Because homosexuality is a MORAL issue, not a CIVIL one. Homosexuality has to do with behavior. It's not about what a person is but what a person does. Unbelievable!
She didn't like it when he introduced logic into the discussion, preferring a sound-bite response to dismiss his views as out of the mainstream. His logic is sound, whether you agree or not. If gay marriage is an acceptable re-definition of marriage, then how about polygamy, pedophelia, bestiality, parent-child, etc? Once you include deviancy as acceptable then who says where the line gets drawn? She hasn;t thought it out yet, she just doesnt want to believe her best friend is immoral.
My video about his answer notes he loves the "Slippery Slope" argument, that once you allow gays to marry then you'll allow polygamy, or farm animals to marry pet rocks, etc.
The counter-argument to him is that whether the USA keeps 2 people per marriage (vs. 3 or 10), that should be the same regardless of gender, orientation, race, etc.
Just a couple generations ago, Santorum's "logic" would have said NOT to allow blacks to marry whites due to slippery slope (then trees marry fish, etc)
I admire this young woman for asking the questions that showed us (via Santorum's answers) that Santorum still has no interest in giving equal rights to gay Americans.
@GodVlogger Sen Santorum expressed no interest in denying anyone any constitutional right. Gays have no special standing for special rights in the US. Your comment is inaccurate, and biggoted against those with traditional viewpoints of right and wrong. You have the same rights as everyone else, but nothing special about being "gay".
@Uzbekistan771 Actually, Santorum HAS expressed support for a "constitutional amendment" to deny marriage equality to gays, thus he would make this a 'constitutional' right that excludes gays.
@Uzbekistan771 You say that I have the same rights as everyone else, but that is not true. As a married heterosexual, I have MORE rights than gay citizens. My straight marriage gives me many many privileges/perks that are NOT extended to gays.
@Uzbekistan771 Lastly, you call people "bigoted" if they endorse equality for all citizens (regardless of sexual orientation).
By comparison, you would be like the KKK saying that black people (or pro-equality whites) are bigoted by wanting equality for all citizens regardless of skin color.
Your "traditional views" are bigoted views. The fact that these views have been around a long time (too long!) points to why they should be modernized, not why your ancient bigotry should be upheld.
@GodVlogger Your logic is flawed. Gays have exactly the same rights as heterosexuals in the USA, just not "special rights". Similar to those the Klan fought for for non Jews and Whites Only, you seek for gays. Many of us have fought for the rights of everyone, and will defend them to death. However, there is no right to marry an underage boy, your mother, your 5 girlfriends at the same time, or a 9 year old girl...these aren't "Marriage", as defined in the USA.
What if we changed the term "marriage" for gays into something like "domestic partnerships" but give them the same rights and etc that married couples enjoy?
That way, the definition of marriage will remain consistent and gay couples can be happy with the enjoyment of similar rights as married couples.
@tosxpert this has been the GOP position for quite some time. the gays, however, see it as "separate but equal" and insist on full equality. RON PAUL says what the fuck is the government doing involved in marriage in the first place?
@tosxpert I like your desire to find an acceptable middle ground. I think we have definitions (multiple) for gay relationships already. Many are sanctioned by various religions, and have sacrements and ceremony. What they want is to legitimize their lifestyle and stifle any dissenting opinion.
As for "separate but equal", if they're separate it's because they want to be. The constitution makes us all equal, just not in our sexual preferences.
Because homosexuality is a MORAL issue, not a CIVIL one. Homosexuality has to do with behavior. It's not about what a person is but what a person does. Unbelievable!
October31st1517 1 week ago
I'd hit it
kkassam 1 month ago
She didn't like it when he introduced logic into the discussion, preferring a sound-bite response to dismiss his views as out of the mainstream. His logic is sound, whether you agree or not. If gay marriage is an acceptable re-definition of marriage, then how about polygamy, pedophelia, bestiality, parent-child, etc? Once you include deviancy as acceptable then who says where the line gets drawn? She hasn;t thought it out yet, she just doesnt want to believe her best friend is immoral.
Uzbekistan771 1 month ago
My video about his answer notes he loves the "Slippery Slope" argument, that once you allow gays to marry then you'll allow polygamy, or farm animals to marry pet rocks, etc.
The counter-argument to him is that whether the USA keeps 2 people per marriage (vs. 3 or 10), that should be the same regardless of gender, orientation, race, etc.
Just a couple generations ago, Santorum's "logic" would have said NOT to allow blacks to marry whites due to slippery slope (then trees marry fish, etc)
GodVlogger 1 month ago
I admire this young woman for asking the questions that showed us (via Santorum's answers) that Santorum still has no interest in giving equal rights to gay Americans.
GodVlogger 1 month ago
@GodVlogger Sen Santorum expressed no interest in denying anyone any constitutional right. Gays have no special standing for special rights in the US. Your comment is inaccurate, and biggoted against those with traditional viewpoints of right and wrong. You have the same rights as everyone else, but nothing special about being "gay".
Uzbekistan771 1 month ago
@Uzbekistan771 Actually, Santorum HAS expressed support for a "constitutional amendment" to deny marriage equality to gays, thus he would make this a 'constitutional' right that excludes gays.
GodVlogger 1 month ago
@Uzbekistan771 You say that I have the same rights as everyone else, but that is not true. As a married heterosexual, I have MORE rights than gay citizens. My straight marriage gives me many many privileges/perks that are NOT extended to gays.
GodVlogger 1 month ago
@GodVlogger The priveledge and perk of marriage...not a right. The perks of marriage is available to everyone, just not how they want it.
Uzbekistan771 1 month ago
@Uzbekistan771 Lastly, you call people "bigoted" if they endorse equality for all citizens (regardless of sexual orientation).
By comparison, you would be like the KKK saying that black people (or pro-equality whites) are bigoted by wanting equality for all citizens regardless of skin color.
Your "traditional views" are bigoted views. The fact that these views have been around a long time (too long!) points to why they should be modernized, not why your ancient bigotry should be upheld.
GodVlogger 1 month ago
@GodVlogger Your logic is flawed. Gays have exactly the same rights as heterosexuals in the USA, just not "special rights". Similar to those the Klan fought for for non Jews and Whites Only, you seek for gays. Many of us have fought for the rights of everyone, and will defend them to death. However, there is no right to marry an underage boy, your mother, your 5 girlfriends at the same time, or a 9 year old girl...these aren't "Marriage", as defined in the USA.
Uzbekistan771 1 month ago
What if we changed the term "marriage" for gays into something like "domestic partnerships" but give them the same rights and etc that married couples enjoy?
That way, the definition of marriage will remain consistent and gay couples can be happy with the enjoyment of similar rights as married couples.
Agree? Disagree?
But anyways, my vote is going to Ron Paul.
tosxpert 1 month ago
@tosxpert this has been the GOP position for quite some time. the gays, however, see it as "separate but equal" and insist on full equality. RON PAUL says what the fuck is the government doing involved in marriage in the first place?
anonynomnomnom 1 month ago in playlist More videos from GARRETT3000
@tosxpert I like your desire to find an acceptable middle ground. I think we have definitions (multiple) for gay relationships already. Many are sanctioned by various religions, and have sacrements and ceremony. What they want is to legitimize their lifestyle and stifle any dissenting opinion.
As for "separate but equal", if they're separate it's because they want to be. The constitution makes us all equal, just not in our sexual preferences.
Uzbekistan771 1 month ago
@Uzbekistan771 When you say "As for "separate but equal", if they're separate it's because they [gays] want to be. "
Would you have said the same about black people during their civil rights movement?
GodVlogger 1 month ago
marriage is between one man and one woman period.
jayhawk88z 1 month ago
Comment removed
inovationist 1 month ago
Good for you Allison, I'm proud of you. You stuck up for your friend.
Pilgrim812 1 month ago