I desagree a little bit with this particular point of view. kid's are gonna be harmed if adopted by gay parents.....they are gonna be harmed....By religious nuts.
If you think it matters whether sexuality is fixed or alterable, you're homophobic. For why does it matter? It would only matter if there was something bad about homosexuality such that it needed excusing. If there's nothing bad about homosexuality, then it doesn't matter whether it is alterable or fixed.
Of course, most people are homophobic at some level and that's why this 'is it a choice' issue keeps being the one everyone focuses on. Sad really.
The state aknowledges your partner ship, with all the legal implications.
Then, AFTER that, anybody can add whatever silly fanaticaly religious ritual they prefer on it, whatever their particular god-myth might be, but that will have zero legal value. Legal recognition of partnership is all that is needed.
Gays should really not want to be married in a religion that specificaly hates them .... in all their love and tolerance. Funny how they convince themselves hate=love
my oldest sister is a lesbian and has a love child with her girlfriend and she is just like a regular kid, no different there daughter is fine and very cute. She has her mommy and her mommy and its a simple as that. There is no reason to oppose or be angry.
Caller dude is so busy hating gays for no good reason, he never stops to think about nor consider the counter arguments. Sadly that man will remain forever blind and deaf to realities around him.
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
"There are no secular arguments against gay marriage"... sure, but by their (similar) rationale there are no secular arguments against war. Clearly something has gone wrong here. Just war. Just relationships. Who judges what is just? If there are any non-religious arguments against gay marriage then these are as valid as those who are for it. Those in favour say "it doesn't hurt anyone". But those who are opposed are the ones being hurt, just like those who are opposed are hurting those for it.
@Pigroota Two things: First, you are wrong on no secular arguments against war; in fact there's and tons of Biblical arguments FOR war. Second, please explain how straight people would be "hurt" by any gay marriage. Or do you mean "offended"? Remember that a mere 50 years ago mixed race couples "offended" a lot of white people. A hundred years ago American women could not vote because they were thought to be too "stupid" to understand politics. And yet no one died from being offended.
Sorry my semantic raid was incomprehensible. I never said there are no secular arguments against war
Here's how a straight person can be 'hurt' by gay marriage: Religious people exist. Some of these people are straight. Some of these straight religious people are offended by gay marriage due to their beliefs. Secularism advocates freedom of belief. If we equate offensive to hurtful, which it commonly is, then these people are 'hurt' by gay marriage - simple. I dunno why this logic evades Matt
@Pigroota You merely repeated your assertion "those who are opposed to [gay marriage] are the ones being hurt" You have yet to demonstrate to anyone on here how this will happen. Cite a source, be specific. How many straight couples divorced bec gay marriage was approved in their state? How many spouses cheated on their partners bec gay marriage was allowed? How many people are impoverished for the same reason? Pick one state: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, or N. Hampshire.
@freeurmind2 This is no dissertation. Cite a source, be specific. Pfft,. For someone who is into sound logic you should know that for a premise to hold it must be trivially true or obviously true. My premise is the latter. I don't have to do research to know that some religious people are offended by gay marriage. If you have a problem with that premise then it is up to you to critique it, which you haven't so far. All you have said is that i should provide evidence which is not needed.
@Pigroota Who cares if some religious people are offended by gay marriage? That is their own bigotry. That is like saying "I am sorry but you cannot be black because you will offend the racist people in our country." That is a retarded fucking statement. We have had gay marriage in Canada for years now and you know what. No one even talks about it. Its not a big deal. Hell I used to issue marriage licences to people.... and trust me some of these people seem far more in love than straight couple
@CtheWolfe Decent attempt, but you have missed 2 things. Firstly, your quotation above is logically consistent with my position. Yes, the KKK are offended by black people. My statement refers to belief, not judgment. So you have responded incoherently. You jumped straight to judgment, but it is a question of logic. I don't care who is bigoted or not. Secondly, while race and sexuality are both attributes, sexuality is debatable E.g. Some gays turn straight but a black man cannot turn white
@Pigroota If you do not think that supremacists have the belief they are actually better you are wrong. They hold the belief their race is superior, plain and simple that's the way it is. It is just as much an irrational belief, as that of being gay is immoral and harmful to others. I do not see how you can see how you can say this is incoherent. It really is an irrational belief. It would be like someone who believed Elvis to be alive being offended you think hes dead. Its irrational.
@Pigroota Being an irrational belief it deserves no further thought. I mean would you question why someone was offended that you thought Elvis was dead? No. You would ridicule them for holding such a retarded belief. All beliefs are not equal nor do they all deserve respect. Its that simple really.
@CtheWolfe I am not justifying their position. I am atheist and have no prejudice, racial, religious or sexual. I don't care about those things. But you are making analogies that are not logical. Elvis being dead is factual and provable. Belief in god and her doctrines is not. If you are implying that religious peoples' beliefs do not deserve respect then I am sorry but it is you who is bigoted. You have diluted the original semantic by passing judgment on belief which was never my intention
@Pigroota No my argument is not that god does not exist. Now you are forgetting what we are talking about. The initial comment was about it harming straight couples by offending them. It does not. The entire point of my argument is to show offense does not = harm. You can be offended all you like but you incur no harm from it. So gay marriage actually causes no harm to the institution of marriage or straight couples in general. Love how you say I am not logical. =D
@CtheWolfe Uggghh no that was not your argument at all. If it was then I would be happier because someone could have constructively critiqued my statement. You are just going round in circles and spouting atheist catchphrases. Thanks anyway but I must say byeeeeee! God bless you.... no just kidding. Cya
@Pigroota Beliefs do not deserve respect. If I believed the world was flat would that demand respect? Or that there was this purple dragon in my back yard that only I could see and touch would that demand your respect? I mean after all you cannot prove said dragon does not exist or prove it does. So why afford them the same respect when it allows for bigoted statements like "It harms us that you are gay." I have no respect for that. That is just attempting to justify personal biases with belief.
@CtheWolfe Btw that purple dragon is real... it spoke to me in my mind when i was sniffing glue... :) Its says kill all christians an that angels are really dragons that evolved from dinosaurs.Thats there is no human god but only a dragon god that created everything and he lives in a different dimention plane and existence as we know it is basicly like a giant version of GTA with dragons only being able to control ppl through suggestion. :D
@Pigroota Actually, your last statement is incorrect on both fronts. No gay person has ever turned straight, but some of them have learned/been forced to supress their natural sexual urges and boink the opposite gender. And there are of course also bisexuals who have mistakenly identified themselves as gay only to have a swing in preferences towards a partner of a different gender at some point... And as far as black people turning white goes... *points at Michael Jackson*
@GrahamChapman Of course gay people turn straight. It happens all the time mate. And if you test Michael Jackson's DNA it will show him to be black. I'm afraid you are wrong.
@Pigroota Are you serious right now or are you trolling? I mean, the dissonance is pretty eyecatching between claiming that gay people turn straight, especially with there being loads and loads of scientific evidence that supports that sexuality is dependant on genes, prenatal hormones, and brain structure (though no conclusive evidence has been found yet), and pointing out that MJ's DNA didn't change just because he "turned white"...
@GrahamChapman Oh you mean eyecatching like the claim that "no gay person has ever turned straight"? Oh and the claim that there is "loads and loads" of evidence? Oh and the assumption that the only people that switch their sexuality are confused bisexuals? Oh and the claim that MJ is (was) in fact white? Oh and eyecatching like the way you conclude that I said MJ "turned white"? I never said that. Oh right... you mean eyecatching like that? I am just using your logic pal
Q1: No, not eyecatching like that. Q2: Well, there is "loads and loads" of evidence, so... Q3: Bisexuals don't change their sexuality, either, they just have a 50% chance probability of falling for someone of a new/different gender between cases. Q4&5: Look at pictures of the young MJ, compare to his more recent looks and the looks of his family. He was genetically black, but he was white-skinned in the end... Huh? You're using logic?
@Pigroota I never claimed anything else, moorhuhn... Looks like I'll have to spell my point out to you: There are numberous ways to identify a person. Some cannot simply be seen, (genetical ethnicity, sexuality,) but they can be visially identified anyway, (ethic man has black skin, gay man dates men,) unless covered up (MJ looked about as ethnical as Dilbert, some gay men date women to cover up their sexuality). You get my point now, anglo-pilferer?
Honestly, you really can't be this stupid! This rant goes way beyond excusable ignorance or lack of critical thought. Please do my species a favor and have your poisonous, wrinkly raisin of a ball bag surgically removed so there is no chance you may accidentally pollute the gene pool. And no I'm not gay, I'm straight.
Have you seen carnival in Brazil or Mrtigra in New Orleans, they make Pride parades look tame, not just women showing all their wares, but thousands of drunk people, & many men showing their junk as well. People have spoken of rapes & all sorts of things at those events, yet you folks are upset because a few dykes on motorcycles show a little something, or some guy has some super tight shorts on. Lets not forget, nothing forces you to attend the parade, Carnival, etc.
Why should anyone try to shield the existence of gay people from kids? I don't think the fact that they exist is at all inappropriate for kids to know.
Fact is homosexuality is NOT purely about sex. That's just bigotry. A type of bigotry even some well meaning people sometimes hold. It's the exact same as heterosexuality, just with attraction to the same sex, rather then the opposite sex. So it includes love, romance etc. as well.
Besides best if kids know as much as possible about the world.
Actually, my own opinion or anyone's opinion on the issue is and should be irrelevant.
The only thing that matters is that anyone is free to live his life as (s)he wants, for as long as (s)he doesn't try to limit the others right to do the same.
Wow. As a gay, I find it really insulting that people will lie and say we are more likely to molest children. It makes me sick. Thankfully these two are debunking the lies. =]
I still don't get how any homosexual individual can even consider to be part of any religion, especialy the three big ones.
It's like diving in a pool filled with piranhas ... naked. It's a bad idea. Their books tells them to kill you, what else do you need to stay away from them?
Granted he's not naked, but that's not something that should bother these pirahnas.
If the community I was born in had been religious I could imagine wanting to be a part of it, if it was a big part of being a member of the community.
I mean, it's not deadly to do it, but give the "piranhas" one reason and they will tear you apart, the danger is there just waiting to be triggered.
Still, I understand that the community pressure plays a huge role in this, but still lying to the community (and to yourself) pretending to be something you're not just to be accepted will hardly bring you happiness. Some religious individuals are tolerating and do have moral standards, but the religion itself does not.
I agree, I feel unless those churches/denominations that claim to be tolerating change the wording of their holy books to exclude hateful passages, then they are not truly tolerant. They try & justify such passages as mistranslations, as the lack of understanding of the time etc, but, by that logic one can disregard and piece of scripture one chooses. The faithful do this already, choosing which passages to enforce with a vengeance & which not to enforce. Of course the leaders are always immune
I love homosexuals. They are some of the most peaceful people I know. They are the best. I specially love lesbians. I mean comeoe if your a dude walkin with your lesbian friend, it is very hot when your lesbian friend says how hot the other girl is.lol Just sayin.
I'm one of those against gay marriag due to being against ALL marriage. The way I see it, is that either everyone should be able to marry, or noone should be able to marry -- personally, I prefer the latter.
@easytoremember0 why can't people marry? I don't get it...if you have children and you aren't married there's going to be legal problems...elaborate please...
@gaylolful If you have children and you aren't married, and nobody else can be married, there will be no legal problems. There would only be legal problems if people could still be married.
@gaylolful I did not say that there would be no LEGAL documents, I said that there would be no MARRIAGE. It's pretty obvious that if marriage were abolished there would be new legal documents to handle such things.
If there was no marriage, there would be nothing that requires marriage.
@easytoremember0 LOL! OHHHH....but I still don't get why you are against marriage...is it because it is not necessary? Are you saying that there shouldn't be marriage because it's insignificant and there's no importance because we can just come up with a different system?
@gaylolful Basically, yes. Ever since the threats/punishments were taken away for leaving marriages, the divorce rate has skyrocketed, and is still on the rise. It's an antiquated tradition that we have no need for. At the very least, marriage should no longer be legally recognized, or favoured over otherwise. You can have a long, successful relationship without it, and it only complicates legal matters. We could make a better, more suitable system for our modern world.
Actually, it has skyrocketed because women are no longer economically dependent upon men to survive. The exception being women in poverty, where you see poor uneducated women trapped by poverty, you often see high birth rates, & women dependent upon men. Men have always been freer to leave a relationship. Now at least, most women are able to survive independent of a man, even if they have children. Some women even choose to leave the children with the man.
What we are also seeing even for women in poverty, is a decline in childbirths, women are also waiting longer to have children, as lifespans have gotten longer. Part of this is also due to economics, people are waiting until they are established in their careers before getting married & or having children. This is not universal, but its a growing trend. In the past, people stayed married for economic reasons, people no longer feel this obligation, especially if trust is broken.
@gaylolful Legal marriage is polluted with religion, and serves to suppress the rights of many. Ironically enough, the least likely to divorce would be homosexuals, simply due to how hard they have been fighting for it. If marriage were not legally recognized, religious groups could have their discriminatory ritual back, and homosexuals would not have to fight anymore. Those who simply do not wish to wed would no longer be pressured either. The system is simply not suitable for the modern world.
its better to have 2 dads or 2 moms than having no mom or dad like all the orphans who are being denied loving parent by religious people who are obsessed with other peoples sex life. for real what is it with religious people and sex. they are against masterbation, and certain sex positions, and certain sexual partners, sex before marriage, and then they are molesting children. what is it with sex and religion. its just sex and that is all. just like sleeping is just sleeping nothing else.
Oposition to gay marriage has nothing to do with religion and neither has an anti-abortion stand. It's just a matter of different ethics and values. You guys are pretty ignorant if you claim there aren't any genuine secular arguments against gay marriage. The evolutionary argument is actually pretty stong, especially when combined with the concept of marriage as a tradition (regardless of culture or religion) that's always been between a male and a female.
um this video makes me think of stories like Snow White, The Little Mermaid, Sleeping Beauty, and Cinderella...( women is weak and only the brave handsome MEN can save her) so are people ok with this???
I have two problems with this segment. First, this is the Atheist Experience, not the "gay rights" experience. This is outside the scope of the show unless they are trying to say that "Atheism" agrees with their stance on gay marriage. Secondly, there ARE secular arguments against gay marriage, and they have to do with child development. I KNOW, two moms can do just as well, blah, blah, blah. But children need male and female role models growing up to learn how to relate to people in society.
@instereovideos As for your comment on needing a male and female role model to raise. Where's your evidence of this? There are kids that have been by raised couples that have turned out fine.
Would you rather they have no parents period and grow up in an orphanage? Cause straight couples aren't picking up all the kids that need adopting, why deny these children homes?
@DarkBunnyLord You can't quantify "fine," to begin with. Just because someone grew up with all of their fingers and toes does not make them "fine," just because you have a different definition. In my observation very few children grow up socially well-adjusted these days, but usually the ones that do come from father/mother homes. Children have to learn to relate to both sexes. Dad teaches you to give a firm hand shake, mom teaches you to respect women. This stuff goes deeper than you realize.
@instereovideos So let me get this straight, your saying you can't define fine as it varies person to person yet continue then to describe by what you must qualify to have as fine?
A childs development is far more attributed to their friends often than their family. You get plenty of socially awkward children that come from a hetero-sexual home, so your argument really holds little to no water.
@DarkBunnyLord Just calm down, drama queen. I'm not trying to quantify it either, I'm stating my OPINION. Deal with it. I don't do what everyone else does on here (which is point to a bunch of research that spins the data in the way that THEY like), because no studies have emerged yet that are definitive enough on these issues. I watch people, I listen, I read. And I agree that friends play a large role as well, but kids benefit from a mom AND a dad. Stop your whining.
I mocked you for your ignorance, you're free to have an opinion until it starts infringing on the rights of others. If you want to effect law, which clearly the opinion assumes to try with most that believe it one way or the other, use some actual research to back it up.
@DarkBunnyLord Wow. I'll bet you're a hit at a party. Do you go around talking like that all day, or just when you're trying to get people to "respect you," lol. Don't worry bunny lord, I won't come back until I can "effect law." "Clearly" my ignorance has been mocked by your intellect, lol. Douchebag. And what's with "aye," are you trying to sound Irish or something?
@instereovideos Right because clearly your opinion is justified to infringe on others rights... because this country clearly wasn't meant to give something crazy like equal rights... it's just some mad agenda..
You're calling me stupid... but you're making stupid claims like "this country was MEANT to give (A, B, C)..." The Constitution/Bill of Rights (I'm guessing that's what you're referring to with all the talk about "equal rights") doesn't give a particular COMMUNITY the right to do anything, those rights are for the individual. I know this sounds abstract to you, but you haven't been shorted any rights just because the Judicial branch hasn't seen fit to change the definition of marriage yet.
You DO realize there are tax ridoffs, visitation privaleges, and other benefits to being married that are excluded to gay and lesbian couples right?
Clearly you're not very well read on it. On top of that, allowing gay marriage is not denying any religion their rights because religion is free to not perform such marriages do to being a private institution, however religions that don't care are being denied the right to marry those couples.
LOL, You don't have a "right" to the benefits of marriage! The law is not dictated by your false opinion about what the Constitution says, you're wrong, wrong, wrong : ) Look, I don't care WHO you sleep with or WHAT you do, but a "right" is something given by the state. You weren't born with any rights the state didn't give you. Wow, what a sorry sense of entitlement... "I wanna marry the lover I choose, whaaaahhhh" Well, I want to keep my tax money, but the state didn't give me that right : )
@instereovideos Wow you just like to prove yourself more and more unedgucated don't you.
When two people are married the government gives them rights.
There's your problem, if those rights where not given and marriage was strictly something with no government sponsored benefits then you'd be correct. However as soon as the government gives privileges and says "oh only group A can have these" then it breaks the constitution of equal rights.
@instereovideos Right because you can't actually respond to the clear violations of law so pointing out a spelling error in a series of long posts clearly debunks my argument. Bravo genius.
@DarkBunnyLord haha, STOP GETTIN SO UPSET! It's OK... I don't usually point out spelling mistakes, but come on, if you're going to accuse someone of being "uneducated," spell THAT word right, dumbass! : )
@DarkBunnyLord (cont) and, YES, my opinion IS justified, but NO, that doesn't mean I'm "infringing on others rights." A right we DO have is the right to state things the way we like, even if your sorry ass doesn't agree : ) And you can call me a bigot all day by the same token, but that doesn't hurt my feelings, and it doesn't make you right about what "rights" you think you and your community have.
@instereovideos Yes, you are infringing on others rights. You're supporting an inherently unconstitutional act.
Group A has privileges provided and supported by the government, group B does not because of sexual orientation. This is innately unconstitutional.
Stop calling it me and my community, I'm not gay/lesbian. I'm straight, I simply realize when people are going down the same road they did with black and women's rights all over again, something history will not look fondly back upon.
@DarkBunnyLord Nope. You're ideas about rights are so skewed I'm surprised you can type on a keyboard. You don't... know... what... you're... talking... about....
Well, I'm a second year law school student, and the stuff you're arguing is junior high pre-pre-law stuff that you don't really seem to grasp... The answer to your third question is wrong... the "No," part (and of course the 4th question too). The "government" (your imaginary bad guy) is not short-changing citizens. The courts decide these things based on precedent. "Group A" doesn't exist. "Straights" aren't a group that rose up against you, lol. "Marriage" just hasn't been redefined for YOU.
If you truly where in law school which I highly doubt seeing your ignorance on the subject you'd know of: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Therefor outlawing the possibility of gay marriage to any church willing to perform it is directly against that very statement found in the constitution.
@DarkBunnyLord Well, I am in law school. And, I can't be an idiot "again," if I wasn't before : ) And If you think the establishment clause has something to do with your argument, you are just silly. Sorry, but you're just not going to "win" this argument, lol. Sorry you can't marry a man.
@instereovideos I love your reply's, quite informative for a man in law school... clearly saying "no your wrong" is more convincing then actually using any sort of solid rebuttal.
By denying the capability of marrying gays/lesbians to religions that want to you are prohibiting their right to carry out that belief... period. Something you have yet to refute with anything more than a child throwing a tantrum while swinging his epeen around claiming you go to law school as if it means anything.
@DarkBunnyLord That's great... amazing, really, lol. And what's with all the "clearly" stuff? Not a damn thing you've said is "clearly" anything but stupid ; )
@instereovideos You're either a very good troll or a horribly stupid person. Either way I'm done with you.
California already overturned the law once for being unconstitutional, it was brought up again out of sheer idiocy of the theists. The fact it's being revoked in other states shows change is coming where you homophobes will have to treat others equally just like sexists had to do with women and what the south had to do with blacks. History will not remember you fondly.
@DarkBunnyLord lol, I've been done reading your "legal" ideas for a while... I'm just trying to figure out what an "epeen" is, lol. And I'm not a homophobe, I just don't believe that homosexuals have the "right" to marry, and I'd be right.
@instereovideos heres where your secular argument against gay marriage fails
if u think that children need a mom and a dad, therefore gay marriage should be illegal, then by your logic it should also be illegal to be a single mom or a single dad.
i guess i should have been taken away from my mom, cuz my dad left
@oneadamtwelve86 well, I try not to respond to anyone lame enough to use the word "fail," lol, but I never said, "therefore gay marriage should be illegal." You just guessed that. I think a male and a female parent should raise a child. I don't care if gay people get married, but I don't think they should raise children. I also don't agree with your dad for leaving your family, or with single parents who choose to raise kids alone. Legality aside, kids need mom and dad for optimum development.
@instereovideos well you said it was a secular argument against gay marriage. if it is, then people are using that as an argument for why they shouldnt be allowed to marry.
Well, I don't think you're seeing this very broadly (no offense). My argument is about why they "shouldn't" do it, not why they "shouldn't be allowed" to do it. People should be allowed to do as they please, as long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of others. Most gays I've met are more concerned with proving that they can raise a child than with discerning whether there is more inherent value in having a male and female parent raise a child (cont).
(cont) In these cases, they are always blinded by their desire to "prove the strait community wrong." This is a dangerous stance. The rights of the child are suddenly infringed upon. It's like trying to prove that you can raise a child without vaccinations... sure it CAN be done, but it isn't advised, and it's not to the child's advantage. But just as the gay community just wants validation by obtaining the status of "married" (they can get all the benefits without the title), they (cont)
@oneadamtwelve86 (cont) in many cases put their own desire for validation above that of the needs of the child. The child attempts to relate to men AND women in society as he or she grows up, but is hindered because (yes, just like children from single parent homes) he/she did not have the most important model and representative of respect and interaction from that gender in the home.
@instereovideos sure i agree its good for kids to have a good mom and a good dad, but kids are going to follow all sorts of role models through their lifespan. in my case there is plenty of things that i respect about my mom, but theres also a lot of things where i think shes wrong, same with my dad, he is a better person now and i respect him, but kids will learn how to be men or women by growing up in this world, just because a mom and dad are in the picture doesnt mean its good for the (cont)
@instereovideos kid anyways, his dad may be a piece of crap, and hell learn that as he grows up. i think the only people gays "want to prove wrong" is the ones that are attempting to infringe on their rights as human beings, and rightfully so. i dont think its necessarily wanting to prove the straight community wrong as much as it is, trying to raise awareness that they should be treated equally. they are sadly still going through the same fight that any other groups had to go through (cont)
@instereovideos for example, blacks, and women. i didnt choose to be white, male, or heterosexual, but i am, and nobody happens to care too much. but in our history, too many have suffered oppression for being born a certain way, and its wrong.
@oneadamtwelve86 Ok, Ok. You don't get it and I understand that. You can't seem to draw a distinction between "reality that just happens" (i.e. growing up in a broken home), and people CHOOSING to bring up kids in the wrong environment. YOU JUST SAID IT YOURSELF... "I agree it's good for kids to have a good mom and a good dad." Kids don't "overcome" not having both. They struggle everyday, even if they desire more than anything not to be like their deadbeat dad. It's just the unfortunate truth.
@instereovideos The horrid problem with your argument is your supporting that it's better for children to grow up with no parents than gay/lesbian parents.
There is nothing supporting this theory what so ever. You can argue till your blue in the face that a kid needs a mom and dad, but if hetero sexuals such as myself and others aren't picking up the tab (which we aren't coming even close to) then why deny children a home?
@ToxicOdiousOne There are many hospital/hospice workers who voluntarily work with HIV positive people, gay and straight, so I say they would probably be willing to treat "queers" as you insist on calling them.
Homosexuality is a deathstyle. How can rational atheists support these bioterrorists willfully spreading the AIDS virus. Liberalism is a severe and and dangerous mental disorder. Atheists should be able to realize this. There is no benefit to society from homosexual activism. Society benefits in no major way from homosexuality. Population control perhaps, but they adopt. So not realy.
@ToxicOdiousOne Not all gay people have AIDS, secondly gay people would only give other gay people AIDS anyway, so really the spread is confined to the group you seem to hate. and just because you get the HIV virus does not mean you will get AIDS. And the babies are born anyway in adoption, so all gay people are doing is taking them in, would you rather a child goes to an abusive straight couple, rather than a caring gay couple? Also, bioterrorists use disease to kill, gay is not a disease.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I am an atheist. Being an atheist does not mean I favor faggot and dyke marriage. Sodomites hate religion so why are they forcing their lifestyle choices on religion? I object to that heterophobia. They attack the family and want to redefine the family. They want to raise kids to be faggots and dykes. The future will be masculine women and feminine men. They are destroying society. Civil rights? Mocking our values and traditions is not a civil right. This a radical far left movement.
I'm a male to female transsexual and one of the things I had to worry about is how to tell this sweet little girl down the street who I baby sit sometimes. I talked with her parents and they still wanted me in her life because she loved me so much. We just explained to her that sometimes boys want to become girls & girls want to become want to become boys. She had no issues with it at all, the only thing that upset her was if she used my old name by mistake because she though it hurt my feelings
Geez, I hate Russel. He is such a poor arguer, and always has poor logic. Can anyone do a study of whether Russel or Matt gets better average star ratings? Only rarely have I ever thought, Matt's a douche, but I think it about Russel ALL THE TIME!
I've never really noticed which debates better. What I have noticed, that annoys me, is that Matt will many times only let a caller say one sentence before cutting them off and speaking himself for five minutes.
I may agree with him that many callers are stupid, but jesus man, give the callers enough rope to let them hang themselves. Let them have their say, however moronic they may be. Matt cutting people off all the time annoys me. It's simple etiquette IMO.
And that's what people are doing now. Bigotry is bigotry, regardless of the group that is being disparaged. Regardless of whether it's race, sex, orientation... bigotry needs to be called out.
The thing is, the source of bigotry against gays comes from religion. People say that religion needs to be respected... that it's not right to treat religion poorly. I say bullshit. Religion is just a belief system, like any other, and if beliefs call for discrimination against others, they are evil.
Just a short while ago the California State Supreme Court upheld the ban on gay marriage. Once again, the religious cult has temporarily prevailed. I cant wait til America finally wakes up and pushes religion off the face of this country.
Alot of the fanatics are above sixty, and many are above seventy or eighty.
Ten or twenty years from now, most of them are dead, and you got the next generation which is a little less fanatic, and the generation after them is less fanatic still and so forth.
Religion is dying, that's why its been bullying and strongarming as much as it's been doing lately. They're desperate. But they're going to die off, and good riddance.
@Einzee : Oposition to gay marriage has nothing to do with religion and neither has an anti-abortion stand. It's just a matter of different ethics and values. These guys are pretty ignorant if they claim there aren't any genuine secular arguments against gay marriage. The evolutionary argument is actually pretty stong, especially when combined with the concept of marriage as a tradition (regardless of culture or religion) that's always been between a male and a female.
What's YOUR secular reasoning against gay marriage? What can you possibly imagine as a reason, without using any religion in any way, to not allow gay marriage?
@UnderlordZ : The most basic argument is that the very concept of marriage is a band between a man and a woman originating with the intent of providing a safe and stable environment for offspring. It's already a corruption of the concept of marriage that children are no longer expected but to also include homosexual couples to marry is just plain idiotic. Marriage for homosexuals in a way is like selling PMS treatments for men. Give them the same legal rights, but please leave marriage alone !
@OutOfTheBoxThinker That last sentence is a contradiction; equal rights means ALL rights, including marriage. Denying even 1 right to any innocent for any reason is a form of bigotry-based discrimination, and it is indefensable. 2 parents = 2 parents, regardless of either parents' gender.
And there's no reason someone can't sell PMS treatments for men; it wouldn't sell well, if at all, but there's no law against doing so, because there is absolutely no reason for such a thing to be illegal.
@UnderlordZ : Marriage for homosexuals is like penis enlargements for women or breast implants for men. It is completely irrelevant for homosexual couples because they cannot procreate by default. And no, it DOES matter what gender parents have. Men and women are not just interchangable in spite what ignorant liberals might believe.
The reason why PMS treatments for men should not be sold, is because it's a fraud... Plain and simple !
@OutOfTheBoxThinker Why CAN'T we change it? Marriage is NOT given to us by the bible; it was around long before, as a means of keeping powerful people in power for as long as possible.
So you're saying sterile men and infertile women shouldn't be allowed to marry because THEY can't have children? We have artifical insemination to keep the gene pool perpetuating, and gay couples are already using it.
You CANNOT give a reason to ban gay marriage they can't also be applied to straight marriage.
@UnderlordZ : The tradition of marriage has existed for thousands of years in pretty much every single culture on the planet precisely because it's essential to provide a safe and STABLE environment for kids to grow up in. The more we move away from linking marriage with offspring, the less we will be able to provide a stable environment for our kids (although these days the moral corruption by peers at schools seems far worse than what most parents can do wrong)
@UnderlordZ : I wouldn't object to banning sterile men and infertile women from marriage or forcing them to get divorced if they only find it our after marriage, however ir seems to be too much of a hassle and this has never been an issue in any culture during any era as much as I know.
Further, I also object to artificial insemination for both straight and homosexual people. If people can't procreate naturally, then let them adopt some poor orphan instead of messing with nature.
@UnderlordZ : Finally, I would also like to argue that BOTH a male and female role model are important, which is why I object to both purposely single mothers and homosexual parents. A tomboy can never replace a real man and a tomboy can never replace a real woman. The importance of role models (especially at a very early age) should not be underestimated.
@OutOfTheBoxThinker While I do agree with you that people should be more willing to adopt, I do have to disagree with you on your position against AI. It does serve the purpose of perpetuating the gene pool; it adds new combinations, and there's nothing stopping people from still adopting before or afterwards.
The only reason we don't have more information on gay couples raising children, is because people like you just won't let go of your tradition-based mindsets and actually let it happen!
@UnderlordZ : With regards to AI, I have two remarks. On one hand it would be better to opt for adoption because there are really already too many people on this planet and it would provide more homes for orphans. On the other hand there's the issue that poor fertility might be transmitted to future generations, which could lead to problems when more and more people start using AI.
Well, maybe gay couples raising children are not as much a problem as I suspect, but can we take the risk?!
@OutOfTheBoxThinker Life is all about taking risks, and using the experience gained through such experimentation to find out what works and what doesn't; it's called trial and error, and it's the basic premise of everything we do.
There was study earlier this year, that showed that the children of lesbian couples were less argumentative with their parents (2 moms), were less confrontational overall, and on average actually did better in school. Still think having 2 moms can only be a bad thing?
@UnderlordZ : You say children of lesbian couples were less argumentative with their parents (2 moms), were less confrontational overall, and on average actually did better in school. How old were these kids and how well does this compare with their parents' behavior at the same age? Maybe the average lesbian they tested is just more intelligent than the average straight woman? I have a theory about that, actually ;-)
On your role models position, I have to say, you just don't seem to have a very wide range of vision. Regardless of your parents' genders, you can still have role models. I don't idolize my parents or strive to anything like them; I think for myself, and as such, choose my own role models. One can look to an aunt or uncle if one wants another gender's perspective, or just another opinion.
Again, you have yet to make an actual case against gay marriage. Try again.
@UnderlordZ : You may be able to adopt different role models later on in life, but during the first years of life your role models are always your parents and sibblings. At that age people develop intuitive behavior and ANY deviance from a normal parent situation will have its impact on how people interact with other people later in life. One should not underestimate the importance of learning these intuitive skills during the first few years.
I desagree a little bit with this particular point of view. kid's are gonna be harmed if adopted by gay parents.....they are gonna be harmed....By religious nuts.
ChaoticRupture 1 day ago
Don't you think if there was a God, he would help their followers put up a decent argument on this show?
HxCDeathMetalHead 4 days ago
If you think it matters whether sexuality is fixed or alterable, you're homophobic. For why does it matter? It would only matter if there was something bad about homosexuality such that it needed excusing. If there's nothing bad about homosexuality, then it doesn't matter whether it is alterable or fixed.
Of course, most people are homophobic at some level and that's why this 'is it a choice' issue keeps being the one everyone focuses on. Sad really.
Clear404 3 weeks ago
The answer is SO simple.
The state aknowledges your partner ship, with all the legal implications.
Then, AFTER that, anybody can add whatever silly fanaticaly religious ritual they prefer on it, whatever their particular god-myth might be, but that will have zero legal value. Legal recognition of partnership is all that is needed.
Gays should really not want to be married in a religion that specificaly hates them .... in all their love and tolerance. Funny how they convince themselves hate=love
tdjdk 3 months ago
@tdjdk
i read that same solution a long time ago
i couldnt agree more. been "preaching" it ever since i read it :)
sabin97 1 month ago
my oldest sister is a lesbian and has a love child with her girlfriend and she is just like a regular kid, no different there daughter is fine and very cute. She has her mommy and her mommy and its a simple as that. There is no reason to oppose or be angry.
DarkTwin567 3 months ago
Caller dude is so busy hating gays for no good reason, he never stops to think about nor consider the counter arguments. Sadly that man will remain forever blind and deaf to realities around him.
freeurmind2 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 4 months ago
Homosexuality is witnessed in over 450 species on earth. Homophobia is only witnessed in 1.
If you have a problem with gay marriage, then you are the problem.
-from a straight guy.
Anzacpaul 4 months ago 4
"There are no secular arguments against gay marriage"... sure, but by their (similar) rationale there are no secular arguments against war. Clearly something has gone wrong here. Just war. Just relationships. Who judges what is just? If there are any non-religious arguments against gay marriage then these are as valid as those who are for it. Those in favour say "it doesn't hurt anyone". But those who are opposed are the ones being hurt, just like those who are opposed are hurting those for it.
Pigroota 4 months ago
@Pigroota Two things: First, you are wrong on no secular arguments against war; in fact there's and tons of Biblical arguments FOR war. Second, please explain how straight people would be "hurt" by any gay marriage. Or do you mean "offended"? Remember that a mere 50 years ago mixed race couples "offended" a lot of white people. A hundred years ago American women could not vote because they were thought to be too "stupid" to understand politics. And yet no one died from being offended.
freeurmind2 4 months ago
Sorry my semantic raid was incomprehensible. I never said there are no secular arguments against war
Here's how a straight person can be 'hurt' by gay marriage: Religious people exist. Some of these people are straight. Some of these straight religious people are offended by gay marriage due to their beliefs. Secularism advocates freedom of belief. If we equate offensive to hurtful, which it commonly is, then these people are 'hurt' by gay marriage - simple. I dunno why this logic evades Matt
Pigroota 4 months ago
@Pigroota I am pretty sure my logic has gone astray somewhere in the comment below. Can someone tell me where?
Pigroota 4 months ago
@Pigroota You merely repeated your assertion "those who are opposed to [gay marriage] are the ones being hurt" You have yet to demonstrate to anyone on here how this will happen. Cite a source, be specific. How many straight couples divorced bec gay marriage was approved in their state? How many spouses cheated on their partners bec gay marriage was allowed? How many people are impoverished for the same reason? Pick one state: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, or N. Hampshire.
freeurmind2 3 months ago
@freeurmind2 This is no dissertation. Cite a source, be specific. Pfft,. For someone who is into sound logic you should know that for a premise to hold it must be trivially true or obviously true. My premise is the latter. I don't have to do research to know that some religious people are offended by gay marriage. If you have a problem with that premise then it is up to you to critique it, which you haven't so far. All you have said is that i should provide evidence which is not needed.
Pigroota 3 months ago
@Pigroota So, in other words straight people will not and cannot be hurt by gay marriage. Got it. All you had to do was admit it.
freeurmind2 3 months ago
@Pigroota Who cares if some religious people are offended by gay marriage? That is their own bigotry. That is like saying "I am sorry but you cannot be black because you will offend the racist people in our country." That is a retarded fucking statement. We have had gay marriage in Canada for years now and you know what. No one even talks about it. Its not a big deal. Hell I used to issue marriage licences to people.... and trust me some of these people seem far more in love than straight couple
CtheWolfe 3 months ago
@CtheWolfe Decent attempt, but you have missed 2 things. Firstly, your quotation above is logically consistent with my position. Yes, the KKK are offended by black people. My statement refers to belief, not judgment. So you have responded incoherently. You jumped straight to judgment, but it is a question of logic. I don't care who is bigoted or not. Secondly, while race and sexuality are both attributes, sexuality is debatable E.g. Some gays turn straight but a black man cannot turn white
Pigroota 3 months ago
@Pigroota If you do not think that supremacists have the belief they are actually better you are wrong. They hold the belief their race is superior, plain and simple that's the way it is. It is just as much an irrational belief, as that of being gay is immoral and harmful to others. I do not see how you can see how you can say this is incoherent. It really is an irrational belief. It would be like someone who believed Elvis to be alive being offended you think hes dead. Its irrational.
CtheWolfe 3 months ago
@Pigroota Being an irrational belief it deserves no further thought. I mean would you question why someone was offended that you thought Elvis was dead? No. You would ridicule them for holding such a retarded belief. All beliefs are not equal nor do they all deserve respect. Its that simple really.
CtheWolfe 3 months ago
@CtheWolfe I am not justifying their position. I am atheist and have no prejudice, racial, religious or sexual. I don't care about those things. But you are making analogies that are not logical. Elvis being dead is factual and provable. Belief in god and her doctrines is not. If you are implying that religious peoples' beliefs do not deserve respect then I am sorry but it is you who is bigoted. You have diluted the original semantic by passing judgment on belief which was never my intention
Pigroota 3 months ago
@Pigroota No my argument is not that god does not exist. Now you are forgetting what we are talking about. The initial comment was about it harming straight couples by offending them. It does not. The entire point of my argument is to show offense does not = harm. You can be offended all you like but you incur no harm from it. So gay marriage actually causes no harm to the institution of marriage or straight couples in general. Love how you say I am not logical. =D
CtheWolfe 3 months ago
@CtheWolfe Uggghh no that was not your argument at all. If it was then I would be happier because someone could have constructively critiqued my statement. You are just going round in circles and spouting atheist catchphrases. Thanks anyway but I must say byeeeeee! God bless you.... no just kidding. Cya
Pigroota 3 months ago
@Pigroota Beliefs do not deserve respect. If I believed the world was flat would that demand respect? Or that there was this purple dragon in my back yard that only I could see and touch would that demand your respect? I mean after all you cannot prove said dragon does not exist or prove it does. So why afford them the same respect when it allows for bigoted statements like "It harms us that you are gay." I have no respect for that. That is just attempting to justify personal biases with belief.
CtheWolfe 3 months ago
@CtheWolfe Btw that purple dragon is real... it spoke to me in my mind when i was sniffing glue... :) Its says kill all christians an that angels are really dragons that evolved from dinosaurs.Thats there is no human god but only a dragon god that created everything and he lives in a different dimention plane and existence as we know it is basicly like a giant version of GTA with dragons only being able to control ppl through suggestion. :D
Thelondonbadger 2 months ago
@Pigroota Actually, your last statement is incorrect on both fronts. No gay person has ever turned straight, but some of them have learned/been forced to supress their natural sexual urges and boink the opposite gender. And there are of course also bisexuals who have mistakenly identified themselves as gay only to have a swing in preferences towards a partner of a different gender at some point... And as far as black people turning white goes... *points at Michael Jackson*
GrahamChapman 1 month ago
@GrahamChapman Of course gay people turn straight. It happens all the time mate. And if you test Michael Jackson's DNA it will show him to be black. I'm afraid you are wrong.
Pigroota 1 month ago
@Pigroota Are you serious right now or are you trolling? I mean, the dissonance is pretty eyecatching between claiming that gay people turn straight, especially with there being loads and loads of scientific evidence that supports that sexuality is dependant on genes, prenatal hormones, and brain structure (though no conclusive evidence has been found yet), and pointing out that MJ's DNA didn't change just because he "turned white"...
GrahamChapman 1 month ago
@GrahamChapman Oh you mean eyecatching like the claim that "no gay person has ever turned straight"? Oh and the claim that there is "loads and loads" of evidence? Oh and the assumption that the only people that switch their sexuality are confused bisexuals? Oh and the claim that MJ is (was) in fact white? Oh and eyecatching like the way you conclude that I said MJ "turned white"? I never said that. Oh right... you mean eyecatching like that? I am just using your logic pal
Pigroota 1 month ago
@Pigroota ...You are a troll aren't you? :/
Q1: No, not eyecatching like that. Q2: Well, there is "loads and loads" of evidence, so... Q3: Bisexuals don't change their sexuality, either, they just have a 50% chance probability of falling for someone of a new/different gender between cases. Q4&5: Look at pictures of the young MJ, compare to his more recent looks and the looks of his family. He was genetically black, but he was white-skinned in the end... Huh? You're using logic?
GrahamChapman 1 month ago
@GrahamChapman "He was genetically black". Exactly moron
Pigroota 1 month ago
@Pigroota I never claimed anything else, moorhuhn... Looks like I'll have to spell my point out to you: There are numberous ways to identify a person. Some cannot simply be seen, (genetical ethnicity, sexuality,) but they can be visially identified anyway, (ethic man has black skin, gay man dates men,) unless covered up (MJ looked about as ethnical as Dilbert, some gay men date women to cover up their sexuality). You get my point now, anglo-pilferer?
GrahamChapman 1 month ago
@GrahamChapman "numberous" huh? OK. It's obvious I am speaking with a fuckwit here. Byeeee
Pigroota 1 month ago
@Pigroota And it's quite obvious I've wasted my time feeding a troll. Fuck off.
GrahamChapman 1 month ago
Marriage is not about reproduction, it's about love.
laprofessorapai 5 months ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@laprofessorapai "Marriage is not about reproduction, it's about love."
People who only know how to hate...can't see it that way.
KapStuf 5 months ago
If being gay is a sin then straight marriage should be made illegal. After all most gay children are born to straight couples.
Hyperplaterine 7 months ago 9
Holy moley, that is an annoying intro song!
mistacramer 7 months ago
@jokercal2003 "Its not natural its disgusting"- Lmfao
gaylolful 7 months ago
@jokercal2003 You're joking right, jokecal??
Honestly, you really can't be this stupid! This rant goes way beyond excusable ignorance or lack of critical thought. Please do my species a favor and have your poisonous, wrinkly raisin of a ball bag surgically removed so there is no chance you may accidentally pollute the gene pool. And no I'm not gay, I'm straight.
nosajj12345 7 months ago 2
Have you seen carnival in Brazil or Mrtigra in New Orleans, they make Pride parades look tame, not just women showing all their wares, but thousands of drunk people, & many men showing their junk as well. People have spoken of rapes & all sorts of things at those events, yet you folks are upset because a few dykes on motorcycles show a little something, or some guy has some super tight shorts on. Lets not forget, nothing forces you to attend the parade, Carnival, etc.
ernestmac13 8 months ago
Yesterday my little sister came to me with a picture of her class, and pointed to her friend, saying, "She has two mommies."
So I said, "... kay?"
I think it was a good learning experience for her.
TuahShinguru 8 months ago
@jokercal2003 Good God I hope you don't reproduce.
MrEdLoop 8 months ago
Why should anyone try to shield the existence of gay people from kids? I don't think the fact that they exist is at all inappropriate for kids to know.
Fact is homosexuality is NOT purely about sex. That's just bigotry. A type of bigotry even some well meaning people sometimes hold. It's the exact same as heterosexuality, just with attraction to the same sex, rather then the opposite sex. So it includes love, romance etc. as well.
Besides best if kids know as much as possible about the world.
TheSkunkCat 9 months ago 3
Actually, my own opinion or anyone's opinion on the issue is and should be irrelevant.
The only thing that matters is that anyone is free to live his life as (s)he wants, for as long as (s)he doesn't try to limit the others right to do the same.
fernbap 10 months ago
Wow. As a gay, I find it really insulting that people will lie and say we are more likely to molest children. It makes me sick. Thankfully these two are debunking the lies. =]
TragicKingdom15 10 months ago 10
I still don't get how any homosexual individual can even consider to be part of any religion, especialy the three big ones.
It's like diving in a pool filled with piranhas ... naked. It's a bad idea. Their books tells them to kill you, what else do you need to stay away from them?
DarkZholt 11 months ago 5
@DarkZholt
watch?v=nWmfYDkayMY
Granted he's not naked, but that's not something that should bother these pirahnas.
If the community I was born in had been religious I could imagine wanting to be a part of it, if it was a big part of being a member of the community.
sharkjack 9 months ago
@sharkjack Cool video xD
I mean, it's not deadly to do it, but give the "piranhas" one reason and they will tear you apart, the danger is there just waiting to be triggered.
Still, I understand that the community pressure plays a huge role in this, but still lying to the community (and to yourself) pretending to be something you're not just to be accepted will hardly bring you happiness. Some religious individuals are tolerating and do have moral standards, but the religion itself does not.
DarkZholt 9 months ago
I agree, I feel unless those churches/denominations that claim to be tolerating change the wording of their holy books to exclude hateful passages, then they are not truly tolerant. They try & justify such passages as mistranslations, as the lack of understanding of the time etc, but, by that logic one can disregard and piece of scripture one chooses. The faithful do this already, choosing which passages to enforce with a vengeance & which not to enforce. Of course the leaders are always immune
ernestmac13 8 months ago
I love homosexuals. They are some of the most peaceful people I know. They are the best. I specially love lesbians. I mean comeoe if your a dude walkin with your lesbian friend, it is very hot when your lesbian friend says how hot the other girl is.lol Just sayin.
abnergarcia413 1 year ago
@abnergarcia413
Ha ha ha, I think we've all been there.
Necro12511 1 year ago
@Necro12511 Nothing but the truth my borther!!hahaha
abnergarcia413 1 year ago
I'm one of those against gay marriag due to being against ALL marriage. The way I see it, is that either everyone should be able to marry, or noone should be able to marry -- personally, I prefer the latter.
easytoremember0 1 year ago
@easytoremember0 why can't people marry? I don't get it...if you have children and you aren't married there's going to be legal problems...elaborate please...
gaylolful 1 year ago
@gaylolful If you have children and you aren't married, and nobody else can be married, there will be no legal problems. There would only be legal problems if people could still be married.
easytoremember0 1 year ago
@easytoremember0 But how are you going to prove the child is yours especially if you adopt with your partner? Through LEGAL documentation? Right?
gaylolful 1 year ago
@gaylolful I did not say that there would be no LEGAL documents, I said that there would be no MARRIAGE. It's pretty obvious that if marriage were abolished there would be new legal documents to handle such things.
If there was no marriage, there would be nothing that requires marriage.
easytoremember0 1 year ago
@easytoremember0 LOL! OHHHH....but I still don't get why you are against marriage...is it because it is not necessary? Are you saying that there shouldn't be marriage because it's insignificant and there's no importance because we can just come up with a different system?
gaylolful 1 year ago
@gaylolful Basically, yes. Ever since the threats/punishments were taken away for leaving marriages, the divorce rate has skyrocketed, and is still on the rise. It's an antiquated tradition that we have no need for. At the very least, marriage should no longer be legally recognized, or favoured over otherwise. You can have a long, successful relationship without it, and it only complicates legal matters. We could make a better, more suitable system for our modern world.
easytoremember0 1 year ago
Actually, it has skyrocketed because women are no longer economically dependent upon men to survive. The exception being women in poverty, where you see poor uneducated women trapped by poverty, you often see high birth rates, & women dependent upon men. Men have always been freer to leave a relationship. Now at least, most women are able to survive independent of a man, even if they have children. Some women even choose to leave the children with the man.
ernestmac13 8 months ago
What we are also seeing even for women in poverty, is a decline in childbirths, women are also waiting longer to have children, as lifespans have gotten longer. Part of this is also due to economics, people are waiting until they are established in their careers before getting married & or having children. This is not universal, but its a growing trend. In the past, people stayed married for economic reasons, people no longer feel this obligation, especially if trust is broken.
ernestmac13 8 months ago
@gaylolful Legal marriage is polluted with religion, and serves to suppress the rights of many. Ironically enough, the least likely to divorce would be homosexuals, simply due to how hard they have been fighting for it. If marriage were not legally recognized, religious groups could have their discriminatory ritual back, and homosexuals would not have to fight anymore. Those who simply do not wish to wed would no longer be pressured either. The system is simply not suitable for the modern world.
easytoremember0 1 year ago
its better to have 2 dads or 2 moms than having no mom or dad like all the orphans who are being denied loving parent by religious people who are obsessed with other peoples sex life. for real what is it with religious people and sex. they are against masterbation, and certain sex positions, and certain sexual partners, sex before marriage, and then they are molesting children. what is it with sex and religion. its just sex and that is all. just like sleeping is just sleeping nothing else.
420simpson 1 year ago 89
@420simpson cept im willing to skip a night of sleep for some sex lmao
DarkTwin567 3 months ago
I dont get the "we must make babies" arguement.. banning gay marriage will
get gay men to impregnate straight women and gay women to start suddenly fucking a bunch of dudes?
come on...
KarinMikazuki 1 year ago 54
As usual: incredibly week argument for gay couples with children...
grozde 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Oposition to gay marriage has nothing to do with religion and neither has an anti-abortion stand. It's just a matter of different ethics and values. You guys are pretty ignorant if you claim there aren't any genuine secular arguments against gay marriage. The evolutionary argument is actually pretty stong, especially when combined with the concept of marriage as a tradition (regardless of culture or religion) that's always been between a male and a female.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 1 year ago
um this video makes me think of stories like Snow White, The Little Mermaid, Sleeping Beauty, and Cinderella...( women is weak and only the brave handsome MEN can save her) so are people ok with this???
nromk 1 year ago
I have two problems with this segment. First, this is the Atheist Experience, not the "gay rights" experience. This is outside the scope of the show unless they are trying to say that "Atheism" agrees with their stance on gay marriage. Secondly, there ARE secular arguments against gay marriage, and they have to do with child development. I KNOW, two moms can do just as well, blah, blah, blah. But children need male and female role models growing up to learn how to relate to people in society.
instereovideos 1 year ago
@instereovideos As for your comment on needing a male and female role model to raise. Where's your evidence of this? There are kids that have been by raised couples that have turned out fine.
Would you rather they have no parents period and grow up in an orphanage? Cause straight couples aren't picking up all the kids that need adopting, why deny these children homes?
DarkBunnyLord 1 year ago
@DarkBunnyLord You can't quantify "fine," to begin with. Just because someone grew up with all of their fingers and toes does not make them "fine," just because you have a different definition. In my observation very few children grow up socially well-adjusted these days, but usually the ones that do come from father/mother homes. Children have to learn to relate to both sexes. Dad teaches you to give a firm hand shake, mom teaches you to respect women. This stuff goes deeper than you realize.
instereovideos 1 year ago
@instereovideos So let me get this straight, your saying you can't define fine as it varies person to person yet continue then to describe by what you must qualify to have as fine?
A childs development is far more attributed to their friends often than their family. You get plenty of socially awkward children that come from a hetero-sexual home, so your argument really holds little to no water.
DarkBunnyLord 1 year ago
@DarkBunnyLord Just calm down, drama queen. I'm not trying to quantify it either, I'm stating my OPINION. Deal with it. I don't do what everyone else does on here (which is point to a bunch of research that spins the data in the way that THEY like), because no studies have emerged yet that are definitive enough on these issues. I watch people, I listen, I read. And I agree that friends play a large role as well, but kids benefit from a mom AND a dad. Stop your whining.
instereovideos 1 year ago
@instereovideos Drama queen? A bit full of yourself aye?
I mocked you for your ignorance, you're free to have an opinion until it starts infringing on the rights of others. If you want to effect law, which clearly the opinion assumes to try with most that believe it one way or the other, use some actual research to back it up.
DarkBunnyLord 1 year ago
@DarkBunnyLord Wow. I'll bet you're a hit at a party. Do you go around talking like that all day, or just when you're trying to get people to "respect you," lol. Don't worry bunny lord, I won't come back until I can "effect law." "Clearly" my ignorance has been mocked by your intellect, lol. Douchebag. And what's with "aye," are you trying to sound Irish or something?
instereovideos 1 year ago
@instereovideos Clearly it has, you're just another bigot. Oh and good guess, I am Irish, though "aye" has nothing to do with it.
DarkBunnyLord 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DarkBunnyLord well that settles it, lol.
instereovideos 1 year ago
@DarkBunnyLord Yeah, anyone who disagrees with someone who has a gay agenda is "just another bigot," right? : )
instereovideos 1 year ago
@instereovideos Right because clearly your opinion is justified to infringe on others rights... because this country clearly wasn't meant to give something crazy like equal rights... it's just some mad agenda..
Your level of stupidity is astounding.
DarkBunnyLord 1 year ago
You're calling me stupid... but you're making stupid claims like "this country was MEANT to give (A, B, C)..." The Constitution/Bill of Rights (I'm guessing that's what you're referring to with all the talk about "equal rights") doesn't give a particular COMMUNITY the right to do anything, those rights are for the individual. I know this sounds abstract to you, but you haven't been shorted any rights just because the Judicial branch hasn't seen fit to change the definition of marriage yet.
instereovideos 1 year ago
@instereovideos Again, your ignorance shows through.
You DO realize there are tax ridoffs, visitation privaleges, and other benefits to being married that are excluded to gay and lesbian couples right?
Clearly you're not very well read on it. On top of that, allowing gay marriage is not denying any religion their rights because religion is free to not perform such marriages do to being a private institution, however religions that don't care are being denied the right to marry those couples.
DarkBunnyLord 1 year ago
LOL, You don't have a "right" to the benefits of marriage! The law is not dictated by your false opinion about what the Constitution says, you're wrong, wrong, wrong : ) Look, I don't care WHO you sleep with or WHAT you do, but a "right" is something given by the state. You weren't born with any rights the state didn't give you. Wow, what a sorry sense of entitlement... "I wanna marry the lover I choose, whaaaahhhh" Well, I want to keep my tax money, but the state didn't give me that right : )
instereovideos 1 year ago
@instereovideos Wow you just like to prove yourself more and more unedgucated don't you.
When two people are married the government gives them rights.
There's your problem, if those rights where not given and marriage was strictly something with no government sponsored benefits then you'd be correct. However as soon as the government gives privileges and says "oh only group A can have these" then it breaks the constitution of equal rights.
Might want to look up the definition of equal.
DarkBunnyLord 1 year ago
@DarkBunnyLord And did you just spell that "unedgucated?" haha. Well, that's enough for me.
instereovideos 1 year ago
@instereovideos Right because you can't actually respond to the clear violations of law so pointing out a spelling error in a series of long posts clearly debunks my argument. Bravo genius.
DarkBunnyLord 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DarkBunnyLord haha, STOP GETTIN SO UPSET! It's OK... I don't usually point out spelling mistakes, but come on, if you're going to accuse someone of being "uneducated," spell THAT word right, dumbass! : )
instereovideos 1 year ago
Comment removed
instereovideos 1 year ago
@DarkBunnyLord (cont) and, YES, my opinion IS justified, but NO, that doesn't mean I'm "infringing on others rights." A right we DO have is the right to state things the way we like, even if your sorry ass doesn't agree : ) And you can call me a bigot all day by the same token, but that doesn't hurt my feelings, and it doesn't make you right about what "rights" you think you and your community have.
instereovideos 1 year ago
@instereovideos Yes, you are infringing on others rights. You're supporting an inherently unconstitutional act.
Group A has privileges provided and supported by the government, group B does not because of sexual orientation. This is innately unconstitutional.
Stop calling it me and my community, I'm not gay/lesbian. I'm straight, I simply realize when people are going down the same road they did with black and women's rights all over again, something history will not look fondly back upon.
DarkBunnyLord 1 year ago
@DarkBunnyLord Nope. You're ideas about rights are so skewed I'm surprised you can type on a keyboard. You don't... know... what... you're... talking... about....
instereovideos 1 year ago
@instereovideos Have fun wallowing in your lack of brain power.
The government gives rights, yes or no? Yes
The government is required to provide access to the same rights for all of it's citizens yes or no? Yes
Is the government doing that? No
Are you an idiot that doesn't understand the basic fundamentals of law yes or no? Yes.
DarkBunnyLord 1 year ago
Well, I'm a second year law school student, and the stuff you're arguing is junior high pre-pre-law stuff that you don't really seem to grasp... The answer to your third question is wrong... the "No," part (and of course the 4th question too). The "government" (your imaginary bad guy) is not short-changing citizens. The courts decide these things based on precedent. "Group A" doesn't exist. "Straights" aren't a group that rose up against you, lol. "Marriage" just hasn't been redefined for YOU.
instereovideos 1 year ago
@instereovideos Again your an idiot.
If you truly where in law school which I highly doubt seeing your ignorance on the subject you'd know of: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Therefor outlawing the possibility of gay marriage to any church willing to perform it is directly against that very statement found in the constitution.
DarkBunnyLord 1 year ago
@DarkBunnyLord Well, I am in law school. And, I can't be an idiot "again," if I wasn't before : ) And If you think the establishment clause has something to do with your argument, you are just silly. Sorry, but you're just not going to "win" this argument, lol. Sorry you can't marry a man.
instereovideos 1 year ago
Comment removed
instereovideos 1 year ago
@instereovideos I love your reply's, quite informative for a man in law school... clearly saying "no your wrong" is more convincing then actually using any sort of solid rebuttal.
By denying the capability of marrying gays/lesbians to religions that want to you are prohibiting their right to carry out that belief... period. Something you have yet to refute with anything more than a child throwing a tantrum while swinging his epeen around claiming you go to law school as if it means anything.
DarkBunnyLord 1 year ago
@DarkBunnyLord That's great... amazing, really, lol. And what's with all the "clearly" stuff? Not a damn thing you've said is "clearly" anything but stupid ; )
instereovideos 1 year ago
@instereovideos You're either a very good troll or a horribly stupid person. Either way I'm done with you.
California already overturned the law once for being unconstitutional, it was brought up again out of sheer idiocy of the theists. The fact it's being revoked in other states shows change is coming where you homophobes will have to treat others equally just like sexists had to do with women and what the south had to do with blacks. History will not remember you fondly.
DarkBunnyLord 1 year ago
@DarkBunnyLord lol, I've been done reading your "legal" ideas for a while... I'm just trying to figure out what an "epeen" is, lol. And I'm not a homophobe, I just don't believe that homosexuals have the "right" to marry, and I'd be right.
instereovideos 1 year ago
@instereovideos
not cool, bro. not cool.
ISFB1 1 year ago
@ISFB1 what isn't. and I'm not your bro.
instereovideos 1 year ago
@instereovideos
And what would be your reasons that you think, say, my friends Tami and Tara shouldn't have rights that you have?
boyinthedrain 1 year ago
@boyinthedrain They do have the same rights I have.
instereovideos 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@instereovideos
Should they be allowed to be married?
boyinthedrain 1 year ago
@DarkBunnyLord and what's an "epeen?"
instereovideos 1 year ago
@instereovideos
""Marriage" just hasn't been redefined for YOU"
(Face on palm)
OK... sorry. Didn't realize you were a troll. Moving on
boyinthedrain 1 year ago
@instereovideos heres where your secular argument against gay marriage fails
if u think that children need a mom and a dad, therefore gay marriage should be illegal, then by your logic it should also be illegal to be a single mom or a single dad.
i guess i should have been taken away from my mom, cuz my dad left
oneadamtwelve86 1 year ago
@oneadamtwelve86 well, I try not to respond to anyone lame enough to use the word "fail," lol, but I never said, "therefore gay marriage should be illegal." You just guessed that. I think a male and a female parent should raise a child. I don't care if gay people get married, but I don't think they should raise children. I also don't agree with your dad for leaving your family, or with single parents who choose to raise kids alone. Legality aside, kids need mom and dad for optimum development.
instereovideos 1 year ago
@instereovideos well you said it was a secular argument against gay marriage. if it is, then people are using that as an argument for why they shouldnt be allowed to marry.
oneadamtwelve86 1 year ago
Well, I don't think you're seeing this very broadly (no offense). My argument is about why they "shouldn't" do it, not why they "shouldn't be allowed" to do it. People should be allowed to do as they please, as long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of others. Most gays I've met are more concerned with proving that they can raise a child than with discerning whether there is more inherent value in having a male and female parent raise a child (cont).
instereovideos 1 year ago
(cont) In these cases, they are always blinded by their desire to "prove the strait community wrong." This is a dangerous stance. The rights of the child are suddenly infringed upon. It's like trying to prove that you can raise a child without vaccinations... sure it CAN be done, but it isn't advised, and it's not to the child's advantage. But just as the gay community just wants validation by obtaining the status of "married" (they can get all the benefits without the title), they (cont)
instereovideos 1 year ago
@oneadamtwelve86 (cont) in many cases put their own desire for validation above that of the needs of the child. The child attempts to relate to men AND women in society as he or she grows up, but is hindered because (yes, just like children from single parent homes) he/she did not have the most important model and representative of respect and interaction from that gender in the home.
instereovideos 1 year ago
@instereovideos sure i agree its good for kids to have a good mom and a good dad, but kids are going to follow all sorts of role models through their lifespan. in my case there is plenty of things that i respect about my mom, but theres also a lot of things where i think shes wrong, same with my dad, he is a better person now and i respect him, but kids will learn how to be men or women by growing up in this world, just because a mom and dad are in the picture doesnt mean its good for the (cont)
oneadamtwelve86 1 year ago
@instereovideos kid anyways, his dad may be a piece of crap, and hell learn that as he grows up. i think the only people gays "want to prove wrong" is the ones that are attempting to infringe on their rights as human beings, and rightfully so. i dont think its necessarily wanting to prove the straight community wrong as much as it is, trying to raise awareness that they should be treated equally. they are sadly still going through the same fight that any other groups had to go through (cont)
oneadamtwelve86 1 year ago
@instereovideos for example, blacks, and women. i didnt choose to be white, male, or heterosexual, but i am, and nobody happens to care too much. but in our history, too many have suffered oppression for being born a certain way, and its wrong.
oneadamtwelve86 1 year ago
@oneadamtwelve86 Ok, Ok. You don't get it and I understand that. You can't seem to draw a distinction between "reality that just happens" (i.e. growing up in a broken home), and people CHOOSING to bring up kids in the wrong environment. YOU JUST SAID IT YOURSELF... "I agree it's good for kids to have a good mom and a good dad." Kids don't "overcome" not having both. They struggle everyday, even if they desire more than anything not to be like their deadbeat dad. It's just the unfortunate truth.
instereovideos 1 year ago
@instereovideos The horrid problem with your argument is your supporting that it's better for children to grow up with no parents than gay/lesbian parents.
There is nothing supporting this theory what so ever. You can argue till your blue in the face that a kid needs a mom and dad, but if hetero sexuals such as myself and others aren't picking up the tab (which we aren't coming even close to) then why deny children a home?
DarkBunnyLord 1 year ago
AIDS spreads everytime they bl;eed Sir don't be a pinhead.
ToxicOdiousOne 1 year ago
@ToxicOdiousOne QQ more ignoramus
Pikee 1 year ago
@ToxicOdiousOne Good name though, you are toxic and odious, to be sure
wendighoul 1 year ago
Armed forces get shot at. Who wants to treat queers who have AIDS? They are unqualified.
ToxicOdiousOne 1 year ago
@ToxicOdiousOne There are many hospital/hospice workers who voluntarily work with HIV positive people, gay and straight, so I say they would probably be willing to treat "queers" as you insist on calling them.
wendighoul 1 year ago
Homosexuality is a deathstyle. How can rational atheists support these bioterrorists willfully spreading the AIDS virus. Liberalism is a severe and and dangerous mental disorder. Atheists should be able to realize this. There is no benefit to society from homosexual activism. Society benefits in no major way from homosexuality. Population control perhaps, but they adopt. So not realy.
ToxicOdiousOne 1 year ago
Comment removed
angrynutrients 1 year ago
@ToxicOdiousOne Not all gay people have AIDS, secondly gay people would only give other gay people AIDS anyway, so really the spread is confined to the group you seem to hate. and just because you get the HIV virus does not mean you will get AIDS. And the babies are born anyway in adoption, so all gay people are doing is taking them in, would you rather a child goes to an abusive straight couple, rather than a caring gay couple? Also, bioterrorists use disease to kill, gay is not a disease.
angrynutrients 1 year ago
@angrynutrients Dont argue with ignorant/trollish people. You may come to a point where others might not notice the difference.
bfahren 1 year ago
2 heterosexual ppl doesent mean the kid will be homosexual
so why do ppl think 2 homosexual parents make homosexual children
flipperboy 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I am an atheist. Being an atheist does not mean I favor faggot and dyke marriage. Sodomites hate religion so why are they forcing their lifestyle choices on religion? I object to that heterophobia. They attack the family and want to redefine the family. They want to raise kids to be faggots and dykes. The future will be masculine women and feminine men. They are destroying society. Civil rights? Mocking our values and traditions is not a civil right. This a radical far left movement.
ToxicOdiousOne 2 years ago
@ToxicOdiousOne How exactly is homosexuality destroying society?
Can you prove that children of homosexuals tend to be homosexual?
Who is forcing their ideals on whom, exactly?
NamesForDogs 1 year ago
@ToxicOdiousOne The kid will learn to think for themselves.
misterhalo2007 1 year ago
I'm a male to female transsexual and one of the things I had to worry about is how to tell this sweet little girl down the street who I baby sit sometimes. I talked with her parents and they still wanted me in her life because she loved me so much. We just explained to her that sometimes boys want to become girls & girls want to become want to become boys. She had no issues with it at all, the only thing that upset her was if she used my old name by mistake because she though it hurt my feelings
fireflygirl246 2 years ago
Geez, I hate Russel. He is such a poor arguer, and always has poor logic. Can anyone do a study of whether Russel or Matt gets better average star ratings? Only rarely have I ever thought, Matt's a douche, but I think it about Russel ALL THE TIME!
maemorri 2 years ago
I've never really noticed which debates better. What I have noticed, that annoys me, is that Matt will many times only let a caller say one sentence before cutting them off and speaking himself for five minutes.
I may agree with him that many callers are stupid, but jesus man, give the callers enough rope to let them hang themselves. Let them have their say, however moronic they may be. Matt cutting people off all the time annoys me. It's simple etiquette IMO.
aeroldoth 2 years ago
I agree completely. Matt's points are often more to the point, but he doesn't let the caller speak on even terms.
maemorri 2 years ago
I think homophobes should be treated exactly the same way as people who claim jews deserved the holocaust or that some race is inferior to another.
If homophobes regularly get treated like that, it'll stop sooner or later. After all it stopped racism. Just make it a zero tolerance thing!
These people are a bunch of fuckers, don't treat them like their not!
Shavarnarak 2 years ago
And that's what people are doing now. Bigotry is bigotry, regardless of the group that is being disparaged. Regardless of whether it's race, sex, orientation... bigotry needs to be called out.
The thing is, the source of bigotry against gays comes from religion. People say that religion needs to be respected... that it's not right to treat religion poorly. I say bullshit. Religion is just a belief system, like any other, and if beliefs call for discrimination against others, they are evil.
aeroldoth 2 years ago
I'm staying in Canada until America decides to get off its lazy ass and do what it promised to years ago: be equal.
Lady Justice isn't even blind anymore. :C
rionette 2 years ago 27
@rionette Are you still here? I hope you've prepared for a long stay! No problem though, you're welcome to stay as long as you like!
wendighoul 1 year ago
@rionette Canada is in America too. Aside from that, I agree.
kamilo19880000 1 year ago
Just a short while ago the California State Supreme Court upheld the ban on gay marriage. Once again, the religious cult has temporarily prevailed. I cant wait til America finally wakes up and pushes religion off the face of this country.
Einzee 2 years ago 28
Ah, just wait a decade or so.
Alot of the fanatics are above sixty, and many are above seventy or eighty.
Ten or twenty years from now, most of them are dead, and you got the next generation which is a little less fanatic, and the generation after them is less fanatic still and so forth.
Religion is dying, that's why its been bullying and strongarming as much as it's been doing lately. They're desperate. But they're going to die off, and good riddance.
Shavarnarak 2 years ago 12
I saw a poll that said 53% of people in the US between 18-23 didnt believe in god.
mrhnm 2 years ago
great, isn't it?
555KINGofKORN555 2 years ago
An entity that regulates, judges, determines laws, is a Religion. That is the State.
And "marriage"? that is religion oriented, it's superstitious, it's primitive.
If you can say no to religions of supernatural gods say no to the religions of socioeconomic control too, don't be a hypocrite.
asperin 2 years ago
@Einzee : Oposition to gay marriage has nothing to do with religion and neither has an anti-abortion stand. It's just a matter of different ethics and values. These guys are pretty ignorant if they claim there aren't any genuine secular arguments against gay marriage. The evolutionary argument is actually pretty stong, especially when combined with the concept of marriage as a tradition (regardless of culture or religion) that's always been between a male and a female.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 1 year ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker Slavery used to be a tradition.
What's YOUR secular reasoning against gay marriage? What can you possibly imagine as a reason, without using any religion in any way, to not allow gay marriage?
UnderlordZ 1 year ago
@UnderlordZ : The most basic argument is that the very concept of marriage is a band between a man and a woman originating with the intent of providing a safe and stable environment for offspring. It's already a corruption of the concept of marriage that children are no longer expected but to also include homosexual couples to marry is just plain idiotic. Marriage for homosexuals in a way is like selling PMS treatments for men. Give them the same legal rights, but please leave marriage alone !
OutOfTheBoxThinker 1 year ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker That last sentence is a contradiction; equal rights means ALL rights, including marriage. Denying even 1 right to any innocent for any reason is a form of bigotry-based discrimination, and it is indefensable. 2 parents = 2 parents, regardless of either parents' gender.
And there's no reason someone can't sell PMS treatments for men; it wouldn't sell well, if at all, but there's no law against doing so, because there is absolutely no reason for such a thing to be illegal.
UnderlordZ 1 year ago
@UnderlordZ : Marriage for homosexuals is like penis enlargements for women or breast implants for men. It is completely irrelevant for homosexual couples because they cannot procreate by default. And no, it DOES matter what gender parents have. Men and women are not just interchangable in spite what ignorant liberals might believe.
The reason why PMS treatments for men should not be sold, is because it's a fraud... Plain and simple !
Why MUST you change the meaning of marriage?!
OutOfTheBoxThinker 1 year ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker Why CAN'T we change it? Marriage is NOT given to us by the bible; it was around long before, as a means of keeping powerful people in power for as long as possible.
So you're saying sterile men and infertile women shouldn't be allowed to marry because THEY can't have children? We have artifical insemination to keep the gene pool perpetuating, and gay couples are already using it.
You CANNOT give a reason to ban gay marriage they can't also be applied to straight marriage.
UnderlordZ 1 year ago 2
@UnderlordZ : The tradition of marriage has existed for thousands of years in pretty much every single culture on the planet precisely because it's essential to provide a safe and STABLE environment for kids to grow up in. The more we move away from linking marriage with offspring, the less we will be able to provide a stable environment for our kids (although these days the moral corruption by peers at schools seems far worse than what most parents can do wrong)
OutOfTheBoxThinker 1 year ago
@UnderlordZ : I wouldn't object to banning sterile men and infertile women from marriage or forcing them to get divorced if they only find it our after marriage, however ir seems to be too much of a hassle and this has never been an issue in any culture during any era as much as I know.
Further, I also object to artificial insemination for both straight and homosexual people. If people can't procreate naturally, then let them adopt some poor orphan instead of messing with nature.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 1 year ago
@UnderlordZ : Finally, I would also like to argue that BOTH a male and female role model are important, which is why I object to both purposely single mothers and homosexual parents. A tomboy can never replace a real man and a tomboy can never replace a real woman. The importance of role models (especially at a very early age) should not be underestimated.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 1 year ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker While I do agree with you that people should be more willing to adopt, I do have to disagree with you on your position against AI. It does serve the purpose of perpetuating the gene pool; it adds new combinations, and there's nothing stopping people from still adopting before or afterwards.
The only reason we don't have more information on gay couples raising children, is because people like you just won't let go of your tradition-based mindsets and actually let it happen!
UnderlordZ 1 year ago
@UnderlordZ : With regards to AI, I have two remarks. On one hand it would be better to opt for adoption because there are really already too many people on this planet and it would provide more homes for orphans. On the other hand there's the issue that poor fertility might be transmitted to future generations, which could lead to problems when more and more people start using AI.
Well, maybe gay couples raising children are not as much a problem as I suspect, but can we take the risk?!
OutOfTheBoxThinker 1 year ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker Life is all about taking risks, and using the experience gained through such experimentation to find out what works and what doesn't; it's called trial and error, and it's the basic premise of everything we do.
There was study earlier this year, that showed that the children of lesbian couples were less argumentative with their parents (2 moms), were less confrontational overall, and on average actually did better in school. Still think having 2 moms can only be a bad thing?
UnderlordZ 1 year ago
@UnderlordZ : You say children of lesbian couples were less argumentative with their parents (2 moms), were less confrontational overall, and on average actually did better in school. How old were these kids and how well does this compare with their parents' behavior at the same age? Maybe the average lesbian they tested is just more intelligent than the average straight woman? I have a theory about that, actually ;-)
OutOfTheBoxThinker 1 year ago
On your role models position, I have to say, you just don't seem to have a very wide range of vision. Regardless of your parents' genders, you can still have role models. I don't idolize my parents or strive to anything like them; I think for myself, and as such, choose my own role models. One can look to an aunt or uncle if one wants another gender's perspective, or just another opinion.
Again, you have yet to make an actual case against gay marriage. Try again.
UnderlordZ 1 year ago
@UnderlordZ : You may be able to adopt different role models later on in life, but during the first years of life your role models are always your parents and sibblings. At that age people develop intuitive behavior and ANY deviance from a normal parent situation will have its impact on how people interact with other people later in life. One should not underestimate the importance of learning these intuitive skills during the first few years.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 1 year ago