I repeat to all you Nay Sayers" What is the purpose in the people rushing to the polls to vote to put politicians in office if we the People have no say in our country
You say let the courts decide" The People say let the people decide" Who is right then? Since we are the ones who stand for hours to cast our votes for politicians. So I repeat let the people have their say and not some group throwing a hissy fit That is what our country was founded upon WE THE PEOPLE
6. Conservatives are on the "right" because we are usually right? You people kill babies, give gays rights?? (speaking of the Bible, God says that homosexuality is a sin. That's what the opposite sex is for).
7. You ain't president because you're an idiot. We are Conservative now, learn that.
8. CONSERVATIVE FASCIST?! Only the most extreme are fascist!
9. Why can't some marry? Cause they're gay and God considers that wrong. One nation, Under GOD?!
@gamerdude122 You wouldn't know an idiot if you saw one in the mirror. And I have no doubt you do, every time you look at one.
Tea baggers are not conservative. They are authoritarian, racist nut bags who have stolen the label of "conservative" and some of the conservative arguments in order to try and provide cover for their right wing extremist ideology.
@gamerdude122 No one is advocating same sex marriage on anyone. Its America, free sexual choice for consenting adults. If you don't like same sex marriage, don't do it. Not all of us believe in the Bible or how some interpret it. If you want to live by how you see it be my guest. You have no right however to try to force me to live by your beliefs. Separation of Church and State.
Dude, you look 15 or 16. The truth is, you're an idiot.
1. There are such things as Conservative Libertarians.
2. What's to be afraid of from gays? The fact that they make out on your couch when you come home? Maybe the facts that they're IN your home might make you freak out, but not the homosexuality.
3. Obama isn't black. If you used your freaky white eyes, you would clearly see that.
4. We have the Black Panthers being racist, and you talk about Conservatives committing genocide? Idiot.
why do gays need to marry. i think that our country needs to be worrying about bigger problems right now. oh and you are a coward for not showing your face...
@indycoltsfan04 well lessee, 1.gay and lesbian folks aren't allowed to marry due to religious fanatics. 2. gays and lesbians can't serve in the military because of stupid american machismo and the fear that every l.g.b.t. american is a porn character to be. 3. gaybashings have increased. are those enough???
@indycoltsfan04 Seems like there is always a problem in the eyes of people like you that we don't need to worry about gay marriage right now due to more important issues. If gay marriage is not such a problem why do people like you act so vehemently against it?
Therefore, Same sex couples do not have a SPECIAL right to redefine what marriage is for everybody else; the " will of the people" have a FUNDAMENTAL right under the tenth amendment to do such a task because we live in a democracy not an aristocracy.
@kenballer00 51% can take away the rights of the remaining 49% be careful what you wish for. In Europe some countries are Atheists by majority. They may decide to restrict the religious. Same sex couples are not redefining marriage. Adults can choose whomever they want to marry. Free choice, its America. Marriage is about a relationship between 2 consenting adults nothing more. Some people try to read procreation and other stuff into it but morally its just an acknowledgment of love.
OH PLEASE, nobody's forcing gays to deny their attractions or raiding gay marriages in churches. gays can freely express their feelings of love in a church and get all the benefits that come with marriage through civil unions down the future. however, as soon as you step outside the private realm of RELIGIOUS marriage and enter into the public sphere of CIVIL marriage, you are subject to the law and public opinion or vote because civil marriage is about public policy.
@kenballer00 If a right is granted to adults, it must be available to all adults. It must apply equally to all adults. If public policy is to adjust it benefits that is fair, but it must be fair, apply to all!
it depends on how you are defining discrimination in this situation that i would agree with you. if you are implying discrimination is happening to a category of individual citizens, then thats not happening because men and women equally have the right to marry each other and vice versa. Same goes with gays and straights. if you are saying there's discrimination on a category of relationships, then of course its discrimination but its justified
@kenballer00 In your view its justified. No one is trying to force same sex marriage on anyone. If you don't like don't do it. Consenting adults should have the choice.
there are all kinds of relationships that are being discriminated against and are being denied marriage and/or the benefits that come with it whether it be incest,polygamy, etc. including same sex ones that infringe on the state's objective to provide for the public at large through the promotion of procreation and rearing of children.
@kenballer00 " promotion of procreation and rearing of children. "
Wrong again. What about the straight couples that can't procreate? And gays can adopt, which helps orphanages with the load of children they are burdened with, help society. Hm, it actually seems like gay marriage is a benefit to society.
"....... posing a rhetorical demand that this court must read such condition into the statute if same-sex marriages are to be prohibited. Even assuming that such a condition would be neither unrealistic nor offensive under the Griswold rationale, the classification is no more than theoretically imperfect. We are reminded, however, that "abstract symmetry" is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment"
@kenballer00 I don't care what else he added in, my point is that the definition is flawed in the sense that it in no way justifies itself in it's main points. I'm not surprised at all to see what you quoted. It's still not justified though. Basically it was defined badly, and then added in ways to fix the definition to discriminate 'properly'. Very immoral and like I said, unjustified.
There is no secular reasoning to oppose gay marriage, it's just religious fundy nonsense.
The state's purpose is not just procreation, but its to PROMOTE and MENTALLY encourage citizens to focus their natural feelings to procreate in a responsible, productive, and safer way within stable relationships using the culturally understood term "marriage" and rear them in the best place, which means allowing the infertile to marry doesn't infringe on these objectives because these examples don't change the definition or the fact that a man and a woman can achieve this
@kenballer00 But yeah, why should anyone be forced to abide by the bible? It promotes many immoral things that are now ignored by everyone, and gays is just another thing that is going to be ignored by that bronze age fairytale book. Like I've said before, if you're against gay marriage, don't FUCKING marry the same sex, why is this so hard for people to grasp? People can't face reality, or what?
It is consenting, harmless, and between two adults, why the hell do you have the right to infringe?
The state's purpose is not just procreation, but its to PROMOTE and MENTALLY encourage citizens to focus their natural feelings to procreate in a responsible, productive, and safer way within stable relationships using the culturally understood term "marriage" and rear them in the best place, which means allowing the infertile to marry doesn't infringe on these objectives because these examples don't change the definition or the fact that a man and a woman can achieve this
@kenballer00 I beg to differ, the state should not be involved with promoting procreation, its none of their business nor should it have any say so in a relationship between 2 consenting adults. Infertile has everything to do with your definition of being able to procreate. Can one procreate or not? If one can't by your definition they can't get married.
The state's purpose is not just procreation, but its to PROMOTE and MENTALLY encourage citizens to focus their natural urges to procreate in a responsible, productive, and safer manner within stable environment using the culturally understood term "marriage" and rear them in the best place, which means allowing the infertile to marry doesn't impinge on these objectives because these instances don't change the definition or the fact that a man and a woman can achieve this
@kenballer00 Homosexuality is natural. Every mammal has had recorded homosexual populations within the species, there is no debate on this, tough luck. So, it's completely natural. So, again, this is completely flawed, and completely more unjustified. Gay parents have shown to be quite good at parenting, so ya.
If allowing infertile couples to be married is allowed, it should be allowed for gays, as that means you are only focusing discrimination on gender, which again, is NOT fucking justified.
not only would this be impossible for same sex couples to do this exact same thing in certain situations but its always impossible no matter what the situation. Therefore, allowing same sex couples to marry would not only infringe on the state's purposes but it would destroy the entire reason the state recognizes and uses the term marriage which is to promote responsible procreation and rearing of kids to at least the vast majority who are capable of this
@kenballer00 Yeah, but you're forgetting to justify this ridiculous discriminating hatred to consenting harmless individuals. We are not in any dire need to procreate, the world is over populated. This is not the bronze age, get with the fucking times. What's wrong with you?
its not about creating more children because we don't need encouragment to do something that is already naturally encouraged or have more people. its about responsible procreation and rearing them into society to have a country thats as functional as it can possibly be. This is done by compelling citizens using the term "marriage" to focus those natural feelings to procreate in a responsible manner within the stable relationships where there is two biological married parents
@kenballer00 Are you ignoring what I'm saying? HOMOSEXUALITY IS NATURAL, it's seen naturally in every mammal, how the FUCK can you deny plain facts? Sorry, you're WRONG. It is natural. Now stop saying that, or else you will be considered a irrational denying dishonest bigot. [I'm not saying you're one, yet]
You can't continue to use a flawed argument after I completely disprove it.
@kenballer00 No one is proposing that heterosexuals can't continue to get married and have children. You have no right to keep me from the type of relationship I want to have with another consenting adult.
@kenballer00 Let me school you for a second on your religion, bud.
Jesus loves people regardless of sexual identity. I challenge you to try and find a scripture in which Jesus himself says anything against homosexuality. You'll lose.
If Jesus saw the behavior of many of your fundy friends he'd be completely ashamed. Why don't you start acting like a real Christian? It's pretty sad that an Atheist understands your savior better than you. Jesus was a nice guy, and you are not following his morals.
@Raherin if marriage is redefined to just two people, the state would be saying to its citizens from now on marriage can be understood apart from responsible procreation and rearing of kids which would no longer encourage hetersexuals who have unintended pregnancies 50% of the time to procreate in a better environment than Cohabitation which has been shown through many studies to be a sub par place compared to marriage. Same sex couples cannot procreate accidently no matter what
@kenballer00 Hey, guess what. There are many places in the world that allow gay marriage, AND THEY ARE FINE.
Now, again, you're flawed. Because gays are not gonna 'procreate' regardless of marriage, so we are still losing the 'accidental' pregnancies. Just because they can't marry, doesn't mean they are gonna get chicks pregnant. Might as well just let them marry. How can you not foresee these issues? So much for that one, lol.
You haven't had one argument that isn't riddled with flaws.
i am not talking about infertile couples or gays but the majority of hetersexuals existing or the future unborn who could possibly procreate accidently, so what flaw out there are you talking about now and i will just refuted it again. But if your just going to assert that i am making all these flaws without explaining, then it really shows how rational you really are
@kenballer00 I'm sorry, you can't start taking tabs on the 'possibly' born people out there. That's just insane. You cannot 'rely' on accidental pregnancies....... Are you really this fucking retarded? I'm just gonna stop now, if this is the kind of arguments you are going to make. You cannot force people to not be able to marry for these reasons, cause they are RETARDED and you are backed in a corner, and that's why your argument has dwindled down to this petty, undignified horse shit.
Besides, We can always make sure that civil unions have all the same rights or have marriage recognition within the U.S. from other countries without actually legally performing them in the U.S. , that means if a same sex couple gets legally married in Canada and comes back to the U.S. to have it recognized but not performed i am all for it. This would solve your problem and give you the title marriage without having the state promote and force us to accept your corrupted worldview
@kenballer00 If you don't want to accept that worldview, DONT MARRY SAME SEX. Again, WHY can you NOT get that phrase through your head? You can practice your religion at home, or even at church, or in public places, I don't care, don't force it on me, cause I don't want to DO IT. So, I WONT. You don't want that world view, don't USE IT. But don't force other people to not be allowed it, it's unfair.
this is not about what two people do in private. i believe people have a right to live however they choose but redefining marriage is about what the government is going to teach in public. its about what the law is going to insist all of us to do which is to view same sex unions as marriage.they are going to use taxpayer money to teach our children and grandchildren that two men in a union is just as much as marriage as a husband and wife whether you like it or not
@kenballer00 Jesus loves people regardless of sexual identity. I challenge you to try and find a scripture in which Jesus himself says anything against homosexuality. You'll lose.
If Jesus saw the behavior of many of your fundy friends he'd be completely ashamed. Why don't you start acting like a real Christian? It's pretty sad that an Atheist understands your savior better than you. Jesus was a nice guy, and you are not following his morals.
if you refuse as Boston parents have realized or try to shield your child from being taught these beliefs about marriage your going to be treated like a bigot who opposes interracial marriage. if the state treats you like a racist because you believe in traditional marriage the people who are for true equality will find out that this new law infringes on their freedoms and their capacity to live their life with freedom of conscience and to transmit their morals to their own kids
@kenballer00 Why won't you address my comment regarding Jesus? I think it's VERY obvious why. :]
It's because you know you are morally wrong in your behavior, and you know perfectly well that this behavior is not supported by your savior.
Do not call me a bigot, sir. I am not denying anyone anything in the way you are. I will always support you getting married, I will always support gays getting married, you don't. Don't try to turn the table on me, that is the exact definition of a hypocrite.
@kenballer00 Hey lets teach all views of marriage or none at all. You are used to the past where your type would run the show. Those days are gone now.
@Raherin Sure it is true that we are not the ones to judge people. and yes Jesus loves everyone, no matter there sexuality. but the bible does state that homosexuality is an abomination.
@indycoltsfan04 Yeah, I understand the bible says that, but, Jesus did not say that kind of thing, nor did he promote negative behavior about it. Jesus is what being a Christian is about. If you look at the overall message of Jesus, you would have to come to the conclusion that he obviously doesn't care about homosexuality in one way or the other.
@indycoltsfan04 Ummm, actually, only some people interpret the bible to say that homosexuality is an abomination. But if you really insist on strict adherence to the bible, I assume you never eat shellfish and consider those who do to be an abomination as well. If not, then you're really like most homophobes, who use the bible as nothing more than a crutch to support their bigoted views. In the end it shouldn't matter because our country is guided by the constitution, not the bible.
@nrf91 Actually the bible states that homosexuality is an abomination(Lev. 20:13). If a person kills a gay, the gay's blood is upon the gay and not upon the hands of the person doing the killing. The acts of gays are so abominable to God.) im not saying we should kill gays. and just because im against gay marriage doesnt mean im homophobic. also, the constitution is based on the bible in most aspects.
@indycoltsfan04 Jesus didn't make a point to hate on gays, nor did he make a point to hate on shellfish eating. So, why do people not care about the shellfish, but they care about the homosexuality, when like i said, Jesus didn't specify much about either. The bible says homosexuality is an abination, but it's WRONG completely. We know now that homosexuality naturally happens
The reason people ignore shellfish and focus on homosexuality is because they are bigots with an agenda, and hypocrites.
@indycoltsfan04 Raherin answered you as well as I could have. I notice that you conveniently ignored the shellfish issue. Do you eat shellfish? What about Peyton, you think he eats shellfish? Should you start hating on the Colts if you find out that Peyton is committing an abomination?
By the way, Jesus didn't say a word about homosexuality. And I would add that there are many different interpretations to Lev. 20:13. Who says yours is the right one? Jesus doesn't.
@nrf91 you are going off subject. first off this conversation is about gay marriage, not whether i hate gays or not. second, i said GOD. not Jesus. God loves everyone, but just like murderer's they are committing a sin according to the bible. there are different interpretations on that verse of course, but they dont change the whole meaning of the verse.
@indycoltsfan04 I'm not off subject. Whether you choose to selectively enforce the edicts of your bible highly relevant to this conversation. Because if you do, as most religious extremists do, it is hard to claim you are not using the bible to justify your own particular prejudices.
Different interpretations DO change the whole meaning of the verse. That is the very definition of "different interpretations".
@indycoltsfan04 The more important point here, though, is you can believe whatever the hell you want to about gay being an abomination. But you absolutely MAY NOT use the power of the state to enforce those beliefs on the rest of us. Once you start doing that, you are, in essence, establishing a state religion, something that is forbidden by the US constitution.
@borisgoodenough1988 what if i am an orthodox jew. God didnt give the commandments to just the jews, he gave it to everyone. if you want to have an arguement about my religion please pm me
@indycoltsfan04 Do you believe if a daughter has sex with her boyfriend she shall be killed in front of her fathers home by the townspeople? Do you believe that a child who disrespects his parents should be put to death? If one east pork one shall be killed. If you believe in the gay abomination thing then you believe these versus as well, you must in order to be consistent with your bible.
bans on interracial marriage were about separating the races apart and Based on the Brown v. Board decision, segregation is another form of discrimination. When we lifted up the bans, it not only integrated races but the sexes which is what marriage has always been about.; Integration is perfectly legal. There is no discrimination here. TRY AGAIN
@kenballer00 The church said years ago that the Sun revolved around the Earth and that the Earth was flat. Woman could not vote. There was slavery. Interracial couples could not marry. These views have changed. Remember the subject here is about consenting adults being able to live their life with the same rights as everyone else. These changed views had the force of law. Therefore just because it is a law now does not make it correct. Lets use logic here to argue the point.
@kenballer00 Yes! It should be redefined! Because we understand homosexuality better now. We KNOW it's a group of gene makes ups, and we KNOW it's natural, as I said earlier. So, yea, we need to redefine it, and teach children there is nothing wrong with it.
There is nothing wrong with pushing humanity forward in light of new understanding.
it would essentially be an endless clash between the same-sex agenda and freedom of religion. The two are not compatible, because the same-sex agenda seeks to force by law acceptance of its distorted view of equality, and that will inevitably collide with Christian values. Christians will either be forced to accept something like this or live in fear of a secular government that will pander to the likes of intolerant gay activists.
@kenballer00 You are not a Christian. Like I said, Jesus would be very ashamed of your despicable behavior. You're lucky there's not a hell for you to go to, because of your willful dishonesty, you'd be on an express route there. My friends are Christians, and they are NOT TO JUDGE. Jesus said that, did you know that? You are not to judge, or force your shit on anyone else.
gay activists and atheists like you would require the same thing from pastors and religious organizations when they entered the public arena or try to influence public policy to express their beliefs. the same standard applies to the gays and their sexual expression being displayed in public and influencing public policy when using my taxpayer's money to indoctrinate children and socially experiment with your corrupted views of marriage and humanity
@kenballer00 Well, I see I have you backed in a corner. I WONDER why you won't address the statements I'm making about my understanding your religion better than you do....I really wonder. I wonder what Jesus is thinking about you right now. I bet he's sad, and you just ignore him.
P.S. I'm so glad I'm not religious. You can't hide your religious immorality from me, that means you certainly can't hide it from God ;)
you are certainly not much of an atheist because your giving me religious arguments for why we should redefine marriage. are you sure you are an atheist? maybe you are pretending to be one. I must confess then that my arguments are mainly based on secular reasoning
@kenballer00 Lol I'm not here to live up to Atheism.
I have a few friends, who are nothing like you, they are real Christians, though. I understand religion, so that is probably why you are thinking that. I like to 'suppose' that God is real sometimes, for fun. ;)
Your arguments are not based on secular reasoning, that not true at all, -at all-. The reason you don't want to redefine gay marriage is because it spoils what your scripture says, despite the *fact* that homosexuality is natural.
@kenballer00 Us gay people are not advocating taking away a Churches right to marry whomever they want to nor force the Church to accept people as members that they don't want to. When it comes to providing public services, If a Church receives taxpayer's money in anyway then yes they have to abide by any strings attached. They don't have to take the money however. The Pope and Cardinals have the right to express their views and the views of the church outside the public services entity.
gay activists or atheists like you would require the same thing from pastors and religious organizations when they entered the public arena or try to influence public policy to express their beliefs. the same standard applies to the gays and their sexual expression being displayed in public and influencing public policy when using my taxpayer's money to indoctrinate children and socially experiment with your corrupted views of marriage and humanity
@kenballer00 I don't care if your pastors recognize my relationship. You are outright lying by saying otherwise. Lets stick to the truth here. Anyway there are churches that I can go to that do recognize my relationship, I don't need your church. You would deny me or take away my rights while I am not trying to do likewise to you. If religious institutions try to influence public policy, gay rights organizations have the same right to as well.
@jimbobubbadj My tax money is being used to help religious organizations to indoctrinate children and social corrupt them with evil verses and views which are evil and archaic.
@jimbobubbadj Your churche,s social experiments have been proven to be wrong and evil. The Spanish Inquisition, The Crusades and the Parish sex scandal both hetero and homo. The media doesn't report on the hetero part because it aint sensational. Killing one,s daughter in front of her father's home by the townspeople because she had sex with her boyfriend, having slaves and being killed because of eating swine,etc. You don't have any credibility in my view and having less over time with others.
how do you take away a right that doesn't even exist in the first place?
gays and lesbians have always been allowed to marry someone of the opposite-sex for the purpose of procreation and rearing of children. what your proposing we do is create extra special rights that exist outside the constitution and common sense
the only thing we be taking away would be your right to impose your way of life onto to society and that you do not have a right to do
@kenballer00 As far as I am concerned its a right that has always existed and is being wrongly deny to us. Being able to marry at all is a special right then. Consenting adults should all have the same rights, to marry any other consenting adult. This statement says it all. Marriage has nothing to do with procreation. So what if a couple cannot procreate? Just because a couple marries doesn't mean they need to have children. Why do they need to have children? Oxymoron, gays allowed to marry...
@kenballer00 How am I imposing my way of life by living life the way I see fit? I am not telling people whom they can marry? How is my marriage going to undo or prevent someone else's marriage, PLEASE ANSWER THIS SPECIFIC QUESTION! No procreation comments. I will not discuss any further until this question is addressed.
this is not about what two people do in private. i believe people have a right to live however they choose but redefining marriage is about what the government is going to teach in public. its about what the law is going to insist all of us to do which is to view same sex unions as marriage.they are going to use taxpayer money to teach our children and grandchildren that two men in a union is just as much as marriage as a husband and wife whether you like it or not
if you object as Masschusetts parents have found out or try to protect your child from being taught these views about marriage your going to be treated like a bigot who opposes interracial marriage. if the government treats you like a racist because you believe in traditional marriage, the people who stand for true equality will find out that this new law impinges on their freedoms and their capacity to live their life with freedom of conscience and to transmit their values to their own children
it would essentially be an endless clash between the same-sex agenda and freedom of religion. The two are not compatible, because the same-sex agenda seeks to force by law acceptance of its misguided view of equality, and that will inevitably collide with Christian values. Christians will either be forced to accept something like this or live in fear of a secular government that will pander to the likes of intolerant gay activists.
@kenballer00 You already said this word for word exactly to Raherin. Freedom of religion, you already have it, practice it. Just because someone else doesn't follow your religion is not taking your freedom of religion away. I want freedom from religion. This is a secular state not a theocracy such as Iran. The two are compatible in practice not beliefs. I don't have to follow your religion and you don't have to practice homosexual sex. How are they incompatible?
@kenballer00 Lets stop hearing your biased religious opinion and lets hear some facts based on logic. Anyway you did not answer my question, how would my marriage stop anyone else from marrying or nullify their existing marriage. Strike one.
the argument is not that it would affect existing marriages or society overnight. Fully developed adults would obviously not be converted one way or another by the constant social pressure and influence.The effects would have to happen overtime when children or the next generation who are vulnerable to indoctrination are constantly reinforced by this new idea of marriage. so you would be looking for a decline in marriages rate and higher cohabitation not an increase in the divorce rate
@kenballer00 You're very pathetic. You are trying so hard to stop other people from being happy and finding love. If Jesus exists, he would be ashamed of you. You are judging others. Where exactly did Jesus hate on gays in the bible? PLEASE show me the verse. Any verse where Jesus [YOUR savior] directly hates on gays. Go ahead. I hope you consider shellfish to be equally as bad as gays. You should be outside fish markets picketing eating shellfish is immoral.
Also, we may not live in a theocracy, but we do live in a democracy. the first amendment does not apply to voters. Pastors, clergy, and religious leaders have every right to convey and express their moral vision onto their community and into the voting process. Prop 8 ,or any other amendment, would not did not and does not undermine the constitution because the government didn't put it into law, the people did, and whether they voted for it on religious grounds is no one's business but their own
@kenballer00 Lol, you're evading bringing your religion into this. I WONDER WHY. So very transparent. That pretty much proves my case for me, thanks. :]
Like I said, for the what, 5th fucking time. I'm not debating what laws are currently in place. I am questioning your moral integrity, and your very obvious religious bigotry. And, I am now also questioning where you are getting the idea Jesus even cared about homosexuality. Like I said, Jesus would be quite ashamed of you, as should you.
dude. seriously you are talking to the wrong guy. my reasons for opposing the redefinition of marriage is not based on the bible but essentially everything else. Believe it or not , i actually think the Bible is a good and the best and only argument you can sum up for why we should support this . There are plenty of proponents on my side of the issue that would love to get into this type of religious discussion or argument but i am not one of them.
let me make it clear. i am for civil unions, and gay marriage in a religious and legal sense. HOWEVER, i am against redefining what marriage is to just two people married and there is a difference. when a state legally performs gay marriages within jurisdiction, the state makes no distinction between traditional marriage and gay marriage. According to the state, Marriage is marriage.The government starts to rearrange businesses, media, and schools according to that definition
@kenballer00 So, you want gays to be able to get married legally, and religiously, but you don't want to redefine marriage?....that just doesn't add up properly. If you're willing to allow them...why not just go with the rest?
"to just two people married and there is a difference"
What difference? The only difference is the genders, that's it. Why is this difference important? You seem to be afraid of change...
@kenballer00 Would you like your marriage to be put up for a vote? We are not in a democracy but in a Republic. The founding fathers warned us about "Tyranny of the majority" The majority years ago believed in slavery, woman denied right to vote, interracial couples not allowed to marry, etc. Strike 2. How would a homosexual marriage prevent or block others from marrying?
@jimbobubbadj In Europe in some countries, Atheists make up the majority. They may vote to impose religious restrictions. In France, a law was just passed to ban the burka. Switzerland recently banned any new minarets. Anyway more people here in the USA are waking up and becoming Atheists while more are becoming Agnostic and some religious more tolerant. Be careful what you wish for when putting up peoples rights for a vote.
@jimbobubbadj I see that you don't have any videos of your own on your channel. At least you do allow comments on your channel so I will not block you from mine. If you did not allow comments on your channel I would block you as it is my policy to block trolls.
if marriage is redefined to just two people, the state would be saying to its citizens from now on marriage can be understood generally speaking apart from procreation and rearing of children which would no longer encourage heterosexuals to procreate in a better environment than cohabitation which has been shown through countless studies to be a sub par environment compared to marriage
@kenballer00 The point is the state has no business saying anything at all about this as it is none of their business or anybody else's. In addition they should not be encouraging or discouraging people from having children, again, as it is a private manner. As far as cohabitation, again, it is none of their business. Giving whatever benefits to any couple as other couples through marriage would make the couple happier and better off financially therefore the kids would be better off. Strike 3
I told you. the argument is not about learning to be gay or it affecting existing marriages or society overnight. its about no longer being encouraged and discouraged by the GOVERNMENT to procreate responsibly in a marriage for kids
The effects would have to happen overtime when children or the next generation who are vulnerable to indoctrination. so its FUTURE marriages based on the next generation we are talking about being affected and this could take at least 20 years to really find out
@kenballer00 What is your problem? You keep copy/pasting the exact same things to people. No one will ever take you seriously if you discuss things like an ass. This is why your arguments make no sense. Because you are repasting your only arguments and not addressing the actual topics properly. Learn a little etiquette.
@jimbobubb We can always make sure that civil unions have all the same rights (including federal) down the future or marriage recognition elsewhere without having to redefining marriage for everyone. So this is a NONE argument.
@kenballer00 Marriage, in practice during my lifetime as opposed to religious and judicial theory, has never been about procreation and child rearing, but rather the intended lifelong commitment of 2 people towards one another. There would be an awful lot of illegal marriages by the standard you are citing. So obviously while one or more courts may have included an opinion on the purpose of marriage, that opinion obviously had no force of law.
the quote i just showed you was from the Skinner v. Oklahoma U.S. supreme court case that the Loving court mentioned right after the quote they said to make it clear what they meant. its also the same quote or portion of case that the Minnesota and U.S supreme court used in their justification for rejecting gay marriage. so its not just one judge but multiple supreme court justices in multiple eras of our country that understand the purpose of marriage and definition of it
@kenballer00 Where I think the issue gets muddied is in state sanctified versus religious sanctified marriage. In state sanctified marriage, couples are awarded certain rights and benefits that others are not. What gay people seek is the right to state marriage which would grant them those same rights as committed couples. To do otherwise, I would argue, violates the equal protection clause of the constitution. State marriage is not about procreation so that argument is meaningless.
"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival. SKINNER V. OKLAHOMA, 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S.C (1942)."
SKINNER V. OKLAHOMA ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S.C(1942), which invalidated Oklahoma's Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act on equal protection grounds, stated in part:
"Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."
@kenballer00 You don't have to accept anything but you don't have a right to force you religious views on everyone else. Live your life the way you see fit. Some things may collide with religious values but as long as you have the right to live life the way you see fit, there is no intrusion on your rights. Your Christian values collide with mine but I am not trying to take your right to live YOUR life the way you see fit away, I want the same courtesy.
@kenballer00 Don't have the government define marriage at all. Let the church define marriage. The government could only issue a civil union license to any couple.
if you object as Masschusetts parents have found out or try to protect your child from being taught these views about marriage your going to be treated like a bigot who opposes interracial marriage. if the government treats you like a racist because you believe in traditional marriage the people who stand for true equality will find out that this new law impinges on their freedoms and their capacity to live their life with freedom of conscience and to transmit their values to their own children
if you refuse as Masschusetts parents have found out or try to protect your child from being taught these views about marriage your going to be treated like a bigot who opposes interracial marriage. if the state treats you like a racist because you believe in traditional marriage the people who stand for true equality will find out that this new law impinges on their freedoms and their capacity to live their life with freedom of conscience and to transmit their morals to their own kids
@kenballer00 I don't like your view either. I don't think that the USA should have married you. I don't want the state recognizing your marriage. If your marriage is recognized I want my same sex marriage recognized also. We all have to deal with others that we don't feel comfortable around. That's life. I don't feel comfortable around conservative religious people for the most part. The government issues a civil license to any couple and the church marries whatever people they want or not.
in a private situation, the state or society may not have a right to tell you who you can or cannot marry. however, as soon as you step outside the private realm of RELIGIOUS marriage and enter into the public sphere of CIVIL marriage, you are subject to the law (where you cannot marry your sister, uncle, etc) and public opinion or vote because civil marriage is about public policy.
@kenballer00 If you answer anything else, answer this: Jesus loves people regardless of sexual identity. I challenge you to try and find a scripture in which Jesus himself says anything against homosexuality. You'll lose.
If Jesus saw the behavior of many of your fundy friends he'd be completely ashamed. Why don't you start acting like a real Christian? It's pretty sad that an Atheist understands your savior better than you. Jesus was a nice guy, and you are not following his morals.
@kenballer00 Yes, people are forcing gays to deny their attractions, you are one of those people, you immoral hypocrite. I am not arguing laws with you right now, I am arguing against your morals, and your own saviors teachings. Of course public things are subject to the people's opinions. Why are you stating such a pointless sentence?
OH YA, cause you COPY/PASTED it from a comment you made earlier.
@kenballer00 Procreation is a parenting issue. Marriage is the recognition of a relationship between 2 consenting adults. The state needs to mind its own business and not worry about what consenting adults do in private. Anyway helping children can be done regardless of how they are here.
@kenballer00 You seem to be missing what I'm saying. I'm not asking you to look up where it says certains things, I am questioning your bullshit, hateful unjustified little opinion. I was done talking to your ass 4 days ago, so you can just go away. You are not interested in fairness or truth, you are interested in religious inspired bigotry, and want to push that on others. You are a dick. You are immoral. I'm sorry for what your religion has done to you, it's really sad.
nobody's forcing gays to deny their attractions or raiding gay marriages in churches. gays can freely express their feelings of love in a church and get all the benefits that come with marriage through civil unions down the future. however, as soon as you step outside the private realm of RELIGIOUS marriage and enter into the public sphere of CIVIL marriage, you are subject to the law and public opinion or vote because civil marriage is about public policy.
@kenballer00 Yes, people ARE trying to force gays to deny their attraction, and you're one of those pathetic fucking idiots. You probably are gay yourself, I bet you are, just like all the other anti gay activists. GAY. ;)
Marriage is not only a religious matter, get that through your head. STOP REPEATING your copy/paste arguments to me, because you are starting to look transparently dishonest.
This is the 4th or so time I've caught you using the same lines on me and other people.
@kenballer00 Procreation is a parenting issue, not a recognition of a relationship between 2 consenting adults. Helping children out is a different issue. Anyway there are more enough heterosexual couples to procreate with the world being over populated as an example. They don't need any help in having children.
@jimbobubbadj did i ever say i was against it? huh. well to be truthful i am not for gay rights. you guys make this sound more serious than it really is. we are in a war right now and all you can think about is yourself? tell me why should gays get married?
@indycoltsfan04 Let me take you back to another era and see how this sounds: "I am not for interracial marriage rights. Marriage was never supposed to be between one race and another. You guys make this sound more serious than it really is. We are in a war right now and all you can think about is yourself? (because what the hell, your rights don't matter as much as mine). Tell me why blacks and whites should be allowed to marry one another."
@indycoltsfan04 So no other issues should be dealt with except an unjust foreign war for empire. Why should anyone get married? Alternative, only churches should be able to marry people. The state could only issue civil union licenses to any adult couple.
@indycoltsfan04 What does one have to do with the other? If war for empire wasn't going on the soldiers would be home safely and not dying. People are dying now, quite a stupid and weird question. When gays want some attention from their elected leaders you people don't want us to have any. Even though we pay taxes also. How are gays getting some deserved attention from their leaders going to cause more people to die? Haaah?
@jimbobubbadj i asked which of these problems are more important, not how they effect each other. we have more important problems to deal with then gay marriage(oil spill, war, health care, economy, moral values, etc.).
@indycoltsfan04 Your premise is that there is only time for one issue and that only one can be dealt with. There seems to be time for Abortion discussions, raising taxes, etc. I'd say the most immediate issue is the oil spill. None of the issues that you mentioned are being dealt with. No issues are mutually exclusive of each other. So I answered your question, but I don't understand the relevancy of the question? What does the question have to do with Marriage at all. watch?v=v9ZPWCJyTXU
I've always seen this to have a very simple solution.
Step 1 - Remove marriage from state and federal laws.
Step 2 - Insert an new all-inclusive term called "whatever" that will have all the same rights and priveledges that marriage had.
Step 3 - Everyone can now get "whatever" on the state and federal levels.
Step 4 - If you are so inclined you may have a marriage ceremony in the religion of your choice assuming you are elligible but it grants no extra rights.
gays and lesbians have always been allowed to marry someone of the opposite-sex for the purpose of procreation and rearing of children according to over a centuries worth of federal constitutional law. what your proposing we do is create extra special rights that exist outside the constitution and common sense
@kenballer00 The government shouldn't be involved in Marriage. Marriage should be left up to the churches. If people keep claiming it's a "Holy" sacrament.... then let churches and churches alone determine who they will or will not allow to be married.
@kenballer00 Because Marriage is an Institution set up by the churches. The Government is a secular entity and shouldn't have any say whatsoever in who gets married or not.
you didn't really fully answer my question. why shouldn't the Government have any say over marriage when their reason for doing so would be best for society as a whole
@kenballer00 I did answer your question. Why do you, as a conservative, want more government? I thought you guys were for less governmental intervention? I don't think I can say this anymore, but I will.... The Government should not have ANY say over Marriage much like The Churches shouldn't have any business in Law Making.
Why is it best for Society as a whole? You mean the best for Divorce Attorneys right? With our Divorce Rate about 50%...
well i don't want more government. However, i don't believe the government is intervening in people's private lives in the first place. Civil marriage is a public institution. the government has a right to regulate public SECULAR morality which is what they are doing with civil marriage as well as many things like putting your seat belt, speed limits, or no nudity
@kenballer00 Then let the Churches (Since that's where the history is rooted in) decide who gets married or not. Keep government out of it completely. Seriously... I can't see why this is so hard to comprehend.
@kenballer00 That's your opinion. Why is it in the best interest of the government to regulate marriage? It doesn't change anything. Gays are going to continue to have gay sex as they have for thousands of years. We ain't going away, get used to it. You think that we are bold now asking for rights you aint seen anything yet. The world is over populated anyway. Tax breaks should go the other way to reduce the incentive to have too many children.
From the U.S. supreme court's summarry decision in Baker v. Nelson about gay so-called marriage:
"The institution of marriage as a union man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis....The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a charter for RESTRUCTURING it by judicial LESGISLATION."
@kenballer00 It may be the law but its unAmerican, its just not right. Two consenting adults have a right to marry each other. If you don't like gay marriage, don't do it. Free choice. You have no right to stop others that want to do it from doing it. Please don't mention the Bible. Its no more credible than the Church doing Galileo's day saying that the Sun orbits around the Earth.
@kenballer00 "The institution of marriage as a union man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family"
Easy there, your definition contradicts itself.
First off, gays can raise children. They cannot procreate, but there are many straight couples that can't procreate also. Using your definition, they shouldn't be entitled to marry.
Your definition is flawed, and not everyone believes in the bible, and no one should be forced to follow it, sorry.
Ahhhhhh.....dude. i was quoting the definition stated in the U.S. supreme court's summary ruling in Baker v. Nelson about same sex marriage, but since your here, let me give you another quote that responds to your rejected argument about the infertile:
"Petitioners note that the state does not impose upon heterosexual married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate..." cont.
@kenballer00 I'm unpersuaded by your citation of Baker v. Nelson. I believe that when the Supreme Court does finally take on a case dealing with gay marriage that Loving will form the overriding precedent and Baker will go by the wayside, seen as a flawed decision tainted by religious dogma (citing Genesis in a legal precedent?!)
What I find most amusing is that every argument you've made against the rights of gays to marry could just as well have been made against interracial marriage.
the feeling is mutual as far as making the same arguments back then. Nevertheless, even if Baker was never decided, in reading the Loving case closely when they said "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival" they referenced another U.S. supreme court case called Skinner v. Oklahoma along side that quote. does this quote sound familiar:
"Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."
the quote I just showed you was from the Skinner v. Oklahoma supreme court case that the Loving court referenced alongside the other qoute they said to make it clear on what they meant. its also the same qoute or portion of case that the Minnesota and U.S supreme court used in their justification for rejecting gay marriage. so its not just one judge but multiple judges and supreme courts in mulitiple eras of american history that understand the purpose of marriage and definition of it
Amen!
Bourne2bwild1989 1 year ago
find women go to sky DATEMEDEAR.INFO
niamodae 1 year ago
I repeat to all you Nay Sayers" What is the purpose in the people rushing to the polls to vote to put politicians in office if we the People have no say in our country
You say let the courts decide" The People say let the people decide" Who is right then? Since we are the ones who stand for hours to cast our votes for politicians. So I repeat let the people have their say and not some group throwing a hissy fit That is what our country was founded upon WE THE PEOPLE
bubba007ss 1 year ago
5. Hitler was an Atheist, not a Christian.
6. Conservatives are on the "right" because we are usually right? You people kill babies, give gays rights?? (speaking of the Bible, God says that homosexuality is a sin. That's what the opposite sex is for).
7. You ain't president because you're an idiot. We are Conservative now, learn that.
8. CONSERVATIVE FASCIST?! Only the most extreme are fascist!
9. Why can't some marry? Cause they're gay and God considers that wrong. One nation, Under GOD?!
gamerdude122 1 year ago
@gamerdude122 You wouldn't know an idiot if you saw one in the mirror. And I have no doubt you do, every time you look at one.
Tea baggers are not conservative. They are authoritarian, racist nut bags who have stolen the label of "conservative" and some of the conservative arguments in order to try and provide cover for their right wing extremist ideology.
nrf91 1 year ago
Comment removed
kenballer00 1 year ago
@gamerdude122 No one is advocating same sex marriage on anyone. Its America, free sexual choice for consenting adults. If you don't like same sex marriage, don't do it. Not all of us believe in the Bible or how some interpret it. If you want to live by how you see it be my guest. You have no right however to try to force me to live by your beliefs. Separation of Church and State.
jimbobubbadj 1 year ago
Dude, you look 15 or 16. The truth is, you're an idiot.
1. There are such things as Conservative Libertarians.
2. What's to be afraid of from gays? The fact that they make out on your couch when you come home? Maybe the facts that they're IN your home might make you freak out, but not the homosexuality.
3. Obama isn't black. If you used your freaky white eyes, you would clearly see that.
4. We have the Black Panthers being racist, and you talk about Conservatives committing genocide? Idiot.
gamerdude122 1 year ago
Comment removed
jimbobubbadj 1 year ago
why do gays need to marry. i think that our country needs to be worrying about bigger problems right now. oh and you are a coward for not showing your face...
indycoltsfan04 1 year ago
@indycoltsfan04 well lessee, 1.gay and lesbian folks aren't allowed to marry due to religious fanatics. 2. gays and lesbians can't serve in the military because of stupid american machismo and the fear that every l.g.b.t. american is a porn character to be. 3. gaybashings have increased. are those enough???
borisgoodenough1988 1 year ago
@indycoltsfan04 Seems like there is always a problem in the eyes of people like you that we don't need to worry about gay marriage right now due to more important issues. If gay marriage is not such a problem why do people like you act so vehemently against it?
jimbobubbadj 1 year ago
@jimbobubbadj
Therefore, Same sex couples do not have a SPECIAL right to redefine what marriage is for everybody else; the " will of the people" have a FUNDAMENTAL right under the tenth amendment to do such a task because we live in a democracy not an aristocracy.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 51% can take away the rights of the remaining 49% be careful what you wish for. In Europe some countries are Atheists by majority. They may decide to restrict the religious. Same sex couples are not redefining marriage. Adults can choose whomever they want to marry. Free choice, its America. Marriage is about a relationship between 2 consenting adults nothing more. Some people try to read procreation and other stuff into it but morally its just an acknowledgment of love.
jimbobubbadj 1 year ago
@jimbobubbadj
OH PLEASE, nobody's forcing gays to deny their attractions or raiding gay marriages in churches. gays can freely express their feelings of love in a church and get all the benefits that come with marriage through civil unions down the future. however, as soon as you step outside the private realm of RELIGIOUS marriage and enter into the public sphere of CIVIL marriage, you are subject to the law and public opinion or vote because civil marriage is about public policy.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 If a right is granted to adults, it must be available to all adults. It must apply equally to all adults. If public policy is to adjust it benefits that is fair, but it must be fair, apply to all!
jimbobubbadj 1 year ago
@jimbobubbadj
it depends on how you are defining discrimination in this situation that i would agree with you. if you are implying discrimination is happening to a category of individual citizens, then thats not happening because men and women equally have the right to marry each other and vice versa. Same goes with gays and straights. if you are saying there's discrimination on a category of relationships, then of course its discrimination but its justified
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 In your view its justified. No one is trying to force same sex marriage on anyone. If you don't like don't do it. Consenting adults should have the choice.
jimbobubbadj 1 year ago
@jimbobubbadj
there are all kinds of relationships that are being discriminated against and are being denied marriage and/or the benefits that come with it whether it be incest,polygamy, etc. including same sex ones that infringe on the state's objective to provide for the public at large through the promotion of procreation and rearing of children.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 " promotion of procreation and rearing of children. "
Wrong again. What about the straight couples that can't procreate? And gays can adopt, which helps orphanages with the load of children they are burdened with, help society. Hm, it actually seems like gay marriage is a benefit to society.
Raherin 1 year ago 2
@Raherin
"....... posing a rhetorical demand that this court must read such condition into the statute if same-sex marriages are to be prohibited. Even assuming that such a condition would be neither unrealistic nor offensive under the Griswold rationale, the classification is no more than theoretically imperfect. We are reminded, however, that "abstract symmetry" is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment"
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 I don't care what else he added in, my point is that the definition is flawed in the sense that it in no way justifies itself in it's main points. I'm not surprised at all to see what you quoted. It's still not justified though. Basically it was defined badly, and then added in ways to fix the definition to discriminate 'properly'. Very immoral and like I said, unjustified.
There is no secular reasoning to oppose gay marriage, it's just religious fundy nonsense.
Raherin 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Raherin
The state's purpose is not just procreation, but its to PROMOTE and MENTALLY encourage citizens to focus their natural feelings to procreate in a responsible, productive, and safer way within stable relationships using the culturally understood term "marriage" and rear them in the best place, which means allowing the infertile to marry doesn't infringe on these objectives because these examples don't change the definition or the fact that a man and a woman can achieve this
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 But yeah, why should anyone be forced to abide by the bible? It promotes many immoral things that are now ignored by everyone, and gays is just another thing that is going to be ignored by that bronze age fairytale book. Like I've said before, if you're against gay marriage, don't FUCKING marry the same sex, why is this so hard for people to grasp? People can't face reality, or what?
It is consenting, harmless, and between two adults, why the hell do you have the right to infringe?
Raherin 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Raherin
The state's purpose is not just procreation, but its to PROMOTE and MENTALLY encourage citizens to focus their natural feelings to procreate in a responsible, productive, and safer way within stable relationships using the culturally understood term "marriage" and rear them in the best place, which means allowing the infertile to marry doesn't infringe on these objectives because these examples don't change the definition or the fact that a man and a woman can achieve this
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 I beg to differ, the state should not be involved with promoting procreation, its none of their business nor should it have any say so in a relationship between 2 consenting adults. Infertile has everything to do with your definition of being able to procreate. Can one procreate or not? If one can't by your definition they can't get married.
jimbobubbadj 1 year ago
@Raherin
The state's purpose is not just procreation, but its to PROMOTE and MENTALLY encourage citizens to focus their natural urges to procreate in a responsible, productive, and safer manner within stable environment using the culturally understood term "marriage" and rear them in the best place, which means allowing the infertile to marry doesn't impinge on these objectives because these instances don't change the definition or the fact that a man and a woman can achieve this
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 Homosexuality is natural. Every mammal has had recorded homosexual populations within the species, there is no debate on this, tough luck. So, it's completely natural. So, again, this is completely flawed, and completely more unjustified. Gay parents have shown to be quite good at parenting, so ya.
If allowing infertile couples to be married is allowed, it should be allowed for gays, as that means you are only focusing discrimination on gender, which again, is NOT fucking justified.
Raherin 1 year ago
not only would this be impossible for same sex couples to do this exact same thing in certain situations but its always impossible no matter what the situation. Therefore, allowing same sex couples to marry would not only infringe on the state's purposes but it would destroy the entire reason the state recognizes and uses the term marriage which is to promote responsible procreation and rearing of kids to at least the vast majority who are capable of this
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 Yeah, but you're forgetting to justify this ridiculous discriminating hatred to consenting harmless individuals. We are not in any dire need to procreate, the world is over populated. This is not the bronze age, get with the fucking times. What's wrong with you?
Raherin 1 year ago
@Raherin
its not about creating more children because we don't need encouragment to do something that is already naturally encouraged or have more people. its about responsible procreation and rearing them into society to have a country thats as functional as it can possibly be. This is done by compelling citizens using the term "marriage" to focus those natural feelings to procreate in a responsible manner within the stable relationships where there is two biological married parents
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 Are you ignoring what I'm saying? HOMOSEXUALITY IS NATURAL, it's seen naturally in every mammal, how the FUCK can you deny plain facts? Sorry, you're WRONG. It is natural. Now stop saying that, or else you will be considered a irrational denying dishonest bigot. [I'm not saying you're one, yet]
You can't continue to use a flawed argument after I completely disprove it.
Raherin 1 year ago
@kenballer00 No one is proposing that heterosexuals can't continue to get married and have children. You have no right to keep me from the type of relationship I want to have with another consenting adult.
jimbobubbadj 1 year ago
@kenballer00 Let me school you for a second on your religion, bud.
Jesus loves people regardless of sexual identity. I challenge you to try and find a scripture in which Jesus himself says anything against homosexuality. You'll lose.
If Jesus saw the behavior of many of your fundy friends he'd be completely ashamed. Why don't you start acting like a real Christian? It's pretty sad that an Atheist understands your savior better than you. Jesus was a nice guy, and you are not following his morals.
Raherin 1 year ago
@Raherin if marriage is redefined to just two people, the state would be saying to its citizens from now on marriage can be understood apart from responsible procreation and rearing of kids which would no longer encourage hetersexuals who have unintended pregnancies 50% of the time to procreate in a better environment than Cohabitation which has been shown through many studies to be a sub par place compared to marriage. Same sex couples cannot procreate accidently no matter what
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 Hey, guess what. There are many places in the world that allow gay marriage, AND THEY ARE FINE.
Now, again, you're flawed. Because gays are not gonna 'procreate' regardless of marriage, so we are still losing the 'accidental' pregnancies. Just because they can't marry, doesn't mean they are gonna get chicks pregnant. Might as well just let them marry. How can you not foresee these issues? So much for that one, lol.
You haven't had one argument that isn't riddled with flaws.
Raherin 1 year ago
@Raherin
i am not talking about infertile couples or gays but the majority of hetersexuals existing or the future unborn who could possibly procreate accidently, so what flaw out there are you talking about now and i will just refuted it again. But if your just going to assert that i am making all these flaws without explaining, then it really shows how rational you really are
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 I'm sorry, you can't start taking tabs on the 'possibly' born people out there. That's just insane. You cannot 'rely' on accidental pregnancies....... Are you really this fucking retarded? I'm just gonna stop now, if this is the kind of arguments you are going to make. You cannot force people to not be able to marry for these reasons, cause they are RETARDED and you are backed in a corner, and that's why your argument has dwindled down to this petty, undignified horse shit.
Raherin 1 year ago
@Raherin
Besides, We can always make sure that civil unions have all the same rights or have marriage recognition within the U.S. from other countries without actually legally performing them in the U.S. , that means if a same sex couple gets legally married in Canada and comes back to the U.S. to have it recognized but not performed i am all for it. This would solve your problem and give you the title marriage without having the state promote and force us to accept your corrupted worldview
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 If you don't want to accept that worldview, DONT MARRY SAME SEX. Again, WHY can you NOT get that phrase through your head? You can practice your religion at home, or even at church, or in public places, I don't care, don't force it on me, cause I don't want to DO IT. So, I WONT. You don't want that world view, don't USE IT. But don't force other people to not be allowed it, it's unfair.
Raherin 1 year ago
@Raherin
this is not about what two people do in private. i believe people have a right to live however they choose but redefining marriage is about what the government is going to teach in public. its about what the law is going to insist all of us to do which is to view same sex unions as marriage.they are going to use taxpayer money to teach our children and grandchildren that two men in a union is just as much as marriage as a husband and wife whether you like it or not
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 Jesus loves people regardless of sexual identity. I challenge you to try and find a scripture in which Jesus himself says anything against homosexuality. You'll lose.
If Jesus saw the behavior of many of your fundy friends he'd be completely ashamed. Why don't you start acting like a real Christian? It's pretty sad that an Atheist understands your savior better than you. Jesus was a nice guy, and you are not following his morals.
You are going to keep ignoring this, right?
Raherin 1 year ago
@Raherin
if you refuse as Boston parents have realized or try to shield your child from being taught these beliefs about marriage your going to be treated like a bigot who opposes interracial marriage. if the state treats you like a racist because you believe in traditional marriage the people who are for true equality will find out that this new law infringes on their freedoms and their capacity to live their life with freedom of conscience and to transmit their morals to their own kids
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 Why won't you address my comment regarding Jesus? I think it's VERY obvious why. :]
It's because you know you are morally wrong in your behavior, and you know perfectly well that this behavior is not supported by your savior.
Do not call me a bigot, sir. I am not denying anyone anything in the way you are. I will always support you getting married, I will always support gays getting married, you don't. Don't try to turn the table on me, that is the exact definition of a hypocrite.
Raherin 1 year ago
@kenballer00 Hey lets teach all views of marriage or none at all. You are used to the past where your type would run the show. Those days are gone now.
jimbobubbadj 1 year ago
@Raherin Sure it is true that we are not the ones to judge people. and yes Jesus loves everyone, no matter there sexuality. but the bible does state that homosexuality is an abomination.
indycoltsfan04 1 year ago
@indycoltsfan04 Yeah, I understand the bible says that, but, Jesus did not say that kind of thing, nor did he promote negative behavior about it. Jesus is what being a Christian is about. If you look at the overall message of Jesus, you would have to come to the conclusion that he obviously doesn't care about homosexuality in one way or the other.
Extremists can't seem to understand this, though.
Raherin 1 year ago
@indycoltsfan04 Ummm, actually, only some people interpret the bible to say that homosexuality is an abomination. But if you really insist on strict adherence to the bible, I assume you never eat shellfish and consider those who do to be an abomination as well. If not, then you're really like most homophobes, who use the bible as nothing more than a crutch to support their bigoted views. In the end it shouldn't matter because our country is guided by the constitution, not the bible.
nrf91 1 year ago
@nrf91 Actually the bible states that homosexuality is an abomination(Lev. 20:13). If a person kills a gay, the gay's blood is upon the gay and not upon the hands of the person doing the killing. The acts of gays are so abominable to God.) im not saying we should kill gays. and just because im against gay marriage doesnt mean im homophobic. also, the constitution is based on the bible in most aspects.
indycoltsfan04 1 year ago
@indycoltsfan04 Jesus didn't make a point to hate on gays, nor did he make a point to hate on shellfish eating. So, why do people not care about the shellfish, but they care about the homosexuality, when like i said, Jesus didn't specify much about either. The bible says homosexuality is an abination, but it's WRONG completely. We know now that homosexuality naturally happens
The reason people ignore shellfish and focus on homosexuality is because they are bigots with an agenda, and hypocrites.
Raherin 1 year ago
@indycoltsfan04 Raherin answered you as well as I could have. I notice that you conveniently ignored the shellfish issue. Do you eat shellfish? What about Peyton, you think he eats shellfish? Should you start hating on the Colts if you find out that Peyton is committing an abomination?
By the way, Jesus didn't say a word about homosexuality. And I would add that there are many different interpretations to Lev. 20:13. Who says yours is the right one? Jesus doesn't.
nrf91 1 year ago
@nrf91 you are going off subject. first off this conversation is about gay marriage, not whether i hate gays or not. second, i said GOD. not Jesus. God loves everyone, but just like murderer's they are committing a sin according to the bible. there are different interpretations on that verse of course, but they dont change the whole meaning of the verse.
indycoltsfan04 1 year ago
@indycoltsfan04 I'm not off subject. Whether you choose to selectively enforce the edicts of your bible highly relevant to this conversation. Because if you do, as most religious extremists do, it is hard to claim you are not using the bible to justify your own particular prejudices.
Different interpretations DO change the whole meaning of the verse. That is the very definition of "different interpretations".
nrf91 1 year ago
@indycoltsfan04 The more important point here, though, is you can believe whatever the hell you want to about gay being an abomination. But you absolutely MAY NOT use the power of the state to enforce those beliefs on the rest of us. Once you start doing that, you are, in essence, establishing a state religion, something that is forbidden by the US constitution.
nrf91 1 year ago
@indycoltsfan04 however, we don't govern our country by a bible, but by the constitution
borisgoodenough1988 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@indycoltsfan04 Read my main page, my channel. I talk about Bible verses.
jimbobubbadj 1 year ago
@indycoltsfan04 You're going off subject. We are talking about gay marriage and you are talking about the bible.
jimbobubbadj 1 year ago
@indycoltsfan04 i.....uh....didn't know you were an orthodox jew. god gave the 613 commandments to jews....not non jews
borisgoodenough1988 1 year ago
@borisgoodenough1988 what if i am an orthodox jew. God didnt give the commandments to just the jews, he gave it to everyone. if you want to have an arguement about my religion please pm me
indycoltsfan04 1 year ago
@indycoltsfan04 No lets keep it public. It should be for all to see. The more the merrier. What is there to hide?
jimbobubbadj 1 year ago
@indycoltsfan04 Do you believe if a daughter has sex with her boyfriend she shall be killed in front of her fathers home by the townspeople? Do you believe that a child who disrespects his parents should be put to death? If one east pork one shall be killed. If you believe in the gay abomination thing then you believe these versus as well, you must in order to be consistent with your bible.
jimbobubbadj 1 year ago
@nrf91
No, its not the same argument
bans on interracial marriage were about separating the races apart and Based on the Brown v. Board decision, segregation is another form of discrimination. When we lifted up the bans, it not only integrated races but the sexes which is what marriage has always been about.; Integration is perfectly legal. There is no discrimination here. TRY AGAIN
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 No need to try again. You make a fool of yourself and negate your own arguments without any additional help. Have a nice day.
nrf91 1 year ago
Comment removed
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 The church said years ago that the Sun revolved around the Earth and that the Earth was flat. Woman could not vote. There was slavery. Interracial couples could not marry. These views have changed. Remember the subject here is about consenting adults being able to live their life with the same rights as everyone else. These changed views had the force of law. Therefore just because it is a law now does not make it correct. Lets use logic here to argue the point.
jimbobubbadj 1 year ago
@indycoltsfan04 You have the choice to live by your bible. I also have the choice not to and I don't.
jimbobubbadj 1 year ago
@kenballer00 Yes! It should be redefined! Because we understand homosexuality better now. We KNOW it's a group of gene makes ups, and we KNOW it's natural, as I said earlier. So, yea, we need to redefine it, and teach children there is nothing wrong with it.
There is nothing wrong with pushing humanity forward in light of new understanding.
Raherin 1 year ago
@Raherin
it would essentially be an endless clash between the same-sex agenda and freedom of religion. The two are not compatible, because the same-sex agenda seeks to force by law acceptance of its distorted view of equality, and that will inevitably collide with Christian values. Christians will either be forced to accept something like this or live in fear of a secular government that will pander to the likes of intolerant gay activists.
HENCE MY POSITION
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 You are not a Christian. Like I said, Jesus would be very ashamed of your despicable behavior. You're lucky there's not a hell for you to go to, because of your willful dishonesty, you'd be on an express route there. My friends are Christians, and they are NOT TO JUDGE. Jesus said that, did you know that? You are not to judge, or force your shit on anyone else.
Raherin 1 year ago
@Raherin
gay activists and atheists like you would require the same thing from pastors and religious organizations when they entered the public arena or try to influence public policy to express their beliefs. the same standard applies to the gays and their sexual expression being displayed in public and influencing public policy when using my taxpayer's money to indoctrinate children and socially experiment with your corrupted views of marriage and humanity
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 Well, I see I have you backed in a corner. I WONDER why you won't address the statements I'm making about my understanding your religion better than you do....I really wonder. I wonder what Jesus is thinking about you right now. I bet he's sad, and you just ignore him.
P.S. I'm so glad I'm not religious. You can't hide your religious immorality from me, that means you certainly can't hide it from God ;)
Raherin 1 year ago
@Raheri
you are certainly not much of an atheist because your giving me religious arguments for why we should redefine marriage. are you sure you are an atheist? maybe you are pretending to be one. I must confess then that my arguments are mainly based on secular reasoning
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 Lol I'm not here to live up to Atheism.
I have a few friends, who are nothing like you, they are real Christians, though. I understand religion, so that is probably why you are thinking that. I like to 'suppose' that God is real sometimes, for fun. ;)
Your arguments are not based on secular reasoning, that not true at all, -at all-. The reason you don't want to redefine gay marriage is because it spoils what your scripture says, despite the *fact* that homosexuality is natural.
Raherin 1 year ago
@kenballer00 Us gay people are not advocating taking away a Churches right to marry whomever they want to nor force the Church to accept people as members that they don't want to. When it comes to providing public services, If a Church receives taxpayer's money in anyway then yes they have to abide by any strings attached. They don't have to take the money however. The Pope and Cardinals have the right to express their views and the views of the church outside the public services entity.
jimbobubbadj 1 year ago
@jimbobubbadj
gay activists or atheists like you would require the same thing from pastors and religious organizations when they entered the public arena or try to influence public policy to express their beliefs. the same standard applies to the gays and their sexual expression being displayed in public and influencing public policy when using my taxpayer's money to indoctrinate children and socially experiment with your corrupted views of marriage and humanity
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 I don't care if your pastors recognize my relationship. You are outright lying by saying otherwise. Lets stick to the truth here. Anyway there are churches that I can go to that do recognize my relationship, I don't need your church. You would deny me or take away my rights while I am not trying to do likewise to you. If religious institutions try to influence public policy, gay rights organizations have the same right to as well.
jimbobubbadj 1 year ago
@jimbobubbadj My tax money is being used to help religious organizations to indoctrinate children and social corrupt them with evil verses and views which are evil and archaic.
jimbobubbadj 1 year ago
@jimbobubbadj Your churche,s social experiments have been proven to be wrong and evil. The Spanish Inquisition, The Crusades and the Parish sex scandal both hetero and homo. The media doesn't report on the hetero part because it aint sensational. Killing one,s daughter in front of her father's home by the townspeople because she had sex with her boyfriend, having slaves and being killed because of eating swine,etc. You don't have any credibility in my view and having less over time with others.
jimbobubbadj 1 year ago
@jimbobubbadj
how do you take away a right that doesn't even exist in the first place?
gays and lesbians have always been allowed to marry someone of the opposite-sex for the purpose of procreation and rearing of children. what your proposing we do is create extra special rights that exist outside the constitution and common sense
the only thing we be taking away would be your right to impose your way of life onto to society and that you do not have a right to do
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 As far as I am concerned its a right that has always existed and is being wrongly deny to us. Being able to marry at all is a special right then. Consenting adults should all have the same rights, to marry any other consenting adult. This statement says it all. Marriage has nothing to do with procreation. So what if a couple cannot procreate? Just because a couple marries doesn't mean they need to have children. Why do they need to have children? Oxymoron, gays allowed to marry...
jimbobubbadj 1 year ago
@jimbobubbadj someone of the opposite sex? Would you like marry someone of the samesex? I don't want to marry someone of the opposite sex.
jimbobubbadj 1 year ago
@kenballer00 How am I imposing my way of life by living life the way I see fit? I am not telling people whom they can marry? How is my marriage going to undo or prevent someone else's marriage, PLEASE ANSWER THIS SPECIFIC QUESTION! No procreation comments. I will not discuss any further until this question is addressed.
jimbobubbadj 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jimb
this is not about what two people do in private. i believe people have a right to live however they choose but redefining marriage is about what the government is going to teach in public. its about what the law is going to insist all of us to do which is to view same sex unions as marriage.they are going to use taxpayer money to teach our children and grandchildren that two men in a union is just as much as marriage as a husband and wife whether you like it or not
kenballer00 1 year ago
if you object as Masschusetts parents have found out or try to protect your child from being taught these views about marriage your going to be treated like a bigot who opposes interracial marriage. if the government treats you like a racist because you believe in traditional marriage, the people who stand for true equality will find out that this new law impinges on their freedoms and their capacity to live their life with freedom of conscience and to transmit their values to their own children
kenballer00 1 year ago
@jimbobubbadj
it would essentially be an endless clash between the same-sex agenda and freedom of religion. The two are not compatible, because the same-sex agenda seeks to force by law acceptance of its misguided view of equality, and that will inevitably collide with Christian values. Christians will either be forced to accept something like this or live in fear of a secular government that will pander to the likes of intolerant gay activists.
HENCE MY POSITION
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 You already said this word for word exactly to Raherin. Freedom of religion, you already have it, practice it. Just because someone else doesn't follow your religion is not taking your freedom of religion away. I want freedom from religion. This is a secular state not a theocracy such as Iran. The two are compatible in practice not beliefs. I don't have to follow your religion and you don't have to practice homosexual sex. How are they incompatible?
jimbobubbadj 1 year ago
@kenballer00 Lets stop hearing your biased religious opinion and lets hear some facts based on logic. Anyway you did not answer my question, how would my marriage stop anyone else from marrying or nullify their existing marriage. Strike one.
jimbobubbadj 1 year ago
the argument is not that it would affect existing marriages or society overnight. Fully developed adults would obviously not be converted one way or another by the constant social pressure and influence.The effects would have to happen overtime when children or the next generation who are vulnerable to indoctrination are constantly reinforced by this new idea of marriage. so you would be looking for a decline in marriages rate and higher cohabitation not an increase in the divorce rate
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 You're very pathetic. You are trying so hard to stop other people from being happy and finding love. If Jesus exists, he would be ashamed of you. You are judging others. Where exactly did Jesus hate on gays in the bible? PLEASE show me the verse. Any verse where Jesus [YOUR savior] directly hates on gays. Go ahead. I hope you consider shellfish to be equally as bad as gays. You should be outside fish markets picketing eating shellfish is immoral.
You're a failure to your religion.
Raherin 1 year ago
@kenballer00 This is from your play book and a very poor one at that.
jimbobubbadj 1 year ago
Also, we may not live in a theocracy, but we do live in a democracy. the first amendment does not apply to voters. Pastors, clergy, and religious leaders have every right to convey and express their moral vision onto their community and into the voting process. Prop 8 ,or any other amendment, would not did not and does not undermine the constitution because the government didn't put it into law, the people did, and whether they voted for it on religious grounds is no one's business but their own
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 Lol, you're evading bringing your religion into this. I WONDER WHY. So very transparent. That pretty much proves my case for me, thanks. :]
Like I said, for the what, 5th fucking time. I'm not debating what laws are currently in place. I am questioning your moral integrity, and your very obvious religious bigotry. And, I am now also questioning where you are getting the idea Jesus even cared about homosexuality. Like I said, Jesus would be quite ashamed of you, as should you.
Raherin 1 year ago
@Raherin
dude. seriously you are talking to the wrong guy. my reasons for opposing the redefinition of marriage is not based on the bible but essentially everything else. Believe it or not , i actually think the Bible is a good and the best and only argument you can sum up for why we should support this . There are plenty of proponents on my side of the issue that would love to get into this type of religious discussion or argument but i am not one of them.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@Rah
let me make it clear. i am for civil unions, and gay marriage in a religious and legal sense. HOWEVER, i am against redefining what marriage is to just two people married and there is a difference. when a state legally performs gay marriages within jurisdiction, the state makes no distinction between traditional marriage and gay marriage. According to the state, Marriage is marriage.The government starts to rearrange businesses, media, and schools according to that definition
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 So, you want gays to be able to get married legally, and religiously, but you don't want to redefine marriage?....that just doesn't add up properly. If you're willing to allow them...why not just go with the rest?
"to just two people married and there is a difference"
What difference? The only difference is the genders, that's it. Why is this difference important? You seem to be afraid of change...
Raherin 1 year ago
@kenballer00 Would you like your marriage to be put up for a vote? We are not in a democracy but in a Republic. The founding fathers warned us about "Tyranny of the majority" The majority years ago believed in slavery, woman denied right to vote, interracial couples not allowed to marry, etc. Strike 2. How would a homosexual marriage prevent or block others from marrying?
jimbobubbadj 1 year ago
@jimbobubbadj In Europe in some countries, Atheists make up the majority. They may vote to impose religious restrictions. In France, a law was just passed to ban the burka. Switzerland recently banned any new minarets. Anyway more people here in the USA are waking up and becoming Atheists while more are becoming Agnostic and some religious more tolerant. Be careful what you wish for when putting up peoples rights for a vote.
jimbobubbadj 1 year ago
@jimbobubbadj I see that you don't have any videos of your own on your channel. At least you do allow comments on your channel so I will not block you from mine. If you did not allow comments on your channel I would block you as it is my policy to block trolls.
jimbobubbadj 1 year ago
@jimbobubbadj
if marriage is redefined to just two people, the state would be saying to its citizens from now on marriage can be understood generally speaking apart from procreation and rearing of children which would no longer encourage heterosexuals to procreate in a better environment than cohabitation which has been shown through countless studies to be a sub par environment compared to marriage
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 The point is the state has no business saying anything at all about this as it is none of their business or anybody else's. In addition they should not be encouraging or discouraging people from having children, again, as it is a private manner. As far as cohabitation, again, it is none of their business. Giving whatever benefits to any couple as other couples through marriage would make the couple happier and better off financially therefore the kids would be better off. Strike 3
jimbobubbadj 1 year ago
@jimbobubbadj How would my gay marriage prevent or undo someone else's marriage?
jimbobubbadj 1 year ago
I told you. the argument is not about learning to be gay or it affecting existing marriages or society overnight. its about no longer being encouraged and discouraged by the GOVERNMENT to procreate responsibly in a marriage for kids
The effects would have to happen overtime when children or the next generation who are vulnerable to indoctrination. so its FUTURE marriages based on the next generation we are talking about being affected and this could take at least 20 years to really find out
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 Strike 3.
jimbobubbadj 1 year ago
@jimbobubbadj
what is your problem? seriously
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 watch?v=4nE4g0yYqzQ
jimbobubbadj 1 year ago
@jimbobubbadj Argentina now has gay marriage, congrats Argentina! watch?v=UCYTTsal9_4
jimbobubbadj 1 year ago
@kenballer00 What is your problem? You keep copy/pasting the exact same things to people. No one will ever take you seriously if you discuss things like an ass. This is why your arguments make no sense. Because you are repasting your only arguments and not addressing the actual topics properly. Learn a little etiquette.
Raherin 1 year ago
@Raherin
well then stop giving me arguments i have refuted already and i will stop giving you responses that remind you of why your arguments are flawed
kenballer00 1 year ago
@jimbobubb We can always make sure that civil unions have all the same rights (including federal) down the future or marriage recognition elsewhere without having to redefining marriage for everyone. So this is a NONE argument.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 Marriage, in practice during my lifetime as opposed to religious and judicial theory, has never been about procreation and child rearing, but rather the intended lifelong commitment of 2 people towards one another. There would be an awful lot of illegal marriages by the standard you are citing. So obviously while one or more courts may have included an opinion on the purpose of marriage, that opinion obviously had no force of law.
nrf91 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nrf91
the quote i just showed you was from the Skinner v. Oklahoma U.S. supreme court case that the Loving court mentioned right after the quote they said to make it clear what they meant. its also the same quote or portion of case that the Minnesota and U.S supreme court used in their justification for rejecting gay marriage. so its not just one judge but multiple supreme court justices in multiple eras of our country that understand the purpose of marriage and definition of it
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 Where I think the issue gets muddied is in state sanctified versus religious sanctified marriage. In state sanctified marriage, couples are awarded certain rights and benefits that others are not. What gay people seek is the right to state marriage which would grant them those same rights as committed couples. To do otherwise, I would argue, violates the equal protection clause of the constitution. State marriage is not about procreation so that argument is meaningless.
nrf91 1 year ago
@nrf9
From Loving v. Virginia:
"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival. SKINNER V. OKLAHOMA, 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S.C (1942)."
SKINNER V. OKLAHOMA ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S.C(1942), which invalidated Oklahoma's Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act on equal protection grounds, stated in part:
"Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 You don't have to accept anything but you don't have a right to force you religious views on everyone else. Live your life the way you see fit. Some things may collide with religious values but as long as you have the right to live life the way you see fit, there is no intrusion on your rights. Your Christian values collide with mine but I am not trying to take your right to live YOUR life the way you see fit away, I want the same courtesy.
jimbobubbadj 1 year ago
@kenballer00 Don't have the government define marriage at all. Let the church define marriage. The government could only issue a civil union license to any couple.
jimbobubbadj 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
if you object as Masschusetts parents have found out or try to protect your child from being taught these views about marriage your going to be treated like a bigot who opposes interracial marriage. if the government treats you like a racist because you believe in traditional marriage the people who stand for true equality will find out that this new law impinges on their freedoms and their capacity to live their life with freedom of conscience and to transmit their values to their own children
kenballer00 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
if you refuse as Masschusetts parents have found out or try to protect your child from being taught these views about marriage your going to be treated like a bigot who opposes interracial marriage. if the state treats you like a racist because you believe in traditional marriage the people who stand for true equality will find out that this new law impinges on their freedoms and their capacity to live their life with freedom of conscience and to transmit their morals to their own kids
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 I don't like your view either. I don't think that the USA should have married you. I don't want the state recognizing your marriage. If your marriage is recognized I want my same sex marriage recognized also. We all have to deal with others that we don't feel comfortable around. That's life. I don't feel comfortable around conservative religious people for the most part. The government issues a civil license to any couple and the church marries whatever people they want or not.
jimbobubbadj 1 year ago
@jimbobubbadj
in a private situation, the state or society may not have a right to tell you who you can or cannot marry. however, as soon as you step outside the private realm of RELIGIOUS marriage and enter into the public sphere of CIVIL marriage, you are subject to the law (where you cannot marry your sister, uncle, etc) and public opinion or vote because civil marriage is about public policy.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 If you answer anything else, answer this: Jesus loves people regardless of sexual identity. I challenge you to try and find a scripture in which Jesus himself says anything against homosexuality. You'll lose.
If Jesus saw the behavior of many of your fundy friends he'd be completely ashamed. Why don't you start acting like a real Christian? It's pretty sad that an Atheist understands your savior better than you. Jesus was a nice guy, and you are not following his morals.
Raherin 1 year ago
Comment removed
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 Yes, people are forcing gays to deny their attractions, you are one of those people, you immoral hypocrite. I am not arguing laws with you right now, I am arguing against your morals, and your own saviors teachings. Of course public things are subject to the people's opinions. Why are you stating such a pointless sentence?
OH YA, cause you COPY/PASTED it from a comment you made earlier.
Wow, you are bad at this, really bad.
Raherin 1 year ago
Comment removed
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 Procreation is a parenting issue. Marriage is the recognition of a relationship between 2 consenting adults. The state needs to mind its own business and not worry about what consenting adults do in private. Anyway helping children can be done regardless of how they are here.
jimbobubbadj 1 year ago
@kenballer00 In english please!
jimbobubbadj 1 year ago
@kenballer00 You seem to be missing what I'm saying. I'm not asking you to look up where it says certains things, I am questioning your bullshit, hateful unjustified little opinion. I was done talking to your ass 4 days ago, so you can just go away. You are not interested in fairness or truth, you are interested in religious inspired bigotry, and want to push that on others. You are a dick. You are immoral. I'm sorry for what your religion has done to you, it's really sad.
Raherin 1 year ago
@Raherin
nobody's forcing gays to deny their attractions or raiding gay marriages in churches. gays can freely express their feelings of love in a church and get all the benefits that come with marriage through civil unions down the future. however, as soon as you step outside the private realm of RELIGIOUS marriage and enter into the public sphere of CIVIL marriage, you are subject to the law and public opinion or vote because civil marriage is about public policy.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 Yes, people ARE trying to force gays to deny their attraction, and you're one of those pathetic fucking idiots. You probably are gay yourself, I bet you are, just like all the other anti gay activists. GAY. ;)
Marriage is not only a religious matter, get that through your head. STOP REPEATING your copy/paste arguments to me, because you are starting to look transparently dishonest.
This is the 4th or so time I've caught you using the same lines on me and other people.
Raherin 1 year ago
Comment removed
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 Procreation is a parenting issue, not a recognition of a relationship between 2 consenting adults. Helping children out is a different issue. Anyway there are more enough heterosexual couples to procreate with the world being over populated as an example. They don't need any help in having children.
jimbobubbadj 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kenballer00 Doesn't it seem strange the Constitution is about granting rights and you are talking about taking them away or not granting more.
jimbobubbadj 1 year ago
@jimbobubbadj did i ever say i was against it? huh. well to be truthful i am not for gay rights. you guys make this sound more serious than it really is. we are in a war right now and all you can think about is yourself? tell me why should gays get married?
indycoltsfan04 1 year ago
@indycoltsfan04 Let me take you back to another era and see how this sounds: "I am not for interracial marriage rights. Marriage was never supposed to be between one race and another. You guys make this sound more serious than it really is. We are in a war right now and all you can think about is yourself? (because what the hell, your rights don't matter as much as mine). Tell me why blacks and whites should be allowed to marry one another."
nrf91 1 year ago
@indycoltsfan04 So no other issues should be dealt with except an unjust foreign war for empire. Why should anyone get married? Alternative, only churches should be able to marry people. The state could only issue civil union licenses to any adult couple.
jimbobubbadj 1 year ago
@jimbobubbadj people dying overseas or people not getting married. which do you think is more important.
indycoltsfan04 1 year ago
@indycoltsfan04 What does one have to do with the other? If war for empire wasn't going on the soldiers would be home safely and not dying. People are dying now, quite a stupid and weird question. When gays want some attention from their elected leaders you people don't want us to have any. Even though we pay taxes also. How are gays getting some deserved attention from their leaders going to cause more people to die? Haaah?
jimbobubbadj 1 year ago
@jimbobubbadj i asked which of these problems are more important, not how they effect each other. we have more important problems to deal with then gay marriage(oil spill, war, health care, economy, moral values, etc.).
indycoltsfan04 1 year ago
@indycoltsfan04 Your premise is that there is only time for one issue and that only one can be dealt with. There seems to be time for Abortion discussions, raising taxes, etc. I'd say the most immediate issue is the oil spill. None of the issues that you mentioned are being dealt with. No issues are mutually exclusive of each other. So I answered your question, but I don't understand the relevancy of the question? What does the question have to do with Marriage at all. watch?v=v9ZPWCJyTXU
jimbobubbadj 1 year ago
The world is overpopulated as it is. Let people live their lives with the same benefits as others folks.
psychichammer 1 year ago
I've always seen this to have a very simple solution.
Step 1 - Remove marriage from state and federal laws.
Step 2 - Insert an new all-inclusive term called "whatever" that will have all the same rights and priveledges that marriage had.
Step 3 - Everyone can now get "whatever" on the state and federal levels.
Step 4 - If you are so inclined you may have a marriage ceremony in the religion of your choice assuming you are elligible but it grants no extra rights.
Beeht 1 year ago 2
gays and lesbians have always been allowed to marry someone of the opposite-sex for the purpose of procreation and rearing of children according to over a centuries worth of federal constitutional law. what your proposing we do is create extra special rights that exist outside the constitution and common sense
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 The government shouldn't be involved in Marriage. Marriage should be left up to the churches. If people keep claiming it's a "Holy" sacrament.... then let churches and churches alone determine who they will or will not allow to be married.
Zuul030 1 year ago 9
@Zuul030
why shouldn't it be involved in marriage?
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 Because Marriage is an Institution set up by the churches. The Government is a secular entity and shouldn't have any say whatsoever in who gets married or not.
Zuul030 1 year ago
@Zuul030
you didn't really fully answer my question. why shouldn't the Government have any say over marriage when their reason for doing so would be best for society as a whole
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 I did answer your question. Why do you, as a conservative, want more government? I thought you guys were for less governmental intervention? I don't think I can say this anymore, but I will.... The Government should not have ANY say over Marriage much like The Churches shouldn't have any business in Law Making.
Why is it best for Society as a whole? You mean the best for Divorce Attorneys right? With our Divorce Rate about 50%...
Zuul030 1 year ago
@Zuul030
well i don't want more government. However, i don't believe the government is intervening in people's private lives in the first place. Civil marriage is a public institution. the government has a right to regulate public SECULAR morality which is what they are doing with civil marriage as well as many things like putting your seat belt, speed limits, or no nudity
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 Don't you agree that Marriage is a Holy Institution?
Zuul030 1 year ago
@Zuul030
YES
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 Then let the Churches (Since that's where the history is rooted in) decide who gets married or not. Keep government out of it completely. Seriously... I can't see why this is so hard to comprehend.
Zuul030 1 year ago
@kenballer00 That's your opinion. Why is it in the best interest of the government to regulate marriage? It doesn't change anything. Gays are going to continue to have gay sex as they have for thousands of years. We ain't going away, get used to it. You think that we are bold now asking for rights you aint seen anything yet. The world is over populated anyway. Tax breaks should go the other way to reduce the incentive to have too many children.
jimbobubbadj 1 year ago
@jimb
From the U.S. supreme court's summarry decision in Baker v. Nelson about gay so-called marriage:
"The institution of marriage as a union man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis....The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a charter for RESTRUCTURING it by judicial LESGISLATION."
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 It may be the law but its unAmerican, its just not right. Two consenting adults have a right to marry each other. If you don't like gay marriage, don't do it. Free choice. You have no right to stop others that want to do it from doing it. Please don't mention the Bible. Its no more credible than the Church doing Galileo's day saying that the Sun orbits around the Earth.
jimbobubbadj 1 year ago
@kenballer00 "The institution of marriage as a union man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family"
Easy there, your definition contradicts itself.
First off, gays can raise children. They cannot procreate, but there are many straight couples that can't procreate also. Using your definition, they shouldn't be entitled to marry.
Your definition is flawed, and not everyone believes in the bible, and no one should be forced to follow it, sorry.
Raherin 1 year ago
@Raherin
Ahhhhhh.....dude. i was quoting the definition stated in the U.S. supreme court's summary ruling in Baker v. Nelson about same sex marriage, but since your here, let me give you another quote that responds to your rejected argument about the infertile:
"Petitioners note that the state does not impose upon heterosexual married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate..." cont.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 I'm unpersuaded by your citation of Baker v. Nelson. I believe that when the Supreme Court does finally take on a case dealing with gay marriage that Loving will form the overriding precedent and Baker will go by the wayside, seen as a flawed decision tainted by religious dogma (citing Genesis in a legal precedent?!)
What I find most amusing is that every argument you've made against the rights of gays to marry could just as well have been made against interracial marriage.
nrf91 1 year ago
@nrf
the feeling is mutual as far as making the same arguments back then. Nevertheless, even if Baker was never decided, in reading the Loving case closely when they said "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival" they referenced another U.S. supreme court case called Skinner v. Oklahoma along side that quote. does this quote sound familiar:
"Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."
kenballer00 1 year ago
@nrf91
the quote I just showed you was from the Skinner v. Oklahoma supreme court case that the Loving court referenced alongside the other qoute they said to make it clear on what they meant. its also the same qoute or portion of case that the Minnesota and U.S supreme court used in their justification for rejecting gay marriage. so its not just one judge but multiple judges and supreme courts in mulitiple eras of american history that understand the purpose of marriage and definition of it
kenballer00 1 year ago
@Zuul030
I know it is quite "laughable" that people don't "get it". Mar