@nonameorgame And what if YOU were part of a minority and gay people were the majority? What if they wanted to ban heterosexual relationships, sex, and marriage? How would you feel then? Please, tell us why you want to limit other people's freedoms. And please tell us you don't live in America.
Consider this: Should males be allowed to join groups that have requirements limiting membership to females? If SS couples demand to join the group a group such as marriage (defined as the union of one man and one woman) then why shouldn't anyone be allowed to cry "discrimination" at will? Why have rules for anything at all? What would stop a male from joining any female group in existence?
They totally miss the point of "not having children" being a point. Its about the design of human beings. I would like them to tell me that homosexuals are "by design" able to have children by having intercourse.
Clearly one man and one woman have the necessary "design" to make this possible. This means that gender differences have a purpose in creating new life. Same sex is as far from this as a man and an animal trying to pro-create. Their argument is pointless and a waste of time.
@romansten9 Design requires a designer. You need to demonstrate the existence of one before assuming it exists.
Fertile couples may well be "designed" with the ability to procreate, infertile couples, including post-menopausal women are not. As pointed out in the video, marriage is not prohibited among them or heteros who choose not to have kids.
Perception of purpose is subjective. You also make the erroneous assumption that non-compliance with purpose is somehow "wrong".
You really have me lost as to the logic you are using by saying: because some couples are infertile (or of advanced age) this somehow makes sleeping with the same sex somehow "natural" I understand that you think you have a valid argument because some people claim that one purpose of marriage is procreation, therefore gays can somehow "hitch a ride" on the backs of infertile couples (similar to the way gays attach to the "racial discrimination" argument) -more failed logic
@romansten9 No, I don't believe you raised a criticism of the naturalness of homosexuality in your previous post. However, something being natural or not is irrelevant to it's moral validity, given that all technology, including all forms of medical care are "unnatural", yet you do not object to them it seems.
Regarding marriage/procreation, marriage has many potential "purposes". Regarding your "hitching a ride" point, there didn't seem to be any clear argument in there (just an assertion).
@Jamieishere1 Yes, its true that some hetero couples are not able or willing to have children. Thats really a moot point anyway.
Heres a a metaphor to help you see what I mean: There are laws regarding who may drive a car. (just as there are laws regarding who may marry) Some people choose not to drive even though they meet the legal requirements for driving. The fact that some choose not to drive does not provide permission for someone underage to somehow "inherit" their license.
@romansten9 The analogy doesn't seem to work in that there are reasons why somebody who is underage is considered too young to drive (danger to others), while this doesn't seem to be the case with ss couples and marriage.
The case with infertile couples is a counter to an argument against ss marriage, not a direct argument for ss marriage. Claims that marriage is for procreation (despite being entirely unjustified in the first place) are shown to be flawed too by married infertile couples.
@Jamieishere1 The '"danger to others" argument is another one entirely, but glad you brought it up. : )
Many studies (please don't ask me to link them, because they aren't difficult to find!) show that children benefit greatly from having both male and female parents. Each gender contributes something unique in the raising of children. To say that it doesn't is really an insult to all male and females alive. (including gay adults) BTW, the research is my point here, not the "insult factor"
I'll PM you the statements of the major mental health organizations on ss parenting, though you have changed your argument away from marriage to adoption now...
@Jamieishere1 Noncompliance with purpose (in regard to human beings IS wrong)
Using a human being in way that is against their purpose is to use someone and (probably more accurately) to abuse. Human beings of the same sex were not designed to reproduce. This is completely obvious from what we know about reproduction and I don't think I need to explain this to anyone. If same sex couples have rights, then certainly pedophiles will demand the same rights and already have.
@romansten9 Perception of purpose is subjective. It's a concept that we superimpose upon reality, not an objective property of entities within reality. Two ways to demonstrate this are the facts that 1) different people may perceive different purposes for the same object, 2) purpose isn't a measurable property.
The person that gets to decide their purpose is that person themselves, not anybody else.
You haven't established the relevance of reproductive ability.
@Jamieishere1 Well, as for purpose, there are a great number of people that believe that God created people, just as God created the universe and created order and purpose within it. Marriage has purposes that have been determined by God and the ability to reproduce fits within certain parameters. (male/female pairing is required and is not debatable)
Yes, some people don't believe in God, but many do. SS relations are not part of God's plan and (interestingly) do not allow procreation.
@romansten9 Many people may well believe that God etc provides the purpose while other people believe differently. The number of people who believe something doesn't affect whether it's true or not though. If purpose existed in the universe (outside of our minds), we would be able to measure it. Do you know what the units of measurement of purpose are?
The ability to reproduce requires FERTILE males and females. Though in most species it does not and did not in our ancient ancestors.
@Jamieishere1 Your argument that some "don't" believe in God isn't any stronger than my argument that some "do" believe. I think we agree that truth is truth and that the meaning of "purpose" is defined best by what people agree that it means. I was making a case for "believer's" use of the word purpose, since the word purpose has been connected to God's created intention of it for 1000s of years amongst billions of people. A majority could certainly decide a word's meaning & has in history.
@romansten9 Nope, purpose is subjective, so nobody's opinion on it is superior to anybody else's, irrespective of how many people hold each viewpoint.
Truth is truth but something's "purpose" isn't a factual statement about the universe, it's a statement about what somebody subjectively designates as an object/entities primary function, sometimes including the suggestion that other possible functions of that thing are prohibited. This prohibition is of course not justified.
@Jamieishere1 I agree with much of what you say about purpose. Thanks for admitting that "nobody's opinion is superior to anybody else's" In an earlier comment, you appeared to be telling me what the word meant, now you are admitting something quite different.
You also admit the limitations of science, which means that you also have no greater understanding of this than I do. I'm (sincerely) grateful for your honesty.
@romansten9 Easy there tiger ^^. Nobody's opinion about purpose is superior to anybody else's because it is subjective but that isn't the same as saying all opinions are equal in all things. As you said, truth is truth. So if one person believes the truth (hopefully for the right reasons, rather than by coincidence) and another person believes something that isn't the truth, then their opinions are not equal.
I admit that science cannot deliver absolute proof, just as nothing else can.
@romansten9 It is not required that science be able to provide absolute proof. It would be nice if it could but it isn't really relevant. If we want to gain knowledge the logical thing to do is to use the best mechanism available to us to achieve this. Science is the best mechanism available... that it cannot prove things 100% is irrelevant as that isn't our objective. Our objective is to gain knowledge as best as we can... with science being the best way to do it.
@Jamieishere1 Keep in mind (as you use scientific "jargon") that NOTHING in the universe has ever been measured "exactly" Everything is an approximation, and when our tools of measurement become more precise, we will prove this (& history has already proven this)
Some might say, "well, measurements are close enough" Actually, many measurements are not close at all, and many things accepted by science as "fact" aren't facts. (btw, I believe God made order, and science possible)
@romansten9 Sure but "purpose" can't be measured at all... there isn't a unit of measurement of it because it doesn't exist within the universe. It only exists conceptually, in the form of a concept we attach to our perception of things. History has proven what :s?
Science = an evidence based approach, designed to be as objective as possible. It is the best mechanism for discerning truth that we have or could have. There is no other way to reliably determine facts.
@Jamieishere1 Well, as for purpose, there are a great number of people that believe that God created people, just as God created the universe and created order and purpose within it. Marriage has purposes that have been determined by God and the ability to reproduce fits within certain parameters. (male/female pairing is required and is not debatable)
No, some people don't believe in God, but many do. SS relations are not part of God's plan and (interestingly) do not allow procreation.
@romansten9 God is not required. It is legal marriage that is debated, not religious marriage, though the notion of religious freedom instantly allows anybody to pursue religious marriage within their own religion anyway.
Whether or not ss relationships are part of God's plan isn't as cut and dry as many churches' dogma dictates either.
I don't think you've established the relevance of procreation yet btw.
Respond to this video... The relevance of reproductive ability is that male/female pairing is absolutely required. (Even if conception is by "artificial means" there is still the requirement of the pairing of male and female)
The fact that some couples are infertile is the thing that is not relevant. Some couples cannot bear children. So what?If a football team requires that players be male, and some males are not physically able to play, how does that mean that healthy females may join?
@romansten9 YOU WROTE: "The relevance of reproductive ability is that male/female pairing is absolutely required."
FERTILE male/female pairing :P. What is reproductive ability within all marriages required for though? Clearly by not protesting infertile couple's marriages you don't consider it essential.
Again you're treating the infertile couple COUNTER like it's a direct argument for SS marriage, in your football analogy. It isn't, it's a COUNTER to your reproduction point.
@Jamieishere1 Do you believe that words have meaning? You must, or how could we possibly communicate?
The bottom line is that marriage means the union of one man and one woman. Anything else is NOT marriage. Just as a male can never become a female. (regardless of physical changes made to one's body) A male will always be a male. A male does not qualify to be listed as a female. Should the word female be changed to describe a male? Of course not. Words absolutely do have meanings.
@romansten9 Even if we ignore my other point on your football analogy, again, females can't play in that team for specific reasons.... the same is not true for ss marriage, or at least you have so far not demonstrated it to be so. Your "potential for procreation" criterion has been countered and you have not provided any further criterion so far I believe.
The meaning of words change over time. See Shakespeare or old bible translations for endless examples (e.g. KJV).
@Jamieishere1 A response to the Bible translation comment. The meaning of those words has not changed. I agree that the culture/times of the Bible are not the same as we live in today, but we have the closest translations possible in current translations. Yes, some words are expounded on, or paraphrased in some cases, but not complete changes in meaning. Any such words would be explained in the commentary section anyway.
@romansten9 My point wasn't that the intended meaning had changed but that words that meant one thing (such as "effeminate, translated from ancient Greek "malakoi") do not mean "effeminate" as we understand it today for instance. They mean a different set of characteristics as determined by bronze age concepts of effeminacy. I also meant that the entire language had changed.
@romansten9 The argument that "marriage is defined between a man and a women and so gays shouldn't marry" relies on the premise that "previous definitions dictate how the word must be used in future". The word "gay" would actually be an example of one that's definition has changed over time, as would "faggot". Words can and do change over time. If you want to argue that a word should not, then you need to justify why not, not just say that it wasn't defined that way before.
@Jamieishere1 I received your (longer) message and I agree that the "fertility" comments may have taken away from my main point. I accept the blame for that. I did make an earlier comment to bring it back to one of my main ideas on this topic:
Marriage means the union of one man and one woman. Anything else is not marriage. If someone shoots another person, and its on camera and witnessed, (so there is no doubt) do we call that murder or suicide? Why not just erase all meanings of words?
@romansten9 The idea that it is equivalent to erasing all meaning of words is a straw man fallacy, as that isn't what is being argued for. Language naturally evolves and improves or at the very least, changes, over time, which is why I indicated the bible etc (as evidence of that). Even the word "marriage" for instance has been derived from latin, then french, then an older form of English, which were all spelt differently.
@romansten9 My point is in effect calling for an improvement of a single word, not changing a whole language. As Matt detailed, at one time, "voter" was defined as being a "white male".... we improved that definition because not doing so was unjustified discrimination. Marriage used to be defined as being between people of the same race... we improved that definition. Currently, one group of people are prohibited from marriage while another are not. This requires justification.
@Jamieishere1 I've heard S.S couples claim that love is the only requirement for marriage. By that definition, what is to stop a person from marrying a child? (not old enough to decide for themselves?) So what? We'll just change that law also. We'll just say that one person can decide for both parties. Why not? If we mess with one law we can mess with another. You can talk about race all you want to. The inter-racial couples were male/female and that is what marriage is.
Your providing a faulty analogy. There is no argument against SS marriage... so no reason not to modify legislation. There is an argument against child-adult marriage, so there is a reason not to modify the law.
It isn't about whimsically changing laws, it's about proponents of your viewpoint justifying why you should be able to restrict other's access to a liberty that you yourself have access to. If you can't the law should change.
@Jamieishere1 You said that the word marriage will be "improved" by including S.S. couples. How do you know that? You don't. That is a giant social experiment that has never been done. Society is based on thousands of years of marriages made up of male/females and their offspring. Family units are a huge base of what makes a stable society. You have no basis for what you claim is an improvement. So far, groups of gays have shown detriment to society, NOT improvement.
@romansten9 The only difference between banning inter-racial and banning ss marriage is the characteristic involved has changed. Was race, now it's gender... To opponents of inter-racial marriage... same race, opposite sex marriage "is what marriage is". Legal Marriage is a human construct and as such, can be whatever we make it.
I know it will be improved because it will no longer be a term that is discriminatorily available for some while prohibited for others, without justification.
@romansten9 All societal improvement could be described as "a giant social experiment that has never been done".... doesn't mean we should stop trying to improve...
Society is based upon many things and marriage has changed throughout the ages. Biblically, it was a man giving his property (a women) to another man for instance.
Nobody is interfering with a "family unit"... you have provided no evidence to suggest that they are.
@romansten9 The idea that words should not be redefined is just an unjustified assertion made and like appeals to tradition, is merely a resistance to change (improvement) for the sake of it. It's like saying "we should not change because we shouldn't". As Matt said in the video, at one time, "voter" meant "white male" I.E. not women, not other races... we've improved that definition.
Btw, if you use the biblical God as your basis for marriage, polygamy is sanctioned biblically.
@Jamieishere1 Please show me scriptures that say that God has encouraged polygamy. I'm sure you realize that everything that is in the Bible is not ideal. Many cases of polygamy were shown in a negative light in the Bible. Not every mention of polygamy was a direct lesson on the immorality of polygamy, but often necessary for the reporting of a family line, which required the mention of someone's wives, etc.
Even so, we are living in the new covenant, not the old anyway.
@romansten9 Me pointing to Shakespeare/the bible was simply to show that entire languages change. God is not required to encourage polygamy for my point to be correct, only to sanction it. Even the absence of a condemnation would be evidence tbh. Anyway, Exodus 21:10, Deut 21:15-17, 2 Samuel 12:8.
You still follow the OT too to a degree I expect. It's all the word of God... Not worth getting in to all that anyway though, it'll take us way off topic.
@Jamieishere1 The relevance of reproductive ability is really for both of us to show.
Because, you haven't shown how it is relevant either. The inability of some to conceive is not a "loophole" that allows SS couples to marry. I really don't see how that matters whatsoever.
Here is my statement of relevance: Male & female are required to reproduce. This is one "agreed" purpose of marriage (even "non-church" marriage) Remember, some infertile couples become fertile. (gays do not)
@romansten9 You Wrote: "The relevance of reproductive ability is really for both of us to show."
No it isn't because you're the only one that's claiming it is relevant... I'm not making that claim, so I have no reason to try to justify it as I don't believe it to be the case.
You're still taking my counter to your claim as a direct argument for SS marriage ^^, I'll try to explain that more in the PM.
@Jamieishere1 Really, the bottom line is that there are RULES regarding who may marry. Age is another rule. So, are you willing to throw out the age requirement as well as the gender requirement?
If not, then you are asking for special treatment and it is obvious that other groups will demand this treatment as well. Where does it stop? Do we allow people to marry animals? Why not, if same sex marriage are allowed? What if a person "loves" a pet? Is that any more "strange" to you?
@romansten9 The paedo point was a bit ridiculous... it's simply a totally separate issue (slippery slope fallacy/transfer propaganda). It's a separate issue, to be debated on it's own merit... in a separate debate.
Like with the age with driving, it is again simply not an even comparison because there are reasons that there is an age restriction on marriage/relationships (kids considered incapable of consent). These reasons do not apply to ss couples.... so it isn't special treatment at all.
thank you guys I am not an atheist, I believe in God, but I'm gay and your logic is amazing. I know you dont believe in God, but in my opinion, God is happy about what you're doing here. You are making religious people realize that they have to be logical, that there is no place for non-sensical, biased religious beliefs even if scripture does seem to allow for it.
Nothing is wrong with gay marriage, just don't let them have children. Imagine the extreme discrimination the children of the gay people will face, and they have to deal with that until they move out. I mean seriously? I've felt discrimination, it's terrible, REALLY terrible.
@sniperfury1 or, even better, encourage society to change their views on same-sex couples by legalising gay marriage & presenting it (& therefore homosexuality) as NORMAL. then same-sex couples can have all the kids they want :D
one of my close friends has 2 mums, & she's awesome, & so are both her mums. she's never been given a hard time about it.
The only problem i see is if you are a kid with 2 dads, you will be more likely to become gay. It's not a problem, really, since i got no problem with gays. BUT, what if, statistically, gays keep going up... at a considerable rate... let's say 50% of population would be gay. Now... gays would say "50% make sense, since it is just as natural to be gay then straight"... Ok, i hear you, BUT, if 50% of population become gay, we will face some social issues and demographic issues. No ?
@aegisknox - huh? You're more likely to become gay if you have gay parents? Seriously? What study can you cite that gay parents have more gay kids than straight parents? There's not one. Not one single study. So that's pure, distilled BS. So what happens if we become more gay? Guess what. Being gay turns out not to be a selected trait in evolution, for reasons that should be obvious. So your 50% argument seems silly - unless you have the tired and discredited notion that "gay" is environmental.
@47f0 There is no study about kids becoming gay if got gay parents simply because there aren't enough kids in these situations. Kids will become more peacefull if they got peaceful parents, or violent if they got violent parents. They will more likely develop traits that are similar to their parents. Kids have gay parents will have more chance to become gay, but wont go over 50%. Basically, those kids would have just as much chance to go straight or gay. I am not homophobic.
@aegisknox - there are fairly good studies that homosexuality is not a selected trait in evolution - because they tend not to breed. I promise - if there's one trait that is universally selected for in all species, it is reproduction. I have always known that I was straight - girls made my palms sweaty in kindergarten. If Liberace and Richard Simmons were my dads, it would not have made the slightest difference. I might have been a piano-playing exercise nut, but straight was built into my genes
@47f0 Did you just implement that homosexuality is some kind of twisted gene ? The "evolution" is natural for a specie as they genetically go for reproduction, thus, gays got some bad genes since they don'T go for a reproduction orientation... I think some gays are born gays, and some gays become gays. What if our evolution is becoming so advanced, that we wont need reproduction as we know it ? We are gay or straight, the goal is to fall in love, no matter of the sex type.
@aegisknox - yup, I did exactly that. But you use some really judgmental words for genetic differences, like "twisted" and "bad". I'm not sure what's "twisted" and "bad" about gays. Maybe you could explain that? In the meantime, we have found, in two studies now, (Savic & Lindstrom, and another I can't locate right now) that there are anatomical differences in the brains of homosexuals. Which would seem to indicate a genetic influence.
@47f0 I beleive of a second type of homosexuality, Genes explain only one type. With science, if parents discover their baby got the homosexual gene, and they can, with the help of science, correct those genes so their baby born straight. Would you back up such a law, or right ? I would be for it, and it would be a free service too. Kids can't be harmed, 'cause they will never know they were gays.
@splicedenergy I know, i don't beleive there is a homo gene. That is what the other guy beleived, i was just replying "IF, like your beleives, there is a homo gene, then... bla, bla, bla".
@splicedenergy - Sorry, but pretending that hormones and genes have no connection is so far wrong that it's kind of hard to take you seriously. I promise you - every single protein in your body, hormones included, is regulated by your DNA. The simplest, and most basic refutation of your argument that there is no gene/hormone connection is the Y Chromosome.
@aegisknox - Well, I guess if you think gay is a disease, then gene therapy must be the solution. Is gay a disease? What other genetic traits would you have "corrected"? Dark skin? Brown eyes? I realize that you're trying to sound reasonable, but since you start with the deeply flawed premise that "gay is a disease, a defect", you actually come off sounding pretty horrific - and only a half step away from wanting a uniform, homogenous master race. I'm pretty sure we've seen that trick before.
@47f0 A good civilian needs to make 2 babies, have an honest work and pay incomes. Live otherwise and you are not doing your work, so then, others support your weight. Gay men don't support their own weight, they don't contribute since they don't make babies. BUT, the right of freedom is greater then this responsability. I am pro choice and respoect gays. BUT, if parents can correct the situation, and make their babies avoid being gay, then it should be their right to do so.
@aegisknox Where does it say that a good civilian has to do that? why dont gay men support their weight? Even if that "good civilian" crap that you just pulled out of nowhere was true, gay couples could adopt children and pay their taxes.
@zxRazielxz To replace a generation, you actually need to make 2.2 children. So, if every people make 2 children, then, the population stay about the same. That is in well developped countries. So, in these countries, everyone needs to take their responsabilities and make 2 children at least. Now, if Gay men adopt 2 children in a overcrowded countries, it's fine, but if they don't adopt babies or if they adopt in well developped countries, then they don't contribute to stabilise the population.
@aegisknox Really? are you suggesting that we have 2 children with the huge overpopulation problem we got right now ?? Earth's resources are not unlimited. In a few decades our current population will be more than double if we go down that path, so how are gay couples not helping by NOT having children?
@zxRazielxz We don't have an overpopulated problem in Canada. And if we adopt chineese kids, we will not contribute to keep a white population. We got to keep it white. I am not a racist. I want ALL races to survive, but with this mentality, white folks will disappear.
@aegisknox "will not contribute to keep a white population" .... then "We got to keep it white" but you're not racist?? sounds like you care about whites' survival, not the species as a whole. Some gay parents will adopt white children anyway, chinese children aint the only orphans. Btw the scientific consensus is that the current population expansion is a threat to earth's resources, if we want to survive we CANT have 2.2 children per human right now. So, how are gay men not helping?
@zxRazielxz You are right about the earth's population. We can't support having more people... BUT, if we keep 2.2 kids in Canada, per family, then we keep a good Canadian population, and we got to fight for the survival of the white, as we are going to disappear. Now, if Gay can adopt white kids, then i got no problem with it, and so, they contribute. As you can see, i am not homophobic, nor i am a racist. I am just a bored desperate troll who lure poeple in my boredumness.
@aegisknox Canada isnt paradise, the scientific consensus isnt "the current population expansion is a threat to earth's resources, except Canada", is that country part of the earth ? then they're in the same trouble. Btw why do you have to fight for the survival of the white? please provide non-racist reasons. Why cant gay families adopt black, chinese or latin kids, why is the caucasian race more important than everyone else? Sounds pretty damn racist.
I think that anybody should be able to get married if there's consent of every party. I don't give a fuck if someone marries a relative, or marries several people, as long as everyone wants to get married, then FINE. Seriously, you see drunk idiots get married in Vegas all the fucking time, and you guys are worried about gay marriage? Priorities, guys.
Also, why is it YOUR business?If you're going to this, at least reply to my points, and not give me some bull about religion.
@DebateMeTheists Who said 18+ was the age of consent laws can be changed. There are some states that will recognize underage marriages when parents give permission. So when the polygamist wants 14 under aged girls he can just get the parents to sign off.
@onebadgs400 well age of consent is different for other cultures but 18 - 20 is about the right time because our brain develop to the right stage to fully comprehend our decision. in reality males brain fully developed much later (because we use the sexual organs of females much earlier.) but 18 is roughly the right time.
@DebateMeTheists NO no no... like I said regardless of a child's consent a parent can consent for their child and agree to the marriage. Development means nothing in this argument, but since you want to bring this up then why do gays say they where BORN gay. Especially since they can't comprehend making sexual decisions before 18 yet I see MTV exploring(exploiting) the sexual confusion of young underage teens “It’s Your Sex Life” a gay Teen on "Teen Wolf"etc.. Are you sure 18 is the right time?
@Stevie2Sxc "you think people can't comprehend sexual decisions before 18 years old? wow do you ever fail at understanding teenagers"
Your pedophile brethren would agree with your comment. No teens can't comprehend sexual decisions before 18 its law and there are peer reviewed studies agreeing. They are not mature by 18 and don't know who they are till there mid 20s. Please watch teen mom on silly MTV. YOU fail at teens as you clearly are misinformed. I bet if you have any your teens run you.
Atheists make me smile and grimace at the same time. Such fools trying to explain arguments against gay marriage, albeit via the exertion of a hopelessly flawed world-view!
Homosexuality is a MORAL issue. What do these dim-wits think they can explain if they lay claim to little or no morality?
@Atrides77 being gay does not mean you have little to know morality. morality imply there are certain action that a good and bad. you morality says that being gay is bad. but being gay doesn't mean you have no morality it just means you have a different morality.
Morality doesn't exist it is to simple to explain something complex.
@Atrides77 - All human relations are moral issues. And it is completely moral for consenting adults to love each other. You know, literally nothing, zip, zilch about morals, because you think that morals are defined by the barbaric superstitions of a bunch of ancient, murderous desert thugs. What's seriously, deeply immoral is forcing everyone to live by the vicious rules of your regressive little fantasy cult. Just be honest and start murdering people for working on the Sabbath.
yes you may suffer some abuse from neighbors... IF THEY'RE BIGOTS LIKE THOSE WHO WANT TO DENY THEM THE RIGHT TO BE PARENTS IN THE FIRST PLACE. so the people are basically saying, "you shouldn't raise kids if you're a gay couple because me and my friends will give you hell, and should your kid really have to endure that?" huuuh? : )
Men cannot be mothers and mothers cannot be fathers as effectively as their opposite sex counterparts. They can try their best and some have to but it aint optimum.
@Retconaddict Sociologists have show that parenting styles are different, fathers parent with greater emphasis on life preparation skills, mothers are more nurturing. Something 2 lesbians or gays cant match. Thus huge difference. Denying a child a mum and dad for some cheap parody of normality is morally reprehensible.
@dougmmm Even if having a father and mother is the normal thing (even the best possible outcome for a child) - having two loving parents of the same sex is better than, let's say, being an orphan or living in an orphanage. Don't you think?
@onebadgs400 That actually commonly happens with fathers who are married to a woman, yet they molest the child. And the father could just as much molest the daughter. Think about it, stoopid. :)
There's nothing that a man can do that a woman can't do also, and vice versa. That's why I don't think your argument is good enough. Some mothers are more like fathers, and some fathers are more like mothers, so two "mothers" or two "fathers" can also raise a child in a way that two heterosexual parents would.
@dougmmm - "Sociologists have shown" - which is pure BS unless you cite it. If you're going to make some weak-ass appeal to authority, at least document your authority. As a single straight male parent, your assertion that I could not nurture my kids borders on offensive - then steps across that border.. My kids will tell you that I was sometimes a little too nurturing, especially when they became creep-agers.
.
But calling someone's relationship a "cheap parody" is where you reveal your hatred.
Sure lets give gays the right to give their pension rights to their partners, even get tax breaks for them but NO TO MARRIAGE. That special position is reserved for man and women, no other combination. Gays should get over it.
@dougmmm That's what it says in the Bible, yes. But thankfully the Bill of Rights tells us that the country should not be governed by any Religion. There's no reason why they shouldn't marry. It's not like they can't have children. So there's two parents, one who takes the husband role and one who takes the wife role (usually), what's the difference?
@Retconaddict The secular state is a good idea, it represents seperation of Church and state not absence of religion from the views of the populace. As for their being no reason - said who you ? The gay bathhouse? Trendies ? Fact there are various reasons they should not marry based on religious , sociological , moral arguments. By your argument why cant you then marry your sister or your dog ? Hey they've got rights yes ?
@dougmmm - Oh - the gay sex = bestiality argument. Wow, That's really brilliant. We're not talking about your relatives here, and how sad their sheep are. We're talking about the rights of tax-paying American citizens to engage in contract law without being discriminated against by the government that happily takes their taxes. Siblings marrying? Fine, as long as one is sterilized. There are valid scientific reasons to protect sibling offspring. Polygamy? Who cares? And why?
Marriage came from people, and people can manipulate things that they create. So it's unfair to claim that marriage is some natural thing that is naturally designed only for heterosexuals, because it's not.
@skadi87skadi , if marriage were 'unnatural' it wouldnt be a central human experience across diverse cultures, geographies for thousands of years of human existance. OK lets take the it's from people argument, if it's from people then people can create, define and design it as per societal wishes. Why is that unfair to gays ? You cant marry your dog, its that unfair to people into beasteality ? " I mean who are we to judge ". If you say judgementalism is wrong then how can you judge str8s?
It's a human central experience because humans need companion, or whatever you want to call it, and marriage is just a result of that need. The need is natural, marriage is the result. And I don't understand why you would compare love that people have for one another with love for animals? It's not the same, because that's not natural, for humans to have relations with animals, that's why it's wrong. But two humans...perfectly normal, whoever they are.
Why do you say that I judge straights? I'm straight too. I just judge people that judge other people without a real reason. What do you care whether two people of the opposite sex marry? It's none of your business, right? They're not doing anything criminal or anything that harms other people, so arguments against gay marriage are invalid.
people have a right to chose whether or not they want to give a tax break to a women-man marriage and not a man-man marriage, and there are plenty of logical reasons. Just because you want things to be changed doesn't mean everyone who has a different opinion is an idiot.
Personally, i would be for lesbian marriages because i think women need tax breaks, but why should we give tax breaks to 2 men.
@JMS13579 - so now you're in favor of penalizing people because of gender? Only women should get preferential treatment? Well, cool. That sets civil rights and suffrage back about eighty years. Maybe the better solution is to ensure women are paid equally than to make special pleading in the tax and civil code.
heres what i think, you guys are being too one-sided, and you are portraying everyone who disagrees with gay marriage as out of touch with reality and/or extremely religious or people with stubborn convictions that they will never let go for no reason at all (or at least to an atheist no reason). The fact is thats not true, and your survey is bound to attract only these type of people because who actually goes looking to vote on a anti gay marriage pole besides these people?
I don't want to pay for it because we are already broke and i think there are too many people already abusing the tax cuts etc of marriage system and i don't want to create another loophole
#5 it doesn't matter if the kids turn gay, it's about not having an opposite pair of sexes to raise a child because that's how it is in virtually all of biology, so it leads people to think that its the better way and people shouldn't be rewarded with tax cuts for something they think to damage society
yay for gay marriage...let people be happy..we need people to hate n thats soo sad.. we cant come out n hate black or women anymore so we turn to homosexuals to put down n make dem feell less in our communities in this world and thats not okay...at the end of the day we r all skin and bones behind our skin gender and sexuality...we all deserve equality and happiness n if u dont think so den tell me y?
@CRAZEDluv its not about hating anyone, i see nothing wrong with gay people, but i have a right to have an opinion and my opinion is that i don't want to create another loophole in the marriage system, because honestly the only reason they have for wanting "marriage" and not a union where they aren't included in social security is exactly that... all they want out of it is social security, and its reasonable to ask, but stop acting like one side is more moral than the other...
@umofou Talk about tunnel vision and close mindedness. He never implied that you model your country afterCanada nor any other country. He just stated a fact that allowing gays to marry has not caused any problems. Oh by the way health care is pretty good. Oh yeah another thing guns for sport only is very good. I cant remember the last time a kid was shot accidently here by his or her fathers gun !!!!! Wake up USA so you can regain your place as the best country in the world.
@umofou look at the title... he's debunking anti-gay marriage arguments. his mention of canada's fully functional integration of gay marriage is to disprove fears held by many here in America that allowing gay marriage would destroy our society. basic rhetoric my friend. we would not be modeling ourselves after canada if we chose to legalize gay marriage. we would just be making a smart decision.
@chrisliowknicksfan The words are there. He said and I quote "When did we want to model ourselves after Canada eh? The called did not suggest the US do this.
gee, no - I would have never guessed that. But then again, you only support my argument with this point Consider, given the proclivity of a rather sizable section of the population to opt for the marital alternative of polygamy why does the state [legally] outlaw that configuration if, in fact, one definition/form of marriage is as equal as another ? Could it be (as I've argued) because the state has determined from its protracted experience sit's not beneficial. UR argument is deficient
You are disecting the issue too much. Marriage is defined as a unionship between a man and a woman. No one has the right to redfine that. Marriage is the basic family unit responsible for the formation of society through procreation. Gays therefore cannot be married. they can have civil unionship but not married. I don't care other technicalities ... like children becoming gays ... etc... .that;s not the issue. the issue is marriage... you dumb asss
@migxp1 Obama i sthe president of the USA, you are a sissy faggot, Obama has a Harvard law degree, u are still a faggot, Obama is a great public speaker, u are still an idiot faggot, Obama will do well in life after his presidency, u will still be a fat slob faggot. Everyone has opinions. I do too.
@migxp1 No.... at least my asshole isn't burning like yours is. Is foam or some yellow liquid coming out of your asshole???? Do you then eat all the gooey stuff??? Damn, being gay must be disgusting....
@migxp1 you said, faggots are always complaing, I mean, what thef- k do they want?? equality???? women don't even have equality, and now the faggots want something that even women can't have??? what the f--K?
@migxp1 So if you want to join the 100 million, go ahead. Homosexuality is wrong. If you practice it and don't give a shit where you go when you die ... I feel sorry for you. I don't care if you are gay. What I do care about is our kids and young teens who are influential. If they start believeing that homosecuality is a good thing, this will destroy society. And this is where people like me steps in. I can't change the world but I can change my community, schools and kids.
@migxp1 So I guess you do not obhect to the principles that faggots are projecting. You do not understand the serious implications of the legalization of marriages. You have no stake in all this. You just live life going with the flow. Therefore you have no opinion of right and wrong ... then why the f--k do you even bother arguing with me. You should go back under a rock and jack off like a fruity faggot !!! Truth hurts
@migxp1 It doesn't matter whether or not you believe in God, God still exists. Your problem is that you've have within yourself a spirit of rebellion and will not bow down to your ultimiate authority, your creator, GOD, becasue he does not suit your beliefs in homosexuality. Everyone has an ultimate authority in life. This makes you a very very stupid man, a stupid faggot as well. I know who my authority is and sumit to him, no ifs and buts. Truth hurts, eh ? eh eh ? eh eh eh ??
LOL. That's no different than me saying: It doesn't matter whether or not you believe in [Allah], [Allah] still exists. Your problem is that you've have within yourself a spirit of rebellion and will not bow down to your ultimiate authority, your creator, [Al-Khāliq], becasue he does not suit your beliefs in [Christianity]. Everyone has an ultimate authority in life.
@nonameorgame Why?
Juillardl 4 days ago
I oppose same sex marriage and gay sex. Gay people should not be married, and should not be allowed to have sex.
nonameorgame 1 week ago
@nonameorgame And what if YOU were part of a minority and gay people were the majority? What if they wanted to ban heterosexual relationships, sex, and marriage? How would you feel then? Please, tell us why you want to limit other people's freedoms. And please tell us you don't live in America.
TerranRich 3 days ago
Consider this: Should males be allowed to join groups that have requirements limiting membership to females? If SS couples demand to join the group a group such as marriage (defined as the union of one man and one woman) then why shouldn't anyone be allowed to cry "discrimination" at will? Why have rules for anything at all? What would stop a male from joining any female group in existence?
romansten9 3 months ago
Their arguments are incredibly easy to pick apart and this is a waste of their time and mine. Surprising, because they have done better in the past.
romansten9 3 months ago
Comment removed
romansten9 3 months ago
They totally miss the point of "not having children" being a point. Its about the design of human beings. I would like them to tell me that homosexuals are "by design" able to have children by having intercourse.
Clearly one man and one woman have the necessary "design" to make this possible. This means that gender differences have a purpose in creating new life. Same sex is as far from this as a man and an animal trying to pro-create. Their argument is pointless and a waste of time.
romansten9 3 months ago
@romansten9 Design requires a designer. You need to demonstrate the existence of one before assuming it exists.
Fertile couples may well be "designed" with the ability to procreate, infertile couples, including post-menopausal women are not. As pointed out in the video, marriage is not prohibited among them or heteros who choose not to have kids.
Perception of purpose is subjective. You also make the erroneous assumption that non-compliance with purpose is somehow "wrong".
Jamieishere1 3 months ago
@Jamieishere1
You really have me lost as to the logic you are using by saying: because some couples are infertile (or of advanced age) this somehow makes sleeping with the same sex somehow "natural" I understand that you think you have a valid argument because some people claim that one purpose of marriage is procreation, therefore gays can somehow "hitch a ride" on the backs of infertile couples (similar to the way gays attach to the "racial discrimination" argument) -more failed logic
romansten9 3 months ago
@romansten9 No, I don't believe you raised a criticism of the naturalness of homosexuality in your previous post. However, something being natural or not is irrelevant to it's moral validity, given that all technology, including all forms of medical care are "unnatural", yet you do not object to them it seems.
Regarding marriage/procreation, marriage has many potential "purposes". Regarding your "hitching a ride" point, there didn't seem to be any clear argument in there (just an assertion).
Jamieishere1 3 months ago
@Jamieishere1 Yes, its true that some hetero couples are not able or willing to have children. Thats really a moot point anyway.
Heres a a metaphor to help you see what I mean: There are laws regarding who may drive a car. (just as there are laws regarding who may marry) Some people choose not to drive even though they meet the legal requirements for driving. The fact that some choose not to drive does not provide permission for someone underage to somehow "inherit" their license.
romansten9 3 months ago
@romansten9 The analogy doesn't seem to work in that there are reasons why somebody who is underage is considered too young to drive (danger to others), while this doesn't seem to be the case with ss couples and marriage.
The case with infertile couples is a counter to an argument against ss marriage, not a direct argument for ss marriage. Claims that marriage is for procreation (despite being entirely unjustified in the first place) are shown to be flawed too by married infertile couples.
Jamieishere1 3 months ago
@Jamieishere1 The '"danger to others" argument is another one entirely, but glad you brought it up. : )
Many studies (please don't ask me to link them, because they aren't difficult to find!) show that children benefit greatly from having both male and female parents. Each gender contributes something unique in the raising of children. To say that it doesn't is really an insult to all male and females alive. (including gay adults) BTW, the research is my point here, not the "insult factor"
romansten9 3 months ago
I'll PM you the statements of the major mental health organizations on ss parenting, though you have changed your argument away from marriage to adoption now...
Jamieishere1 3 months ago
@Jamieishere1 Noncompliance with purpose (in regard to human beings IS wrong)
Using a human being in way that is against their purpose is to use someone and (probably more accurately) to abuse. Human beings of the same sex were not designed to reproduce. This is completely obvious from what we know about reproduction and I don't think I need to explain this to anyone. If same sex couples have rights, then certainly pedophiles will demand the same rights and already have.
romansten9 3 months ago
@romansten9 Perception of purpose is subjective. It's a concept that we superimpose upon reality, not an objective property of entities within reality. Two ways to demonstrate this are the facts that 1) different people may perceive different purposes for the same object, 2) purpose isn't a measurable property.
The person that gets to decide their purpose is that person themselves, not anybody else.
You haven't established the relevance of reproductive ability.
Jamieishere1 3 months ago
@Jamieishere1 Well, as for purpose, there are a great number of people that believe that God created people, just as God created the universe and created order and purpose within it. Marriage has purposes that have been determined by God and the ability to reproduce fits within certain parameters. (male/female pairing is required and is not debatable)
Yes, some people don't believe in God, but many do. SS relations are not part of God's plan and (interestingly) do not allow procreation.
romansten9 3 months ago
@romansten9 Many people may well believe that God etc provides the purpose while other people believe differently. The number of people who believe something doesn't affect whether it's true or not though. If purpose existed in the universe (outside of our minds), we would be able to measure it. Do you know what the units of measurement of purpose are?
The ability to reproduce requires FERTILE males and females. Though in most species it does not and did not in our ancient ancestors.
Jamieishere1 3 months ago
@Jamieishere1 Your argument that some "don't" believe in God isn't any stronger than my argument that some "do" believe. I think we agree that truth is truth and that the meaning of "purpose" is defined best by what people agree that it means. I was making a case for "believer's" use of the word purpose, since the word purpose has been connected to God's created intention of it for 1000s of years amongst billions of people. A majority could certainly decide a word's meaning & has in history.
romansten9 3 months ago
@romansten9 Nope, purpose is subjective, so nobody's opinion on it is superior to anybody else's, irrespective of how many people hold each viewpoint.
Truth is truth but something's "purpose" isn't a factual statement about the universe, it's a statement about what somebody subjectively designates as an object/entities primary function, sometimes including the suggestion that other possible functions of that thing are prohibited. This prohibition is of course not justified.
Jamieishere1 3 months ago
@Jamieishere1 I agree with much of what you say about purpose. Thanks for admitting that "nobody's opinion is superior to anybody else's" In an earlier comment, you appeared to be telling me what the word meant, now you are admitting something quite different.
You also admit the limitations of science, which means that you also have no greater understanding of this than I do. I'm (sincerely) grateful for your honesty.
romansten9 3 months ago
@romansten9 Easy there tiger ^^. Nobody's opinion about purpose is superior to anybody else's because it is subjective but that isn't the same as saying all opinions are equal in all things. As you said, truth is truth. So if one person believes the truth (hopefully for the right reasons, rather than by coincidence) and another person believes something that isn't the truth, then their opinions are not equal.
I admit that science cannot deliver absolute proof, just as nothing else can.
Jamieishere1 3 months ago
@romansten9 It is not required that science be able to provide absolute proof. It would be nice if it could but it isn't really relevant. If we want to gain knowledge the logical thing to do is to use the best mechanism available to us to achieve this. Science is the best mechanism available... that it cannot prove things 100% is irrelevant as that isn't our objective. Our objective is to gain knowledge as best as we can... with science being the best way to do it.
Jamieishere1 3 months ago
@Jamieishere1 Keep in mind (as you use scientific "jargon") that NOTHING in the universe has ever been measured "exactly" Everything is an approximation, and when our tools of measurement become more precise, we will prove this (& history has already proven this)
Some might say, "well, measurements are close enough" Actually, many measurements are not close at all, and many things accepted by science as "fact" aren't facts. (btw, I believe God made order, and science possible)
romansten9 3 months ago
@romansten9 Sure but "purpose" can't be measured at all... there isn't a unit of measurement of it because it doesn't exist within the universe. It only exists conceptually, in the form of a concept we attach to our perception of things. History has proven what :s?
Science = an evidence based approach, designed to be as objective as possible. It is the best mechanism for discerning truth that we have or could have. There is no other way to reliably determine facts.
Jamieishere1 3 months ago
@Jamieishere1 Well, as for purpose, there are a great number of people that believe that God created people, just as God created the universe and created order and purpose within it. Marriage has purposes that have been determined by God and the ability to reproduce fits within certain parameters. (male/female pairing is required and is not debatable)
No, some people don't believe in God, but many do. SS relations are not part of God's plan and (interestingly) do not allow procreation.
romansten9 3 months ago
@romansten9 God is not required. It is legal marriage that is debated, not religious marriage, though the notion of religious freedom instantly allows anybody to pursue religious marriage within their own religion anyway.
Whether or not ss relationships are part of God's plan isn't as cut and dry as many churches' dogma dictates either.
I don't think you've established the relevance of procreation yet btw.
Jamieishere1 3 months ago
Respond to this video... The relevance of reproductive ability is that male/female pairing is absolutely required. (Even if conception is by "artificial means" there is still the requirement of the pairing of male and female)
The fact that some couples are infertile is the thing that is not relevant. Some couples cannot bear children. So what?If a football team requires that players be male, and some males are not physically able to play, how does that mean that healthy females may join?
romansten9 3 months ago
@romansten9 YOU WROTE: "The relevance of reproductive ability is that male/female pairing is absolutely required."
FERTILE male/female pairing :P. What is reproductive ability within all marriages required for though? Clearly by not protesting infertile couple's marriages you don't consider it essential.
Again you're treating the infertile couple COUNTER like it's a direct argument for SS marriage, in your football analogy. It isn't, it's a COUNTER to your reproduction point.
Jamieishere1 3 months ago
@Jamieishere1 Do you believe that words have meaning? You must, or how could we possibly communicate?
The bottom line is that marriage means the union of one man and one woman. Anything else is NOT marriage. Just as a male can never become a female. (regardless of physical changes made to one's body) A male will always be a male. A male does not qualify to be listed as a female. Should the word female be changed to describe a male? Of course not. Words absolutely do have meanings.
romansten9 3 months ago
@romansten9 Even if we ignore my other point on your football analogy, again, females can't play in that team for specific reasons.... the same is not true for ss marriage, or at least you have so far not demonstrated it to be so. Your "potential for procreation" criterion has been countered and you have not provided any further criterion so far I believe.
The meaning of words change over time. See Shakespeare or old bible translations for endless examples (e.g. KJV).
Jamieishere1 3 months ago
@Jamieishere1 A response to the Bible translation comment. The meaning of those words has not changed. I agree that the culture/times of the Bible are not the same as we live in today, but we have the closest translations possible in current translations. Yes, some words are expounded on, or paraphrased in some cases, but not complete changes in meaning. Any such words would be explained in the commentary section anyway.
romansten9 3 months ago
@romansten9 My point wasn't that the intended meaning had changed but that words that meant one thing (such as "effeminate, translated from ancient Greek "malakoi") do not mean "effeminate" as we understand it today for instance. They mean a different set of characteristics as determined by bronze age concepts of effeminacy. I also meant that the entire language had changed.
Jamieishere1 3 months ago
@romansten9 The argument that "marriage is defined between a man and a women and so gays shouldn't marry" relies on the premise that "previous definitions dictate how the word must be used in future". The word "gay" would actually be an example of one that's definition has changed over time, as would "faggot". Words can and do change over time. If you want to argue that a word should not, then you need to justify why not, not just say that it wasn't defined that way before.
Jamieishere1 3 months ago
@Jamieishere1 I received your (longer) message and I agree that the "fertility" comments may have taken away from my main point. I accept the blame for that. I did make an earlier comment to bring it back to one of my main ideas on this topic:
Marriage means the union of one man and one woman. Anything else is not marriage. If someone shoots another person, and its on camera and witnessed, (so there is no doubt) do we call that murder or suicide? Why not just erase all meanings of words?
romansten9 3 months ago
@romansten9 The idea that it is equivalent to erasing all meaning of words is a straw man fallacy, as that isn't what is being argued for. Language naturally evolves and improves or at the very least, changes, over time, which is why I indicated the bible etc (as evidence of that). Even the word "marriage" for instance has been derived from latin, then french, then an older form of English, which were all spelt differently.
tbc
Jamieishere1 3 months ago
@romansten9 My point is in effect calling for an improvement of a single word, not changing a whole language. As Matt detailed, at one time, "voter" was defined as being a "white male".... we improved that definition because not doing so was unjustified discrimination. Marriage used to be defined as being between people of the same race... we improved that definition. Currently, one group of people are prohibited from marriage while another are not. This requires justification.
Jamieishere1 3 months ago
@Jamieishere1 I've heard S.S couples claim that love is the only requirement for marriage. By that definition, what is to stop a person from marrying a child? (not old enough to decide for themselves?) So what? We'll just change that law also. We'll just say that one person can decide for both parties. Why not? If we mess with one law we can mess with another. You can talk about race all you want to. The inter-racial couples were male/female and that is what marriage is.
romansten9 3 months ago
@romansten9 Informed consent.
Your providing a faulty analogy. There is no argument against SS marriage... so no reason not to modify legislation. There is an argument against child-adult marriage, so there is a reason not to modify the law.
It isn't about whimsically changing laws, it's about proponents of your viewpoint justifying why you should be able to restrict other's access to a liberty that you yourself have access to. If you can't the law should change.
Jamieishere1 3 months ago
@Jamieishere1 You said that the word marriage will be "improved" by including S.S. couples. How do you know that? You don't. That is a giant social experiment that has never been done. Society is based on thousands of years of marriages made up of male/females and their offspring. Family units are a huge base of what makes a stable society. You have no basis for what you claim is an improvement. So far, groups of gays have shown detriment to society, NOT improvement.
romansten9 3 months ago
@romansten9 The only difference between banning inter-racial and banning ss marriage is the characteristic involved has changed. Was race, now it's gender... To opponents of inter-racial marriage... same race, opposite sex marriage "is what marriage is". Legal Marriage is a human construct and as such, can be whatever we make it.
I know it will be improved because it will no longer be a term that is discriminatorily available for some while prohibited for others, without justification.
Jamieishere1 3 months ago
@romansten9 All societal improvement could be described as "a giant social experiment that has never been done".... doesn't mean we should stop trying to improve...
Society is based upon many things and marriage has changed throughout the ages. Biblically, it was a man giving his property (a women) to another man for instance.
Nobody is interfering with a "family unit"... you have provided no evidence to suggest that they are.
Jamieishere1 3 months ago
@romansten9 The idea that words should not be redefined is just an unjustified assertion made and like appeals to tradition, is merely a resistance to change (improvement) for the sake of it. It's like saying "we should not change because we shouldn't". As Matt said in the video, at one time, "voter" meant "white male" I.E. not women, not other races... we've improved that definition.
Btw, if you use the biblical God as your basis for marriage, polygamy is sanctioned biblically.
Jamieishere1 3 months ago
@Jamieishere1 Please show me scriptures that say that God has encouraged polygamy. I'm sure you realize that everything that is in the Bible is not ideal. Many cases of polygamy were shown in a negative light in the Bible. Not every mention of polygamy was a direct lesson on the immorality of polygamy, but often necessary for the reporting of a family line, which required the mention of someone's wives, etc.
Even so, we are living in the new covenant, not the old anyway.
romansten9 3 months ago
@romansten9 Me pointing to Shakespeare/the bible was simply to show that entire languages change. God is not required to encourage polygamy for my point to be correct, only to sanction it. Even the absence of a condemnation would be evidence tbh. Anyway, Exodus 21:10, Deut 21:15-17, 2 Samuel 12:8.
You still follow the OT too to a degree I expect. It's all the word of God... Not worth getting in to all that anyway though, it'll take us way off topic.
Jamieishere1 3 months ago
@Jamieishere1 The relevance of reproductive ability is really for both of us to show.
Because, you haven't shown how it is relevant either. The inability of some to conceive is not a "loophole" that allows SS couples to marry. I really don't see how that matters whatsoever.
Here is my statement of relevance: Male & female are required to reproduce. This is one "agreed" purpose of marriage (even "non-church" marriage) Remember, some infertile couples become fertile. (gays do not)
romansten9 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@romansten9 You Wrote: "The relevance of reproductive ability is really for both of us to show."
No it isn't because you're the only one that's claiming it is relevant... I'm not making that claim, so I have no reason to try to justify it as I don't believe it to be the case.
You're still taking my counter to your claim as a direct argument for SS marriage ^^, I'll try to explain that more in the PM.
Jamieishere1 3 months ago
@Jamieishere1 Really, the bottom line is that there are RULES regarding who may marry. Age is another rule. So, are you willing to throw out the age requirement as well as the gender requirement?
If not, then you are asking for special treatment and it is obvious that other groups will demand this treatment as well. Where does it stop? Do we allow people to marry animals? Why not, if same sex marriage are allowed? What if a person "loves" a pet? Is that any more "strange" to you?
romansten9 3 months ago
@romansten9 The paedo point was a bit ridiculous... it's simply a totally separate issue (slippery slope fallacy/transfer propaganda). It's a separate issue, to be debated on it's own merit... in a separate debate.
Like with the age with driving, it is again simply not an even comparison because there are reasons that there is an age restriction on marriage/relationships (kids considered incapable of consent). These reasons do not apply to ss couples.... so it isn't special treatment at all.
Jamieishere1 3 months ago
I doubt God judges people the way you seem to!! ;)
9zreed 4 months ago
thank you guys I am not an atheist, I believe in God, but I'm gay and your logic is amazing. I know you dont believe in God, but in my opinion, God is happy about what you're doing here. You are making religious people realize that they have to be logical, that there is no place for non-sensical, biased religious beliefs even if scripture does seem to allow for it.
9zreed 4 months ago
Comment removed
FoldedTapestry 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@9zreed I doubt God is happy with The Atheist Experience, haha ;)
FoldedTapestry 4 months ago
Choosing homosexuality is a sin and disgustingly unnatural. You people need Jesus.
TheLastAbacus 5 months ago
Nothing is wrong with gay marriage, just don't let them have children. Imagine the extreme discrimination the children of the gay people will face, and they have to deal with that until they move out. I mean seriously? I've felt discrimination, it's terrible, REALLY terrible.
sniperfury1 5 months ago
@sniperfury1 or, even better, encourage society to change their views on same-sex couples by legalising gay marriage & presenting it (& therefore homosexuality) as NORMAL. then same-sex couples can have all the kids they want :D
one of my close friends has 2 mums, & she's awesome, & so are both her mums. she's never been given a hard time about it.
TheBgoz 5 months ago
The only problem i see is if you are a kid with 2 dads, you will be more likely to become gay. It's not a problem, really, since i got no problem with gays. BUT, what if, statistically, gays keep going up... at a considerable rate... let's say 50% of population would be gay. Now... gays would say "50% make sense, since it is just as natural to be gay then straight"... Ok, i hear you, BUT, if 50% of population become gay, we will face some social issues and demographic issues. No ?
aegisknox 5 months ago
@aegisknox - huh? You're more likely to become gay if you have gay parents? Seriously? What study can you cite that gay parents have more gay kids than straight parents? There's not one. Not one single study. So that's pure, distilled BS. So what happens if we become more gay? Guess what. Being gay turns out not to be a selected trait in evolution, for reasons that should be obvious. So your 50% argument seems silly - unless you have the tired and discredited notion that "gay" is environmental.
47f0 5 months ago
@47f0 There is no study about kids becoming gay if got gay parents simply because there aren't enough kids in these situations. Kids will become more peacefull if they got peaceful parents, or violent if they got violent parents. They will more likely develop traits that are similar to their parents. Kids have gay parents will have more chance to become gay, but wont go over 50%. Basically, those kids would have just as much chance to go straight or gay. I am not homophobic.
aegisknox 5 months ago
@aegisknox - there are fairly good studies that homosexuality is not a selected trait in evolution - because they tend not to breed. I promise - if there's one trait that is universally selected for in all species, it is reproduction. I have always known that I was straight - girls made my palms sweaty in kindergarten. If Liberace and Richard Simmons were my dads, it would not have made the slightest difference. I might have been a piano-playing exercise nut, but straight was built into my genes
47f0 5 months ago
@47f0 Did you just implement that homosexuality is some kind of twisted gene ? The "evolution" is natural for a specie as they genetically go for reproduction, thus, gays got some bad genes since they don'T go for a reproduction orientation... I think some gays are born gays, and some gays become gays. What if our evolution is becoming so advanced, that we wont need reproduction as we know it ? We are gay or straight, the goal is to fall in love, no matter of the sex type.
aegisknox 5 months ago
@aegisknox - yup, I did exactly that. But you use some really judgmental words for genetic differences, like "twisted" and "bad". I'm not sure what's "twisted" and "bad" about gays. Maybe you could explain that? In the meantime, we have found, in two studies now, (Savic & Lindstrom, and another I can't locate right now) that there are anatomical differences in the brains of homosexuals. Which would seem to indicate a genetic influence.
47f0 5 months ago
@47f0 I beleive of a second type of homosexuality, Genes explain only one type. With science, if parents discover their baby got the homosexual gene, and they can, with the help of science, correct those genes so their baby born straight. Would you back up such a law, or right ? I would be for it, and it would be a free service too. Kids can't be harmed, 'cause they will never know they were gays.
aegisknox 5 months ago
@aegisknox There is no such thing as a homosexual gene. Hormones and genes are not the same thing. Educate yourself
splicedenergy 5 months ago
@splicedenergy I know, i don't beleive there is a homo gene. That is what the other guy beleived, i was just replying "IF, like your beleives, there is a homo gene, then... bla, bla, bla".
aegisknox 5 months ago
@splicedenergy - Sorry, but pretending that hormones and genes have no connection is so far wrong that it's kind of hard to take you seriously. I promise you - every single protein in your body, hormones included, is regulated by your DNA. The simplest, and most basic refutation of your argument that there is no gene/hormone connection is the Y Chromosome.
47f0 5 months ago
@aegisknox - Well, I guess if you think gay is a disease, then gene therapy must be the solution. Is gay a disease? What other genetic traits would you have "corrected"? Dark skin? Brown eyes? I realize that you're trying to sound reasonable, but since you start with the deeply flawed premise that "gay is a disease, a defect", you actually come off sounding pretty horrific - and only a half step away from wanting a uniform, homogenous master race. I'm pretty sure we've seen that trick before.
47f0 5 months ago
@47f0 A good civilian needs to make 2 babies, have an honest work and pay incomes. Live otherwise and you are not doing your work, so then, others support your weight. Gay men don't support their own weight, they don't contribute since they don't make babies. BUT, the right of freedom is greater then this responsability. I am pro choice and respoect gays. BUT, if parents can correct the situation, and make their babies avoid being gay, then it should be their right to do so.
aegisknox 5 months ago
@aegisknox Where does it say that a good civilian has to do that? why dont gay men support their weight? Even if that "good civilian" crap that you just pulled out of nowhere was true, gay couples could adopt children and pay their taxes.
zxRazielxz 5 months ago
@zxRazielxz To replace a generation, you actually need to make 2.2 children. So, if every people make 2 children, then, the population stay about the same. That is in well developped countries. So, in these countries, everyone needs to take their responsabilities and make 2 children at least. Now, if Gay men adopt 2 children in a overcrowded countries, it's fine, but if they don't adopt babies or if they adopt in well developped countries, then they don't contribute to stabilise the population.
aegisknox 5 months ago
@aegisknox Really? are you suggesting that we have 2 children with the huge overpopulation problem we got right now ?? Earth's resources are not unlimited. In a few decades our current population will be more than double if we go down that path, so how are gay couples not helping by NOT having children?
zxRazielxz 5 months ago
@zxRazielxz We don't have an overpopulated problem in Canada. And if we adopt chineese kids, we will not contribute to keep a white population. We got to keep it white. I am not a racist. I want ALL races to survive, but with this mentality, white folks will disappear.
aegisknox 5 months ago
@aegisknox "will not contribute to keep a white population" .... then "We got to keep it white" but you're not racist?? sounds like you care about whites' survival, not the species as a whole. Some gay parents will adopt white children anyway, chinese children aint the only orphans. Btw the scientific consensus is that the current population expansion is a threat to earth's resources, if we want to survive we CANT have 2.2 children per human right now. So, how are gay men not helping?
zxRazielxz 5 months ago
@zxRazielxz You are right about the earth's population. We can't support having more people... BUT, if we keep 2.2 kids in Canada, per family, then we keep a good Canadian population, and we got to fight for the survival of the white, as we are going to disappear. Now, if Gay can adopt white kids, then i got no problem with it, and so, they contribute. As you can see, i am not homophobic, nor i am a racist. I am just a bored desperate troll who lure poeple in my boredumness.
aegisknox 5 months ago
@aegisknox Canada isnt paradise, the scientific consensus isnt "the current population expansion is a threat to earth's resources, except Canada", is that country part of the earth ? then they're in the same trouble. Btw why do you have to fight for the survival of the white? please provide non-racist reasons. Why cant gay families adopt black, chinese or latin kids, why is the caucasian race more important than everyone else? Sounds pretty damn racist.
zxRazielxz 5 months ago
I'm not gay but this is how a ANY well educated person SHOULD perceive the matter,
response to reason one,
They're basically saying it's better to be a orphan than two daddies
OBVIOUSLY NOT
Another response
Gay people will raise gay children,
how do you know if you won't FUCKING ALLOW IT
Another piece of shit I've heard is that the more one associates with a gay the more inclined said person will become to being a gay
GAY IS NOT A FUCKING DISEASE HARDLY LIKE YOU CAN CATCH IT
Dregora3 6 months ago
I think that anybody should be able to get married if there's consent of every party. I don't give a fuck if someone marries a relative, or marries several people, as long as everyone wants to get married, then FINE. Seriously, you see drunk idiots get married in Vegas all the fucking time, and you guys are worried about gay marriage? Priorities, guys.
Also, why is it YOUR business?If you're going to this, at least reply to my points, and not give me some bull about religion.
shortazn97 6 months ago
this is ridiculous. Do you support siblings marrying. What about polygamy. Yeah thought so. No logic in your speaking just bashing Christians.
onebadgs400 6 months ago
@onebadgs400 we set and age for consent 18+ once you are over that age you can consent to any sort of relationship.
DebateMeTheists 6 months ago
@DebateMeTheists Who said 18+ was the age of consent laws can be changed. There are some states that will recognize underage marriages when parents give permission. So when the polygamist wants 14 under aged girls he can just get the parents to sign off.
onebadgs400 6 months ago
@onebadgs400 well age of consent is different for other cultures but 18 - 20 is about the right time because our brain develop to the right stage to fully comprehend our decision. in reality males brain fully developed much later (because we use the sexual organs of females much earlier.) but 18 is roughly the right time.
DebateMeTheists 6 months ago
@DebateMeTheists NO no no... like I said regardless of a child's consent a parent can consent for their child and agree to the marriage. Development means nothing in this argument, but since you want to bring this up then why do gays say they where BORN gay. Especially since they can't comprehend making sexual decisions before 18 yet I see MTV exploring(exploiting) the sexual confusion of young underage teens “It’s Your Sex Life” a gay Teen on "Teen Wolf"etc.. Are you sure 18 is the right time?
onebadgs400 6 months ago
@onebadgs400 you think people can't comprehend sexual decisions before 18 years old? wow do you ever fail at understanding teenagers
Stevie2Sxc 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Stevie2Sxc "you think people can't comprehend sexual decisions before 18 years old? wow do you ever fail at understanding teenagers"
Your pedophile brethren would agree with your comment. No teens can't comprehend sexual decisions before 18 its law and there are peer reviewed studies agreeing. They are not mature by 18 and don't know who they are till there mid 20s. Please watch teen mom on silly MTV. YOU fail at teens as you clearly are misinformed. I bet if you have any your teens run you.
onebadgs400 6 months ago
Atheists make me smile and grimace at the same time. Such fools trying to explain arguments against gay marriage, albeit via the exertion of a hopelessly flawed world-view!
Homosexuality is a MORAL issue. What do these dim-wits think they can explain if they lay claim to little or no morality?
Atrides77 7 months ago
@Atrides77 that whole thing makes no sense, watch /watch?v=JDKL-f9Iwds
BlackOppTamama 6 months ago
@Atrides77 ha
sfurner 6 months ago
@Atrides77 being gay does not mean you have little to know morality. morality imply there are certain action that a good and bad. you morality says that being gay is bad. but being gay doesn't mean you have no morality it just means you have a different morality.
Morality doesn't exist it is to simple to explain something complex.
DebateMeTheists 6 months ago
@Atrides77 - All human relations are moral issues. And it is completely moral for consenting adults to love each other. You know, literally nothing, zip, zilch about morals, because you think that morals are defined by the barbaric superstitions of a bunch of ancient, murderous desert thugs. What's seriously, deeply immoral is forcing everyone to live by the vicious rules of your regressive little fantasy cult. Just be honest and start murdering people for working on the Sabbath.
47f0 5 months ago
yes you may suffer some abuse from neighbors... IF THEY'RE BIGOTS LIKE THOSE WHO WANT TO DENY THEM THE RIGHT TO BE PARENTS IN THE FIRST PLACE. so the people are basically saying, "you shouldn't raise kids if you're a gay couple because me and my friends will give you hell, and should your kid really have to endure that?" huuuh? : )
caseyforever 9 months ago
Men cannot be mothers and mothers cannot be fathers as effectively as their opposite sex counterparts. They can try their best and some have to but it aint optimum.
@Retconaddict Sociologists have show that parenting styles are different, fathers parent with greater emphasis on life preparation skills, mothers are more nurturing. Something 2 lesbians or gays cant match. Thus huge difference. Denying a child a mum and dad for some cheap parody of normality is morally reprehensible.
dougmmm 11 months ago
@dougmmm Even if having a father and mother is the normal thing (even the best possible outcome for a child) - having two loving parents of the same sex is better than, let's say, being an orphan or living in an orphanage. Don't you think?
TyrannosaurusReks 10 months ago
@TyrannosaurusReks Agreed. And having two loving fathers or mothers is better than having a father who abuses the mother and the children.
Darius135gease 6 months ago
@Darius135gease or a gay dad molesting a boy as he is attracted to the boy.
onebadgs400 6 months ago
@onebadgs400 That actually commonly happens with fathers who are married to a woman, yet they molest the child. And the father could just as much molest the daughter. Think about it, stoopid. :)
Darius135gease 6 months ago
@Darius135gease learn to spell, fag enabler!
WestboroBaptistVEVO 6 months ago
@WestboroBaptistVEVO I spelled it like that on purpose, douchebag!
Darius135gease 6 months ago
@dougmmm
There's nothing that a man can do that a woman can't do also, and vice versa. That's why I don't think your argument is good enough. Some mothers are more like fathers, and some fathers are more like mothers, so two "mothers" or two "fathers" can also raise a child in a way that two heterosexual parents would.
skadi87skadi 10 months ago
@dougmmm - "Sociologists have shown" - which is pure BS unless you cite it. If you're going to make some weak-ass appeal to authority, at least document your authority. As a single straight male parent, your assertion that I could not nurture my kids borders on offensive - then steps across that border.. My kids will tell you that I was sometimes a little too nurturing, especially when they became creep-agers.
.
But calling someone's relationship a "cheap parody" is where you reveal your hatred.
47f0 5 months ago
Marriage is a sacred biblical tradition, blessed by God, between a woman and her rapist. Deuteronomy 22.
arp76 11 months ago
@arp76 lies
marriage was around long before the buybull
mermaidsareppl222 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Online Latino women here who can trust rockmycity.info
kemasanuja 11 months ago
Marriage - man and woman only.
How convenient to label objectors 'bigots'.
Standard name calling diversion.
Sure lets give gays the right to give their pension rights to their partners, even get tax breaks for them but NO TO MARRIAGE. That special position is reserved for man and women, no other combination. Gays should get over it.
dougmmm 11 months ago
@dougmmm That's what it says in the Bible, yes. But thankfully the Bill of Rights tells us that the country should not be governed by any Religion. There's no reason why they shouldn't marry. It's not like they can't have children. So there's two parents, one who takes the husband role and one who takes the wife role (usually), what's the difference?
Retconaddict 11 months ago
@Retconaddict The secular state is a good idea, it represents seperation of Church and state not absence of religion from the views of the populace. As for their being no reason - said who you ? The gay bathhouse? Trendies ? Fact there are various reasons they should not marry based on religious , sociological , moral arguments. By your argument why cant you then marry your sister or your dog ? Hey they've got rights yes ?
dougmmm 11 months ago
@dougmmm - Oh - the gay sex = bestiality argument. Wow, That's really brilliant. We're not talking about your relatives here, and how sad their sheep are. We're talking about the rights of tax-paying American citizens to engage in contract law without being discriminated against by the government that happily takes their taxes. Siblings marrying? Fine, as long as one is sterilized. There are valid scientific reasons to protect sibling offspring. Polygamy? Who cares? And why?
47f0 5 months ago
@dougmmm
Marriage came from people, and people can manipulate things that they create. So it's unfair to claim that marriage is some natural thing that is naturally designed only for heterosexuals, because it's not.
skadi87skadi 10 months ago
@skadi87skadi , if marriage were 'unnatural' it wouldnt be a central human experience across diverse cultures, geographies for thousands of years of human existance. OK lets take the it's from people argument, if it's from people then people can create, define and design it as per societal wishes. Why is that unfair to gays ? You cant marry your dog, its that unfair to people into beasteality ? " I mean who are we to judge ". If you say judgementalism is wrong then how can you judge str8s?
dougmmm 10 months ago
@dougmmm
It's a human central experience because humans need companion, or whatever you want to call it, and marriage is just a result of that need. The need is natural, marriage is the result. And I don't understand why you would compare love that people have for one another with love for animals? It's not the same, because that's not natural, for humans to have relations with animals, that's why it's wrong. But two humans...perfectly normal, whoever they are.
skadi87skadi 10 months ago
@dougmmm
Why do you say that I judge straights? I'm straight too. I just judge people that judge other people without a real reason. What do you care whether two people of the opposite sex marry? It's none of your business, right? They're not doing anything criminal or anything that harms other people, so arguments against gay marriage are invalid.
skadi87skadi 10 months ago
people have a right to chose whether or not they want to give a tax break to a women-man marriage and not a man-man marriage, and there are plenty of logical reasons. Just because you want things to be changed doesn't mean everyone who has a different opinion is an idiot.
Personally, i would be for lesbian marriages because i think women need tax breaks, but why should we give tax breaks to 2 men.
How about this?
Lesbian marriages aloud; tax break.
Gay marriages aloud; tax increase,cover cost
JMS13579 11 months ago
@JMS13579 - so now you're in favor of penalizing people because of gender? Only women should get preferential treatment? Well, cool. That sets civil rights and suffrage back about eighty years. Maybe the better solution is to ensure women are paid equally than to make special pleading in the tax and civil code.
47f0 5 months ago
heres what i think, you guys are being too one-sided, and you are portraying everyone who disagrees with gay marriage as out of touch with reality and/or extremely religious or people with stubborn convictions that they will never let go for no reason at all (or at least to an atheist no reason). The fact is thats not true, and your survey is bound to attract only these type of people because who actually goes looking to vote on a anti gay marriage pole besides these people?
JMS13579 11 months ago
I don't want to pay for it because we are already broke and i think there are too many people already abusing the tax cuts etc of marriage system and i don't want to create another loophole
#5 it doesn't matter if the kids turn gay, it's about not having an opposite pair of sexes to raise a child because that's how it is in virtually all of biology, so it leads people to think that its the better way and people shouldn't be rewarded with tax cuts for something they think to damage society
JMS13579 11 months ago
yay for gay marriage...let people be happy..we need people to hate n thats soo sad.. we cant come out n hate black or women anymore so we turn to homosexuals to put down n make dem feell less in our communities in this world and thats not okay...at the end of the day we r all skin and bones behind our skin gender and sexuality...we all deserve equality and happiness n if u dont think so den tell me y?
CRAZEDluv 1 year ago
@CRAZEDluv its not about hating anyone, i see nothing wrong with gay people, but i have a right to have an opinion and my opinion is that i don't want to create another loophole in the marriage system, because honestly the only reason they have for wanting "marriage" and not a union where they aren't included in social security is exactly that... all they want out of it is social security, and its reasonable to ask, but stop acting like one side is more moral than the other...
JMS13579 11 months ago
This dude is talking about how gay marriage works in canada. When did we want to model ourselves after Canada eh? Health care gay marriage what else
umofou 1 year ago
@umofou Talk about tunnel vision and close mindedness. He never implied that you model your country afterCanada nor any other country. He just stated a fact that allowing gays to marry has not caused any problems. Oh by the way health care is pretty good. Oh yeah another thing guns for sport only is very good. I cant remember the last time a kid was shot accidently here by his or her fathers gun !!!!! Wake up USA so you can regain your place as the best country in the world.
allanhill1 1 year ago
@umofou look at the title... he's debunking anti-gay marriage arguments. his mention of canada's fully functional integration of gay marriage is to disprove fears held by many here in America that allowing gay marriage would destroy our society. basic rhetoric my friend. we would not be modeling ourselves after canada if we chose to legalize gay marriage. we would just be making a smart decision.
chrisliowknicksfan 1 year ago
@chrisliowknicksfan The words are there. He said and I quote "When did we want to model ourselves after Canada eh? The called did not suggest the US do this.
allanhill1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
gee, no - I would have never guessed that. But then again, you only support my argument with this point Consider, given the proclivity of a rather sizable section of the population to opt for the marital alternative of polygamy why does the state [legally] outlaw that configuration if, in fact, one definition/form of marriage is as equal as another ? Could it be (as I've argued) because the state has determined from its protracted experience sit's not beneficial. UR argument is deficient
shieldsff 1 year ago
TruthAlwaysHerts:
If you indeed are the truth, then start telling it for a change.
j4unumber1 1 year ago
@j4unumber1 he does, atleast in that tiny brain of his
idaman12345 1 year ago
no such thing as gay,
RastaSeedz 1 year ago
Comment removed
migxp1 1 year ago
You are disecting the issue too much. Marriage is defined as a unionship between a man and a woman. No one has the right to redfine that. Marriage is the basic family unit responsible for the formation of society through procreation. Gays therefore cannot be married. they can have civil unionship but not married. I don't care other technicalities ... like children becoming gays ... etc... .that;s not the issue. the issue is marriage... you dumb asss
TruthAlwaysHerts 1 year ago
Comment removed
migxp1 1 year ago
@migxp1 Obama i sthe president of the USA, you are a sissy faggot, Obama has a Harvard law degree, u are still a faggot, Obama is a great public speaker, u are still an idiot faggot, Obama will do well in life after his presidency, u will still be a fat slob faggot. Everyone has opinions. I do too.
TruthAlwaysHerts 1 year ago
Comment removed
migxp1 1 year ago
@migxp1 Truth must hurt you so much. I figure you are just another sissy weak faggot.
TruthAlwaysHerts 1 year ago
Comment removed
migxp1 1 year ago
@migxp1 you're not gay?? but you write like a dumb fagggot.
TruthAlwaysHerts 1 year ago
Comment removed
migxp1 1 year ago
@migxp1 Turth always hurts dudette !!!
TruthAlwaysHerts 1 year ago
@migxp1 Truth does not hurt me because I live in the truth... but it does hurt uglly sissy faggot like you ... and you are a fugly troll.
TruthAlwaysHerts 1 year ago
Comment removed
migxp1 1 year ago
Comment removed
migxp1 1 year ago
Comment removed
migxp1 1 year ago
@migxp1 No.... at least my asshole isn't burning like yours is. Is foam or some yellow liquid coming out of your asshole???? Do you then eat all the gooey stuff??? Damn, being gay must be disgusting....
TruthAlwaysHerts 1 year ago
Comment removed
migxp1 1 year ago
Comment removed
migxp1 1 year ago
@migxp1 you write like a little sissy faggot... you\re a weak little man...truth hurts
TruthAlwaysHerts 1 year ago
Comment removed
migxp1 1 year ago
Comment removed
migxp1 1 year ago
@migxp1 you said, faggots are always complaing, I mean, what thef- k do they want?? equality???? women don't even have equality, and now the faggots want something that even women can't have??? what the f--K?
TruthAlwaysHerts 1 year ago
Comment removed
migxp1 1 year ago
Comment removed
migxp1 1 year ago
Comment removed
migxp1 1 year ago
Comment removed
migxp1 1 year ago
@migxp1 So if you want to join the 100 million, go ahead. Homosexuality is wrong. If you practice it and don't give a shit where you go when you die ... I feel sorry for you. I don't care if you are gay. What I do care about is our kids and young teens who are influential. If they start believeing that homosecuality is a good thing, this will destroy society. And this is where people like me steps in. I can't change the world but I can change my community, schools and kids.
TruthAlwaysHerts 1 year ago
Comment removed
migxp1 1 year ago
@migxp1 Oh please ... you still write like a faggot.
TruthAlwaysHerts 1 year ago
Comment removed
migxp1 1 year ago
Comment removed
migxp1 1 year ago
@migxp1 So I guess you do not obhect to the principles that faggots are projecting. You do not understand the serious implications of the legalization of marriages. You have no stake in all this. You just live life going with the flow. Therefore you have no opinion of right and wrong ... then why the f--k do you even bother arguing with me. You should go back under a rock and jack off like a fruity faggot !!! Truth hurts
TruthAlwaysHerts 1 year ago
Comment removed
migxp1 1 year ago
Comment removed
migxp1 1 year ago
@migxp1 It doesn't matter whether or not you believe in God, God still exists. Your problem is that you've have within yourself a spirit of rebellion and will not bow down to your ultimiate authority, your creator, GOD, becasue he does not suit your beliefs in homosexuality. Everyone has an ultimate authority in life. This makes you a very very stupid man, a stupid faggot as well. I know who my authority is and sumit to him, no ifs and buts. Truth hurts, eh ? eh eh ? eh eh eh ??
TruthAlwaysHerts 1 year ago
LOL. That's no different than me saying: It doesn't matter whether or not you believe in [Allah], [Allah] still exists. Your problem is that you've have within yourself a spirit of rebellion and will not bow down to your ultimiate authority, your creator, [Al-Khāliq], becasue he does not suit your beliefs in [Christianity]. Everyone has an ultimate authority in life.
poolerboy0077 1 year ago
@poolerboy0077 people say Lord Lord, what Lord do they speak? - when a person says Allah, to what Allah do they speak?
Lord means -
Allah means -
migxp1 1 year ago
@TruthAlwaysHerts like I said, you play with things you do not understand. lol nice try
migxp1 1 year ago
@migxp1 I do not play ... I am the play ... and the truth
TruthAlwaysHerts 1 year ago
@TruthAlwaysHerts the truth will set you free
migxp1 1 year ago
@migxp1 Look I do not want to argue with you anymore. I hold no ill will to you. I hope you can be happy, cheers.
TruthAlwaysHerts 1 year ago
@TruthAlwaysHerts truth will set you free
migxp1 1 year ago
@TruthAlwaysHerts you need to know the only way - the truth will set you free. so when it gets bad, the TRUTH will set you free.
migxp1 1 year ago
@migxp1 And I am the TRUTH
TruthAlwaysHerts 1 year ago
@TruthAlwaysHerts no maam I AM THE TRUTH
idaman12345 1 year ago
@idaman12345 I AM ALWAYS THE TRUTH....
BUT GOOD LUCK WITH THAT
TruthAlwaysHerts 1 year ago