Case For Natural Marriage & Against Homosexual Marriage | Attorney Roger Magnuson

[IndyCub86]

@AtheistTower If gay couples, relationships, lives, etc. are nothing but a "lifestyle" then you'd have to say that straight couples, relationships, lives, etc. are nothing but a "lifestyle" just the same. Regardless, I still don't see how the state of anyone's genetalia (especially just relative to someone else's) is a "lifestyle." Do you even know what that word means?

[patrickjaden]

I love how he mentions Rome when in ancient Rome and Greece they used to fuck adolescent boys for pleasure and fuck their wives only for children...

[AtheistTower]

There is no such thing as gay marriage. Gays cannot redefine marriage to fit their perverse, child-hostile views. Every cultural and religion in history has rejected gay marriage, our culture needs to have the balls to do likewise.

[arivas713]

@AtheistTower i agree

[patrickjaden]

@AtheistTower Nope. Homosexual relationships were an integral part of classical society.

[AtheistTower]

@patrickjaden

They were nothing more than a lifestyle - even in Greek and Roman times when it was most pervasive - even they recognised what marriage was.

[patrickjaden]

@AtheistTower marriage was much different then, though. now, people get married for much different reasons.

[AtheistTower]

@patrickjaden

It's cute that you think you know anything about marriage. Talking to you about marriage is like talking to a creationist about evolution. It's pointless.

[patrickjaden]

@AtheistTower I absolutely hate atheists, stop being so pretentious. Who do you think you are, weeaboo freak?

[Jamieishere1]

I'll PM the video poster with a more thorough refutation of this video.. but in short:

What is "radical" change is subjective opinion.

Giving people the ability to marry who they love is not a "special privilege", it is called equal treatment.

Marriage's aim is also subjective, regardless of sexual orientation.

The only study on "shortened lifespans" is a Paul Camroon one... look him up if you want to know why it's a joke.

The APA finds that SS parents are just as good as OS ones.

[arivas713]

@Jamieishere1 what about polygamists?-before u roll ur eyes, realize that no civilization (history lesson) has ever approved of gay marriage. polygamy on the other hand has, hell, inter-family marriage has more of a track record than gay marriage. at best (gay marriage) it was considered a playful diversion at worst a trip to hangmans noose or worse...

[Jamieishere1]

@arivas713 Polygamy is one of many examples of "radical change" in marriage that has occurred throughout history, therefore providing evidence that marriage has continuously changed (radically...). Though I'm not sure why you personally mentioned it :s.

Anyway, choose the right periods in history and you will find that slavery and genocide are/were acceptable. Does this make them right? What the majority think is not an automatic determinant of what is right/wrong.

[arivas713]

@Jamieishere1 no radical change here. Polygamy always was & still is. (no, i am no polygamist. just like to point that out) I was just trying to state how no society has ever approved of SSM. uhm..i dont think you can equate the entire annihilation and torture of whole ethnic groups or the forced enslavement of peoples to my funny little paper saying 'married' while your funny little paper saying 'domestic..whatever.'-apples and oranges.

[Jamieishere1]

@arivas713 FoxNews: "Gregory Brower, the Arizona U.S. Attorney, said there is no federal law against polygamy, but the federal government has a number of traditional resources at its disposal to investigate polygamists, including FBI, Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, IRS, and other inspectors. However, polygamy is illegal in all 50 states under state laws."

So it seems that if Polygamy ever was, it isn't now.

[Jamieishere1]

@arivas713 What societies have previously approved of isn't really relevant. If no society had previously approved of free speech, would that mean it was a terrible thing?

Not apples and oranges at all. As far as I remember, your argument was "no society has ever approved off gay Mar. so it's bad".

This involves the premiss that "what societies approve of dictates what is good/bad". I provided examples to demonstrate that your premiss is not only unjustified but also flawed.

[arivas713]

@Jamieishere1 Aaactually my reason is religious in nature, not cultural or social. From G-d or my definition of the Almighty, if that clears that up & i agree that society dictates norm but religion-at one point in our history-dictated society. Thus, Polygamy is still active in the middle-East & not in Japan to give an example. But one that defines us all (those opposed to SSM) & my main original point, no society-through religion originally-ever accepted SSM.

[Jamieishere1]

@arivas713 Religion is an example of culture and the marriage debate is pretty much entirely centred around legal marriage, not religious marriage. Not sure if that's relevant to the point you're making but it's bonus information if not :P.

Anyway, as detailed, the majority can be wrong (this alone refutes your point btw). 1 google search later... please google "random history a history of gay marriage". The 2nd link down details how SS marriages have been accepted in previous cultures.

[ianman6]

His line of argument is predicated on several unfounded presumptions and he frames his case in a way that skews and obfuscates the complexity of gender identity, sexual orientation and other issues. This is 'polite' ignorance. I wouldn't call it hate speech, of course, but it is terribly ill informed.

[thx291]

Only 2%....where did he get that number??

[IssuesAndJustice]

Google "gay demographics"

[dan1285]

Actually, this is some of the least hateful, least ignorant, and least offensive dialogue I've heard from the pro-marriage camp. It takes more than disagreeing with his position to call his argument hateful, ignorant, and offensive. I guess it's better for both sides of the argument that you're speechless.

[millos71]

hateful, ignorant, offensive... I'm speechless.

[AtheistTower]

@millos71

You're hateful towards the millions who oppose gay marriage, get your extremist views out of here.

[Jamieishere1]

@AtheistTower While "hate" is perhaps a bit of a strong word, most people would likely be mildly disgruntled if somebody who didn't know them at all was dictating whether or not they could marry and have kids.

[AtheistTower]

@Jamieishere1

Marriage doesn't belong to gays, it belongs to society. I oppose your claimed "right" to redefine it rather than allow society - who has time and time rejected it - decide whether it wants to redefine its most fundamental institution. Understand?

[Jamieishere1]

@AtheistTower Gays are part of society lol. Marriage has repeatedly been redefined and continues to be redefined today as countries around the world allow same-sex marriage and make other unrelated modifications to their marriage laws.

The OT sanctioned polygamy, Catholics only made marriage a sacrament in the 13th century, anti-miscegenation laws were abolished about 60 years ago and prop8 etc is pretty recent.... all of which are re-definitions. Redefining a word is not innately bad.

[AtheistTower]

@Jamieishere1

Yes, but they don't 'represent' society, so have no right to make a systematic change to it. Marriage has always been between a male and a female, the only thing that has differed culturally has been the number of men and women involved. Miscegenation has been widely accepted for centuries, it was only during a small racist era of history that it wasn't. Gay marriage has never been accepted by any culture, it's only be forced by politicians and minority opinion into society.

[Jamieishere1]

@AtheistTower Nobody represents society fully. Each individual is a member of society, none of which are a perfect representation of the mean. Society also constantly changes. According to the principals of equal opportunity, (which is a US constitutional and societal principal), same-sex marriage should be legal.

Certain sections of society should not have the right to dictate what other sections of society can do when it has no effect on them.

[Jamieishere1]

@AtheistTower Marriage has not always been between a male and a female. Same sex marriage is legal all over the place and supposedly was practised historically too (though I haven't researched that yet). Not that that is relevant because "what has always been" is not a justification that "it always should be". If we lived by that principal we would still be living in caves, using sticks and stones for tools (goodbye internet). We could debate this via the medium of cave drawings :D.

[Jamieishere1]

@AtheistTower Regardless of how small a period of history miscegenation was not accepted, even if it was a billionth of a second, that would still disprove your unjustified premiss that "we should not redefine marriage".

If you google "gay marriage poll", you will see the first link shows that the majority Americans are now in favour of SS marriage btw. Not that the majorities opinion is the be all and end all anyway. The majority can be wrong.

[AtheistTower]

@Jamieishere1

Well no it wouldn't because the definition of marriage predates the illegality of miscegenation; which means it was redefined unjustifiably, which actually substantiates my point. Look at the polling reports aggregation of polls, only left wing polls show any support of gays, neutral and conservative ones show a different picture and support goes with civil unions rather than the redefinition of marriage, so your support is misinterpreted anyway.

[Jamieishere1]

@AtheistTower Now you have the unjustified premiss that "we should not redefine words". Read some Shakespeare (or bible) and you will see that language has and continues to change constantly. Redefining words is not innately bad. Now your premiss is shown to be flawed as well as unjustified.

Regarding polls, I don't know if that is correct or not but as detailed, it is irrelevant. The majority can be wrong. If the majority were in favour of child abuse, that wouldn't make it right.