But can one really speak of purely private contracts outside of a system of law that determines what contracts can be enforced and what contracts are legal and illegal? Can I make a contract that requires that I "love" someone, that I "honor" someone? How do you enforce such a contract?
But a contract that determines the disposition of property, of issue, etc., that's enforceable, that can be the basis of a *legal* contract - but how can that not involves the state, the source of law?
Yey, eventually I can get married too. My situation would confuse most people. Even gay people are confused of my kind. I'm male to female(MtF) transexual. I'm only attracted to genetic women or other MtF trans like myself. Since I identify as female, that would make me lesbian. If you view me as male, and I'm with a woman,..then would you view me as straight? Would 2 women be allowed to get married when one woman has a phenis and the other one has a vajayjay?
Hi Penn fans. Penn Says videos have been discontinued, so you won't be seeing any new content on here. You can check out our Profile on our Channel Page for more info. We'll still be checking in, so hope to keep chatting with you all! Thanks!
Nice, neat , secular, biological. Government has no control over nature.
-
Get government out of the social engineering business. Religious faggots will never admit that evolution is only possible with heterosexual relationships.
@SirWinstonChurchill Don't you know that evolution works both physically and mentally? I guess you are evolving physically, but mentally you are waaay behind. Inbred evolve? Yes they do, but with some mental differentiation. You can see them by the mass these days promoting hate.
At 0:36 my immediate reaction was that dude, your views on the government are way too extreme. I fully support government marriage. But just a few seconds after that I was wondering why I supported it. Truth is I have never even considered that it could be any other way, and of course never thought of any arguments for or against. Now, after watching the entire video and thinking a minute, maybe two, I am not sure either way. I really have nothing to base my opinion in the matter on.
I agree with Penn's view on marriage, that it shouldn't be a government regulated thing. I think any kind of marriage should be legal, as marriage is a personal thing. The government saying that only certain people can get married for certain reasons is like my parents telling me I can only have certain friends from certain areas. It's unfair, and it should only be between the individuals within that marriage/relationship.
I think we have state-sponsored marriage because most of the people in this country believe in old puritan/christian traditions. Since those views have lasted so long, and have been so strongly supported by our leaders (the support being tax cuts as a way of praising this kind of marriage), it's no wonder our culture has formed to this ideology of what marriage should be. At least that's my take on it.
@Hedning1390 It's definitely an intersting idea, 'cause it's so ingrained in American's way of thinking: when you get married you go down to city hall. It's just part of the whole shebang.
@pennsays Look up 'common law' or 'common law marriage'. Common law is, obviously, a more general idea but common law marriage deals with the fact that at some point people can be considered married even without a formal government contract or even ceremony has taken place. It's a basic idea which should definitely be more ingrained in American's lives than going down to city hall to let the government tell you you're married.
Getting married is optional. Paying taxes is not. At least not legally. So opting to do something that you are ideally against is hypocritical. Doing something that you are ideally against because the law says you must is merely obeying the law.
In this case, though, he did the right thing. He chose his battles. The penalty for losing this battle is worse than the reward is good for winning. So he bit the bullet for his childrens' sakes.
On your Prop 8- Marriage is not barred to people to are gay. If you are gay, you can still marry as long as it is to another of an opposite sex. Thus the law is not discriminating on sexual preference, but on your actions, as all laws do.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong. I'm just countering the argument that the law is "discrimination." It's not discrimination because it doesn't exclude anyone. This is also the reason why when the issue is brought to the courts in california it is always knocked down.
Yes it does exclude people. If they proposed a law that outlawed straight marriage, I'm sure you would be against it, right? But why? You could just marry a gay person. That argument doesn't hold any water because gays are still being kept from marrying someone they love.
No, it doesn't exclude people because they are this or that. It only bars the action of marring someone of the same sex. If a straight person wanted to marry someone of the same sex, they too would be kept from marrying. All laws discriminate on actions. I'm sorry- below I meant the "discrimination" based on sex or race.
That is different. That is saying because you are X, you cannot marry, and it does discriminate based on race. Do you see the difference? The law now says anyone can marry, but again, it is discriminating on the action of marrying someone of the same sex. You can be X, Y, Z, but you can only do C.
No, its not. You don't understand. The law now says no intersexual marriage. It doesn't say gays cant marry. It doesn't say straights can't marry. It does not discriminate on your sexual preference. A gay person may *want* to marry someone of the same sex, but that is illegal. Just like I may *want* to carry a gun in public areas, but where I live its illegal.
In the past, interracial marriages weren't legal. You were still allowed to get married, just not to people of other races. The supreme court ruled anti-mesceganistic laws unconstitutional in 1967. So why don't gay people get the same constitutional rights as straight people?
Marriage now is open to all people regardless of race. That's a bad parallel: If you are X then you cannot marry Y. But the law now says if you are X,Y,Z you can marry Y. It never says if you are gay you cannot marry Y.
And it never said that white people couldn't marry white people. It said that whites couldn't marry blacks. So it said X can't marry Y. And Y can't marry Z. Restricting who you were allowed to marry based on race was found to be unconstitutional. If you really can't see how that's the same, then you are either intentionally not seeing it or you are just too dense or too blinded by your fundamentalist religion to understand. Good day.
The difference is that your example discriminates against PEOPLE. We have a law that states the definition of marriage: ANYONE can enter into a legal union or what not with someone of the opposite sex. No sexual preference, race, creed is written in to that law. All laws discriminate based on actions. And this law does not discriminate against people but against an ACTION. Thanks for accusing me of being a fundamentalist. Let's not make this personal, keep your attacks to your self.
And again, I'll repeat myself. There used to be laws that prevented interracial marriage and those laws were repealed because they were found to be unconstitutional (Person A was not allowed to marry Person B, but they still could have married Person C). So two points are made here, laws can be changed as society evolves and your argument about gays being allowed to marry, they just can't marry who they want to marry, is blown out of the water.
I agree that laws can change as society changes. For such a change to be legitimate, it has to come from the great majority of the people, expressed through their legislature. If it is "judge made law" is must be confirmed by the people, through legislation or initiative. The "Loving v. Virginia" case struck down the law not because it banned interracial marriage on "health" grounds, but because it illogically banned some interracial marriages (the Rolf family in VA is large and influential).
The point being that the law discriminated against a certain group of people and was therefore found to be unconstitutional. It's the same thing now, the only difference is the kind of person it is discriminating against.
My point is the law is made of the people, by the people and for the people. In CA the people voted to correct error by the courts. That is how it is supposed to work. Good luck on convincing the people that your side is correct.
Penn, even if you're opposed to government sanctioned marriage why would you NOT be opposed to something that only made society more unequal? Gays HAD marriage rights in CA and Prop 8 only grew the size of government by saying gays don't have marriage rights.
Did you guys even watch the whole thing? He pretty clearly said that anything straight people can do, gay people should be able to do as well, despite his opposition to government sanctioned marriage.
PENN: If you're against government involvement in marriage, why don't you support its equality FIRST (you know, plenty of gay people have the same concerns about parenting, tax issues, etc you have in the meantime) and then work to dismantle the government's role in it.
Otherwise, you're selfishly saying "gay people shouldn't be involved in this government institution, but we straights will continue to enjoy its numerous privileges until it's dismantled...which will be never."
i say the govt should stay out of marriage all together (m/m, f/f, m/f) marriage is a religious term and only religious figures can perform it. a reliogus marriage iisnt legal til they sign a document, a civil union doucment you can sign without the whole religous thing. so everyone should be able to sign that and govt santioned civil union, but if you want to call it marriage then goodluck finding a priest, rabbi, monk or whatever to perform the ceremony for you 2 (or 3 or 4 or wat ever)
I was married by a Justice of the Peace in a completely nonreligious ceremony because my wife and I are atheist. It is not a religious term, it is simply associated with such because most people will be married in ceremonies involving their beliefs out of respect for tradition. Religion does not have to be involved AT ALL. Most people get married for the same reason Penn states. It's not about religion, it's about security for ones family and the financial benefits of such, not the religious.
You freaks who believe marriage should be between two men or a man and a giraffe just remember that you are in the minority. We have spoken again! Period!
Yep! The majority has spoken again, just as it did in the South in the 1800s. Them darkies is natural slaves by God-given RIGHT! Children of Cain & Ham, and all that! Says so right in the BYE-buhl! Just remember that all you abolitionist freaks out there are in the minority!
Oh, and a century later? The majority has spoken and Jim Crow is RIGHT! The benefits of law and justice, of everything else, belong to Whites! Just remember that all you Civil Rights freaks out there are in the minority.
And how DARE them wimmin folk wanna have careers and the vote and even be elected to public office and such? The majority has spoken — they're not to worry their purty little heads over such men's matters. Says so in the BYE-buhl! A woman's place is in the home! Just remember that all you Wimmin's Libbers, and Libs in general, and Suffragists, are in the minority.
(The preceeding two posts are brought to you by Dripping® Sarcasm™ in response to CintiRailFan's inanity.)
CintiRailFan, don't you mean that marriage is between a WHITE man and a WHITE woman, or a BLACK man and a BLACK woman, or a YELLOW man and a YELLOW woman, etc. etc. etc., and never shall they mix their blood? That would be (*gasp!*) MISCEGENATION!!
THAT used to be the majority view, TOO, and not so long ago. There are still many people alive and well, who are still of sound mind and memory, today, here and now, who were ADULTS when that was still the majority view!
just because everyone believes it, doesnt make it true or right. everyone believed the world was flat for a while. im gonna quote penn here... "the truth is not democratic"
Davidngo4415 its virtually impossible to clearly define whether an animal is aware of what its consenting to?..or a child?.. there must be understanding behind all consent, so therefore these two things are immoral and corruptive,
I wholeheartedly agree with Penn. The history of marriage licenses dates back to when the government decided to start making them for people who wanted to have interracial marriages. That just goes to show how corrupt the idea of a marriage license is. Adults who want to have legal benefits like Penn was talking about should certainly be able to do so (weather by civil unions, or what have you.) But marriage should just be a private matter, and the government can get the eff out.
I believe that everyone should have the legal rights that come with marriage but churches should be able to choose whether they would marry gays because it's a religious matter and religion is protected by the Constitution. (The KKK doesn't have to allow blacks in their organization because they're a private organization.) But all the government funding of religious and other private organizations has to stop.
I'm against prop 8 too because the government isn't allowed to discriminate.
I agree that the best solution is to just take marriage out of government and just allow the same contracts without "moral" considerations. Marriage is after all, mostly religious. But the USA making marriage a matter not for legality isn't likely to happen, so for now the best thing to do is to allow any two people of age to marry.
Not true. MARRIAGE is the lasting partnership between two (or more) consenting adults, for purposes of legitimizing heirs, alliances, etc. It has existed in every human culture since long before JUDAISM existed, let ALONE Christianity.
The often religious ceremony that unites people in matrimony (marriage) is NOT termed a marriage itself, but rather a WEDDING. Marriage is what STARTS WITH a wedding and ends with either death, divorce, annulment, or perhaps a pre-agreed period of time.
Well, no one knows for sure how marriage got started, because it predates all writings of humanity.
That said, the one making the AFFIRMATIVE claim is the one who must provide proof. If you say that it's religious or spiritual in origin, you have to PROVE that. I do NOT have to prove that it ISN'T, because that's a NEGATIVE claim, NOT an AFFIRMATIVE one.
US society doesn't care about origins or history. Here, it's spiritual and religious. Never heard claims like "the sanctity of marriage?" How many people get married in religious places?
Just because the US doesn't care about origins or history doesn't make that right. Sanctity of marriage is utter bullshit and the numbers about churches don't mean crap because marriage was a deeply ingrained tradition in human society long before religion was. Even cave people had their own form of marriage (including a ring ergo a wedding ring). Just cause the Christians made it into their own sacreligious bullcrap ceremony doesn't make it theirs in time or right.
shit...I thumbs-downed this but realized I read it wrong lol sorry I agree with you and for the record gay marriage was in effect in Rome several hundred years before Christianity (though not, if I remember, before Jews outlawed it and punished it with death).
I love your views on marrige. I am lesbian and I have been verry sick for a while now. When I was in the hospital they made me fill out paperwork to allow them to give info to my partner and they still refused to tell her anything. She was limited to non family visiting hours. It was crazy. I do not want a gov marrige but I do want a recognition that she is a family member. If I die I want to know the house will automatically go to her. Simple things like that, thats all. Good Day!!!
For a simple thought about how messed up CA really is... how full of hypocrites we are, if yes on prop 8 was deemed "unconstitutional" then why are many of those same people who say they want to enforce more and more restrictions of our 2nd amendment? As I said, hypocrites, that say less government, when they vote otherwise..... or are they just plain stupid? and i'm a conservative libertarian (and not pushing religious anything on anyone) thank god i'm only here temporarily for college!
Or as James Madison put it "Religion is exempt from the COGNIZANCE of the institutions of civil society". All marriages are civil unions- just contracts to be ejudicated as such. Traditional marriage has a better chance of remaining an institution based upon its intrinsic value than upon having the government sign-on as its representative and protector. The latter hastens the demise of the former.
I don't understand why anybody would ever want to be married for any reason, but I don't think it's mine or anybody else's place to tell someone what they can or can not do with their life. But that's how this country works. You can't do this because it's illegal. It's illegal because people don't like it. People don't like it because they were taught it was wrong. They were taught it was wrong because they were taught by ignorant people. Ignorance was a product of the times.
I'm so confused as to what g0ys are. If I'm gay, and I like to have anal sex, you basically are saying I'm immoral? But you claim to be homosexual. But you reject the homosexual scene. Sorry buddy, you're still gay. Not all gays are effeminate, flamboyant flamers. You couldn't tell if a lot of gays are gay. Seems to me you're a bunch of homos that are afraid of the general public's assumptions. So what? They're wrong 90% of the time anyway.
LOL "g0ys." I heard about these clowns years ago. I urge you to look them up if you want to see what self-loathing and repression of your sexual orientation will do to you.
I used to belong to their Yahoo group, just to check them out, and I was really disturbed by the amount of them that are Married - to WOMEN - but diddle guys on the side.
In their warped little minds, if you arent into anal sex, then you arent really "gay." (Because all gays love anal sex and all str8s loath it. Uh, NOT.)
Yeah, then we can get those homosexuals separate bathrooms and separate seating in restaurants/buses, maybe a different school for children who are gay. It is separate but equal so what does it mater.
I think alot of people where misled on Prop8. They thought that it passing would mean churches would HAVE to let gay people get married, not the case. It would give all gay couples the same legal standing as partners as the rest of us in issues like health care, insurance, and wills. But alot of the Pro-prop 8 information was slanted to scare people into voting for it.
Generally speaking the real purpose of marriage is to bring two commited financially stable adults together to ensure they're ability to devote there time and resources to a child.
Morally speaking theres nothing wrong with sex before marriage but promiscuity can lead to unexpected pregnancy and the resultant financial instability which the child would suffer from. Gays that plan on having a child (adoption, insemination ect.) would benefit all the same from marriage.
CONT'D...and hence its written into many religions that sex before marriage is a sin. If you have a child with somebody who's not committed or able, then the child suffers.
And marriage is a contract to prevent that from happening (or at least work as a barrier to one parent vanishing) lol.
You say you oppose the government sanctioning of marriage, and that causes you to "not feel good about fighting prop 8." If you truly felt that gays should be able to do it if straights could, than you would oppose prop 8. Prop 8 does not support your ideas of stopping government sanctioned marriage, and I find it saddening that you would let that get into the way of fighting prop 8.
Also, who do you think will enforce the contract that you set up with your spouse? The government.
it's the straight people who are "destroying the sanctity of marriage." With their divorces and their infidelities and their illegitimate children and their shotgun weddings" if ANYONE shouldn't be allowed to get married it should be the ones who've cocked it up in the past
Really...how many Gay virgins are out there? Ones that actually do not have sex before they are married. NONE. Most Gay people have many more partners than the average straight person. The gay pride parades are an embarrassment for the Gay community. How these people could do what they did on a public street is sick. And then they want to be grouped in with married people? Get real. No wonder people feel the way they do. I have gay friends who are embarrassed by this crap also.
well that's a bit of a loaded question isn't it? any gay couple who had sex would be doing so premaritaly, seeing as marriage still isn't legal for same-sex partners. And the idea that most homosexuals have multiple sexual partners is exaggerated stereotype. While it is true of some people, there are many more monogamous homosexual couples. Also, i've never been to a pride parade so i can't comment from experience on anything that may or may not have occurred.
Really? ...how many STRAIGHT virgins are out there? In case you missed it we live in the 21st century. Everyone is gettin freaky deeky nowadays dude.... and how is being a single virgin somehow a higher badge of honor than being a single person who is not a virgin? Last time I checked being a virgin means you've experienced LESS than if you are not a virgin.
what's wrong with having sex with animals or your sibling? it's just as none of your business as being gay. as long as it involves consenting adults and doesn't harm any animals, it should be completely legal. so i don't see why it's a bad analogy. there are no "bad sexual orientations" as long as it involves consenting adults.
What the fuck are you talking about? Being gay is not comparable to fucking your dog or sister. When you can think of something sensible to say, say it. And use capitals. Until then just shut up.
Would black people still like being called 3/5s a human being? Or worse, "property"? Although "civil unions" makes an attempt to accomodate, it establishes a "seperate but equal" policy that is not sustainable. Penn is right to say that marriage isn't any of the government's business.
I know you're a atheist. I like to follow the bible, it says to love thy neighbor. Christians aren't the only ones that get married. If these people who say they want to protect the sanctity of marriage, really want to do that, then they should ban divorce. If a gay or lesbian couple want to get married, let em. They can be miserable like the rest of us.
Penn, you guys should do a Bullshit show on Affirmative Action and your thoughts on it. I know you guys did a show on reparations, but I don't feel that it addressed affrimative action, and still feel you could get a good show out of it.
I know I researched into it and found a lot of bullshit in Affirmative Action.
with that said, government should not be suspending teachers who wear crosses to school and have bibles in their desks either... That is their personal choice as well...
"with that said, government should not be suspending teachers who wear crosses to school and have bibles in their desks either... That is their personal choice as well..."
To understand marriage one has to understand the history in America... Before the 1900's marriage was not regulated by the fed nor the states, it was a private institution as were schools (ie prayer in schools) and Universities, both of which were started by churches... The intermingling came when government hi-jacked these and violated the seperation... The gov should be providing civil unions, for everyone and allowing the private sector the right to acknowledge them...
Does any1 really want the govt out of marriage? No gov't means rampant discrimination. If left up to private sector, they will have right 2 NOT marry gays & deny benefits. Y b/c gov't will not govern this...something 2 think about...
b-sides gov usually steps in when ppl become irrational make bad decisions that impact others drasticaly
I would say that we want government to focus on legal agreements, as mentioned in the constitution, and allow the individuals, to acknowledge it as marriage... Churches have the right to not acknowledge it as marriage, as they are the private sector, however governments job is to preserve liberty, and two, three, four individuals have every right to enter into civil unions strait or gay... The Fed and States can't infringe upon free agreements... its in the constitution
I agree that complete state separation from marriage should be a goal, but as long as marriage is a government conceived contract, everyone should have equal standing under it. I think your videos are great Penn, but you strike me as to black and white sometimes. I think libertarians often times have the problem of being to black/white about things.
Penn, I think you missed the point. You say you got married for the protection. How that is not needed even more for gay people? You can talk about an ideal world where marriage doesn't matter, but that isn't the world any of us live in now.
I'm pretty sure Penn is saying that all the laws involving marriage need overhauled. End the idea of special rights that only apply to married people. Everyone should have these rights, married or not.
Culwin, that is my point. The laws for marriage are not being changed, so the actual result for 'I don't support gay marriage' winds up being no rights for gays. What Penn is doing (though perhaps subconsciously) is throwing gays under the bus in the hope they can force a liberatarian change to marriage laws -- while he enjoys the rights of marriage.
"What about me? I'm single, where are my special benefits?"
So you admit that hetrosexuals in the US have special rights. Most of the rights I am talking about simply do not apply to individuals. The state doesn't get in the way of associating with yourself, or your healthcare benefiting yourself, or you visiting yourself in the hospital (or making decisions for yourself, etc.). You in-laws do not by default wind up with legal rights you don't even get in certain situations.
I believe that the government should be in charge of "civil" unions. Marriage is personal and usually a religious act. Nothing to do with governments. Because of this, I believe that "Gay Marriage" is a non issue and shouldn't even be voted for or against.
Gay Marriage would have brought in 50 million dollars into our states economy. May not be much, but its something! The hell with morals I say, we are no longer in the 20th but the 21st century. Let's not pass on the intolerance and bigotry that our forefathers taught us. Let's accept people for who they are!
be careful of what you accuse our forefathers of, they were not as intolerant as you think . Read Thomas Jefferson's, or better yet Ben Franklins bio you'll see what I'm talking about.
I think that no one should be allowed use the police powers of government to impose one's morality on someone else, on both sides of the fence... and what I mean by that is a gay couple should not be allowed to sue anyone for refusing to perform a ceremony my sound a little frivolous, and not very probable but you get the point (I hope).
Marriage should not be a legal institution. I agree completely. It should be a religious only and up to the individual on how they define their marriage. I don't see why a married couple should get tax benefits much less for having children. I should not have to put money into something that's a personal choice.
this has nothing to do with this video but currently theres an add for habbo in the add box, have any of you seen this. do people not realise that it is a picture of a hand holding a pool of seamen with little men standing in it? is that strange to anyone else?
He misses the point. Gay people should have the right to make the same mistakes as him, and he's basically saying he does not want that, while at the same time, saying he wants a solution.
As long as he's married, then he has no right to tell others that they can not have the same privileges.
He didn't miss any point. He said, "That being said, if straights can do it, gays should be able to do it..."
That's what you just said in fewer words. He wanted to make a larger point that meant more to him, but that doesn't mean he missed that one. Turn off the selective hearing and listen.
But can one really speak of purely private contracts outside of a system of law that determines what contracts can be enforced and what contracts are legal and illegal? Can I make a contract that requires that I "love" someone, that I "honor" someone? How do you enforce such a contract?
But a contract that determines the disposition of property, of issue, etc., that's enforceable, that can be the basis of a *legal* contract - but how can that not involves the state, the source of law?
prodprod 1 year ago
Travel around the world with an Latino women rockmycity.info
wrrnlam 1 year ago
Yey, eventually I can get married too. My situation would confuse most people. Even gay people are confused of my kind. I'm male to female(MtF) transexual. I'm only attracted to genetic women or other MtF trans like myself. Since I identify as female, that would make me lesbian. If you view me as male, and I'm with a woman,..then would you view me as straight? Would 2 women be allowed to get married when one woman has a phenis and the other one has a vajayjay?
tkathryyn 1 year ago
When a fag sticks his tingy into another mans back that is not marrige. Thats fagism
ordained by by the High priests
fattony252 1 year ago
Hi Penn fans. Penn Says videos have been discontinued, so you won't be seeing any new content on here. You can check out our Profile on our Channel Page for more info. We'll still be checking in, so hope to keep chatting with you all! Thanks!
pennsays 1 year ago
@pennsays
Birth certificate = marriage certificate
-
Nice, neat , secular, biological. Government has no control over nature.
-
Get government out of the social engineering business. Religious faggots will never admit that evolution is only possible with heterosexual relationships.
SirWinstonChurchill 1 year ago
@SirWinstonChurchill Don't you know that evolution works both physically and mentally? I guess you are evolving physically, but mentally you are waaay behind. Inbred evolve? Yes they do, but with some mental differentiation. You can see them by the mass these days promoting hate.
tkathryyn 1 year ago
@tkathryyn
Evolution works mentally? You live in a fantasy world...
You think hate is a "sin" of some sort? You must be a religious faggot.
SirWinstonChurchill 1 year ago
Bravo!!
amynick 2 years ago
i think mirage is a religious ceremony and the government having any thing to do with it is serious breech of the constitution
Nibulis 2 years ago
what the hell is "mirage"?
dallasluce 1 year ago
At 0:36 my immediate reaction was that dude, your views on the government are way too extreme. I fully support government marriage. But just a few seconds after that I was wondering why I supported it. Truth is I have never even considered that it could be any other way, and of course never thought of any arguments for or against. Now, after watching the entire video and thinking a minute, maybe two, I am not sure either way. I really have nothing to base my opinion in the matter on.
Hedning1390 2 years ago 4
I agree with Penn's view on marriage, that it shouldn't be a government regulated thing. I think any kind of marriage should be legal, as marriage is a personal thing. The government saying that only certain people can get married for certain reasons is like my parents telling me I can only have certain friends from certain areas. It's unfair, and it should only be between the individuals within that marriage/relationship.
S0XF0X 2 years ago
So why do we have state sponsored marriage? Is it only a relic from the past? Surely there are some modern reasons for it?
Hedning1390 2 years ago
I think we have state-sponsored marriage because most of the people in this country believe in old puritan/christian traditions. Since those views have lasted so long, and have been so strongly supported by our leaders (the support being tax cuts as a way of praising this kind of marriage), it's no wonder our culture has formed to this ideology of what marriage should be. At least that's my take on it.
S0XF0X 2 years ago
@Hedning1390 It's definitely an intersting idea, 'cause it's so ingrained in American's way of thinking: when you get married you go down to city hall. It's just part of the whole shebang.
pennsays 2 years ago
@pennsays Look up 'common law' or 'common law marriage'. Common law is, obviously, a more general idea but common law marriage deals with the fact that at some point people can be considered married even without a formal government contract or even ceremony has taken place. It's a basic idea which should definitely be more ingrained in American's lives than going down to city hall to let the government tell you you're married.
noviceGT 1 year ago
were you takin shit while filmin this
TurtleHydro 2 years ago
seperation of church and state my ass
mbenson2790 2 years ago 2
your not a hypocrite about marriage
I don't support taxation but I'm still taxed that doesn't make me a hypocrite does it?
amalwaysawsome 2 years ago
Getting married is optional. Paying taxes is not. At least not legally. So opting to do something that you are ideally against is hypocritical. Doing something that you are ideally against because the law says you must is merely obeying the law.
In this case, though, he did the right thing. He chose his battles. The penalty for losing this battle is worse than the reward is good for winning. So he bit the bullet for his childrens' sakes.
pyrobryan 2 years ago
On your Prop 8- Marriage is not barred to people to are gay. If you are gay, you can still marry as long as it is to another of an opposite sex. Thus the law is not discriminating on sexual preference, but on your actions, as all laws do.
olenic5 2 years ago
And you don't see that as wrong in any way?
IWontGetOvertheDam 2 years ago
I'm not saying it's right or wrong. I'm just countering the argument that the law is "discrimination." It's not discrimination because it doesn't exclude anyone. This is also the reason why when the issue is brought to the courts in california it is always knocked down.
olenic5 2 years ago
Yes it does exclude people. If they proposed a law that outlawed straight marriage, I'm sure you would be against it, right? But why? You could just marry a gay person. That argument doesn't hold any water because gays are still being kept from marrying someone they love.
IWontGetOvertheDam 2 years ago
No, it doesn't exclude people because they are this or that. It only bars the action of marring someone of the same sex. If a straight person wanted to marry someone of the same sex, they too would be kept from marrying. All laws discriminate on actions. I'm sorry- below I meant the "discrimination" based on sex or race.
olenic5 2 years ago
So if they proposed a bill to ban interracial marriage, that wouldn't be racist?
IWontGetOvertheDam 2 years ago
That is different. That is saying because you are X, you cannot marry, and it does discriminate based on race. Do you see the difference? The law now says anyone can marry, but again, it is discriminating on the action of marrying someone of the same sex. You can be X, Y, Z, but you can only do C.
olenic5 2 years ago
But a black person could still get married so a black person, just not a white person, so it's not discriminating!
Just admit it, your logic is faulty.
IWontGetOvertheDam 2 years ago 2
No, its not. You don't understand. The law now says no intersexual marriage. It doesn't say gays cant marry. It doesn't say straights can't marry. It does not discriminate on your sexual preference. A gay person may *want* to marry someone of the same sex, but that is illegal. Just like I may *want* to carry a gun in public areas, but where I live its illegal.
olenic5 2 years ago
In the past, interracial marriages weren't legal. You were still allowed to get married, just not to people of other races. The supreme court ruled anti-mesceganistic laws unconstitutional in 1967. So why don't gay people get the same constitutional rights as straight people?
pyrobryan 2 years ago 3
Marriage now is open to all people regardless of race. That's a bad parallel: If you are X then you cannot marry Y. But the law now says if you are X,Y,Z you can marry Y. It never says if you are gay you cannot marry Y.
olenic5 2 years ago
I'm sorry I meant "regardless of sexual preference."
olenic5 2 years ago
And it never said that white people couldn't marry white people. It said that whites couldn't marry blacks. So it said X can't marry Y. And Y can't marry Z. Restricting who you were allowed to marry based on race was found to be unconstitutional. If you really can't see how that's the same, then you are either intentionally not seeing it or you are just too dense or too blinded by your fundamentalist religion to understand. Good day.
pyrobryan 2 years ago
The difference is that your example discriminates against PEOPLE. We have a law that states the definition of marriage: ANYONE can enter into a legal union or what not with someone of the opposite sex. No sexual preference, race, creed is written in to that law. All laws discriminate based on actions. And this law does not discriminate against people but against an ACTION. Thanks for accusing me of being a fundamentalist. Let's not make this personal, keep your attacks to your self.
olenic5 2 years ago
You keep going back to the definition argument even though I've explained how legal definitions can change through time. I'm done.
pyrobryan 2 years ago
Well, they do. Any gay woman can marry a man. Any gay man can marry a woman (subject to the same constraints as any other man)
DonMeaker 2 years ago
And again, I'll repeat myself. There used to be laws that prevented interracial marriage and those laws were repealed because they were found to be unconstitutional (Person A was not allowed to marry Person B, but they still could have married Person C). So two points are made here, laws can be changed as society evolves and your argument about gays being allowed to marry, they just can't marry who they want to marry, is blown out of the water.
pyrobryan 2 years ago 2
I agree that laws can change as society changes. For such a change to be legitimate, it has to come from the great majority of the people, expressed through their legislature. If it is "judge made law" is must be confirmed by the people, through legislation or initiative. The "Loving v. Virginia" case struck down the law not because it banned interracial marriage on "health" grounds, but because it illogically banned some interracial marriages (the Rolf family in VA is large and influential).
DonMeaker 2 years ago
The point being that the law discriminated against a certain group of people and was therefore found to be unconstitutional. It's the same thing now, the only difference is the kind of person it is discriminating against.
pyrobryan 2 years ago
My point is the law is made of the people, by the people and for the people. In CA the people voted to correct error by the courts. That is how it is supposed to work. Good luck on convincing the people that your side is correct.
DonMeaker 2 years ago
yes, we noticed you did a penn says on the toilet..
JasperXoR 2 years ago
Penn, even if you're opposed to government sanctioned marriage why would you NOT be opposed to something that only made society more unequal? Gays HAD marriage rights in CA and Prop 8 only grew the size of government by saying gays don't have marriage rights.
Womanizer2985 2 years ago
Did you guys even watch the whole thing? He pretty clearly said that anything straight people can do, gay people should be able to do as well, despite his opposition to government sanctioned marriage.
BrandonFerrell 2 years ago
Is... is Penn on the can...?
steampunk18 2 years ago 22
@steampunk18 Lol who the hell cares thats penn mother fucking Jillete!
H4rdr1v3 2 months ago in playlist Season 2
PENN: If you're against government involvement in marriage, why don't you support its equality FIRST (you know, plenty of gay people have the same concerns about parenting, tax issues, etc you have in the meantime) and then work to dismantle the government's role in it.
Otherwise, you're selfishly saying "gay people shouldn't be involved in this government institution, but we straights will continue to enjoy its numerous privileges until it's dismantled...which will be never."
oaklandj 2 years ago
Absolutely correct argument that libs should use. You don't hear this kind of intellect from libs. Pann is awesome!
libsrstupid 2 years ago
was he wairing a shirt in this vlog
pissedoffnerd1 2 years ago
Nope.
TriaMaxwell 2 years ago
Desert Bus is an amazing odyssey.
NightfallGemini 2 years ago
i say the govt should stay out of marriage all together (m/m, f/f, m/f) marriage is a religious term and only religious figures can perform it. a reliogus marriage iisnt legal til they sign a document, a civil union doucment you can sign without the whole religous thing. so everyone should be able to sign that and govt santioned civil union, but if you want to call it marriage then goodluck finding a priest, rabbi, monk or whatever to perform the ceremony for you 2 (or 3 or 4 or wat ever)
nowhereman136 2 years ago
I was married by a Justice of the Peace in a completely nonreligious ceremony because my wife and I are atheist. It is not a religious term, it is simply associated with such because most people will be married in ceremonies involving their beliefs out of respect for tradition. Religion does not have to be involved AT ALL. Most people get married for the same reason Penn states. It's not about religion, it's about security for ones family and the financial benefits of such, not the religious.
ShadowWolf346 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
You freaks who believe marriage should be between two men or a man and a giraffe just remember that you are in the minority. We have spoken again! Period!
CintiRailFan 2 years ago
You're a nobody, shut the fuck up.
Paradox3121 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The majority of us have spoken again. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Period! Just remember that all you freaks out there are in the minority.
CintiRailFan 2 years ago
Yep! The majority has spoken again, just as it did in the South in the 1800s. Them darkies is natural slaves by God-given RIGHT! Children of Cain & Ham, and all that! Says so right in the BYE-buhl! Just remember that all you abolitionist freaks out there are in the minority!
Oh, and a century later? The majority has spoken and Jim Crow is RIGHT! The benefits of law and justice, of everything else, belong to Whites! Just remember that all you Civil Rights freaks out there are in the minority.
COMALiteJ 2 years ago
And how DARE them wimmin folk wanna have careers and the vote and even be elected to public office and such? The majority has spoken — they're not to worry their purty little heads over such men's matters. Says so in the BYE-buhl! A woman's place is in the home! Just remember that all you Wimmin's Libbers, and Libs in general, and Suffragists, are in the minority.
(The preceeding two posts are brought to you by Dripping® Sarcasm™ in response to CintiRailFan's inanity.)
COMALiteJ 2 years ago 2
Oooh, one more:
CintiRailFan, don't you mean that marriage is between a WHITE man and a WHITE woman, or a BLACK man and a BLACK woman, or a YELLOW man and a YELLOW woman, etc. etc. etc., and never shall they mix their blood? That would be (*gasp!*) MISCEGENATION!!
THAT used to be the majority view, TOO, and not so long ago. There are still many people alive and well, who are still of sound mind and memory, today, here and now, who were ADULTS when that was still the majority view!
COMALiteJ 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
By the way, I hate niggers more than I hate fags!
CintiRailFan 2 years ago
just because everyone believes it, doesnt make it true or right. everyone believed the world was flat for a while. im gonna quote penn here... "the truth is not democratic"
hmmBEEFY 2 years ago
Davidngo4415 its virtually impossible to clearly define whether an animal is aware of what its consenting to?..or a child?.. there must be understanding behind all consent, so therefore these two things are immoral and corruptive,
scorpiowolfman9 2 years ago
I wholeheartedly agree with Penn. The history of marriage licenses dates back to when the government decided to start making them for people who wanted to have interracial marriages. That just goes to show how corrupt the idea of a marriage license is. Adults who want to have legal benefits like Penn was talking about should certainly be able to do so (weather by civil unions, or what have you.) But marriage should just be a private matter, and the government can get the eff out.
kait112 2 years ago
I believe that everyone should have the legal rights that come with marriage but churches should be able to choose whether they would marry gays because it's a religious matter and religion is protected by the Constitution. (The KKK doesn't have to allow blacks in their organization because they're a private organization.) But all the government funding of religious and other private organizations has to stop.
I'm against prop 8 too because the government isn't allowed to discriminate.
CrazyCheeseMagee 2 years ago
Your stupid.
CintiRailFan 2 years ago
I believe in marriage only if you want to consider it a sacrament in your church if you have one.
So yes again; You and I see eye on eye again.
AwakenedSamus 2 years ago
I agree that the best solution is to just take marriage out of government and just allow the same contracts without "moral" considerations. Marriage is after all, mostly religious. But the USA making marriage a matter not for legality isn't likely to happen, so for now the best thing to do is to allow any two people of age to marry.
TKnightcrawler 2 years ago
Not true. MARRIAGE is the lasting partnership between two (or more) consenting adults, for purposes of legitimizing heirs, alliances, etc. It has existed in every human culture since long before JUDAISM existed, let ALONE Christianity.
The often religious ceremony that unites people in matrimony (marriage) is NOT termed a marriage itself, but rather a WEDDING. Marriage is what STARTS WITH a wedding and ends with either death, divorce, annulment, or perhaps a pre-agreed period of time.
COMALiteJ 2 years ago
So? Just because marriage started before one religion or another doesn't mean the idea isn't religious/spiritual.
TKnightcrawler 2 years ago
Well, no one knows for sure how marriage got started, because it predates all writings of humanity.
That said, the one making the AFFIRMATIVE claim is the one who must provide proof. If you say that it's religious or spiritual in origin, you have to PROVE that. I do NOT have to prove that it ISN'T, because that's a NEGATIVE claim, NOT an AFFIRMATIVE one.
COMALiteJ 2 years ago
US society doesn't care about origins or history. Here, it's spiritual and religious. Never heard claims like "the sanctity of marriage?" How many people get married in religious places?
TKnightcrawler 2 years ago
Just because the US doesn't care about origins or history doesn't make that right. Sanctity of marriage is utter bullshit and the numbers about churches don't mean crap because marriage was a deeply ingrained tradition in human society long before religion was. Even cave people had their own form of marriage (including a ring ergo a wedding ring). Just cause the Christians made it into their own sacreligious bullcrap ceremony doesn't make it theirs in time or right.
ItsDustinDazzlin 2 years ago 2
shit...I thumbs-downed this but realized I read it wrong lol sorry I agree with you and for the record gay marriage was in effect in Rome several hundred years before Christianity (though not, if I remember, before Jews outlawed it and punished it with death).
ItsDustinDazzlin 2 years ago
I love your views on marrige. I am lesbian and I have been verry sick for a while now. When I was in the hospital they made me fill out paperwork to allow them to give info to my partner and they still refused to tell her anything. She was limited to non family visiting hours. It was crazy. I do not want a gov marrige but I do want a recognition that she is a family member. If I die I want to know the house will automatically go to her. Simple things like that, thats all. Good Day!!!
shananagans5 2 years ago 4
I agree with Penn. Marriage should be private....PERIOD!
maczimms 2 years ago 2
Aargh, he mentioned "the game", and now I lost.
Zahlman 2 years ago 2
oh thanks a lot.
Now I lost....
I hate the person who told me about this stupid game...
LatumWay 2 years ago
I like to play a different game, one where ever time you hear about it, you WIN!!! So, anyone reading this, you are a WINNER!!!
C'mon people, think like optimists!
f1uckingretard 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
1. copy and paste
2. send this to 9 other videos.
3. hold your breath for 10 seconds
4. press refresh twice
3. LOOK AT YOUR BACKGROUND IT WILL BE FREAKY
americancutie10 2 years ago
Desert Bus was the best non-game ever created. Period.
And I'm sorry for your loss, Penn.
Boonehams 2 years ago
I'd marry my dogs if it were legal.
SpazzzDog 2 years ago
It looks like you make all these videos after getting out of the shower.
SpazzzDog 2 years ago
Marriage is Bullshit. Hell of a provocative episode (might get press) hell of a libertarian idea (state sanctioned marriage only of course).
Icharys 2 years ago
For a simple thought about how messed up CA really is... how full of hypocrites we are, if yes on prop 8 was deemed "unconstitutional" then why are many of those same people who say they want to enforce more and more restrictions of our 2nd amendment? As I said, hypocrites, that say less government, when they vote otherwise..... or are they just plain stupid? and i'm a conservative libertarian (and not pushing religious anything on anyone) thank god i'm only here temporarily for college!
jessenicholas1 2 years ago
Ok so, I think if you divorce, FOR ANY REASON, both should be shot.
And in return, gays can get married and the rules apply to them.
Golempire 2 years ago
I want to give penn and backrub. LOL
Are you in the bathtub, or on the toilet? :)
poolaceboy 2 years ago
Or as James Madison put it "Religion is exempt from the COGNIZANCE of the institutions of civil society". All marriages are civil unions- just contracts to be ejudicated as such. Traditional marriage has a better chance of remaining an institution based upon its intrinsic value than upon having the government sign-on as its representative and protector. The latter hastens the demise of the former.
brazenhubris 2 years ago
I don't understand why anybody would ever want to be married for any reason, but I don't think it's mine or anybody else's place to tell someone what they can or can not do with their life. But that's how this country works. You can't do this because it's illegal. It's illegal because people don't like it. People don't like it because they were taught it was wrong. They were taught it was wrong because they were taught by ignorant people. Ignorance was a product of the times.
ProbablyConfused 2 years ago
You can be against marriage, but it is a contract. It's a legal thing. It's not religious.
Onodera1980 2 years ago
I am gay and I'm against ALL gov't-sanctioned marriage. It gets me a lot of shit in the LGBT community, but I'm not alone in this line of thinking.
I'd rather fight for more important things... like education and those damn health insurance companies.
spookythebando 2 years ago 3
I'm g0y & wrote an essay on the same thing.
g0ys is spelled w. a zer0.
G00GLE g0ys to find it.
N0 STATE SANCTIONED MARRIAGE! It's a "Ttile of Nobility" bestowed on a partnership where the STATE has superior interest to the contract!
g0ysorg 2 years ago
I'm so confused as to what g0ys are. If I'm gay, and I like to have anal sex, you basically are saying I'm immoral? But you claim to be homosexual. But you reject the homosexual scene. Sorry buddy, you're still gay. Not all gays are effeminate, flamboyant flamers. You couldn't tell if a lot of gays are gay. Seems to me you're a bunch of homos that are afraid of the general public's assumptions. So what? They're wrong 90% of the time anyway.
Grow some balls. Be proud of what you are.
ProbablyConfused 2 years ago
LOL "g0ys." I heard about these clowns years ago. I urge you to look them up if you want to see what self-loathing and repression of your sexual orientation will do to you.
I used to belong to their Yahoo group, just to check them out, and I was really disturbed by the amount of them that are Married - to WOMEN - but diddle guys on the side.
In their warped little minds, if you arent into anal sex, then you arent really "gay." (Because all gays love anal sex and all str8s loath it. Uh, NOT.)
BearBoi69 2 years ago
I think not being able to do something at all totally overrides not bribing people to do it.
Nashy119 2 years ago
I am for the civil union, but I don't know about marrige
the civil union would have gave the homosexuals most of the rights of a normal marrige, but I am on the fence
residentmagnum 2 years ago
Yeah, then we can get those homosexuals separate bathrooms and separate seating in restaurants/buses, maybe a different school for children who are gay. It is separate but equal so what does it mater.
RableRableRableRable 2 years ago
This is sarcasm.
RableRableRableRable 2 years ago
I don't hate the homosexauls I and possibly other just don't understand them
residentmagnum 2 years ago
"normal"????
I am gay and I am NORMAL.
spookythebando 2 years ago
I think alot of people where misled on Prop8. They thought that it passing would mean churches would HAVE to let gay people get married, not the case. It would give all gay couples the same legal standing as partners as the rest of us in issues like health care, insurance, and wills. But alot of the Pro-prop 8 information was slanted to scare people into voting for it.
calhoun81670 2 years ago 8
I just lost The Game.
Tomeg12 2 years ago
fuck! now i did too :(
JCWxoxo 2 years ago
Generally speaking the real purpose of marriage is to bring two commited financially stable adults together to ensure they're ability to devote there time and resources to a child.
Morally speaking theres nothing wrong with sex before marriage but promiscuity can lead to unexpected pregnancy and the resultant financial instability which the child would suffer from. Gays that plan on having a child (adoption, insemination ect.) would benefit all the same from marriage.
Juniversal 2 years ago
CONT'D...and hence its written into many religions that sex before marriage is a sin. If you have a child with somebody who's not committed or able, then the child suffers.
And marriage is a contract to prevent that from happening (or at least work as a barrier to one parent vanishing) lol.
Juniversal 2 years ago
wtf is this guy in a public rest room taking a shit?
SweeperstheBoss 2 years ago
Lol!!
WizardessAlyssa 2 years ago
You say you oppose the government sanctioning of marriage, and that causes you to "not feel good about fighting prop 8." If you truly felt that gays should be able to do it if straights could, than you would oppose prop 8. Prop 8 does not support your ideas of stopping government sanctioned marriage, and I find it saddening that you would let that get into the way of fighting prop 8.
Also, who do you think will enforce the contract that you set up with your spouse? The government.
WillWork4Food89 2 years ago
it's the straight people who are "destroying the sanctity of marriage." With their divorces and their infidelities and their illegitimate children and their shotgun weddings" if ANYONE shouldn't be allowed to get married it should be the ones who've cocked it up in the past
Durnty 2 years ago
As I've said before, same-sex marriage is NOT a threat to traditional marriage.
A close to 67% divorce rate among heterosexual married couples? Nearly aqual to the SUPERmajority needed to OVERRIDE a Presidential veto!?
For every ONE marriage that lasts a lifetime, TWO end in divorce!!
THERE'S your REAL threat to traditional marriage!
So, same-sex-marriage haters, solve THAT one FIRST, and THEN you can afford to waste time worrying about who should be allowed to marry whom!
COMALiteJ 2 years ago
haha if that was directed at me, then i think you misunderstood my intention
Durnty 2 years ago
No, I was agreeing with you and supporting your intention and position.
COMALiteJ 2 years ago
ha sorry it's hard to tell sometimes XP
Durnty 2 years ago
Really...how many Gay virgins are out there? Ones that actually do not have sex before they are married. NONE. Most Gay people have many more partners than the average straight person. The gay pride parades are an embarrassment for the Gay community. How these people could do what they did on a public street is sick. And then they want to be grouped in with married people? Get real. No wonder people feel the way they do. I have gay friends who are embarrassed by this crap also.
solrac3002 2 years ago
well that's a bit of a loaded question isn't it? any gay couple who had sex would be doing so premaritaly, seeing as marriage still isn't legal for same-sex partners. And the idea that most homosexuals have multiple sexual partners is exaggerated stereotype. While it is true of some people, there are many more monogamous homosexual couples. Also, i've never been to a pride parade so i can't comment from experience on anything that may or may not have occurred.
Durnty 2 years ago
Most def
Golempire 2 years ago
Really? ...how many STRAIGHT virgins are out there? In case you missed it we live in the 21st century. Everyone is gettin freaky deeky nowadays dude.... and how is being a single virgin somehow a higher badge of honor than being a single person who is not a virgin? Last time I checked being a virgin means you've experienced LESS than if you are not a virgin.
Knowpeace182 2 years ago
THIS!!!
FWAWrestling 2 years ago
I'm gay and still a virgin.
The parades are so the ignorant people who oppose gay marriage are reminded that they can't rid the world of gays.
Your friends are probably embarrassed because being gay isn't widely accepted.
TheMysteryBoxx 2 years ago
marriage liscences are whats gay!
grassmaster180 2 years ago
The developer Absolute Entertainment went out of business before they could release the game
bangulo2012 2 years ago
what's wrong with having sex with animals or your sibling? it's just as none of your business as being gay. as long as it involves consenting adults and doesn't harm any animals, it should be completely legal. so i don't see why it's a bad analogy. there are no "bad sexual orientations" as long as it involves consenting adults.
davidngo4415 2 years ago
Comment removed
celestialsalamander 2 years ago
your comparing being gay to being an animal now, or even worse, incestuous.... nice! you fail
randolph1977 2 years ago
What the fuck are you talking about? Being gay is not comparable to fucking your dog or sister. When you can think of something sensible to say, say it. And use capitals. Until then just shut up.
BigFootAlan 2 years ago
many people have misunderstood this comment. i can see why i should have included a quote from the part of the video i was commenting one.
i am extremely strongly FOR gay marine.
i was commenting on his response to the slippery slop "
how far will this go? will it just keep going." he said "i certainly hope so." i wanted to know if he really meant it.
i genuinely wanted an answer.
celestialsalamander 2 years ago
Yeah.......right...................
marblemason1 2 years ago
let the gays marry...who cares??? christians, muslims and other crazies care; fuck 'em.
freddydaddy69 2 years ago
Isn't this an old episode???
CaptChrisT 2 years ago
just call it a civil union, and let the religeous types keep the word marriage... problem solved
randolph1977 2 years ago
Would black people still like being called 3/5s a human being? Or worse, "property"? Although "civil unions" makes an attempt to accomodate, it establishes a "seperate but equal" policy that is not sustainable. Penn is right to say that marriage isn't any of the government's business.
MikeNobodyIsBack 2 years ago 4
i see what your saying, i just wish there was an easy fix.... i just find it sad when people dont even have the right to get married
randolph1977 2 years ago
I think he's taking a dump!
jaraha 2 years ago
Is Penn taking a shit? I kept waiting for him to fart really loudly.
slaytak 2 years ago
I know you're a atheist. I like to follow the bible, it says to love thy neighbor. Christians aren't the only ones that get married. If these people who say they want to protect the sanctity of marriage, really want to do that, then they should ban divorce. If a gay or lesbian couple want to get married, let em. They can be miserable like the rest of us.
meape 2 years ago 3
Penn, you guys should do a Bullshit show on Affirmative Action and your thoughts on it. I know you guys did a show on reparations, but I don't feel that it addressed affrimative action, and still feel you could get a good show out of it.
I know I researched into it and found a lot of bullshit in Affirmative Action.
Firesky008 2 years ago
with that said, government should not be suspending teachers who wear crosses to school and have bibles in their desks either... That is their personal choice as well...
soliloqy 2 years ago
"with that said, government should not be suspending teachers who wear crosses to school and have bibles in their desks either... That is their personal choice as well..."
when and where was this ever done? post a link.
GottiDaGoodfella 2 years ago
To understand marriage one has to understand the history in America... Before the 1900's marriage was not regulated by the fed nor the states, it was a private institution as were schools (ie prayer in schools) and Universities, both of which were started by churches... The intermingling came when government hi-jacked these and violated the seperation... The gov should be providing civil unions, for everyone and allowing the private sector the right to acknowledge them...
soliloqy 2 years ago
Partners, not the government, should define the nature and terms of their relationship. That is all.
scottliberty 2 years ago
Does any1 really want the govt out of marriage? No gov't means rampant discrimination. If left up to private sector, they will have right 2 NOT marry gays & deny benefits. Y b/c gov't will not govern this...something 2 think about...
b-sides gov usually steps in when ppl become irrational make bad decisions that impact others drasticaly
lafathis 2 years ago
I would say that we want government to focus on legal agreements, as mentioned in the constitution, and allow the individuals, to acknowledge it as marriage... Churches have the right to not acknowledge it as marriage, as they are the private sector, however governments job is to preserve liberty, and two, three, four individuals have every right to enter into civil unions strait or gay... The Fed and States can't infringe upon free agreements... its in the constitution
soliloqy 2 years ago
I agree that complete state separation from marriage should be a goal, but as long as marriage is a government conceived contract, everyone should have equal standing under it. I think your videos are great Penn, but you strike me as to black and white sometimes. I think libertarians often times have the problem of being to black/white about things.
I am a radical and left libertarian btw.
DeraJa 2 years ago
shut up raina
unityforobama 2 years ago
all people should be allowed to marry, fucl these religious bigots.
LeonSKennedy828 2 years ago 3
Fucl them all indeed :P
luca82 2 years ago
I could not agree with this video more.
The concept of "marriage" is a religious one and does not belong in the legal system as a special status.
culwin 2 years ago
Penn, I think you missed the point. You say you got married for the protection. How that is not needed even more for gay people? You can talk about an ideal world where marriage doesn't matter, but that isn't the world any of us live in now.
sgmarshall 2 years ago
I'm pretty sure Penn is saying that all the laws involving marriage need overhauled. End the idea of special rights that only apply to married people. Everyone should have these rights, married or not.
culwin 2 years ago
Culwin, that is my point. The laws for marriage are not being changed, so the actual result for 'I don't support gay marriage' winds up being no rights for gays. What Penn is doing (though perhaps subconsciously) is throwing gays under the bus in the hope they can force a liberatarian change to marriage laws -- while he enjoys the rights of marriage.
sgmarshall 2 years ago
So you think gays should have the "rights" of marriage.
What about me? I'm single, where are my special benefits?
Thanks for throwing me under the bus, jerk.
culwin 2 years ago
"What about me? I'm single, where are my special benefits?"
So you admit that hetrosexuals in the US have special rights. Most of the rights I am talking about simply do not apply to individuals. The state doesn't get in the way of associating with yourself, or your healthcare benefiting yourself, or you visiting yourself in the hospital (or making decisions for yourself, etc.). You in-laws do not by default wind up with legal rights you don't even get in certain situations.
sgmarshall 2 years ago
i get what you are saying he did the palliation thing and never answered the question do you think gays should have the right to marry
jackson0082 2 years ago
Comment removed
jackson0082 2 years ago
also have u got thinner ?
totorolover1988 2 years ago
penn move the cam down i wanna see ur chest smooch hehe ♥
totorolover1988 2 years ago
Isn't this a rerun?? I felt major deja vu watching it.
MoeB250 2 years ago
I believe that the government should be in charge of "civil" unions. Marriage is personal and usually a religious act. Nothing to do with governments. Because of this, I believe that "Gay Marriage" is a non issue and shouldn't even be voted for or against.
akacaleb 2 years ago 2
Is he on the craper
jackson0082 2 years ago 4
i thought the same thing
totorolover1988 2 years ago
Hey if you don't believe in gay marriage then don't marry a gay person!"
Whoopi Goldberg
jackson0082 2 years ago 5
Gay Marriage would have brought in 50 million dollars into our states economy. May not be much, but its something! The hell with morals I say, we are no longer in the 20th but the 21st century. Let's not pass on the intolerance and bigotry that our forefathers taught us. Let's accept people for who they are!
Tallacus 2 years ago 4
be careful of what you accuse our forefathers of, they were not as intolerant as you think . Read Thomas Jefferson's, or better yet Ben Franklins bio you'll see what I'm talking about.
standj21 2 years ago
I think that no one should be allowed use the police powers of government to impose one's morality on someone else, on both sides of the fence... and what I mean by that is a gay couple should not be allowed to sue anyone for refusing to perform a ceremony my sound a little frivolous, and not very probable but you get the point (I hope).
standj21 2 years ago 3
Hell yes I've been ridiculed and bitched at for a long time by all sorts of people because I feel the same way!
standj21 2 years ago 2
Marriage should not be a legal institution. I agree completely. It should be a religious only and up to the individual on how they define their marriage. I don't see why a married couple should get tax benefits much less for having children. I should not have to put money into something that's a personal choice.
JesterKafka 2 years ago 2
wasnt this already posted like weeks ago?
ashburn247 2 years ago
pretty sure it was
liberal4ever 2 years ago
How come I get the feeling that you did this video on the toilet?
dmaradona10 2 years ago
this has nothing to do with this video but currently theres an add for habbo in the add box, have any of you seen this. do people not realise that it is a picture of a hand holding a pool of seamen with little men standing in it? is that strange to anyone else?
theMadSmashedClam 2 years ago
You did the bible is bullshit. How about the koran?
ConcernedHuman 2 years ago 2
I'd love to see a Koran bullshit episode (I'm an atheist from a muslim family)
lordaltay5 2 years ago 3
do us a favor, put a shirt on
tavo5150 2 years ago 2
He misses the point. Gay people should have the right to make the same mistakes as him, and he's basically saying he does not want that, while at the same time, saying he wants a solution.
As long as he's married, then he has no right to tell others that they can not have the same privileges.
poorkinghaggard 2 years ago
He didn't miss any point. He said, "That being said, if straights can do it, gays should be able to do it..."
That's what you just said in fewer words. He wanted to make a larger point that meant more to him, but that doesn't mean he missed that one. Turn off the selective hearing and listen.
orchidz 2 years ago 3