Gay marriage is part of the slippery slope of liberalism. First the liberals took away the God-given right to own other people as slaves. Now they are taking away the right to treat people as second class citizens. What's next? Taking away the right to kill people? No more death penalty leads to medicare which leads to socialism.
Legal = state recognized. Church = belief which you can ALWAYS HAVE. The 2 should never mix. Kind of sad that most of the people arguing against gay marriage don't even know most of the good people they're affecting even if the families with children with that afflict no harm on everyone else's families cause any harm whatsoever. Besides marriage is a union between 2 people who are truly in consentual love.
"We also sent Lut : He said to his people : "Do ye commit lewdness such as no people in creation (ever) committed before you? For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds." Qur'an 7:80-81
“What! Of all creatures do ye come unto the males, and leave the wives your Lord created for you? Nay, but ye are forward folk." Qur'an 26:165
fucking idiot dyke. The concept wasn't by the church, it existed long before then, if it were the church wouldn't actually recognize it because of separation of church and state.
Just because it's in the bible does not mean it belongs to it. "arks" are in the bible.. doesn't mean the bible came up or owns those. Christians don't own marriage, get your head out the gutter. Marriage in this country is just the word used to unionize two consenting adults, gays should be part too.
I am lesbian and I am against gay marriage. Marriage is a concept come up with by the church and recognized by the state. I am all for some kind of union recognized by the state for gay people but calling it marriage is an attempt at pushing our values on the church. It is not ok for the church to force values on us. Why is it ok to push our values on them? The church doesn't like my lifestyle why would I want a union that indicates the church condones it when they don't.
@shananagans5 Wow you are incredibly mis-informed. The concept of marriage predates Christianity, even arguably Judaism. Gay marriage is ONLY for civil marriage. Gay's can already have the marriage sacrament. And Churches have a strong right to deny any sacrament they choose. The only thing forced on christians is that you will have the same rights as they do. Like hospital visitation, assume will, join custody of children, social security benefits. Wow you are weak hearted....
@TMBrd89 True, it does predate Christianity but in todays world, the term marriage is often associated with the church. I am very conservative as are most of my friends and nobody really has any opposition to a legal union. The hangup seems to be with the term marriage. It seems to me like many gay people are trying to force acceptance by pushing the use of the word marriage. I don't see the point. I am not religious at all but I do respect their right to disagree with my lifestyle.
@shananagans5 cause that would be the easiest way to get full rights. It would give full rights both state and federal. It would bypass this idea that we have create a whole new institution for gay people. Even though all the conditions of marriage are met. So like this video asks, if gay marriage only truly hurts gay families, then who are the victims of gay marriage?
@shananagans5 I don't know what its like in America, but here (the Netherlands) you can marry for the state not for the church. It doesn't have anything to do with the church if you want to.
Why would you get married? Because here it gives some tax benefits, and the promise that you will stay with each other, but that's a small thing isn't it? :P
I agree with you; gay marriage should not be a political issue; it's not okay to legislate your opinion on what is moral.
Personally, I think it would be better if homosexuality were more common. That way many of the orphans and unwanted children around the world can get adopted by them and get loving families, and fewer new kids will be born.
What is marriage? what is gay marriage? why is it so important gays get marriad? is marriage a right or prevalege? is the recognition of marriage a right or prevalege? is divorce a right? is sex a right? is sexual orientation a right? who and i mean whooooooooo determines? the minority? the majority?
The only concern i hold about gay marriage and religion, is if the gay couple wants to be married by a pastor. Because it is against the word of god for people to be homosexual gay marriage is a deviation from Christianity. and would thus make a conflict of interest for the marrying pastor as the couple goes against the word of the bible but if they are to be married by a justice of the peace i say whatever it is cool. i am not christian or gay and hold no bias to either side.
gay marriage has hurt one person...drenin? really, you named a kid Drenin? I'm named Mike and kids still found ways to turn it against me JK of course Go gay marriage!
How are real families harmed? They lack a legal document stating their marriage? Doesn't matter. Same sex can easily attain the same rights under the law as a legally married couple. However forcing people to not only tolerate a lifestyle, but accept it as equal to a traditional marriage. Yes I can see how people would have a problem with that. It's not progressive, it's been done before in empires long fallen. So why is it still in debate?
Because its a basic fucking right and without the right to marriage they cant get any gov't help for raising children. Why is it so important that we have the right to free speech? Think before you type.
No worries. Well, it is something I would like those opposing marriage to answer. One wonders wether they've thought their arguements through at times...
They cant get tax right offs, or any help from the gov't in raising a kid. Our constituion gaurantees the seperation of churuch and state yet these people say on gay marriage we can incorporate our religious beliefs. Btw you fucking idiot in order to accept someones lifestyle requires you to tolerate it, you cant have one without the other. You are the typical conservative retard who doesnt understand our constitution or the english language.
To treat a same sex marriage as different from a heterosexual marriage serves no purpose but to feed bias against gays in general. They are looked down upon as "unnatural" because of sexual predisposition. I would say that there is not a single thing in the world MORE natural than love, and not allowing gays to express it in the same way as heterosexuals is a great injustice.
Off subject i would like to ask. Should those churches exemplified in this video lose their tax-exempt status for deliberately participating in a political issue?
gay rights, womens rights, african american rights. I suppose 2 out of 3 isnt bad. Its disgusting that a large group of people can trample on the rights of the minority, when in no way it affects them.
The only roots prohibiting marriage equality for gays and lesbians takes us back to is our tradition of prejudice towards minorities. Prop 8 had nothing to do with anything except the battle against the recognition of gays and lesbians as equal and normal human beings. The sad thing is, the damn measure passed with no rationale other than fear and brimstone.
No one has been deprived of the right to marry--only of the right to insist that a single-sex union is a "marriage." You cloak your demands in the language of civil rights because it sounds so much better than the truth: You don't want to accept or reject marriage on the same terms that it is available to everyone else. You want it on entirely new terms. You want it to be given a meaning it has never before had.
"Gay citizens" already have the same right to marry as anyone else--else to the same restrictions. No one may marry a close blood relative, a child, a person who is already married, or a person of the same sex. However much those restrictions may disappoint the incestuous, pedophiles, polygamists, and homosexuals, the issue is not discrimination. It is the nature of marriage itself.
You want to talk about the truth? Including gays and lesbians in marriage doesn't negatively affect heterosexual couples or society in the least. You're more concerned about the definition of an institution that HAS changed significantly over the years rather than offering the joy, protection, benefits, and status to gay and lesbian couples. The big question is, why?
I'm deeply concerned with the definition of the marriage because we are taking a gender-specific chil
and-centered institution into a gender-neutral adult-centered institution.
Cali family code section 297.5 states all gay couples who are: "(a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law,...as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.
How in the world has the definition changed? When you want to change the definition of something as important as marriage, and you're in the minority, shouldn't the burden of proof be on you?
If you could make people understand how allowing gays and lesbians the right to marry affects your life in any way, they might understand your problem with marriage equality. But most of what i hear is not a problem with gays being allowed to marry as much as it is with gays themselves. Is it that you care about "protecting marriage" or is it that you don't want gays to be viewed as normal?
WHEREAS CSC is in contempt in re illegal denial for rehearing of CSC habeas petition S142192 and in re State hindrance of C07 01399 SBA USDC habeas motion, currently delinquent but unopposed in Oakland before Judge Armstrong, BILLS OF ATTAINDER are rampant, including the named ex post facto Prop.8. Violence has broken out, relative to the related undermining of Superior Court, and so, CPC 403 et seq. must be relieved, with habeas corpus in California, lest fatal estoppel. 360.yahoo/bobgnote
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Fast forward 5 years:
News conference. A man stands in front of a group of several women. He speaks to the throng of reporters, "My name is Mike. I am a business owner, a father of ten children, and I love all these women behind me. All I am asking for is the basic human right to marry all of them."
10 years in the future:
Jim, 45, stands in front of his 15 yr. old cousin. "I love her, and we just want our right to marry."
absolutely right, and I do not agree because I have anything against gays, I just don't understand why supporters of gay marriage would not support polygamy, incest, ect...
To oppose gay marriage is the say the respective genders of the people getting married is important. And I don't understand how a person's gender can determine the morality of their actions. Polygamy exploits women, incest is generally exploitative and abusive as well, and surely we don't have to worry about marrying dogs until dogs can sign contracts, own property, and generally have legal personhood first?
True. The main argument is that it is not hurting anyone. The same argument can be applied to the legalization of polygamy and incest. There has to be a line drawn in the sand.
Right, that is the main argument. However, you seem to have ignored the other sub-parts the number154 already mentioned, such as how Polygamy exploits women and such. What does homosexuality do? The two consensual, adult people certainly aren't exploiting/abusing each other because they are in love and happen to both be the same sex! Although, if you'll look back a few pages in arguments, I actually stated that I'm not opposed to incest/polygamy, assuming it's between consenting, aware adults.
So it looks like you believe marriage means whatever "x" number of people says it does. Which pretty much means the institution has no objective purpose at all, which itself brings into question why the State recognizes it at all.
Can you please tell me where in the following definition is hatred for LGBT people found?
Marriage: A monogamous lifetime sexual union between two people of the opposite sex primarily intended for the responsible propagation and rearing of children.
If marriage came after love, then billions of people in the history of the world whose marriages were ARRANGED weren't married. Love might have percolated later but love is not the sine qua non of marriage.
People take vows at altars not to sustain love, but to sustain the union when love wanes. A pledge keeps a family intact not for love, but for the sake of children.
The state doesnt care about love.
Yes, love may be the reason some people marry but its only a constituent of marriage.
"Yes, love may be the reason some people marry but its only a constituent of marriage."
You're so romantic. You should write Hallmark cards.
I say if people want "traditional marriage," we bring back arranged marriages and the dowry. No person may be married unless his or her parents approve. Let's get rid of the idea that marriage to bring together two people in love. Let's take it back to its roots of a woman being offered to a man as property.
I just wanted to put the "love" rhetoric in its historical context. Marriage for love is a modern idea. I am not opposed to arranged marriages (these are not forced marriages)
Not all societies oppressed women or required dowry's. However, all societies had an institution to bring members of the opposite sex together in a public sexual union for the fostering of children.
Marriage is the only institution our society has for this specific purpose. Why is it that you don't care about it?
Why do I not care about marriage? I care so much I want to be a part of it, and I should not be barred from that simply because my partner will be a man instead of a woman. I plan to adopt children, and those kids deserve parents who are legally married.
I will call my partnership a marriage, my church will call it a marriage, and I want the state to call it a marriage, and there is no logical reason that it should not.
Kids deserve parents who will love and care for them. Also, the sexuality of the parents makes no difference as to the sexuality of the child. Both my parents were straight and I knew I was gay at a pretty early age. The majority of children same-sex parents grow up to be straight, and very well adjusted I might add.
Okay, well I'll believe this once you can find a reputable source that states this. And while you're at it, why don't you go look for some articles that interview children of gay parents and see what those articles say. Don't just pull something out of your ass because you think it's right.
I read up on some such studies, and they say that while children raised by homosexual parents are more likely to not be confined by gender stereotypes or to explore homosexuality, their emotional health is perfectly equal. So basically, a child raised by two gay parents is simply raised to be more open minded. Sounds perfectly fine to me.
@magicalshrimp23 no they grow up different, not having a father figure to show them basic shit that fathers teach children they will be socialy awkward Ive seen it happen so if you agree your a close minded fuck. I think there is nothing wrong with gay marriage but I have seen kids get psychologically fucked for having gay parents, and not only that why would you put a child in that position? A kid who has gay parents will get shit from all the other kids and become an outcast
@TehAWAL Well I agree, they will get bullied from having homosexual parents. But psychologically speak, they grow up thinking normal. If the parents of course allow the child to grow up as a child should the odds of the child being "Psychologically fucked" is very slim.
The fundamental misunderstanding it seems me you and I are having is that I don't see distinction as an automatic correlation to oppression. Different concepts require different terms in order for us as a society to communicate rationally.
A gay union, no mater how loving, meaningful, and beautiful it may be does not make it a union between two people of the opposite sex. Marriage is the word traditionally used describes that type of relationship.
"Marry" is defined as joining two things together, which is what occurs when a couple, gay or straight, marries. Where is the need for a gay couple to refer to their union as anything other than a marriage when that is what it is?
My theory, which has been confirmed with people on here, is the main desire for gay unions to be called something other than marriage is because some people see gay relationships as inferior and even immoral.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
According to what? By your def a man and a pig a married?
Are men ans women in polyangerous and polygamous unions married? (I believe so, their unions are just not State sanctioned for various reasons)
As for gay relationships being inferior, they are in that in principle they can never produce the natural family which is the foundation of all societies. They are highly meaningful to those who are in them ut irrelevant to society as a whole.
Show me a pig that can understand and consent to a legal contract, and we'll talk about pig-human marriage.
As for those who practise polygamy, they already can marry their partners. Gays and lesbians are not permitted to marry ANY potential partners.
By your reasoning, infertile couples shouldn't be able to get married, because "they can never produce the natural family..." Ability to procreate aside, the families gays form are in little to no way different than those of straight couples.
lol, a "TRADITIONAL" marriage in the church would have been one where there is absolutely no infidelity, and the wife lived only to serve her husband and take care of the house and children, and she had to do everything that her husband told her. and divorce? yeah right. AND that the only purpose of sex was to create new life, so birth control would be a huge sin. how many straight married couples in this country have never had an affair, divorced, or have NEVER used birth control?
its just something thats is not right, its not normal they show it on tv sometimes like it is ok if i had a younger son or daughter looking at that on tv what is going to go through their heads, yes it is a free country we have the right to do whatever we want weather it be right or wrong.....wouldnt you say beastiality is sick well what a homosexual has is a sickness
my opinion the thought of 2 men makes me gag and sick to my stomach but what you do behind closed doors is your business, as far as it being ok for it to take place in the church of god...is a sin and it is not ok, our body parts are the way they are for a reason, what about the evolution of life between a man and a woman that the same sex cant have, and kalleo argue all you want but to let you know also from the ''medical'' side of it, its a sickness, a chemical imbalance in the brain
You do know the American Psychological Association, the guys whos job it is to study mental illness and such, removed homosexuality from their list of mental diseases, right? Also, no one is asking you to let gay people get married in your church, and if they are, I'll fight them for you. There are religions besides Christianity, and there are non-religious marriages for Heathens like me, that should be open to the Gay Community.
You do know that the decision of the APA which you are citing, removing Homosexuality from the list of mental diseases, was a purely POLITICAL decision which was not based in research, right?
This decision occurred shortly after the Stonewall riots. Gay activists were threatening to riot the APA if their demands were not met. The decision did not cite any peer-reviewed research and cannot be considered scientifically based. Several APA members protested the decision because of this problem.
I sincerely hope you do not believe that Homosexuality is a mental disease. I believe I would not be wrong in saying that 99% of non-religious people believe that Homosexuality is not a mental illness.
I do not consider people of societies that emulate a religious belief, 'non-religious'.
The Religious Have No Right To Impose Their Views On The Rest Of The People.
But homosexuality can reasonably be considered a developmental disorder of sexuality, depending on your perspective. The ONLY thing forbidding this sort of common sense observation is political correctness. Science certainly does not rule out this view.
This DOES NOT mean that Homosexuals who choose to view their sexuality as a positive experience should be discriminated against in any way. But support of traditional marriage is NOT discrimination.
That is one of the better arguments I've seen. I'm glad I got into all this mess of a debate; you're obviously going to be useful to converse with (not sarcasm.)
I would need to view more research before I could judge whether it could accurately be called a developmental disorder. After all, Science "not ruling out" something certainly doesn't make it true.
I'm glad you feel that way about the positive experience point. However, I'm not sure I agree about it not being discrimination.
For example, at some points, it would've been considered aberrant to desire to marry outside your own race. However, that is fairly commonplace and widely accepted nowadays. "Traditional marriage" seems like a pretty vague tag.
Homosexuality is not a new concept. Some great cultures were openly comfortable with homosexuality, and saw it as a normal part of life. As we slowly move towards a more open minded society, I believe it's necessary to change some long held definitions to better suit us.
No offense, but there are some problems with what you say...
First, the comparison with race is not valid. Race is UNQUESTIONABLY an innate quality, while homosexuality is not.
Second, bans on interracial marriage were NEVER based upon constitutionally encoded principles. Traditional marriage is.
Finally, changing definitions "to better suit us" is fine, but does gay marriage "better suit" society? All our previous liberal social experiments have WEAKENED marriage. Just look around you.
There is also a problem with your "open-mindedness" argument.
Is it correct to assume that all opponents of gay marriage are motivated by "closed-mindedness"? Isn't it possible that we are just convinced--through logic rather than emotion--that maintaining the traditional definition of marriage is simply better social policy for society in general?
I have no respect for people who hate gays. I also know firsthand that most opponents of gay marriage are not motivated by hate or bigotry.
Now, your argument that you are convinced through logic rather than emotion (which does refute what I said IF accurate), doesn't quite hold water for me. I'm glad that you're supportive of not discriminating! However, I'm wondering, WHY is it a "better social policy"? I'm sure this question will be addressed when you respond to my second post.
Your concept of "better social policy" depends on what you view as the PURPOSE for marriage within society. Traditionally, the purpose was as a foundation for FAMILY.
We believe all children deserve both a mother and a father. While this cannot be guaranteed, we believe that promoting this as an IDEAL serves a significant social benefit.
Those who view marriage as serving only the selfish individual sexual needs of the two adults generally do not agree.
No offense taken! Good debaters don't take offense. =P Anyway, that are some problems with what you say as well. Bear in mind, I wasn't comparing being born into a race to being born homosexual; I was saying it could be argued that wanting to marry outside your own race is sexually aberrant. Only about 4.9% of the population married interracially in 2000, according to the Census Bureau. About 4-5% of Americans consider themselves gay. That's similar enough for me to take a close look.
You say "it can be argued," but that doesn't mean the argument has any basis. Purely xenophobic prejudices do not make for a valid argument for ANYTHING.
But note the difference between the two: No matter what society's OPINION may have ever been, interracial marriage has ALWAYS conformed to the essential definition of marriage. This cannot be said of gay relationships.
You see, my arguments are based on objective criteria. I have no respect for any arguments based on bigotry.
I'm curious where traditional marriage is encoded in the constitution.I'm not that familiar with old school references to marriage.
What "liberal social experiments", and how have they "WEAKENED" marriage? Specifics, please.
A lot of factors that go into marriage: For example, the aforementioned interracial couples are more likely to get divorced. Interestingly, Christians are more likely to get divorced than atheists. Should we alter marriage laws around these statistics? Certainly not.
The word "marriage" was defined in English Common Law. The jurisprudence of our democracy was founded upon the existing legal definitions within English Common Law.
Liberal social experiments? No-fault divorce, value-free sex ed, promotion of single motherhood, ect ect ect.
Can anyone argue that family is STRONGER today than 40 years ago? This is what 40 years of "progressive" social policies get you. Moreover, these results were PREDICTED by conservatives from the beginning.
I'm not going to argue, just a statement (please don't reply, I do not wish to encroach upon this video's comments).
However, regardless of the definition of marriage (which, under California law, is the ability to marry the Person of one's choice - verbatim), allowing for the original reasoning behind the law, which was civic and social pairing to ease property laws.
As well, gay couples will still live together and adopt kids regardless, this just allows the same extension of marital rights.
OK, don't respond if you wish. But I still must correct you when you're wrong.
This California law you site does NOT define marriage. It simply uses the term. Isn't that clear?
"the ability to marry the Person of one's choice"
This still leaves open the question: What does this word "marry" mean? That question was answered within English Common Law before the U.S. was even formed. It's a STANDING LEGAL DEFINITION, just like the term "habeas corpus."
If homosexuals are going this to get benefits then whats next....people wanting to marry their dog so when it has 8 puppys then they can claim 8 on their taxes???????????????????? It's starting to get insane!
No one is talking about marrying animals, you idiot. One person wants to marry ANOTHER person. If you are so against it, don't marry someone of the same sex.
no nobody is talking about marrying animals, but it's probably next at the rate it's going. Whats the different anyway for someone to marry the same sex than marry a pet. Can't have children from either one of them.
You obviously didn't read the conversation I had about 2 pages ago. I'd rather not have to restate everything, so I'll just hit the main points: I would be against the 15 year old, and pedophilia, thing, since that isn't an "adult" consensual relationship. However, it is completely different from wanting to marry an animal. An animal doesn't have a high enough thought process to actually marry someone, so it should remain illegal. However, two intellegent, consenting adults? Why not?
First off I could care less about what conversation you had. Second, pedofilia and beastiality are wrong. Simple as that. You can have a long argument but it all still means the same thing. It's obscene and nasty.
I only mentioned the conversation before, because it would've shown you where I was coming from without it coming to a repeat of a lengthy conversation. Also, I'm not sure if you read my post wrong, but I agreed with you...Pedophilia and Beastiality ARE wrong. My post was explaining how the two are incomparable to homosexuality, unless you're coming from a religious standpoint and declare everything equal, in which case I say that's fine, but it's not religions place to tell people what to do.
Still, homosexuality can be compared to that stuff because one, they are all abominations, and obscene. Religion shouldn't have to tell people to activate their common sense. Lol it's like a dunce telling a nobel prize winning scientist to stop teaching him common sense.
First of all, I can't accept your argument. Why are they abominations, OUTSIDE religion? I understand your religious standpoint, but that doesn't make it ok to force other people to live your way. I've presented secular reasons for beastiality and pedophilia remaining illegal, I need one for homosexuality before I can accept your argument. Also, I noticed you used the term "abomination." Do you enjoy lobster, or other varieties of shellfish, or do you have any fellow religious friends who do?
Or, aside from shellfish, maybe you know (or yourself) have worn a halloween costume, or other things, of the opposite sex? (A chick wearing a guys shirt, for example). Or is the shirt you have on right now made of more than one material? (linen and wool, for example). Enjoy a rare steak? Trimmed your beard? Gotten a tattoo? Interestingly enough, all of these things are "abominations" as well. Strong word! Seems pretty clear how abhorrent all those issues are. Devout faith must be tough.
Oh really? It's common sense? I'd like you to explain to me how, since I definitely don't think it is. We do alot of things that are ridiculously bad for us: drinking alchohol (a poison), smoking, watching TV and spending too much time on the internet (sigh...). It's not about what's better, it's about being fair and keeping this a free country.
You dont think it is becaue you're probably a homosexual. That is disgusting. A pedofile won't think he's doing wrong because that's what he likes. Which is hypocritical. Still if it is a free country it's still nasty in many ways.
Sorry, I'm not a homosexual. At least, my fiance doesn't think so. Although one of my close friends is gay. Moving on, you're correct, a pedophile won't think it's wrong. However, it's wrong not because it's "nasty", but because it is wrong to illicit sex, or to use someone for sexual gratification, from someone under 18. I will reiterate: there is not a law against pedophilia due to nastiness, but due to the agreed upon immorality. Since homosexuality is between two consenting adults, it's ok.
Lol you're siding with an abomination actor? IF I had a friend who was a murderer I wouldn't side with him. It's still disgusting seeing a male doing another male because it's obscene, as obscene as a man doing his dog or cat. LOL you would only say the because your friend is gay and also it's being allowed. Still it's nasty. Believe what you want to believe I at least have common sense to know what is nasty.
Repeating myself, something being nasty doesn't make it wrong. Taking a huge dump in a public toilet and not flushing it is legal. What do you mean by "obscene"? If you're referring to religion, than I repeat my point that religion can't force it's will on everyone. If you're just saying that as a blanket statement, I already explained why homosexuality and beastiality are not equivalent. Do me a favor: either admit you're a bigot, or that your only point is the religious argument.
Lol it's still nasty as seeing a man sticking his penis into another male. Obscene, no I'm not referring to religion I'm referring to straight common sense. Lol homosexuality is as nasty as beastiality you're just trying to avoid it. I'm not a bigot explain how Im' a bigot when every race can be gay. Dang these homo lovers are dumb.
Nastiness. Does. Not. Make. Something. Illegal. It doesn't matter whether or not homosexuality is as nasty as beastiality. Beastiality is not illegal due to nastiness, it's illegal because of the inability of an animal to join a consensual relationship, and the factor of safety. And yes, you're a bigot. "Bigot" means anyone who's intolerant, not just a racist. Be sure you know what you're talking about before you try to insult me (which, by the way, tells me I'm winning this argument.)
It is still disgusting whether you like it or not. You only think it's not disgusting because America allows. I was never intolerant of gays I only told you the acts I didn't like. If I was on your level of ignorance I would think of others being a bigot because of not liking murderers and terrorists. But reality check, that's not bigotry, that's only hating the acts. Keep telling yourself what is right because I still have enough common sense to know what is nasty.
Would it satisfy you to know I think gay sex is nasty? Because I do. I find nothing, at all, positive about a guy sticking his dick in another guys asshole. Okay? But the thing that differentiates us is that I think that, no matter how "nasty" I think something is, I can't put unfair blanket rules on entire groups of people. Thats unfair. It's not American.
Either way you say it's still nasty. If you don't find it positive yet you support it you're basically being the hypocrite. It's still out there to be gay, but still it's nasty lol.
I'm not being a hypocrite. As I stated, it's wrong to ban something due to nastiness, so I'm doing the morally responsible thing by supporting something I don't necessarily agree with. For example, I would support a religious nutjobs right to rant all day about how much he despises gay marriage, and refuse to let gay people into their church. I'm an advocate for all kinds of freedom.
I agree that it's wrong to "ban something" on an emotional basis. But this is a straw-man argument because gay marriage is not "banned."
It simply does not fall under the existing common law definition of marriage--just like incest does not. This is a LEGAL dispute which is best handled within the democratic process.
There are valid reasons why many people feel it is best for society to keep defining marriage as between one man and one woman. These reasons are not based on hate or bigotry.
DEFINITION OF BIGOTRY: A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion.
-- Webster's Dictionary
Sorry, it meets the dictionary definition of the word.
With all due respect, you are a lying piece of shit.
You obviously started with the definition of "bigot" on merriam-webster-dot-com, then you doctored it up to add the references to religion. Do you think we are idiots and we can't simply look up the definition ourselves?
No self-respecting dictionary would load a definition with such an obviously biased POV. You are an idiot and you are punked.
"Do you think we are idiots and we can't simply look up the definition ourselves?"
I didn't think you were an idiot until you called me a "lying piece of shit" without even checking to see if I copied the definition accurately or not.
You do know that the Merriam-Webster dictionary is different than Webster's, right?
Google it or go to dictionary. com
You meet Webster's definition of "bigot," and your own definition of "idiot." What I think does not even matter.
Once again, I reiterate: YOU ARE A LYING PIECE OF SHIT.
Dictionary-dot-com--or ANY authoritative reference--mentions NOTHING about "regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right" or "obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church" etc. You added that shit yourself. This is nothing but your own biased application.
It's clear to me that you are an anti-religious bigot yourself. And a lying piece of shit to boot.
I invite anyone who reads this to PLEASE go to dictionary. com and type in "bigot" and scroll down to the Webster's Dictionary definition (I think it is the third one) and confirm for Unclelrv that the definition I posted below is in fact correct.
This task has proven too challenging for him to do himself, and he has decided that name-calling is a good substitute for research.
I invite anyone who reads this to go to dictionary. com, type in "bigot" and scroll down to the Webster's Dictionary definition (I think it is the second or third one) and confirm for Unclelrv that the definition of "bigot" that I posted above is indeed correct.
Apparently he is having some difficulty doing this, and he prefers calling me names rather than doing research.
People seem to forget that marriage was historically just a transfer of property of a woman from her father to a new man who will be her husband. One man could marry many women. Considering the insanely high divorce rate, marriage has pretty much no meaning anymore anyway, it just makes it harder to break up. I would rather change the tax system to allow civil unions the same tax benefits as marriage.
Actually marriage exists because women need protection when they are pregnant and nursing and caring for a child. There have been times in history when they've had to "pay" a lot for protection, but at other times they've had more rights.
In matriarchal societies...men tend to just walk away. There's nothing in it for them to stay and "work" for free!
The real problem for both gays & feminists is admitting they've dealt with biological asymmetry by basically denying the problem.
you didn't say that but i'm sure you think it. Based on your opinions of gay people you seem to be the type of person with that attitude. You compare homosexuality with incest and polygamy so yes, i'm guessing you think it's immoral. am i wrong here????
"are blacks still persecuted and put to death simply for being black this day in age? gays are. tell me about the pains of being black."
Alot more than homosexuals can ever claim to. I also
don't know how you're deluded enough to think that
gays in this country are being killed off in record numbers,
not to mention that it would go unpunished, this day in age, can't say that about the numerous blacks during the civil rights era and before, victimizers who went unpunished.
It's not a claim- it's a fact! Read the news! It happens all the time in the middle east. And yes, there are laws in the states but that doesn't stop the lot of homophobes from continuing to bash homosexuals and think they do not deserve punishment. Look into it a little before you claim to know so much. Gays were burnt at stake hundreds of years ago and are still in their fight for civil rights to this day. Blacks suffer like this today in no way.
the "luxury" of hiding or putting away...?? hiding who you are is NOT a LUXURY! you are so ignorant. and there are a number of people who are very obviously gay and are targeted. Why should they have to act straight though, just to be accepted? why can't people just be accepted for who they are? aren't you aware of how wonderful diversity is?
it's not about what goes on behind closed doors! And to think so many ppl say the gays are all about sex. that's all people like you seem to care or think about-the physical Sex!
It's about being honest & open & accepted & respected!
The whole discussion is about physical sex/gender! And I'm not accusing you of being the only one-you're one of many who think like this! And yes it IS like interracial marriage 50 years ago. Two people not being allowed to live together in peace under the law because of their physical attributes.
"And yes it IS like interracial marriage 50 years ago. Two people not being allowed to live together in peace under the law because of their physical attributes."
Considering the fact that that law was instituted by racist
men in America that makes it utterly moot. One can easily
argue the same thing on behalf of incestuous couples too.
Two people who aren't allowed to live together in peace
"Considering the fact that that law was instituted by racist men in America that makes it utterly moot."
Replace "racist" with "homophobic" or "religiously zealous" and it's the same thing today. "One can easily argue the same thing on behalf of incestuous couples too. Two people who aren't allowed to live together in peace under the law because they happen to be related. "
Children born from incest are at extremely high risk for tons of medical issues. Otherwise, I don't mind incest.
If a woman's son and said mother decide they want to be together, and both (well of course the mother would be, but if the son) is an adult, then I don't give a damn if they want to fool around, so long as there is no chance of a kid. Why does it affect me? I still might tell my kids I think it's wrong, and it's not my style, but if other people decide they're going to, its their own business. But anyway, you were comparing incest and gay marriage, so there you go.
Also, do me a favor (sorry for posting three seperate times on a continuous topic without waiting for a response), don't associate my argument with fauxindigo's much. As much as I respect the effort, his/her argument was relatively weak. I'm what you'd think of as complete freedom-ist, as long as no one else is harmed, I say (socially) do whatever the hell you want, and I vote that way. I won't get into other issues, like economics, since that's harder to classify with such a broad philosophy.
"Why does it affect me? I still might tell my kids I think it's wrong, and it's not my style, but if other people decide they're going to, its their own business. But anyway, you were comparing incest and gay marriage, so there you go."
Question, why do you feel its wrong? I mean I understand
overall why you may not care, but why do you think its
wrong on a moral level? And once again thanks for your
If one of the two are infertile (and they are both consenting adults) I have no issues at all with incest. If they're both of the same sex, same. It is true that we allow children with a huge predisposition towards medical issues to be born; However, incest is something that would cause that, whereas it is often no fault of the parents or childs that there are medical issues. On a similar note, I think drug consumption during pregnancy, or near pregnant women (2nd hand smoke) should be illegal.
Honestly, I feel it's wrong because we have made it such a social taboo, and it has been for a long time. Clarification: THAT IS BAD JUSTIFICATION! Yes, my justification is terrible, and I admit that. My prejudice against incest is a societal issue that I have yet to completely free myself from. However, I will probably try to free myself from that particular prejudice, as long as all circumstances I've previously outlined are met (no kids).
Draw a line? Yes, that line being that both people involved in a relationship must be mature, consenting adults fully aware of what they're getting themselves in to, and unable to harm any other people (I do consider a possible child from incest in the "people" category, for example). Beyond that, sexuality is just a lifestyle difference that shouldn't be judged on different or not different.
Also, in regard to the civil union idea, marriage is much more than just a piece of paper, in my opinion. Marriage is a deeply poetic act, rooted in piles of symbolism (most, I would like to point out, that are unrelated to Christianity) that has a"spiritual", or perhaps artistic, meaning far beyond simple union. Besides the almost inarguable fact that they should have the same rights in terms of taxes and such, I believe they, as humans, have the right to participate in this beautiful act.
right, it is a lot better in america, but it's still an issue! we could just as easily be in their position. so just because we're not means we should say to hell with 'em!?? let them deal with it on their own b/c it doesn't directly affect me?! well it really does b/c the societal views around the world need to change big time!
"The Gay people who want to get married want to do so for the same reasons their parents did. It is a testament to the true values of honoring and committing to support one's family"
So how does this negate incestuous couples or any
potential polygamist? Are you saying that such people
can't have values , desire love and commitment or even
K-the word is stigma-not stigmata. NO they are not made equal simply because people like you say so. just because they are all 'non-traditional' does not make them similar in any other way! The majority of gay people (like straight people alike) would not say that they support polygamy or incest.
So Samc023- stop spreading lies you've heard from misled pastors who try to demonize homosexuality just because it is 'non-traditional'.. FYI: homosexuality has been around for thousands of years-probably since the dawn of man...'non-traditional' you say?
Gay marriage is part of the slippery slope of liberalism. First the liberals took away the God-given right to own other people as slaves. Now they are taking away the right to treat people as second class citizens. What's next? Taking away the right to kill people? No more death penalty leads to medicare which leads to socialism.
jacevicki 8 months ago 3
Should gay marriage be legal: YES
It's not a two-sided issue when one side is full of shit.
Woofy1029 11 months ago 2
Legal = state recognized. Church = belief which you can ALWAYS HAVE. The 2 should never mix. Kind of sad that most of the people arguing against gay marriage don't even know most of the good people they're affecting even if the families with children with that afflict no harm on everyone else's families cause any harm whatsoever. Besides marriage is a union between 2 people who are truly in consentual love.
kmelfina 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"We also sent Lut : He said to his people : "Do ye commit lewdness such as no people in creation (ever) committed before you? For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds." Qur'an 7:80-81
“What! Of all creatures do ye come unto the males, and leave the wives your Lord created for you? Nay, but ye are forward folk." Qur'an 26:165
awgikhsan 1 year ago
woo gay marriage!! lol, it's gonna happen here in California where i live, hopefully in 2012!!! hehe
wetdream09 1 year ago
@shananagans5
fucking idiot dyke. The concept wasn't by the church, it existed long before then, if it were the church wouldn't actually recognize it because of separation of church and state.
Just because it's in the bible does not mean it belongs to it. "arks" are in the bible.. doesn't mean the bible came up or owns those. Christians don't own marriage, get your head out the gutter. Marriage in this country is just the word used to unionize two consenting adults, gays should be part too.
wetdream09 1 year ago
I am lesbian and I am against gay marriage. Marriage is a concept come up with by the church and recognized by the state. I am all for some kind of union recognized by the state for gay people but calling it marriage is an attempt at pushing our values on the church. It is not ok for the church to force values on us. Why is it ok to push our values on them? The church doesn't like my lifestyle why would I want a union that indicates the church condones it when they don't.
shananagans5 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shananagans5 Just because you don't mind sitting in the back of the bus doesn't mean the rest of us should have to.
michaelaurand 1 year ago
@shananagans5 Wow you are incredibly mis-informed. The concept of marriage predates Christianity, even arguably Judaism. Gay marriage is ONLY for civil marriage. Gay's can already have the marriage sacrament. And Churches have a strong right to deny any sacrament they choose. The only thing forced on christians is that you will have the same rights as they do. Like hospital visitation, assume will, join custody of children, social security benefits. Wow you are weak hearted....
TMBrd89 1 year ago
@TMBrd89 True, it does predate Christianity but in todays world, the term marriage is often associated with the church. I am very conservative as are most of my friends and nobody really has any opposition to a legal union. The hangup seems to be with the term marriage. It seems to me like many gay people are trying to force acceptance by pushing the use of the word marriage. I don't see the point. I am not religious at all but I do respect their right to disagree with my lifestyle.
shananagans5 1 year ago
@shananagans5 cause that would be the easiest way to get full rights. It would give full rights both state and federal. It would bypass this idea that we have create a whole new institution for gay people. Even though all the conditions of marriage are met. So like this video asks, if gay marriage only truly hurts gay families, then who are the victims of gay marriage?
TMBrd89 1 year ago
@shananagans5 I don't know what its like in America, but here (the Netherlands) you can marry for the state not for the church. It doesn't have anything to do with the church if you want to.
Why would you get married? Because here it gives some tax benefits, and the promise that you will stay with each other, but that's a small thing isn't it? :P
ijmbvck 5 months ago
I agree with you; gay marriage should not be a political issue; it's not okay to legislate your opinion on what is moral.
Personally, I think it would be better if homosexuality were more common. That way many of the orphans and unwanted children around the world can get adopted by them and get loving families, and fewer new kids will be born.
colossus999 1 year ago
What is marriage? what is gay marriage? why is it so important gays get marriad? is marriage a right or prevalege? is the recognition of marriage a right or prevalege? is divorce a right? is sex a right? is sexual orientation a right? who and i mean whooooooooo determines? the minority? the majority?
shakaz01 1 year ago
The only concern i hold about gay marriage and religion, is if the gay couple wants to be married by a pastor. Because it is against the word of god for people to be homosexual gay marriage is a deviation from Christianity. and would thus make a conflict of interest for the marrying pastor as the couple goes against the word of the bible but if they are to be married by a justice of the peace i say whatever it is cool. i am not christian or gay and hold no bias to either side.
whitespot42 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
you can do whatever you want.....but change the definition of marriage...no way........change it also to polygamy, ect
Americangirl176 2 years ago
if the gay marriage issue is all about religion, why can atheists marry? its ridiculous that gays don't have basic civil rights.
clubheadxtasy2 2 years ago 11
gay marriage has hurt one person...drenin? really, you named a kid Drenin? I'm named Mike and kids still found ways to turn it against me JK of course Go gay marriage!
AMVslowking 2 years ago
How are real families harmed? They lack a legal document stating their marriage? Doesn't matter. Same sex can easily attain the same rights under the law as a legally married couple. However forcing people to not only tolerate a lifestyle, but accept it as equal to a traditional marriage. Yes I can see how people would have a problem with that. It's not progressive, it's been done before in empires long fallen. So why is it still in debate?
NobleMaN79 2 years ago
Back up a bit. Why is it so important to you that gay people's relationship aren't treated equally as straight people's relationships?
mimimurlough 2 years ago
Because its a basic fucking right and without the right to marriage they cant get any gov't help for raising children. Why is it so important that we have the right to free speech? Think before you type.
Syncdev 2 years ago
Look me up in the "show all comments" section, and you'll see the context.
mimimurlough 2 years ago
Sorry about that, youtube didnt put your comment under his in the regular view. I thought you were accually posing that question!
Syncdev 2 years ago
No worries. Well, it is something I would like those opposing marriage to answer. One wonders wether they've thought their arguements through at times...
mimimurlough 2 years ago
They cant get tax right offs, or any help from the gov't in raising a kid. Our constituion gaurantees the seperation of churuch and state yet these people say on gay marriage we can incorporate our religious beliefs. Btw you fucking idiot in order to accept someones lifestyle requires you to tolerate it, you cant have one without the other. You are the typical conservative retard who doesnt understand our constitution or the english language.
Syncdev 2 years ago
To treat a same sex marriage as different from a heterosexual marriage serves no purpose but to feed bias against gays in general. They are looked down upon as "unnatural" because of sexual predisposition. I would say that there is not a single thing in the world MORE natural than love, and not allowing gays to express it in the same way as heterosexuals is a great injustice.
BeauDaltonJordan 2 years ago 6
That's so not what I thought you'd look like. Keep up the great vids
firthio2 2 years ago
Off subject i would like to ask. Should those churches exemplified in this video lose their tax-exempt status for deliberately participating in a political issue?
SelinityDawn 2 years ago
They should be taxed regardless, they are profit driven organizations that should be taxed for their realestate and income.
Syncdev 2 years ago
the passing of Prop 8 was a shameful moment for my home state.
mystishae17 2 years ago 5
gay rights, womens rights, african american rights. I suppose 2 out of 3 isnt bad. Its disgusting that a large group of people can trample on the rights of the minority, when in no way it affects them.
burb72 2 years ago
The only roots prohibiting marriage equality for gays and lesbians takes us back to is our tradition of prejudice towards minorities. Prop 8 had nothing to do with anything except the battle against the recognition of gays and lesbians as equal and normal human beings. The sad thing is, the damn measure passed with no rationale other than fear and brimstone.
Permaglo 2 years ago
No one has been deprived of the right to marry--only of the right to insist that a single-sex union is a "marriage." You cloak your demands in the language of civil rights because it sounds so much better than the truth: You don't want to accept or reject marriage on the same terms that it is available to everyone else. You want it on entirely new terms. You want it to be given a meaning it has never before had.
wood9670 2 years ago
"Gay citizens" already have the same right to marry as anyone else--else to the same restrictions. No one may marry a close blood relative, a child, a person who is already married, or a person of the same sex. However much those restrictions may disappoint the incestuous, pedophiles, polygamists, and homosexuals, the issue is not discrimination. It is the nature of marriage itself.
wood9670 2 years ago
To "marry" means to join two things.
You want to talk about the truth? Including gays and lesbians in marriage doesn't negatively affect heterosexual couples or society in the least. You're more concerned about the definition of an institution that HAS changed significantly over the years rather than offering the joy, protection, benefits, and status to gay and lesbian couples. The big question is, why?
Permaglo 2 years ago
Seriously?
I'm deeply concerned with the definition of the marriage because we are taking a gender-specific chil
and-centered institution into a gender-neutral adult-centered institution.
Cali family code section 297.5 states all gay couples who are: "(a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law,...as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.
wood9670 2 years ago
How in the world has the definition changed? When you want to change the definition of something as important as marriage, and you're in the minority, shouldn't the burden of proof be on you?
thetruthbringer 2 years ago
If you could make people understand how allowing gays and lesbians the right to marry affects your life in any way, they might understand your problem with marriage equality. But most of what i hear is not a problem with gays being allowed to marry as much as it is with gays themselves. Is it that you care about "protecting marriage" or is it that you don't want gays to be viewed as normal?
Permaglo 2 years ago 3
Gay marriage is wrong
AndyIrida 2 years ago
I think gay Marriage is right.
How about your respect that and just not get Gay married?
Everyone wins!
BrandonHarami 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WHEREAS CSC is in contempt in re illegal denial for rehearing of CSC habeas petition S142192 and in re State hindrance of C07 01399 SBA USDC habeas motion, currently delinquent but unopposed in Oakland before Judge Armstrong, BILLS OF ATTAINDER are rampant, including the named ex post facto Prop.8. Violence has broken out, relative to the related undermining of Superior Court, and so, CPC 403 et seq. must be relieved, with habeas corpus in California, lest fatal estoppel. 360.yahoo/bobgnote
bobgnote1 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
people who are same sex marriage are same with ANIMALS (dog)
IlaiapeV 2 years ago
you're just a troll who can't even write a coherent sentence. Keep your stupidity to yourself, ok? The world thanks you.
SeparateisntEqual 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Fast forward 5 years:
News conference. A man stands in front of a group of several women. He speaks to the throng of reporters, "My name is Mike. I am a business owner, a father of ten children, and I love all these women behind me. All I am asking for is the basic human right to marry all of them."
10 years in the future:
Jim, 45, stands in front of his 15 yr. old cousin. "I love her, and we just want our right to marry."
15 years in the future:
Bryan stands in front of a horse...
:)
elijah5791 2 years ago
absolutely right, and I do not agree because I have anything against gays, I just don't understand why supporters of gay marriage would not support polygamy, incest, ect...
bobdobias 2 years ago
To oppose gay marriage is the say the respective genders of the people getting married is important. And I don't understand how a person's gender can determine the morality of their actions. Polygamy exploits women, incest is generally exploitative and abusive as well, and surely we don't have to worry about marrying dogs until dogs can sign contracts, own property, and generally have legal personhood first?
number154 2 years ago
True. The main argument is that it is not hurting anyone. The same argument can be applied to the legalization of polygamy and incest. There has to be a line drawn in the sand.
PlutoniusX 2 years ago
Right, that is the main argument. However, you seem to have ignored the other sub-parts the number154 already mentioned, such as how Polygamy exploits women and such. What does homosexuality do? The two consensual, adult people certainly aren't exploiting/abusing each other because they are in love and happen to both be the same sex! Although, if you'll look back a few pages in arguments, I actually stated that I'm not opposed to incest/polygamy, assuming it's between consenting, aware adults.
kalleo335 2 years ago
So it looks like you believe marriage means whatever "x" number of people says it does. Which pretty much means the institution has no objective purpose at all, which itself brings into question why the State recognizes it at all.
Can you please tell me where in the following definition is hatred for LGBT people found?
Marriage: A monogamous lifetime sexual union between two people of the opposite sex primarily intended for the responsible propagation and rearing of children.
wood9670 2 years ago
Marriage isn't as old as Love silly. Marriage came after Love.
mojo001103 2 years ago
If marriage came after love, then billions of people in the history of the world whose marriages were ARRANGED weren't married. Love might have percolated later but love is not the sine qua non of marriage.
People take vows at altars not to sustain love, but to sustain the union when love wanes. A pledge keeps a family intact not for love, but for the sake of children.
The state doesnt care about love.
Yes, love may be the reason some people marry but its only a constituent of marriage.
wood9670 2 years ago
"Yes, love may be the reason some people marry but its only a constituent of marriage."
You're so romantic. You should write Hallmark cards.
I say if people want "traditional marriage," we bring back arranged marriages and the dowry. No person may be married unless his or her parents approve. Let's get rid of the idea that marriage to bring together two people in love. Let's take it back to its roots of a woman being offered to a man as property.
Permaglo 2 years ago
I just wanted to put the "love" rhetoric in its historical context. Marriage for love is a modern idea. I am not opposed to arranged marriages (these are not forced marriages)
Not all societies oppressed women or required dowry's. However, all societies had an institution to bring members of the opposite sex together in a public sexual union for the fostering of children.
Marriage is the only institution our society has for this specific purpose. Why is it that you don't care about it?
wood9670 2 years ago
Why do I not care about marriage? I care so much I want to be a part of it, and I should not be barred from that simply because my partner will be a man instead of a woman. I plan to adopt children, and those kids deserve parents who are legally married.
I will call my partnership a marriage, my church will call it a marriage, and I want the state to call it a marriage, and there is no logical reason that it should not.
Permaglo 2 years ago
Those kids deserve a father and a mother. They deserve to not be confused or wonder whether they are gay or straight at an early age.
thetruthbringer 2 years ago
Kids deserve parents who will love and care for them. Also, the sexuality of the parents makes no difference as to the sexuality of the child. Both my parents were straight and I knew I was gay at a pretty early age. The majority of children same-sex parents grow up to be straight, and very well adjusted I might add.
Permaglo 2 years ago 5
Okay, well I'll believe this once you can find a reputable source that states this. And while you're at it, why don't you go look for some articles that interview children of gay parents and see what those articles say. Don't just pull something out of your ass because you think it's right.
thrasher12112 2 years ago
I read up on some such studies, and they say that while children raised by homosexual parents are more likely to not be confined by gender stereotypes or to explore homosexuality, their emotional health is perfectly equal. So basically, a child raised by two gay parents is simply raised to be more open minded. Sounds perfectly fine to me.
magicalshrimp23 2 years ago 26
@magicalshrimp23 no they grow up different, not having a father figure to show them basic shit that fathers teach children they will be socialy awkward Ive seen it happen so if you agree your a close minded fuck. I think there is nothing wrong with gay marriage but I have seen kids get psychologically fucked for having gay parents, and not only that why would you put a child in that position? A kid who has gay parents will get shit from all the other kids and become an outcast
TehAWAL 6 months ago
@TehAWAL Well I agree, they will get bullied from having homosexual parents. But psychologically speak, they grow up thinking normal. If the parents of course allow the child to grow up as a child should the odds of the child being "Psychologically fucked" is very slim.
yaycookies14 5 months ago
@yaycookies14 yea but either way putting a kid in that position is setting him up for failure
TehAWAL 5 months ago
@TehAWAL Indeed, it will cause some issues with other individuals that do not approve.
yaycookies14 5 months ago
Sorry it took me so long to respond.
The fundamental misunderstanding it seems me you and I are having is that I don't see distinction as an automatic correlation to oppression. Different concepts require different terms in order for us as a society to communicate rationally.
A gay union, no mater how loving, meaningful, and beautiful it may be does not make it a union between two people of the opposite sex. Marriage is the word traditionally used describes that type of relationship.
wood9670 2 years ago
"Marry" is defined as joining two things together, which is what occurs when a couple, gay or straight, marries. Where is the need for a gay couple to refer to their union as anything other than a marriage when that is what it is?
My theory, which has been confirmed with people on here, is the main desire for gay unions to be called something other than marriage is because some people see gay relationships as inferior and even immoral.
Permaglo 2 years ago 7
This comment has received too many negative votes show
According to what? By your def a man and a pig a married?
Are men ans women in polyangerous and polygamous unions married? (I believe so, their unions are just not State sanctioned for various reasons)
As for gay relationships being inferior, they are in that in principle they can never produce the natural family which is the foundation of all societies. They are highly meaningful to those who are in them ut irrelevant to society as a whole.
Distinction does not equal oppression.
wood9670 2 years ago
Show me a pig that can understand and consent to a legal contract, and we'll talk about pig-human marriage.
As for those who practise polygamy, they already can marry their partners. Gays and lesbians are not permitted to marry ANY potential partners.
By your reasoning, infertile couples shouldn't be able to get married, because "they can never produce the natural family..." Ability to procreate aside, the families gays form are in little to no way different than those of straight couples.
Permaglo 2 years ago 19
Incidentally, a woman in Germany married a wall and cheated on it with a fence!
FollicleMiracle 2 years ago
You make no sense
thetruthbringer 2 years ago
Well said. Our pro-gay marriage friends are not unaware...they just want their way and don't care.
thetruthbringer 2 years ago
lol, a "TRADITIONAL" marriage in the church would have been one where there is absolutely no infidelity, and the wife lived only to serve her husband and take care of the house and children, and she had to do everything that her husband told her. and divorce? yeah right. AND that the only purpose of sex was to create new life, so birth control would be a huge sin. how many straight married couples in this country have never had an affair, divorced, or have NEVER used birth control?
flyguy380 2 years ago
its just something thats is not right, its not normal they show it on tv sometimes like it is ok if i had a younger son or daughter looking at that on tv what is going to go through their heads, yes it is a free country we have the right to do whatever we want weather it be right or wrong.....wouldnt you say beastiality is sick well what a homosexual has is a sickness
beingmyself000 2 years ago
my opinion the thought of 2 men makes me gag and sick to my stomach but what you do behind closed doors is your business, as far as it being ok for it to take place in the church of god...is a sin and it is not ok, our body parts are the way they are for a reason, what about the evolution of life between a man and a woman that the same sex cant have, and kalleo argue all you want but to let you know also from the ''medical'' side of it, its a sickness, a chemical imbalance in the brain
beingmyself000 2 years ago
You do know the American Psychological Association, the guys whos job it is to study mental illness and such, removed homosexuality from their list of mental diseases, right? Also, no one is asking you to let gay people get married in your church, and if they are, I'll fight them for you. There are religions besides Christianity, and there are non-religious marriages for Heathens like me, that should be open to the Gay Community.
kalleo335 2 years ago
*Out of these last two, the first was a response to teelistrill and the second was a response to beingmyself000.*
kalleo335 2 years ago
You do know that the decision of the APA which you are citing, removing Homosexuality from the list of mental diseases, was a purely POLITICAL decision which was not based in research, right?
This decision occurred shortly after the Stonewall riots. Gay activists were threatening to riot the APA if their demands were not met. The decision did not cite any peer-reviewed research and cannot be considered scientifically based. Several APA members protested the decision because of this problem.
UncleIrv2 2 years ago
I sincerely hope you do not believe that Homosexuality is a mental disease. I believe I would not be wrong in saying that 99% of non-religious people believe that Homosexuality is not a mental illness.
I do not consider people of societies that emulate a religious belief, 'non-religious'.
The Religious Have No Right To Impose Their Views On The Rest Of The People.
reanimeviewed 2 years ago
I am not applying the term "mental disease."
But homosexuality can reasonably be considered a developmental disorder of sexuality, depending on your perspective. The ONLY thing forbidding this sort of common sense observation is political correctness. Science certainly does not rule out this view.
This DOES NOT mean that Homosexuals who choose to view their sexuality as a positive experience should be discriminated against in any way. But support of traditional marriage is NOT discrimination.
UncleIrv2 2 years ago
That is one of the better arguments I've seen. I'm glad I got into all this mess of a debate; you're obviously going to be useful to converse with (not sarcasm.)
I would need to view more research before I could judge whether it could accurately be called a developmental disorder. After all, Science "not ruling out" something certainly doesn't make it true.
I'm glad you feel that way about the positive experience point. However, I'm not sure I agree about it not being discrimination.
kalleo335 2 years ago
For example, at some points, it would've been considered aberrant to desire to marry outside your own race. However, that is fairly commonplace and widely accepted nowadays. "Traditional marriage" seems like a pretty vague tag.
Homosexuality is not a new concept. Some great cultures were openly comfortable with homosexuality, and saw it as a normal part of life. As we slowly move towards a more open minded society, I believe it's necessary to change some long held definitions to better suit us.
kalleo335 2 years ago
No offense, but there are some problems with what you say...
First, the comparison with race is not valid. Race is UNQUESTIONABLY an innate quality, while homosexuality is not.
Second, bans on interracial marriage were NEVER based upon constitutionally encoded principles. Traditional marriage is.
Finally, changing definitions "to better suit us" is fine, but does gay marriage "better suit" society? All our previous liberal social experiments have WEAKENED marriage. Just look around you.
UncleIrv2 2 years ago
There is also a problem with your "open-mindedness" argument.
Is it correct to assume that all opponents of gay marriage are motivated by "closed-mindedness"? Isn't it possible that we are just convinced--through logic rather than emotion--that maintaining the traditional definition of marriage is simply better social policy for society in general?
I have no respect for people who hate gays. I also know firsthand that most opponents of gay marriage are not motivated by hate or bigotry.
UncleIrv2 2 years ago
Now, your argument that you are convinced through logic rather than emotion (which does refute what I said IF accurate), doesn't quite hold water for me. I'm glad that you're supportive of not discriminating! However, I'm wondering, WHY is it a "better social policy"? I'm sure this question will be addressed when you respond to my second post.
kalleo335 2 years ago
Yes, I was hoping you would ask.
Your concept of "better social policy" depends on what you view as the PURPOSE for marriage within society. Traditionally, the purpose was as a foundation for FAMILY.
We believe all children deserve both a mother and a father. While this cannot be guaranteed, we believe that promoting this as an IDEAL serves a significant social benefit.
Those who view marriage as serving only the selfish individual sexual needs of the two adults generally do not agree.
UncleIrv2 2 years ago
No offense taken! Good debaters don't take offense. =P Anyway, that are some problems with what you say as well. Bear in mind, I wasn't comparing being born into a race to being born homosexual; I was saying it could be argued that wanting to marry outside your own race is sexually aberrant. Only about 4.9% of the population married interracially in 2000, according to the Census Bureau. About 4-5% of Americans consider themselves gay. That's similar enough for me to take a close look.
kalleo335 2 years ago
You say "it can be argued," but that doesn't mean the argument has any basis. Purely xenophobic prejudices do not make for a valid argument for ANYTHING.
But note the difference between the two: No matter what society's OPINION may have ever been, interracial marriage has ALWAYS conformed to the essential definition of marriage. This cannot be said of gay relationships.
You see, my arguments are based on objective criteria. I have no respect for any arguments based on bigotry.
UncleIrv2 2 years ago
I'm curious where traditional marriage is encoded in the constitution.I'm not that familiar with old school references to marriage.
What "liberal social experiments", and how have they "WEAKENED" marriage? Specifics, please.
A lot of factors that go into marriage: For example, the aforementioned interracial couples are more likely to get divorced. Interestingly, Christians are more likely to get divorced than atheists. Should we alter marriage laws around these statistics? Certainly not.
kalleo335 2 years ago
The word "marriage" was defined in English Common Law. The jurisprudence of our democracy was founded upon the existing legal definitions within English Common Law.
Liberal social experiments? No-fault divorce, value-free sex ed, promotion of single motherhood, ect ect ect.
Can anyone argue that family is STRONGER today than 40 years ago? This is what 40 years of "progressive" social policies get you. Moreover, these results were PREDICTED by conservatives from the beginning.
UncleIrv2 2 years ago
I'm not going to argue, just a statement (please don't reply, I do not wish to encroach upon this video's comments).
However, regardless of the definition of marriage (which, under California law, is the ability to marry the Person of one's choice - verbatim), allowing for the original reasoning behind the law, which was civic and social pairing to ease property laws.
As well, gay couples will still live together and adopt kids regardless, this just allows the same extension of marital rights.
TAz69x 2 years ago
Comment removed
UncleIrv2 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
OK, don't respond if you wish. But I still must correct you when you're wrong.
This California law you site does NOT define marriage. It simply uses the term. Isn't that clear?
"the ability to marry the Person of one's choice"
This still leaves open the question: What does this word "marry" mean? That question was answered within English Common Law before the U.S. was even formed. It's a STANDING LEGAL DEFINITION, just like the term "habeas corpus."
UncleIrv2 2 years ago
Comment removed
UncleIrv2 2 years ago
Slipper slope BS arguments are all the opponents have on this matter
d3p3ch3mod3 2 years ago
If homosexuals are going this to get benefits then whats next....people wanting to marry their dog so when it has 8 puppys then they can claim 8 on their taxes???????????????????? It's starting to get insane!
bobmillerbob 2 years ago
No one is talking about marrying animals, you idiot. One person wants to marry ANOTHER person. If you are so against it, don't marry someone of the same sex.
blacklithe 2 years ago
no nobody is talking about marrying animals, but it's probably next at the rate it's going. Whats the different anyway for someone to marry the same sex than marry a pet. Can't have children from either one of them.
bobmillerbob 2 years ago
I agree with you bobmillerbob. All these rights people want are just obscene and disgusting.
teelistrill 2 years ago
Thank you
bobmillerbob 2 years ago
You're welcome. Not only that, I bet you that in a few years from now, they might want to make pedofilia legal.
teelistrill 2 years ago
Gay guys in New York area have been wanting to make it legal to have sex with 15 year old boys for years. I think the gay group is called LAMBDA.
bobmillerbob 2 years ago
Dang that is the most disgusting thing ever. Those fags need to make something good of their lives
teelistrill 2 years ago
You obviously didn't read the conversation I had about 2 pages ago. I'd rather not have to restate everything, so I'll just hit the main points: I would be against the 15 year old, and pedophilia, thing, since that isn't an "adult" consensual relationship. However, it is completely different from wanting to marry an animal. An animal doesn't have a high enough thought process to actually marry someone, so it should remain illegal. However, two intellegent, consenting adults? Why not?
kalleo335 2 years ago
First off I could care less about what conversation you had. Second, pedofilia and beastiality are wrong. Simple as that. You can have a long argument but it all still means the same thing. It's obscene and nasty.
teelistrill 2 years ago
I only mentioned the conversation before, because it would've shown you where I was coming from without it coming to a repeat of a lengthy conversation. Also, I'm not sure if you read my post wrong, but I agreed with you...Pedophilia and Beastiality ARE wrong. My post was explaining how the two are incomparable to homosexuality, unless you're coming from a religious standpoint and declare everything equal, in which case I say that's fine, but it's not religions place to tell people what to do.
kalleo335 2 years ago
Still, homosexuality can be compared to that stuff because one, they are all abominations, and obscene. Religion shouldn't have to tell people to activate their common sense. Lol it's like a dunce telling a nobel prize winning scientist to stop teaching him common sense.
teelistrill 2 years ago
First of all, I can't accept your argument. Why are they abominations, OUTSIDE religion? I understand your religious standpoint, but that doesn't make it ok to force other people to live your way. I've presented secular reasons for beastiality and pedophilia remaining illegal, I need one for homosexuality before I can accept your argument. Also, I noticed you used the term "abomination." Do you enjoy lobster, or other varieties of shellfish, or do you have any fellow religious friends who do?
kalleo335 2 years ago
Or, aside from shellfish, maybe you know (or yourself) have worn a halloween costume, or other things, of the opposite sex? (A chick wearing a guys shirt, for example). Or is the shirt you have on right now made of more than one material? (linen and wool, for example). Enjoy a rare steak? Trimmed your beard? Gotten a tattoo? Interestingly enough, all of these things are "abominations" as well. Strong word! Seems pretty clear how abhorrent all those issues are. Devout faith must be tough.
kalleo335 2 years ago
Dude, a man having sex with a another man is an abomination just by common sense. LOL
teelistrill 2 years ago
Oh really? It's common sense? I'd like you to explain to me how, since I definitely don't think it is. We do alot of things that are ridiculously bad for us: drinking alchohol (a poison), smoking, watching TV and spending too much time on the internet (sigh...). It's not about what's better, it's about being fair and keeping this a free country.
kalleo335 2 years ago
You dont think it is becaue you're probably a homosexual. That is disgusting. A pedofile won't think he's doing wrong because that's what he likes. Which is hypocritical. Still if it is a free country it's still nasty in many ways.
teelistrill 2 years ago
Sorry, I'm not a homosexual. At least, my fiance doesn't think so. Although one of my close friends is gay. Moving on, you're correct, a pedophile won't think it's wrong. However, it's wrong not because it's "nasty", but because it is wrong to illicit sex, or to use someone for sexual gratification, from someone under 18. I will reiterate: there is not a law against pedophilia due to nastiness, but due to the agreed upon immorality. Since homosexuality is between two consenting adults, it's ok.
kalleo335 2 years ago
Lol you're siding with an abomination actor? IF I had a friend who was a murderer I wouldn't side with him. It's still disgusting seeing a male doing another male because it's obscene, as obscene as a man doing his dog or cat. LOL you would only say the because your friend is gay and also it's being allowed. Still it's nasty. Believe what you want to believe I at least have common sense to know what is nasty.
teelistrill 2 years ago
Repeating myself, something being nasty doesn't make it wrong. Taking a huge dump in a public toilet and not flushing it is legal. What do you mean by "obscene"? If you're referring to religion, than I repeat my point that religion can't force it's will on everyone. If you're just saying that as a blanket statement, I already explained why homosexuality and beastiality are not equivalent. Do me a favor: either admit you're a bigot, or that your only point is the religious argument.
kalleo335 2 years ago
Lol it's still nasty as seeing a man sticking his penis into another male. Obscene, no I'm not referring to religion I'm referring to straight common sense. Lol homosexuality is as nasty as beastiality you're just trying to avoid it. I'm not a bigot explain how Im' a bigot when every race can be gay. Dang these homo lovers are dumb.
teelistrill 2 years ago
Nastiness. Does. Not. Make. Something. Illegal. It doesn't matter whether or not homosexuality is as nasty as beastiality. Beastiality is not illegal due to nastiness, it's illegal because of the inability of an animal to join a consensual relationship, and the factor of safety. And yes, you're a bigot. "Bigot" means anyone who's intolerant, not just a racist. Be sure you know what you're talking about before you try to insult me (which, by the way, tells me I'm winning this argument.)
kalleo335 2 years ago
It is still disgusting whether you like it or not. You only think it's not disgusting because America allows. I was never intolerant of gays I only told you the acts I didn't like. If I was on your level of ignorance I would think of others being a bigot because of not liking murderers and terrorists. But reality check, that's not bigotry, that's only hating the acts. Keep telling yourself what is right because I still have enough common sense to know what is nasty.
teelistrill 2 years ago
Would it satisfy you to know I think gay sex is nasty? Because I do. I find nothing, at all, positive about a guy sticking his dick in another guys asshole. Okay? But the thing that differentiates us is that I think that, no matter how "nasty" I think something is, I can't put unfair blanket rules on entire groups of people. Thats unfair. It's not American.
kalleo335 2 years ago
Either way you say it's still nasty. If you don't find it positive yet you support it you're basically being the hypocrite. It's still out there to be gay, but still it's nasty lol.
teelistrill 2 years ago
I'm not being a hypocrite. As I stated, it's wrong to ban something due to nastiness, so I'm doing the morally responsible thing by supporting something I don't necessarily agree with. For example, I would support a religious nutjobs right to rant all day about how much he despises gay marriage, and refuse to let gay people into their church. I'm an advocate for all kinds of freedom.
kalleo335 2 years ago
I agree that it's wrong to "ban something" on an emotional basis. But this is a straw-man argument because gay marriage is not "banned."
It simply does not fall under the existing common law definition of marriage--just like incest does not. This is a LEGAL dispute which is best handled within the democratic process.
There are valid reasons why many people feel it is best for society to keep defining marriage as between one man and one woman. These reasons are not based on hate or bigotry.
UncleIrv2 2 years ago
DEFINITION OF BIGOTRY: A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion.
-- Webster's Dictionary
Sorry, it meets the dictionary definition of the word.
ConstantViewer 2 years ago
With all due respect, you are a lying piece of shit.
You obviously started with the definition of "bigot" on merriam-webster-dot-com, then you doctored it up to add the references to religion. Do you think we are idiots and we can't simply look up the definition ourselves?
No self-respecting dictionary would load a definition with such an obviously biased POV. You are an idiot and you are punked.
UncleIrv 2 years ago
"Do you think we are idiots and we can't simply look up the definition ourselves?"
I didn't think you were an idiot until you called me a "lying piece of shit" without even checking to see if I copied the definition accurately or not.
You do know that the Merriam-Webster dictionary is different than Webster's, right?
Google it or go to dictionary. com
You meet Webster's definition of "bigot," and your own definition of "idiot." What I think does not even matter.
ConstantViewer 2 years ago
Once again, I reiterate: YOU ARE A LYING PIECE OF SHIT.
Dictionary-dot-com--or ANY authoritative reference--mentions NOTHING about "regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right" or "obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church" etc. You added that shit yourself. This is nothing but your own biased application.
It's clear to me that you are an anti-religious bigot yourself. And a lying piece of shit to boot.
UncleIrv 2 years ago
I invite anyone who reads this to PLEASE go to dictionary. com and type in "bigot" and scroll down to the Webster's Dictionary definition (I think it is the third one) and confirm for Unclelrv that the definition I posted below is in fact correct.
This task has proven too challenging for him to do himself, and he has decided that name-calling is a good substitute for research.
ConstantViewer 2 years ago
I invite anyone who reads this to go to dictionary. com, type in "bigot" and scroll down to the Webster's Dictionary definition (I think it is the second or third one) and confirm for Unclelrv that the definition of "bigot" that I posted above is indeed correct.
Apparently he is having some difficulty doing this, and he prefers calling me names rather than doing research.
ConstantViewer 2 years ago
Poor Uncle Irv can't read. Perhaps he's also the definition of "illiterate".
SeparateisntEqual 2 years ago
Surgery is nasty. Are you against that too?
xlanciferionx 2 years ago
ok firstly, that dog thing is not going to happen, and if it EVER did, I'm sure you would be long gone by then so I doubt you need to worry about it.
TasteMe555 2 years ago
People seem to forget that marriage was historically just a transfer of property of a woman from her father to a new man who will be her husband. One man could marry many women. Considering the insanely high divorce rate, marriage has pretty much no meaning anymore anyway, it just makes it harder to break up. I would rather change the tax system to allow civil unions the same tax benefits as marriage.
Sashinator0 2 years ago
Actually marriage exists because women need protection when they are pregnant and nursing and caring for a child. There have been times in history when they've had to "pay" a lot for protection, but at other times they've had more rights.
In matriarchal societies...men tend to just walk away. There's nothing in it for them to stay and "work" for free!
The real problem for both gays & feminists is admitting they've dealt with biological asymmetry by basically denying the problem.
uhhmsure 2 years ago
So people who don't believe in God can't get married?
Kylestyle05 2 years ago
fine then you shouldn't get special tax breaks just because you're married.
Kylestyle05 2 years ago
I happen to live in Eastern Kentucky.. I am a man.. I hump my cousin.. who is also a man.
ECXxX 2 years ago
What ever floats your boat
wellme22 2 years ago
"You compare homosexuality with incest and polygamy so yes, i'm guessing you think it's immoral. am i wrong here????"
Apparently so do you, or am I wrong here?
Samc023 2 years ago
"Gay does not = immoral & straight does not =moral. It depends on the person, not their sexuality."
When did I say that?
Samc023 2 years ago
you didn't say that but i'm sure you think it. Based on your opinions of gay people you seem to be the type of person with that attitude. You compare homosexuality with incest and polygamy so yes, i'm guessing you think it's immoral. am i wrong here????
fauxindigo 2 years ago
Comment removed
Samc023 2 years ago
are blacks still persecuted and put to death simply for being black this day in age? gays are. tell me about the pains of being black.
fauxindigo 2 years ago
"are blacks still persecuted and put to death simply for being black this day in age? gays are. tell me about the pains of being black."
Alot more than homosexuals can ever claim to. I also
don't know how you're deluded enough to think that
gays in this country are being killed off in record numbers,
not to mention that it would go unpunished, this day in age, can't say that about the numerous blacks during the civil rights era and before, victimizers who went unpunished.
Samc023 2 years ago
"can't say that about the numerous blacks during the civil rights era and before, victimizers who went unpunished."
Slavery would probably be preferable to some of the stuff they used to do to discovered gay people .......
Playing the "I'm more victimized" game is pointless. Nobody should be victimized, especially directly by the government.
RoseEEOE 2 years ago
"Playing the "I'm more victimized" game is pointless. Nobody should be victimized, especially directly by the government."
Great point, it tends to be a very low blow, no reason to
stoop that low.
Samc023 2 years ago
It's not a claim- it's a fact! Read the news! It happens all the time in the middle east. And yes, there are laws in the states but that doesn't stop the lot of homophobes from continuing to bash homosexuals and think they do not deserve punishment. Look into it a little before you claim to know so much. Gays were burnt at stake hundreds of years ago and are still in their fight for civil rights to this day. Blacks suffer like this today in no way.
fauxindigo 2 years ago
"It's not a claim- it's a fact! Read the news! It happens all the time in the middle east."
This isn't the middle east, so why are you even bringing this
up? And unlike gays, blacks don't have the luxury of
hiding or putting away their skin pigmentation, I'm even
stunned that you are STILL making this asinine comparison
about who is the more oppressed.
Samc023 2 years ago
the "luxury" of hiding or putting away...?? hiding who you are is NOT a LUXURY! you are so ignorant. and there are a number of people who are very obviously gay and are targeted. Why should they have to act straight though, just to be accepted? why can't people just be accepted for who they are? aren't you aware of how wonderful diversity is?
fauxindigo 2 years ago
"the "luxury" of hiding or putting away...?? hiding who you are is NOT a LUXURY! you are so ignorant."
Yet you had the audacity to have a pissing contest on who
suffers the most, gays or blacks" If anything, YOU"RE the
ignorant one. Your Ad hominem tactics will not work,
you've been using it since jump. You also missed the
underlining point, which WASN"T that anyone has or
SHOULD hide who they truly are, not to mention a persons
sexual preference should not define them.
Samc023 2 years ago
"why can't people just be accepted for who they are? aren't you aware of how wonderful diversity is?"
And who ever stated they shouldn't be? but as I've stated a
persons preference doesn't or shouldn't define who they
are, period. I'm well aware of how wonderful diversity is,
within reason, although I have no idea what a person doing
behind closed doors is such a wonderful diversifying
aspect? I mean honestly.
Samc023 2 years ago
it's not about what goes on behind closed doors! And to think so many ppl say the gays are all about sex. that's all people like you seem to care or think about-the physical Sex!
It's about being honest & open & accepted & respected!
fauxindigo 2 years ago
" that's all people like you seem to care or think about-the physical Sex! It's about being honest & open & accepted & respected!"
I NEVER brought up physical sex, you inferred it by talking
about "diversity" now you're going to back peddle and
pin the entire subject on me. Why would you talk about
diversity in sexual preference then try to flip the entire
discussion as if I was the one speaking or accusing
gay people of having this sort of mindset.
Samc023 2 years ago
The whole discussion is about physical sex/gender! And I'm not accusing you of being the only one-you're one of many who think like this! And yes it IS like interracial marriage 50 years ago. Two people not being allowed to live together in peace under the law because of their physical attributes.
fauxindigo 2 years ago
"And yes it IS like interracial marriage 50 years ago. Two people not being allowed to live together in peace under the law because of their physical attributes."
Considering the fact that that law was instituted by racist
men in America that makes it utterly moot. One can easily
argue the same thing on behalf of incestuous couples too.
Two people who aren't allowed to live together in peace
under the law because they happen to be related.
Samc023 2 years ago
"Considering the fact that that law was instituted by racist men in America that makes it utterly moot."
Replace "racist" with "homophobic" or "religiously zealous" and it's the same thing today. "One can easily argue the same thing on behalf of incestuous couples too. Two people who aren't allowed to live together in peace under the law because they happen to be related. "
Children born from incest are at extremely high risk for tons of medical issues. Otherwise, I don't mind incest.
kalleo335 2 years ago
If a woman's son and said mother decide they want to be together, and both (well of course the mother would be, but if the son) is an adult, then I don't give a damn if they want to fool around, so long as there is no chance of a kid. Why does it affect me? I still might tell my kids I think it's wrong, and it's not my style, but if other people decide they're going to, its their own business. But anyway, you were comparing incest and gay marriage, so there you go.
kalleo335 2 years ago
Also, do me a favor (sorry for posting three seperate times on a continuous topic without waiting for a response), don't associate my argument with fauxindigo's much. As much as I respect the effort, his/her argument was relatively weak. I'm what you'd think of as complete freedom-ist, as long as no one else is harmed, I say (socially) do whatever the hell you want, and I vote that way. I won't get into other issues, like economics, since that's harder to classify with such a broad philosophy.
kalleo335 2 years ago
"Why does it affect me? I still might tell my kids I think it's wrong, and it's not my style, but if other people decide they're going to, its their own business. But anyway, you were comparing incest and gay marriage, so there you go."
Question, why do you feel its wrong? I mean I understand
overall why you may not care, but why do you think its
wrong on a moral level? And once again thanks for your
honest answers.
Samc023 2 years ago
If one of the two are infertile (and they are both consenting adults) I have no issues at all with incest. If they're both of the same sex, same. It is true that we allow children with a huge predisposition towards medical issues to be born; However, incest is something that would cause that, whereas it is often no fault of the parents or childs that there are medical issues. On a similar note, I think drug consumption during pregnancy, or near pregnant women (2nd hand smoke) should be illegal.
kalleo335 2 years ago
Honestly, I feel it's wrong because we have made it such a social taboo, and it has been for a long time. Clarification: THAT IS BAD JUSTIFICATION! Yes, my justification is terrible, and I admit that. My prejudice against incest is a societal issue that I have yet to completely free myself from. However, I will probably try to free myself from that particular prejudice, as long as all circumstances I've previously outlined are met (no kids).
kalleo335 2 years ago
Interesting. Do you think that we as society should draw
the line at some point? Ultimately a government endorsement
doesn't intrinsically stop any homosexual from loving and
committing to a person, why alter it so they can reap
benefits? Why not reform civil unions to make them virtually the same especially when the real reason behind
same sex marriage is to normalize homosexuality.
Samc023 2 years ago
Draw a line? Yes, that line being that both people involved in a relationship must be mature, consenting adults fully aware of what they're getting themselves in to, and unable to harm any other people (I do consider a possible child from incest in the "people" category, for example). Beyond that, sexuality is just a lifestyle difference that shouldn't be judged on different or not different.
kalleo335 2 years ago
Also, in regard to the civil union idea, marriage is much more than just a piece of paper, in my opinion. Marriage is a deeply poetic act, rooted in piles of symbolism (most, I would like to point out, that are unrelated to Christianity) that has a"spiritual", or perhaps artistic, meaning far beyond simple union. Besides the almost inarguable fact that they should have the same rights in terms of taxes and such, I believe they, as humans, have the right to participate in this beautiful act.
kalleo335 2 years ago
"Children born from incest are at extremely high risk for tons of medical issues. Otherwise, I don't mind incest."
Medical issues can be debated as this wouldn't apply if
one of the two were infertile or both were of the same sex,
nevertheless we allow children with a huge predisposition
for medical issues to be born all the time. Point taken
that you stated you don't mind incest, at least your honest
in that position.
Samc023 2 years ago
con.
Now if you were talking about Iran then you would have a
point, but here in America you seem to have it very GOOD
as oppose to them.
Samc023 2 years ago
right, it is a lot better in america, but it's still an issue! we could just as easily be in their position. so just because we're not means we should say to hell with 'em!?? let them deal with it on their own b/c it doesn't directly affect me?! well it really does b/c the societal views around the world need to change big time!
fauxindigo 2 years ago
"The Gay people who want to get married want to do so for the same reasons their parents did. It is a testament to the true values of honoring and committing to support one's family"
So how does this negate incestuous couples or any
potential polygamist? Are you saying that such people
can't have values , desire love and commitment or even
some sort of family?
Samc023 2 years ago
stop comparing gays to polygamists and incest. they have NOTHING, i repeat NOTHING to do with each other!
fauxindigo 2 years ago
Comment removed
Samc023 2 years ago
K-the word is stigma-not stigmata. NO they are not made equal simply because people like you say so. just because they are all 'non-traditional' does not make them similar in any other way! The majority of gay people (like straight people alike) would not say that they support polygamy or incest.
fauxindigo 2 years ago
So Samc023- stop spreading lies you've heard from misled pastors who try to demonize homosexuality just because it is 'non-traditional'.. FYI: homosexuality has been around for thousands of years-probably since the dawn of man...'non-traditional' you say?
fauxindigo 2 years ago
"So Samc023- stop spreading lies you've heard from misled pastors who try to demonize homosexuality"
K- I haven't spreaded a lie I merely made a point, so
stop intrinsically insisting I'm telling lies or demonizing
people.
"FYI: homosexuality has been around for thousands of years-probably since the dawn of man...'non-traditional' you say?"
Yeah, so has incest and polygamy, BOTH of which have
had recognized marriages, so what is exactly your point?
Samc023 2 years ago