is right.
jcisbell 6 months ago
@jcisbell Civil marriage is a legal institution intended to serve a societal/state interest, that is why the state is involved and issues a license. I am asking what you believe that interest is.
If marriage is meant to serve the interest which it has been acknowledged to serve throughout our history, it is reasonable to condition marriage on a general capacity to satisfy that interest. That means one man and one woman is the only relationship that can satisfy the interest.
nnjhansen 6 months ago
@nnjhansen (Pt 1) The thing about an 'argument', even a logical one like yours, is that it always depends upon definitions. A 'trick' to appearing to have made a good argument is to 'control' the definitions. I don't accept your definitions as 'all inclusive'. That is, they don't cover all relevant cases. I've already answered your question, but you want to force me to answer regarding the 'states' interest and you imply that the ONLY reason for the state to issue a marriage license.. (see Pt 2)
jcisbell 6 months ago
@nnjhansen (Pt 2) .. is in its own interest. Not so. The state exists to serve its citizens - all citizens. A basic element of any society is compromise. Not everyone can do what they want IF it hurts or impedes another to a measurably, agreed upon harmful degree. Societal interest in marriage also includes simple service to the individual. People 'want' to marry, to pursue happiness. That's their right. As to state's interest; it can be argued that it is best to allow gay marriage.
jcisbell 6 months ago
@jcisbell Your concept of civil marriage requires no state input at all. Nothing stops people from pursuing their happiness in the absence of a license from the state. The marriage license adds nothing but include the state in the relationship. If you do not want the state included, do not ask it to become involved.
The state issues licenses to further society's interests, not those of the individual licensee.
nnjhansen 6 months ago
@nnjhansen We obviously disagree and I'd be happy to leave it at that. But you keep saying things that either aren't true or that you've already said - with no evidence. I actually agree that the state should have no part in marriage. SHOULD NOT, but they do. As such, the ONLY way for gay people to have FULL equality is to be allowed to marry. Not only insurance benefits, hospital visits and decision making, property rights, but societal participation without having to face prejudice. (more)
jcisbell 6 months ago
@jcisbell What have I said that isn't true?
What evidence do you require that I have failed to provide?
The piece you seem to miss is that the state plays a part in marriage because it serves a state interest to do so.
You do not believe the state should play a role, fine but to then move to it should play a role regardless of any state interest is contradictory.
None of those things you mention requires a marriage license.
nnjhansen 6 months ago
@nnjhansen I never said I don't want the state included. I said the state's interests are not the only interests that matter. The state has an obligation to provide equal access to it's citizens. I don't even know what "state's interests' would be WITHOUT consideration for individual rights. You can't make a thing so by merely repeating it.
jcisbell 6 months ago
@jcisbell The state interests are the only one's that matter with regard to the state's involvement.
The state is obligated to provide equal access, not equal results. Everyone has the same access to marriage. If, for reasons of your own, you choose not to satisfy the state's requirements for marriage then the state has no obligation to change the requirements.
What are the state's interests in the issuance of any license? Surely they exist independent of individual rights.
nnjhansen 6 months ago
Nice Brian Eno here.
CopelandMeister 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Online Be Naughty women benaughtyman.info
kristincoyn 1 year ago
Anyone who votes against the rights of ANYONE makes me want to hurl.
StandardofPurity 1 year ago
how would a gay couple or lesbian couple getting, affect me, personally...that just it, it won't. let them marry
lmr9890 1 year ago
I agree with everything they espouse, but with two differences:
1) to be called marriage, which is a sacred word. You can call it civil union, just think of civil marriages with people of the opposite sex.
2) the only thing I dislike about this group is demonstrating the immorality of marches in Gay Pride Day, at least in Spain.
Pianafierro 1 year ago
@Pianafierro
I'm sorry, but I can't see why it can't be called 'marriage'. If we kept the definition of marriage the same throughout history, an inter-racial couple wouldn't be able to get married.
fleskfan100 1 year ago
@fleskfan100 Marriages between races have always been accepted from the most remote antiquity, but were unlikely to uy cultural isolation, the only cases that were given were arranged marriages of kings and ambassadors marriages. I do tego anything against marriages between different races, but it is true that when this practice is wide cultures disappear, the clearest example some countries in South America.
Pianafierro 1 year ago
@fleskfan100 With regard to naming or marriage to the union of homosexuals, many religious people are against them for it. Anyway, good comment and Happy New Year
Pianafierro 1 year ago
@Pianafierro: Marriage isn't sacred at all. If it were, we wouldn't have such high divorce rates.
zperra 1 year ago
@zperra You can have a civil divorce, but with God (or gods, as religion) as a witness, according to ancient standards of all people, you can only pledge once eternal fidelity. The rest are additions of modernity.
Pianafierro 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You like marry this girls ** rockmycity.info **
aviishabegam 1 year ago
It's funny how most people who identify themselves as "liberals" or "democrats" (I'm probably talking about you here) know just as little about politics and how the world works as teapartiers. The only thing most "liberals" and "democrats" have on republicans and teapartiers is a better sense of fashion.
It's the truth and you know it. Before you call me out on this, go read a book and learn something more about politics other than "LEFT IS BETTER THAN RIGHT!!!" simple-minded crap.
420dogowner 1 year ago
Frankly, I don't pretty understand, why do gays need or should have marriage right. Since as I see it, it is meant to regulate the family creation and children raising. Well, there might be some sort of institution to fix legal issues concerning gay couple, but it should surely differ from ordinary marriage.
timfidotru 1 year ago
@timfidotru Absolutely. In one state zoophilia is allowed and polyamory! It will be them next!
NatDemUK 1 year ago
@timfidotru
I disagree with your view on what marriage is based upon, but besides that, why should marriage be any different? Homosexuals can raise a family as well as anyone else.
fleskfan100 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Gays should be arrested not married !
montsyblackmadonna 1 year ago
hysterical morons
steverubellreborn 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Try to change your life ** rockmycity.info **
adahweisingerkxc 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ya know what would be great. If all the Left bashing Right and Right bashing Left videos cancelled each other out. Like the thumbs up/thumbs down thing. There would be a lot less hate on here.
HoldGovtAccountable 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ya know what would be great. If all the Left bashing Right and Right bashing Left videos cancelled each other out. Like the thumbs up/thumbs down thing. There would be a lot less hate on here.
HoldGovtAccountable 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Latino Beauties are there rockmycity.info
kolenakolenaliya 1 year ago
why are they praying to a powerless god... they need to pray to chris angel he haz real magik :D
Leadman1989 1 year ago
HUSH Y'ALL HE'S ALL GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD! @SUCK IT DOT COM HATERS
kay081989 1 year ago
To sevnv: something tells me you know that God really exist.
You're simply in denial.......Before you take your final breath
All the angels will rejoice when you finally accept Truth. Amen!
capcity8000 1 year ago
@capcity8000 You do love to see your thoughts on the computer screen don't you, because its obvious you don't respect anyone but yourself enough to listen.
sevenvt 1 year ago
I am not against gays or anything, but marriage is a religous ceremony, and there is separation from church and state. The state should not be able to choose who gets married or not. If a religion denies gay marriage, then they have every right to so. And if parents don't want their children to learn about it, then that is their right as well.
UberDeathTurtle 1 year ago
@UberDeathTurtle The difference here is that gay marriage doesn't force a church or religion to recognize gay marriage, this is just about the states. When the ballot says "Force churches to perform gay services" then there would be an issue with religion, but the only issue with religion right now is people with a religious stigma against gays. Schools don't have to educate people on being gay, a gay youth advocate, is for helping -gay youth- or kids with questions. Kids ask questions.
sevenvt 1 year ago
@sevenvt I understand and everything. I am not against gays, but I just don't see the importance of getting married other than religious choice. I know plenty of hetero couples that aren't married and raise their family just fine. Marriage is a hassle lol, and it is just a religious title.
UberDeathTurtle 1 year ago
@UberDeathTurtle Its mostly about rights as a legal family member and not as a roommate, they don't get the same rights if their partner dies when they arent married, theres a lot to be had from marriage under the law, most of it is about protecting property and getting the full rights of a spouse, not really the "image" of being married.
sevenvt 1 year ago
@sevenvt Yea, I understand that. I am just against state getting involved in marriage completely unless for legal issues.
UberDeathTurtle 1 year ago
I really don't care what consenting adults do in private, but-
Fact 1- If you believe in evolution you know the purpose of sex is reproduction.
Fact 2- Two creatures of the same sex cannot reproduce thus thwarting this basic biological drive.
Fact 3- This means two same sex creatures forming a mating bond have an extremely serious biological or psychological flaw acting against a natural law, to reproduce.
Fact 4- Any biological or physical entity built on a faulty foundation must fail.
leestauf 1 year ago
@leestauf what about sex for sex sake,or sex just for fun.
eugeneonegin09 1 year ago
@leestauf First off you say belief in evolution like it's a debatable subject. But if you want to throw out the argument of sex in nature, then I'll say this. There are many animals that practice sex without the purpose of reproduction, take the primate bonobos who have frequent orgies. You also might want to look into the many creatures in the animal kingdom who exhibit homosexual tendencies.
mnutt12 1 year ago
@mnutt12 I just don't like people making false arguments. Provide some hard proof and facts. Perhaps those frequent orgies are natures way of getting fertile females and males together for reproduction? And, there are NO homosexual animals. Dogs identify each other through smell. That is not a homosexual tendency. Young bull elephants gather together for protection, not because their gay. A dog will hump a pillow following a blind powerful natural urge to reproduce. That's not "gay".
leestauf 1 year ago
@leestauf I said nothing about homosexual animals, I said tendencies. And about dogs well you presented those foolish examples yourself. My point was however, that you should not equate evolution with love and human emotion. What makes our species unique, is our ability to decipher from wrong, and separate this from our natural instincts. We frown upon rape, murder, incest and thievery all of which are rampant in the animal kingdom.
mnutt12 1 year ago
@mnutt12 I simply gave examples of arguments I have heard attempting to make homosexuality "normal". They are silly aren't they?! So exactly what are these "tendencies" you refer to? And you are correct. We have the ability to see right and wrong. Good and evil. These are exactly the qualities/abilities that many employ to argue that homosexuality is abnormal and leads to further degradation in the moral arena. The very ones that many gay/pro gay supporters say should be denied.
leestauf 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@leestauf I said nothing about homosexual animals, I said tendencies. Just research the subject you'll find plenty of examples. My point however was that you shouldn't equate evolution with love and human emotion. What makes our species unique is our ability to decipher right from wrong, and separate this from our natural instincts. That's why we frown upon murder, rape incest and thievery, all of which are rampant in the animal kingdom.
mnutt12 1 year ago
@leestauf You should replace "purpose" with "function" as purpose implies an intent, where evolution never intended anything, only people intend, it is theoretically just what turned up due to many circumstances. Biological drive also drives some animals to eat their young. Fact 3 is on par with any explanation for religion or a bearded guy who created everything for white people. Show us the flaw, besides your "intent" to procreate.
Fact 4- The only failure will be genetic progeny of parents
sevenvt 1 year ago
@sevenvt Purpose/function, whatever. Semantics. And there is probably a good reason for some animals eating their young at some point. Lack of food, meaning either the young die or all do? #3 has absolutely nothing to do with religion. A natural law would simply be a requirement for survival of the species. Not that nature would or could care, but continuation of the species would be at stake. So in nature a homosexual bonding would break that "natural" law.
leestauf 1 year ago
@leestauf Even If the purpose/function of life is simply to survive and reproduce mindlessly and without reason, an entity that cannot/will not reproduce because it is attracted to something it cannot reproduce with has a basic biological flaw. I don't think this can be logically denied.
leestauf 1 year ago
This is America, we don't put the bill of rights to a vote.
xtralimit 1 year ago 14
learning about homsexuality isnt in school! go to church. the priest will teach you a thing or two behind close doors =) back door style!
yankeepunk3000 1 year ago
to bobbypatz. Sorry, I wasn't joking. I know, sometimes the Truth eats at us for a long, long time..........doesn't it?
You've just been minstered to. I hope someday you will make that U Turn by repenting and overcome that "invisible demon" who has enslaved you to living a Life of Sin...
capcity8000 1 year ago
This is actually filmed really well.
Isaia 1 year ago
I'm never voting Democrat ever again. They have proven to be no better than the Republicans in anyway. Obama is every bit the War Hawk that Bush ever was.
Eaglesfaninca 1 year ago
Opposing gay marriage is about a rabid, unflinching hatred of homosexuals. Of course, they will endlessly dress it up like it's something else, using bullshit arguments about religion and protecting marriage. When those arguments fall apart, which they always do, they fall back on complete fabrications about the terribly imperiled children.
bamcis17 1 year ago 2
Steve looks like my psychology professor..lol
Emelec18 1 year ago
3:30 i hate the way that chick talks. She sounds like a real bitch.
Sneezlebob 1 year ago
fucking reneck motherfucker motherfuckers
WKaliberr 1 year ago
God does love even Gay Folk, However he does not approve of their Gay Sexuality.
Sometimes I think Gay folk get scripture confused and think that to Love someone means to accept their UnGodly Lifestyle. He Hates Gay Sexuality but Loves the Sinner.that is why we have hope through Repentence.
capcity8000 1 year ago
@capcity8000 LOLOLOL you sound so ignorant, i wish you were jooking NO IMAGINARY FRIENDS PLEASE
bobbypatz 1 year ago
@capcity8000 God hates? Jesus Hates? I think you've confused the scripture. Just remember, Jesus was the Jewish messiah, you are just tagging along on their failed and rejected savior and misreading their favorite book (old testament duh.) When you go back to being jewish, then you can pretend you know what God or Jesus feels about homosexuality.
sevenvt 1 year ago
@capcity8000 I think ALL folk get confused by scripture, especially you. If I had a god, I'd pray for you, because you are lost beyond all compare, but since I don't... I'll just imagine that someday you and yours will just fade away and the ignorance that surrounds you will go with you.
sevenvt 1 year ago
God does love even Gay Folk, However he does not approve of their Gay Sexuality.
Sometimes I think Gay folk get scripture confused and think that to Love someone means to accept their UnGodly Lifestyle. He Hates Gay Sexuality but Loves the Sinner.that is why we have hope in Repentence.
capcity8000 1 year ago
Great choice for music! is that Brian Eno?
featheredmusic 1 year ago
I could never understand why a gay would accept an intolerant and hateful religion. I know that people care about one another on a very fundamental level, but a gay that loves christianity is comparable to a jew that loves nazism.
machogun 1 year ago 19
Totally appreciated the Brian Eno.
Nomorebiscuits 1 year ago
He's only in second grade, and is already being taught not to be a bigoted asshole! Holy shit what a travesty.
MrWonkyguy 1 year ago 2
hypothetically if i was married, how is it that 2 females or 2 males getting married going to affect my marriage??? its doesn't in anyway. let them marry. people need quit using religion as a means to say that it's wrong for two people of the same sex to get married.
lmr9890 1 year ago 2
Funny how the polygamists in rural Utah and Colorado get such a bad rap yet sexual promiscuity is so accepted. I can go around the globe laying chicks and even impregnating them and I'm a stud, but NO if you want to have a consensual, committed relationship then you must be whacked. LOL, I'm not at all condoning polygamy, I'm just saying we are hypocrites. You watch, with how much we're skewing the original definition of marriage eventually we'll have to legalize marriage for the polygamists too
mpalm887 1 year ago
you cant tell kids that that you ppl are sick
misscool123456 1 year ago
@PrayAwayTheGay1 arrested on what charges?
idaman12345 1 year ago
they can fuck each other in the butt, the ear or any other hole. shouldn't be anyone elses' business
tjohn1986 1 year ago
@tjohn1986 Actually in the ear is very dangerous and is probably the business of a licensed physician.
sevenvt 1 year ago
@sevenvt I don't even wana know how you know
tjohn1986 1 year ago
Right when I saw those commercials im like "are you fuckin wit me righ now?" they act like being gay is a disease that will turn into a pandemic. Having gay marriage isn't gunna change anything.
MrAnimated 1 year ago 2
@MrAnimated so true.
Squishy876 1 year ago
I see a breakdown when they turn to faith and pray and sing praise... employing religion (an enemy of gay rights) to win rights is not even a way of fighting fire with fire. I'm surprised they don't realize the absurdities & hatred of gays in the Bible. They should press for marriage to be a government constitution and not a religious constitution. Gay marriage is a short-run focus, but universal unions should be a long-run goal (and should be pushed for international recognition among govts.).
whoiga 1 year ago
Why the hell is this stuff even on the ballot? I don't understand it. The only defense people have against gay marriage is a religious point. Which shouldn't be in the government at all. Honestly i'm a heterosexual man. And I support gay marriage, why shouldn't two people who love each other get married? Does it really effect you if gay people are married? If it does you're an ignorant bigot. And since when the hell do they teach marriage in school? Maybe it'll be good if your kid is tolerant =P
StirItUP1973 1 year ago 36
@StirItUP1973 This stuff is on the ballot because it is a political question properly answered politically. Marriage exists as a social institution because it furthers a societal interest and the people are the proper judges of whether two men or two women (or three men or two women ans a man for that matter) can satisfy that interest.
nnjhansen 1 year ago
Comment removed
nnjhansen 1 year ago
@StirItUP1973 Amen ! This is exactly what i want to know? How does the constitution cover for or against Gay marriage?
harleyspringer1 1 year ago
@StirItUP1973
stfu, learn to spell first
erjoalgo 1 year ago
@erjoalgo What did I spell wrong? And it doesn't matter if I did. You can still clearly understand my comment.
StirItUP1973 1 year ago
Comment removed
MLP88 1 year ago
@StirItUP1973 What exactly does Hetrosexual means?
I know that Gay have sex with the same sex, so what does that makes you and how are you different than Gays?????
Does it mean that you like to have sexual relations with your relatives?? or with animals??
Where the fuck do you guys come from?
jordana8899 1 year ago
@StirItUP1973 well what about polygamy or inter species marriage. if gay marriage is passed those should be legal too.
joeratti 1 year ago
@joeratti You're comparing gays to other species.
That doesn't even make sense.
StirItUP1973 1 year ago
@StirItUP1973 all the arguments people make for gay marriage can be made for those things too.
joeratti 1 year ago
What would Jesus Do? I believe he mentioned something about 'loving thy neighbor'....Even if they're gay.
Squishy876 1 year ago 39
@Squishy876 You must understand the context:
Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.
The children of thy people, not heathen homosexuals.
valleyshrew 1 year ago
@valleyshrew Totally! All that business about ministering to thieves and prostitutes - not relevant at all, right? Compassion for the sanctimonious and Crusades for everyone else, that's what Jesus was about, alright!
Nagairi 1 year ago
@Squishy876 He also condemned homosexuality as an abomination in Romans, 1 Corinthians, and Timothy. Now back to your question, what would Jesus do? Well I'm sure He would do exactly what Maine voters did last November and condemn it by passing prop1.
thejmeister88 1 year ago
@thejmeister88 The bible also says eating shellfish and wearing poly-cotton blends are abominations.
And in all actuality you know Jesus wouldn't give a shit if someone was gay. He would shake their hand,make them dinner and they'd all go shopping.
Squishy876 1 year ago
@Squishy876 Unlike homosexuality, it prohibits those things only in the old testament, the same old testament Christians haven't been required to follow in thousands of years.
thejmeister88 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thejmeister88 he would say judge not, lest ye be judged
eugeneonegin09 1 year ago
@thejmeister88 No, that was the dude a 1000 years ago, back in the dark ages, when all the books were lost and barbarians were roaming the lands, back when white people in churches were the only ones reading and writing in latin... back when the books were first compiled and most likely written... thats who codemned it, the same people who bought positions in the church and sent children to take back the holy land, you people.
sevenvt 1 year ago
Repent
Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination
Matthew 5-17,18,19
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven
derekdb2 1 year ago
@derekdb2 Matthew 7:1-7:8 Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
Frenetic45 1 year ago
@Frenetic45 And yet... you use the quote to judge... and to preach at people. I'm sure theres nothing contrary there at all. Don't mind us thinking humans.
sevenvt 1 year ago
@derekdb2 wake up
religion is a joke
idaman12345 1 year ago
@derekdb2 I'm guessing you've stopped taking your meds.
FmMan33 1 year ago
@derekdb2 Leviticus spoke pretty good old english. I bet every word of the translated bible from the brown races has served you right hasn't it? You certainly know when to quote it, and I bet you lock your doors when anyone two shades darker walks your way.
sevenvt 1 year ago
@Squishy876
Exactly! Omg finally! FINALLY someone with common sense.
Im not gay or anything but I believe these people need rights!
funkyhenry 1 year ago
@Squishy876 im not religious thats why im gonna tell you the truth: in the bible its says god thinks homosexuality its bad, no gay marriage, but hes ok with racism, sorry but you can just read it
bobbypatz 1 year ago
@bobbypatz I wouldn't bother getting in a intelligent debate with a deeply pious man. Most are so far off the deep end there's no chance of getting through to them.
mnutt12 1 year ago
@bobbypatz I wrote in my bible that god likes ketchup, god left enough space between the lines for me to fill in whatever I want, he's so smart.
sevenvt 1 year ago
@Squishy876 and i support equality, because its the RIGHT thing to do, i dont take my beliefs from books like harry potter, science fiction, well at least in harry potter everyone is accepted DUMBLEDORE IS GAY
bobbypatz 1 year ago
@Squishy876 all of Christs teaching were addressed to the people of ISRAEL the chosen people. when Christ said love ones neighbor he was speaking that fellow israelites to love each other as they were brothers
Christ repeatedly referred to non Israelites especially white Europeans as Heathens, swine, worms, and rabid dogs and prophesied that he would bring down the roman empire
"behold i come with a sword" Christ second coming the sword is a symbol of swift justice meaning heads will roll
godscuttingyoudown 1 year ago
@Squishy876 Going farther than that there are many passages of the bible that are mainly about gay fancies, that are passed off as strong friendships because they are of the same gender that if they were not the same gender would be considered some of the best romances within the bible.
xXShayLynnXx 1 year ago
@gotama420
You mean they found a gene for goofy straight people who think Asians are the most effeminate people?
;-)
PLmoms 1 year ago
we'll look back on this, and be ashamed of our homophobia and discrimination. they have as much right to get married as anyone else, and i don't see how homosexuals getting married affects anyone at all. the sanctity of marriage my ass, that's a bunch of bullshit.
nrussell900 1 year ago
@nrussell900 Everyone has the exact same ability to be married and no one is being improperly discriminated against.
nnjhansen 1 year ago
Protect marriage?
What are heterosexuals afraid of with their 60% divorce rate?
Sanctity of marriage when you can get married in a drive through by a Elvis impersonator?
If these religious fanatics were serious about the sanctity of marriage and all that crap, they would outlaw divorce, notice they're not doing that!
Hypocrites and liars!
almonkitt 1 year ago 2
These ones aren't hillarious like the Tea Baggots, It's just rational, no fun
jiggamcgee 1 year ago
because this dipshit doesn't attack these people and then edit out the people who answered the questions correctly.
ultimatetalesfan19 1 year ago
@ultimatetalesfan19 Ding ding, thats because these people aren't attacking anyone... or answering "incorrectly" about their wish to have rights, that would be pretty hard. LOL
These people have a stake in this political movement that is aimed against their equality, tea partiers just think its another reason to break out the tailgate party equipment and take a day off from looking for a job, or an education.
sevenvt 1 year ago
shame on maine
stjimmy933499399493 1 year ago
Do you people really think it is that hard to make a baby? People do it all the time. If the entire world becomes homosexual(just for sake of argument) men will still produce sperm and women will still produce eggs. And when it gets to the point where everyone is a homosexual, technology will be so much better, making cloning and test tube babies a snap, even easier than artificial insemination.
willthack13 1 year ago