please do more political stuff lisa, people with a heart need "famous" people like you who care more than ever, not only on gay discrimination but its a very important part i think
Just imagine a man inserting himself into another man.That's just not right.I don't care about homo's getting married or not,but that's just GROSS!!!!!!
@MrAmericanzombie its not okay to take peoples rights away because you think its gross, many people think oral sex is gross and it shouldnt be banned as well and people who like to perform oral sex on each other should be legal to get married. unless you want to live in a country with a similar value direction that the iran has you should be against prop 8. and believe in the right of people to get married if they love each other. and even if they wouldnt love each other. like anna nicole ect..
@MrAmericanzombie Way to make an ignorant argument! It's wrong because you think it's gross? Do you want to ban snails next, after all, that slime trail is just nasty! Guess what, if you think anal sex is gross, DON'T DO IT, moron!
The government should get out of "marriage" completely and let each church decide who to marry (or not.)
Gay/Lesbian couples who belong to churches that perform same sex marriages can be married there. Couples -gay or straight - who have no religious affiliation can have civil unions. But ALL would have the exact same legal rights and benefits.
Seems to me that would be the most logical compromise.
bans on interracial marriage were about separating and keeping the races apart and based on another legal precedent (Brown) similar to this segregation is another form of discrimination. when we lifted up the bans, it not only integrated the races but the sexes as well which is what marriage has been about since the beginning of history, intergrating the sexes for natural procreation and rearing of kids. Something same sex couples cannot do. theres no discrimination or double standard here
@mrdokma she means in the eyes of the law. Marriage is a document that establishes a relationship between 2 people where gender, race, creed, or any other factor is not relevant. That's the view Lisa's trying to express. Also, I think most people who voted down gay marriage didn't do it because of their ideas of civil or public policy. It was based on a religious upbringing about what's right and wrong and that way of thinking contradicts the greater policy of separation of church and state.
Seems like I as a Croat know your constitution better then you do. There IS NO SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. There is only the NON INVOLVEMENT OF STATE IN RELIGION, that is state can not start, promote or endorse a particular religion. Church can and must be involved in the government since most church member are legit voters.Therefore stating that gender is not relevant is a total neglect of democracy. USA was built on the Bible that you are trying to shun away so eagerly.
@idaman12345 You need to study your history a bit better, and Bible too. Bible teachings never force anyone to follow anything, therefore a country built on the Bible is the only country that would allow it's citizens not to follow the teachings of Bible. Do you see any of the non Bible based countries without some regime or tyranny? Bible is not fictional. Give me a single example of Bible being fictional.
@idaman12345 Really? Can you please prove to me that Adam and Eve story is fiction? If you believe in evolution, which I don't, then naturally you would assume so. In my opinion, evolution is one of the greatest fairy tales ever. It even starts with: 'Long ago and far away...' And there is not a single argument for evolution that does not have serious hurdles and vast issues and problems.
@mrdokma Obviously you have no knowledge about evolution,cause you refuse to believe reality.Can you please prove to me that Adam and Eve are real.No you can't.You have to prove not us,cause you're the one that said GOD is real,PROVE IT!!! I didn't think so.You have the burden of proof,not me,cause I except that evolution is real,and we don't have the answers on where we come from,YET.It's called an unknown,moron
we may not live in a theocracy, but we do live in a democracy. the first amendment does not apply to voters. Pastors, clergy, and religious leaders have every right to convey and express their moral vision onto their community and into the voting process. Prop 8 ,or any other amendment, would not did not and does not undermine the constitution because the government didn't put it into law, the people did, and whether they voted for it on religious grounds is no one's business but their own.
gays and lesbians have always been allowed to marry someone of the opposite-sex for the purpose of procreation and rearing of children. what your proposing we do is create extra special rights that exist outside the constitution and common sense
nobody's forcing gays to deny their attractions or raiding gay marriages in churches. gays can freely express their feelings of love in a church and get all the benefits that come with marriage through civil unions down the future. however, as soon as you step outside the private realm of RELIGIOUS marriage and enter into the public sphere of CIVIL marriage, you are subject to the law and public opinion or vote because civil marriage is about public policy
interracial marriages were not up for a vote because that was a civil,human, equal rights issue. this issue however is not by any stretch of the imagination
bans on interracial marriage were about separating and keeping the races apart and based on another legal precedent (Brown) similar to this segregation is another form of discrimination. when we lifted up the bans, it not only integrated the races but the sexes as well which is what marriage has been about since the beginning of history, intergrating the sexes for natural procreation and rearing of kids. something same sex couples cannot do. theres no discrimination or double standard here
bans on interracial marriage were about separating and keeping the races apart and based on another legal precedent (Brown) similar to this segregation is another form of discrimination. when we lifted up the bans, it not only integrated the races but the sexes as well which is what marriage has been about since the beginning of history, intergrating the sexes for natural procreation and rearing of kids. Something same sex couples cannot do. theres no discrimination or double standard here
if you Go to Wikipedia and type in Baker v. Nelson, The case will show you that the same court in Loving v Virginia not only distinguished same sex marriage from interracial marriage, but established it as a right that does not exist under the constitution and never did. They also rejected many of the same arguments gay activists make today
so the 14th amendment does not confer a RIGHT to gay marriage anymore than it does for polygamy
@idaman12345 Biblically, and the Bible does claim that God invented marriage, gays and lesbians cannot be married. So it does not make sense to seek churches to marry gays and lesbians. The state can legally allow this, however if you do believe what the Bible teaches then all of us will pay the price for allowing and approving this in our communities. Therefore Bible believers fight against this in any legal way we can. It all boils down to: if there is no God it does not really matter any way.
@mrdokma Well it's a TRUE statement. In the eyes of the state, marriage is signing into a contract with the person you love. You can also get out of it via divorce. It's a legal document. You can't be married unless it's on paper, according to law.
@Emusarebirdstoo Again it just boils down to weather there is God or not. If God exists the position of the state is less important since He owns the world and has the right to judge and wreck it if He wants and His rules come first. If He does not exist it does not matter any way since you are just a product of accident and all laws should be such that we enjoy the few years we get on this planet as much as possible before we return to nothing.
You are 100% Correct. If a certain Religion doesnt want to acknowledge gay marriage that is fine. That would be similar to the Catholic church doesnt accept someones divorce. They feel once you are married you are always married in the eyes of the church. (Stupid IMO but thats me) But the gov/country shouldnt give to some but not all. Thats not equality. Who you marry, who you fall in love with shouldnt be decided by the govt but the individual. 2 Concenting adults should marry who they choose
nobody's forcing gays to deny their attractions. Nobody's criminalizing homosexuals acts or raiding gay marriages in churches. gays can freely express their feelings of love in a church and get all the benefits that come with marriage through civil unions. however, as soon as you step outside the private realm of RELIGIOUS marriage and enter into the public sphere of CIVIL marriage, you are subject to the law and public opinion or vote because civil marriage is about public policy.
Continuing...Well to that, I have no idea & here is where the other factors would come into play with non gay marriage belief. At any rate, people can choose to do what they want for the most part & what one household does compared to another is their buisness. Forunatley & unforunatley in life their is always gonna be people who think something should be & something that should not be. Isn't life just grand? Please don't hate. I love every one. All have a great day!!!
Continuing...The human being represents a man & womans love for each other, not just marraige. Only a man & woman can concieve a child for which in the child of their flesh & blood can they truly see thier unity as one in marraige in the flesh. Gay's cannot share this true union. Sure gays can adopt but, the child is not of their flesh & blood. Now I know that some of you are probably already thinking "not every woman & man can have a child even if there married" So does god not bless them?
Continuing...The women in my family all see a side to it that the men don't. In there eyes I believe they just choose to look at the love factor & nothing else. The men in my family look at the natural factor simply putting & their are other factors too but, I would have to write comment after comment to explain it all. Basically the men (other than my uncle obviously) see it like this. Men = outy & women = inny. When inny & outy get together & their is another human being produced.
Thats messed up that they have allowed so many & now no more. Maybe they figured if they would have tried to revoke the gay marriages they allowed that they would be up to their necks in law suits. Either way I'm glad to see that they cut it off. I'm not hating on people who are gay. I have a uncle who is gay & is married to his mate through vows. Although I do not agree with it. My uncle is family & I would not turn my back on him. He loves another dude. Why? I have no idea.
Once again lisanova, Marrige was establish as a religious ritual. For a man & woman to b joint together in holy matrimony
This, for most, is still sacred. The Majority have spoken & they have made their opinion know.
Prop 8: To protect the sanctity of marriage it's in the best interest for California.
U all can call me a bigot, civil rights violator & every other offensive name there is, but, that won't stop me from protecting our nation from such sick & perverted life style. GOD BLESS AMERICA
I'm so over commenting on prop 8 videos on youtube because they're just full of stupid, biggots.
I fully agree with you Lisanova, it's an absolutely rediculous law and I don't see how any decent human being could have voted for it. It's just so unjust, it really makes me upset. *sigh* Anyway! Glad to know you support gay marriage and I'm liking your vlogs :)
Marrige is a Religious ritual. It was set by GOD to unified a man and a woman to become one, & to procreate and be fruit full all around the world.Yes, This is true
Man + women = 1
Man + women = x (multiplication)
X = Man & woman can continue living
This is the laws of nature. there fore is it right and good.
Anything out side of this logic would be an unbalance and harmful for humanity.
if Marriage is purely a religious ritual, then the government shouldn't provide benefits for it. Also, in this country, you can be married outside of any religious institution. And who are you to say what is harmful for humanity? If you want to help humanity try going green, don't invade others' personal lives.
Who am I? I am the majority; the Majority who still values moral and ethics. Some one who can still distinguish the difference between good and bad, wrong and right. Yes, I am the voice of AMERICA who is sick and tired of this perverted lifestyles being force on my every day life.
It is wrong, immoral, and too perverted for AMERICA.
how are these lifestyles being forced on your every day life? If you don't support gay marriage, don't marry someone of the same gender. It is not up to the government to decide what is moral or immoral in terms of a person's love life. If that's your personal opinion, fine, but the government should not be able to control your love life.
So, you are for violence or "bash those people" but to protect the sanctity of marriage in a Democratic and civilize manner is wrong? HUH?
Next, Yes, that life style is harmful to humanity because if this type of behavior is accepted & encourage, our next generation(My kids) will be at risk for social influence. This meaning, it's going to be more around us, every where; thus, more and more a going to be contaminated with such illness.
No one can ENCOURAGE people to homosexuality, since sexuality is not a matter of choise. Do you also think that YOU could be encouraged to homosexuality? That must mean that you already have some sort of feelings towards men and all you need is a little of encouragement.
Social influence? Do you think they're gonna be like: "Oh, gays are accepted, I could become gay too!"
Correct, a young mind is vulnerable for wrong social life styles & influence
Example: I grow up in a time where gangs, crime & violence where in at hand all around. In school and in the neighborhood, it spread like wide fire. The results were devastating.
This social illness can also have a negative affect--as we are starting to see it today--in our nation.
You 'forgot' to state your reason why homosexuality is an illness. You also seem to accept the idea that you could easily choose to be gay. That means you are gay that is only denying their sexuality.
And what is the negative effect of homosexuality?
Sexuality is something you can't change, crimes and violence are actions that can be committed by anyone. No heterosexual can 'take up' homosexuality. If you can, then you're gay.
Seems like you just keep babbling your bullshit no matter what I say. You state no reasons to anything, you only make awkward comparisons and keep talking that nonsense. Have you ever actually QUESTIONED your ideas?
if ur talking about church against gay marriage, screw it dont get married in church, my religion teacher said alot of stupid things like lord of the rings and harry potter are satans way of controlling people, so do u really think its worth getting pissed over shurch?
It's been the same since forever, that's why we don't let interracial marriage happen, divorce is out of the question and infertile marriages (if you do say that if it is a "real" true blue marriage you HAVE TO be able to reproduce.)
You do not HAVE TO procreate, but you do HAVE TO be open to the possibility of procreation. Within the NATURAL order of things, even if a man or woman is unable to have children due to NATURAL reasons, so along as they act according to their nature.
Homosexual relations go against the natural order of things, but you don't need me telling you that, you just need to look at the human body. The male and female body was made for each other. If people can not see that, they are truly blind.
Religion is the main reason behind all the great wars of our time even if it's sometimes hidden beneath the surface , The belief in what a BOOK says is really funny, since it is JUST A BOOK. Sure it gives us some nice guidelines for running our lives, but that's it.
Prop 8(u.s., I'm from Toronto so we're pretty open on it thankfully) has no place, and the government should never tell us who to love!
P.s. first day checking you out, and besides the huge crush I have you're bright, funny and cute!
your comment was just what i needed after reading all this hating bullshit on youtube. its shocking how stupid most people seem to be. so thanks a lot for a smart and open minded comment... it's rare :-/
listen bitch...the court has no power over the people....that is why the people got the chance to vote for it and they voted that marrige is between a man and a woman.....this country will allways be, governed by the people, for the people, and of the people...if you have a problem with that suck my dick...now, go back to your closet sisy bitch
I don't know if the court decision was right; but I do believe that people have a right to live together in love regardless of sexual preference, race, religion, etc.
In my youth a white person and a black person could not legally get married. How does that relate? As far as I'm concerned it's exactly the same.
Wonder why you're struggling now despite your "comedic genius" and tits? ShayCarl's videos can be summed up as a big laugh at himself, and a huge hug for all his family. You can't help but love him.
You, on the other hand, are a sensationalist basher who deserves the mocking of millions. You were funny once, but like the clown on his 20th balloon animal, the party is over. Go get fitted for that paper hat. This "softer, logical side" won't ever sell because you're too dumb to pull it off.
"So, does the New Testament which is what Christians are called to follow, accept stereotypical slavetreatment?"
Ah, so now I have turned you into a supporter of slavery? I mean it's in the bible, so it must be OK. Eaten any shellfish lately, or pork? I mean, I guess God changed his mind, too. Maybe he'll also change it about gays sometime in the future.
"I have no idea. You tell me. You think they were nicer?"
Ephesians 6:9 And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.
Collosians 4:1 Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven.
So, does the New Testament which is what Christians are called to follow, accept stereotypical slavetreatment?
It may not be for me to judge, to stone them or otherwise punish them, but it is within the teaching of the Church to excommunicate people who do not follow the moral rules, and that would also preclude them from a Church wedding.
How many do you think would stop being promiscuous when married? You realize that the Church teaches that marriage also means fidelity, that one must actively strive for it. It is more than a casual ceremony you know!
"How many do you think would stop being promiscuous when married?"
That's none of my business. If it doesn't work with heterosexuals, I doubt it will have much more of an effect than on gays. And we are not talking about religious marriage - we are talking about secular, state-sanctioned marriage. As I understand it, that's what prop 8 was all about.
"Er no. If you are judging an individual based on the behaviour of a group to which they may belong (whether they engage in that behaviour or not), then you are stereotyping."
Even if 83% of them ACTUALLY BEHAVE THAT WAY? Suppose it was 90%, or 95%, or 99%, when would it cease to be stereotyping?
"I am not the one saying all gays behave a particular way. I never said they were all monogamous."
But you said I was stereotyping when I did so. Are you saying gays are not promiscuous?
"I have already answered this - if the Church has no problem with it, then yes, no problem."
What if people, in the congregation, as a whole, has a problem with it? Should their sentiments be respected? Is there a limit to what people must accept, does there come a point where people can say no, even if it is consentual?
Suppose they showed up in leather-latex bondage outfits, with hoses for breathing, but other than that, no indecent exposure. Would you get up and leave?
83% of the homosexual men surveyed estimated they had had sex with 50 or more partners in their lifetime, 43% estimated they had sex with 500 or more partners; 28% with 1,000 or more partners.
Yes I would say that just about covers all gays. And it doesn't say how many sex partners the 17% that had less than 50 sex partners had, we are left guessing. Do you honestly think the majority of them are strictly monogamous? What would contradict the data grossly.
So this is your interpretation of God? Wow... it kind of reads like the musings of a crazy person. Your understanding of God is... strange. I don't agree with it, nor do I feel the need or desire to indulge in literature that would promote such fallacies of God. I have no desire to subscribe to the text sources that patronize your borderline psychotic beliefs, thank you.
The dynamics of emotion are so much more profound than your mind understands. Shame is an independent emotion.
As usual you missed the point, so you think A Course in Miracles is borderline balspheme nay 'psychotoic' you really have to remember those ideas are coming straight from YOUR mind. Don't read up but don't expect me to further entertain your ego. I fully understand the dynamics of the human mind, shame is not something I AM experiencing for you!
Yeah, I missed the point because I'm not agreeing with and patronizing your idiocy, lol, whatever.
Your ideas about opposing God's will, and ants feeling love, and 2012, and what emotions are, are what're psychotic... and just plain idiotic... and reek of inexcusable ignorance. Again, what was blasphemous (not balsphemous) was you playing mouthpiece for God and claiming out of foolishness that me not knowing God would be fine with Him...
...And fully understand the dynamics of the human mind? Writes the person who would, unlike all of the greatest, most thoughtful thinkers, philosophers, and educators ever, claim that anger, jealousy, sadness, disgust, yearning, relief, and happiness aren't really emotions. Oi vey... tell yourself what you need to, dear. Arguing with you is tiresome and fruitless. You're too... stupid. And because you're stupid, you can only ever be ignorant of, and deny your stupidity....
I can't make you see your reflection properly, and you're too hindered by idiocy, so I wont try. Happy denial, good for you... oh wait, happiness doesn't exist, right? Lol, ok, good day!
I never said they were not emotions, I said they were bi-products of love and fear.... no negative emotion is ultimately the truth, I can only deny your opinion of your own reflection.
No! You said it was blasphemous it was your judgment, not mine! Ants feel love yes I agree, 2012 is going to happen yes, psychotic again your words, God's mouthpiece YOUR judgments....me being foolish....lol whatever ?
"...spirit reacts in the same way to everything it knows is true, and does not respond at all to anything else. Nor does it make any attempt to establish what is true. It knows that what is true is everything that God created. It is in complete and direct communication with every aspect of creation, because it is in complete and direct communication with its Creator. This communication is the Will of God." from A Course in Miracles
Everyone is entitled to their beliefs, the problems start when someone tries to impose those beliefs on others while depriving them of the most basic of human rights ...CHOICE!
on the other hand, marriage seems to be very important for most of people, but is it really that important? i think there's a more basic thing to think about and it's that people shoudn't even look at me like i was some kind of monster if i'm holdin' hands with some other guy. my point is: do you give a shit if the state it's on your side when you get that kind of shit from most people? some people even think gays are sick! that's fucked up, gettin married or not it's a secondary bussiness
i don't get it (i'm not from the US). how come rights and laws can be based on a religious opinion? when one of the center topics of liberalism is the gap between churches, or diferent cults, and the state. at least that's what i thought. i'm not fully aware of how this prop 8 developed and what's the process on your country to make the laws, but if you could explain this to me that'd be great. it's obvious a proposition like this has no point but declarated racism.
Marriage is not just a legal document, it is in fact a union of two people before God. Why try and take marriage out of the very context it comes from? Then talk civil unions instead!
Marriage is related to Church, to the Bible, to God, noone can argue that, and as such, it should follow the ideals of that system, and of the Creator.
That means, not perverts are allowed to get married, pure and simple. Maybe that hurts someone, but perverts are sinners, and shouldn't get married before God
Er... so when two atheists decide to get married... that's what, exactly? What you are in effect arguing is that only people who believe in God should be allowed to get married. If you are going to allow people who don't believe in God to get married to get married (and that's pretty much what you said here), then you are discriminating against gays - simple prejudice.
Make all marriages a civil arrangement. Churches can then decide who gets to have the religious ceremony (or not).
No, marriage is a Christian thing, and if two atheists decide to marry, but overall lead a Christian life, at least in terms of morals if not faith, then I am all for it. But, gays are simply out to break the rules from the beginning, and on and on from there. That is why I feel it should not be allowed, because it clearly runs contrary to what Christ teaches, in terms of actual behaviour. And, people who don't believe in Christ directly, but behave decently, still get approval, go to Heaven.
Ah, you believe marriage is a Christian thing. I don't. Certainly a lot of Hindus, Buddhists and Shamans don't. I am straight. I don't believe in God, and would not like to have my marriage in any way connected to religion. In your view, my marriage is a religious act, and I am engaging in a religious activity in getting married. In saying MY marriage is not religious, I am not forcing my beliefs on you, just my right to decide for myself. So effectively, you are forcing your beliefs on me.
I believe marriage is a religious thing, not restricted to Christianity, and that none of the religions you mention endorse homosexual marriage. My question is, if you don't believe in religion, why would you want to get married in the first place? It can hold absolutely no meaning to you, so why waste a day of your time? Or support a system you don't believe in, by making use of the Sacraments ('rituals') they offer?
Marriage is an act before God, which brings it to where it needs to be.
I got married because I wanted to ensure that whatever happens if I die, my wife will inherit what I own. I live in a country where those rights are not guaranteed. And just because I don't believe in religion doesn't mean that I don't think that the state institution of marriage has no merit whatsoever. It's only you that is saying that marriage without religion has no value. Marriage is an act of commitment - it is only relevant to God if you believe in God.
I have no problem whatsoever with gays keeping each others furniture, or money, if they die. It is simply not about that. Marriage has to do with religion, it comes from religion, you cannot argue that. Marriage is a noble institution, between two upright people, and allowing gay marriage means that it stops being all that good, it just becomes a trampy thing, something which it was never intended to be.
Marriage is an act of commitment, but more, before God. Marriage is sacred. End of story.
If a gay entertainer started calling himself Jesus Christ, I would also be pissed. It is a matter of gays keeping their own terminology, call it civil union or whatever, I don't care what it means about money or furniture or house, I think people should be allowed to do what they want there I mean what does it matter? But marriage by definition is between two people devout in their religion, that is the INTENTION of marriage, and to have two people get married that way is an affront, NAUSEOUS.
And don't get me wrong, it is not only about homosexuals. If Bonnie and Clyde wanted to get married, I would think it was just as wrong, if not more wrong, and I would oppose that just as much, if not more.
It is about sinners, and sin, not having any business in marriage.
And homosexuals are obviously sinners, according to the very book that gave us marriage. They will have to find something else to call it, or do, it is simply offensive as it is.
So this is what is comes down to: You have decided, on the basis of YOUR faith, based on a book that YOU believe in, how everyone else must live. Gays, Atheists - all of us have to live based on rules you have decided are right. Now as for marriage being a noble institution, it began as a way of ensuring that bloodlines were not polluted, and that women did not carry children from another man. Hence the ring, the white dress and the exchange of property (the woman) they walk down the aisle.
And frankly, whether it makes you nauseous, or is an affront to your morality, or your particular religious beliefs is beside the point. You are free to believe what you will. You should not be free to force your own views about how other people (who, by the way, are not hurting anyone else but themselves) live. This is, as it turns out, is exactly the argument that many people use against gay marriage- but here you are, reproducing it verbatim.
No I have not decided how anyone else must live. I have decided that if people want to get married, they must do so before God, and if that is not their intention, then they must find something else to do.
And, whatever marriage was thousands of years ago doesn't matter, it is what it is today that matters, and it is about the union of a GOOD man and woman, that is why it is done before God, the author of all good. Can't you understand why this is important to Christians, who see marriage so?
"I have decided that if people want to get married, they must do so before God, and if that is not their intention, then they must find something else to do." = you telling me what to do based on your faith.
"that is why it is done before God". Again, you are telling me I have to get married in front of a God that I don't believe in. Why??? Yes, I can see this is important to Christians - can't you see that this could also be important to Atheists?
Essentially, I accept your beliefs are important to you. And I respect your right to follow your faith and beliefs. But you are imposing your beliefs on my right to do the same as you.
There is no argument around this. This what you are doing. It's not fair!
No you don't understand that it is a matter of morals. It is not just faith. The Christian religion tells us what is moral or not, and then has marriage for those who choose to live an upright life. You can't separate faith and morals, because to have faith in Christ is to believe (to have faith!) that one must be moral.
Why would you even WANT to get married before God? Isn't he just the 'fictional skydaddy' to you? Why not just get a civil union instead and share your furniture, money etc?
Why would it be important to atheists? What could the ceremony possibly mean to them, since it is connected with God? Wouldn't it be an insult to their intelligence to do something like that? Know what I mean?
I am not telling you how to live your life, I am telling what is important and sacred to me, and that you are trampling on that, and I have a problem with that. I'm also saying marriage basically is not for sinners, that goes against the grain of Christian life, everybody knows that.
Atheists can be pretty arrogant, I am the first person to admit this. And many people do mock religious beliefs, and I really try not to. But deciding the rules that other people have to live their lives on, when they are consenting adults, who are hurting no-one else but themselves, well, it's kinda arrogant, don't you think?
No I don't think it is arrogant, I think it is simply saying that what you do is sinful, and therefore contrary to a Christian life in general, and therefore, you have no business getting married until you change your ways. The same goes for people who openly support abortion, or as I mentioned, Bonnie and Clyde.
It is about living a Christian life, that is a great part of what makes marriage sacred in the first place, and if we remove that, it starts to lose all meaning. Not on my watch!
Yeah, but we're NOT Christian. Again, marriage is a modern institution (you said it was). We don't want a 'sacred' marriage. We want a modern, secular institution, which allows us to live the way we choose. Why do we all have to live by rules you have defined based on your faith? You are not answering the question!
"We want a modern, secular institution, which allows us to live the way we choose."
Then call it a civil union, or whatever. Just don't call it marriage, and try and ride your filth on the coat-tails of a noble institution.
The only reason you want it to be called marriage, is because you want to give it a veneer of respectability. But the very reason marriage is respectable, is because it doesn't allow homosexuals to get married, for that and MANY other reasons. Gays can stay away PERIOD.
"In a way that divorce, pre-marital sex, and extra-marital affairs do not?"
Those things are most certainly bad, but, divorce can be legal, according to the Church, in case of cheating by the other spouse, or domestic violence. All the same, divorce is not a light matter, and I don't think it is to most people going through it.
But the point is, when a man and a woman get married, it is not OBVIOUS they are gonna do that. When two men get married it is obvious what will happen. It's wrong.
OK. So because you are religious, you get to decide the rules that all of us live by. Nice. Actually, reminds me of Iran. People's rights there are also decided based on religious bigotry, and not freedom of choice.
"When two men get married it is obvious what will happen. It's wrong."
It's wrong? Why on earth would it be wrong? Ah, don't tell me....
Listen: Just let people do whatever the fuck they want; don't force people to live by your rules.
No I certainly do not decide how anyone lives. But to me, marriage is a sacred thing, the best possible union between two people, a truly sacred thing, and I do not want those who do not understand that or want to misuse it, to do so. That tarnishes it. I won't allow it.
Do whatever you want but don't call it marriage. I don't care about where the money or the furniture goes.
Marriage is from the Bible, and should be reserved for those who want to lead a fully Christian life. End Of Story.
So you have just contradicted yourself - you say that you don't want to tell people how to live, and then in the next sentence you say that for YOU marriage is sacred - hence everyone must be subject to your rules.
And I think you'll find that the concept of marriage predates the bible by a quite a stretch.
I am not telling gay people if they can have sex or not, so long as they don't do it in public, same rules for heterosexuals by the way so no hypocricy there. So I am not telling what they can or cannot do, as persons.
And, marriage is not only sacred to ME, it is sacred to Christians around the world. It is not only MY rules got that?
I'm not telling gays not to have sex (ie. how to live) I am telling them to get married they need to become Christians, and that involves no man-on-man sex.
"and should be reserved for those who want to lead a fully Christian life".
Ah, but you only want to limit it for gays - if you were really being consistent, you would actually be campaigning for it to be limited ONLY to Christians. Because otherwise it would just be bigotry and homophobia, woudn't it?
And I, as a non-Christian wouldn't be allowed to be married at all in your world.
No, it is not a matter of limiting it to Christians only, it is about limiting it to people who don't do wrong.
The problem is, if a guy is a murderer, and wants to get married, he can just conveniently omit that fact, or if he is a thief, you can't tell it from looking at a man, or a woman, if he/she has sinned gravely.
But when two men want to get married, it is a glaring sin. That's why it is easy to say no to gay-marriage, because it's OBVIOUSLY sinful, not so with men-women marriages.
Well I don't think it's wrong. My best friend is gay, and I want him to have the same rights and opportunities in society that I have. The argument may have shifted a little, but you are still imposing your values on others.
When did you think marriage became a right? It's not a right, it's something you earn, by being a good Christian. That is what it is all about. It is about people who first make a commitment to be good people, to live with Christian values, and then get married.
I hope you don't see it as unfair that Christians don't feel people with poor morals should get married, that goes for both homosexuals AND heterosexuals.
If you want to get married, you need to live an upright life, also sexually.
You said "marriage should be reserved for those who want to lead a fully Christian life". Then you changed your mind and said you want to limit it to people who don't do wrong. It's fairly easy to find out if a person has a criminal record before they get married - we could quite easily ban them. However homosexuals, who may be really really good people - help others, work for charities, good to their neighbors - are less deserving than criminals. It's NOT obvious to me that being gay is a sin.
What is the difference between 'people who live a fully Christian life' and 'people who don't do wrong'? Do you know what Christianity is all about? It is about being a good person, not engaging in sin, in anyway. That's the goal of it, and that's final, however much you argue it, or want to argue it.
Mob bosses can also be helpful, give to charity, be kind to certain people. That's not enough. Illicit activity disqualifies you from marriage. If you don't want to be good, don't get married.
OK. You are defining marriage as a Christian institution - which is your right based on your beliefs. Therefore it is perfectly natural and right for you to want to exclude people who do not live up to your religious and moral expectations of what is right and wrong.
However, I am defining marriage differently - as a secular and non-religious institution. It should be based on commitment to ones partner - whoever that may be - provided that there is consent, equality and respect.
".. defining marriage - as a secular and non-religious institution."
Fine, that's fine. But why not call it something else then, since it is no longer connected to God, or the Church, in any way? Why keep a name that has religious connotations, and means something to religious people?
Is it because you want to give it the veneer of having the respectability of a proper religious wedding? Because that is in essence the very thing you are stripping it of. I think it is provocative.
"When did you think marriage became a right? It's not a right, it's something you earn, by being a good Christian."
Actually, it is a right. It's in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. You are the one saying it is not a right. And there is nothing in there about being a good Christian, either.
Is it a Human Right, same-sex marriage? I've been looking and I can't find it. Can you help me find it or are you just making shit up? Need I say that is crassly immature not to mention deceptive?
Marriage is a religious institution, which is why I don't understand why secular society wants anything to do with it? Isn't that exactly the type of thing secular groups want to rid themselves of, any traces of the foul religions? Why marriage?
Wow! A very Christian tone in your last post. And I have been nothing but polite. You said MARRIAGE (all marriage) is not a human right (i.e. not gay marriage). If you plan to change the terms of the discussion, at least make sure you have your own facts straight. You've now contradicted yourself.
And actually, the UDHR says "men and women of full age" - hence it doesn't discriminate - unlike you. There is nothing in the UDHR which would prevent men marrying men or women marrying women.
Above all, I am a libertarian - let people do whatever the fuck they like, provided that they don't intrude on anyone else's right to do the same. And this, my friend, provides a logical (non-religious) basis for morality. It gives you the right to believe whatever you want, and me not to. It also should give me the right to marry whoever I want, provided that the relationship is equal, consensual and respectful (which leaves out all the stupid arguments made about animals, polygamy and kids).
"Marriage is a religious institution." I accept that you believe it is, and you are entitled to your beliefs. But you are defining it in a way that I disagree with. So if you are allowed to define marriage for me, then you do so by force.
"Isn't that exactly the type of thing secular groups want to rid themselves". I wouldn't claim to speak for all secular groups - some would say yes, others no. Marriage has its social purposes - aside from its religious ones.
"So if you are allowed to define marriage for me, then you do so by force."
As you do to me.
"Marriage has its social purposes - aside from its religious ones."
And what are those? For instance, you don't believe that a child should have both parents, as religion strongly does, so what is the purpose of marriage for an atheist?
I know you never said that, btw, but that goes with secular thinking. A child does not technically need a father, the mother can easily do it alone. No need.
Go to Google and type "UDHR". It's article 16 (section 3, btw also refers to the family as a "fundamental group unit of society" - without reference to religion).
"And what are those?" Marriage is a social construction, so it's whatever society deems it to be - but it's a symbol of commitment, of financial and legal responsibility, and it provides some form of security in the event of death of one of the partners. And if people don't think it's necessary for them, then it's not. And perhaps in the future, it won't be. But for now, people think it's important to them, so we should let them do it. And not just limit it to people who don't make you nauseous.
"So if you are allowed to define marriage for me, then you do so by force."
Let me put this another way: I am not trying to define marriage FOR you. I am trying to let people decide for themselves what THEY want marriage to be. You on the other hand are expecting everyone to live based on your religiously received ideas of what marriage to be, and that's force.
But, what about those people who feel it is important that marriage only be between a man and a woman?
Also, I don't care about whether gays share their furniture or houses upon death, let them settle that whichever way they want, but, the should not be allowed to get married in Church, any more than other sinners should.
And, it is not about them being nice or not. I had a good friend who also sold drugs. I don't think he should get married, it would be obscene. He should repent first.
"But, what about those people who feel it is important that marriage only be between a man and a woman?"
They are entitled to believe and do as they like. They are just not entitled to force their views on others.
"the should not be allowed to get married in Church"
If the Church objects, I agree. You're absolutely right. Some Churches actually do gay weddings now, so you want them to stop? You are going to force them as well?
"They are entitled to believe and do as they like. They are just not entitled to force their views on others."
Suppose it is more than views, but actually right and wrong it is about, isn't it the duty of men of good will everywhere to oppose what is evil and support what is truly good?
This is not so much a matter of views as it is of conscience, of morals. Allowing something bad in the name of any ideology is not good, I will say it is insane. Good people must oppose what is evil. No?
"I don't think he should get married, it would be obscene. He should repent first."
If the Church says no, then I also agree with this. But to be legally married by the state, I think you would have a hard time arguing that he couldn't marry at all. He has legal rights, if not religious ones.
We're all sinners to some extent, and it's important not to judge others.
But do you really think that a drug dealer should be allowed to get married? You see to me marriage is also a reward for being a good person, it is tied in with having a healthy conscience, and one that is at rest, so one will be really good parent. I just don't think you can separate that type of behaviour from what sort of parent a criminal is going to be. I don't think criminals should be allowed to get married, somehow it goes against the whole thing. That's my personal but clear sentiment.
"Suppose it is more than views, but actually right and wrong"
Above, I defined a basis for morality which was based on a libertarian belief in fundamental freedom of the individual to choose their destiny provided that they don't interfere with others' rights to do the same. According to this principle, being gay is not wrong. Now I don't expect you to follow or live your life based on my beliefs, but I would like to respect my right to have them (and not interfere with them) - as I do yours.
My definition of right and wrong goes further than it simply not hurting, I also include that the mindset behind a deed, especially sustained deeds, must come from a proper, and not an immoral, motivation.
The problem isn't your rights, the problem is you want to give approval to evil-doers, not to others directly, in physical terms, but maybe spiritually, in the long term, by the example they set. Your principle is flawed because it does not look at the mindset behind behaviour. Simplistic.
"You see to me marriage is also a reward for being a good person". I don't think marriage should be seen as a reward at all. It's a serious commitment, and seeing it as a reward may actually put so much pressure on a relationship as to make it unworkable.
I think you may have a very rose tinted idea of what marriage actually is. My partner and I have a strong relationship, but we work on it, and it's not always easy. But we would never describe it as sacred - it's a social institution.
You misunderstand me, working on being a good person is what allows you to enter into the commitment of marriage. The preparation for marriage is the practice and attainment of Christian virtue, such as prudence, liberality, charity, purity.
So it is not so much a reward (though it is in a sense) as it is a conclusion on a decision to live a fully moral life. Such parents are more happy, and responsible and make far better rolemodels for their children. Marriage without religion becomes sick.
"I don't think criminals should be allowed to get married"
How would you enforce this? Would you allow those who repented to get married? What about non-Christians? Would you annul the marriages of those who committed crimes after they married? Or lied and said they were not criminals when they got married? Should criminals who have already had children be able to marry? It's unworkable!
And criminals can still have children who they can influence - whether they are married or not.
Yes, only those who have repented, that is regretted any bad behaviour and resolved never to do it again, should be allowed to get married. That is a sound idea.
You can't annul a marriage after the marriage, however if both spouses are Christian, and one commits crimes, the other will naturally seek a divorce or become a criminal him/herself, and so likewise incur the wrath of God on their home.
It is difficult to enforce, requires honesty, but homosexuals are different, openly want sin.
Bell and Weinberg reported evidence of widespread sexual compulsion among homosexual men. 83% of the homosexual men surveyed estimated they had had sex with 50 or more partners in their lifetime, 43% estimated they had sex with 500 or more partners; 28% with 1,000 or more partners.Bell and Weinberg p 308
This Bell and Weinberg report is an excellent argument for gay marriage - the more married, gay Christians there are, the greater the likelihood that they will have safe, secure relationships.
But so what if many gay people sleep around. They are still being denied a right that you and I have. And if there is one gay person who wants to live in a monogamous married relationship, they should have the right to do so.
please do more political stuff lisa, people with a heart need "famous" people like you who care more than ever, not only on gay discrimination but its a very important part i think
brotmann86 1 year ago
Just imagine a man inserting himself into another man.That's just not right.I don't care about homo's getting married or not,but that's just GROSS!!!!!!
MrAmericanzombie 1 year ago
@MrAmericanzombie its not okay to take peoples rights away because you think its gross, many people think oral sex is gross and it shouldnt be banned as well and people who like to perform oral sex on each other should be legal to get married. unless you want to live in a country with a similar value direction that the iran has you should be against prop 8. and believe in the right of people to get married if they love each other. and even if they wouldnt love each other. like anna nicole ect..
brotmann86 1 year ago
@MrAmericanzombie Way to make an ignorant argument! It's wrong because you think it's gross? Do you want to ban snails next, after all, that slime trail is just nasty! Guess what, if you think anal sex is gross, DON'T DO IT, moron!
wendighoul 1 year ago
HOLY SHIT! IT'S LISA NOVA!
DillonCallaway 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The government should get out of "marriage" completely and let each church decide who to marry (or not.)
Gay/Lesbian couples who belong to churches that perform same sex marriages can be married there. Couples -gay or straight - who have no religious affiliation can have civil unions. But ALL would have the exact same legal rights and benefits.
Seems to me that would be the most logical compromise.
AJ198540 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I think lesbians are pretty hot.....
theotherworld215 1 year ago
Comment removed
Edurardo336 1 year ago
bans on interracial marriage were about separating and keeping the races apart and based on another legal precedent (Brown) similar to this segregation is another form of discrimination. when we lifted up the bans, it not only integrated the races but the sexes as well which is what marriage has been about since the beginning of history, intergrating the sexes for natural procreation and rearing of kids. Something same sex couples cannot do. theres no discrimination or double standard here
kenballer00 1 year ago
so your gorgeous, thats why i watched this video but your a very boring and monotonous talker...
luey5 1 year ago
Marriage is a legal document??? That's the most disgusting statement I heard for quite a while.
mrdokma 1 year ago
@mrdokma she means in the eyes of the law. Marriage is a document that establishes a relationship between 2 people where gender, race, creed, or any other factor is not relevant. That's the view Lisa's trying to express. Also, I think most people who voted down gay marriage didn't do it because of their ideas of civil or public policy. It was based on a religious upbringing about what's right and wrong and that way of thinking contradicts the greater policy of separation of church and state.
purpleoliveoil 1 year ago
@purpleoliveoil
Seems like I as a Croat know your constitution better then you do. There IS NO SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. There is only the NON INVOLVEMENT OF STATE IN RELIGION, that is state can not start, promote or endorse a particular religion. Church can and must be involved in the government since most church member are legit voters.Therefore stating that gender is not relevant is a total neglect of democracy. USA was built on the Bible that you are trying to shun away so eagerly.
mrdokma 1 year ago
@mrdokma the usa was NOT built on the bible
if it was we would all be forced to follow that fictional book
idaman12345 1 year ago
@idaman12345 You need to study your history a bit better, and Bible too. Bible teachings never force anyone to follow anything, therefore a country built on the Bible is the only country that would allow it's citizens not to follow the teachings of Bible. Do you see any of the non Bible based countries without some regime or tyranny? Bible is not fictional. Give me a single example of Bible being fictional.
mrdokma 1 year ago
@mrdokma the whole adam and eve story
america was based on equality for all and not the fairy tales in the bible
idaman12345 1 year ago
@idaman12345 Really? Can you please prove to me that Adam and Eve story is fiction? If you believe in evolution, which I don't, then naturally you would assume so. In my opinion, evolution is one of the greatest fairy tales ever. It even starts with: 'Long ago and far away...' And there is not a single argument for evolution that does not have serious hurdles and vast issues and problems.
mrdokma 1 year ago
@mrdokma Obviously you have no knowledge about evolution,cause you refuse to believe reality.Can you please prove to me that Adam and Eve are real.No you can't.You have to prove not us,cause you're the one that said GOD is real,PROVE IT!!! I didn't think so.You have the burden of proof,not me,cause I except that evolution is real,and we don't have the answers on where we come from,YET.It's called an unknown,moron
MrAmericanzombie 1 year ago
we may not live in a theocracy, but we do live in a democracy. the first amendment does not apply to voters. Pastors, clergy, and religious leaders have every right to convey and express their moral vision onto their community and into the voting process. Prop 8 ,or any other amendment, would not did not and does not undermine the constitution because the government didn't put it into law, the people did, and whether they voted for it on religious grounds is no one's business but their own.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 prop h8 contradicts the whole all man is created equal in the us constitution
idaman12345 1 year ago
@idaman12345
gays and lesbians have always been allowed to marry someone of the opposite-sex for the purpose of procreation and rearing of children. what your proposing we do is create extra special rights that exist outside the constitution and common sense
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 gays and lesbians want to be able to marry the person they love, like straight people can
how is that wanting special rights
idaman12345 1 year ago
@idaman12345
nobody's forcing gays to deny their attractions or raiding gay marriages in churches. gays can freely express their feelings of love in a church and get all the benefits that come with marriage through civil unions down the future. however, as soon as you step outside the private realm of RELIGIOUS marriage and enter into the public sphere of CIVIL marriage, you are subject to the law and public opinion or vote because civil marriage is about public policy
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 so tell me why wasnt interracial marriages up for a vote?
idaman12345 1 year ago
@idaman12345
interracial marriages were not up for a vote because that was a civil,human, equal rights issue. this issue however is not by any stretch of the imagination
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 actually in reality it is a civil, human and equal rights issue
idaman12345 1 year ago
@idaman12345
how so? what makes you come to that conclusion?
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 with the exception of one little thing, its no different than the argument against interracial marriage
idaman12345 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
bans on interracial marriage were about separating and keeping the races apart and based on another legal precedent (Brown) similar to this segregation is another form of discrimination. when we lifted up the bans, it not only integrated the races but the sexes as well which is what marriage has been about since the beginning of history, intergrating the sexes for natural procreation and rearing of kids. something same sex couples cannot do. theres no discrimination or double standard here
kenballer00 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
bans on interracial marriage were about separating and keeping the races apart and based on another legal precedent (Brown) similar to this segregation is another form of discrimination. when we lifted up the bans, it not only integrated the races but the sexes as well which is what marriage has been about since the beginning of history, intergrating the sexes for natural procreation and rearing of kids. Something same sex couples cannot do. theres no discrimination or double standard here
kenballer00 1 year ago
@idaman12345
if you Go to Wikipedia and type in Baker v. Nelson, The case will show you that the same court in Loving v Virginia not only distinguished same sex marriage from interracial marriage, but established it as a right that does not exist under the constitution and never did. They also rejected many of the same arguments gay activists make today
so the 14th amendment does not confer a RIGHT to gay marriage anymore than it does for polygamy
kenballer00 1 year ago
@idaman12345 Biblically, and the Bible does claim that God invented marriage, gays and lesbians cannot be married. So it does not make sense to seek churches to marry gays and lesbians. The state can legally allow this, however if you do believe what the Bible teaches then all of us will pay the price for allowing and approving this in our communities. Therefore Bible believers fight against this in any legal way we can. It all boils down to: if there is no God it does not really matter any way.
mrdokma 1 year ago
@mrdokma Well it's a TRUE statement. In the eyes of the state, marriage is signing into a contract with the person you love. You can also get out of it via divorce. It's a legal document. You can't be married unless it's on paper, according to law.
Emusarebirdstoo 1 year ago
@Emusarebirdstoo Again it just boils down to weather there is God or not. If God exists the position of the state is less important since He owns the world and has the right to judge and wreck it if He wants and His rules come first. If He does not exist it does not matter any way since you are just a product of accident and all laws should be such that we enjoy the few years we get on this planet as much as possible before we return to nothing.
mrdokma 1 year ago
Prejudice is not the same as Miscreant ...!
Who do You Want Guard Your Little "Lambs" a Wolf or the Shepard...?
chachapc007 2 years ago
ejudice is not the same as Miscreant ...!
Who do You Want Guard Your Little "Lambs" a Wolf or the Shepard...?
chachapc007 2 years ago
You are 100% Correct. If a certain Religion doesnt want to acknowledge gay marriage that is fine. That would be similar to the Catholic church doesnt accept someones divorce. They feel once you are married you are always married in the eyes of the church. (Stupid IMO but thats me) But the gov/country shouldnt give to some but not all. Thats not equality. Who you marry, who you fall in love with shouldnt be decided by the govt but the individual. 2 Concenting adults should marry who they choose
myentourage 2 years ago
nobody's forcing gays to deny their attractions. Nobody's criminalizing homosexuals acts or raiding gay marriages in churches. gays can freely express their feelings of love in a church and get all the benefits that come with marriage through civil unions. however, as soon as you step outside the private realm of RELIGIOUS marriage and enter into the public sphere of CIVIL marriage, you are subject to the law and public opinion or vote because civil marriage is about public policy.
kenballer00 1 year ago
prop 8 is the most f***ed up thing EVER!
homosexual people are just like everyone else! people need to open their eyes and quit the homophobia and judgement!
RealLoveNeverEnds1 2 years ago 7
<333
Gberry22613 2 years ago
@RealLoveNeverEnds1
prop 8 is the best thing EVER
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
wow, you really are a close minded selfish person!
RealLoveNeverEnds1 1 year ago
@kenballer00 there are like a million things better than discrimination
idaman12345 1 year ago
@idaman12345
i agree and thank god no one's being discriminated in this situation
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 actually in reality there they are called gays and lesbians
idaman12345 1 year ago
@RealLoveNeverEnds1 faggot
juliegordan419 1 year ago
There is no point in asking these questions. We all know the answers.
Dogma and bigotry.
snipermagoo 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
If gays were allowed to be married, marriage would lose its value to straight couples.
ModestDanny 2 years ago
Continuing...Well to that, I have no idea & here is where the other factors would come into play with non gay marriage belief. At any rate, people can choose to do what they want for the most part & what one household does compared to another is their buisness. Forunatley & unforunatley in life their is always gonna be people who think something should be & something that should not be. Isn't life just grand? Please don't hate. I love every one. All have a great day!!!
dooflicker1 2 years ago
Continuing...The human being represents a man & womans love for each other, not just marraige. Only a man & woman can concieve a child for which in the child of their flesh & blood can they truly see thier unity as one in marraige in the flesh. Gay's cannot share this true union. Sure gays can adopt but, the child is not of their flesh & blood. Now I know that some of you are probably already thinking "not every woman & man can have a child even if there married" So does god not bless them?
dooflicker1 2 years ago
Continuing...The women in my family all see a side to it that the men don't. In there eyes I believe they just choose to look at the love factor & nothing else. The men in my family look at the natural factor simply putting & their are other factors too but, I would have to write comment after comment to explain it all. Basically the men (other than my uncle obviously) see it like this. Men = outy & women = inny. When inny & outy get together & their is another human being produced.
dooflicker1 2 years ago
Thats messed up that they have allowed so many & now no more. Maybe they figured if they would have tried to revoke the gay marriages they allowed that they would be up to their necks in law suits. Either way I'm glad to see that they cut it off. I'm not hating on people who are gay. I have a uncle who is gay & is married to his mate through vows. Although I do not agree with it. My uncle is family & I would not turn my back on him. He loves another dude. Why? I have no idea.
dooflicker1 2 years ago
You're so lovely and emphatic. Thanks.
Padam91 2 years ago
Once again lisanova, Marrige was establish as a religious ritual. For a man & woman to b joint together in holy matrimony
This, for most, is still sacred. The Majority have spoken & they have made their opinion know.
Prop 8: To protect the sanctity of marriage it's in the best interest for California.
U all can call me a bigot, civil rights violator & every other offensive name there is, but, that won't stop me from protecting our nation from such sick & perverted life style. GOD BLESS AMERICA
noneofyob1zz 2 years ago
I'm so over commenting on prop 8 videos on youtube because they're just full of stupid, biggots.
I fully agree with you Lisanova, it's an absolutely rediculous law and I don't see how any decent human being could have voted for it. It's just so unjust, it really makes me upset. *sigh* Anyway! Glad to know you support gay marriage and I'm liking your vlogs :)
vleonc1 2 years ago
Comment removed
whooznext 2 years ago
Marrige is a Religious ritual. It was set by GOD to unified a man and a woman to become one, & to procreate and be fruit full all around the world.Yes, This is true
Man + women = 1
Man + women = x (multiplication)
X = Man & woman can continue living
This is the laws of nature. there fore is it right and good.
Anything out side of this logic would be an unbalance and harmful for humanity.
noneofyob1zz 2 years ago
if Marriage is purely a religious ritual, then the government shouldn't provide benefits for it. Also, in this country, you can be married outside of any religious institution. And who are you to say what is harmful for humanity? If you want to help humanity try going green, don't invade others' personal lives.
heidishoshana 2 years ago
Who am I? I am the majority; the Majority who still values moral and ethics. Some one who can still distinguish the difference between good and bad, wrong and right. Yes, I am the voice of AMERICA who is sick and tired of this perverted lifestyles being force on my every day life.
It is wrong, immoral, and too perverted for AMERICA.
noneofyob1zz 2 years ago
how are these lifestyles being forced on your every day life? If you don't support gay marriage, don't marry someone of the same gender. It is not up to the government to decide what is moral or immoral in terms of a person's love life. If that's your personal opinion, fine, but the government should not be able to control your love life.
heidishoshana 2 years ago
Hey, you can do what ever you want with your life. U can chose to love & have relations with a dog if u want; that is none of my business.
Here is my problem though, why do I have to hear, see, and know about it every where I go that u are gay. Why don't you guys keep that to your selves.
But, no, you have to rub it on every one's face & announce it to the hole world your sick life styles.
Even All my lil young innocent one's mind are being contaminated with such perversion, that ain't right
noneofyob1zz 2 years ago
prop 8 has nothing to do with rubbing anything in anyone's face. it has to do with basic human rights.
heidishoshana 2 years ago
Well, it aint about "basic human right."
It's about not violating the sanctity of marriage. Why must every things that is sacred, holy, and godly, you must violate. LEAVE IT ALONE!
It's fine the way it is, like it has been since the beginning of time.
noneofyob1zz 2 years ago
Harmful in what way? How do gays harm you? Please state reasons for your claims.
I'm sick of appreciating people's opinions that are crushing my rights. I would just like to bash those people.
Padam91 2 years ago
So, you are for violence or "bash those people" but to protect the sanctity of marriage in a Democratic and civilize manner is wrong? HUH?
Next, Yes, that life style is harmful to humanity because if this type of behavior is accepted & encourage, our next generation(My kids) will be at risk for social influence. This meaning, it's going to be more around us, every where; thus, more and more a going to be contaminated with such illness.
noneofyob1zz 2 years ago
Calling homosexuals ill is wrong.
No one can ENCOURAGE people to homosexuality, since sexuality is not a matter of choise. Do you also think that YOU could be encouraged to homosexuality? That must mean that you already have some sort of feelings towards men and all you need is a little of encouragement.
Social influence? Do you think they're gonna be like: "Oh, gays are accepted, I could become gay too!"
Padam91 2 years ago
Homosexuality is a spiritual and mental illness.
Yes, Being homosexual is a choice.
Correct, a young mind is vulnerable for wrong social life styles & influence
Example: I grow up in a time where gangs, crime & violence where in at hand all around. In school and in the neighborhood, it spread like wide fire. The results were devastating.
This social illness can also have a negative affect--as we are starting to see it today--in our nation.
noneofyob1zz 2 years ago
You 'forgot' to state your reason why homosexuality is an illness. You also seem to accept the idea that you could easily choose to be gay. That means you are gay that is only denying their sexuality.
And what is the negative effect of homosexuality?
Sexuality is something you can't change, crimes and violence are actions that can be committed by anyone. No heterosexual can 'take up' homosexuality. If you can, then you're gay.
Padam91 2 years ago
Seems like you just keep babbling your bullshit no matter what I say. You state no reasons to anything, you only make awkward comparisons and keep talking that nonsense. Have you ever actually QUESTIONED your ideas?
Padam91 2 years ago
being gay or homosexual is NOT something wrong at all!
and it's not someone's choice, you do NOT choose to be homosexual, it chooses you, so that makes it something just... normal!
being homosexual = being yourself.
I didn't understand one thing: how does homosexuality affect the community in a negative way?
I think that gay or homosexual people deserve respect, rights, and they deserve to be treated like any other human being.
if religion "hate" homosexual people then screw religions.
Imagine!
n4179 2 years ago
if ur talking about church against gay marriage, screw it dont get married in church, my religion teacher said alot of stupid things like lord of the rings and harry potter are satans way of controlling people, so do u really think its worth getting pissed over shurch?
Terza94 2 years ago
But gays can't get married at all. It's not just about the church's policy, it's about human rights.
Padam91 2 years ago 8
yeah i know church doesnt repect humans rights except they are in "flow" with the bible...like i said screw it man
Terza94 2 years ago
How dare people try and change marriage!
It's been the same since forever, that's why we don't let interracial marriage happen, divorce is out of the question and infertile marriages (if you do say that if it is a "real" true blue marriage you HAVE TO be able to reproduce.)
kElCiBABBY 2 years ago
You do not HAVE TO procreate, but you do HAVE TO be open to the possibility of procreation. Within the NATURAL order of things, even if a man or woman is unable to have children due to NATURAL reasons, so along as they act according to their nature.
Homosexual relations go against the natural order of things, but you don't need me telling you that, you just need to look at the human body. The male and female body was made for each other. If people can not see that, they are truly blind.
Pipahh 2 years ago
Gods coming soon
Drewsdays 2 years ago
Religion is the main reason behind all the great wars of our time even if it's sometimes hidden beneath the surface , The belief in what a BOOK says is really funny, since it is JUST A BOOK. Sure it gives us some nice guidelines for running our lives, but that's it.
Prop 8(u.s., I'm from Toronto so we're pretty open on it thankfully) has no place, and the government should never tell us who to love!
P.s. first day checking you out, and besides the huge crush I have you're bright, funny and cute!
iamgoogoo 2 years ago
your comment was just what i needed after reading all this hating bullshit on youtube. its shocking how stupid most people seem to be. so thanks a lot for a smart and open minded comment... it's rare :-/
brotmann86 2 years ago
listen bitch...the court has no power over the people....that is why the people got the chance to vote for it and they voted that marrige is between a man and a woman.....this country will allways be, governed by the people, for the people, and of the people...if you have a problem with that suck my dick...now, go back to your closet sisy bitch
28adrianpeterson 2 years ago
ask the people 20 or 30 years ago about rights for black people and guess what theyd be voting for.
and calling a young woman a bitch and to suck your dick does not sound very smart.
brotmann86 2 years ago
this country believes EACH PERSON is created equally
now explain how prop h8 ensures this?
idaman12345 2 years ago 3
Did LisaNova take down that parody video she did of Prop 8? I can't find it anywhere o.-
Kailys3 2 years ago
the one wit miss california? it's still on :-)
brotmann86 2 years ago
I hadn't listened to your whole post. Excellent.
revjmike 2 years ago
I don't know if the court decision was right; but I do believe that people have a right to live together in love regardless of sexual preference, race, religion, etc.
In my youth a white person and a black person could not legally get married. How does that relate? As far as I'm concerned it's exactly the same.
revjmike 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Wonder why you're struggling now despite your "comedic genius" and tits? ShayCarl's videos can be summed up as a big laugh at himself, and a huge hug for all his family. You can't help but love him.
You, on the other hand, are a sensationalist basher who deserves the mocking of millions. You were funny once, but like the clown on his 20th balloon animal, the party is over. Go get fitted for that paper hat. This "softer, logical side" won't ever sell because you're too dumb to pull it off.
GititRight22 2 years ago
"So, does the New Testament which is what Christians are called to follow, accept stereotypical slavetreatment?"
Ah, so now I have turned you into a supporter of slavery? I mean it's in the bible, so it must be OK. Eaten any shellfish lately, or pork? I mean, I guess God changed his mind, too. Maybe he'll also change it about gays sometime in the future.
misterstogy 2 years ago
"I have no idea. You tell me. You think they were nicer?"
Ephesians 6:9 And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.
Collosians 4:1 Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven.
So, does the New Testament which is what Christians are called to follow, accept stereotypical slavetreatment?
jesperbech 2 years ago
"Maybe, for some. It's not for you to judge."
It may not be for me to judge, to stone them or otherwise punish them, but it is within the teaching of the Church to excommunicate people who do not follow the moral rules, and that would also preclude them from a Church wedding.
How many do you think would stop being promiscuous when married? You realize that the Church teaches that marriage also means fidelity, that one must actively strive for it. It is more than a casual ceremony you know!
jesperbech 2 years ago
"How many do you think would stop being promiscuous when married?"
That's none of my business. If it doesn't work with heterosexuals, I doubt it will have much more of an effect than on gays. And we are not talking about religious marriage - we are talking about secular, state-sanctioned marriage. As I understand it, that's what prop 8 was all about.
misterstogy 2 years ago
"Er no. If you are judging an individual based on the behaviour of a group to which they may belong (whether they engage in that behaviour or not), then you are stereotyping."
Even if 83% of them ACTUALLY BEHAVE THAT WAY? Suppose it was 90%, or 95%, or 99%, when would it cease to be stereotyping?
"I am not the one saying all gays behave a particular way. I never said they were all monogamous."
But you said I was stereotyping when I did so. Are you saying gays are not promiscuous?
jesperbech 2 years ago
"I have already answered this - if the Church has no problem with it, then yes, no problem."
What if people, in the congregation, as a whole, has a problem with it? Should their sentiments be respected? Is there a limit to what people must accept, does there come a point where people can say no, even if it is consentual?
Suppose they showed up in leather-latex bondage outfits, with hoses for breathing, but other than that, no indecent exposure. Would you get up and leave?
jesperbech 2 years ago
"'They' is who? All gays?"
83% of the homosexual men surveyed estimated they had had sex with 50 or more partners in their lifetime, 43% estimated they had sex with 500 or more partners; 28% with 1,000 or more partners.
Yes I would say that just about covers all gays. And it doesn't say how many sex partners the 17% that had less than 50 sex partners had, we are left guessing. Do you honestly think the majority of them are strictly monogamous? What would contradict the data grossly.
jesperbech 2 years ago
"To think you can oppose the Will of God is a real delusion. " from A Course in Miracles!
MattBlytheTheOne 2 years ago
So this is your interpretation of God? Wow... it kind of reads like the musings of a crazy person. Your understanding of God is... strange. I don't agree with it, nor do I feel the need or desire to indulge in literature that would promote such fallacies of God. I have no desire to subscribe to the text sources that patronize your borderline psychotic beliefs, thank you.
The dynamics of emotion are so much more profound than your mind understands. Shame is an independent emotion.
MelaniePortrip 2 years ago
As usual you missed the point, so you think A Course in Miracles is borderline balspheme nay 'psychotoic' you really have to remember those ideas are coming straight from YOUR mind. Don't read up but don't expect me to further entertain your ego. I fully understand the dynamics of the human mind, shame is not something I AM experiencing for you!
MattBlytheTheOne 2 years ago
(Part 1/3)
Yeah, I missed the point because I'm not agreeing with and patronizing your idiocy, lol, whatever.
Your ideas about opposing God's will, and ants feeling love, and 2012, and what emotions are, are what're psychotic... and just plain idiotic... and reek of inexcusable ignorance. Again, what was blasphemous (not balsphemous) was you playing mouthpiece for God and claiming out of foolishness that me not knowing God would be fine with Him...
MelaniePortrip 2 years ago
(Part 2/3)
...And fully understand the dynamics of the human mind? Writes the person who would, unlike all of the greatest, most thoughtful thinkers, philosophers, and educators ever, claim that anger, jealousy, sadness, disgust, yearning, relief, and happiness aren't really emotions. Oi vey... tell yourself what you need to, dear. Arguing with you is tiresome and fruitless. You're too... stupid. And because you're stupid, you can only ever be ignorant of, and deny your stupidity....
MelaniePortrip 2 years ago
(Part 3/3)
I can't make you see your reflection properly, and you're too hindered by idiocy, so I wont try. Happy denial, good for you... oh wait, happiness doesn't exist, right? Lol, ok, good day!
MelaniePortrip 2 years ago
The greatest fear is fear of happiness!
MattBlytheTheOne 2 years ago
Ok.
MelaniePortrip 2 years ago
I never said they were not emotions, I said they were bi-products of love and fear.... no negative emotion is ultimately the truth, I can only deny your opinion of your own reflection.
MattBlytheTheOne 2 years ago
No! You said it was blasphemous it was your judgment, not mine! Ants feel love yes I agree, 2012 is going to happen yes, psychotic again your words, God's mouthpiece YOUR judgments....me being foolish....lol whatever ?
MattBlytheTheOne 2 years ago
"...spirit reacts in the same way to everything it knows is true, and does not respond at all to anything else. Nor does it make any attempt to establish what is true. It knows that what is true is everything that God created. It is in complete and direct communication with every aspect of creation, because it is in complete and direct communication with its Creator. This communication is the Will of God." from A Course in Miracles
MattBlytheTheOne 2 years ago
Everyone is entitled to their beliefs, the problems start when someone tries to impose those beliefs on others while depriving them of the most basic of human rights ...CHOICE!
MattBlytheTheOne 2 years ago
Prop 8 passed. Get used to it.
GititRight22 2 years ago
Farting in the Library has more views than this vid in the same amount of time. Lisa No Va (it does not go)
GititRight22 2 years ago
on the other hand, marriage seems to be very important for most of people, but is it really that important? i think there's a more basic thing to think about and it's that people shoudn't even look at me like i was some kind of monster if i'm holdin' hands with some other guy. my point is: do you give a shit if the state it's on your side when you get that kind of shit from most people? some people even think gays are sick! that's fucked up, gettin married or not it's a secondary bussiness
domknoxx 2 years ago
i don't get it (i'm not from the US). how come rights and laws can be based on a religious opinion? when one of the center topics of liberalism is the gap between churches, or diferent cults, and the state. at least that's what i thought. i'm not fully aware of how this prop 8 developed and what's the process on your country to make the laws, but if you could explain this to me that'd be great. it's obvious a proposition like this has no point but declarated racism.
domknoxx 2 years ago
Marriage is not just a legal document, it is in fact a union of two people before God. Why try and take marriage out of the very context it comes from? Then talk civil unions instead!
Marriage is related to Church, to the Bible, to God, noone can argue that, and as such, it should follow the ideals of that system, and of the Creator.
That means, not perverts are allowed to get married, pure and simple. Maybe that hurts someone, but perverts are sinners, and shouldn't get married before God
jesperbech 2 years ago
Er... so when two atheists decide to get married... that's what, exactly? What you are in effect arguing is that only people who believe in God should be allowed to get married. If you are going to allow people who don't believe in God to get married to get married (and that's pretty much what you said here), then you are discriminating against gays - simple prejudice.
Make all marriages a civil arrangement. Churches can then decide who gets to have the religious ceremony (or not).
misterstogy 2 years ago
No, marriage is a Christian thing, and if two atheists decide to marry, but overall lead a Christian life, at least in terms of morals if not faith, then I am all for it. But, gays are simply out to break the rules from the beginning, and on and on from there. That is why I feel it should not be allowed, because it clearly runs contrary to what Christ teaches, in terms of actual behaviour. And, people who don't believe in Christ directly, but behave decently, still get approval, go to Heaven.
jesperbech 2 years ago
Ah, you believe marriage is a Christian thing. I don't. Certainly a lot of Hindus, Buddhists and Shamans don't. I am straight. I don't believe in God, and would not like to have my marriage in any way connected to religion. In your view, my marriage is a religious act, and I am engaging in a religious activity in getting married. In saying MY marriage is not religious, I am not forcing my beliefs on you, just my right to decide for myself. So effectively, you are forcing your beliefs on me.
misterstogy 2 years ago
I believe marriage is a religious thing, not restricted to Christianity, and that none of the religions you mention endorse homosexual marriage. My question is, if you don't believe in religion, why would you want to get married in the first place? It can hold absolutely no meaning to you, so why waste a day of your time? Or support a system you don't believe in, by making use of the Sacraments ('rituals') they offer?
Marriage is an act before God, which brings it to where it needs to be.
jesperbech 2 years ago
I got married because I wanted to ensure that whatever happens if I die, my wife will inherit what I own. I live in a country where those rights are not guaranteed. And just because I don't believe in religion doesn't mean that I don't think that the state institution of marriage has no merit whatsoever. It's only you that is saying that marriage without religion has no value. Marriage is an act of commitment - it is only relevant to God if you believe in God.
misterstogy 2 years ago
I have no problem whatsoever with gays keeping each others furniture, or money, if they die. It is simply not about that. Marriage has to do with religion, it comes from religion, you cannot argue that. Marriage is a noble institution, between two upright people, and allowing gay marriage means that it stops being all that good, it just becomes a trampy thing, something which it was never intended to be.
Marriage is an act of commitment, but more, before God. Marriage is sacred. End of story.
jesperbech 2 years ago
If a gay entertainer started calling himself Jesus Christ, I would also be pissed. It is a matter of gays keeping their own terminology, call it civil union or whatever, I don't care what it means about money or furniture or house, I think people should be allowed to do what they want there I mean what does it matter? But marriage by definition is between two people devout in their religion, that is the INTENTION of marriage, and to have two people get married that way is an affront, NAUSEOUS.
jesperbech 2 years ago
And don't get me wrong, it is not only about homosexuals. If Bonnie and Clyde wanted to get married, I would think it was just as wrong, if not more wrong, and I would oppose that just as much, if not more.
It is about sinners, and sin, not having any business in marriage.
And homosexuals are obviously sinners, according to the very book that gave us marriage. They will have to find something else to call it, or do, it is simply offensive as it is.
jesperbech 2 years ago
So this is what is comes down to: You have decided, on the basis of YOUR faith, based on a book that YOU believe in, how everyone else must live. Gays, Atheists - all of us have to live based on rules you have decided are right. Now as for marriage being a noble institution, it began as a way of ensuring that bloodlines were not polluted, and that women did not carry children from another man. Hence the ring, the white dress and the exchange of property (the woman) they walk down the aisle.
misterstogy 2 years ago
And frankly, whether it makes you nauseous, or is an affront to your morality, or your particular religious beliefs is beside the point. You are free to believe what you will. You should not be free to force your own views about how other people (who, by the way, are not hurting anyone else but themselves) live. This is, as it turns out, is exactly the argument that many people use against gay marriage- but here you are, reproducing it verbatim.
Repeat: You have just told me how I must live!
misterstogy 2 years ago
No I have not decided how anyone else must live. I have decided that if people want to get married, they must do so before God, and if that is not their intention, then they must find something else to do.
And, whatever marriage was thousands of years ago doesn't matter, it is what it is today that matters, and it is about the union of a GOOD man and woman, that is why it is done before God, the author of all good. Can't you understand why this is important to Christians, who see marriage so?
jesperbech 2 years ago
"I have decided that if people want to get married, they must do so before God, and if that is not their intention, then they must find something else to do." = you telling me what to do based on your faith.
"that is why it is done before God". Again, you are telling me I have to get married in front of a God that I don't believe in. Why??? Yes, I can see this is important to Christians - can't you see that this could also be important to Atheists?
Why are you telling me how to live my life?
misterstogy 2 years ago
Essentially, I accept your beliefs are important to you. And I respect your right to follow your faith and beliefs. But you are imposing your beliefs on my right to do the same as you.
There is no argument around this. This what you are doing. It's not fair!
misterstogy 2 years ago
No you don't understand that it is a matter of morals. It is not just faith. The Christian religion tells us what is moral or not, and then has marriage for those who choose to live an upright life. You can't separate faith and morals, because to have faith in Christ is to believe (to have faith!) that one must be moral.
Why would you even WANT to get married before God? Isn't he just the 'fictional skydaddy' to you? Why not just get a civil union instead and share your furniture, money etc?
jesperbech 2 years ago
Why would it be important to atheists? What could the ceremony possibly mean to them, since it is connected with God? Wouldn't it be an insult to their intelligence to do something like that? Know what I mean?
I am not telling you how to live your life, I am telling what is important and sacred to me, and that you are trampling on that, and I have a problem with that. I'm also saying marriage basically is not for sinners, that goes against the grain of Christian life, everybody knows that.
jesperbech 2 years ago
Atheists can be pretty arrogant, I am the first person to admit this. And many people do mock religious beliefs, and I really try not to. But deciding the rules that other people have to live their lives on, when they are consenting adults, who are hurting no-one else but themselves, well, it's kinda arrogant, don't you think?
misterstogy 2 years ago
No I don't think it is arrogant, I think it is simply saying that what you do is sinful, and therefore contrary to a Christian life in general, and therefore, you have no business getting married until you change your ways. The same goes for people who openly support abortion, or as I mentioned, Bonnie and Clyde.
It is about living a Christian life, that is a great part of what makes marriage sacred in the first place, and if we remove that, it starts to lose all meaning. Not on my watch!
jesperbech 2 years ago
Yeah, but we're NOT Christian. Again, marriage is a modern institution (you said it was). We don't want a 'sacred' marriage. We want a modern, secular institution, which allows us to live the way we choose. Why do we all have to live by rules you have defined based on your faith? You are not answering the question!
misterstogy 2 years ago
"We want a modern, secular institution, which allows us to live the way we choose."
Then call it a civil union, or whatever. Just don't call it marriage, and try and ride your filth on the coat-tails of a noble institution.
The only reason you want it to be called marriage, is because you want to give it a veneer of respectability. But the very reason marriage is respectable, is because it doesn't allow homosexuals to get married, for that and MANY other reasons. Gays can stay away PERIOD.
jesperbech 2 years ago
And as for this:
"It is about living a Christian life...and if we remove that, it starts to lose all meaning. Not on my watch!"
In a way that divorce, pre-marital sex, and extra-marital affairs do not?
misterstogy 2 years ago
"In a way that divorce, pre-marital sex, and extra-marital affairs do not?"
Those things are most certainly bad, but, divorce can be legal, according to the Church, in case of cheating by the other spouse, or domestic violence. All the same, divorce is not a light matter, and I don't think it is to most people going through it.
But the point is, when a man and a woman get married, it is not OBVIOUS they are gonna do that. When two men get married it is obvious what will happen. It's wrong.
jesperbech 2 years ago
OK. So because you are religious, you get to decide the rules that all of us live by. Nice. Actually, reminds me of Iran. People's rights there are also decided based on religious bigotry, and not freedom of choice.
"When two men get married it is obvious what will happen. It's wrong."
It's wrong? Why on earth would it be wrong? Ah, don't tell me....
Listen: Just let people do whatever the fuck they want; don't force people to live by your rules.
misterstogy 2 years ago
No I certainly do not decide how anyone lives. But to me, marriage is a sacred thing, the best possible union between two people, a truly sacred thing, and I do not want those who do not understand that or want to misuse it, to do so. That tarnishes it. I won't allow it.
Do whatever you want but don't call it marriage. I don't care about where the money or the furniture goes.
Marriage is from the Bible, and should be reserved for those who want to lead a fully Christian life. End Of Story.
jesperbech 2 years ago
So you have just contradicted yourself - you say that you don't want to tell people how to live, and then in the next sentence you say that for YOU marriage is sacred - hence everyone must be subject to your rules.
And I think you'll find that the concept of marriage predates the bible by a quite a stretch.
misterstogy 2 years ago
I am not telling gay people if they can have sex or not, so long as they don't do it in public, same rules for heterosexuals by the way so no hypocricy there. So I am not telling what they can or cannot do, as persons.
And, marriage is not only sacred to ME, it is sacred to Christians around the world. It is not only MY rules got that?
I'm not telling gays not to have sex (ie. how to live) I am telling them to get married they need to become Christians, and that involves no man-on-man sex.
jesperbech 2 years ago
"and should be reserved for those who want to lead a fully Christian life".
Ah, but you only want to limit it for gays - if you were really being consistent, you would actually be campaigning for it to be limited ONLY to Christians. Because otherwise it would just be bigotry and homophobia, woudn't it?
And I, as a non-Christian wouldn't be allowed to be married at all in your world.
misterstogy 2 years ago
No, it is not a matter of limiting it to Christians only, it is about limiting it to people who don't do wrong.
The problem is, if a guy is a murderer, and wants to get married, he can just conveniently omit that fact, or if he is a thief, you can't tell it from looking at a man, or a woman, if he/she has sinned gravely.
But when two men want to get married, it is a glaring sin. That's why it is easy to say no to gay-marriage, because it's OBVIOUSLY sinful, not so with men-women marriages.
jesperbech 2 years ago
Well I don't think it's wrong. My best friend is gay, and I want him to have the same rights and opportunities in society that I have. The argument may have shifted a little, but you are still imposing your values on others.
misterstogy 2 years ago
When did you think marriage became a right? It's not a right, it's something you earn, by being a good Christian. That is what it is all about. It is about people who first make a commitment to be good people, to live with Christian values, and then get married.
I hope you don't see it as unfair that Christians don't feel people with poor morals should get married, that goes for both homosexuals AND heterosexuals.
If you want to get married, you need to live an upright life, also sexually.
jesperbech 2 years ago
You said "marriage should be reserved for those who want to lead a fully Christian life". Then you changed your mind and said you want to limit it to people who don't do wrong. It's fairly easy to find out if a person has a criminal record before they get married - we could quite easily ban them. However homosexuals, who may be really really good people - help others, work for charities, good to their neighbors - are less deserving than criminals. It's NOT obvious to me that being gay is a sin.
misterstogy 2 years ago
What is the difference between 'people who live a fully Christian life' and 'people who don't do wrong'? Do you know what Christianity is all about? It is about being a good person, not engaging in sin, in anyway. That's the goal of it, and that's final, however much you argue it, or want to argue it.
Mob bosses can also be helpful, give to charity, be kind to certain people. That's not enough. Illicit activity disqualifies you from marriage. If you don't want to be good, don't get married.
jesperbech 2 years ago
OK. You are defining marriage as a Christian institution - which is your right based on your beliefs. Therefore it is perfectly natural and right for you to want to exclude people who do not live up to your religious and moral expectations of what is right and wrong.
However, I am defining marriage differently - as a secular and non-religious institution. It should be based on commitment to ones partner - whoever that may be - provided that there is consent, equality and respect.
misterstogy 2 years ago
".. defining marriage - as a secular and non-religious institution."
Fine, that's fine. But why not call it something else then, since it is no longer connected to God, or the Church, in any way? Why keep a name that has religious connotations, and means something to religious people?
Is it because you want to give it the veneer of having the respectability of a proper religious wedding? Because that is in essence the very thing you are stripping it of. I think it is provocative.
jesperbech 2 years ago
"When did you think marriage became a right? It's not a right, it's something you earn, by being a good Christian."
Actually, it is a right. It's in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. You are the one saying it is not a right. And there is nothing in there about being a good Christian, either.
misterstogy 2 years ago
Is it a Human Right, same-sex marriage? I've been looking and I can't find it. Can you help me find it or are you just making shit up? Need I say that is crassly immature not to mention deceptive?
Marriage is a religious institution, which is why I don't understand why secular society wants anything to do with it? Isn't that exactly the type of thing secular groups want to rid themselves of, any traces of the foul religions? Why marriage?
jesperbech 2 years ago
Wow! A very Christian tone in your last post. And I have been nothing but polite. You said MARRIAGE (all marriage) is not a human right (i.e. not gay marriage). If you plan to change the terms of the discussion, at least make sure you have your own facts straight. You've now contradicted yourself.
And actually, the UDHR says "men and women of full age" - hence it doesn't discriminate - unlike you. There is nothing in the UDHR which would prevent men marrying men or women marrying women.
misterstogy 2 years ago
Above all, I am a libertarian - let people do whatever the fuck they like, provided that they don't intrude on anyone else's right to do the same. And this, my friend, provides a logical (non-religious) basis for morality. It gives you the right to believe whatever you want, and me not to. It also should give me the right to marry whoever I want, provided that the relationship is equal, consensual and respectful (which leaves out all the stupid arguments made about animals, polygamy and kids).
misterstogy 2 years ago
I assume that also gives priests the right not to want to marry someone?
jesperbech 2 years ago
Can you point me to the website where you found that please? I would like to read the context, that can't possibly be a problem, I assume.
jesperbech 2 years ago
"Marriage is a religious institution." I accept that you believe it is, and you are entitled to your beliefs. But you are defining it in a way that I disagree with. So if you are allowed to define marriage for me, then you do so by force.
"Isn't that exactly the type of thing secular groups want to rid themselves". I wouldn't claim to speak for all secular groups - some would say yes, others no. Marriage has its social purposes - aside from its religious ones.
misterstogy 2 years ago
"So if you are allowed to define marriage for me, then you do so by force."
As you do to me.
"Marriage has its social purposes - aside from its religious ones."
And what are those? For instance, you don't believe that a child should have both parents, as religion strongly does, so what is the purpose of marriage for an atheist?
I know you never said that, btw, but that goes with secular thinking. A child does not technically need a father, the mother can easily do it alone. No need.
jesperbech 2 years ago
Go to Google and type "UDHR". It's article 16 (section 3, btw also refers to the family as a "fundamental group unit of society" - without reference to religion).
misterstogy 2 years ago
Hi but it doesn't say regardless of sexuality.
"Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family."
In fact, it says men and women, not men and men or women and women. And like I said, sexuality is excluded.
That is no proof it is considered a human right.
jesperbech 2 years ago
"And what are those?" Marriage is a social construction, so it's whatever society deems it to be - but it's a symbol of commitment, of financial and legal responsibility, and it provides some form of security in the event of death of one of the partners. And if people don't think it's necessary for them, then it's not. And perhaps in the future, it won't be. But for now, people think it's important to them, so we should let them do it. And not just limit it to people who don't make you nauseous.
misterstogy 2 years ago
"So if you are allowed to define marriage for me, then you do so by force."
Let me put this another way: I am not trying to define marriage FOR you. I am trying to let people decide for themselves what THEY want marriage to be. You on the other hand are expecting everyone to live based on your religiously received ideas of what marriage to be, and that's force.
misterstogy 2 years ago
But, what about those people who feel it is important that marriage only be between a man and a woman?
Also, I don't care about whether gays share their furniture or houses upon death, let them settle that whichever way they want, but, the should not be allowed to get married in Church, any more than other sinners should.
And, it is not about them being nice or not. I had a good friend who also sold drugs. I don't think he should get married, it would be obscene. He should repent first.
jesperbech 2 years ago
"But, what about those people who feel it is important that marriage only be between a man and a woman?"
They are entitled to believe and do as they like. They are just not entitled to force their views on others.
"the should not be allowed to get married in Church"
If the Church objects, I agree. You're absolutely right. Some Churches actually do gay weddings now, so you want them to stop? You are going to force them as well?
misterstogy 2 years ago
"They are entitled to believe and do as they like. They are just not entitled to force their views on others."
Suppose it is more than views, but actually right and wrong it is about, isn't it the duty of men of good will everywhere to oppose what is evil and support what is truly good?
This is not so much a matter of views as it is of conscience, of morals. Allowing something bad in the name of any ideology is not good, I will say it is insane. Good people must oppose what is evil. No?
jesperbech 2 years ago
"I don't think he should get married, it would be obscene. He should repent first."
If the Church says no, then I also agree with this. But to be legally married by the state, I think you would have a hard time arguing that he couldn't marry at all. He has legal rights, if not religious ones.
We're all sinners to some extent, and it's important not to judge others.
misterstogy 2 years ago
But do you really think that a drug dealer should be allowed to get married? You see to me marriage is also a reward for being a good person, it is tied in with having a healthy conscience, and one that is at rest, so one will be really good parent. I just don't think you can separate that type of behaviour from what sort of parent a criminal is going to be. I don't think criminals should be allowed to get married, somehow it goes against the whole thing. That's my personal but clear sentiment.
jesperbech 2 years ago
"Suppose it is more than views, but actually right and wrong"
Above, I defined a basis for morality which was based on a libertarian belief in fundamental freedom of the individual to choose their destiny provided that they don't interfere with others' rights to do the same. According to this principle, being gay is not wrong. Now I don't expect you to follow or live your life based on my beliefs, but I would like to respect my right to have them (and not interfere with them) - as I do yours.
misterstogy 2 years ago
My definition of right and wrong goes further than it simply not hurting, I also include that the mindset behind a deed, especially sustained deeds, must come from a proper, and not an immoral, motivation.
The problem isn't your rights, the problem is you want to give approval to evil-doers, not to others directly, in physical terms, but maybe spiritually, in the long term, by the example they set. Your principle is flawed because it does not look at the mindset behind behaviour. Simplistic.
jesperbech 2 years ago
"You see to me marriage is also a reward for being a good person". I don't think marriage should be seen as a reward at all. It's a serious commitment, and seeing it as a reward may actually put so much pressure on a relationship as to make it unworkable.
I think you may have a very rose tinted idea of what marriage actually is. My partner and I have a strong relationship, but we work on it, and it's not always easy. But we would never describe it as sacred - it's a social institution.
misterstogy 2 years ago
You misunderstand me, working on being a good person is what allows you to enter into the commitment of marriage. The preparation for marriage is the practice and attainment of Christian virtue, such as prudence, liberality, charity, purity.
So it is not so much a reward (though it is in a sense) as it is a conclusion on a decision to live a fully moral life. Such parents are more happy, and responsible and make far better rolemodels for their children. Marriage without religion becomes sick.
jesperbech 2 years ago
"I don't think criminals should be allowed to get married"
How would you enforce this? Would you allow those who repented to get married? What about non-Christians? Would you annul the marriages of those who committed crimes after they married? Or lied and said they were not criminals when they got married? Should criminals who have already had children be able to marry? It's unworkable!
And criminals can still have children who they can influence - whether they are married or not.
misterstogy 2 years ago
Yes, only those who have repented, that is regretted any bad behaviour and resolved never to do it again, should be allowed to get married. That is a sound idea.
You can't annul a marriage after the marriage, however if both spouses are Christian, and one commits crimes, the other will naturally seek a divorce or become a criminal him/herself, and so likewise incur the wrath of God on their home.
It is difficult to enforce, requires honesty, but homosexuals are different, openly want sin.
jesperbech 2 years ago
Bell and Weinberg reported evidence of widespread sexual compulsion among homosexual men. 83% of the homosexual men surveyed estimated they had had sex with 50 or more partners in their lifetime, 43% estimated they had sex with 500 or more partners; 28% with 1,000 or more partners.Bell and Weinberg p 308
jesperbech 2 years ago
This Bell and Weinberg report is an excellent argument for gay marriage - the more married, gay Christians there are, the greater the likelihood that they will have safe, secure relationships.
But so what if many gay people sleep around. They are still being denied a right that you and I have. And if there is one gay person who wants to live in a monogamous married relationship, they should have the right to do so.
misterstogy 2 years ago