your ? cant be answered since you already have a view that will not be altered in any way which was made clear by your statement that the opposition to prop 8 is an ill founded view. clearly you just want to stir up the pot and watch the prop 8 opposers go off.
BUT I do have to say that history, morals, values, humanity, ideas, etc evolve. nothing stays the same. if it did this world would be boring. even christian beliefs evolve. and this has nothing to do with equal rights for children.
OMG I so agree. Why nowadays do we set up anything as being irrelevant? I mean, a good example would be those pesky negros. Why is it less important now that they are separated from us than it was through all of history? Those goddam blacks impeding on my religious freedom. /sarcasm
please grow a brain. Then make a logical video. So many things we have done all the way throughout history we have now found were in fact ridiculous. Discrimination against women, for example.
okay, seriously, our society needs to propagate like i need a hole in my head. the worlds population is well over 6 billion and counting. WE DONT NEED ANY MORE FUKCING PEOPLE THAN WE ALREADY HAVE. thers going to come a time when the earth wont be able to sustain the amout of people living here. its not like straight coouples are dissapperaing, there will always be people out their to make babies. but if thier are a few people out their who want to not have children let em we dont need extra kids
I think I sort of understand what you're getting at here and in historical reality, marriage was between opposite genders for two things:
1- the acquiring of the wife as property
2- procreation
As you can see, the rights of children don't fall into the historical history of marriage, rights of children are actually a fairly recent concept.
Most people these days don't use either of those reasons to get married. Therefore, the old institution of marriage holds little value to modern culture.
Have you resorted to name-calling? I did not realize I was talking to a teenager ...
This "hole" is actually a very popular position amongst legal philosophers. The purpose of the law is for order and upholding the fundamental principles of justice. It is not about holding people up to a higher standard of morality.
I honestly don't believe you know much about natural law theory. I suggest you read Fuller, because he's good. He might give you some ammo for future arguments.
This is not about Canada vs. the US. This is about legal moralism, which has been long rejected in the West ... we need something more concrete when we are justifying illegality.
But if you want to talk morality, lets talk about Lon Fuller! The Eight moral principles of legality ... and in using these principles, funny thing, it would appear that Prop 8 was not only illegal, but immoral.
You seem very lost. I never assumed what your morals are. You assume I care what your morals are.
The argument "it doesn't affect you" relates to the Harm Principle, which frankly is not my favorite argument. It states that only harmful behaviours should be punished, whereas behaviours that do not create harm should be allowed. Gay marriage creates no harm, and therefore "affects" noone. It is irrelevant that it is against your morals; law has never been solely justified by morality. Rape does create danger and harm; "it affects" us.
Of course rape affects other people. If we were to let the rapist run free than we place other people at risk of being raped. Furthermore, a society that does not punish sexual assault sends out the message that it is okay to physically assault other people in a way that will violate said victim's sexual integrity. We do not outlaw sexual assault because SOME people find it morally abhorrent. We do it because such behaviour creates harm. I do not believe you understand the debate.
By your point of view, women should still be forced to stay in the home. Just because gender has always played a big role doenst mean thats how it should be.
oh just shut up already grow up where not saying that "EVERYONE WHO SAIS NO ON PROP 8 IS GAY!" where saying let people love who they want to love. shut up, get an education, become a better human being.
you know, so did survival of the fittest. You know what I think is funny, it's really quite obvious to me you are partially retarded. That propegates negative traits, detremental to the advancement of the human race, so... shouldn't everyone with disabilities also have their right to marry taken away, to preserve humanity? There are plenty of idiots out there reproducing, millions actually. I'm not worried about population dwindling. We'll continue to reproduce until we need to colonize the moon
I would say i don't have a problem with homos getting married, having equal rights etc. but i don't accept they can force people in a democracy to believe homosexuality (not the impulse) is natural, moral, or can equal a marriage, but i don't think you'd understand. see my homosexuality playlist. if you still want, comment outside the vids (i didn't upload them hence i won't recieve them). bye
I wish I could find this youtube, but it's from a couple centuries ago. The guy wondered why all of a sudden slavery was such a bad thing. There had been slavery throughout all of history, and now some radicals wanted to get rid of it.
Obviously if things have been a certain way for a long time, they should remain that way. What kind of idiot disagrees with THAT?
I should also find the old youtube where someone explains why women should continue to remain the property of men.
some things in life are wrong ndeserve liberation. some things dont. yat, its not just about the status quo. in this case,I don't have a problem with homos getting married, having equal rights etc. but i don't accept they can force people in a democracy to believe homosexuality (not the impulse) is natural, moral, or can equal a marriage, but i don't think you'd understand. see my homosexuality playlist. if you still want, comment outside the vids (i didn't upload them hence i won't recieve them
For you see, to attempt to dismiss homosexual marriage because of no historical precedent, is unfortunately quite fallacious and easily debunked.
Less than a century ago, interracial marriage lacked any historical precedent, and itself faced opposition of those who decried it socially destructive.
And yet? Here we are today. :)
The tide is changing, and our empire of logic and compassion burgeons from the hearts of intellect and love.
What logical justification can you provide that explains how giving homosexuals a civil liberty undermines or threatens the same civil liberty of heterosexuals?
On what basis does the marriage granted to a community of 5-10% of the world (depending on citation) pose a risk to the marriages of the greater majority?
On what foundation can you validate that homosexual marriage should not be allowed because it is unprecedented in history?
Granting civil acknowledgement of homosexual marriage in no way undermines the importance of heterosexual marriage, unions, or procreation.
Your question itself asked "why doesn't gender matter anymore?" which is in fact a simple red herring. Gender DOES matter, and no one seeks to trivialise heterosexual marriage or procreation.
Well, I am giving my comment... gender doesn't matter... love is love... having children is not the reason people get married.. get a life... people can get married and have no children at all... right?
Don't be so sure Prop. 8 will not be overturned. The California Supreme Court continues to surprise everyone. If it does, I think the NO voters will put it on the ballot first in 2012 and it will pass. It took a long time for blacks and whites to marry. OMG, the skys falling. That gets so tired. I know eventually it will. 8 did pass with 52% only because of the extreme desception of the yes people and the Mormon church. The Mormons really gave a bad name to organized religion.
Please understand the difference between the word "gender" and the word "sex." "Sex" delineates someone's sexual organs, but "gender" refers to a socially constructed set of ideals for each "sex".
In your video, replace the word "gender" with "sex" to make your point.
And remember, maybe to YOU gender roles matter... But to others, they are not so important.
In the end, "sex" has nothing to do with it. It's all about LOVE.
Sex has a lot to do with it because it is not about just two consenting adults. It's not just about the relationship of two consenting adults. Family is about so much more than that, which is why the dynamics emergent from different pairings of the sexes does matter, not because it changes the feelings the consenting adults have for each other, but because it impacts what they are able to provide for children that come within the purview of their condition.
I think you missed my point. I was just pointing out that there is a huge difference between the word "sex" and the word "gender," and for your purposes in your video, you are using the wrong word.
But you reply by bringing up a different point, which is where you imply that a child needs two different sexes, or he/she won't be properly provided for. I strongly disagree; and having been raised half my life by two women, all I can tell you is, again, it doesn't matter. It's just about LOVE.
Thanks JerseyGirl! It is this kind of hate and propoganda that got the 52% vote. They put fear into people. I would be way more scared to have someone like HiveRadical, then a gay couple living next door to me. He is a supremisist.
I've talked to a great many gay people o4s, I give judgement on the merits their relationship has with regard to the perpetuation of our culture, the fact that they seek marriage means they want a statement from our society on their relationship, if they want such a statement then society should have a say one whether or not they receive such.
And them being born one way or another is to miss the point. Being born a certain way doesn't inherently obligate society to anything.
"Perpetration of our culture? " Wow, you are one fucked up person. I try not to cuss, but what you just said is unbelievable. Homosexuals ARE NOT looking for a "statement from society". They shouldn't even HAVE to ask ANYONE to get married. The No on 8 voters didn't put Prop 22 or 8 on the ballot. It was the right wingers that want to dictate their beliefs on others. Such hypocracy, my blood boils. They lied their way into winning 52% of the votes. You make me sick and I am straight. Fuck you!
biological advancement-population's big enough now and people won't magically turn gay just because gay marriage is legal.
societal advancement-right just like allowing men and women to work the same jobs weakened gender differences and thats why society doesnt exist any more. oh wait.
No equality for kids?-What about kids whose parents are gay? When their parents can't get marriage and its benefits then the kids can't benefit from those benefits either.
Just noticed your sizable response. Will have to answer it latter as it's pretty late for me and I'm exhausted and have plenty that I need to get done tomorrow.
Why do they want to do this you ask? I'll tell you why. To make marriage between two men legal makes it an acceptable value. To make gay marriage acceptable makes gay dating also acceptable and that recruites the 13 year old male to think dating AKA sex with an older man a more acceptable practice. Hey these jerks have made it even easier to molest young boys. Forget about Mormon opposition. Those of us who are not religious are just as outraged. The CA supremes are about to rip us off again!
Amen Danny! There are a lot of straight married couples that can not have children. And their are a lot of straight couples that completely fuck up their children. Thanks for your imput
Gender is central and crucial to the concept of marriage (as you seem to feel from your use of "propagate") only if you think marriage is only for making babies. That love, family, stability, happiness, legal status, all the other parts of modern marriage are of zero importance.
There are straight couples who can't produce children. Until you are willing to forbid them marriage then your argument fails.
LGBT couples can seek sperm donors, can adopt. But it's not just about babies.
I will post these as parts with a letter assigned, just go alphabetically!
Part A:
Okay, even though I should really be writing a paper, I'll take a break to be more specific with you. First you ask about the irrelevancy of gender in our current society, as in why it is now less important than earlier on in our history. Lets first ignore the assumption that people against prop 8 find gender irrelevant.
Lets just say they do: Well an easy comparison can be made to civil rights (regardless of whether you think this is appropriately as grave) For many years interracial marriages were not allowed, and prior to this black people were enslaved.
Eventually the law changed, peoples general outlooks changed, some quickly, and some slowly. Does this mean that race became irrelevant and that today it is less important than it once was? No. It just is now used less as a factor of discrimination.
That certainly doesn't change the fact that people of different races have different cultural values, look different, have different preferences, and sometimes have physical inclinations toward certain activities. This is not a discrimination standpoint though, merely the truth of every person. If there was no discrimination based on race, would race become irrelevant? No, mainly for the reasons I have stated.
Although eventually we will probably melt into one sort of race: mutt, and I bet we'll look cool! So in that regard, I would say you are correct that gender is not irrelevant.
Now lets go back to the assumption that those against prop 8 make this claim. Sure, someone might say, "who you love is what is important, gender is irrelevant." But they probably don't mean it in the way you are taking it.
Gender is certainly relevant, considering that is what the issue is about, that is obvious. What people MEAN when they make a claim like that is "We love each other, why does it matter if we are the same gender" These are two VERY different things. Certainly to those who are attracted to someone of the same sex, gender is important as it usually is what brings the lust about in all of us.
Now having someone say "why can't we get married, our genders do not matter" is more accurately said as "Why do our genders stop us from being married, why do YOU care? and why should we have to be politically subjugated just because you care, considering we are the ones in the relationship?" Yes, rag tag, I know, I'm in a hurry.
You claim that gender has been important in our society and culture, and basically has allowed us to reproduce. Sure, most definitely. But I am guessing you are now taking the step from "gender has been important", to "they think it is not important", to "if we devalue gender then our society well degrade and we will stop reproducing as well". Except, there is no good logical way to get from 1 to 2 and from 2 to 3 when you look at facts.
I have already posited that number 2 is false. Now even if you still wanted to say that gay marriage can lead to the failure of society and reproduction in a large or small way, you still would not find any factuality behind these statements.
Gay men and women do not cease to be men or women. If anything, those who have been repressed, taunted, and physically harmed during certain parts of history (as homosexuality has always existed) can now live happily.
Just because gay people come out does not mean that MORE gay people will be created! I mean, could someone make YOU gay? No. No one chooses to be sexually attracted to someone, although they can make the choice to not act upon their true feelings, but that is NOT choosing to not be gay. Being gay is not a choice, living openly is, although for many people it is impossible to be so unhappy!
I mean if you were told all you life you had to have sex with men, but you are actually straight, wouldn't it be hard for you to make yourself sleep with men and pretend you just wanted to be friends with girls? And if you let on any hint of liking them, people would ostracize you.
As for biological purposes, homosexuality serves the great purpose of curbing some reproduction. Gay men and women are far more likely to adopt than go through the expensive messy process of having their own children. Nature has several ways of keeping population growth to a minimum if necessary, and gay people are one part of that.
Now here is where you make quite of a jump, a leap over a big ravine actually.
You ask about equality for children to have a mother and father. Now I am assuming you mean a couple of things by this statement, correct me if I am wrong: 1. Children should have a male and female parent figure, and having two of one results in an inferior child, AND makes life harder because others will taunt them. and 2. Children should have a say somehow in this (?)
(I don't know, I suppose you were just going for a clever wordplay with using equality, who cares, I'm still going to argue it :) )
Well ACTUALLY, as I said in a previous comment, all studies (and there have been many done by various organizations and schools) show that having two parents of the same sex creates an environment which is exactly as well equipped to create a well-adjusted, productive, happy member of our society. No difference from a heterosexual couple.
As for single parents (because that is related) they generally have a harder time because they have less time and money than two people, duh, not because they lack a male or a female influence. You can get that from so many places, and it is a pretty vague concept anyway. But lets not get into a discussion about gender, because this is supposed to be a discussion about sexuality ;)
As to whether children should have a say, have an equal chance as to what type of family they are in: fuck that! If a straight couple can screw up, so can a homosexual couple and vice-versa. Tons of people have issues with their families, and usually it has nothing at all to do with sexual preference, but with general run of the mill human related shit.
And that's all for now! I have a paper to write and a film class to attend, sorry about the wordiness!
Wtf are you talking about? Dont compare two gay people in love to someone who would take the life of another person. Its unanimous that browsing through your comments, your arguements are paper thin and you really dont have a leg to stand on. You can have your own opinion.. thats fine, but before you make a fool of yourself, study your facts. Talk to a psychologist, a sociologist... do research on the subject and I bet your view will change.
Funny thing but unanimity in people's assertions doesn't make something so. If my arguments haven't a leg to stand on then point out the specificity of it.
BTW most of my facts in my videos are pulled from a psychology college text book used presently in virtually every psychology department.
As I consider myself a lesbian, I feel that I have some authority to say that he who is without sin may cast the first stone- Jesus fought for love and we are living in a world of hate- even though many consider themselves followers of such a compassionate man.
I am not religious. But I know that god chose this path for me and it is NOT wrong and it is NOT sinful. I love the woman I do because it is intended for me. Why can I not have the same rights as Britney Spears- sanctity of marriage???
I really revel in these comments. These bold assertions as to my failures yet the boldest of them and the most certain of them fail to actually answer my points or demonstrate clearly why my argument is 'pathetic.'
It's so much kindergarten "you're a stupid head!" genre.
Are these people really this disconnected from logic that they are unable to even enumerate a single point that would support their claims as to my 'absurdity' or the 'pathetic' condition of my argument?
Is it edited funky because your afraid to connect your real identity to these dumb f*cking cold-hearted comments? also...could you be any more boring with the monotone voice?
I fear for the welfare of those I love. People willing to vandalize and send false anthrax attacks demonstrate something of their thoughts and desires in such moronic acts and I'd be a moron myself to endanger those close to me if I didn't need to. If I had the means of defending them or if I didn't have to be concerned for their welfare I'd have no problem obscuring my face.
I'm delerious from staying up all night finishing my research paper so I won't attempt a good comment back. but I will say I still I was too hot headed in my comment..and true there are crazy people out there prone to anthrax attacks. how ever I still disagree with you. Gender very much plays a role in marriage..whether it is a man marrying a man, woman to woman, man to woman. it's all the same, you can't categorize love
Love is blind. Love is gender blind, race blind, appearance blind, you just feel what you feel&can not help who you fall in love with. No one should have the right to tell someone who they can and can not spend the rest of their life with. Whose to say THEIR religion is the correct one? Freedom of Religion is something we pride ourselves on, let's give everyone the chance to marry regardless of who they fall in love with. I'm still in shock this is even a question...We're America... ridiculous.
Hate and detesting and loathing can be just as blind. Does that mean we don't put restrictions on how people can manifest them? Since when does something seeming arbitrary or since when has having impulses that one doesn't initially choose make acting on those inherently good, or right, or to be sought after? It's the same mentality that's making us a diabetic and obese nation. Your view's akin to saying "let's give everyone a chance to call their thoughts science, regardless what they think!"
Are you proposing we don't allow divorce too? If you want a chance for a child to grow up w a mom&dad. How about if a parent dies, must we be required to marry again right away to"give the child that opportunity"?Times change,people change,our society changes. Gender used to be an important factor in many things. So was race. We have realized how inhumane, discriminatory and disgusting the laws on race were. Now's the time we need to realize how inhumane, discriminatory & disgusting prop8 is.
You also are demonstrating that you don't understand at all my position. Just as I've answered multitudes like fishhead with his type of comment I've also demonstrated that your comment is based on false assumptions and is doing nothing more than creating a straw man.
You're welcome to wail on that straw man all you want, but inferring my position, or what the conclusions of it are (when you display clearly that you don't know even what it is) will never actually scathe my position
gender has been a core concept of marriage for a long time. however, so has race,
finally, we realized that genes are of no importance when it comes to who you're allowed to love. if two people can understand what it is they're entering into, they deserve the opportunity to do so.
race doesn't matter.
gender doesn't matter.
it's exactly the same thing. some people love people of a same/different race. some people love people of a same/different gender.
I can point to two different structures found on the image of the structure of a flu virus and I can then point to two core parts of that virus. Yet one of the core components is constantly being altered so as to keep the virus adapting, in that way it is CORE, it's vital--yet changing. But other parts, if ever changed, render the virus useless and halt any strain that develops such a mutation. Simply saying that because one core component can change that another can is simply a fallacy.
that's a false analogy. marriage is something we invent and (re)define, while the virility of your virus exists with or without us.
even if it were an apt analogy, it still doesn't say what would make same-sex marriage fall into the category of "renders marriage useless". your point still begs the question, so it's just as bald an assertion as the raw claim "marriage should be between a man and a woman" which is what you're invoking the analogy to support.
No ATL45, it's not a false analogy because the analogy was placed to demonstrate that certain core attributes of any giventhing are variable and others are not, be that viruses or what have you. Trying to say that because they don't match up on all points that it's a false analogy is to miss the whole point of using analogies. analogies are comparing portions of things or processes or phenomena to portions of other things. You don't understand the use of analogies.
i realize that there are certain core attributes to things. however, what ARE the core attributes of marriage? they are whatever we define them to be. marriage is a concept completely invented by people, so we get to choose the core attributes
what makes opposite genders a core concept? a century ago, most people would have said that RACE was a core concept. "it's bad, it's wrong, they can't raise kids"
and you still didn't address the flaw that your analogy, valid or not, begs the question
Non-fertile heterosexual couples get married all the time. And homosexuality has always existed as a minority sexual expression without any discernible effect for good or ill on society in general. Since fertility or intent to procreate has never been a necessary condition for marriage; and since heterosexual unions will continue to be the dominant expression, I don't really see how your objections stand.
fishhead, PLEASE you are like the hundredth person to demonstrate that you have NO comprehension of my view. If you are genuinely interested in knowing why your statements have no relevance to what I'm saying please watch my other videos (or just read through the comments long enough, I swear I've answered this several dozen times).
Your post just demonstrates further the myopic view you're coming at this with. PLEASE inform yourself.
I've looked at three of your videos and I'm not so obtuse that I can't see your essential point. If there is a failure to understand on the part of 100 others, then perhaps you have simply failed to communicate your message clearly. You may evade it by cloaking it in arcane Platonic language about the "ideal" (whatever that is) family or social structure for the continuance of humanity (!), but what you are really arguing against is a state of being, with no evidence it undermines anything.
gender hasn't been important through human history... gays have always existed and always will... this isn't about the future of the human race man, we're gonna be gay no matter what so why not just let me marry who i want to? it has NOTHING to do with theology, secular views, the human race, or any of that...
If it hasn't been important throughout history then why is it important to you? People who kill have always existed, is that a logical premise upon which to have society foster conditions that enable killers?
I'd also be interested to know where you come up with your information regarding the impact of being raised in same sex households on "generations" of children as no such temporally expansive study has ever been conducted. All short term studies, however, show that children fair better in homes with TWO parents, irrelevant of the gender of those parents, which can be credited to the additional attention this allows to be paid to the child and the dual perspectives governing their upbringing.
Also, your comparison of DNA/Cancer with gay rights and the flawed adoption system is senseless, and misinformed. and again hinges on incorrect assumptions. In fact, DNA or gene therapy is being studied as a way to preemptively combat cancer among other diseases. Therefore your metaphor is self dismissing, and actually bolsters the argument for gay rights.
The point of this video hinges on the assumption that societies of "previous times" have been preferable to the society in which we live today, and furthermore, that they weren't governed by rules, such as discrimination informed by RELIGION, which would violate the constitution under which we live. Both of these assumptions are false, and so the argument is invalid. What you are promoting is gender discrimination, which goes beyond being antigay rights, to being sexist.
this is a prop based on morals. everyone has their morals.
but one day, i promise, one day people will start to believe that it's okay to love their brothers & sisters and will want ot marry them. then people will say who are we to judge them? let themmarry!
a line has to be drawn somewhere. marriage was made between a man and a woman.
but regardless, everyone has their opinions & the majority spoke.
respect the other more than 1/2 the people who support yes on prop 8
for real? you're comparing gay marriage to marriage between family members? how do you even make that jump and then think there's something wrong with homosexuals..?
seriously, people like this, its almost not worth it to argue with them. if they are so far gone to make such an illogical jump, it shows how little they have to say on the matter, and at this point anything logical you have to say to refute their measly little pathetic arguments will just be disregarded.
Gender is relevant now as we live in a society of equality and education. The election of an African-American president for the United States shows that the world is educated enough, and morally prepared to erradicate all remaining inequalities, hence the stupidity of prop 8.
Gender absolutely has played a role in defining our society.
Women have been discriminated against and oppressed based on gender; gays have been discriminated against and oppressed based on gender. Isn't it time we STOPPED LETTING gender and thus, discrimination play such an influential role in who we are as a society? It's not as though letting homosexuals marry will suddenly create a genderless race. This is the most poorly conceived argument I've heard on the subject in a long time.
I agree, this really just is... well, bad. I have heard many arguments against gay marriage, against gay rights, against gay people in general; and usually people end up making themselves look foolish. No exception here.
I really like the attempts he makes at trying to appear informed, logical, and scientifically studied though, they make me giggle.
Watch out. Production values stand to shoot up significantly in coming months. What will your response be when you don't have aesthetic issues and failures on my part on which to try and pin your unsupported assertions that I'm giving a 'bad argument'?
You see general protocol for critiquing argumentation is to give actual rejoinders rather than mere assertions of failure on the part of those you don't agree with.
So keep giggling. I'll keep refining my presentation and waiting for your points
actually I already made a couple in other comments I have left you; of course, you didn't bother to respond to those. How convenient. Oh, and by the way I actually have not mentioned your "aesthetic issues", which certainly are quite the problem. not. The problem is that you have bad logic, going from point A to point Purple.
**> If you are so concerned that we should "go check out your other videos" because they go "into more depth", you shouldn't have posted something which you now seem to think is a bad representation of your position.
I never said it poorly represented my position. I posted versions of my argument that were more concise and pointed because a great many people complained about having to go through videos in which I gave more indepth addressing of the issue. Again you've yet to actually point out the specifics of the 'bad logic' you claim is found in my argument.
Slight22, my apologies if I didn't respond as you would like. These things seem to come in massive barrages and while I care about these issues I lack the time and resources to always respond to everyone.
If that is what you think my argument is then you've missed it entirely. I have several other videos that go into far greater depth on the issue. I weary of answering the same tired old many times over refuted objections emergent from people's unwillingness to actually understand my position rather than from any failure in my logic or argumentation.
Marriage isn't about politics or religion or what you think is best for children. It's about love and the freedom individuals should have to express their union in the way people who are far less committed just get to whenever they want. The family unit is not in danger from homosexuals. It's in danger from poverty. It's in danger from abuse, rape, unemployment. Save your breath for issues that actually matter.
samskipsam Marriage is about what is best for the children. It's connections to love or freedom for individual expressing their union only have relevance or meaning in how they impact for the betterment the welfare of society and thusly the welfare of children who are the future of society.
And if I'm wasting my breath on this than so too are you ;)
I'd argue everyone here is wasting their breath. Nobody is going to change their mind at the end of the day.
Children are a part of some marriages, but definitely not what marriage is about. Marriage is about union, commitment, love. Not about having kids. You have kids when you want a family, regardless of marriage status. An unmarried couple can raise children just as well as one that is married.
i understand the want to keep a family unit together, but i have a question for you, are you opposed to single parents either adopting or having kids alone? curious.
I'm against single people having kids, that is conceiving and baring, alone. I believe that society should do far more to promote adoption among married couples and that placing children with single or unmarried children should be an option only taken when the better option is not available. But I also think much more should be done to foster healthy adoptions (that is ones in which the welfare of the child is a requisite core threshold) by committed married couples generally.
Gender is irrelevant because we've never tried gay marriage before. Of course you'd assume children need a man and a woman as parents and that it's the only tried and true method for raising a child; I'm willing to bet you've never met gay parents. Regardless, it's pretty clear that the ability of the couple to raise a child is irrelevant to this country's concept of marriage when a pedophile, a criminal and a wife/child abuser can all get married under this system. They make great parents...
Having not 'tried gay marriage before' doesn't make gender irrelevant. That's like saying that dynamics between dna and rna are irrelevant because we've never witnessed a complete biological system in which only RNA was present. The fact that we haven't tried out something doesn't mean that the dynamics of the present system are irrelevant. That's just bad logic.
How much are you willing to bet?
BTW I spent several years in the bay area in sunny CA so i wouldn't put too much money on that one.
So, you're against gay marriage because it's not what's best for children? Are you against single-parent homes, parents who are little people, elderly parents, minorities who are discriminated against, unattractive people who'll make unattractive children who may be teased?
I am against the fostering the creation of single parent homes, do you think we should foster single parent homes? I'm not saying we hinder or fight against single parents, god forbid we do that, but we don't go and advocate and promote that single people have kids. As for your other points they simply demonstrate further that you don't understand what I'm advocating nor what I'm opposing.
The question in your video is "why is gender irrelevant?" Um who is saying that ? The gender of whom I choose to marry is totally relevant. And it should not be any of your business. I do not get to vote on whom you are marrying. You should not have the right to vote on whom I marry.
If my religion says it is OK to marry someone of the same sex as me then yours has no business telling mine that it can't.
So take your Mormon brainwashed mind and shut the fk up!
RE:"..who is saying that--that gender is irrelevant--"
That's the de facto stance of placing gay relationships on the same level as heterosexual ones. It's just inherently what you are advocating when you place them on, or advocate the placing of them on, the same legal footing.
If marriage is a contract recognized by society then society does ##^
##^ have a say in what it is and what it does or doesn't consist of. If you want to be recognized by society as a unit fostered by society then we most certainly do have a say in what the nature of that arrangement can and cannot be.
HR, you do just like everyone I have blogged with so far on this issue. You ignore most of the points contradicting yours and start citing others that have nothing to do with the immediate discussion because you don't have a good answer when confronted.
When gays in California get the right back to marry it will be on the same legal footing as opposite-sex marriages. So of course that is what I am advocating. As far as society which you are using to replace "majority". ->
One of the intentions of the U.S. Constitution is to prevent the majority from tyrannizing a minority. Give an example of how gays getting married affects you personally?
Will it hurt your marriage ?
Will it hurt your children in some way?
If 50% of marriages end up in divorce now then children are being much more affected by opposite sex marriage than by gay marriage.
I used to agree that the ideal parents would be a man and woman. I came to realize that it is two loving parents. --->
---> It does not matter the genders, two loving parents of any gender works just fine for children.
Children are subjected to all kinds of situations and every family has its dysfunctions.
Your comment in an earlier reply about dynamics of gay marriage being fatal to society is so absurd and can only be based on your hatred of homosexuals because it cannot be backed up with any facts pointing to that. Gays make up too small a percentage to cause the destruction of society.
Your video was suggested viewing when I went to one promoting actions tomorrow night in various cities in CA.
I have seen a whole bunch of disgusting examples used to try and discredit everyone who is gay. Your association that being gay is like a cancer is a first. At least at the cellular level anyway. It is also totally absurd and what you are saying about them in regards to reproducing and longevity having something to do with being gay is totally ridiculous.
The Washington Post, Times Herald (1959-1973). Washington, D.C.: Apr 24, 1973. p. B6. "I have rethought my position and I believe my original conclusion is correct. Homosexuality is unnatural. Individuals who prefers members of their own gender as sex partners are sick."
Because the composition of what our society holds up as an ideal foundational unit of cultural transmission impacts my posterity and the future of humanity to a degree that's absolutely massive.
Because the reasons natural selection selected for the common and most basic foundational unit of society always having both genders as key components in it is not trivial. The sexes present in a union impact that emergent dynamics of that union which in turn are formative to any offspring/humanity.
It's not merely because they can't reproduce, it goes beyond that. It's because, all other things being equal, they do not produce the optimal dynamics for transmitting human society/culture. Because the sex of the individuals in a relationship has a real impact on the dynamics that come out of that. Such is demonstrable in facts such as gay male couples self reporting non-monogamy rates in excess of 80% & Lesbian couples self reporting rates that exceed that of even non-committed hetero couples
so gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because they cant stay monogamous? Meanwhile over 50% of first time straight marriages end in divorce and that number increased by 10% for each marriage after that. Oh or how about a child is abused by his or her parents EVERY FEW MINUTES.
So tell me how that shocking information is " optimal dynamics for transmitting human society/culture". Because it sounds like whoring around and beating children to me.
The monogamy is just one issue (Your initial percentage is not accurate btw--you'll need to demonstrate your source to verify for us all it's validity--I can give you presently used college textbooks (sold at Yale and Harvard's book stores for their psychology courses) that have the percentage I'm giving). Do you think non-monogamy rates in excess of 80% would increase or decrease abuse rates?
And this goes beyond merely the issue of monogamy. Intimacy rates are another, among many, points.
Another point I would like to give is that the question of "Will you be monogamous" is not asked at ANY straight marriage! Anyone can get married without and worry about a monogamous relationship *just look at the drive thru vegas weddings"
So you should deny gays the right to marry because you want them to me monogamous?
Here is a better idea. Get rid of divorce...for EVERYONE. That will keep them in monogamous relationships. Whouldn't you agree?
I'm curious if you've watched any of my other videos on this topic, because if you did you find how many of your suppositions have already been answered. In fact if you merely go through the comment section of the videos you'd see that I've responded many many times to these points and responses and counter responses you seem to think are novel and your own little 'ace in the hole.' The
things you are presenting demonstrate more and more how little you actually understand with regard to the legitimate issues that many people have with the concept of 'gay marriage.'
And for your sake I'll still answer your point (though you refused to answer my question AND I've answered this point as it's been made by many long before you came along).
Will you have sex is also not asked in ANY marriage ceremony I'm aware of, so why do we associate it with marriage? The absurdities you're going to demonstrate the weak state of your argument. The fact that you bring up divorce being outlawed demonstrates that you miss the point entirely as to the "why" of marriage.
pont is dude, it will be legal down the road. So as much as you are not gonna like it. You are going to have to deal with it. Prop 8 conflicts with the constitution, it makes us second class citizens by denying us a common right to marry another human being. There is also a bill that will be passed to protect GLBT's from harassment.
So you will have to deal with it. Sorry that people actually want to be equal. I thought TOTAL equality for humanity was a good thing.
listen up justin. how about 90% of gay marriages ending up in divorces? how about homosexual molesters? google "homosexual molestation" and read up, pal.
and no, i dont have to deal with it, asshole. u remind me of this sicko mayor of san fran saying "whether u like it or not!" lol
anyway, what ure asking for is a privelage, not a right. where in constitution does it say u cant marry? any man can marry any woman and vice versa, no matter their age, religion, education level, etc.
"90% of gay marriages ending up in divorces" Well would probably be 9 out of 10 marriages because news flash idiot, gay's can't marry in the majority of places. P.S. that is the percentage of divorces after the 3rd straight marriage.
" dont have to deal with it, asshole" Yes you do, I new bill will be passed giving gays the freedom from any type of harassment based on their sexual preference. You bash a gay, you get hard time.
lol so u think if gays could marry in all states the statistics would change? ure the real idiot here, my friend. the main reason for gay divorces? infidelity. most gays cannot last 2 months with one partner. this is simply the lifestyle you like.
we will see about the new bill lol u know what it is going to come down to, right? that means that any fag bashing God will do time as well. the problem might be that they can happen to like being locked up.
Continued: "anyway, what ure asking for is a privelage, not a right. where in constitution does it say u cant marry?" Well the constitution has been changed to allow interracial marriage (You WOULD know this is you happend to be a smart individual) So gay marriage will be just the same way. "any man can marry any woman and vice versa, no matter their age, religion, education level, etc." Yes, and look at some of the mistakes these straight ppl have made! Divorce rates, abuse, abortions!
where in the constitution does it say about interracial marriage? please show me.
we already talked about divorces here, but lets move on to abuses. i have a friend who turned gay after being sexually molested by an old perverted doctor. google out "homosexual molestation" before u say anything.
Interracial marriage was highly illegal until the concept of marriage was changed and allowed two different races to marry legally.
I did google "Homosexual Molestation" The first site i got stated "Ann Landers (1) says the statement "Homosexuals are more inclined to molest children sexually than heterosexuals" is false." In the VERY FIRST SENTENCE.
Wow, you REALLY are proving your stupidity right now.
let me ask u again so maybe i get the answer im looking for: where in the constitution does it talk about interracial marriage? simple question. do a research.
You should really look Ann Landers before making another dumb reply. Here is a bit about her:
"In 1973, she wrote in support of the legalization of homosexual acts, saying that she had been "pleading for compassion and understanding and equal rights for homosexuals" for 18 years. Nevertheless, she described homosexuality as "unnatural," a "sickness," and a "dysfunction."
LOL yeaaaaaa, I see you copied that word for word from Wikipedia. The same website that allows users to change the articles aka the same website that told lies about shakil o neil being dead. Great source. Here is a better idea, why not use the movie Chuck and Larry for your arguments next time LOL
Oh and while you are googling your arguments, why not look into "Anti-miscegenation laws" that made interracial marriage illegal.
"it is credible enough" yeaaaaaa. SO i'm assuming that by watching Finding Nemo, I can say ""it is credible enough" in an argument about how fish can talk.
P.S. You have a gay friend? CONGRATS! I have a straight friend who ran over a cat the other day....so based on what he did should I assume that all straights are animal killers?
Use your head man. You can take off your football helmet, I heard the sky won't fall for a while...
now what ure doing is called a hasty generalization. anyway, i am not against gays as people. i am against the lifestyle they live in. lets put it this way: someone like a thief, for example, does not commit a crime until he actually steal something.
please dont try to outsmart me, kid.
i dont like football anyway (not that it matters).
You compare gay life style to crime. Let's examine shall we. A recent study has shown (using pheromones that are odorless) that gay men respond (just like women) to male pheromones compared to straight men who didn't respond to them at all.
NOW, since I am studying criminal behavior in college. Crime is a learned behavior, based on the surroundings of the criminal in question.
So how can a gay man LEARN to react to a colorless odorless pheromone?
"Down syndrome (DS), also called Trisomy 21, is a condition in which extra genetic material causes delays in the way a child develops, both mentally and physically. " It is genetic you tard lol. You thank you for agreeing with me that just like down syndrome or any other thing we are born with, we are also born straight or gay based on genetics.
Sexuality is based on hormones my friend. Science is revealing evidence that a homosexual happens to get some estrogen hormones mixed in with testosterone while developing. It is no different with your eye color. Your mom and your dad contribute color genes. Here, your mom and dad contribute hormones.
Well then walk up to a blue eyed woman and tell her that her brown eyed parents "screwed her up" too. See, I actually proved you wrong with every comment you left for me and your ONLY comeback is "well, they totally screwed u up then."
Wow, some straights must of been born with dysfunctional brains lol. I feel bad for your parents dude...they totally screwed u up.
As I just explained it to you, it is as natural and perfect as blue eyes and blond hair.
"Whether you like it or not" wow now you are starting to sound like that gay mayor...wait let me quote your comment from about an hour ago "u remind me of this sicko mayor of san fran saying "whether u like it or not!" lol "
It may or may not be true that some are genetically prone to same sex attraction, but to blame a behavior choice on genetics just doesn't hold water.Its like saying that because you have blue eyes you can only turn to the left at an intersection.Otherwise how do you explain bisexual beahavior?What you do in your sex life is your choice.Last time I checked there was no automaton gene.You don't sound like a mindless zombie why can't you own your personnal choices?
Well put Criterion. There may be desires or urges but if we allow them to define us through capitulation then we have nothing to differentiate us from the masses of species that have gone extinct. We have natures that we choose from, they may be strong but how we interact with them should be what defines us.
Well a gay man CAN choose to act or not on his urges, just like a straight man CAN act or not on his urges. Your point is irrelevant because it can be applied to both orientations and not just homosexual. You say this so we can be different than extinct species but there have been homosexual acts discovered in nearly ALL animal species BOTH alive and extinct. So how does your comment hold any validity?
"behavior choice" would also fall under straight couple too, I could say that your genetics trigger your hormones when you (idk if you are a guy or not) see a pretty woman. It IS your genetic makeup that TELLS your body at a subliminal uncontrolled level to feel aroused. What is to say that a gay man can feel the same?
As far as the bisexual behavior, I am bisexual myself. I can tell you know that I really do feel feelings for both genders. This is where the problem with orientation comes in. Who is to say what straight/gay is or what is even natural or unnatural. To say that my urges are unnatural would be just as valid as me saying that just straight or just gay urges are unnatural. Who determines what is right/wrong if we are all different?
I agree that a family is a basic unity of society, but most of families in the world today don't have a mother and a father. Some have no parents or just one parents. Some have abusive parents. Some have same sex parents. Family takes on many forms, and not just YOUR perspective.
"Nature itself tells us what is right here." 100% truth. Which why the gay lifestyle is natural because science is showing that it is a natural thing.
argument from tradition --> fallacy
my big problem is why the hell do you care what other people do if they're not bothering you?
Richy15251 9 months ago
by his reasoning we shouldn't have inter-racial marriage either because it wasn't in the bible. Or what about between classes? Read the bible.
futurelibralgamer93 10 months ago
your ? cant be answered since you already have a view that will not be altered in any way which was made clear by your statement that the opposition to prop 8 is an ill founded view. clearly you just want to stir up the pot and watch the prop 8 opposers go off.
BUT I do have to say that history, morals, values, humanity, ideas, etc evolve. nothing stays the same. if it did this world would be boring. even christian beliefs evolve. and this has nothing to do with equal rights for children.
plankboi 1 year ago
OMG I so agree. Why nowadays do we set up anything as being irrelevant? I mean, a good example would be those pesky negros. Why is it less important now that they are separated from us than it was through all of history? Those goddam blacks impeding on my religious freedom. /sarcasm
please grow a brain. Then make a logical video. So many things we have done all the way throughout history we have now found were in fact ridiculous. Discrimination against women, for example.
LittleMissAmbiguous 1 year ago
Greece
kafcin 1 year ago
Because in the eyes of the law there should be no gender. That simple, buddy.
showertile 1 year ago
okay, seriously, our society needs to propagate like i need a hole in my head. the worlds population is well over 6 billion and counting. WE DONT NEED ANY MORE FUKCING PEOPLE THAN WE ALREADY HAVE. thers going to come a time when the earth wont be able to sustain the amout of people living here. its not like straight coouples are dissapperaing, there will always be people out their to make babies. but if thier are a few people out their who want to not have children let em we dont need extra kids
shitTiT7777777 2 years ago
I think I sort of understand what you're getting at here and in historical reality, marriage was between opposite genders for two things:
1- the acquiring of the wife as property
2- procreation
As you can see, the rights of children don't fall into the historical history of marriage, rights of children are actually a fairly recent concept.
Most people these days don't use either of those reasons to get married. Therefore, the old institution of marriage holds little value to modern culture.
evilchibi4reel 2 years ago 10
Have you resorted to name-calling? I did not realize I was talking to a teenager ...
This "hole" is actually a very popular position amongst legal philosophers. The purpose of the law is for order and upholding the fundamental principles of justice. It is not about holding people up to a higher standard of morality.
I honestly don't believe you know much about natural law theory. I suggest you read Fuller, because he's good. He might give you some ammo for future arguments.
MiraxTerrik1 2 years ago
I watched the first 20 seconds of this video and then my eyes started hurting, so I'll answer the first question I heard.
Gender doesn't matter because love is love.
If people want to get married, they can. It doesn't make straight marriages any less legitamite.
lovealwaysemily 2 years ago
This is not about Canada vs. the US. This is about legal moralism, which has been long rejected in the West ... we need something more concrete when we are justifying illegality.
But if you want to talk morality, lets talk about Lon Fuller! The Eight moral principles of legality ... and in using these principles, funny thing, it would appear that Prop 8 was not only illegal, but immoral.
You seem very lost. I never assumed what your morals are. You assume I care what your morals are.
MiraxTerrik1 2 years ago
1) Video quality is terrible.
2) I can't make heads or tails of what you're saying.
CBGB42 2 years ago 5
Your morals are irrelevant.
MiraxTerrik1 2 years ago
Let me try again.
The argument "it doesn't affect you" relates to the Harm Principle, which frankly is not my favorite argument. It states that only harmful behaviours should be punished, whereas behaviours that do not create harm should be allowed. Gay marriage creates no harm, and therefore "affects" noone. It is irrelevant that it is against your morals; law has never been solely justified by morality. Rape does create danger and harm; "it affects" us.
The two concepts are simply unrelated
MiraxTerrik1 2 years ago
Of course rape affects other people. If we were to let the rapist run free than we place other people at risk of being raped. Furthermore, a society that does not punish sexual assault sends out the message that it is okay to physically assault other people in a way that will violate said victim's sexual integrity. We do not outlaw sexual assault because SOME people find it morally abhorrent. We do it because such behaviour creates harm. I do not believe you understand the debate.
MiraxTerrik1 2 years ago
By your point of view, women should still be forced to stay in the home. Just because gender has always played a big role doenst mean thats how it should be.
Colfaxdruggie 2 years ago
not exclusivly
idaman12345 2 years ago
well then why not just make marriage availible for the rich white people?
idaman12345 2 years ago
oh just shut up already grow up where not saying that "EVERYONE WHO SAIS NO ON PROP 8 IS GAY!" where saying let people love who they want to love. shut up, get an education, become a better human being.
andr0it 2 years ago
you know, so did survival of the fittest. You know what I think is funny, it's really quite obvious to me you are partially retarded. That propegates negative traits, detremental to the advancement of the human race, so... shouldn't everyone with disabilities also have their right to marry taken away, to preserve humanity? There are plenty of idiots out there reproducing, millions actually. I'm not worried about population dwindling. We'll continue to reproduce until we need to colonize the moon
lilismamadez 2 years ago
very one is stupid just vote yes on prop 8
sniper95827 2 years ago
Why? Prop 8 defies the constitution and takes away freedoms from a large minority. In other words it's Un-American to vote yes on prop 8.
the1andonlyjman 2 years ago
Gender is irrelevant, and our beliefs otherwise have served as stumbling blocks and methods of self-enslavement throughout history.
BlacknWhitesAlright 2 years ago
I would say i don't have a problem with homos getting married, having equal rights etc. but i don't accept they can force people in a democracy to believe homosexuality (not the impulse) is natural, moral, or can equal a marriage, but i don't think you'd understand. see my homosexuality playlist. if you still want, comment outside the vids (i didn't upload them hence i won't recieve them). bye
Playitalready 2 years ago
I wish I could find this youtube, but it's from a couple centuries ago. The guy wondered why all of a sudden slavery was such a bad thing. There had been slavery throughout all of history, and now some radicals wanted to get rid of it.
Obviously if things have been a certain way for a long time, they should remain that way. What kind of idiot disagrees with THAT?
I should also find the old youtube where someone explains why women should continue to remain the property of men.
robtish 2 years ago
some things in life are wrong ndeserve liberation. some things dont. yat, its not just about the status quo. in this case,I don't have a problem with homos getting married, having equal rights etc. but i don't accept they can force people in a democracy to believe homosexuality (not the impulse) is natural, moral, or can equal a marriage, but i don't think you'd understand. see my homosexuality playlist. if you still want, comment outside the vids (i didn't upload them hence i won't recieve them
Playitalready 2 years ago
For you see, to attempt to dismiss homosexual marriage because of no historical precedent, is unfortunately quite fallacious and easily debunked.
Less than a century ago, interracial marriage lacked any historical precedent, and itself faced opposition of those who decried it socially destructive.
And yet? Here we are today. :)
The tide is changing, and our empire of logic and compassion burgeons from the hearts of intellect and love.
Consider your question answered.
bkmorto 2 years ago
What logical justification can you provide that explains how giving homosexuals a civil liberty undermines or threatens the same civil liberty of heterosexuals?
On what basis does the marriage granted to a community of 5-10% of the world (depending on citation) pose a risk to the marriages of the greater majority?
On what foundation can you validate that homosexual marriage should not be allowed because it is unprecedented in history?
bkmorto 2 years ago 3
This is the only answer you require, HiveRadical.
Granting civil acknowledgement of homosexual marriage in no way undermines the importance of heterosexual marriage, unions, or procreation.
Your question itself asked "why doesn't gender matter anymore?" which is in fact a simple red herring. Gender DOES matter, and no one seeks to trivialise heterosexual marriage or procreation.
So I ask you this, dear friend:
bkmorto 2 years ago
Well, I am giving my comment... gender doesn't matter... love is love... having children is not the reason people get married.. get a life... people can get married and have no children at all... right?
philip0460 2 years ago
Don't be so sure Prop. 8 will not be overturned. The California Supreme Court continues to surprise everyone. If it does, I think the NO voters will put it on the ballot first in 2012 and it will pass. It took a long time for blacks and whites to marry. OMG, the skys falling. That gets so tired. I know eventually it will. 8 did pass with 52% only because of the extreme desception of the yes people and the Mormon church. The Mormons really gave a bad name to organized religion.
peaceispatriotic7 2 years ago
To HiveRadical:
Please understand the difference between the word "gender" and the word "sex." "Sex" delineates someone's sexual organs, but "gender" refers to a socially constructed set of ideals for each "sex".
In your video, replace the word "gender" with "sex" to make your point.
And remember, maybe to YOU gender roles matter... But to others, they are not so important.
In the end, "sex" has nothing to do with it. It's all about LOVE.
ThisJerseyGirl 2 years ago
TJG,
Sex has a lot to do with it because it is not about just two consenting adults. It's not just about the relationship of two consenting adults. Family is about so much more than that, which is why the dynamics emergent from different pairings of the sexes does matter, not because it changes the feelings the consenting adults have for each other, but because it impacts what they are able to provide for children that come within the purview of their condition.
HiveRadical 2 years ago
I think you missed my point. I was just pointing out that there is a huge difference between the word "sex" and the word "gender," and for your purposes in your video, you are using the wrong word.
But you reply by bringing up a different point, which is where you imply that a child needs two different sexes, or he/she won't be properly provided for. I strongly disagree; and having been raised half my life by two women, all I can tell you is, again, it doesn't matter. It's just about LOVE.
ThisJerseyGirl 2 years ago
Thanks JerseyGirl! It is this kind of hate and propoganda that got the 52% vote. They put fear into people. I would be way more scared to have someone like HiveRadical, then a gay couple living next door to me. He is a supremisist.
peaceispatriotic7 2 years ago
If you haven't ever talked to a gay person, don't give your judgement on them. They are born that way. Do the research.
obama4sure 2 years ago
I've talked to a great many gay people o4s, I give judgement on the merits their relationship has with regard to the perpetuation of our culture, the fact that they seek marriage means they want a statement from our society on their relationship, if they want such a statement then society should have a say one whether or not they receive such.
And them being born one way or another is to miss the point. Being born a certain way doesn't inherently obligate society to anything.
HiveRadical 2 years ago
"Perpetration of our culture? " Wow, you are one fucked up person. I try not to cuss, but what you just said is unbelievable. Homosexuals ARE NOT looking for a "statement from society". They shouldn't even HAVE to ask ANYONE to get married. The No on 8 voters didn't put Prop 22 or 8 on the ballot. It was the right wingers that want to dictate their beliefs on others. Such hypocracy, my blood boils. They lied their way into winning 52% of the votes. You make me sick and I am straight. Fuck you!
peaceispatriotic7 2 years ago
biological advancement-population's big enough now and people won't magically turn gay just because gay marriage is legal.
societal advancement-right just like allowing men and women to work the same jobs weakened gender differences and thats why society doesnt exist any more. oh wait.
No equality for kids?-What about kids whose parents are gay? When their parents can't get marriage and its benefits then the kids can't benefit from those benefits either.
sicktoaster 2 years ago
I'm waiting for a response :)
Slight22 2 years ago
Just noticed your sizable response. Will have to answer it latter as it's pretty late for me and I'm exhausted and have plenty that I need to get done tomorrow.
HiveRadical 2 years ago
IN ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION: Because we are evolving beyond discriminating against persons based on their gender or gender-orientation.
jennyworman 2 years ago 2
why is gender relevant? because of sex? or is the love the two people share, "different" because of gender?
MomntrySilence 2 years ago
Why do they want to do this you ask? I'll tell you why. To make marriage between two men legal makes it an acceptable value. To make gay marriage acceptable makes gay dating also acceptable and that recruites the 13 year old male to think dating AKA sex with an older man a more acceptable practice. Hey these jerks have made it even easier to molest young boys. Forget about Mormon opposition. Those of us who are not religious are just as outraged. The CA supremes are about to rip us off again!
snofoot 2 years ago
You can't requit someone to be gay. 99.9 percent of child sex offenders are straight. Do your homework. Ignorance is ugly.
obama4sure 2 years ago
This is not about Male and Female being baby making machines. This is about gay Rights!
danny458 2 years ago
Amen Danny! There are a lot of straight married couples that can not have children. And their are a lot of straight couples that completely fuck up their children. Thanks for your imput
obama4sure 2 years ago
Gender is central and crucial to the concept of marriage (as you seem to feel from your use of "propagate") only if you think marriage is only for making babies. That love, family, stability, happiness, legal status, all the other parts of modern marriage are of zero importance.
There are straight couples who can't produce children. Until you are willing to forbid them marriage then your argument fails.
LGBT couples can seek sperm donors, can adopt. But it's not just about babies.
GretchenDawntreader 2 years ago
I will post these as parts with a letter assigned, just go alphabetically!
Part A:
Okay, even though I should really be writing a paper, I'll take a break to be more specific with you. First you ask about the irrelevancy of gender in our current society, as in why it is now less important than earlier on in our history. Lets first ignore the assumption that people against prop 8 find gender irrelevant.
Slight22 2 years ago
PART B:
Lets just say they do: Well an easy comparison can be made to civil rights (regardless of whether you think this is appropriately as grave) For many years interracial marriages were not allowed, and prior to this black people were enslaved.
Eventually the law changed, peoples general outlooks changed, some quickly, and some slowly. Does this mean that race became irrelevant and that today it is less important than it once was? No. It just is now used less as a factor of discrimination.
Slight22 2 years ago
PART C:
That certainly doesn't change the fact that people of different races have different cultural values, look different, have different preferences, and sometimes have physical inclinations toward certain activities. This is not a discrimination standpoint though, merely the truth of every person. If there was no discrimination based on race, would race become irrelevant? No, mainly for the reasons I have stated.
Slight22 2 years ago
PART D:
Although eventually we will probably melt into one sort of race: mutt, and I bet we'll look cool! So in that regard, I would say you are correct that gender is not irrelevant.
Now lets go back to the assumption that those against prop 8 make this claim. Sure, someone might say, "who you love is what is important, gender is irrelevant." But they probably don't mean it in the way you are taking it.
Slight22 2 years ago
PART E:
Gender is certainly relevant, considering that is what the issue is about, that is obvious. What people MEAN when they make a claim like that is "We love each other, why does it matter if we are the same gender" These are two VERY different things. Certainly to those who are attracted to someone of the same sex, gender is important as it usually is what brings the lust about in all of us.
Slight22 2 years ago
PART F:
Now having someone say "why can't we get married, our genders do not matter" is more accurately said as "Why do our genders stop us from being married, why do YOU care? and why should we have to be politically subjugated just because you care, considering we are the ones in the relationship?" Yes, rag tag, I know, I'm in a hurry.
Slight22 2 years ago
PART G:
You claim that gender has been important in our society and culture, and basically has allowed us to reproduce. Sure, most definitely. But I am guessing you are now taking the step from "gender has been important", to "they think it is not important", to "if we devalue gender then our society well degrade and we will stop reproducing as well". Except, there is no good logical way to get from 1 to 2 and from 2 to 3 when you look at facts.
Slight22 2 years ago
PART H:
I have already posited that number 2 is false. Now even if you still wanted to say that gay marriage can lead to the failure of society and reproduction in a large or small way, you still would not find any factuality behind these statements.
Gay men and women do not cease to be men or women. If anything, those who have been repressed, taunted, and physically harmed during certain parts of history (as homosexuality has always existed) can now live happily.
Slight22 2 years ago
PART I:
Just because gay people come out does not mean that MORE gay people will be created! I mean, could someone make YOU gay? No. No one chooses to be sexually attracted to someone, although they can make the choice to not act upon their true feelings, but that is NOT choosing to not be gay. Being gay is not a choice, living openly is, although for many people it is impossible to be so unhappy!
Slight22 2 years ago
PARTJ:
I mean if you were told all you life you had to have sex with men, but you are actually straight, wouldn't it be hard for you to make yourself sleep with men and pretend you just wanted to be friends with girls? And if you let on any hint of liking them, people would ostracize you.
Slight22 2 years ago
PART K:
As for biological purposes, homosexuality serves the great purpose of curbing some reproduction. Gay men and women are far more likely to adopt than go through the expensive messy process of having their own children. Nature has several ways of keeping population growth to a minimum if necessary, and gay people are one part of that.
Slight22 2 years ago
PART L:
Now here is where you make quite of a jump, a leap over a big ravine actually.
You ask about equality for children to have a mother and father. Now I am assuming you mean a couple of things by this statement, correct me if I am wrong: 1. Children should have a male and female parent figure, and having two of one results in an inferior child, AND makes life harder because others will taunt them. and 2. Children should have a say somehow in this (?)
Slight22 2 years ago
PART M:
(I don't know, I suppose you were just going for a clever wordplay with using equality, who cares, I'm still going to argue it :) )
Well ACTUALLY, as I said in a previous comment, all studies (and there have been many done by various organizations and schools) show that having two parents of the same sex creates an environment which is exactly as well equipped to create a well-adjusted, productive, happy member of our society. No difference from a heterosexual couple.
Slight22 2 years ago
PART N:
As for single parents (because that is related) they generally have a harder time because they have less time and money than two people, duh, not because they lack a male or a female influence. You can get that from so many places, and it is a pretty vague concept anyway. But lets not get into a discussion about gender, because this is supposed to be a discussion about sexuality ;)
Slight22 2 years ago
PART O:
As to whether children should have a say, have an equal chance as to what type of family they are in: fuck that! If a straight couple can screw up, so can a homosexual couple and vice-versa. Tons of people have issues with their families, and usually it has nothing at all to do with sexual preference, but with general run of the mill human related shit.
And that's all for now! I have a paper to write and a film class to attend, sorry about the wordiness!
Slight22 2 years ago
Wtf are you talking about? Dont compare two gay people in love to someone who would take the life of another person. Its unanimous that browsing through your comments, your arguements are paper thin and you really dont have a leg to stand on. You can have your own opinion.. thats fine, but before you make a fool of yourself, study your facts. Talk to a psychologist, a sociologist... do research on the subject and I bet your view will change.
gkroegman12 2 years ago
Funny thing but unanimity in people's assertions doesn't make something so. If my arguments haven't a leg to stand on then point out the specificity of it.
BTW most of my facts in my videos are pulled from a psychology college text book used presently in virtually every psychology department.
HiveRadical 2 years ago
As I consider myself a lesbian, I feel that I have some authority to say that he who is without sin may cast the first stone- Jesus fought for love and we are living in a world of hate- even though many consider themselves followers of such a compassionate man.
I am not religious. But I know that god chose this path for me and it is NOT wrong and it is NOT sinful. I love the woman I do because it is intended for me. Why can I not have the same rights as Britney Spears- sanctity of marriage???
gretastetter 2 years ago
consider yourself. i think it's safe to say you are. girl has sex with girl. = lesbian. (at least by definition).
i think prop 8 will be overturned because it is simply unconstitutional
mitchdizzle43 2 years ago
So the individual born with a powerful love of watching things burn isn't ever on a sinful path as they go about their burning?
HiveRadical 2 years ago
Honestly, your argument is pathetic. Why don't you actually think logically before embarrassing yourself on the internet?
ryderjb 2 years ago
I really revel in these comments. These bold assertions as to my failures yet the boldest of them and the most certain of them fail to actually answer my points or demonstrate clearly why my argument is 'pathetic.'
It's so much kindergarten "you're a stupid head!" genre.
Are these people really this disconnected from logic that they are unable to even enumerate a single point that would support their claims as to my 'absurdity' or the 'pathetic' condition of my argument?
HiveRadical 2 years ago
Is it edited funky because your afraid to connect your real identity to these dumb f*cking cold-hearted comments? also...could you be any more boring with the monotone voice?
cherylxo 2 years ago
I fear for the welfare of those I love. People willing to vandalize and send false anthrax attacks demonstrate something of their thoughts and desires in such moronic acts and I'd be a moron myself to endanger those close to me if I didn't need to. If I had the means of defending them or if I didn't have to be concerned for their welfare I'd have no problem obscuring my face.
HiveRadical 2 years ago
I'm delerious from staying up all night finishing my research paper so I won't attempt a good comment back. but I will say I still I was too hot headed in my comment..and true there are crazy people out there prone to anthrax attacks. how ever I still disagree with you. Gender very much plays a role in marriage..whether it is a man marrying a man, woman to woman, man to woman. it's all the same, you can't categorize love
cherylxo 2 years ago
Love is blind. Love is gender blind, race blind, appearance blind, you just feel what you feel&can not help who you fall in love with. No one should have the right to tell someone who they can and can not spend the rest of their life with. Whose to say THEIR religion is the correct one? Freedom of Religion is something we pride ourselves on, let's give everyone the chance to marry regardless of who they fall in love with. I'm still in shock this is even a question...We're America... ridiculous.
cattie1220 2 years ago
(well maybe not appearance blind)
Slight22 2 years ago
Hate and detesting and loathing can be just as blind. Does that mean we don't put restrictions on how people can manifest them? Since when does something seeming arbitrary or since when has having impulses that one doesn't initially choose make acting on those inherently good, or right, or to be sought after? It's the same mentality that's making us a diabetic and obese nation. Your view's akin to saying "let's give everyone a chance to call their thoughts science, regardless what they think!"
HiveRadical 2 years ago
Are you proposing we don't allow divorce too? If you want a chance for a child to grow up w a mom&dad. How about if a parent dies, must we be required to marry again right away to"give the child that opportunity"?Times change,people change,our society changes. Gender used to be an important factor in many things. So was race. We have realized how inhumane, discriminatory and disgusting the laws on race were. Now's the time we need to realize how inhumane, discriminatory & disgusting prop8 is.
cattie1220 2 years ago
cattie1220,
You also are demonstrating that you don't understand at all my position. Just as I've answered multitudes like fishhead with his type of comment I've also demonstrated that your comment is based on false assumptions and is doing nothing more than creating a straw man.
You're welcome to wail on that straw man all you want, but inferring my position, or what the conclusions of it are (when you display clearly that you don't know even what it is) will never actually scathe my position
HiveRadical 2 years ago
gender has been a core concept of marriage for a long time. however, so has race,
finally, we realized that genes are of no importance when it comes to who you're allowed to love. if two people can understand what it is they're entering into, they deserve the opportunity to do so.
race doesn't matter.
gender doesn't matter.
it's exactly the same thing. some people love people of a same/different race. some people love people of a same/different gender.
ATL45 2 years ago
ATL45
I can point to two different structures found on the image of the structure of a flu virus and I can then point to two core parts of that virus. Yet one of the core components is constantly being altered so as to keep the virus adapting, in that way it is CORE, it's vital--yet changing. But other parts, if ever changed, render the virus useless and halt any strain that develops such a mutation. Simply saying that because one core component can change that another can is simply a fallacy.
HiveRadical 2 years ago
that's a false analogy. marriage is something we invent and (re)define, while the virility of your virus exists with or without us.
even if it were an apt analogy, it still doesn't say what would make same-sex marriage fall into the category of "renders marriage useless". your point still begs the question, so it's just as bald an assertion as the raw claim "marriage should be between a man and a woman" which is what you're invoking the analogy to support.
ATL45 2 years ago
No ATL45, it's not a false analogy because the analogy was placed to demonstrate that certain core attributes of any giventhing are variable and others are not, be that viruses or what have you. Trying to say that because they don't match up on all points that it's a false analogy is to miss the whole point of using analogies. analogies are comparing portions of things or processes or phenomena to portions of other things. You don't understand the use of analogies.
HiveRadical 2 years ago
i realize that there are certain core attributes to things. however, what ARE the core attributes of marriage? they are whatever we define them to be. marriage is a concept completely invented by people, so we get to choose the core attributes
what makes opposite genders a core concept? a century ago, most people would have said that RACE was a core concept. "it's bad, it's wrong, they can't raise kids"
and you still didn't address the flaw that your analogy, valid or not, begs the question
ATL45 2 years ago
Non-fertile heterosexual couples get married all the time. And homosexuality has always existed as a minority sexual expression without any discernible effect for good or ill on society in general. Since fertility or intent to procreate has never been a necessary condition for marriage; and since heterosexual unions will continue to be the dominant expression, I don't really see how your objections stand.
fishhead06 2 years ago
fishhead, PLEASE you are like the hundredth person to demonstrate that you have NO comprehension of my view. If you are genuinely interested in knowing why your statements have no relevance to what I'm saying please watch my other videos (or just read through the comments long enough, I swear I've answered this several dozen times).
Your post just demonstrates further the myopic view you're coming at this with. PLEASE inform yourself.
HiveRadical 2 years ago
I've looked at three of your videos and I'm not so obtuse that I can't see your essential point. If there is a failure to understand on the part of 100 others, then perhaps you have simply failed to communicate your message clearly. You may evade it by cloaking it in arcane Platonic language about the "ideal" (whatever that is) family or social structure for the continuance of humanity (!), but what you are really arguing against is a state of being, with no evidence it undermines anything.
fishhead06 2 years ago
gender hasn't been important through human history... gays have always existed and always will... this isn't about the future of the human race man, we're gonna be gay no matter what so why not just let me marry who i want to? it has NOTHING to do with theology, secular views, the human race, or any of that...
gkroegman12 2 years ago
If it hasn't been important throughout history then why is it important to you? People who kill have always existed, is that a logical premise upon which to have society foster conditions that enable killers?
HiveRadical 2 years ago
I'd also be interested to know where you come up with your information regarding the impact of being raised in same sex households on "generations" of children as no such temporally expansive study has ever been conducted. All short term studies, however, show that children fair better in homes with TWO parents, irrelevant of the gender of those parents, which can be credited to the additional attention this allows to be paid to the child and the dual perspectives governing their upbringing.
delurien55 2 years ago
RE: "All short term studies, however, show that children fair better in homes with TWO parents, irrelevant of the gender of those parents,"
Aside from that being a doosie of an assertion even if it was correct it's meaningless.
HiveRadical 2 years ago
Also, your comparison of DNA/Cancer with gay rights and the flawed adoption system is senseless, and misinformed. and again hinges on incorrect assumptions. In fact, DNA or gene therapy is being studied as a way to preemptively combat cancer among other diseases. Therefore your metaphor is self dismissing, and actually bolsters the argument for gay rights.
delurien55 2 years ago
You never saw Will Smith in "I am Legend"? :)
HiveRadical 2 years ago
The point of this video hinges on the assumption that societies of "previous times" have been preferable to the society in which we live today, and furthermore, that they weren't governed by rules, such as discrimination informed by RELIGION, which would violate the constitution under which we live. Both of these assumptions are false, and so the argument is invalid. What you are promoting is gender discrimination, which goes beyond being antigay rights, to being sexist.
delurien55 2 years ago
this is a prop based on morals. everyone has their morals.
but one day, i promise, one day people will start to believe that it's okay to love their brothers & sisters and will want ot marry them. then people will say who are we to judge them? let themmarry!
a line has to be drawn somewhere. marriage was made between a man and a woman.
but regardless, everyone has their opinions & the majority spoke.
respect the other more than 1/2 the people who support yes on prop 8
wpsl92 2 years ago
for real? you're comparing gay marriage to marriage between family members? how do you even make that jump and then think there's something wrong with homosexuals..?
tunstallator 2 years ago
seriously, people like this, its almost not worth it to argue with them. if they are so far gone to make such an illogical jump, it shows how little they have to say on the matter, and at this point anything logical you have to say to refute their measly little pathetic arguments will just be disregarded.
Slight22 2 years ago
Gender is relevant now as we live in a society of equality and education. The election of an African-American president for the United States shows that the world is educated enough, and morally prepared to erradicate all remaining inequalities, hence the stupidity of prop 8.
bjc31sp 2 years ago 2
*rolling eyes*Bravo! What eloquentia!*/rolling eyes*
HiveRadical 2 years ago
Gender absolutely has played a role in defining our society.
Women have been discriminated against and oppressed based on gender; gays have been discriminated against and oppressed based on gender. Isn't it time we STOPPED LETTING gender and thus, discrimination play such an influential role in who we are as a society? It's not as though letting homosexuals marry will suddenly create a genderless race. This is the most poorly conceived argument I've heard on the subject in a long time.
HanLou18 2 years ago
I agree, this really just is... well, bad. I have heard many arguments against gay marriage, against gay rights, against gay people in general; and usually people end up making themselves look foolish. No exception here.
I really like the attempts he makes at trying to appear informed, logical, and scientifically studied though, they make me giggle.
Slight22 2 years ago
Watch out. Production values stand to shoot up significantly in coming months. What will your response be when you don't have aesthetic issues and failures on my part on which to try and pin your unsupported assertions that I'm giving a 'bad argument'?
You see general protocol for critiquing argumentation is to give actual rejoinders rather than mere assertions of failure on the part of those you don't agree with.
So keep giggling. I'll keep refining my presentation and waiting for your points
HiveRadical 2 years ago
actually I already made a couple in other comments I have left you; of course, you didn't bother to respond to those. How convenient. Oh, and by the way I actually have not mentioned your "aesthetic issues", which certainly are quite the problem. not. The problem is that you have bad logic, going from point A to point Purple.
***>
Slight22 2 years ago
**> If you are so concerned that we should "go check out your other videos" because they go "into more depth", you shouldn't have posted something which you now seem to think is a bad representation of your position.
So yes, I think I will keep giggling.
Slight22 2 years ago
I never said it poorly represented my position. I posted versions of my argument that were more concise and pointed because a great many people complained about having to go through videos in which I gave more indepth addressing of the issue. Again you've yet to actually point out the specifics of the 'bad logic' you claim is found in my argument.
HiveRadical 2 years ago
Slight22, my apologies if I didn't respond as you would like. These things seem to come in massive barrages and while I care about these issues I lack the time and resources to always respond to everyone.
HiveRadical 2 years ago
If that is what you think my argument is then you've missed it entirely. I have several other videos that go into far greater depth on the issue. I weary of answering the same tired old many times over refuted objections emergent from people's unwillingness to actually understand my position rather than from any failure in my logic or argumentation.
HiveRadical 2 years ago
The only reason people support Prop 8 is because they are afraid.
samskipsam 2 years ago
The only reason people generalize is because they are afraid.
HiveRadical 2 years ago
Your reply is poetic but devoid of logic.
Marriage isn't about politics or religion or what you think is best for children. It's about love and the freedom individuals should have to express their union in the way people who are far less committed just get to whenever they want. The family unit is not in danger from homosexuals. It's in danger from poverty. It's in danger from abuse, rape, unemployment. Save your breath for issues that actually matter.
samskipsam 2 years ago
samskipsam Marriage is about what is best for the children. It's connections to love or freedom for individual expressing their union only have relevance or meaning in how they impact for the betterment the welfare of society and thusly the welfare of children who are the future of society.
And if I'm wasting my breath on this than so too are you ;)
HiveRadical 2 years ago
I'd argue everyone here is wasting their breath. Nobody is going to change their mind at the end of the day.
Children are a part of some marriages, but definitely not what marriage is about. Marriage is about union, commitment, love. Not about having kids. You have kids when you want a family, regardless of marriage status. An unmarried couple can raise children just as well as one that is married.
samskipsam 2 years ago
i understand the want to keep a family unit together, but i have a question for you, are you opposed to single parents either adopting or having kids alone? curious.
trickychicksoda 2 years ago
I'm against single people having kids, that is conceiving and baring, alone. I believe that society should do far more to promote adoption among married couples and that placing children with single or unmarried children should be an option only taken when the better option is not available. But I also think much more should be done to foster healthy adoptions (that is ones in which the welfare of the child is a requisite core threshold) by committed married couples generally.
HiveRadical 2 years ago
Gender is irrelevant because we've never tried gay marriage before. Of course you'd assume children need a man and a woman as parents and that it's the only tried and true method for raising a child; I'm willing to bet you've never met gay parents. Regardless, it's pretty clear that the ability of the couple to raise a child is irrelevant to this country's concept of marriage when a pedophile, a criminal and a wife/child abuser can all get married under this system. They make great parents...
dmarenberg09 2 years ago
Having not 'tried gay marriage before' doesn't make gender irrelevant. That's like saying that dynamics between dna and rna are irrelevant because we've never witnessed a complete biological system in which only RNA was present. The fact that we haven't tried out something doesn't mean that the dynamics of the present system are irrelevant. That's just bad logic.
How much are you willing to bet?
BTW I spent several years in the bay area in sunny CA so i wouldn't put too much money on that one.
HiveRadical 2 years ago
So, you're against gay marriage because it's not what's best for children? Are you against single-parent homes, parents who are little people, elderly parents, minorities who are discriminated against, unattractive people who'll make unattractive children who may be teased?
blackgirltennis 2 years ago
I am against the fostering the creation of single parent homes, do you think we should foster single parent homes? I'm not saying we hinder or fight against single parents, god forbid we do that, but we don't go and advocate and promote that single people have kids. As for your other points they simply demonstrate further that you don't understand what I'm advocating nor what I'm opposing.
HiveRadical 2 years ago
The question in your video is "why is gender irrelevant?" Um who is saying that ? The gender of whom I choose to marry is totally relevant. And it should not be any of your business. I do not get to vote on whom you are marrying. You should not have the right to vote on whom I marry.
If my religion says it is OK to marry someone of the same sex as me then yours has no business telling mine that it can't.
So take your Mormon brainwashed mind and shut the fk up!
Separation of church & state ?
CowboyDik 2 years ago
RE:"..who is saying that--that gender is irrelevant--"
That's the de facto stance of placing gay relationships on the same level as heterosexual ones. It's just inherently what you are advocating when you place them on, or advocate the placing of them on, the same legal footing.
If marriage is a contract recognized by society then society does ##^
HiveRadical 2 years ago
##^ have a say in what it is and what it does or doesn't consist of. If you want to be recognized by society as a unit fostered by society then we most certainly do have a say in what the nature of that arrangement can and cannot be.
HiveRadical 2 years ago
HR, you do just like everyone I have blogged with so far on this issue. You ignore most of the points contradicting yours and start citing others that have nothing to do with the immediate discussion because you don't have a good answer when confronted.
When gays in California get the right back to marry it will be on the same legal footing as opposite-sex marriages. So of course that is what I am advocating. As far as society which you are using to replace "majority". ->
CowboyDik 2 years ago
One of the intentions of the U.S. Constitution is to prevent the majority from tyrannizing a minority. Give an example of how gays getting married affects you personally?
Will it hurt your marriage ?
Will it hurt your children in some way?
If 50% of marriages end up in divorce now then children are being much more affected by opposite sex marriage than by gay marriage.
I used to agree that the ideal parents would be a man and woman. I came to realize that it is two loving parents. --->
CowboyDik 2 years ago
---> It does not matter the genders, two loving parents of any gender works just fine for children.
Children are subjected to all kinds of situations and every family has its dysfunctions.
Your comment in an earlier reply about dynamics of gay marriage being fatal to society is so absurd and can only be based on your hatred of homosexuals because it cannot be backed up with any facts pointing to that. Gays make up too small a percentage to cause the destruction of society.
CowboyDik 2 years ago
Your video was suggested viewing when I went to one promoting actions tomorrow night in various cities in CA.
I have seen a whole bunch of disgusting examples used to try and discredit everyone who is gay. Your association that being gay is like a cancer is a first. At least at the cellular level anyway. It is also totally absurd and what you are saying about them in regards to reproducing and longevity having something to do with being gay is totally ridiculous.
CowboyDik 2 years ago
More about Ann Landers:
The Washington Post, Times Herald (1959-1973). Washington, D.C.: Apr 24, 1973. p. B6. "I have rethought my position and I believe my original conclusion is correct. Homosexuality is unnatural. Individuals who prefers members of their own gender as sex partners are sick."
mbison83 3 years ago
Hang on, here is a better question....
Why do you care?
If you arn't having gay sex, and you are comfortable with your sexuality, then why do you care?
Please answer :)
OMFGitsJUSTIN 3 years ago
Because the composition of what our society holds up as an ideal foundational unit of cultural transmission impacts my posterity and the future of humanity to a degree that's absolutely massive.
Because the reasons natural selection selected for the common and most basic foundational unit of society always having both genders as key components in it is not trivial. The sexes present in a union impact that emergent dynamics of that union which in turn are formative to any offspring/humanity.
HiveRadical 3 years ago
Comment removed
OMFGitsJUSTIN 3 years ago
So you think Gay marriage is wrong because it goes against society because gay people can't reproduce?
OMFGitsJUSTIN 3 years ago
It's not merely because they can't reproduce, it goes beyond that. It's because, all other things being equal, they do not produce the optimal dynamics for transmitting human society/culture. Because the sex of the individuals in a relationship has a real impact on the dynamics that come out of that. Such is demonstrable in facts such as gay male couples self reporting non-monogamy rates in excess of 80% & Lesbian couples self reporting rates that exceed that of even non-committed hetero couples
HiveRadical 3 years ago
so gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because they cant stay monogamous? Meanwhile over 50% of first time straight marriages end in divorce and that number increased by 10% for each marriage after that. Oh or how about a child is abused by his or her parents EVERY FEW MINUTES.
So tell me how that shocking information is " optimal dynamics for transmitting human society/culture". Because it sounds like whoring around and beating children to me.
OMFGitsJUSTIN 3 years ago
The monogamy is just one issue (Your initial percentage is not accurate btw--you'll need to demonstrate your source to verify for us all it's validity--I can give you presently used college textbooks (sold at Yale and Harvard's book stores for their psychology courses) that have the percentage I'm giving). Do you think non-monogamy rates in excess of 80% would increase or decrease abuse rates?
And this goes beyond merely the issue of monogamy. Intimacy rates are another, among many, points.
HiveRadical 3 years ago
Another point I would like to give is that the question of "Will you be monogamous" is not asked at ANY straight marriage! Anyone can get married without and worry about a monogamous relationship *just look at the drive thru vegas weddings"
So you should deny gays the right to marry because you want them to me monogamous?
Here is a better idea. Get rid of divorce...for EVERYONE. That will keep them in monogamous relationships. Whouldn't you agree?
OMFGitsJUSTIN 3 years ago
I'm curious if you've watched any of my other videos on this topic, because if you did you find how many of your suppositions have already been answered. In fact if you merely go through the comment section of the videos you'd see that I've responded many many times to these points and responses and counter responses you seem to think are novel and your own little 'ace in the hole.' The
HiveRadical 3 years ago
things you are presenting demonstrate more and more how little you actually understand with regard to the legitimate issues that many people have with the concept of 'gay marriage.'
HiveRadical 3 years ago
And for your sake I'll still answer your point (though you refused to answer my question AND I've answered this point as it's been made by many long before you came along).
Will you have sex is also not asked in ANY marriage ceremony I'm aware of, so why do we associate it with marriage? The absurdities you're going to demonstrate the weak state of your argument. The fact that you bring up divorce being outlawed demonstrates that you miss the point entirely as to the "why" of marriage.
HiveRadical 3 years ago
pont is dude, it will be legal down the road. So as much as you are not gonna like it. You are going to have to deal with it. Prop 8 conflicts with the constitution, it makes us second class citizens by denying us a common right to marry another human being. There is also a bill that will be passed to protect GLBT's from harassment.
So you will have to deal with it. Sorry that people actually want to be equal. I thought TOTAL equality for humanity was a good thing.
OMFGitsJUSTIN 3 years ago
listen up justin. how about 90% of gay marriages ending up in divorces? how about homosexual molesters? google "homosexual molestation" and read up, pal.
and no, i dont have to deal with it, asshole. u remind me of this sicko mayor of san fran saying "whether u like it or not!" lol
anyway, what ure asking for is a privelage, not a right. where in constitution does it say u cant marry? any man can marry any woman and vice versa, no matter their age, religion, education level, etc.
mbison83 3 years ago
"90% of gay marriages ending up in divorces" Well would probably be 9 out of 10 marriages because news flash idiot, gay's can't marry in the majority of places. P.S. that is the percentage of divorces after the 3rd straight marriage.
" dont have to deal with it, asshole" Yes you do, I new bill will be passed giving gays the freedom from any type of harassment based on their sexual preference. You bash a gay, you get hard time.
OMFGitsJUSTIN 3 years ago
lol so u think if gays could marry in all states the statistics would change? ure the real idiot here, my friend. the main reason for gay divorces? infidelity. most gays cannot last 2 months with one partner. this is simply the lifestyle you like.
we will see about the new bill lol u know what it is going to come down to, right? that means that any fag bashing God will do time as well. the problem might be that they can happen to like being locked up.
mbison83 3 years ago
Continued: "anyway, what ure asking for is a privelage, not a right. where in constitution does it say u cant marry?" Well the constitution has been changed to allow interracial marriage (You WOULD know this is you happend to be a smart individual) So gay marriage will be just the same way. "any man can marry any woman and vice versa, no matter their age, religion, education level, etc." Yes, and look at some of the mistakes these straight ppl have made! Divorce rates, abuse, abortions!
OMFGitsJUSTIN 3 years ago
where in the constitution does it say about interracial marriage? please show me.
we already talked about divorces here, but lets move on to abuses. i have a friend who turned gay after being sexually molested by an old perverted doctor. google out "homosexual molestation" before u say anything.
mbison83 3 years ago
Interracial marriage was highly illegal until the concept of marriage was changed and allowed two different races to marry legally.
I did google "Homosexual Molestation" The first site i got stated "Ann Landers (1) says the statement "Homosexuals are more inclined to molest children sexually than heterosexuals" is false." In the VERY FIRST SENTENCE.
Wow, you REALLY are proving your stupidity right now.
OMFGitsJUSTIN 3 years ago
let me ask u again so maybe i get the answer im looking for: where in the constitution does it talk about interracial marriage? simple question. do a research.
mbison83 3 years ago
You should really look Ann Landers before making another dumb reply. Here is a bit about her:
"In 1973, she wrote in support of the legalization of homosexual acts, saying that she had been "pleading for compassion and understanding and equal rights for homosexuals" for 18 years. Nevertheless, she described homosexuality as "unnatural," a "sickness," and a "dysfunction."
NEXT!
mbison83 3 years ago
LOL yeaaaaaa, I see you copied that word for word from Wikipedia. The same website that allows users to change the articles aka the same website that told lies about shakil o neil being dead. Great source. Here is a better idea, why not use the movie Chuck and Larry for your arguments next time LOL
Oh and while you are googling your arguments, why not look into "Anti-miscegenation laws" that made interracial marriage illegal.
Stupidity at its finest.
OMFGitsJUSTIN 3 years ago
sure wikipedia is not the BEST resource but it is credible enough, u idiot. why would someone want to alter the information about the woman anyway?
oh ure so smart, just dont let ur brain explode. who would like to clean up them peanuts from the floor?
mbison83 3 years ago
"it is credible enough" yeaaaaaa. SO i'm assuming that by watching Finding Nemo, I can say ""it is credible enough" in an argument about how fish can talk.
OMFGitsJUSTIN 3 years ago
only u could believe such a thing.
mbison83 3 years ago
P.S. You have a gay friend? CONGRATS! I have a straight friend who ran over a cat the other day....so based on what he did should I assume that all straights are animal killers?
Use your head man. You can take off your football helmet, I heard the sky won't fall for a while...
OMFGitsJUSTIN 3 years ago
now what ure doing is called a hasty generalization. anyway, i am not against gays as people. i am against the lifestyle they live in. lets put it this way: someone like a thief, for example, does not commit a crime until he actually steal something.
please dont try to outsmart me, kid.
i dont like football anyway (not that it matters).
mbison83 3 years ago
Again, this IS where a kid outsmarts you.
You compare gay life style to crime. Let's examine shall we. A recent study has shown (using pheromones that are odorless) that gay men respond (just like women) to male pheromones compared to straight men who didn't respond to them at all.
NOW, since I am studying criminal behavior in college. Crime is a learned behavior, based on the surroundings of the criminal in question.
So how can a gay man LEARN to react to a colorless odorless pheromone?
OMFGitsJUSTIN 3 years ago
homosexuality is a condition, just like down syndrome, etc. for some people it is learned by reinforcement, so i encourage u to look that up as well.
mbison83 3 years ago
"Down syndrome (DS), also called Trisomy 21, is a condition in which extra genetic material causes delays in the way a child develops, both mentally and physically. " It is genetic you tard lol. You thank you for agreeing with me that just like down syndrome or any other thing we are born with, we are also born straight or gay based on genetics.
YAY! It actually learns!
OMFGitsJUSTIN 3 years ago
this is interesting.. now tell me which genes from ur straight parents made u gay? lol
mbison83 3 years ago
Sexuality is based on hormones my friend. Science is revealing evidence that a homosexual happens to get some estrogen hormones mixed in with testosterone while developing. It is no different with your eye color. Your mom and your dad contribute color genes. Here, your mom and dad contribute hormones.
It's that simple.
OMFGitsJUSTIN 3 years ago
well, they totally screwed u up then.
mbison83 3 years ago
Well then walk up to a blue eyed woman and tell her that her brown eyed parents "screwed her up" too. See, I actually proved you wrong with every comment you left for me and your ONLY comeback is "well, they totally screwed u up then."
Wow, some straights must of been born with dysfunctional brains lol. I feel bad for your parents dude...they totally screwed u up.
OMFGitsJUSTIN 3 years ago
see.. eye color is a natural thing. being gay is not, whether u like it or not.
and quit being a gay parrot and repeat what i've just told u, since u cant come up with anything better.
it was not a comeback.. it was a conclusion. have a good night.
mbison83 3 years ago
As I just explained it to you, it is as natural and perfect as blue eyes and blond hair.
"Whether you like it or not" wow now you are starting to sound like that gay mayor...wait let me quote your comment from about an hour ago "u remind me of this sicko mayor of san fran saying "whether u like it or not!" lol "
Good night you sicko mayor from san fan!
And my God bless.
OMFGitsJUSTIN 3 years ago
i bet he would like u in between his sheets.
mbison83 3 years ago
Well try not to ruin your sheets or the thought of that tonight k.
OMFGitsJUSTIN 3 years ago
It may or may not be true that some are genetically prone to same sex attraction, but to blame a behavior choice on genetics just doesn't hold water.Its like saying that because you have blue eyes you can only turn to the left at an intersection.Otherwise how do you explain bisexual beahavior?What you do in your sex life is your choice.Last time I checked there was no automaton gene.You don't sound like a mindless zombie why can't you own your personnal choices?
Criterionx9 3 years ago
Well put Criterion. There may be desires or urges but if we allow them to define us through capitulation then we have nothing to differentiate us from the masses of species that have gone extinct. We have natures that we choose from, they may be strong but how we interact with them should be what defines us.
HiveRadical 3 years ago
Well a gay man CAN choose to act or not on his urges, just like a straight man CAN act or not on his urges. Your point is irrelevant because it can be applied to both orientations and not just homosexual. You say this so we can be different than extinct species but there have been homosexual acts discovered in nearly ALL animal species BOTH alive and extinct. So how does your comment hold any validity?
OMFGitsJUSTIN 3 years ago
"behavior choice" would also fall under straight couple too, I could say that your genetics trigger your hormones when you (idk if you are a guy or not) see a pretty woman. It IS your genetic makeup that TELLS your body at a subliminal uncontrolled level to feel aroused. What is to say that a gay man can feel the same?
OMFGitsJUSTIN 3 years ago
As far as the bisexual behavior, I am bisexual myself. I can tell you know that I really do feel feelings for both genders. This is where the problem with orientation comes in. Who is to say what straight/gay is or what is even natural or unnatural. To say that my urges are unnatural would be just as valid as me saying that just straight or just gay urges are unnatural. Who determines what is right/wrong if we are all different?
OMFGitsJUSTIN 3 years ago
Every living creature on this planet has a mother and a father.The family is the basic unit of society.Nature itself tells us what is right here.
Criterionx9 3 years ago
I agree that a family is a basic unity of society, but most of families in the world today don't have a mother and a father. Some have no parents or just one parents. Some have abusive parents. Some have same sex parents. Family takes on many forms, and not just YOUR perspective.
"Nature itself tells us what is right here." 100% truth. Which why the gay lifestyle is natural because science is showing that it is a natural thing.
OMFGitsJUSTIN 3 years ago