Your clearly missing the point. If marriage is not by one man and one woman, and it is only a legally binding contract. A chimpanzee can make a bigger commitment than a deaf and blind guy, a chimp could certainly sign a paper. A chimpanzee can consent to a legally binding marriage. So why do you have a problem with me marrying a chimp when he clearly passes the requirements to make this decision. I honestly dont see how you can argue agaisnt that.
@glues1 Your logic is beyond fascinating. You seem to be making this an argument against people with disabilities marrying, not gay marriage. Even if I bought your offensive claim that a blind/deaf person could not understand commitment, as if they were mentally disabled, it does nothing to speak to gay marriage. Gay people are just as competent in signing a commitment as straights, so what's all of this talk about animals?
@bcfilmguy Keep dodging the point..... thats fine. Lets just cut right to it shall we. If there is nothing more to a marriage than a legally binding contract, and a Chimpanzee, (the smartest animal in the world) which has way more than the capacity to make/ sign this legal contract. Do you believe I should be able to legally marry the Chimpanzee....?
@glues1 Dodging the point? Seriously? What point am I dodging? Ok, let's "cut right to it," as you say.
YOU:"If there is nothing more to a marriage than a legally binding contract, and a chimpanzee, (the smartest animal in the world which has way more than the capacity to make/sign this legal contract. Do you believe I should be able to legally marry the Chimpanzee?"
ANSWER: No. Are you not clear on this? Let me explain, since you seem to need it...
@glues1 ...Your argument only makes sense if you are proposing that gay people are LESS "smart" than chimpanzees, or less competent in entering into a committed relationship. First it was apes, then it was blind/deaf people marrying...but you still haven't made a clear justification against gay marriage. If you believe your chimp argument, then you should be in favor of heterosexual human/ape marriage, I suppose. Does that answer your question?
@bcfilmguy Wow, you really do baffle me lol. Previous comments of mine state that "i am for gay marriage" if im allowed to marry the chimp. Gay people can/have the same IQ as straight people. I have nothing against them. Im simply saying, that if all marriage is, is a legally binding contract. And my chimp is MORE than capable of making this "legally binding contract." Why do you feel as though I shouldnt be able to marry the chimp
@glues1 Your logic (if we want to call it that) is based upon the assumption that a chimp is "capable of entering into a contract." Chimps are NOT, marriage aside, capable/allowed to enter into any legal contract in our society, and you know that perfectly well (well, maybe not.) Chimps cannot hold jobs, get driver's licenses,buy property or get bank loans. So you can't use such a pathetic assumption as basis to argue against gay marriage. Seriously, dude. Shouldn't have to tell you that
@bcfilmguy Though just to be consistent here... lets make sure. You would have no problem with me being able to legally marry a dog, horse, etc. and have all my rights too?
@glues1 Actually I would have a problem with that, because a dog, horse, child, broom, umbrella etc cannot consent to a legally binding marriage, so it wouldn't be mutual. In addition, none of the above can work to build a sustainable, loving relationship between 2 adults. Please structure your comments with more thought and intelligence in the future. Thanks
@bcfilmguy Of course you would because that would insult you, knowing you could marry your dog. The deaf and blind guy wanting a marriage cannont consent to a marriage but he can through actions show his love, like a dog can for his owner. After all were all animals, were just a slightly higher evolved species. How would you know they couldnt work? Its not like marriages with adults are working these days. Take your argument out to its conclusion and u have to accept the "dog marriage."
@glues1 If you're going to use this argument, would you be fine with a dog running for office, for example? If you're going to say there is no difference between humans and animals, could a dog file for divorce, or battle for custody? This argument is so juvenile and unintelligent.
@bcfilmguy Im not the one arguing for it bro. Look past the surface and take your argument to its conclusion and you get what I stated previously. The argument is juvenile and unintelligent, why are u arguing for it lol. Way to skip over the blind and deaf guy. Are you fine with him marrying even though he cannont consent to anything..... just like a dog....... Speak of unintelligence.... good grief
@glues1 A blind and deaf person could communicate in today's society to the point of making a legally binding commitment, man. In order to have a legal marriage, you need to be of sound mind and demonstrate you are aware of the commitment you are making. You have yet to explain how my argument logically support people marrying their dogs. If you think society is so incompetent that we couldn't make the intelligent differentiation between marrying an animal and a consenting adult, well...
@bcfilmguy Tell me how a blind and deaf person from birth could coherently do anything. They wouldn't know what commitment even means. The burden of proof doesn't rely on me, it does with you. We obviously can differentiate. Lets take the smartest animal, a chimpanzee who literaly would know more about commitment than a deaf and blind person. Do you have a problem with me marrying a chimpanzee? Im all for gay marriage if your all for marrying monkeys.......
@glues1 Is your beef with gay marriage or people with physical disabilities getting married? I don't know how this topic became a defense for your position in your mind. I hate to disappoint you, but the laws of marriage already are afforded to blind and deaf people. You seem to be confusing physical disabilities with mental disabilities. In case you're not aware, gay couples are not inhibited in hearing or sight, so I don't know how that plays into your case...
@glues1 And why just because a monkey or a dog is capable of displaying affection does that mean it is capable of consenting to a legally binding marriage contract? A best friend or a stranger is capable of showing affection but that doesn't automatically bind them to marriage. Seriously, dude. You seem to be suggesting that gay couples have the mental capabilities of apes or dogs. So by your original point, is any human being, straight or gay deserving of a legal commitment?
Religion is all a bunch of mumbo jumbo. anyone who acctially belives in that kind of crap and form their every day life acording to them are nutjobs. I don't want to offend anyone, but clearly religious fanatics are.... strange...
The reason why there is no good argument against gay marriage is because majority use a religious and spiritual stance, while MOST of the pro gay arguments use a "civil right" stance which ignores religious implications thereby neutralizing any opposition coming from that angle.
So I could say that homosexuality is a spiritually "rotten" and "self-destructive" thing to do, but if your not spiritual and use human secular logic to deduct as your reasoning, then what I just said falls on def ears
@Metacool416 Yes, however I think it's presumptuous to say that a religion has a monopoly on spirituality. As a completely non-religious, non-supernaturally inclined gay man, I believe that I am a very spiritual person. That's one of the problems of traditional religions; they often tend to assume dominion over all things spiritual, when in reality the spiritual aspect has been all but extracted from the faith. I am neither spiritually lacking/rotten nor self-destructive.
at one time religion and spirituality were synonymous, but from what i've understood the inner purity and self integrity of religions have already been corrupted a long time ago, thats why christians today do not act like christians, whom are supposed to be kind, respectful and compassionate at ALL times, but because they arent and are now self-bigotting self righteous with a superiority complex is why people like yourself shun them away and find them repulsive, even though they maybe right
@makexxwar Oh, and you don't have to remind me it will be legal very soon, regardless of the will of the majority of the population. This prophetic statement comes from a legit Marxist Gay Movement member. ;)
@makexxwar Great, so why should polygamy not be legal then? If marriage has nothing to do procreation and the religious matrimony between man and woman, why should gay marriages be between just 2 males or females? Why not 3, 6 or 26 males or females?
Blasphemy! May the great flying invisible spaghetti monster that lives behind the moon smite you all with an extra helping of tomato sauce! Honestly though, do you really think a logical argument could persuade a religious person? If that was possible, religion would have disappeared long ago.
I have heard the best argument apposing gay marriage its that they have the nature to be gay that they are born with so they say they should be able to go on their nature but that wouldnt be fair to murderers would it because they are born with violence in their nature so if we let gays marry should we let murderers kill people no so gay marriage is not right and not only that it is just NASTY
@karmalevel Yes, which is encouraging to see. I have many conservative friends and family members too. But we have to be honest that the main backlash against gay rights is coming from the right. I'm talking social right here, not fiscal. Many in the demographic you referenced are very socially conservative when it comes to religion, marriage, etc. But yes, the world is opening up now on both sides of the spectrum.
@bcfilmguy Eventually the whole gay issue will be a non issue soon for both parties, but I think that the oversensitvity from the gay community is hurting them
Marriage doesn't define homosexual union period. What homosexuals want is to alter the definition of marriage which is unnecessary since marriage is a traditional value if Gays want their union to be recognized they have civil unions that describes their union with same rights and benefits. Heterosexual marriage is also unique and different and deserves a special status of its own.
Gay marriage doesn't make sense because only people of the opposite sex can have children.That's why the institution of marriage emerged. I personally have nothing against homosexual activity, homosexuals can act as they wish and I'll treat them just as well as the next person. However, gay marriage is a total lack of sense.
About adoption: there are actually more heterosexual people looking to adopt than actual adoptions TAKE PLACE so they possibility of gay parenting is practically irrelevant.
@cashernandes1 Buddy, your argument is so unoriginal. Also, you need to brush up on "why the institution of marriage emerged." You are misinformed on your history. Marriage has nothing to do with children. While couples may choose to have children, neither choice assumes the other. If you really thought about it, you'd realize that you know this to be true. Why? Think about the last time you were at a wedding. (Continued...)
@bcfilmguy That's what people are saying nowadays, but IN PRINCIPLE marriage has everything to do with the children resulting from that union. So, these guys who intend to marry and NOT have children actually don't understand themselves what marriage is about. People are thinking about themselves nowadays, not on their offsprings. Anyway, you're definitely right about these assertions people are making now. Not only gays but a lot of heteresexuals don't understand the definition of marriage.
@cashernandes1 ...If you were to go up to one member of the couple and ask "so do you two plan on having children" you'd find that a reasonable question and no one would bat an eye. But if you were to ask "is so-and-so the most significant person in your life that you want to make a lifelong commitment to" you'd find them taken aback. It is assumed that modern marriage is about partnering with your "significant other" (although this notion is relatively new) (continued...)
@cashernandes1 ...but it is not assumed that you are marrying with the intent to have children.
Please do some research on the history of marriage. You'll be surprised at its original concept and very glad that we have moved away to embrace an institution more reflective of our modern values on love and companionship.
@bcfilmguy However, even when people say they married on the basis of their loving relationship with someone (which is quite obvious), that's obviously due to the KINSHIP they wish to establish with that particular someone. So Marriage is rather the byproduct of the human procreative abilities, which can only be attained through heteresexual sex.
In Ancient Rome, for example, even though homosexuality was quite the norm (even more so than today), there was no "gay marriage".
@bcfilmguy So, to sum it up, because the building of kinship is sought after through marriage, the whole idea of constituting a family is quite conspicuous from the start. And that, again, as you may well know, is only attainable through regular heterosexual sex. So the whole idea of "gay marriage" is sheer nosense. That's why it never existed in HISTORY, and especially not in Ancient Rome, where gay sex was normal.
There is a reason for it to have emerged now, sure, but that's another story.
@cashernandes1 - I urge you to investigate history again. Gay marriage was a rare practice, I believe, in Asian cultures, not that it matters. Interracial marriage is a relatively new 'idea'. And the premise that children was the reason for marriage is bullocks. It appears you do not care if your assertions (I prefer to say opinons) are right or wrong. Please, educate yourself and support equality for all; all the time, not just some of the time.
@aquatix Well, please kindly refer me to where you got the information that "children are not the reason for marriage". Marriage is the celebration of your union to your "loved one" because it establishes KINSHIP (in other words: you become FAMILY). You wouldn't have such a union with a friend, for example. The concept of family is deeply embedded in marriage. Which is, again, attainable through the insertion of a penis into a vagina, not an anus.
@aquatix Indeed, "gay marriage" relies ENTIRELY on tradicional marriage between males and females. Because only them can give birth to new gay people. An institution such as this one should be able to rely upon itself in order for it not to collapse eventually.
Indeed, research has shown that children brought up by gays are 30% more likely to turn out gay. The more gay people there are, the more gay marriage there is. The result is obvious: an utter collapse of the whole institution.
@cashernandes1 - Gay marriage does not rely on that. Humanities procreation does. I understand the parallel you are attempting to make, but, it is not a solid argument.
Could you cite your evidence that people 'brought up' by gays are 30% more likely to become gay? Not that I don't believe, I'm just curious. Again, though, this has nothing to do with gay marriage. Marriages conducted by people over the age of 55, now that's something you should protest if you're concerned about procreation.
@aquatix I posted some links below that you may find interesting.
Gay marriage does rely on tradicional marriage because, as I said before, only males and females can give birth to gay people. Gay people don't give birth to anyone to start with and the people they're adopting are much more likely to become gay so if the number of gay people rises, fewer and fewer males and females will have sex with each other.
If the whole world was populated by gays it wouldn't last one single generation.
@cashernandes1 - I'll check them out. However, again, procreation has nothing to do with marriage. I urge you to investigate marriage on your own. It's not my responsibility to educate you; that would have been your professors and parents. I assume your education is rather dry?
And, in response to the whole world thing: that's a silly scare tactic. It's not my responsibility humanity procreates nor is is anyones. It's an 'option'...
@aquatix Well, if you are unable to tell me where you learned the information that "family is not key to marriage" from, than I can only assume YOUR education is rather dry, not mine.
It's not a "scare" tactic, it's logic. Humans use logic to create laws, that's why there's no gay marriage in most places in the world.
But it's pretty clear that you seek rather to base your supposed reason on your emotions, so I guess I have nothing further to add to this "discussion"....
@cashernandes1 You are forgetting how laws work. You do not have to justify making something legal, but you do have to justify making it illegal. For that reason, he does not need to show proof, but you still do. You should get used to the idea of gay marriage because I promise you, it will be legal very soon. The simple truth is that there is no argument against it beyond the fact that some people find it icky.
@aquatix Of course, I'm not saying that would surely happen because gay people would adopt fewer children than heteresexuals (actually there are more heteresexuals looking to adopt than actual adoptions TAKE place, so gay parents aren't need at all... in fact, what we don't need IS gay parents).
But you have to agree that in IN THEORY gay marriage will lead to a collapse of our society. If something doesn't work in theory, it sould not be applied at all.
@cashernandes1 - I do not agree with that. Considering the entire world's population that are gay is nearly 10-15%, it would not be an issue. I assume you should rather fear people will only be born female or only male in the future. The risk seems much higher considering that males and females make up 50/50 of the human race.
Again, though, marriage's primary purpose is not children and a simple search on wikipedia will do you fine. And, it's important to note, gay couples 'can' have children.
@cashernandes1 Then take your thoughts about "gay marriage makes no sense because they cant reproduce"
to the straight marriage. A lot of straight couples simply do not want kids. Place that thought in the right perspective, and you'll see it makes no sense. And the marriage emerged as a bond between two people. It mostly had a economical purpose. And, only since 200 years or so, the meaning of marriage is connected with love in the eyes of the public . So that definition is changing.
I've been searching for a total of eight hours and I have not found any solid arguments against gay marriage. The closest thing I've seen was "The definition say it's between a man and a woman." Well 1. I looked it up on merriam webster's site and thus: There were two definitions. One for hetero and one for homosexual marriage. So no actually it is defined as both orientations. and 2. Definitions are various. You can't say anything has this exact definition because there are different biases.
@bcfilmguy it also says in the old testament that women should go outside the city for 8 days when they get their period. We don't follow those rules because they do not apply to our culture. We follow the rules that are universal; for example, love your neighbor as yourself.
So good to hear your words. I totally agree with what you've said here. Proud that people like you are speaking out and initiating community conversations.
@Jack9ix why can't people have there own opinion, your saying people should die for disagreeing with you that's pretty totalitarian of you... If I posted and said all gay people deserve to die you would be pretty mad. Don't get mad at people who disagree with your life choices.
@bcfilmguy because it's not my place to judge. it's not my opinion, it's the bibles. but seriously, you wont change my thoughts and i wont change yours. so just stop trying, we all have our own opinions. just dont hate on me for being a christ follower.
@becrazybabyy Baby, I agree we're not going to change the other's opinion. I want to make it clear though that I do not hate any person for being a "Christ follower." That's very martyr-ish of you. But just realize that the bible is so vast and contradictory that you are able to pick and choose what you want to support your beliefs. If you try hard enough, you can pretty much find support for whatever view you want in the bible. But take responsibility for it. It's YOUR beliefs, not any god's.
@bcfilmguy how DARE you judge me. my best friend is bi, and she knows where i stand, and that i dont support it. i dont ever tell her. i told her once, and she knows. that's enough. i like her as a person, she's an amazing friend! but she knows where i stand and is okay with my opinion. just like i am fine with hers, because i did what i could, god can take care of the rest. see, im just one of those people. im a strong christ follower. im more against abortion though.
@becrazybabyy Well I never mentioned anything about abortion so I don't know why you bring that up. You come across as one of the Christians who is excited to talk about what they believe and don't believe in to score points with "god." Why else would you mention abortion? It's very nice of you to tolerate your bi friend while believing she's going to burn in hell for all eternity. Really can't imagine how you can get up in the morning if you genuinely believe someone you love...
@becrazybabyy ...is going to spend all eternity in unending torment and pain. Seems like something that would stop you from being able to function as a human being but whatever you do to put those thoughts out of your mind, guess it's working. I really can't imagine how you can be "friends" with someone you think is committing a pure evil act that is worthy of that kind of punishment.
But you're 17 once you're out in the world you may expand your views as you mature.
@bcfilmguy then if at a young age you can't tell what love is, how could you possibly say you're gay before you're an adult anyways? & i'm not homophobic. i have gay friends, actaully. but they know where i stand, they know i live by the word of god and i'm not a hypocrite. i dont say its okay just so they get what they wanna hear. they know if they want to get help, that i'm here. i actually had a gay friend who knew it was wrong, knew it was lust. took 2 years of counsling, and now he's happy.
@becrazybabyy Baby, you're not making sense. I'm talking about a person's mental maturity. I'm not saying that just because there is a biological element present in people from a young age that they're old enough to act upon it. But babies are born with genitalia they are not ready to use. That doesn't mean they aren't intended to eventually use it. Scientists can comment on the biological element without implying that children are ready to understand emotional or spiritual love.
@becrazybabyy How dare you claim to not be homophobic when you call being gay as "a sickness," "sad," "wrong," and "a sin?" Merely tolerating gay people while judging them with the level of vitriol you have does not exempt you from being classified as a homophobe. You are no friend to these people you've mentioned.
And just how do yo KNOW this guy is happy? There is enormous pressure for him to conform. Do you know the suicide rate of "ex-gays?" There is no scientific backing on exgay therapy.
@bcfilmguy hunny, in my state, if an 18 year old gets a 17 year old pregnant, its considered rape and he gets sentenced to jail. & really that was a serious question! so u think love is love? so is it bad for a 30 year old to date a 16 year old? u no, i always wanted someones opinion. love is love, right? exactly. it would be wrong.
@becrazybabyy Every state is different but most states the age of consent is, 16, 17, or 18. No, I don't think an 18 year old dating a 17 year old is morally wrong, and there is little you could come up with to be a convincing argument. That aside, your point is not profound. Your writing is almost stream-of-consciousness so it is a chore just to make sense of it. If 2 adults feel love for each other and are recognized to be of sound mind, able to reciprocate, then yes, love is love....
@bcfilmguy Leviticus 20:13 states that "The penalty for homosexual acts is death to both parties. They have brought it upon themselves." (Living Bible):
@becrazybabyy And Green Eggs and Ham states "he would not eat them with a fox" but that doesn't convince me of anything. You have no validity to your claim that the bible is the word of any god so quoting passages from it is useless. Save your comment characters.
@becrazybabyy 2. You homophobes always relay your arguments back to things like "so is pedophilia okay? Who's to say it's wrong!!" Your point is similar. Scientists and sociologists recognize that a human brain is in a state of development for years and so there are age restrictions we put on people because they are not deemed developed enough to make sound decisions on their own. This is why pedophilia is wrong because a child cannot reciprocate love. But 2 consenting adults can.
@bcfilmguy no, gay has been around forever. but it was a sickness, and now people are saying its not? let me ask u something. if LOVE IS LOVE, then why can't a 18 year old male date a 17 year old female? why would it be rape if he got her pregant? i thought love was love.
@becrazybabyy Haha. You're hilarious. A 17 year-old CAN date an 18 year-old. It's not illegal; each state or province has its own age of consent but the average in the US is 16. You consider it rape if an 18-year-old got a 17-year-old pregnant? Really not sure why I'm wasting time on you. You should stick to your cutesy little videos and leave the human rights issues to the grownups. You're just embarrassing yourself. Not trying to be a jerk, but your postings are seriously poorly thought out.
@theStrong32 see this is why this is so bad. at one point, people didn't think of being gay. why in the world should our children have to look at gay people and wonder "am i going to be like that?" it's not right. i don't want my kelsey looking at that stuff, it's completly wrong to be public about it. it's sad in my opinion.
@becrazybabyy At one point? When? You think homosexuality came around in the last twenty years or so? Do a little research, babycakes. God help your Kelsey if she does turn out to be gay and has someone like you in her life ready to judge her and not support her. You think gays should have to hide and lie? Where in your bible does it encourage lying over honesty? Your writing style indicates a very fragmented, adolescent mind, someone who hasn't really thought a lot about this. Sorry to say.
@Atrain292 "btw its not descrimination. Men can not marry men and women cannot marry women. Same sexs can not marry. Its a rule for everyone like a drinking age."
It is discrimination based on gender. One is forbidden to marry someone else of the same gender exclusively because of their gender. Again, the legal drinking age has a rational basis.
@Atrain292 "Marriage is already a heavilly regulated institution. Blood relatives cannot marry, cousins can not marry in many states, and in other states people with venerial diseases can not marry."
All of these regulations have a rational basis. The only basis for opposing marriage equality is either particular religious teachings or prejudice, both of which are unconstitutional.
@Atrain292 "Marriage is made for governing couples who intend to procreate with one another and raise their own children."
Again, this is untrue. The state has NEVER required that couples "intend to procreate" before granting them a marriage license. Also, by your logic, married couples should be forbidden to adopt, since they have to "raise their own children."
You have no evidence of that, aside from your own speculation. If it were "against evoltution," why does it occur so frequently in nature? The persistent existence of homosexuality in nature demonstates that it has some usefulness in perpetuating the survival of species, such as preventing depletion of natural resources, care for orphans, etc. Is this speculation also? Perhaps, but no different from yours (except perhaps a bit more thoughtful).
Gay is just a form of lust, because we are meant to be with the oppisite sex. So, wanting to be with someone of the same sex is just lust, because they know what they want.
Also, the bible does say gay marriage is wrong.
Gods word states that gay marriage is wrong, it's a sin.
churches should not accept it.
Gods bible says its wrong.
It will change the coulture, i don't want my children seeing gay people and thinking it is okay. it's not and people shouldn't wonder if it's right.
@becrazybabyy 1. The bible says "gay marriage is wrong?" Point me to the exact passage, please. I don't think gay marriage was really a hot topic then as marriage in general was nothing like what it is today. Marriage was an exchange of property and no one married for love; in fact, to reject marriage for love would have been a punishable offense. This is the era of moral purity you want to cling to, crazybaby?
@bcfilmguy God does not want to force us to do anything, he respects up. But he hopes we chose him, for the better. Because he wants us to have true happiness, not a heart full of lust. Jesus says that marriage is for a man and a woman, and that homosexuality is wrong. so why would he say it's okay to be gay? the bible warns us of whats going on, but as a society people ignore it. the bible says everything we need to know.
And Jesus never once ever said that homosexuality is wrong. The fact that you state something that is easy to disprove shows how little you know about your bible.
Again, you're tell me what "god" wants without any basis. No one can tell what "god" wants. I assume you haven't read my messages very clearly then.
@becrazybabyy said, "Jesus says that marriage is for a man and a woman, and that homosexuality is wrong."
First of all, Jesus didn't say ANYTHING about homosexuality. Second of all, your interpetation of certain verses of Scripture (and many good, devout, God-loving Scripture-believing Christians come to a different interpretation of those same verses) are irrelevant to the public debate on same-sex marriage. The Constitution states that there shall be no establishment of religion. (cont.)
@becrazybabyy (cont.) The question is not whether churches should perform same-sex marriage (the Free Exercise clause of the Contitution guarantees their freedom not to), the question is over STATE (issuing marriage licenses) and FEDERAL (tax and other benefits) recognition. You have a right to your beliefs, but you have no right to force your beliefs on others.
@becrazybabyy 2. Please in the name of sanity, if you're going to oppose gay marriage, stop jumping back to the tired argument of "god says..." "God" didn't say anything because all you have is a book the has been written and re-written by men over centuries. I can point you to studies on the timeline of the bible and I can assure you the bible was written by MEN. Because we cannot go and ask any god personally, all we can rely on is your prejudice interpretation. Not admissible.
@becrazybabyy 4. Either your English skills are just developing or you subconsciously realize the flimsiness of your argument. In a nutshell, you're argument is "It's wrong because god said it's wrong and it's wrong because it isn't right and is wrong and don't think it's okay because it isn't."
We've had gay marriage in Canada for years now and it hasn't changed the culture.
As I've said to others, I'll gladly continue to debate you on this issue but...
@becrazybabyy 5. ...if you give me another argument that rests solely on your interpretation of an invisible friend who lives in the sky who cannot be called in for questioning, then I'll take that as you conceding that you have no merit to your position and have nothing to retort my points; therefore I will not respond. Trying to have intelligent conversations with someone who thinks a 2000 year old contradictory book of superstitions is the basis for a sound argument is not productive. Peace.
@becrazybabyy "Gay is jut a form of lust." Really ignorant stereotype. What evidence do you have for this?
"churches should not accept it." Fine. Churches don't have to accept it. What does that have to do with State or Federal recognition of same-sex marriage?
If you're againt same-sex marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex. Make your own decisions and allow the rest of us to make ours.
How can a Christian support Gays when the bible says you should not lay with a man the way you would lay with a woman. Being gay is evil. If gays say this is how god made me then a pedophile could say the same thing right?
@DMullins55 Oh boy. The bible also says you should be killed for gathering sticks on the sabbath, mix linen and wool, or plant different crops together. Do you still think those are evil? Christians have to pick and choose passages to make anything work because the bible is terribly contradictory. And Jesus says NOTHING about being gay in any of the 4 gospels. Pedophiles are harming another person who is not mature enough to consent; it's 100% different. Your points are pathetic.
@bcfilmguy Yes i do believe in keeping the sabbath. And no I don't see a difference both being Gay and a pedophile are morally and absolutely wrong. NAMBLA has little protests and marches like the Gays do because they think they have the right to be with little boys. Either way it does not matter the will be judged and found guilty if the don't turn and repent from their sinful actions.
@DMullins55 1. I said "gathering sticks on the sabbath requires punishment by death." You agree with that? You equate pedophilia and homosexuality, but you ignore the outcomes. A pedophile is taking advantage of an innocent child. The act is not mutually agreed to by consenting adults. So the child is being abused and raped, literally and spiritually. I know many gay couples who form lifelong loving relationship and build a strong stable life together in that love. You have no basis to...
@DMullins55 2. ...call that evil other than cherry-picking from an outdated, contradictory book. You need to have a stronger basis for callings something "absolutely wrong" other than writings that only have credibility to you; the source cannot be verified or investigated. So your point is pathetic.
Don't mind debating different points of view, dude, but if you wanna continue this come at it with something more original. Look at other comments here and you'll find yours is a carbon copy. Peace.
@DMullins55 "If gays say this is how god made me then a pedophile could say the same thing right?"
No. Pedophilia is not a sexual orientation. Pedophelia is a psychiatric disorder. Pedophiles can be of any sexual orientation--and the majority of them are straight, by the way. Equating the two is just more baseless fearmongering.
Here is a brief outline for you. Homosexuals are demanding "rights" and claim they are being "discriminated" against. I must have missed the part where they are second class citizens? Marriage is the "right" most commonly referred to, but I fail to see the discrimination, a gay man can marry a lesbian woman and it is perfectly legal. Ah, but you say that is not the point, ok then before we can assign rights we must define the group, correct?
@itastallion04 So how do you define the group known as homosexuals, after all, for race and gender all you need is a simple blood test. Oh wait, that won't work here, essentially the only basis that can be determined supporting gay rights are emotions. There is no factual information supporting a truly genetic cause for homosexuality, there are correlary studies, but those PROVE nothing. Therefore desire is dictating the demand for "rights" and nothing more.
@itastallion04 "There is no factual information supporting a truly genetic cause for homosexuality, there are correlary studies, but those PROVE nothing."
Of course there is no "gay gene." No one's arguing that now. There is, however, more to the question than mere genes. There is epigenetics. There is pre-natal hormonal activity, there are physiological differences in brain function. Just because science doesn't have a definitive answer right now, doesn't mean it won't find one (cont.)
@itastallion04 (cont.) Remember, the fact that science doesn't have a definitive answer yet imperils your argument too: Science has not proven that homosexuality is a choice.
Why would a gay man want to marry a lesbian? Gay people are 2nd-class citizens because they cannot marry the person of their choice, can be fired from their jobs or evicted from their apartment and are banned from adopting kids in many states. Also, they're the frequent targets of violence and bigotry (thought that isn't sanctioned by the government, gov't officials to a great job of persecuting.) Are you as a straight person worried about being fired if they find out you're straight?
If you fail to see the discrimination agains gays, you are either stupid or wilfully ignorant. Just look at a newspaper & online news sources. Look up "gay bashing" or "homophobia" and you will find hundreds of examples. Look at the laws of differnt states which forbid homosexuals to marry and/or adopt, or which forbid legal protection of housing or employment. Look at the tax code. Look at immigration policies. And the list goes on.
@Atrain292 And one by one: No it doesn't. Nope, you encourage not being ashamed of yourself.
Lack of procreation? Really? That's todays problem? The institution of marriage, if it ever was one, has been killed many times over. It's just a way society copes with couples. Is marriage intended for a 65+ couples? No, it’s for people in love who want to live together.
...that said, there is more danger in that relationship because an incestuous relationship can yield children regardless of legal recognition, whereas no gay couple has a child by accident.
@Atrain292 The fact u sink to calling me a dumbass in trying to argue your position really indicates how much your views are based on anger and prejudice rather than rationale. I love how hypocritical people can be. Why don't you outlaw divorce if marriage is so sacred? Straight people take the institution for granted until another group wants to be included. Blood relatives cannot marry (for one because to encourage children in that relationship would yield a plethora of disorders)...
@Atrain292 I'd be with you if gay marriage was REPLACING straight marriages but it's not. We're talking about inclusion, not change. Allowing it does not diminish anything. Gays can have children, and many do. This is no different than allowing infertile/non-procreative-by-choice to have the same rights. I'm sorry, but I truly believe the main opposition comes from people not wanting to have to acknowledge this sect of society exists. Recognition makes it harder to keep people in the shadows.
(5) you are not required to be married to have children. If you want to play the procreation card, make a move to invalidate all marriages that don't produce children if that's the sole purpose. Marriage has evolved and today it is universally recognized as a special union between 2 people who are saying "our relationship is special, different from other friendships I have. This is the one person whom I want to spend my life with." Children are optional, and gays have the option to have...
(4) Look at the infidelity and divorce rates. If you support Brittany Spears being legally allowed to be married for 52 hours but not extend the rights to a couple who has been lovingly committed for decades, I don't know what else to say. Do a little research on the history of marriage, man. Marriage was once a way to acquire property and nothing more. It has evolved. It is not centered around having children. You are not required to have children to be married and...
(3) I guess you have no problem with lesbianism then since no "taking it up the ass" is involved. "let them do their thing but they cant ruin the institution of marriage just because they want to be married gays can do their own thing. Marriage is made for governing couples who intend to procreate with one another and raise their own children." I think straight couples are "ruining" the institution well enough on their own by cheating or getting divorced...
(2) who "encourages" you. It's not a choice, man. Like it or not there are always going to be gay people. It appears in virtually every country, society on the planet, even in countries where the punishment is death.
"Humans and animals are made to procreate (not take it up the ass.)" Homosexuality occurs in nature. Do your research. It has been observed in countless animals. And, your fixation on anal sex is typical of uninformed people who think being gay is centered around that...
@Atrain292 While I disagree with your points I appreciate you actually put down your arguments rather than just spewing obscenities like some other posters. To address you points: "being gay runs against evolution. By permitting gay marriage you are encouraging being gay" This shows how little you understand the subject. Are you consciously making an effort not to "be gay?" If you aren't attracted to the same sex emotionally and sexually you're not going to "be gay" no matter...con'td
Raving sick dum# $#% now thats gay territory by all standard keister king.Im here for the entertainment.(dont be mad that that is all you are to me gerbal boy....its just the way it is) What other rodents do you sicko,s stick up your butts anyway....(snicker...but seriously????)
@mastersduhgree Dude seriously, a major fixation on gay images. Again you're trolling in the middle of the night for gay vids. There are plenty of sites that can help you with that. Your writing style indicates a 5th grade education and someone who suffers from severe personality disorder. It really doesn't bother me. Your arguments don't hurt because they are coming from someone so depraved and pathetic it just reinforces that views from people like you are groundless. And it's spelled GERBIL
@mastersduhgree Well, well. You're the one who took the time to listen to an 8.5 minute video and come up with some graphic images here, Mduh. I'm not one of those who thinks every homophobe is secretly gay, but anyone who displays the obsession you have judging by your interest in gay-related vids I wouldn't be surprised if you were. And I never said there weren't people who'd like to marry their dogs. I said society is intelligent enough to realize dog marriages could not be mutually accepted.
@bcfilmguy This is just entertaining to me kiester king.Um...heh....society is inteligent? Some of society thinks attaching affections meant for another gender should be accepted by the part of society that finds it grossly deplorable behaviour ...naturaly. Really...i just like sticking my foot in your torn rectum.
And if my examples are so cherry-picked, then give me some better ones, assuming you can without slinging the garbage you have here. A little piece of advice, if you want people to take your point seriously, try to talk like a human being and not a raving sick dumbass. I'll debate your points if you want, but if they're based only on your ignorance and no reason or rationale, then it would be a waste of time. (PS. Pretty early to be up watching gay marriage videos by the way, straight guy.)
@bcfilmguy Reason and rationale?Heh....thats why you get poop slung in your face and laughed at all the way to the pet store for more gerbals.Didnt figure that out yet huh?You think you catch poop with your face because you possess reasoning?....heh....thats kinda funny.
@mastersduhgree Dude seriously, a major fixation on gay images. Again you're trolling in the middle of the night for gay vids. There are plenty of sites that can help you with that. Your writing style indicates a 5th grade education and someone who suffers from severe personality disorder. It really doesn't bother me. Your arguments don't hurt because they are coming from someone so depraved and pathetic it just reinforces that views from people like you are groundless. And it's spelled "gerbil"
@bcfilmguy Ahahaha....You know how to spell gerbil ehhh...ahahaha.Well anyway dude.....attacking for the incorrectness of spelling again.sheesh...thats so pathetic.Anyway....Have you made a gerbil crawl up yer kiester? How does it feel? dont you feel sorry for the little animal?Its dying up yer butt.Just so you can have that loving feeling. Thats so mean of you terrible homo people.Why dont you butt humpers invent something that does what a gerbil does.Dont they make a toy like that?
I only attack your spelling because it's evidence you're typing in a mad rage of stupidity without stopping to check what you're writing. You've clearly got an obsession with gerbils and I hope you don't ever act on it; it's not fair to the animals (although when a redneck has sex with an animal I'm not sure if it's technically beastiality.) You're clearly incapable of talking intelligently, so unless you want to debate some real points of substance, I'm not going to waste my time anymore.
@mastersduhgree WOAH! Ahahaha. Just looked at your page. You are obsessed dude. How many gay-centered videos are you watching? Everything you comment on is gay rights-related. That's textbook to someone who is dealing with internalized homophobia. So funny. Seriously, you're up in the middle of the night seeking out gay videos to comment on? Don't you realize how funny that is? Priceless, dude. Thanks. You made my day.
Haven't really been too vocal on the transgender issue so far in my videos, but I think that it's hard enough to be happy in this world and a person who genuinely feels in themselves that they were not born the correct sex (and there is science to back this up) should be able to take whatever steps they want to make themselves feel comfortable. You'd think the conservatives would be all for gender reassignment surgery since they obsess so much about what goes where. That fixes it, doesn't it?
this is a great arguement. but too bad im an atheist(: but i believe that love, is a connection between two people, it shouldn't matter the color or gender. and true, there are religions out there that believe in a gay marrage. but we all are our own people, why do we focous on the monority religion.
If God is all knowing, all loving and MORALLY PERFECT. And if the bible is the word of God. And if the bible says that gay marriage is wrong (which it does). Then that would mean that gay marriage is wrong. If this all knowing, perfect, all powerful creator of the fricken universe, who is morally perfect ,says that something is morally wrong then I'm going to stick with God on this one instead of yourself.
Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed...
Your "word of God" also claims that the sun revolves around the earth and that wearing linen and wool is an abomination. Also, it's interesting that Jesus never preached about homosexuality if it is so important.
This is just another classic misunderstanding of the bible. Atheists love staring at versus in the old testament. I'm talking about your comment about wearing linen, those were ceremonial laws which we are not to live by anymore, we are not living in the old testament right now are we?Those laws were for a specific group of people for a specific period tme for specific reasons.Jesus may have not said anything specifically about it but God did,Jesus is God so it is irrelevant is Jesus mentions it
You're right, we're not living in the OT times. We're not living in the New Testament times either. And NO, God did not say anything about being gay. Paul did. I know your answer (correct me if I'm wrong) will be that God was working through Paul. But this is no more valid than Islamic fundamentalist terrorist who believe Allah is commanding them to blow themselves up.
You're right, God did work through Paul. But comparing the bible to other religions and other Gods such as Allah, they are not as credible and have no evidence to back up their claims. The bible is the only religious text that has hundreds of fufilled prophecies, written by people such as Paul. And I think you have been watching too much zietgeist. To say that the stories in the bible were borrowed from earlier religions...these claims have been refuted time and time again.
Name one prophecy that has been fulfilled that is specific enough that it could not have been written out by nothing more than a human brain. And Zeitgeist is not a reliable source for all of this information. It is accepted among biblical scholars and common people alike that Christianity is a reworking of earlier religious stories. This has not been properly refuted because it is true. It's standard story structure. I think YOU have been watching too much Left Behind.
(cont'd) Also, the bible did not descend from the clouds in completed form. There are dozens and dozens of tractates that were excluded from canonization. Had they been included, you would be defending them as the "word of god." Denying civil rights based on a contradictory book of ancient superstitions borrowed from earlier religions and re-branded is as rational as dancing naked in a field of heather to bring fortune upon your Nintendo Wii scores. The fact this even needs a debate is sickening
Also what are some of these contradictions, or things that have been changed in the bible. There exist today thousands of original handwritten manuscripts that date back over two thousands years ago. The dead sea scrolls for example contain every book of the OT except for Esther. We compare these writings to the bible we have no and nothing has been changed or re written. And I am NOT TRYING TO DENY PEOPLES RIGHTS. I said I think homosexuality is wrong, immoral, but I;m not out there protesting
There are no original surviving texts from the bible. The oldest fragment that exists is a creditcard sized piece from Mark which is dated as several decades after the original book was written. If you take all of the copies of the new testament that exist up until the invention of printing and compare them, there are more differences between the manuscript than there are WORDS in the new testament. Now, most of the differences are simple mistakes from hand copying that don't mean much...cont'd
But there are other, more irreconcilable differences. Ex: Is Jesus crucified on the day of preparation for the passover or on the day after the passover? Two gospels give different accounts. Were there 3 wisemen or 3 shepherds? Also, open your bible and look at the last twelve verses of Mark. There is a good chance that they are either in parenthesis. This is because these 12 verses do not appear in the earliest copies of the gospel of Mark. They were added to suggest that...cont'd
the women who fled actually did go and tell the story of Jesus' resurrection, whereas the original texts stated that the women fled and "didn't say anything to anyone, for they were afraid." Another ex, the story of the woman taken into adultery and "let he who is w/o sin..." is a beautiful story, but it also does not appear in the earliest copies of the gospel. Scholars accept that this story was added later many years later.
Hang gays
Fuckladygaga100 1 month ago
Your clearly missing the point. If marriage is not by one man and one woman, and it is only a legally binding contract. A chimpanzee can make a bigger commitment than a deaf and blind guy, a chimp could certainly sign a paper. A chimpanzee can consent to a legally binding marriage. So why do you have a problem with me marrying a chimp when he clearly passes the requirements to make this decision. I honestly dont see how you can argue agaisnt that.
glues1 3 months ago
@glues1 Your logic is beyond fascinating. You seem to be making this an argument against people with disabilities marrying, not gay marriage. Even if I bought your offensive claim that a blind/deaf person could not understand commitment, as if they were mentally disabled, it does nothing to speak to gay marriage. Gay people are just as competent in signing a commitment as straights, so what's all of this talk about animals?
bcfilmguy 3 months ago
@bcfilmguy Keep dodging the point..... thats fine. Lets just cut right to it shall we. If there is nothing more to a marriage than a legally binding contract, and a Chimpanzee, (the smartest animal in the world) which has way more than the capacity to make/ sign this legal contract. Do you believe I should be able to legally marry the Chimpanzee....?
glues1 3 months ago
@glues1 Dodging the point? Seriously? What point am I dodging? Ok, let's "cut right to it," as you say.
YOU:"If there is nothing more to a marriage than a legally binding contract, and a chimpanzee, (the smartest animal in the world which has way more than the capacity to make/sign this legal contract. Do you believe I should be able to legally marry the Chimpanzee?"
ANSWER: No. Are you not clear on this? Let me explain, since you seem to need it...
bcfilmguy 3 months ago
@glues1 ...Your argument only makes sense if you are proposing that gay people are LESS "smart" than chimpanzees, or less competent in entering into a committed relationship. First it was apes, then it was blind/deaf people marrying...but you still haven't made a clear justification against gay marriage. If you believe your chimp argument, then you should be in favor of heterosexual human/ape marriage, I suppose. Does that answer your question?
bcfilmguy 3 months ago
@bcfilmguy Wow, you really do baffle me lol. Previous comments of mine state that "i am for gay marriage" if im allowed to marry the chimp. Gay people can/have the same IQ as straight people. I have nothing against them. Im simply saying, that if all marriage is, is a legally binding contract. And my chimp is MORE than capable of making this "legally binding contract." Why do you feel as though I shouldnt be able to marry the chimp
glues1 3 months ago
@glues1 Your logic (if we want to call it that) is based upon the assumption that a chimp is "capable of entering into a contract." Chimps are NOT, marriage aside, capable/allowed to enter into any legal contract in our society, and you know that perfectly well (well, maybe not.) Chimps cannot hold jobs, get driver's licenses,buy property or get bank loans. So you can't use such a pathetic assumption as basis to argue against gay marriage. Seriously, dude. Shouldn't have to tell you that
bcfilmguy 3 months ago
@bcfilmguy Though just to be consistent here... lets make sure. You would have no problem with me being able to legally marry a dog, horse, etc. and have all my rights too?
glues1 3 months ago
@glues1 Actually I would have a problem with that, because a dog, horse, child, broom, umbrella etc cannot consent to a legally binding marriage, so it wouldn't be mutual. In addition, none of the above can work to build a sustainable, loving relationship between 2 adults. Please structure your comments with more thought and intelligence in the future. Thanks
bcfilmguy 3 months ago
@bcfilmguy Of course you would because that would insult you, knowing you could marry your dog. The deaf and blind guy wanting a marriage cannont consent to a marriage but he can through actions show his love, like a dog can for his owner. After all were all animals, were just a slightly higher evolved species. How would you know they couldnt work? Its not like marriages with adults are working these days. Take your argument out to its conclusion and u have to accept the "dog marriage."
glues1 3 months ago
@glues1 If you're going to use this argument, would you be fine with a dog running for office, for example? If you're going to say there is no difference between humans and animals, could a dog file for divorce, or battle for custody? This argument is so juvenile and unintelligent.
bcfilmguy 3 months ago
@bcfilmguy Im not the one arguing for it bro. Look past the surface and take your argument to its conclusion and you get what I stated previously. The argument is juvenile and unintelligent, why are u arguing for it lol. Way to skip over the blind and deaf guy. Are you fine with him marrying even though he cannont consent to anything..... just like a dog....... Speak of unintelligence.... good grief
glues1 3 months ago
@glues1 A blind and deaf person could communicate in today's society to the point of making a legally binding commitment, man. In order to have a legal marriage, you need to be of sound mind and demonstrate you are aware of the commitment you are making. You have yet to explain how my argument logically support people marrying their dogs. If you think society is so incompetent that we couldn't make the intelligent differentiation between marrying an animal and a consenting adult, well...
bcfilmguy 3 months ago
@bcfilmguy Tell me how a blind and deaf person from birth could coherently do anything. They wouldn't know what commitment even means. The burden of proof doesn't rely on me, it does with you. We obviously can differentiate. Lets take the smartest animal, a chimpanzee who literaly would know more about commitment than a deaf and blind person. Do you have a problem with me marrying a chimpanzee? Im all for gay marriage if your all for marrying monkeys.......
glues1 3 months ago
@glues1 Is your beef with gay marriage or people with physical disabilities getting married? I don't know how this topic became a defense for your position in your mind. I hate to disappoint you, but the laws of marriage already are afforded to blind and deaf people. You seem to be confusing physical disabilities with mental disabilities. In case you're not aware, gay couples are not inhibited in hearing or sight, so I don't know how that plays into your case...
bcfilmguy 3 months ago
@glues1 And why just because a monkey or a dog is capable of displaying affection does that mean it is capable of consenting to a legally binding marriage contract? A best friend or a stranger is capable of showing affection but that doesn't automatically bind them to marriage. Seriously, dude. You seem to be suggesting that gay couples have the mental capabilities of apes or dogs. So by your original point, is any human being, straight or gay deserving of a legal commitment?
bcfilmguy 3 months ago
Adam and Eve NOT Adam and Steve
DaMangChase 4 months ago
@DaMangChase If you believe in the story of Adam and Eve as historically true, there's not much more to talk about here.
bcfilmguy 4 months ago
Religion is all a bunch of mumbo jumbo. anyone who acctially belives in that kind of crap and form their every day life acording to them are nutjobs. I don't want to offend anyone, but clearly religious fanatics are.... strange...
MiotaLee 4 months ago
i think this issue is a mass debatae
cimballs 4 months ago
The reason why there is no good argument against gay marriage is because majority use a religious and spiritual stance, while MOST of the pro gay arguments use a "civil right" stance which ignores religious implications thereby neutralizing any opposition coming from that angle.
So I could say that homosexuality is a spiritually "rotten" and "self-destructive" thing to do, but if your not spiritual and use human secular logic to deduct as your reasoning, then what I just said falls on def ears
Metacool416 6 months ago
@Metacool416 Yes, however I think it's presumptuous to say that a religion has a monopoly on spirituality. As a completely non-religious, non-supernaturally inclined gay man, I believe that I am a very spiritual person. That's one of the problems of traditional religions; they often tend to assume dominion over all things spiritual, when in reality the spiritual aspect has been all but extracted from the faith. I am neither spiritually lacking/rotten nor self-destructive.
bcfilmguy 5 months ago
at one time religion and spirituality were synonymous, but from what i've understood the inner purity and self integrity of religions have already been corrupted a long time ago, thats why christians today do not act like christians, whom are supposed to be kind, respectful and compassionate at ALL times, but because they arent and are now self-bigotting self righteous with a superiority complex is why people like yourself shun them away and find them repulsive, even though they maybe right
Metacool416 5 months ago
@makexxwar Oh, and you don't have to remind me it will be legal very soon, regardless of the will of the majority of the population. This prophetic statement comes from a legit Marxist Gay Movement member. ;)
cashernandes1 6 months ago
@makexxwar Great, so why should polygamy not be legal then? If marriage has nothing to do procreation and the religious matrimony between man and woman, why should gay marriages be between just 2 males or females? Why not 3, 6 or 26 males or females?
cashernandes1 6 months ago
Blasphemy! May the great flying invisible spaghetti monster that lives behind the moon smite you all with an extra helping of tomato sauce! Honestly though, do you really think a logical argument could persuade a religious person? If that was possible, religion would have disappeared long ago.
makexxwar 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I have heard the best argument apposing gay marriage its that they have the nature to be gay that they are born with so they say they should be able to go on their nature but that wouldnt be fair to murderers would it because they are born with violence in their nature so if we let gays marry should we let murderers kill people no so gay marriage is not right and not only that it is just NASTY
thewhorulesall 7 months ago
@thewhorulesall murdering someone isn't the same as homosexuality
and gay marriage is not wrong, and not nasty
mermaidsareppl222 6 months ago
just conservatives? lol blacks and hispanics are overwelmingly democrat that voted for prop 8 !!!
karmalevel 8 months ago
@karmalevel Good point. Although I would suggest they would fall under "socially conservative" even if they don't vote for right-wing candidates.
bcfilmguy 8 months ago
@bcfilmguy are you aware that many conservatives are coming around on the gay issues?
karmalevel 8 months ago
@karmalevel Yes, which is encouraging to see. I have many conservative friends and family members too. But we have to be honest that the main backlash against gay rights is coming from the right. I'm talking social right here, not fiscal. Many in the demographic you referenced are very socially conservative when it comes to religion, marriage, etc. But yes, the world is opening up now on both sides of the spectrum.
bcfilmguy 8 months ago
@bcfilmguy Eventually the whole gay issue will be a non issue soon for both parties, but I think that the oversensitvity from the gay community is hurting them
karmalevel 8 months ago
Marriage doesn't define homosexual union period. What homosexuals want is to alter the definition of marriage which is unnecessary since marriage is a traditional value if Gays want their union to be recognized they have civil unions that describes their union with same rights and benefits. Heterosexual marriage is also unique and different and deserves a special status of its own.
MrBinieam 9 months ago
(remove the spaces)
- alturl . com / ynwvu
- tiny . cc / oefvl
And again, when an idea doesn't work in principle (in theory) it shouldn't be applied at all. In the long term, it's damaging.
Family is the cornerstone of socities, that's self-evident. Gay marriage repudiates that idea.
cashernandes1 9 months ago
Gay marriage doesn't make sense because only people of the opposite sex can have children.That's why the institution of marriage emerged. I personally have nothing against homosexual activity, homosexuals can act as they wish and I'll treat them just as well as the next person. However, gay marriage is a total lack of sense.
About adoption: there are actually more heterosexual people looking to adopt than actual adoptions TAKE PLACE so they possibility of gay parenting is practically irrelevant.
cashernandes1 9 months ago 2
@cashernandes1 Buddy, your argument is so unoriginal. Also, you need to brush up on "why the institution of marriage emerged." You are misinformed on your history. Marriage has nothing to do with children. While couples may choose to have children, neither choice assumes the other. If you really thought about it, you'd realize that you know this to be true. Why? Think about the last time you were at a wedding. (Continued...)
bcfilmguy 9 months ago
@bcfilmguy That's what people are saying nowadays, but IN PRINCIPLE marriage has everything to do with the children resulting from that union. So, these guys who intend to marry and NOT have children actually don't understand themselves what marriage is about. People are thinking about themselves nowadays, not on their offsprings. Anyway, you're definitely right about these assertions people are making now. Not only gays but a lot of heteresexuals don't understand the definition of marriage.
cashernandes1 9 months ago
@cashernandes1 ...If you were to go up to one member of the couple and ask "so do you two plan on having children" you'd find that a reasonable question and no one would bat an eye. But if you were to ask "is so-and-so the most significant person in your life that you want to make a lifelong commitment to" you'd find them taken aback. It is assumed that modern marriage is about partnering with your "significant other" (although this notion is relatively new) (continued...)
bcfilmguy 9 months ago
@cashernandes1 ...but it is not assumed that you are marrying with the intent to have children.
Please do some research on the history of marriage. You'll be surprised at its original concept and very glad that we have moved away to embrace an institution more reflective of our modern values on love and companionship.
Best.
bcfilmguy 9 months ago
@bcfilmguy However, even when people say they married on the basis of their loving relationship with someone (which is quite obvious), that's obviously due to the KINSHIP they wish to establish with that particular someone. So Marriage is rather the byproduct of the human procreative abilities, which can only be attained through heteresexual sex.
In Ancient Rome, for example, even though homosexuality was quite the norm (even more so than today), there was no "gay marriage".
cashernandes1 9 months ago
@bcfilmguy So, to sum it up, because the building of kinship is sought after through marriage, the whole idea of constituting a family is quite conspicuous from the start. And that, again, as you may well know, is only attainable through regular heterosexual sex. So the whole idea of "gay marriage" is sheer nosense. That's why it never existed in HISTORY, and especially not in Ancient Rome, where gay sex was normal.
There is a reason for it to have emerged now, sure, but that's another story.
cashernandes1 9 months ago
@cashernandes1 - I urge you to investigate history again. Gay marriage was a rare practice, I believe, in Asian cultures, not that it matters. Interracial marriage is a relatively new 'idea'. And the premise that children was the reason for marriage is bullocks. It appears you do not care if your assertions (I prefer to say opinons) are right or wrong. Please, educate yourself and support equality for all; all the time, not just some of the time.
aquatix 9 months ago
@aquatix Well, please kindly refer me to where you got the information that "children are not the reason for marriage". Marriage is the celebration of your union to your "loved one" because it establishes KINSHIP (in other words: you become FAMILY). You wouldn't have such a union with a friend, for example. The concept of family is deeply embedded in marriage. Which is, again, attainable through the insertion of a penis into a vagina, not an anus.
cashernandes1 9 months ago
@aquatix Indeed, "gay marriage" relies ENTIRELY on tradicional marriage between males and females. Because only them can give birth to new gay people. An institution such as this one should be able to rely upon itself in order for it not to collapse eventually.
Indeed, research has shown that children brought up by gays are 30% more likely to turn out gay. The more gay people there are, the more gay marriage there is. The result is obvious: an utter collapse of the whole institution.
cashernandes1 9 months ago
@cashernandes1 - Gay marriage does not rely on that. Humanities procreation does. I understand the parallel you are attempting to make, but, it is not a solid argument.
Could you cite your evidence that people 'brought up' by gays are 30% more likely to become gay? Not that I don't believe, I'm just curious. Again, though, this has nothing to do with gay marriage. Marriages conducted by people over the age of 55, now that's something you should protest if you're concerned about procreation.
aquatix 9 months ago
@aquatix I posted some links below that you may find interesting.
Gay marriage does rely on tradicional marriage because, as I said before, only males and females can give birth to gay people. Gay people don't give birth to anyone to start with and the people they're adopting are much more likely to become gay so if the number of gay people rises, fewer and fewer males and females will have sex with each other.
If the whole world was populated by gays it wouldn't last one single generation.
cashernandes1 9 months ago
@cashernandes1 - I'll check them out. However, again, procreation has nothing to do with marriage. I urge you to investigate marriage on your own. It's not my responsibility to educate you; that would have been your professors and parents. I assume your education is rather dry?
And, in response to the whole world thing: that's a silly scare tactic. It's not my responsibility humanity procreates nor is is anyones. It's an 'option'...
aquatix 9 months ago
@aquatix Well, if you are unable to tell me where you learned the information that "family is not key to marriage" from, than I can only assume YOUR education is rather dry, not mine.
It's not a "scare" tactic, it's logic. Humans use logic to create laws, that's why there's no gay marriage in most places in the world.
But it's pretty clear that you seek rather to base your supposed reason on your emotions, so I guess I have nothing further to add to this "discussion"....
cashernandes1 9 months ago
@cashernandes1 You are forgetting how laws work. You do not have to justify making something legal, but you do have to justify making it illegal. For that reason, he does not need to show proof, but you still do. You should get used to the idea of gay marriage because I promise you, it will be legal very soon. The simple truth is that there is no argument against it beyond the fact that some people find it icky.
makexxwar 6 months ago
@aquatix Of course, I'm not saying that would surely happen because gay people would adopt fewer children than heteresexuals (actually there are more heteresexuals looking to adopt than actual adoptions TAKE place, so gay parents aren't need at all... in fact, what we don't need IS gay parents).
But you have to agree that in IN THEORY gay marriage will lead to a collapse of our society. If something doesn't work in theory, it sould not be applied at all.
cashernandes1 9 months ago
@cashernandes1 - I do not agree with that. Considering the entire world's population that are gay is nearly 10-15%, it would not be an issue. I assume you should rather fear people will only be born female or only male in the future. The risk seems much higher considering that males and females make up 50/50 of the human race.
Again, though, marriage's primary purpose is not children and a simple search on wikipedia will do you fine. And, it's important to note, gay couples 'can' have children.
aquatix 9 months ago
@aquatix uh recent studies put the gay pop at less than 2%
karmalevel 8 months ago
@karmalevel - More the reason to protect such a fragile minority...
aquatix 8 months ago
@aquatix I can see that
karmalevel 8 months ago
@cashernandes1 Then take your thoughts about "gay marriage makes no sense because they cant reproduce"
to the straight marriage. A lot of straight couples simply do not want kids. Place that thought in the right perspective, and you'll see it makes no sense. And the marriage emerged as a bond between two people. It mostly had a economical purpose. And, only since 200 years or so, the meaning of marriage is connected with love in the eyes of the public . So that definition is changing.
Ranokian 9 months ago
Pink shirts are gay.
AtheistTower 10 months ago
@AtheistTower Yes they are.
bcfilmguy 10 months ago
I've been searching for a total of eight hours and I have not found any solid arguments against gay marriage. The closest thing I've seen was "The definition say it's between a man and a woman." Well 1. I looked it up on merriam webster's site and thus: There were two definitions. One for hetero and one for homosexual marriage. So no actually it is defined as both orientations. and 2. Definitions are various. You can't say anything has this exact definition because there are different biases.
Pokajoka773 10 months ago
marriage isnt exclusive to christians....all religions have some form
dmaslin2 11 months ago
@bcfilmguy it also says in the old testament that women should go outside the city for 8 days when they get their period. We don't follow those rules because they do not apply to our culture. We follow the rules that are universal; for example, love your neighbor as yourself.
boonesnake 1 year ago
Marriage is a sacred biblical tradition, blessed by God, between a woman and her rapist. Deuteronomy 22.
arp76 1 year ago 9
@arp76 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. Timothy 2.
No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord. Deuteronomy 23.
Don't let cattle graze with other kinds of Cattle. Leviticus 19
:)
bcfilmguy 1 year ago 6
@arp76 A man's balls whom touch another man's balls are blessed by the devil and need to be removed. Cuntery 604782374 - 4957983B
R2Processor 2 months ago
So good to hear your words. I totally agree with what you've said here. Proud that people like you are speaking out and initiating community conversations.
snamaarGoliM 1 year ago 4
If you are against gay rights, you deserve to die. Period
Jack9ix 1 year ago
@Jack9ix WOW That's funny, that's how I feel about people who wear Abercrombie & Fitch!
boogerie 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@boogerie Most of those people are gay.
Jack9ix 1 year ago
@Jack9ix why can't people have there own opinion, your saying people should die for disagreeing with you that's pretty totalitarian of you... If I posted and said all gay people deserve to die you would be pretty mad. Don't get mad at people who disagree with your life choices.
misterchief3 11 months ago
@Jack9ix There it is. You answered your own question. "Why can't people have their own opinion?"
Jack9ix 9 months ago
@bcfilmguy because it's not my place to judge. it's not my opinion, it's the bibles. but seriously, you wont change my thoughts and i wont change yours. so just stop trying, we all have our own opinions. just dont hate on me for being a christ follower.
becrazybabyy 1 year ago
@becrazybabyy Baby, I agree we're not going to change the other's opinion. I want to make it clear though that I do not hate any person for being a "Christ follower." That's very martyr-ish of you. But just realize that the bible is so vast and contradictory that you are able to pick and choose what you want to support your beliefs. If you try hard enough, you can pretty much find support for whatever view you want in the bible. But take responsibility for it. It's YOUR beliefs, not any god's.
bcfilmguy 1 year ago 2
@bcfilmguy how DARE you judge me. my best friend is bi, and she knows where i stand, and that i dont support it. i dont ever tell her. i told her once, and she knows. that's enough. i like her as a person, she's an amazing friend! but she knows where i stand and is okay with my opinion. just like i am fine with hers, because i did what i could, god can take care of the rest. see, im just one of those people. im a strong christ follower. im more against abortion though.
becrazybabyy 1 year ago
@becrazybabyy Well I never mentioned anything about abortion so I don't know why you bring that up. You come across as one of the Christians who is excited to talk about what they believe and don't believe in to score points with "god." Why else would you mention abortion? It's very nice of you to tolerate your bi friend while believing she's going to burn in hell for all eternity. Really can't imagine how you can get up in the morning if you genuinely believe someone you love...
bcfilmguy 1 year ago
@becrazybabyy ...is going to spend all eternity in unending torment and pain. Seems like something that would stop you from being able to function as a human being but whatever you do to put those thoughts out of your mind, guess it's working. I really can't imagine how you can be "friends" with someone you think is committing a pure evil act that is worthy of that kind of punishment.
But you're 17 once you're out in the world you may expand your views as you mature.
Happy Halloween!
bcfilmguy 1 year ago
@bcfilmguy then if at a young age you can't tell what love is, how could you possibly say you're gay before you're an adult anyways? & i'm not homophobic. i have gay friends, actaully. but they know where i stand, they know i live by the word of god and i'm not a hypocrite. i dont say its okay just so they get what they wanna hear. they know if they want to get help, that i'm here. i actually had a gay friend who knew it was wrong, knew it was lust. took 2 years of counsling, and now he's happy.
becrazybabyy 1 year ago
@becrazybabyy Baby, you're not making sense. I'm talking about a person's mental maturity. I'm not saying that just because there is a biological element present in people from a young age that they're old enough to act upon it. But babies are born with genitalia they are not ready to use. That doesn't mean they aren't intended to eventually use it. Scientists can comment on the biological element without implying that children are ready to understand emotional or spiritual love.
bcfilmguy 1 year ago
@becrazybabyy How dare you claim to not be homophobic when you call being gay as "a sickness," "sad," "wrong," and "a sin?" Merely tolerating gay people while judging them with the level of vitriol you have does not exempt you from being classified as a homophobe. You are no friend to these people you've mentioned.
And just how do yo KNOW this guy is happy? There is enormous pressure for him to conform. Do you know the suicide rate of "ex-gays?" There is no scientific backing on exgay therapy.
bcfilmguy 1 year ago 2
@bcfilmguy hunny, in my state, if an 18 year old gets a 17 year old pregnant, its considered rape and he gets sentenced to jail. & really that was a serious question! so u think love is love? so is it bad for a 30 year old to date a 16 year old? u no, i always wanted someones opinion. love is love, right? exactly. it would be wrong.
becrazybabyy 1 year ago
@becrazybabyy Every state is different but most states the age of consent is, 16, 17, or 18. No, I don't think an 18 year old dating a 17 year old is morally wrong, and there is little you could come up with to be a convincing argument. That aside, your point is not profound. Your writing is almost stream-of-consciousness so it is a chore just to make sense of it. If 2 adults feel love for each other and are recognized to be of sound mind, able to reciprocate, then yes, love is love....
bcfilmguy 1 year ago
@bcfilmguy Leviticus 20:13 states that "The penalty for homosexual acts is death to both parties. They have brought it upon themselves." (Living Bible):
becrazybabyy 1 year ago
@becrazybabyy And Green Eggs and Ham states "he would not eat them with a fox" but that doesn't convince me of anything. You have no validity to your claim that the bible is the word of any god so quoting passages from it is useless. Save your comment characters.
bcfilmguy 1 year ago
@becrazybabyy to blindly follow a book in which man wrote will stagnate the growth of ones soul. GOD will speak to u thru ur heart. go with that.
dorianstark 1 year ago
@dorianstark Damn straight! far better to to blindly follow a know it college kid on Youtube!
boogerie 1 year ago
@boogerie mmm, that wouldnt be something to brag abt. u r stating u would be blinded without knowing or caring abt the outcome.
dorianstark 1 year ago
@becrazybabyy 2. You homophobes always relay your arguments back to things like "so is pedophilia okay? Who's to say it's wrong!!" Your point is similar. Scientists and sociologists recognize that a human brain is in a state of development for years and so there are age restrictions we put on people because they are not deemed developed enough to make sound decisions on their own. This is why pedophilia is wrong because a child cannot reciprocate love. But 2 consenting adults can.
bcfilmguy 1 year ago
@bcfilmguy no, gay has been around forever. but it was a sickness, and now people are saying its not? let me ask u something. if LOVE IS LOVE, then why can't a 18 year old male date a 17 year old female? why would it be rape if he got her pregant? i thought love was love.
becrazybabyy 1 year ago
@becrazybabyy Haha. You're hilarious. A 17 year-old CAN date an 18 year-old. It's not illegal; each state or province has its own age of consent but the average in the US is 16. You consider it rape if an 18-year-old got a 17-year-old pregnant? Really not sure why I'm wasting time on you. You should stick to your cutesy little videos and leave the human rights issues to the grownups. You're just embarrassing yourself. Not trying to be a jerk, but your postings are seriously poorly thought out.
bcfilmguy 1 year ago
@theStrong32 see this is why this is so bad. at one point, people didn't think of being gay. why in the world should our children have to look at gay people and wonder "am i going to be like that?" it's not right. i don't want my kelsey looking at that stuff, it's completly wrong to be public about it. it's sad in my opinion.
becrazybabyy 1 year ago
@becrazybabyy At one point? When? You think homosexuality came around in the last twenty years or so? Do a little research, babycakes. God help your Kelsey if she does turn out to be gay and has someone like you in her life ready to judge her and not support her. You think gays should have to hide and lie? Where in your bible does it encourage lying over honesty? Your writing style indicates a very fragmented, adolescent mind, someone who hasn't really thought a lot about this. Sorry to say.
bcfilmguy 1 year ago
@Atrain292 "btw its not descrimination. Men can not marry men and women cannot marry women. Same sexs can not marry. Its a rule for everyone like a drinking age."
It is discrimination based on gender. One is forbidden to marry someone else of the same gender exclusively because of their gender. Again, the legal drinking age has a rational basis.
TheStrong32 1 year ago
@Atrain292 "Marriage is already a heavilly regulated institution. Blood relatives cannot marry, cousins can not marry in many states, and in other states people with venerial diseases can not marry."
All of these regulations have a rational basis. The only basis for opposing marriage equality is either particular religious teachings or prejudice, both of which are unconstitutional.
TheStrong32 1 year ago
@Atrain292 "Marriage is made for governing couples who intend to procreate with one another and raise their own children."
Again, this is untrue. The state has NEVER required that couples "intend to procreate" before granting them a marriage license. Also, by your logic, married couples should be forbidden to adopt, since they have to "raise their own children."
TheStrong32 1 year ago
@Atrain292 "let them do their thing but they cant ruin the institution of marriage just becuase they want to be married"
No one has ever been able to answer this: How will allowing same-sex marriage "ruin the institution of marriage"?
TheStrong32 1 year ago
@Atrain292 "being gay runs against evolution."
You have no evidence of that, aside from your own speculation. If it were "against evoltution," why does it occur so frequently in nature? The persistent existence of homosexuality in nature demonstates that it has some usefulness in perpetuating the survival of species, such as preventing depletion of natural resources, care for orphans, etc. Is this speculation also? Perhaps, but no different from yours (except perhaps a bit more thoughtful).
TheStrong32 1 year ago
Gay is just a form of lust, because we are meant to be with the oppisite sex. So, wanting to be with someone of the same sex is just lust, because they know what they want.
Also, the bible does say gay marriage is wrong.
Gods word states that gay marriage is wrong, it's a sin.
churches should not accept it.
Gods bible says its wrong.
It will change the coulture, i don't want my children seeing gay people and thinking it is okay. it's not and people shouldn't wonder if it's right.
becrazybabyy 1 year ago
@becrazybabyy 1. The bible says "gay marriage is wrong?" Point me to the exact passage, please. I don't think gay marriage was really a hot topic then as marriage in general was nothing like what it is today. Marriage was an exchange of property and no one married for love; in fact, to reject marriage for love would have been a punishable offense. This is the era of moral purity you want to cling to, crazybaby?
bcfilmguy 1 year ago
@bcfilmguy God does not want to force us to do anything, he respects up. But he hopes we chose him, for the better. Because he wants us to have true happiness, not a heart full of lust. Jesus says that marriage is for a man and a woman, and that homosexuality is wrong. so why would he say it's okay to be gay? the bible warns us of whats going on, but as a society people ignore it. the bible says everything we need to know.
becrazybabyy 1 year ago
@becrazybabyy
Prove it.
And Jesus never once ever said that homosexuality is wrong. The fact that you state something that is easy to disprove shows how little you know about your bible.
Again, you're tell me what "god" wants without any basis. No one can tell what "god" wants. I assume you haven't read my messages very clearly then.
bcfilmguy 1 year ago
@bcfilmguy are you kidding me? the bible says gay marriage is wrong so many timess.
becrazybabyy 1 year ago
@becrazybabyy said, "Jesus says that marriage is for a man and a woman, and that homosexuality is wrong."
First of all, Jesus didn't say ANYTHING about homosexuality. Second of all, your interpetation of certain verses of Scripture (and many good, devout, God-loving Scripture-believing Christians come to a different interpretation of those same verses) are irrelevant to the public debate on same-sex marriage. The Constitution states that there shall be no establishment of religion. (cont.)
TheStrong32 1 year ago
@becrazybabyy (cont.) The question is not whether churches should perform same-sex marriage (the Free Exercise clause of the Contitution guarantees their freedom not to), the question is over STATE (issuing marriage licenses) and FEDERAL (tax and other benefits) recognition. You have a right to your beliefs, but you have no right to force your beliefs on others.
TheStrong32 1 year ago
@becrazybabyy 2. Please in the name of sanity, if you're going to oppose gay marriage, stop jumping back to the tired argument of "god says..." "God" didn't say anything because all you have is a book the has been written and re-written by men over centuries. I can point you to studies on the timeline of the bible and I can assure you the bible was written by MEN. Because we cannot go and ask any god personally, all we can rely on is your prejudice interpretation. Not admissible.
bcfilmguy 1 year ago
@becrazybabyy 3. You realize how telling your posting is? You're logic is typical or extreme religious people. I offer you an excerpt from your post:
Also, the bible does say gay marriage is wrong.
Gods word states that gay marriage is wrong, it's a sin.
churches should not accept it.
Gods bible says its wrong.
It will change the coulture, i don't want my children seeing gay people and thinking it is okay. it's not and people shouldn't wonder if it's right.
So...
bcfilmguy 1 year ago
@becrazybabyy 4. Either your English skills are just developing or you subconsciously realize the flimsiness of your argument. In a nutshell, you're argument is "It's wrong because god said it's wrong and it's wrong because it isn't right and is wrong and don't think it's okay because it isn't."
We've had gay marriage in Canada for years now and it hasn't changed the culture.
As I've said to others, I'll gladly continue to debate you on this issue but...
bcfilmguy 1 year ago
@becrazybabyy 5. ...if you give me another argument that rests solely on your interpretation of an invisible friend who lives in the sky who cannot be called in for questioning, then I'll take that as you conceding that you have no merit to your position and have nothing to retort my points; therefore I will not respond. Trying to have intelligent conversations with someone who thinks a 2000 year old contradictory book of superstitions is the basis for a sound argument is not productive. Peace.
bcfilmguy 1 year ago
@becrazybabyy "Gay is jut a form of lust." Really ignorant stereotype. What evidence do you have for this?
"churches should not accept it." Fine. Churches don't have to accept it. What does that have to do with State or Federal recognition of same-sex marriage?
If you're againt same-sex marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex. Make your own decisions and allow the rest of us to make ours.
TheStrong32 1 year ago
Very well put together. <3
Ikizami456 1 year ago
How can a Christian support Gays when the bible says you should not lay with a man the way you would lay with a woman. Being gay is evil. If gays say this is how god made me then a pedophile could say the same thing right?
DMullins55 1 year ago
@DMullins55 Oh boy. The bible also says you should be killed for gathering sticks on the sabbath, mix linen and wool, or plant different crops together. Do you still think those are evil? Christians have to pick and choose passages to make anything work because the bible is terribly contradictory. And Jesus says NOTHING about being gay in any of the 4 gospels. Pedophiles are harming another person who is not mature enough to consent; it's 100% different. Your points are pathetic.
bcfilmguy 1 year ago
@bcfilmguy Yes i do believe in keeping the sabbath. And no I don't see a difference both being Gay and a pedophile are morally and absolutely wrong. NAMBLA has little protests and marches like the Gays do because they think they have the right to be with little boys. Either way it does not matter the will be judged and found guilty if the don't turn and repent from their sinful actions.
DMullins55 1 year ago
@DMullins55 1. I said "gathering sticks on the sabbath requires punishment by death." You agree with that? You equate pedophilia and homosexuality, but you ignore the outcomes. A pedophile is taking advantage of an innocent child. The act is not mutually agreed to by consenting adults. So the child is being abused and raped, literally and spiritually. I know many gay couples who form lifelong loving relationship and build a strong stable life together in that love. You have no basis to...
bcfilmguy 1 year ago
@DMullins55 2. ...call that evil other than cherry-picking from an outdated, contradictory book. You need to have a stronger basis for callings something "absolutely wrong" other than writings that only have credibility to you; the source cannot be verified or investigated. So your point is pathetic.
Don't mind debating different points of view, dude, but if you wanna continue this come at it with something more original. Look at other comments here and you'll find yours is a carbon copy. Peace.
bcfilmguy 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DMullins55 "If gays say this is how god made me then a pedophile could say the same thing right?"
No. Pedophilia is not a sexual orientation. Pedophelia is a psychiatric disorder. Pedophiles can be of any sexual orientation--and the majority of them are straight, by the way. Equating the two is just more baseless fearmongering.
TheStrong32 1 year ago
Here is a brief outline for you. Homosexuals are demanding "rights" and claim they are being "discriminated" against. I must have missed the part where they are second class citizens? Marriage is the "right" most commonly referred to, but I fail to see the discrimination, a gay man can marry a lesbian woman and it is perfectly legal. Ah, but you say that is not the point, ok then before we can assign rights we must define the group, correct?
itastallion04 1 year ago
@itastallion04 So how do you define the group known as homosexuals, after all, for race and gender all you need is a simple blood test. Oh wait, that won't work here, essentially the only basis that can be determined supporting gay rights are emotions. There is no factual information supporting a truly genetic cause for homosexuality, there are correlary studies, but those PROVE nothing. Therefore desire is dictating the demand for "rights" and nothing more.
itastallion04 1 year ago
@itastallion04 "There is no factual information supporting a truly genetic cause for homosexuality, there are correlary studies, but those PROVE nothing."
Of course there is no "gay gene." No one's arguing that now. There is, however, more to the question than mere genes. There is epigenetics. There is pre-natal hormonal activity, there are physiological differences in brain function. Just because science doesn't have a definitive answer right now, doesn't mean it won't find one (cont.)
TheStrong32 1 year ago
@itastallion04 (cont.) Remember, the fact that science doesn't have a definitive answer yet imperils your argument too: Science has not proven that homosexuality is a choice.
TheStrong32 1 year ago
Why would a gay man want to marry a lesbian? Gay people are 2nd-class citizens because they cannot marry the person of their choice, can be fired from their jobs or evicted from their apartment and are banned from adopting kids in many states. Also, they're the frequent targets of violence and bigotry (thought that isn't sanctioned by the government, gov't officials to a great job of persecuting.) Are you as a straight person worried about being fired if they find out you're straight?
bcfilmguy 1 year ago
@itastallion04 " I fail to see the discrimination"
If you fail to see the discrimination agains gays, you are either stupid or wilfully ignorant. Just look at a newspaper & online news sources. Look up "gay bashing" or "homophobia" and you will find hundreds of examples. Look at the laws of differnt states which forbid homosexuals to marry and/or adopt, or which forbid legal protection of housing or employment. Look at the tax code. Look at immigration policies. And the list goes on.
TheStrong32 1 year ago
@Atrain292 And one by one: No it doesn't. Nope, you encourage not being ashamed of yourself.
Lack of procreation? Really? That's todays problem? The institution of marriage, if it ever was one, has been killed many times over. It's just a way society copes with couples. Is marriage intended for a 65+ couples? No, it’s for people in love who want to live together.
wimscheers 1 year ago
...that said, there is more danger in that relationship because an incestuous relationship can yield children regardless of legal recognition, whereas no gay couple has a child by accident.
bcfilmguy 1 year ago
@Atrain292 The fact u sink to calling me a dumbass in trying to argue your position really indicates how much your views are based on anger and prejudice rather than rationale. I love how hypocritical people can be. Why don't you outlaw divorce if marriage is so sacred? Straight people take the institution for granted until another group wants to be included. Blood relatives cannot marry (for one because to encourage children in that relationship would yield a plethora of disorders)...
bcfilmguy 1 year ago
@Atrain292 I'd be with you if gay marriage was REPLACING straight marriages but it's not. We're talking about inclusion, not change. Allowing it does not diminish anything. Gays can have children, and many do. This is no different than allowing infertile/non-procreative-by-choice to have the same rights. I'm sorry, but I truly believe the main opposition comes from people not wanting to have to acknowledge this sect of society exists. Recognition makes it harder to keep people in the shadows.
bcfilmguy 1 year ago
Thank you for being a fellow supporter in the topic. Hopefully every video that deals with this equally will be seen as it should be.
alex1209 1 year ago
(6) children if they want.
Your arguments are not new or original, but thanks for giving your thoughts anyways.
BC
bcfilmguy 1 year ago
(5) you are not required to be married to have children. If you want to play the procreation card, make a move to invalidate all marriages that don't produce children if that's the sole purpose. Marriage has evolved and today it is universally recognized as a special union between 2 people who are saying "our relationship is special, different from other friendships I have. This is the one person whom I want to spend my life with." Children are optional, and gays have the option to have...
bcfilmguy 1 year ago
(4) Look at the infidelity and divorce rates. If you support Brittany Spears being legally allowed to be married for 52 hours but not extend the rights to a couple who has been lovingly committed for decades, I don't know what else to say. Do a little research on the history of marriage, man. Marriage was once a way to acquire property and nothing more. It has evolved. It is not centered around having children. You are not required to have children to be married and...
bcfilmguy 1 year ago
(3) I guess you have no problem with lesbianism then since no "taking it up the ass" is involved. "let them do their thing but they cant ruin the institution of marriage just because they want to be married gays can do their own thing. Marriage is made for governing couples who intend to procreate with one another and raise their own children." I think straight couples are "ruining" the institution well enough on their own by cheating or getting divorced...
bcfilmguy 1 year ago
(2) who "encourages" you. It's not a choice, man. Like it or not there are always going to be gay people. It appears in virtually every country, society on the planet, even in countries where the punishment is death.
"Humans and animals are made to procreate (not take it up the ass.)" Homosexuality occurs in nature. Do your research. It has been observed in countless animals. And, your fixation on anal sex is typical of uninformed people who think being gay is centered around that...
bcfilmguy 1 year ago
@Atrain292 While I disagree with your points I appreciate you actually put down your arguments rather than just spewing obscenities like some other posters. To address you points: "being gay runs against evolution. By permitting gay marriage you are encouraging being gay" This shows how little you understand the subject. Are you consciously making an effort not to "be gay?" If you aren't attracted to the same sex emotionally and sexually you're not going to "be gay" no matter...con'td
bcfilmguy 1 year ago
Raving sick dum# $#% now thats gay territory by all standard keister king.Im here for the entertainment.(dont be mad that that is all you are to me gerbal boy....its just the way it is) What other rodents do you sicko,s stick up your butts anyway....(snicker...but seriously????)
mastersduhgree 1 year ago
@mastersduhgree Dude seriously, a major fixation on gay images. Again you're trolling in the middle of the night for gay vids. There are plenty of sites that can help you with that. Your writing style indicates a 5th grade education and someone who suffers from severe personality disorder. It really doesn't bother me. Your arguments don't hurt because they are coming from someone so depraved and pathetic it just reinforces that views from people like you are groundless. And it's spelled GERBIL
bcfilmguy 1 year ago
Comment removed
mastersduhgree 1 year ago
@mastersduhgree Well, well. You're the one who took the time to listen to an 8.5 minute video and come up with some graphic images here, Mduh. I'm not one of those who thinks every homophobe is secretly gay, but anyone who displays the obsession you have judging by your interest in gay-related vids I wouldn't be surprised if you were. And I never said there weren't people who'd like to marry their dogs. I said society is intelligent enough to realize dog marriages could not be mutually accepted.
bcfilmguy 1 year ago
@bcfilmguy This is just entertaining to me kiester king.Um...heh....society is inteligent? Some of society thinks attaching affections meant for another gender should be accepted by the part of society that finds it grossly deplorable behaviour ...naturaly. Really...i just like sticking my foot in your torn rectum.
mastersduhgree 1 year ago
And if my examples are so cherry-picked, then give me some better ones, assuming you can without slinging the garbage you have here. A little piece of advice, if you want people to take your point seriously, try to talk like a human being and not a raving sick dumbass. I'll debate your points if you want, but if they're based only on your ignorance and no reason or rationale, then it would be a waste of time. (PS. Pretty early to be up watching gay marriage videos by the way, straight guy.)
bcfilmguy 1 year ago
@bcfilmguy Reason and rationale?Heh....thats why you get poop slung in your face and laughed at all the way to the pet store for more gerbals.Didnt figure that out yet huh?You think you catch poop with your face because you possess reasoning?....heh....thats kinda funny.
mastersduhgree 1 year ago
@mastersduhgree Dude seriously, a major fixation on gay images. Again you're trolling in the middle of the night for gay vids. There are plenty of sites that can help you with that. Your writing style indicates a 5th grade education and someone who suffers from severe personality disorder. It really doesn't bother me. Your arguments don't hurt because they are coming from someone so depraved and pathetic it just reinforces that views from people like you are groundless. And it's spelled "gerbil"
bcfilmguy 1 year ago
@bcfilmguy Ahahaha....You know how to spell gerbil ehhh...ahahaha.Well anyway dude.....attacking for the incorrectness of spelling again.sheesh...thats so pathetic.Anyway....Have you made a gerbil crawl up yer kiester? How does it feel? dont you feel sorry for the little animal?Its dying up yer butt.Just so you can have that loving feeling. Thats so mean of you terrible homo people.Why dont you butt humpers invent something that does what a gerbil does.Dont they make a toy like that?
mastersduhgree 1 year ago
I only attack your spelling because it's evidence you're typing in a mad rage of stupidity without stopping to check what you're writing. You've clearly got an obsession with gerbils and I hope you don't ever act on it; it's not fair to the animals (although when a redneck has sex with an animal I'm not sure if it's technically beastiality.) You're clearly incapable of talking intelligently, so unless you want to debate some real points of substance, I'm not going to waste my time anymore.
bcfilmguy 1 year ago
@mastersduhgree WOAH! Ahahaha. Just looked at your page. You are obsessed dude. How many gay-centered videos are you watching? Everything you comment on is gay rights-related. That's textbook to someone who is dealing with internalized homophobia. So funny. Seriously, you're up in the middle of the night seeking out gay videos to comment on? Don't you realize how funny that is? Priceless, dude. Thanks. You made my day.
bcfilmguy 1 year ago
I like this video the most. This is the new way of thinking and its going to change everything
guyver2095 1 year ago
I asked for valid reasons in my video too, and no one gave me any.
morguebabe 2 years ago
Haven't really been too vocal on the transgender issue so far in my videos, but I think that it's hard enough to be happy in this world and a person who genuinely feels in themselves that they were not born the correct sex (and there is science to back this up) should be able to take whatever steps they want to make themselves feel comfortable. You'd think the conservatives would be all for gender reassignment surgery since they obsess so much about what goes where. That fixes it, doesn't it?
bcfilmguy 2 years ago
this is a great arguement. but too bad im an atheist(: but i believe that love, is a connection between two people, it shouldn't matter the color or gender. and true, there are religions out there that believe in a gay marrage. but we all are our own people, why do we focous on the monority religion.
HesMyObsession666 2 years ago
Oh, yeah, Senator Man-on-dog... I miss him, heh.
Great vids. Will definitely check your vids. :)
DblOSmith 2 years ago
If God is all knowing, all loving and MORALLY PERFECT. And if the bible is the word of God. And if the bible says that gay marriage is wrong (which it does). Then that would mean that gay marriage is wrong. If this all knowing, perfect, all powerful creator of the fricken universe, who is morally perfect ,says that something is morally wrong then I'm going to stick with God on this one instead of yourself.
pricer5 2 years ago
JOSHUA 10:12
Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed...
Your "word of God" also claims that the sun revolves around the earth and that wearing linen and wool is an abomination. Also, it's interesting that Jesus never preached about homosexuality if it is so important.
bcfilmguy 2 years ago
This is just another classic misunderstanding of the bible. Atheists love staring at versus in the old testament. I'm talking about your comment about wearing linen, those were ceremonial laws which we are not to live by anymore, we are not living in the old testament right now are we?Those laws were for a specific group of people for a specific period tme for specific reasons.Jesus may have not said anything specifically about it but God did,Jesus is God so it is irrelevant is Jesus mentions it
pricer5 2 years ago
You're right, we're not living in the OT times. We're not living in the New Testament times either. And NO, God did not say anything about being gay. Paul did. I know your answer (correct me if I'm wrong) will be that God was working through Paul. But this is no more valid than Islamic fundamentalist terrorist who believe Allah is commanding them to blow themselves up.
bcfilmguy 2 years ago
You're right, God did work through Paul. But comparing the bible to other religions and other Gods such as Allah, they are not as credible and have no evidence to back up their claims. The bible is the only religious text that has hundreds of fufilled prophecies, written by people such as Paul. And I think you have been watching too much zietgeist. To say that the stories in the bible were borrowed from earlier religions...these claims have been refuted time and time again.
pricer5 2 years ago
Name one prophecy that has been fulfilled that is specific enough that it could not have been written out by nothing more than a human brain. And Zeitgeist is not a reliable source for all of this information. It is accepted among biblical scholars and common people alike that Christianity is a reworking of earlier religious stories. This has not been properly refuted because it is true. It's standard story structure. I think YOU have been watching too much Left Behind.
bcfilmguy 2 years ago
(cont'd) Also, the bible did not descend from the clouds in completed form. There are dozens and dozens of tractates that were excluded from canonization. Had they been included, you would be defending them as the "word of god." Denying civil rights based on a contradictory book of ancient superstitions borrowed from earlier religions and re-branded is as rational as dancing naked in a field of heather to bring fortune upon your Nintendo Wii scores. The fact this even needs a debate is sickening
bcfilmguy 2 years ago
Also what are some of these contradictions, or things that have been changed in the bible. There exist today thousands of original handwritten manuscripts that date back over two thousands years ago. The dead sea scrolls for example contain every book of the OT except for Esther. We compare these writings to the bible we have no and nothing has been changed or re written. And I am NOT TRYING TO DENY PEOPLES RIGHTS. I said I think homosexuality is wrong, immoral, but I;m not out there protesting
pricer5 2 years ago
There are no original surviving texts from the bible. The oldest fragment that exists is a creditcard sized piece from Mark which is dated as several decades after the original book was written. If you take all of the copies of the new testament that exist up until the invention of printing and compare them, there are more differences between the manuscript than there are WORDS in the new testament. Now, most of the differences are simple mistakes from hand copying that don't mean much...cont'd
bcfilmguy 2 years ago
But there are other, more irreconcilable differences. Ex: Is Jesus crucified on the day of preparation for the passover or on the day after the passover? Two gospels give different accounts. Were there 3 wisemen or 3 shepherds? Also, open your bible and look at the last twelve verses of Mark. There is a good chance that they are either in parenthesis. This is because these 12 verses do not appear in the earliest copies of the gospel of Mark. They were added to suggest that...cont'd
bcfilmguy 2 years ago
the women who fled actually did go and tell the story of Jesus' resurrection, whereas the original texts stated that the women fled and "didn't say anything to anyone, for they were afraid." Another ex, the story of the woman taken into adultery and "let he who is w/o sin..." is a beautiful story, but it also does not appear in the earliest copies of the gospel. Scholars accept that this story was added later many years later.
bcfilmguy 2 years ago