its hard to make rebuttles with a 500 charachter limit... i think if you read the "by submitting to a governing body" before "a straight couple has" comments, it will flow better.
a straight coupld has the choice to not produce children, while homosexual pairs do not. and the chances of them changing their mind and having children before the time they have passed reproductive age atleast exists.
@dang3rdo0m "a straight coupld has the choice to not produce children, while homosexual pairs do not" Is mankind facing extinction all of the sudden? last time I cheked we are 7 billion and rising so: nope. What if a straight couple can't have children? Should we not allow them to marry then? Does straight couples only raise straight children? of course not. Same sex couples could adopt children, do you think they are not going to love them? your comment is a nice pile of bullshit.
@DocStrange0123 I think the fact that you and the rest of the people that are upset about what jhon said are completely satisfied with taking what somone has said out of context and reinterpreting it just so that you have something to criticize as though what you are saying in any way pertains to the topic at hand, is why so many people have such a negative view on homosexuality. if you had read on, you would see that i had presented a valid arguement without reverting to insults
by submitting to a governing body, the population is infact giving the government the power to allow the governed to exist. the u.s. constitution gives its citizens the right to life, liberty, and the persuit of happieness. if this isnt where your inherit right to exist comes from, then from what office is this right derived? god?
as for the families that hold ideas i dont condone, its not a question of my say in the matter, but the fact that they are constitutionally protected.
well.. you have to realize that the reason homosexual partnerships arent recognized by many of the states in the USA is that the tax benefits that come with being married are to help with the upbringing of the children.. and i think most of the logical world will be in agreement with me when i say that homosexuals shouldn't be raising children. not because they cant be good parents, but its not fair to the child to have the kinds of preconceptions such a family unit would bestow.
by the way, isn't taking "we're allowing them to exist" out of context and using it to make Eichelberger sound like a Nazi kind of like being an alarmist?
@dang3rdo0m Citing that you "allow" a certain segment of the population to exist, as if that's something that should count in your favor, disregards that this is something that should be taken as a given, and is really not anything special. Implying otherwise suggests that this is something that is granted to people, rather than something inherent. Also, not all straight couples raise children, and I'm sure some of them have preconceptions you would disapprove of. Yet they all can still marry.
Are group marriages dysfunctional? Let's let three people get married. If you oppose that, you're a pathetic ignorant fascist and will be attacked as such.
How can you believe you have a right to change the definition of marriage. You have a right to do what you want in the privacy of your home, you have a right to live without fear of persecution, you have a right to be with who you want to be with...You do not however have the right to take the institution of marriage which has in the Western World been between a man and woman and change it to satisfy your own self.
Well, then you heterosexual lovers shouldn't be able to change my definition of marriage from hundreds of years ago. I want the woman I marry to be my fucking property, and we shouldn't be allowed to divorce. Also, I want to marry my fourteen-year-old daughter off to a fifty-year-old rich man to save myself from the poor house. How DARE you redefine my marriage to satisfy your own self?
@thompsonk196 The very nature of marriage has changed dramatically over time. Marriage used to basically be slavery. Marriage used to be the transfer of ownership of a woman from her father to another man, and remained that way for the vast majority of western history. But there wasn't any good reason to hold onto that either, besides the same empty appeal to tradition that you're using.
Maybe we should ALL have civil unions and the government shouldn't deal with marriage at all?
The man himself is dysfunctional. He's a loud mouth slime ball. His wife uses her power at the local news station to constantly put him in the spotlight in a favorable way. He's a dick.
Special consideration? The whole issue is that gay people want the SAME consideration as heterosexual people. I'm not gay, but I'm pretty sure gay marriages don't require any 'special consideration' that are nonexisting in heterosexual marriages.
You cant argue something is a right if it is not good for the body.Penetration of the anus causes tearing & bleeding of the soft tissues & can damage the sphincter muscles causing incontinence & anal prolapse.There is also a high concentration of disease causing organisms in the anus & the introduction of pathogens during the sex act itself exposing the participants to a spectrum of contagious diseases.Liberalism is based on facts & reason which they disreguard on this issue.
After confronting a few people from DC, they now have a new reason to look down on PA... they legalized gay marriage before us. I'm happy for them, but envious at the same time! I want PA to be next and included in one of the first states to legalize gay marriage!
By the way, your response at the end was GENIUS! "We're not 'allowed' to exist we have a RIGHT to exist and we're going to continue to exist regardless what Mr. Eichelberger has to say about it" LMAO! BRILLIANT!!!
He's allowing homosexuals to exist. Huh. Recently there was a bit in my favourite newspaper where a teenager said they "accept gay rights". "Accept". PRAAAISE JEBUS.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
First of all, this man is in no way pathetic, you are the one preaching to a choir of youtube watchers who are most likely going to do absolutely nothing about the issue while he is going about it the diplomatic way. "Marriage" was created for a man and woman, if you want to create something for a man and a man or a woman and a woman to be united, than DO IT and call it whatever you like, how about "snuffaluffagus"?
There is nothing "diplomatic" about telling people in gay relationships that they're inherently wrong to do so. Marriage works quite well for gay couples and there is no reason to withhold it from them.
I agree, Marriage is merely a word and one Heterosexuals seem keen on keeping away from Man and Man or Woman and Woman. This is wrong, and we should have equal rights, including the use of the word Marriage.
Like ALL religious based countries, ("One nation under a (homophobic) queer bashing Jehovah) America has a set of the most twisted, repulsive, and punitive "Family Values" on this planet. Show me a "functional" American christian family, and I will show you a carnival freakshow.
Most of the world see's us as a joke. well, amen to that!!!
Born to wealth and prevelige, mother was a prescription drug addict and a hysterical fundamentalist "Christian" I was fostered out to different families 3 X's. First two were also Christian zealots who because of my effete, "queer" behavior were punitive and cold. 2nd placement not much better, the father hated me, threatened to kill me if I "laid a hand on his son....final placement age 12, an odd family of artist/educators, had a trangendering son! The only LOVING family I ever knew....
I think this is totally missing Eichelberger's point. He's not saying "allowed to exist" as opposed to "exterminated". He's, like most bigots, under the impression that people choose to be gay, so he's basically saying "we allow them to be gay" versus "forcing everyone to stay straight". It sounds to me like "We allow them to exist [as homosexuals]." He's still a fucktard, but I really don't think he's proposing extermination.
He's allowing you to exist, huh? IS HE NOT MERCIFUL? God dammit this eichelberger fucktard pisses me off. HE -IS- GIVING HOMOSEXUAL COUPLES "SPECIAL CONSIDERATION" BY GOING OUT OF HIS WAY TO EXCLUDE THEM! What a FUCKING HYPOCRITE. I wish theocrats like him would get lynched.
The whole point of the constitution is that it should apply to everyone equally. I'm not sure how that is so easily lost by these people. The law must "be blind" to whether I have a cock or a vagina. The item between my legs is supposed to be irrelevant in the eyes of the law. Hence if two "persons" wish to get married, types of genetalia involved are irrelevant. I know, it's not the answer people like to hear, but the law is the law.
Hahaha, Pennsylvania. Pittsburgh on the west side, Philadelphia in the east, Alabama in the middle! I love what you have to say about this (and many of your other videos too :) ). To other Pennsylvanians, how about we work on changing the state instead of abandoning it?
Great video. It's a good thing this government official is not in the public eye everyday. He'd result in his own death from his stupidity. It's as if he is looking to get shot or something and doesn't even care.
I don't believe gay couples need encouragement, in fact, no couple needs encouragement; the simple fact is that homosexuals deserve the same rights as heterosexuals. No encouragement required.
Thank you CycleOfMadness! wonderful response! indeed, i agree with you. No encourageent required(or needed)... just free will. Freedom for all! Thanks for your whisdom!
Why would you have to encourage people, gay or straight, to provide for their family? It is just natural to take care of people who you love. This politician, like most politician, are clueless.
It true for everybody. Christians are allowed to exist although I don't know why they would want to exist. Their idea of death sounds like vacation. Christians are only a third of the world population. They could be sent to their vacation by the remaining two-thirds. I think the muslims are worse and they also only exist because they are allowed to exist.
This sounds so much at how like Interracial Relationships used to be viewed. "Why would we allow THEM to marry?" The list keeps getting knocked down. women rights, black rights, now gay rights, No wonder a lot of Christians are hoping the world ends soon. Rights apparently trigger apocalypses
Senator Eichelberger is an ignorant hateful bigot. I called his office and was casually told "his christian religion is behind anti gay stance." pathetic .
Something I never got: People always say "letting gays marry is a special favor, they already have the same rights as heterosexuals." But they don't. Heterosexuals have the right to marry who they love and have the right - as an extension - to sexual pleasure. By banning gay marriage, homosexuals have neither of those rights. And comparing it to a pedophile? It's between CONSENTING ADULTS! Oy...
You use statistics, when neither of those words deal with statistics. Now you're just pulling stuff out your ass because you're running out of arguments, nice straw man by trying to attack me directly though. Third one you've used and yet to admit it.
Attacking the person is argumentum ad hominem, not a straw man, niether of which I've done. I merely stated that I don't care who you are.
Furthermore, I never did say the terms "valid" and "common sense" are directly linked to statistics. I said you don't know what they mean, and this latest outburst from you really punctuates that.
Let's lay things out in a way that's easy for you to digest. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Let's come up with a working definition of ordinary and extraordinary, shall we?
Ordinary can be considered mundane and inconsequential, and often subjective, such as a claim that you ate a bowl of cereal for breakfast or claiming a one restaurant is better than another in your opinion.
Since "extra-" means outside, extraordinary is therefore anything beyond the scope of ordinary.
Now, you claimed to be abused. Ignoring that it amounts to little more than argumentum ad verecundiam, it is an extraordinary claim. Why should anybody believe you? For all practical intents and purposes, you're nothing but text on YouTube.
Next, you claimed that family is worthless. First, you ignored that my working definition of family is very, very broad, you focused on the Republicans' ideal of a family, effectively errecting a straw man.
Beyond that, rather than providing concrete reasons for it and statistics to support those claims, and possibly an alternative to family, you merely cited your own claimed abuse as the reason family is worthless. This amounts to both an appeal to emotion (mind you, that doesn't mean you're trolling for sympathy - it means you're hoping to subdue logic with an emotional reaction) and a hasty conclusion (since a sample size of one individual is statistically meaningless).
Then, when pressed for a reason why family is worthless, you claimed that the majority of families are dysfunctional and that your case isn't uncommon. You failed to support that claim with statistics, instead jumping up and down yelling "Common sense!" over and over again. That amounts to argumentum ad populum and argumentum ad nauseam.
All the while, I've been merely asking for empirical evidence for your claims, which you have failed to provide.
You fail to understand simple reasoning and argumentative skill. Instead you blabber on about pointless crap I've already proven wrong. You don't seek to learn, you seek to cause disorder.
You say it's an appeal to emotion which it is not, I've already explained that. Which makes you contradicting for saying how much I have to repeat myself, since it wont get through your thick head.
A direct attack in which you change the subject is a straw man, sorry you don't know that.
Disproven? Really now? You've presented neither evidence nor logic. What have you accoplished.
Your claims of abuse are an appeal to emotion. You've claimed it's not, but you've yet to explain your reasoning. All you've managed to say is that it's an example, therefore you have an argument (a fallacy if I've ever heard one, by the way).
In case you're unaware, most informal fallacies are appeals to emotion, some kind of attempt to hit some kind of emotional trigger. You might be trying to paint yourself as an expert, or poison the proverbial well, or any number of related fallacies. See, if it weren't an appeal to emotion, it would not have been brought up, since it's has no bearing on the validity and veracity of any of the claims you made whatsoever.
You're shooting yourself in the foot when you claim that *I* don't understand reasoning and argumentative skill. The burden of proof is on you, since you're making positive assertions, and yet rather than supporting yourself, you're spitting out fallacy after fallacy in a vain attempt to shoot down my skepticism as unreasonable.
This is a simple thing. All I've been doing is playing the role of the skeptic. All I ask is that you back your claims up. That's all there is to it. Cite some statistics, lay out a few logic statements, try to actually prove your position. If you will no, you do not have an argument.
It's not hard. Back up your claim that family is worthless, instead of propping it up with unsupported claims. Back up your claim that the majority of families are dysfunctional, instead of relying on fallacies.
And, by the way, a straw man is, as I've stated, a caricature of the argument at hand, intended to be easily knocked down and equated to the original argument. It is not a change of subject. Not that I've been doing any such thing. All I've asked is for you to support your claims, which you've yet failed to do.
And I take exception your statement, "You don't seek to learn, you seek to cause disorder." That's a perfect example of an ad hominem, and a hallmark of someone that can't defend a claim
Yeah, no. A straw man is an argument made to lead some one off the respected subject. You can argue with any college teacher with that if you like.
Seeing as how you admitted you are playing the role of a skeptic, that proved what I said about you not seeking to learn. Another one of your many contradictions.
My "claims" are all supported, you don't want to go look them up yourself that's a problem with you. I don't, as stated before, need to support what is common knowledge.
I really have to wonder what sort of college you went to. The thought that you were taught such lax standards for writing and that informal fallacies were so weakly covered makes me wonder if you even went to college.
And I admitted to being a skeptic? You clearly don't even know what a skeptic is. I'm open to new ideas, but I scrutinize them before I believe them. I'm pressing you to defend your arguments.
Simply stating that a claim is common knowledge is what we call an ipse-dixitism.
I further find it disturbing that you would be so arrogant as you spit out a claim and then imply you're some kind of teacher. It harkens back to my statement that you had no reason to claim you were abused, and I think you've now just made it clear that it was an attempt to paint yourself as an expert.
Let me reiterate a little something that bears repeating: an argument from authority is a fallacy. It's not the source, but the substance. Since all you have is an ipse-dixitism, you lack it.
Oh, and one more thing. You can't make a claim and then tell the skeptic to research it for you.
I'm not the one claiming families are worthless, and I'm not the one claiming the majority are disfunctional. The burden of proof is not on my shoulders.
But then, given the exchange we've had thus far, I doubt you even understand what burden of proof is, so I'll be so nice as to define it. It's the obligation to establish a contention as fact by evoking evidence of its probable truth.
Burden of proof does not apply to common knowledge, but to theories and hypothesis. I guess your college was the one who was lax.
And if you disbelieve that I have attended college, then look up RSU. I've been attending for three years now, I hardly call myself an expert, but I'm not some high school punk trying to look good.
Skeptics challenge new ideas because they don't want to accept them, scientists and philosophers "test" new ideas. You are not doing this, you are not open to it.
Scientists and philosophers are by their nature skeptics. Ideas are challenged by being held accountable to evidence and reason for the very reason that only those ideas that can stand up to scrutiny are the ones that are likely.
You've made sweeping sociological claims that you've bundled up in an ugly ipse-dixitism, and you've strongly implied that the things you say should be taken unquestioningly on your authority.
I hope you realize you effectively conceded that you have no argument.
Make all the assumptions you want about me, but that won't help your argument (or lack thereof). Ad hominems don't make the either the null or the alternative hypothesis true or false.
I further hope you realize that "common knowledge" is never a reasonable basis for an argument. Both the scientific method and the judicial process discard "common knowledge."
Claiming that it's something everyone knows is nothing but a fallacy I've noted a few times. Brownie points if you've paid enough attention to know which one.
Actually the judicial process does not discard this, that is why it's widely accepted in court systems to realize and understand many things people present without them coming under ignorant scrutiny, which is what this is.
Facts are not claims, just because you don't believe in the flying spaghetti monster doesn't mean it's not really is pretty much your argument. Which has been put down by so many people. Your argument on my "fallacies" are nothing but fallacies themselves.
I'm pointing out your fallacies for your benefit, but you've been nothing but a curmudgeon.
As for claims and facts, well, a claim can be either factual or false. All known facts are first brought to people's attention as claims, and become regarded as factual by standing up to scrutiny.
As for the judicial process, hearsay is ignored. Juries are selected based on ignorance of the case at hand. Witnesses are required to give a personal testimony, not claims on behalf of others. All claims with a bearing on the case's outcome are held up to evidence. So yes, common knowledge is discarded.
Now, our little exchange here can be described as such: You're claiming that the FSM exists. I'm asking you to prove it. You're telling me he exists because everyone knows he exists. I'm telling you that's not good enough, and that I want empirical evidence.
Replace "FSM" with "families are worthless" and "his existence" with "they're dysfunctional," and you'd be in the ballpark of what transpired in this discussion.
I'll put this as bluntly as I can, and maybe it'll reach you.
In less time than you've been pissing and moaning about how families are indeed worthless and that they're dysfunctional simply because you say it's true and that everyone allegedly believes it's true, you could have simply looked up a database of scientific papers and searched for sociological studies on the subject.
I guess you're just bitter, and you're afraid you'll accidentally prove yourself wrong in the process.
And, by the way, citing common knowledge is, by its very nature, perpetuating argumentum ad populum, an appeal to the popular opinion.
The reason it's fallacious is that populations can perpetuate myths, and unlike researchers, they're not bound by the rigors of the scientific method.
Ah, I seem to have also missed a bit I intended to reply to before. You noted that you've been in college for three years which so you "hardly call [your]self an expert."
I just wanted to let you know that you missed the point. I'm compelled to ask, do you just skim my comments and hammer out responses on a whim, or are you just not following what I'm saying?
I ask because I might try changing my writing style if it can help us come to a mutual understanding.
Witnesses can only give testimony based on a specific event, and they're still scrutinized by the opposing party on the basis of evidence, logic, and the witness' biases. It's tantamount to qualitative analysis in science. Make no mistake, your claims are quantitative.
Simply stating you know it's true doesn't make it so, but at least you're willing to admit you're not willing to form a proper argument.
Furthermore, you're still missing the point. You refuted something I never wrote.
I agree with everything you said in this video. Also, I wanted to tell you that I really appreciate the fact that you're voicing your opinions. In a world filled with so many ignorant people it is definitely worth a lot to know that people like you exist. People with sane opinions.
They conducted a study with credit cards and they found out that conservatives are the biggest porn consumers, look at that white supremacist guy who shot those people, he had child porn on his pc. C'mon let's be better people and pray for him to leave the closet some day.
Technically we are all just "allowed to exist" anyway - our governments are structured so that our existence isn't hindered completely, that they can't just kill us for their own gain - but yah. For one to just come out and say they "allow" gay people to "exist" is just so friggin' boldfaced bigotry. It's like saying they "allow" the black people to exist. How cold.
And if everybody had morals, nobody would want to be with somebody as horrible and nasty as you. Your comment was unecessary and didn't contribute anything worth knowing. Maybe take a look at yourself before you judge other people next time.
Don't worry. All of the signs that Jesus described as being pre-cursers to His return are happening all together at once, just as He said in Matthew 24. That means that soon all of the true Christians will be removed from the earth and you can live however you want to. That is until you realize that God's wrath is being poured out. Then you might want to reconsider who God is and how to surrender your life to Him. Jesus that is. It's almost here. Time is practically up. You'll see.
I doubt you'll be so sure of that after the three-year Fimbulwinter, when the great wolf Skoll consumes the sun and moon, the earth is overrun by the old gods, and they do battle at Vigrid. Doubt it? You won't when they set the world on fire and all the land sinks into the sea. The predictions of the Vikings are already coming true, and I'm sure you don't want to end up in Nastrond.
Wow, he realy madea fool of himself. I would have liked to hear more of wha tthe interviewer was saying. At least he apparently was trying to reason with the idiot.
John Eichelberger is ANOTHER fascist homophobic Republican Nazi.People who think like him are the reason why America is a shithole country now.I bet you General Motors this sick bigoted bastard is gonna be another Larry Craig.Its always those sicko religious wingnuts who are forever spouting their hate.You are all a bunch of hypocrites,and you use your religion 4 your own convenience.I wish all religious bigots would commit suicide and go meet the fictitious being they call god & Leave us alone
Ugh, yuck, puke, the same types who try to define deities into existence are the pro-war, pro-death-penalty, anti-choice types who want to define loving relationships out of existence even though they *claim* to be tolerant of homosexual activities.
Yeah right, as though we believe that the likes of Eichelberger truly do not care what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms.
Hypocrisy run amok!
The likes of Eichelberger would probably happily put nooses around necks.
If we could restructure a global society from foundations up, would the "family" even remain a necessary unit? Sure, it was a vital step in the beginnings of human history, and remained entrenched as such, but could we do without it?
For the most part, "families" are seen as integral and entirely positive by people of all walks of life. But inequities are inescapable: those born into poor families grow up without advantages; those born into *any* family are molded by their parents' wishes.
The man's clearly an idiot with a mean streak. Take solace in the FACT that he's already lost the war. Every young person I've talked to about this says the same thing... people should love and marry whomever they please. He's on the losing side of history. The change is coming, ZJ. Your vids a both a harbinger and a change agent. Please know you are supported by HUGE numbers of hetero couples and their kids!
Yeah that Eichelberger sure loves to make his own definitions up. I Love how he has his own definition of family. Sorry bud look it up in the dictionary. He also says they can do whatever any american can do, uhm, is he on crack?
Good for you ZJ! I hate how people treat gays as if they're a different species. Usually the people who do so are either macho pricks who care about the size of their penises, or their religious nuts going by what a bible says instead of what they truly think. So good for you for standing up for what's right! You are amazing!
It pisses me off so much when these bigots start talking about amending a constitution to take rights away from citizens. That is a slap in the face of our "supposed" rights and freedoms.
it's funny how eichelberger never bother to explain why he felt gay marriage was a "special privilege" as opposed to a right, or what exactly was wrong with "that kind of behaviour". it's like he thought it was self explanatory - that anybody with sense would hear it and suddenly be convinced of the superiority of his "arguments". then again, i haven't listened to the whole thing, so i'm not sure if he elucidated at some point (though i'm willing to bet he didn't).
Sometimes I think nothing is ever going to change, but then I think about it some more, and a lot really has changed. It's not good enough, but much better than it use to be.
If he wasn't in a position of such power, that would be almost laughable.
Wow... here in Massachusetts, if you say stupid things like that, you'd be socially castrated. It almost baffles me that people like that still exist.
im not gay but there is nothing wrong with same sex marrige i think its fine. my best friend is bi. this guy is just a gay hater. i bet hes gay and dosent want to admit it.
Lol. Don't we all wish it worked that way? That all the haters out there were secretly gay? If it were true, at least they'd understand what being gay (and wanting the same rights as everyone else) was like, even if he talked trash.
To compare Gays, and BISEXUALS, to pedophiles or anything like that is nothing more than a slander campaign. I wish someone asked that jerk from Penn how he can justify that!
He is what is wrong with this world. As long as people like him are allowed to hold office there will always be pain and suffering in this world. People should have freedom of speech, but freedom to take (or keep) other people's freedom away, FUCK NO!
We need responsible, mature, intelligent people in office.
its hard to make rebuttles with a 500 charachter limit... i think if you read the "by submitting to a governing body" before "a straight couple has" comments, it will flow better.
dang3rdo0m 6 months ago
a straight coupld has the choice to not produce children, while homosexual pairs do not. and the chances of them changing their mind and having children before the time they have passed reproductive age atleast exists.
dang3rdo0m 6 months ago
@dang3rdo0m "a straight coupld has the choice to not produce children, while homosexual pairs do not" Is mankind facing extinction all of the sudden? last time I cheked we are 7 billion and rising so: nope. What if a straight couple can't have children? Should we not allow them to marry then? Does straight couples only raise straight children? of course not. Same sex couples could adopt children, do you think they are not going to love them? your comment is a nice pile of bullshit.
DocStrange0123 1 month ago
@DocStrange0123 I think the fact that you and the rest of the people that are upset about what jhon said are completely satisfied with taking what somone has said out of context and reinterpreting it just so that you have something to criticize as though what you are saying in any way pertains to the topic at hand, is why so many people have such a negative view on homosexuality. if you had read on, you would see that i had presented a valid arguement without reverting to insults
dang3rdo0m 2 weeks ago
by submitting to a governing body, the population is infact giving the government the power to allow the governed to exist. the u.s. constitution gives its citizens the right to life, liberty, and the persuit of happieness. if this isnt where your inherit right to exist comes from, then from what office is this right derived? god?
as for the families that hold ideas i dont condone, its not a question of my say in the matter, but the fact that they are constitutionally protected.
dang3rdo0m 6 months ago
well.. you have to realize that the reason homosexual partnerships arent recognized by many of the states in the USA is that the tax benefits that come with being married are to help with the upbringing of the children.. and i think most of the logical world will be in agreement with me when i say that homosexuals shouldn't be raising children. not because they cant be good parents, but its not fair to the child to have the kinds of preconceptions such a family unit would bestow.
dang3rdo0m 6 months ago
by the way, isn't taking "we're allowing them to exist" out of context and using it to make Eichelberger sound like a Nazi kind of like being an alarmist?
dang3rdo0m 6 months ago
@dang3rdo0m Citing that you "allow" a certain segment of the population to exist, as if that's something that should count in your favor, disregards that this is something that should be taken as a given, and is really not anything special. Implying otherwise suggests that this is something that is granted to people, rather than something inherent. Also, not all straight couples raise children, and I'm sure some of them have preconceptions you would disapprove of. Yet they all can still marry.
ZJemptv 6 months ago 5
Once I have the money, I'm moving out of PA.
TheElectricDreamer93 7 months ago 2
Im in shock. That Mr. Eickelberger is so wrong that I wouldn't even know where to start with it if in a discussion.
sadrequiem 1 year ago
And all the children sing:
We love hate. We hate love. We love hate. We hate love.
-Brian H. Warner
Bannedforfun 1 year ago
Are group marriages dysfunctional? Let's let three people get married. If you oppose that, you're a pathetic ignorant fascist and will be attacked as such.
hpd929 1 year ago
Are group marriages dysfunctional?
hpd929 1 year ago
Right the fuck on, ZJ. All GLTB kids out there listen to ZJ, he is fighting the good fight. Never let the old fascists get you down!
clintallen123 1 year ago
RRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
squigoo 1 year ago
Men like this make me lose all hope in the american government
MikeTheReaper1 1 year ago
How can you believe you have a right to change the definition of marriage. You have a right to do what you want in the privacy of your home, you have a right to live without fear of persecution, you have a right to be with who you want to be with...You do not however have the right to take the institution of marriage which has in the Western World been between a man and woman and change it to satisfy your own self.
thompsonk196 1 year ago
@thompsonk196
Well, then you heterosexual lovers shouldn't be able to change my definition of marriage from hundreds of years ago. I want the woman I marry to be my fucking property, and we shouldn't be allowed to divorce. Also, I want to marry my fourteen-year-old daughter off to a fifty-year-old rich man to save myself from the poor house. How DARE you redefine my marriage to satisfy your own self?
marsisamazingilys 1 year ago 4
@thompsonk196 The very nature of marriage has changed dramatically over time. Marriage used to basically be slavery. Marriage used to be the transfer of ownership of a woman from her father to another man, and remained that way for the vast majority of western history. But there wasn't any good reason to hold onto that either, besides the same empty appeal to tradition that you're using.
Maybe we should ALL have civil unions and the government shouldn't deal with marriage at all?
PriscillaRelentless 1 year ago
The man himself is dysfunctional. He's a loud mouth slime ball. His wife uses her power at the local news station to constantly put him in the spotlight in a favorable way. He's a dick.
MuppetsRfUN 1 year ago
Special consideration? The whole issue is that gay people want the SAME consideration as heterosexual people. I'm not gay, but I'm pretty sure gay marriages don't require any 'special consideration' that are nonexisting in heterosexual marriages.
Hippogriff9 1 year ago 10
There's no normalizing abnormal no matter how hard they try.
BlackRepublican2010 1 year ago
good comebacks, i would never have thought of them.
MyNameNoLongerExists 1 year ago
Comment removed
MyNameNoLongerExists 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You cant argue something is a right if it is not good for the body.Penetration of the anus causes tearing & bleeding of the soft tissues & can damage the sphincter muscles causing incontinence & anal prolapse.There is also a high concentration of disease causing organisms in the anus & the introduction of pathogens during the sex act itself exposing the participants to a spectrum of contagious diseases.Liberalism is based on facts & reason which they disreguard on this issue.
danmol78 1 year ago
After confronting a few people from DC, they now have a new reason to look down on PA... they legalized gay marriage before us. I'm happy for them, but envious at the same time! I want PA to be next and included in one of the first states to legalize gay marriage!
By the way, your response at the end was GENIUS! "We're not 'allowed' to exist we have a RIGHT to exist and we're going to continue to exist regardless what Mr. Eichelberger has to say about it" LMAO! BRILLIANT!!!
Peco014 1 year ago
He's allowing homosexuals to exist. Huh. Recently there was a bit in my favourite newspaper where a teenager said they "accept gay rights". "Accept". PRAAAISE JEBUS.
Dan7Bow 2 years ago
haaaaaaaa... u cant get married well.. for u that would be tricky . who would marry u ...
that senator has my vote......
kevmachine007 2 years ago
thats a guys hoodie
kevmachine007 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
homo
kevmachine007 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
First of all, this man is in no way pathetic, you are the one preaching to a choir of youtube watchers who are most likely going to do absolutely nothing about the issue while he is going about it the diplomatic way. "Marriage" was created for a man and woman, if you want to create something for a man and a man or a woman and a woman to be united, than DO IT and call it whatever you like, how about "snuffaluffagus"?
cutmandingo 2 years ago
There is nothing "diplomatic" about telling people in gay relationships that they're inherently wrong to do so. Marriage works quite well for gay couples and there is no reason to withhold it from them.
ZJemptv 2 years ago 22
I agree, Marriage is merely a word and one Heterosexuals seem keen on keeping away from Man and Man or Woman and Woman. This is wrong, and we should have equal rights, including the use of the word Marriage.
Alenmore 1 year ago
Like ALL religious based countries, ("One nation under a (homophobic) queer bashing Jehovah) America has a set of the most twisted, repulsive, and punitive "Family Values" on this planet. Show me a "functional" American christian family, and I will show you a carnival freakshow.
Most of the world see's us as a joke. well, amen to that!!!
Irishglen6 2 years ago 20
@irishglen6 yes, unfortunately, US has become a joke, and I couldn't care less if the world economy did not depend on it...
auriciangelescu 2 years ago
Born to wealth and prevelige, mother was a prescription drug addict and a hysterical fundamentalist "Christian" I was fostered out to different families 3 X's. First two were also Christian zealots who because of my effete, "queer" behavior were punitive and cold. 2nd placement not much better, the father hated me, threatened to kill me if I "laid a hand on his son....final placement age 12, an odd family of artist/educators, had a trangendering son! The only LOVING family I ever knew....
Irishglen6 2 years ago 5
I think this is totally missing Eichelberger's point. He's not saying "allowed to exist" as opposed to "exterminated". He's, like most bigots, under the impression that people choose to be gay, so he's basically saying "we allow them to be gay" versus "forcing everyone to stay straight". It sounds to me like "We allow them to exist [as homosexuals]." He's still a fucktard, but I really don't think he's proposing extermination.
prolefeedprocessor 2 years ago
Word
AnonymousElektron 2 years ago
Hahahah
its like laughing at a traffic accident ...
panadesu 2 years ago
Maybe he's a psychopath?
deusAtheismus 2 years ago
He's allowing you to exist, huh? IS HE NOT MERCIFUL? God dammit this eichelberger fucktard pisses me off. HE -IS- GIVING HOMOSEXUAL COUPLES "SPECIAL CONSIDERATION" BY GOING OUT OF HIS WAY TO EXCLUDE THEM! What a FUCKING HYPOCRITE. I wish theocrats like him would get lynched.
Stonehawk 2 years ago
@Stonehawk - GOOD POINT! (In regards to when you say he's giving gays "special considerration by trying to exclude them)
Peco014 1 year ago
FIGHT ON!!!!!!!
k87jury 2 years ago
The whole point of the constitution is that it should apply to everyone equally. I'm not sure how that is so easily lost by these people. The law must "be blind" to whether I have a cock or a vagina. The item between my legs is supposed to be irrelevant in the eyes of the law. Hence if two "persons" wish to get married, types of genetalia involved are irrelevant. I know, it's not the answer people like to hear, but the law is the law.
BlakeMason2 2 years ago 3
It does apply to everyone equally. Any man and any female can join into marriage.
IanLoewen 2 years ago
Hahaha, Pennsylvania. Pittsburgh on the west side, Philadelphia in the east, Alabama in the middle! I love what you have to say about this (and many of your other videos too :) ). To other Pennsylvanians, how about we work on changing the state instead of abandoning it?
Cumul0Nimbus 2 years ago
@Cumul0Nimbus - there's a petition trying to legalize gay marriage in PA. It has 500+ signatures so far,but I doubt it's going to do anything.
TheElectricDreamer93 1 year ago
Great video. It's a good thing this government official is not in the public eye everyday. He'd result in his own death from his stupidity. It's as if he is looking to get shot or something and doesn't even care.
Unisexual 2 years ago
lol i laughed when he said "marrying younger and younger children these days". like that hasn't been happening since the beginning of time?
galaxypirate 2 years ago
especially since its a fucking LIE.
The Age of First Marriage is raising since the 50´s (from around 21 to 27 in 2007).
And it takes only a less than 10sec Googlesearch to find that out (so its veeery unlikely that he just couldn't find that out)
btw how can you(ZJ) and the Gay Community remain so calm? Even I feel the Hatred boiling up when hearing this subhuman Scumbag(Eichelberger)
DeHerg 2 years ago
I <3 you :)
ultimateillusion 2 years ago
he is an ignorant pig faced fool
simple8child 2 years ago
"...pathetic, ignorant fascist." I love it, I fuckin' goddamn love it! U go, kid-o!
MCP2012 2 years ago
Fuck, I need to get out of this state. PA sucks.
ritajolene 2 years ago 6
ritajolene - Can you take me with you? I need to get the hell out of here too.
MonkeyOctober 2 years ago 4
Well, ritajolene, you could try Vermont. They just legalized gay marriage. Hooray, Vermont!
infideluxe 2 years ago
@ritajolene - Take me with you. This is bullshit. Let's go to Rhode Island.
TheElectricDreamer93 1 year ago
man, what a fucktard that governer was. allow to exist. that turd. great video.
timtheloner 2 years ago
Did that asshole compare homosexuality to people who force children into marriage? someone needs to douse him in gasoline and light him ablaze.
AntiChristAntiFail 2 years ago
Please do it! People comparing homosexuality to beastiality and pedophillia (Which hurt the child and animal) really piss me the fuck off.
MonkeyOctober 2 years ago
I don't believe gay couples need encouragement, in fact, no couple needs encouragement; the simple fact is that homosexuals deserve the same rights as heterosexuals. No encouragement required.
CycleOfMadness 2 years ago
Thank you CycleOfMadness! wonderful response! indeed, i agree with you. No encourageent required(or needed)... just free will. Freedom for all! Thanks for your whisdom!
corso2aube 2 years ago
Why would you have to encourage people, gay or straight, to provide for their family? It is just natural to take care of people who you love. This politician, like most politician, are clueless.
kingmike40 2 years ago
It true for everybody. Christians are allowed to exist although I don't know why they would want to exist. Their idea of death sounds like vacation. Christians are only a third of the world population. They could be sent to their vacation by the remaining two-thirds. I think the muslims are worse and they also only exist because they are allowed to exist.
kingmike40 2 years ago
This sounds so much at how like Interracial Relationships used to be viewed. "Why would we allow THEM to marry?" The list keeps getting knocked down. women rights, black rights, now gay rights, No wonder a lot of Christians are hoping the world ends soon. Rights apparently trigger apocalypses
Vwassel 2 years ago
"There's no reason to encourage that kind of behavior in Pennsylvania."
True. I get along just fine with mah gay self. No need for encouragement.
laodokesolitas 2 years ago
"How would you encourage gay couples to provide for their family?"
"Well, I wouldn't"
Anyone else notice he LAUGHS when he says that? What a weird man.
iwillkillfrankluntz 2 years ago
...wow
Eichelberger has turned himself into the political willing sacrifice of the century
AshenJustice 2 years ago
probably the first intelligent video i've ever seen on youtube
hinessa 2 years ago
HAHA that senotar guy is pathetic You owned him ZJ lolz
95so11 2 years ago
i like zj with less lipstick
someuser91 2 years ago
VOMIT
DallasfuckingTT 2 years ago
Senator Eichelberger is an ignorant hateful bigot. I called his office and was casually told "his christian religion is behind anti gay stance." pathetic .
turbo1964 2 years ago
eichelberger, am I the only one who finds that name hilarious??? how can you take someone with a name like that seriously?
He should have changed his name before going for his career!
BekeLuzzette 2 years ago
You're not. Have you read "Myron" by Gore Vidal?
iwillkillfrankluntz 2 years ago
Oh my god...I'm speechless...that sounds like what my dad tried to tell me when I told him that I was bi...
XxSinfulDeadxX 2 years ago
ZJ why don't u run for his seat in the senate?
ScrewAttackChina 2 years ago
you should attach this video to his channel as a response
ScrewAttackChina 2 years ago
Geh, I'm from PA, and I bi. If I want to marry my girlfriend one day, I hope fools like this aren't controlling my state.
cromartiedropout1 2 years ago
Ditto. This whole thing makes me depressed.
MonkeyOctober 2 years ago 2
And I live in this state, oh god...
badluckshadow13 2 years ago
Terribly sorry about this, as a resident of PA.
Something I never got: People always say "letting gays marry is a special favor, they already have the same rights as heterosexuals." But they don't. Heterosexuals have the right to marry who they love and have the right - as an extension - to sexual pleasure. By banning gay marriage, homosexuals have neither of those rights. And comparing it to a pedophile? It's between CONSENTING ADULTS! Oy...
ZeldaQueen64 2 years ago 2
You use statistics, when neither of those words deal with statistics. Now you're just pulling stuff out your ass because you're running out of arguments, nice straw man by trying to attack me directly though. Third one you've used and yet to admit it.
5b 2 years ago
Attacking the person is argumentum ad hominem, not a straw man, niether of which I've done. I merely stated that I don't care who you are.
Furthermore, I never did say the terms "valid" and "common sense" are directly linked to statistics. I said you don't know what they mean, and this latest outburst from you really punctuates that.
DisposableInterloper 2 years ago
Let's lay things out in a way that's easy for you to digest. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Let's come up with a working definition of ordinary and extraordinary, shall we?
Ordinary can be considered mundane and inconsequential, and often subjective, such as a claim that you ate a bowl of cereal for breakfast or claiming a one restaurant is better than another in your opinion.
Since "extra-" means outside, extraordinary is therefore anything beyond the scope of ordinary.
DisposableInterloper 2 years ago
Now, you claimed to be abused. Ignoring that it amounts to little more than argumentum ad verecundiam, it is an extraordinary claim. Why should anybody believe you? For all practical intents and purposes, you're nothing but text on YouTube.
Next, you claimed that family is worthless. First, you ignored that my working definition of family is very, very broad, you focused on the Republicans' ideal of a family, effectively errecting a straw man.
DisposableInterloper 2 years ago
Beyond that, rather than providing concrete reasons for it and statistics to support those claims, and possibly an alternative to family, you merely cited your own claimed abuse as the reason family is worthless. This amounts to both an appeal to emotion (mind you, that doesn't mean you're trolling for sympathy - it means you're hoping to subdue logic with an emotional reaction) and a hasty conclusion (since a sample size of one individual is statistically meaningless).
DisposableInterloper 2 years ago
Then, when pressed for a reason why family is worthless, you claimed that the majority of families are dysfunctional and that your case isn't uncommon. You failed to support that claim with statistics, instead jumping up and down yelling "Common sense!" over and over again. That amounts to argumentum ad populum and argumentum ad nauseam.
All the while, I've been merely asking for empirical evidence for your claims, which you have failed to provide.
DisposableInterloper 2 years ago
You fail to understand simple reasoning and argumentative skill. Instead you blabber on about pointless crap I've already proven wrong. You don't seek to learn, you seek to cause disorder.
You say it's an appeal to emotion which it is not, I've already explained that. Which makes you contradicting for saying how much I have to repeat myself, since it wont get through your thick head.
A direct attack in which you change the subject is a straw man, sorry you don't know that.
5b 2 years ago
Disproven? Really now? You've presented neither evidence nor logic. What have you accoplished.
Your claims of abuse are an appeal to emotion. You've claimed it's not, but you've yet to explain your reasoning. All you've managed to say is that it's an example, therefore you have an argument (a fallacy if I've ever heard one, by the way).
DisposableInterloper 2 years ago
In case you're unaware, most informal fallacies are appeals to emotion, some kind of attempt to hit some kind of emotional trigger. You might be trying to paint yourself as an expert, or poison the proverbial well, or any number of related fallacies. See, if it weren't an appeal to emotion, it would not have been brought up, since it's has no bearing on the validity and veracity of any of the claims you made whatsoever.
DisposableInterloper 2 years ago
You're shooting yourself in the foot when you claim that *I* don't understand reasoning and argumentative skill. The burden of proof is on you, since you're making positive assertions, and yet rather than supporting yourself, you're spitting out fallacy after fallacy in a vain attempt to shoot down my skepticism as unreasonable.
DisposableInterloper 2 years ago
This is a simple thing. All I've been doing is playing the role of the skeptic. All I ask is that you back your claims up. That's all there is to it. Cite some statistics, lay out a few logic statements, try to actually prove your position. If you will no, you do not have an argument.
It's not hard. Back up your claim that family is worthless, instead of propping it up with unsupported claims. Back up your claim that the majority of families are dysfunctional, instead of relying on fallacies.
DisposableInterloper 2 years ago
And, by the way, a straw man is, as I've stated, a caricature of the argument at hand, intended to be easily knocked down and equated to the original argument. It is not a change of subject. Not that I've been doing any such thing. All I've asked is for you to support your claims, which you've yet failed to do.
And I take exception your statement, "You don't seek to learn, you seek to cause disorder." That's a perfect example of an ad hominem, and a hallmark of someone that can't defend a claim
DisposableInterloper 2 years ago
Yeah, no. A straw man is an argument made to lead some one off the respected subject. You can argue with any college teacher with that if you like.
Seeing as how you admitted you are playing the role of a skeptic, that proved what I said about you not seeking to learn. Another one of your many contradictions.
My "claims" are all supported, you don't want to go look them up yourself that's a problem with you. I don't, as stated before, need to support what is common knowledge.
5b 2 years ago
I really have to wonder what sort of college you went to. The thought that you were taught such lax standards for writing and that informal fallacies were so weakly covered makes me wonder if you even went to college.
And I admitted to being a skeptic? You clearly don't even know what a skeptic is. I'm open to new ideas, but I scrutinize them before I believe them. I'm pressing you to defend your arguments.
Simply stating that a claim is common knowledge is what we call an ipse-dixitism.
DisposableInterloper 2 years ago
I further find it disturbing that you would be so arrogant as you spit out a claim and then imply you're some kind of teacher. It harkens back to my statement that you had no reason to claim you were abused, and I think you've now just made it clear that it was an attempt to paint yourself as an expert.
Let me reiterate a little something that bears repeating: an argument from authority is a fallacy. It's not the source, but the substance. Since all you have is an ipse-dixitism, you lack it.
DisposableInterloper 2 years ago
Oh, and one more thing. You can't make a claim and then tell the skeptic to research it for you.
I'm not the one claiming families are worthless, and I'm not the one claiming the majority are disfunctional. The burden of proof is not on my shoulders.
But then, given the exchange we've had thus far, I doubt you even understand what burden of proof is, so I'll be so nice as to define it. It's the obligation to establish a contention as fact by evoking evidence of its probable truth.
DisposableInterloper 2 years ago
Burden of proof does not apply to common knowledge, but to theories and hypothesis. I guess your college was the one who was lax.
And if you disbelieve that I have attended college, then look up RSU. I've been attending for three years now, I hardly call myself an expert, but I'm not some high school punk trying to look good.
Skeptics challenge new ideas because they don't want to accept them, scientists and philosophers "test" new ideas. You are not doing this, you are not open to it.
5b 2 years ago
Scientists and philosophers are by their nature skeptics. Ideas are challenged by being held accountable to evidence and reason for the very reason that only those ideas that can stand up to scrutiny are the ones that are likely.
You've made sweeping sociological claims that you've bundled up in an ugly ipse-dixitism, and you've strongly implied that the things you say should be taken unquestioningly on your authority.
I hope you realize you effectively conceded that you have no argument.
DisposableInterloper 2 years ago
And high school punk? Give me a break.
Make all the assumptions you want about me, but that won't help your argument (or lack thereof). Ad hominems don't make the either the null or the alternative hypothesis true or false.
DisposableInterloper 2 years ago
I further hope you realize that "common knowledge" is never a reasonable basis for an argument. Both the scientific method and the judicial process discard "common knowledge."
Claiming that it's something everyone knows is nothing but a fallacy I've noted a few times. Brownie points if you've paid enough attention to know which one.
DisposableInterloper 2 years ago
Actually the judicial process does not discard this, that is why it's widely accepted in court systems to realize and understand many things people present without them coming under ignorant scrutiny, which is what this is.
Facts are not claims, just because you don't believe in the flying spaghetti monster doesn't mean it's not really is pretty much your argument. Which has been put down by so many people. Your argument on my "fallacies" are nothing but fallacies themselves.
5b 2 years ago
I'm pointing out your fallacies for your benefit, but you've been nothing but a curmudgeon.
As for claims and facts, well, a claim can be either factual or false. All known facts are first brought to people's attention as claims, and become regarded as factual by standing up to scrutiny.
DisposableInterloper 2 years ago
As for the judicial process, hearsay is ignored. Juries are selected based on ignorance of the case at hand. Witnesses are required to give a personal testimony, not claims on behalf of others. All claims with a bearing on the case's outcome are held up to evidence. So yes, common knowledge is discarded.
DisposableInterloper 2 years ago
Now, our little exchange here can be described as such: You're claiming that the FSM exists. I'm asking you to prove it. You're telling me he exists because everyone knows he exists. I'm telling you that's not good enough, and that I want empirical evidence.
Replace "FSM" with "families are worthless" and "his existence" with "they're dysfunctional," and you'd be in the ballpark of what transpired in this discussion.
DisposableInterloper 2 years ago
I'll put this as bluntly as I can, and maybe it'll reach you.
In less time than you've been pissing and moaning about how families are indeed worthless and that they're dysfunctional simply because you say it's true and that everyone allegedly believes it's true, you could have simply looked up a database of scientific papers and searched for sociological studies on the subject.
I guess you're just bitter, and you're afraid you'll accidentally prove yourself wrong in the process.
DisposableInterloper 2 years ago
And, by the way, citing common knowledge is, by its very nature, perpetuating argumentum ad populum, an appeal to the popular opinion.
The reason it's fallacious is that populations can perpetuate myths, and unlike researchers, they're not bound by the rigors of the scientific method.
DisposableInterloper 2 years ago
Ah, I seem to have also missed a bit I intended to reply to before. You noted that you've been in college for three years which so you "hardly call [your]self an expert."
I just wanted to let you know that you missed the point. I'm compelled to ask, do you just skim my comments and hammer out responses on a whim, or are you just not following what I'm saying?
I ask because I might try changing my writing style if it can help us come to a mutual understanding.
DisposableInterloper 2 years ago
Err, scratch the erroneous "which."
DisposableInterloper 2 years ago
Witnesses giving a testimony", which is why I gave my own misgivings as an example. You've finally admitted it's worth mentiong.
I've done the research before for a paper actually, that's how I KNOW it's true, and am, to put it bluntly, too lazy to look it up again.
"missed the point." I was just refuting a claim on your part about me.
5b 2 years ago
Witnesses can only give testimony based on a specific event, and they're still scrutinized by the opposing party on the basis of evidence, logic, and the witness' biases. It's tantamount to qualitative analysis in science. Make no mistake, your claims are quantitative.
Simply stating you know it's true doesn't make it so, but at least you're willing to admit you're not willing to form a proper argument.
Furthermore, you're still missing the point. You refuted something I never wrote.
DisposableInterloper 2 years ago
Why do they have that power to allow you to be or not be.
Because of a belief in an all mighty god, that they say justify their right to override your rights.
Fuck Eichelberger and people of his fucked up bigoted ass ilk.
TAKE THE POWER BACK!
saib4u2c 2 years ago
The scary thing isn't that arsehole's pathetic and ignorant beliefs, it's that he was elected by people who share them.
ffliz217 2 years ago
...Prop 8 :(
MonkeyOctober 2 years ago
Another great video.
justbekindtooall 2 years ago
Blind prejudice and uniformed hatred is a cancer. Let John Eichelberger's poisonous hate spread throughout his body like a cancer and poison him.
erkekler 2 years ago
keep the videos coming ZJ, your commentary is always nicely thought out.
BestSpatula 2 years ago
Awesome.
CanadienAtheist 2 years ago
*standing ovation*
chelseabearcouture 2 years ago
Keystone Progress has a pettion. Go to their site and sign!
cacoune 2 years ago
I agree with everything you said in this video. Also, I wanted to tell you that I really appreciate the fact that you're voicing your opinions. In a world filled with so many ignorant people it is definitely worth a lot to know that people like you exist. People with sane opinions.
So, thank you.
Nangsuuh 2 years ago
Aww, what a nice comment - and also true :-)
DefenderOfReason 2 years ago
They conducted a study with credit cards and they found out that conservatives are the biggest porn consumers, look at that white supremacist guy who shot those people, he had child porn on his pc. C'mon let's be better people and pray for him to leave the closet some day.
GirlsThatWearBlue 2 years ago
Allowed to exist ... what an arrogant asshole.
Technically we are all just "allowed to exist" anyway - our governments are structured so that our existence isn't hindered completely, that they can't just kill us for their own gain - but yah. For one to just come out and say they "allow" gay people to "exist" is just so friggin' boldfaced bigotry. It's like saying they "allow" the black people to exist. How cold.
limegreensquid 2 years ago
Exactly, lime......
DefenderOfReason 2 years ago
Good on ya!
flackguy 2 years ago
I really don't think any Man or Woman would want to Marry what ever that is talking on the screen. She's about as cute as a dead baby.
DallasfuckingTT 2 years ago
Also "allow to exist" Means they are not punishing someone for being gay, but way to take one sentence out of the whole interview and turn it around
DallasfuckingTT 2 years ago
And if everybody had morals, nobody would want to be with somebody as horrible and nasty as you. Your comment was unecessary and didn't contribute anything worth knowing. Maybe take a look at yourself before you judge other people next time.
ffliz217 2 years ago
Don't worry. All of the signs that Jesus described as being pre-cursers to His return are happening all together at once, just as He said in Matthew 24. That means that soon all of the true Christians will be removed from the earth and you can live however you want to. That is until you realize that God's wrath is being poured out. Then you might want to reconsider who God is and how to surrender your life to Him. Jesus that is. It's almost here. Time is practically up. You'll see.
SpiritLedOne 2 years ago
Is that a joke? You can't possibly believe in something so silly as the Rapture, can you?
DisposableInterloper 2 years ago
I doubt you'll be so sure of that after the three-year Fimbulwinter, when the great wolf Skoll consumes the sun and moon, the earth is overrun by the old gods, and they do battle at Vigrid. Doubt it? You won't when they set the world on fire and all the land sinks into the sea. The predictions of the Vikings are already coming true, and I'm sure you don't want to end up in Nastrond.
ZJemptv 2 years ago
retard
erkekler 2 years ago
another great commentary. Thanks, ZJ. Pathetic ignorant fascist indeed!
gorilladogs 2 years ago
Harsh words that are completely called for. Keep it up!
canineminstrel 2 years ago
!
Nothign more to say :)
Draaca 2 years ago
Good response. You tell him!
TahniMara 2 years ago
the way he says "them" as if he is refering to lepers. this guy belongs in the year 500BC
ScrewAttackChina 2 years ago
AWESOME. :-)
remix262 2 years ago
Wow, he realy madea fool of himself. I would have liked to hear more of wha tthe interviewer was saying. At least he apparently was trying to reason with the idiot.
Brianswers 2 years ago
great video!!!
imaginepeace63 2 years ago
A constitutional admendment to ban gay marriage is unconstitutional
imaginepeace63 2 years ago 2
Mr Eichelberger needs to be BEAT! He wouldn't dare say that around some LGBT people I know.....
rextrek 2 years ago
Why homophobic bigots like this are allowed to make public policy is mind boggling. Hearing that bile filled diatribe makes me sick to my stomach.
hbfarker 2 years ago 2
this is a disgrace.....so according to him, all LGBT people are is SEX.......so all heteros are SEX>>??? This Senator needs a Punch in the face!
rextrek 2 years ago
John Eichelberger is ANOTHER fascist homophobic Republican Nazi.People who think like him are the reason why America is a shithole country now.I bet you General Motors this sick bigoted bastard is gonna be another Larry Craig.Its always those sicko religious wingnuts who are forever spouting their hate.You are all a bunch of hypocrites,and you use your religion 4 your own convenience.I wish all religious bigots would commit suicide and go meet the fictitious being they call god & Leave us alone
RS4HHR 2 years ago
Eichelberger, the Middle Ages called, they want their ideology back, oh and I hear the Inquisition has a new opening for "an elected official."
visitor9627 2 years ago
Sexual freedom for all! Equal rights for all!
hecdaca2007 2 years ago
Ugh, yuck, puke, the same types who try to define deities into existence are the pro-war, pro-death-penalty, anti-choice types who want to define loving relationships out of existence even though they *claim* to be tolerant of homosexual activities.
Yeah right, as though we believe that the likes of Eichelberger truly do not care what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms.
Hypocrisy run amok!
The likes of Eichelberger would probably happily put nooses around necks.
flagonlyrainbows 2 years ago
that's the way to tell 'em.
we love ya zj
anarchyclayman 2 years ago
FUCK HIM!!!
He can jump off the highest cliff there is.
i hope john Eichelberger gets cancerous aids
and gonocyfoherpolis.
crypticrimsonkrozz 2 years ago
If we could restructure a global society from foundations up, would the "family" even remain a necessary unit? Sure, it was a vital step in the beginnings of human history, and remained entrenched as such, but could we do without it?
For the most part, "families" are seen as integral and entirely positive by people of all walks of life. But inequities are inescapable: those born into poor families grow up without advantages; those born into *any* family are molded by their parents' wishes.
gremlinn7 2 years ago
We view it as unquestionable that by creating a baby, parents acquire some special right of "ownership" over that life. Well, I do question it.
Sorry if this was all too off-topic.
gremlinn7 2 years ago
The man's clearly an idiot with a mean streak. Take solace in the FACT that he's already lost the war. Every young person I've talked to about this says the same thing... people should love and marry whomever they please. He's on the losing side of history. The change is coming, ZJ. Your vids a both a harbinger and a change agent. Please know you are supported by HUGE numbers of hetero couples and their kids!
rconway99 2 years ago 8
I love this guys videos. It reassures me that the younger crowd is getting the message and the old boys networks is growing ever more extinct.
jrm102 2 years ago 2
Thanks for that ZJ. Now I seriously want to break Eichelberger nose.
boobmcnutt 2 years ago 3
You know, people like Eichelberger have a right to exist. We just don't have to reward their behavior by allowing them to serve in office.
Note to the people of PA: feel free to toss this guy and prove to us that you have joined the 21st century.
AncientAtheist 2 years ago 3
I might send this to my friends and see what they think.Eichelberger is a facist bigot.
MonkeyOctober 2 years ago
Yeah that Eichelberger sure loves to make his own definitions up. I Love how he has his own definition of family. Sorry bud look it up in the dictionary. He also says they can do whatever any american can do, uhm, is he on crack?
Ezm23 2 years ago
Good for you ZJ! I hate how people treat gays as if they're a different species. Usually the people who do so are either macho pricks who care about the size of their penises, or their religious nuts going by what a bible says instead of what they truly think. So good for you for standing up for what's right! You are amazing!
whiteboy70176 2 years ago
Right on, sing it sista. Excellent video!
It pisses me off so much when these bigots start talking about amending a constitution to take rights away from citizens. That is a slap in the face of our "supposed" rights and freedoms.
Zaimoren 2 years ago
*Applause*
We could always set this John fellow on fire. =D
I'm ashamed to live in a state where this guy is senator.
FUCK YOU JOHN.
Vyxihd 2 years ago
i do not understand how allowing same sex couples to be able to marry just like other couples is some how giving special rights.
SouthernRaisedAtheis 2 years ago
"Did you think about this, or is that an activity you don't like to practice?"
xD Great line
And great video. Isn't Pennsylvania a beautiful place?!
Topher892 2 years ago
it's funny how eichelberger never bother to explain why he felt gay marriage was a "special privilege" as opposed to a right, or what exactly was wrong with "that kind of behaviour". it's like he thought it was self explanatory - that anybody with sense would hear it and suddenly be convinced of the superiority of his "arguments". then again, i haven't listened to the whole thing, so i'm not sure if he elucidated at some point (though i'm willing to bet he didn't).
deckman92 2 years ago
Sometimes I think nothing is ever going to change, but then I think about it some more, and a lot really has changed. It's not good enough, but much better than it use to be.
Mglosk 2 years ago
If he wasn't in a position of such power, that would be almost laughable.
Wow... here in Massachusetts, if you say stupid things like that, you'd be socially castrated. It almost baffles me that people like that still exist.
FangFiftyFive 2 years ago
im not gay but there is nothing wrong with same sex marrige i think its fine. my best friend is bi. this guy is just a gay hater. i bet hes gay and dosent want to admit it.
invaderscott 2 years ago
Lol. Don't we all wish it worked that way? That all the haters out there were secretly gay? If it were true, at least they'd understand what being gay (and wanting the same rights as everyone else) was like, even if he talked trash.
Runeless 2 years ago
To compare Gays, and BISEXUALS, to pedophiles or anything like that is nothing more than a slander campaign. I wish someone asked that jerk from Penn how he can justify that!
He is what is wrong with this world. As long as people like him are allowed to hold office there will always be pain and suffering in this world. People should have freedom of speech, but freedom to take (or keep) other people's freedom away, FUCK NO!
We need responsible, mature, intelligent people in office.
Bongwyre2112 2 years ago 2
well if you think about it they are a bit similar. gays like other men and peds like kids . its just another form of sexual attraction
jordler 2 years ago
Comment removed
Bongwyre2112 2 years ago
Heterosexuals like the opposite sex and necrophiliacs like fucking dead people, it's all the same thing right???
Bongwyre2112 2 years ago 2