I am so sorry that as an infant and toddler, you had to be raised in a day care center. It was unfortunate that your parents divorced in your adolescence.... it was not your fault!
You should just be happy that your Father got so much pleasure out of his boat. Got enough money yet for the voice change operation?
Sooo... marriage is an *abstract" concept *detached* from Humans??? => (... since Sexuality IS Human concept therefore marriage should be detached from sexuality, ergo gender ) OR (Sexuality is NOT a human concept, but since humans HAS sexuality (therefore) WE should do the same as other animals... do they marry?)
i usually agree with you but not on this...it is not only rong for 2 gays to be "married" but it is impossable...marriage IS DEFINED as a bond between a man and a woman...i have nothing against 2 men or wimen being togeather with ALL the legal benifits of marriage but they are not technically "married"
@TheMrgreentoker420 Why can't the definition of marriage be changed? That definition was made before people even knew about homosexuality. Things change and we need to adapt to the changes. Do you think that it's fair that heterosexuals have the right to marry someone they love and homosexuals can't. It's not fair. It's called equal rights. And don't say any of that bullshit like homosexuality is a choice. It's not a choice.
@DAmicoJohnny This will be fun. the fact that you think you can just change the deffinition of something makes you sound moronic. without deffinitions people would never have a universal language..(like i can call blue red but the words just mean something else 2 you, you know blue is blue i just called the colour you concieve as blue, red)also you reely think people didnt know about gays long ago?heard of a couple thousand year old book called the bible?
@DAmicoJohnny and i dont think its fair that 2 homos dont have the same rights as 1 man and 1 woman..but i also dont want gays to come along and redefine a word because it has legal benifits, make there own word with all the same legal benifits. and actually if any gay man was smart enough to look at common law it states after living with someone for a certain ammount of time makes you legally bonded with all the benifits of marriage even if your with a woman and your not married
@TheMrgreentoker420 This is typical "separate but equal" logic. People in a committed and loving relationship don't get married to reap tax cuts - they do so to express their union to the world. Telling them that "yes, you can have these benefits but you are not -married-" only creates a further divide.
@TheMrgreentoker420 The concept of "marriage" been redefined since the dawn of civilization and is still vastly different from culture to culture, as was evidently put forward in this video. Adhering and coming up with (invalid) excuses for your arguments doesn't make them any less fallacious.
Your usage of words such as "homos" and incessant trolling completely discredits your standing ground and/or intellect, I'm afraid.
@TheMrgreentoker420 well zjemp is the authority on everything. PS, I noticed you like being "gay" and "smokin that moby dick." You seem to comment that quite a bit.
@VintageWhiteTerror and i love being gay because the deffinition of gay can be defined as overly joyed as well moron lmao and yes i do love smokin that moby dick!!!!!!!!!!!
I would also like to point out that with this "logic" if you can call it that. Every straight couple that would like to get married should have to be tested to make sure that their bodies are compatible an able to have children together. If they are not then they would have to fall under the same form of thinking. Thoughts?
@274903 I certainly do not presume that married couples will raise children together, I know far too many who did not for me to do that. Almost none of the second marriages in my family have produced children, many of those include a post-menopausal woman, and no one has ever expressed that those older couples aren't "really" married because they don't fit the definition. Nor do I presume that gay marriages will not include raising children, because gay couples do it all the time.
the problem with this argument is that it dosnt considder that laws, which are man made, are different from other things. for example if we call a knife a moose, it will not change, and people who are against changing words liek that would say we are naming it incorrectly.but laws are different. if we start calling murder "the deliberate killing of anything, including plants and bacteria" we arnt just changing the name, we have changed what murder is,
Why would Santorum attempt to employ the law of identity on the word marriage? He only proved he understands neither logic nor marriage. Marriage is defined as the lawful recognition of a union between two people. In other words, the word marriage refers specifically to the lawful union itself, not the people united by it. Redefining marriage in a way that it violates the law of identity is useless anyways, unless Santorum is claiming that it should be outlawed for being "illogical".
@274903 Are you familiar with any history at all? Aside from the crap religious leaders have been spoon feeding the--these days, willfully--ignorant masses low these many millenia, that is.
Technically Rick is dumber than you give credit for.
Think about it, the definition of marriage back in the day of when the Bible's laws were sacred and not used just for bigotry against homosexuals, included such instances of a man being forced to pay a father so he could be married to the woman he raped, that a man could have more than one wife, that a woman cannot marry more than one man. That a woman can be forced to marry the brother of her husband... you know.
There's a reason that we have the words monogamy and polygamy and polyandry -- it's because different cultures have different forms of *marriage" -- not only historically but right now there are societies where polygamous and polyandrous marriages are legal -- so necessarily the definition of marriage has to encompass, at the very least not only marriage between one man and one woman but between one man and multiple women and one woman and multiple men.
@274903 ``What are the key elements that have ALWAYS (even until now) made a marriage a marriage? A man and a woman devoting their lives to each other in the PRESUMPTION (Presumption does not entail it is mandatory) of bearing and raising children together.`` Not true. Some Native American societies have had same-sex marriage for thousands of years, and we allow infertile people to marry regardless of the fact that nobody presumes they`ll reproduce.
There should be some kind of law in place that forces politicians to watch internet counter-arguments leveled against them. The world would be a much better place.
@Sidhilot wow... great job at completely missing the point. first of all saying that gay people and pedophiles are necesarily the same is rediculous. second of all it's has nothing to do with weather or not gay people NEED to get married it's the fact that they should be able to should they want to. if two people love each other, regardless of their sexual orientation, they should have the option of mariage available, end of discussion.
@Sidhilot consensual sexual relationships between two adults who love each other is in no way like sexual molestation of a minor. Do heterosexuals need marriage? Most of them end in divorce, a large number cheat on their partners, i was raised outside of wedlock and i'm about to finish a science degree, so clearly marriage is not necessary for raising children. Why shouldn't gays be allowed to marry? do you not value equal rights, freedom, justice and liberty for all?
@Sidhilot they do indeed. What they lack is the freedom to marry whom they choose to marry, not who someone else deems as an option. Heterosexuals have the freedom to marry whomever they choose, Homosexuals do not. That is an issue of discrimination and a lack of equality. If i give you the option to do something you do not wish to do while denying you the right to do something you want to do based on some aspect of your person, then that is an act of discrimination.
@hanksnow82 That's not a fact, hankie, that's an assertion that you haven't been able to back up or prove or basically manage to make look credible in any way. I do love that you seem to believe I engaged in that argument with you...You just parrot the same responses to everyone, huh? I guess that's what you do when have no argument and are hoping that you can use repetition to annoy people into giving up on reasoning with you, so you can then fool yourself into thinking you've "won". So sad.
@TheGnomeNome The fact that homosexuality has no benefit to society is unequivocal not an assertion . Your inablity to deal with the facts seems to be the source of great angst for you when there repeated . I suggest you get therapy because the facts never change .
@hanksnow82 You still don't know what fact means, I see. Do you know what "angst" means? I assume you don't, seeing as you're using both words where they don't apply. Keep on repeating yourself, Hank. Unfortunately, sheer will alone isn't going to magically make you have a point or sound halfway credible, but it sure as hell is amusing to watch you keep kidding yourself that you do.
This is one of the smartest, most well-reasoned arguments that I have seen on YouTube. Every point was made well and backed up perfectly. Then, the ending was brilliant!
@hanksnow82 gays are about 3-5 percent. yet infertility isn't shamed or restricted from legal rights,no one cares if you can produce kids or not,but they do care if you have a different orientation.From what I see,baby making has nothing to do with any gay marriage things
@Narutopivotz Wrong again . According to the two largest and most reconized studies ever done in North America homosexual only comprise about 2 % of the population ( Canadian Govenment . Gay by the numbers ) and ( Center for Disease Control Atlanta . fact sheet 2009 ) Homosexuality has no benefit to society and as such should not be sanctioned by or promoted by society . Those are the facts now deal with it .
@hanksnow82 Thanks for the info(for an imprecise measure), but if its percent is similar to infertility ,how was infertility rare status even relevant?You also didn't address anything else i said,could you please explain how homosexuality lacks contributions that , races,infertility,hobbies,legal drugs,and other things DO?Our government is for the people,not for the people making da babies. and what do you mean ''wrong again''couldn't you at least attempt not to come off hostile,trying to talk
@Narutopivotz Wrong again . There is nothing imprecise in my statement . One study says the number is 1.9%the other 2.1% so saying they both say about 2 %is very accurate unlike your numbers which were pure bull shit . It is not possible to prove a negative as you should have learned in high school . Homosexuality has no benefit to society in anyway and thats why we should never endorse it or sanction it .
i like how you managed to argue it without pointing out the definition of marriage he uses has also been radically changed, with the whole, race thing .Unless he objects to that also..
@hanksnow82 You seem to have "fact" confused with "made up shit that would prove my point if it were true". Normally I'd assume most people know what a fact is, but you ARE an idiot, so I figured you could use the extra help. You're welcome. Oh, and no, I don't want to try "agin", whatever that is. Perhaps you ought to, though, if it'll do something to beef up that one lonely brain cell you have there so that it may help you form a fraction of a reasonable thought.
I'm not entirely for gay marriage, but only because I'm also also not entirely for straight marriage. Gay or straight, get over your sexuality, and find out who you REALLY are. I guarantee, you are not the result of gender or preference. Those are mere distractions. Put away the damn lipstick and quit arguing with idiots about things that don't matter. You're gay, so what, get over it.
Marriage Why is it that both sides want to have a Marriage to be some thing for only them?
I do not under stand Why People Need the Word or title Marriage to define there personal life, It is only a word so why do people put so much stock is such a small word?
@person9742 It's not about just the word or title. It is mostly about equality and legitimacy. Under the law gay people are not allowed to marry and are thus exempt from the legal benefits of marriage. Gay people aren't fighting for the word "marriage" we are fighting for equality, not from our peers, but from the law.
@NitoriKun Everyone has the right to marry anyone they want of the opposite sex . No one has the right to marry someone of the same sex . The reason for that is there is no benefit to society from homosexual marriage . Any other questions ?
@hanksnow82 Yes. Why, specifically, is there no benefit to society from homosexual marriage, and what specifically benefits society about heterosexual marriage? If the argument is that a homosexual couple can't produce children between themselves, why do we allow infertile people, or people who chose to remain childless to get married? If the argument is that only a couple who are both bio-related to a child can provide a stable family, why allow adoption, or divorce for couples with kids? Thx.
@VegaCoyote What i said twice already on this video is there is no benefit to homosexuality and thats why society should not promote it or sanction it . Therefore there should be no homosexual marriage . Next question .
@hanksnow82 By "giving me a slap down" you mean "made a complete and utter fool of yourself", right? Because I'm fairly certain that's about the only thing you've ever managed to accomplish. It's okay, even though following all of ZJ's videos just to make comments displaying your ignorance and bigotry and doing it from not one, but TWO accounts is making you looking extremely pathetic, I'm sure you're actually too stupid to realize that this is how you're coming off, so that's all right.
I love your videos and I love what you do to create awareness and support for gay marriage! But I have to point out that you're taking a very dim view of polygamy and perhaps unfairly so. Not all polygamy is abusive, rooted in conservative religions or non-consensual. If two people can fall in love, get married, have children, build a life and grow old together, why not three or ten? Beats me.
The much-vaunted "essence of marriage" has already changed: how many polygamous relations are there in the Bible? Well, I didn't count them, but a good answer is "all of them". How many repudiations of polygamy in favor of monogamy are there in the Bible? ZERO.
@imN0Ttheone Yeah, and Mormons were polygamous since the beginning, law be damned. That wasn't the point; the point is that "the essence of marriage" has nothing to do with the Bible (or morality, but I'd rather not open that can o' worms).
It could translate into "the way things always were around here", which is probably why the Western world is monogamous in the first place, but not the Bible.
Whenever incest, polygamy,or other nonstandard types of relationships or marriages crop up while someone is defending homosexuality, I always get a bit excited to see what happens next.
Either A) the person decries those nonstandard forms, B) They make no statement one way or the other about them, or C) defend them, in addition to homosexuality.
(A) usually goes along with a drop in respect for the person.
(B) is the same as A, because the person is a wimp
@minion5891 He has always sounded like that. I reckon its due to him reading the text. You can see it from the way his eyes go left and right. Kinda like it, makes it sound like a text to speech function of a computer ;)
I think that we should allow up to 100 people to Marry each other! I also think we should allow marriage between man/woman & Beast! If you do not agree with me, OK. But please, I would prefer it if the usual American "Bible/religious nuts" did not bother to send me advice on morality. I've had enough `religion` thanks. How about living your own life and keeping your nose out of my ass?
@terrygand Marrying animals? I'm not sure I see the point. While people can certainly feel very strongly towards their pets or whatever, it seems unlikely that the pet could really consent to marriage. That consent is important in my opinion.
@Smischmal .....mmmm I do agree with your point on `consent`, however, when it comes to eating the bodies of animals,do we ask for their `consent` ? It always amazes me (A Vegetarian), that people who condemn "Beast sex" are the first to eat the same Beasts that they claim to `represent` ! I wonder sir/madam , are you really concerned about the welfare of beast, or, are you more concerned about "Forcing" your opinions (Using threats of private/ state sanctions),on others? Freedom ?
Though I'd like to point out that I didn't actually condemn "Beast sex", I merely was wondering what would even be the point of marrying a non-human. Between human beings, marriage represents a mutual relationship of love and commitment and has certain tangible legal benefits. When one member of a marriage owns the other (in both a practical as well as alegal sense) I fail to see why a marriage is necessary or even makes sense.
@Smischmal Thanks for your reply. What I wonder, is the point of marrying a Human? Why not just live together? Why the `phony` piece of paper/certificate? I personally would not marry/have sexual relations with an animal,however, there is (in my opinion), no harm in it. Providing the Beast is in no way injured by the "Get together". I know women who do have sex with a horse,a dog(different women!), and they have told me they prefer their non human lovers ! I wish them ALL well!
@terrygand Well, living together is nice, but as I said before, there are quite a number of legal benefits of marriage that wouldn't really pertain to a human/non-human pairing. That's why marriage equality is a gay *rights* issue.
Look up "Rights and Responsibilities of Marriages in the United States" on Wikipedia for a comprehensive list. As you look through that list, note that essentially none of those benefits have any point at all when one of the members isn't a person.
@Smischmal Thank You, for your interesting comments & advice. However,i have no intention (or any interest), in looking at the site you have recommended; i`m sure it would be interesting but, as i am a UK citizen, I think it would be irrelevant in my jurisdiction. I don`t go around trying to upset people,however, I do not care what other folk think about my relationships; I really don`t ! What if someone marries a Tree? Would it matter ? Would/should anyone care? I don`t care!
It's just that recognizing marriage with a dog, or a tree, or a pillow, or any other non-person would be a completely pointless effort that would require substantial political pressure to bring into effect. It seems like even bringing up the topic only serves to distract people from more pressing issues, such as the issue of marriage equality for same-sex couples or recognition of polyamorous relationships. Other than that, it is of course a benign, albeit pointless action.
@Smischmal Indeed! We must also remember that many people( Black people, Jews, Gays,Gypsies,Single mothers etc),have had to `struggle` for equality when, many people thought it was OK that those groups did not have equality with the majority. What one generation thinks is "Pointless" & unimportant; the next generation may `evolve` to accept as OK, even if the subject is `unusual`. I speak from experience.
What you said. Seriously. That's pretty much exactly what I have to say about this. I've tried explaining this to people time and time again, but I've never been able to do it with this sort of clarity.
@kingdomwinds Top or bottom? Depends on what part of the garage you're repairing. The question was about making repairs I assume. Someone should introduce you to a little thing called common decency.
@kingdomwinds I know what you were asking. Again, you need to learn some common decency. I wonder if you would have the balls to say that to someone's face. I've only had one person say that to me and he spent two weeks in the hospital. I have always had zero tolerance for gay-bashers and I have beaten many to a bloody pulp. If you think all gays are just victims, think again.
@tdfisk first of all, this is the internet, and people can say whatever they want. Also, how is asking him if he is top or bottom considered gay bashing? Finally, I do carry a piece with me so violence is probably not a good idea.
@kingdomwinds You're filthy use of language and asking extremely personal things clearly indicates gay bashing. You carry a piece, how paranoid of you. I don't carry weapons, I don't need them even though I'm getting quite old and disabled. Guns don't frighten me, I'm been in too many battles including hand to hand. Hey, but if you come back in October when I'm in a Halloween mood, you might just sound scary.
No, I'm pretty sure when I'm wondering if a human being is of the male gender, that has nothing to do with dehumanization. You clearly don't know what that word even means.
Yes, I said it. I said, is this a man? Purely pondering this person's gender as it is hard to tell from ugliness. No dehumanization there, stop using big words you don't understand. Nobody is backpedaling here. ;)
Strange... People go to some archaic book to define marriage as "between ONE man and ONE woman" but in this same book there were people who had several wives. Does this seem contradictory to anyone else?
It's not so difficult to sound articulate, bold and unshakeable when you're reading to a camera; though certainly not nearly as easy as just writing a comment. Still, I feel you would fare better than I in direct, face to face confrontation with a person diametrically opposed to my views. Probably in part because making these videos has helped you flesh out your own views. I'd like to know your thoughts on nurturing steadfastness in the face of adversity. Is there some kind of dicipline to
I'm no mind reader, but I can reasonably assume that RSantorum believes not so much that "Marriage is what the Bible says it is." It's more like: "Marriage is what I say it is, so get on board, or get out of the way."
I had a family member counter that marriage is about reproduction. I countered that 80 year old straight couples are not discouraged from marriage. This ended that argument quickly. Your vid offers fantastic logical insight as well. And I am also not a napkin.
Great piece per usual, Zinnia... my only thought is that real biblical, 'traditional' marriage IS polygamist. Polygamy had fallen out of fashion by the time of Christ, but it's not banned anywhere in the Bible...
Of course, that's a book that's A-Ok with slavery, so I'm not sure why anyone is still using it as their ultimate moral guide...
That's a marriage amendment I can support. "Marriage is not a napkin." I'm sure we can all agree on that, and it certainly would have less opposition than, say, that first-ish amendment.
Ahhh so that's why I can't drive my tree.
ChrisWere100 1 week ago
a tree and a car?... what would happen if one of the men honestly believed they were a woman... would it still be a gay marraige?
dogman123andrew 1 week ago
Thumbs up for all inclusive SUPER MARRIAGE!
ZEDW1 2 weeks ago 4
You know what is a napkin? A different colored napkin. White napkins, red napkins, multicolored too! A napkin's a napkin, no matter the hue.
RolandGridley 3 weeks ago
Zinnia, I would love to see you have a debate with Santorum. It would be epic for sure.
theopenmind05 1 month ago 2
Comment removed
Chayraz2 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I am so sorry that as an infant and toddler, you had to be raised in a day care center. It was unfortunate that your parents divorced in your adolescence.... it was not your fault!
You should just be happy that your Father got so much pleasure out of his boat. Got enough money yet for the voice change operation?
MormonFaith101 1 month ago
Comment removed
MormonFaith101 1 month ago
Comment removed
tiicklemyfancy 1 month ago
"But an argument against incest and polygamy is not an argument against gay marriage; and it's also not a napkin."
Ahahahahahahahah
I'd love to see santorum's response to this
lembradoh 1 month ago 3
Sooo... marriage is an *abstract" concept *detached* from Humans??? => (... since Sexuality IS Human concept therefore marriage should be detached from sexuality, ergo gender ) OR (Sexuality is NOT a human concept, but since humans HAS sexuality (therefore) WE should do the same as other animals... do they marry?)
phahah :)
borkoboyanov 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Im not married.... Im super married....bitch!
takawmiata 1 month ago
i usually agree with you but not on this...it is not only rong for 2 gays to be "married" but it is impossable...marriage IS DEFINED as a bond between a man and a woman...i have nothing against 2 men or wimen being togeather with ALL the legal benifits of marriage but they are not technically "married"
TheMrgreentoker420 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@TheMrgreentoker420 Why can't the definition of marriage be changed? That definition was made before people even knew about homosexuality. Things change and we need to adapt to the changes. Do you think that it's fair that heterosexuals have the right to marry someone they love and homosexuals can't. It's not fair. It's called equal rights. And don't say any of that bullshit like homosexuality is a choice. It's not a choice.
DAmicoJohnny 2 months ago
@DAmicoJohnny This will be fun. the fact that you think you can just change the deffinition of something makes you sound moronic. without deffinitions people would never have a universal language..(like i can call blue red but the words just mean something else 2 you, you know blue is blue i just called the colour you concieve as blue, red)also you reely think people didnt know about gays long ago?heard of a couple thousand year old book called the bible?
TheMrgreentoker420 2 months ago
@DAmicoJohnny and i dont think its fair that 2 homos dont have the same rights as 1 man and 1 woman..but i also dont want gays to come along and redefine a word because it has legal benifits, make there own word with all the same legal benifits. and actually if any gay man was smart enough to look at common law it states after living with someone for a certain ammount of time makes you legally bonded with all the benifits of marriage even if your with a woman and your not married
TheMrgreentoker420 2 months ago
@TheMrgreentoker420 This is typical "separate but equal" logic. People in a committed and loving relationship don't get married to reap tax cuts - they do so to express their union to the world. Telling them that "yes, you can have these benefits but you are not -married-" only creates a further divide.
volatileffervescence 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@TheMrgreentoker420 The concept of "marriage" been redefined since the dawn of civilization and is still vastly different from culture to culture, as was evidently put forward in this video. Adhering and coming up with (invalid) excuses for your arguments doesn't make them any less fallacious.
Your usage of words such as "homos" and incessant trolling completely discredits your standing ground and/or intellect, I'm afraid.
volatileffervescence 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@DAmicoJohnny oh yea and also i dont think homosexuality is a choice either...it is a chemical imballance in the brain
TheMrgreentoker420 2 months ago
You make an excellent, frothy arguement, and I agree completely.
VintageWhiteTerror 2 months ago
@VintageWhiteTerror but hes rong hes trying to redefine a word to suit his own needs...look up the fucking definition of marriage.
TheMrgreentoker420 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@TheMrgreentoker420 I looked up the "fucking definition of marriage" but the answer I found was "rong."
VintageWhiteTerror 2 months ago
@VintageWhiteTerror 1.The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.
2.A relationship between married people or the period for which it lasts
moron
TheMrgreentoker420 2 months ago
@TheMrgreentoker420 problem, retard? Here's a time machine- go back to 1950 when your idiotic views were relevant.
VintageWhiteTerror 2 months ago
@VintageWhiteTerror lmao personal attacks only mean you have nothing to argue(trollfaceemotion) i think zjemp said that hahahahhahh
TheMrgreentoker420 2 months ago
@TheMrgreentoker420 well zjemp is the authority on everything. PS, I noticed you like being "gay" and "smokin that moby dick." You seem to comment that quite a bit.
VintageWhiteTerror 2 months ago
@VintageWhiteTerror you are one creepy mothafucka
TheMrgreentoker420 2 months ago
@VintageWhiteTerror and i love being gay because the deffinition of gay can be defined as overly joyed as well moron lmao and yes i do love smokin that moby dick!!!!!!!!!!!
TheMrgreentoker420 2 months ago
@VintageWhiteTerror why dont you go research some way to dislodge your own penis from your butt instead researching me and weirding me out...
TheMrgreentoker420 2 months ago
I love listening to you videos, ZJ! (And I have to say, I just crack up everytime I hear you say super-marriage! >.<)
Mikerice260 2 months ago in playlist More videos from ZJemptv
heart shaped cup of tea, lol
inneedofakiss 2 months ago
"Super marriage" I love it :D
Fishtastic0303 2 months ago
@ZJemptv
V-22 Osprey, the BAE Harrier, the Yakolev 161, or any other VTOL aircraft. Good response, ZJ.
TheLogicStick 2 months ago
I would also like to point out that with this "logic" if you can call it that. Every straight couple that would like to get married should have to be tested to make sure that their bodies are compatible an able to have children together. If they are not then they would have to fall under the same form of thinking. Thoughts?
Superroovejero 2 months ago 2
@Superroovejero Oh good point!
Iemanonymous1 2 months ago in playlist More videos from ZJemptv
@274903 I certainly do not presume that married couples will raise children together, I know far too many who did not for me to do that. Almost none of the second marriages in my family have produced children, many of those include a post-menopausal woman, and no one has ever expressed that those older couples aren't "really" married because they don't fit the definition. Nor do I presume that gay marriages will not include raising children, because gay couples do it all the time.
avatarmn 2 months ago
the problem with this argument is that it dosnt considder that laws, which are man made, are different from other things. for example if we call a knife a moose, it will not change, and people who are against changing words liek that would say we are naming it incorrectly.but laws are different. if we start calling murder "the deliberate killing of anything, including plants and bacteria" we arnt just changing the name, we have changed what murder is,
oddmegan 2 months ago
Why would Santorum attempt to employ the law of identity on the word marriage? He only proved he understands neither logic nor marriage. Marriage is defined as the lawful recognition of a union between two people. In other words, the word marriage refers specifically to the lawful union itself, not the people united by it. Redefining marriage in a way that it violates the law of identity is useless anyways, unless Santorum is claiming that it should be outlawed for being "illogical".
ixamraxi 2 months ago
@274903 Are you familiar with any history at all? Aside from the crap religious leaders have been spoon feeding the--these days, willfully--ignorant masses low these many millenia, that is.
TomVodkaCollins 2 months ago
Technically Rick is dumber than you give credit for.
Think about it, the definition of marriage back in the day of when the Bible's laws were sacred and not used just for bigotry against homosexuals, included such instances of a man being forced to pay a father so he could be married to the woman he raped, that a man could have more than one wife, that a woman cannot marry more than one man. That a woman can be forced to marry the brother of her husband... you know.
sonic8005 2 months ago
You, my friend, are adorable. Keep it up!
UberDemon 2 months ago
There's a reason that we have the words monogamy and polygamy and polyandry -- it's because different cultures have different forms of *marriage" -- not only historically but right now there are societies where polygamous and polyandrous marriages are legal -- so necessarily the definition of marriage has to encompass, at the very least not only marriage between one man and one woman but between one man and multiple women and one woman and multiple men.
So Santorum is an idiot.
prodprod 2 months ago
I like napkins. Especially the paper napkins that I mindlessly throw away into the landfills of the american landscape.
MrBeautifulba1 2 months ago
@274903 Jesus Fucking Christ, you're stupider than Santorum.
fdasherv 2 months ago
Laziness or Trolling, maybe Rick is trolling? Oh wait, no he's serious.
Laughingblades 2 months ago
Lens out of focus?
mistoroboto 2 months ago
I miss having hair as long as zinnia's.....sorry....i have nothing to add to the vid...it's solid.
Niveous23 2 months ago
@274903 ``What are the key elements that have ALWAYS (even until now) made a marriage a marriage? A man and a woman devoting their lives to each other in the PRESUMPTION (Presumption does not entail it is mandatory) of bearing and raising children together.`` Not true. Some Native American societies have had same-sex marriage for thousands of years, and we allow infertile people to marry regardless of the fact that nobody presumes they`ll reproduce.
TheMessianicManic 2 months ago
@ZJemptv Win.
avatarmn 2 months ago
@274903 "All intensive purposes". You FAIL. Good day, sir. I SAID GOOD DAY!
avatarmn 2 months ago
There should be some kind of law in place that forces politicians to watch internet counter-arguments leveled against them. The world would be a much better place.
jmarr100 2 months ago in playlist More videos from ZJemptv
@jmarr100 Vote Peyote Party in 2012
MrBeautifulba1 2 months ago
Comment removed
ReptoidBoffin 2 months ago
Fighting for gay rights is like fighting for pedophiles rights. And do gays really need marriage?
Sidhilot 2 months ago
@Sidhilot wow... great job at completely missing the point. first of all saying that gay people and pedophiles are necesarily the same is rediculous. second of all it's has nothing to do with weather or not gay people NEED to get married it's the fact that they should be able to should they want to. if two people love each other, regardless of their sexual orientation, they should have the option of mariage available, end of discussion.
cristophershaffer 2 months ago
@Sidhilot consensual sexual relationships between two adults who love each other is in no way like sexual molestation of a minor. Do heterosexuals need marriage? Most of them end in divorce, a large number cheat on their partners, i was raised outside of wedlock and i'm about to finish a science degree, so clearly marriage is not necessary for raising children. Why shouldn't gays be allowed to marry? do you not value equal rights, freedom, justice and liberty for all?
ToraJutsu01 2 months ago
@ToraJutsu01 They have the freedom to marry the opposite gender.
Sidhilot 2 months ago
@Sidhilot they do indeed. What they lack is the freedom to marry whom they choose to marry, not who someone else deems as an option. Heterosexuals have the freedom to marry whomever they choose, Homosexuals do not. That is an issue of discrimination and a lack of equality. If i give you the option to do something you do not wish to do while denying you the right to do something you want to do based on some aspect of your person, then that is an act of discrimination.
ToraJutsu01 2 months ago
@hanksnow82 That's not a fact, hankie, that's an assertion that you haven't been able to back up or prove or basically manage to make look credible in any way. I do love that you seem to believe I engaged in that argument with you...You just parrot the same responses to everyone, huh? I guess that's what you do when have no argument and are hoping that you can use repetition to annoy people into giving up on reasoning with you, so you can then fool yourself into thinking you've "won". So sad.
TheGnomeNome 2 months ago
@TheGnomeNome The fact that homosexuality has no benefit to society is unequivocal not an assertion . Your inablity to deal with the facts seems to be the source of great angst for you when there repeated . I suggest you get therapy because the facts never change .
hanksnow82 2 months ago
@hanksnow82 You still don't know what fact means, I see. Do you know what "angst" means? I assume you don't, seeing as you're using both words where they don't apply. Keep on repeating yourself, Hank. Unfortunately, sheer will alone isn't going to magically make you have a point or sound halfway credible, but it sure as hell is amusing to watch you keep kidding yourself that you do.
TheGnomeNome 2 months ago
This is one of the smartest, most well-reasoned arguments that I have seen on YouTube. Every point was made well and backed up perfectly. Then, the ending was brilliant!
RCSVirginia 3 months ago
@RCSVirginia If that is the smartest, most well-reasoned arguments you've heard you are a retard .
imN0Ttheone 3 months ago
@hanksnow82 speaking of which,we should also get rid of the infertile bunch,wouldn't want their useless genetics to carry...oh wait
Narutopivotz 3 months ago
@Narutopivotz Infertility is rarely genetic (less then 2% ) and when we do come across it we don't promote it or throw a pride parade for it .
hanksnow82 3 months ago
@hanksnow82 gays are about 3-5 percent. yet infertility isn't shamed or restricted from legal rights,no one cares if you can produce kids or not,but they do care if you have a different orientation.From what I see,baby making has nothing to do with any gay marriage things
Narutopivotz 3 months ago
@Narutopivotz Wrong again . According to the two largest and most reconized studies ever done in North America homosexual only comprise about 2 % of the population ( Canadian Govenment . Gay by the numbers ) and ( Center for Disease Control Atlanta . fact sheet 2009 ) Homosexuality has no benefit to society and as such should not be sanctioned by or promoted by society . Those are the facts now deal with it .
hanksnow82 3 months ago
@hanksnow82 Thanks for the info(for an imprecise measure), but if its percent is similar to infertility ,how was infertility rare status even relevant?You also didn't address anything else i said,could you please explain how homosexuality lacks contributions that , races,infertility,hobbies,legal drugs,and other things DO?Our government is for the people,not for the people making da babies. and what do you mean ''wrong again''couldn't you at least attempt not to come off hostile,trying to talk
Narutopivotz 3 months ago
@Narutopivotz Wrong again . There is nothing imprecise in my statement . One study says the number is 1.9%the other 2.1% so saying they both say about 2 %is very accurate unlike your numbers which were pure bull shit . It is not possible to prove a negative as you should have learned in high school . Homosexuality has no benefit to society in anyway and thats why we should never endorse it or sanction it .
hanksnow82 3 months ago
@hanksnow82 and you did it again..a the very least,read past my first sentence
Narutopivotz 3 months ago
@hanksnow82 You're a troll. Correct?
Xentrolis 3 months ago
i like how you managed to argue it without pointing out the definition of marriage he uses has also been radically changed, with the whole, race thing .Unless he objects to that also..
Narutopivotz 3 months ago
You sound like a guy, it even looks like you have an adam's apple.
MrJacobchamp 3 months ago
@hanksnow82 You seem to have "fact" confused with "made up shit that would prove my point if it were true". Normally I'd assume most people know what a fact is, but you ARE an idiot, so I figured you could use the extra help. You're welcome. Oh, and no, I don't want to try "agin", whatever that is. Perhaps you ought to, though, if it'll do something to beef up that one lonely brain cell you have there so that it may help you form a fraction of a reasonable thought.
TheGnomeNome 3 months ago
I'm not entirely for gay marriage, but only because I'm also also not entirely for straight marriage. Gay or straight, get over your sexuality, and find out who you REALLY are. I guarantee, you are not the result of gender or preference. Those are mere distractions. Put away the damn lipstick and quit arguing with idiots about things that don't matter. You're gay, so what, get over it.
VegetoStevieD 3 months ago
water isn't beer, tacos aren't burritos, and a creampie isn't a santorum, we get it
TheRepublicOfUngeria 3 months ago
@karopex did I say it was a problem? I still don't if it's a he or she or even both
280az 3 months ago
I think I have found my new favorite political commentator!
manicsquirrel 4 months ago
Oh right
280az 4 months ago
wtf why is he dressed/styled like a woman
280az 4 months ago
@280az I'm under the impression that she is a transgendered woman.
Roverpup 4 months ago
@280az Because he wants to.
Minecraft4life1000 3 months ago
@280az He wants to. He likes it. Problem?
Karopex 3 months ago
Marriage Why is it that both sides want to have a Marriage to be some thing for only them?
I do not under stand Why People Need the Word or title Marriage to define there personal life, It is only a word so why do people put so much stock is such a small word?
person9742 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@person9742
"Why is it that both sides want to have a Marriage to be some thing for only them?"
Your question itself is wrong. Gay people do not want marriage to be "only for them." Do you get that?
"why do people put so much stock is such a small word?"
Because marriage is a legally recognized institution that grants couples certain rights.
infideluxe 4 months ago
@person9742 It's not about just the word or title. It is mostly about equality and legitimacy. Under the law gay people are not allowed to marry and are thus exempt from the legal benefits of marriage. Gay people aren't fighting for the word "marriage" we are fighting for equality, not from our peers, but from the law.
NitoriKun 4 months ago
@NitoriKun Everyone has the right to marry anyone they want of the opposite sex . No one has the right to marry someone of the same sex . The reason for that is there is no benefit to society from homosexual marriage . Any other questions ?
hanksnow82 3 months ago
@hanksnow82 Yes. Why, specifically, is there no benefit to society from homosexual marriage, and what specifically benefits society about heterosexual marriage? If the argument is that a homosexual couple can't produce children between themselves, why do we allow infertile people, or people who chose to remain childless to get married? If the argument is that only a couple who are both bio-related to a child can provide a stable family, why allow adoption, or divorce for couples with kids? Thx.
VegaCoyote 3 months ago
@VegaCoyote What i said twice already on this video is there is no benefit to homosexuality and thats why society should not promote it or sanction it . Therefore there should be no homosexual marriage . Next question .
hanksnow82 3 months ago
You're not a napkin or a female
hanksnow82 4 months ago
@hanksnow82 But you're definitely a bigot and an idiot.
TheGnomeNome 3 months ago
@TheGnomeNome LOL . Still upset from when i gave you a slap down before ? lol . Like i told you, go get an education and come back and try again .
hanksnow82 3 months ago
@hanksnow82 By "giving me a slap down" you mean "made a complete and utter fool of yourself", right? Because I'm fairly certain that's about the only thing you've ever managed to accomplish. It's okay, even though following all of ZJ's videos just to make comments displaying your ignorance and bigotry and doing it from not one, but TWO accounts is making you looking extremely pathetic, I'm sure you're actually too stupid to realize that this is how you're coming off, so that's all right.
TheGnomeNome 3 months ago
Should've mentioned the bits in the Bible where God seems cool with polygamy and incest...
TilleyFedora 4 months ago
"Why not allow nieces and aunts to marry?" That man is so fucking ridiculous that it seems like it should be impossible to be that ridiculous.
shrikechan 4 months ago
Oh, Zinnia. Your logic is wonderful. I wish more people would watch your videos. (Looking at you, Michele Bachmann!)
Tamugetsu 4 months ago 8
Google Santorum. They got him back!
Tatsuyoujo 4 months ago
hey Zinnia! good video. Many good points, and good luck with the move!
socialskillswill 4 months ago
why are all of your videos complaining about christians.. or complaining about being a fag??
pholmes113 4 months ago
You're amazing.
DuffleMuffins 4 months ago
"And it's also not a napkin." haha, I see what you did there...
AkiKaza3829 4 months ago
you are brilliant, Zinnia!
lensherr82 5 months ago
I love your videos and I love what you do to create awareness and support for gay marriage! But I have to point out that you're taking a very dim view of polygamy and perhaps unfairly so. Not all polygamy is abusive, rooted in conservative religions or non-consensual. If two people can fall in love, get married, have children, build a life and grow old together, why not three or ten? Beats me.
aligateronline 5 months ago 2
The much-vaunted "essence of marriage" has already changed: how many polygamous relations are there in the Bible? Well, I didn't count them, but a good answer is "all of them". How many repudiations of polygamy in favor of monogamy are there in the Bible? ZERO.
Now, why is polygamy illegal? I wonder...
StrikaAmaru 5 months ago
@StrikaAmaru Google ( Bountiful polygamy trial ) and you can see where they are deciding wther or not to legalize polygamy in Canada next week .
imN0Ttheone 5 months ago
@imN0Ttheone Yeah, and Mormons were polygamous since the beginning, law be damned. That wasn't the point; the point is that "the essence of marriage" has nothing to do with the Bible (or morality, but I'd rather not open that can o' worms).
It could translate into "the way things always were around here", which is probably why the Western world is monogamous in the first place, but not the Bible.
StrikaAmaru 5 months ago
@StrikaAmaru I'm an atheist so the bible crap is lost on me but i can see why there should not be homosexual marriage
imN0Ttheone 5 months ago
@imN0Ttheone I'm also atheist, and i can't see why there shouldn't be homosexual marriage. Care to explain?
Gelgisith 4 months ago
@Gelgisith Homosexuality has no benefit to society and for those with soicialized health care it is a huge drain on medical resources .
imN0Ttheone 4 months ago
Whenever incest, polygamy,or other nonstandard types of relationships or marriages crop up while someone is defending homosexuality, I always get a bit excited to see what happens next.
Either A) the person decries those nonstandard forms, B) They make no statement one way or the other about them, or C) defend them, in addition to homosexuality.
(A) usually goes along with a drop in respect for the person.
(B) is the same as A, because the person is a wimp
(C) My respect goes way up for them.
Clawdragoons 5 months ago
not to be a douche or anything, but whats up with your voice??
minion5891 5 months ago
@minion5891 His voice seemed the same as it has always been. Are you a new viewer by chance?
Clawdragoons 5 months ago
@minion5891 He has always sounded like that. I reckon its due to him reading the text. You can see it from the way his eyes go left and right. Kinda like it, makes it sound like a text to speech function of a computer ;)
puckman 5 months ago
@puckman o_o he? i feel like a special kid now -.-
minion5891 5 months ago
This has nothing to do with the topic but..... I love your hair in this video XD
RabbitsandCrows 5 months ago
I think that we should allow up to 100 people to Marry each other! I also think we should allow marriage between man/woman & Beast! If you do not agree with me, OK. But please, I would prefer it if the usual American "Bible/religious nuts" did not bother to send me advice on morality. I've had enough `religion` thanks. How about living your own life and keeping your nose out of my ass?
terrygand 5 months ago
@terrygand Marrying animals? I'm not sure I see the point. While people can certainly feel very strongly towards their pets or whatever, it seems unlikely that the pet could really consent to marriage. That consent is important in my opinion.
Smischmal 4 months ago
@Smischmal .....mmmm I do agree with your point on `consent`, however, when it comes to eating the bodies of animals,do we ask for their `consent` ? It always amazes me (A Vegetarian), that people who condemn "Beast sex" are the first to eat the same Beasts that they claim to `represent` ! I wonder sir/madam , are you really concerned about the welfare of beast, or, are you more concerned about "Forcing" your opinions (Using threats of private/ state sanctions),on others? Freedom ?
terrygand 4 months ago
Comment removed
Smischmal 4 months ago
@terrygand Hmm. You make an interesting point.
Though I'd like to point out that I didn't actually condemn "Beast sex", I merely was wondering what would even be the point of marrying a non-human. Between human beings, marriage represents a mutual relationship of love and commitment and has certain tangible legal benefits. When one member of a marriage owns the other (in both a practical as well as alegal sense) I fail to see why a marriage is necessary or even makes sense.
Smischmal 4 months ago
@Smischmal Thanks for your reply. What I wonder, is the point of marrying a Human? Why not just live together? Why the `phony` piece of paper/certificate? I personally would not marry/have sexual relations with an animal,however, there is (in my opinion), no harm in it. Providing the Beast is in no way injured by the "Get together". I know women who do have sex with a horse,a dog(different women!), and they have told me they prefer their non human lovers ! I wish them ALL well!
terrygand 4 months ago
@terrygand Well, living together is nice, but as I said before, there are quite a number of legal benefits of marriage that wouldn't really pertain to a human/non-human pairing. That's why marriage equality is a gay *rights* issue.
Look up "Rights and Responsibilities of Marriages in the United States" on Wikipedia for a comprehensive list. As you look through that list, note that essentially none of those benefits have any point at all when one of the members isn't a person.
Smischmal 4 months ago
@Smischmal Thank You, for your interesting comments & advice. However,i have no intention (or any interest), in looking at the site you have recommended; i`m sure it would be interesting but, as i am a UK citizen, I think it would be irrelevant in my jurisdiction. I don`t go around trying to upset people,however, I do not care what other folk think about my relationships; I really don`t ! What if someone marries a Tree? Would it matter ? Would/should anyone care? I don`t care!
terrygand 4 months ago
@terrygand Nor do I.
It's just that recognizing marriage with a dog, or a tree, or a pillow, or any other non-person would be a completely pointless effort that would require substantial political pressure to bring into effect. It seems like even bringing up the topic only serves to distract people from more pressing issues, such as the issue of marriage equality for same-sex couples or recognition of polyamorous relationships. Other than that, it is of course a benign, albeit pointless action.
Smischmal 4 months ago
@Smischmal Indeed! We must also remember that many people( Black people, Jews, Gays,Gypsies,Single mothers etc),have had to `struggle` for equality when, many people thought it was OK that those groups did not have equality with the majority. What one generation thinks is "Pointless" & unimportant; the next generation may `evolve` to accept as OK, even if the subject is `unusual`. I speak from experience.
terrygand 4 months ago
Lookin' good, girl.... dude... DIRL!
geminyo 5 months ago
Santorum was just trying to confuse people.
jawj4291 5 months ago
What you said. Seriously. That's pretty much exactly what I have to say about this. I've tried explaining this to people time and time again, but I've never been able to do it with this sort of clarity.
Bttscks 5 months ago
Week call it smarige! Yayyy!
NmkCrAzY 5 months ago
Does anyone else, every time you hear Santorum think about Dan Savage's definition?
Brizdyn 5 months ago
@Brizdyn Every. Single. Time.
Smischmal 4 months ago
what the fuck is going on
hellopellos 5 months ago
so are you a top or a bottom?
kingdomwinds 5 months ago
@kingdomwinds FFF SEME OR UKE. *pervy face*
KittiesMakeMeSquee 5 months ago
@kingdomwinds Top or bottom? Depends on what part of the garage you're repairing. The question was about making repairs I assume. Someone should introduce you to a little thing called common decency.
Thomas
tdfisk 5 months ago
@tdfisk no im asking the guy if he takes it up the ass or give it
kingdomwinds 5 months ago
@kingdomwinds I know what you were asking. Again, you need to learn some common decency. I wonder if you would have the balls to say that to someone's face. I've only had one person say that to me and he spent two weeks in the hospital. I have always had zero tolerance for gay-bashers and I have beaten many to a bloody pulp. If you think all gays are just victims, think again.
Thomas
tdfisk 5 months ago
@tdfisk first of all, this is the internet, and people can say whatever they want. Also, how is asking him if he is top or bottom considered gay bashing? Finally, I do carry a piece with me so violence is probably not a good idea.
kingdomwinds 5 months ago
@kingdomwinds You're filthy use of language and asking extremely personal things clearly indicates gay bashing. You carry a piece, how paranoid of you. I don't carry weapons, I don't need them even though I'm getting quite old and disabled. Guns don't frighten me, I'm been in too many battles including hand to hand. Hey, but if you come back in October when I'm in a Halloween mood, you might just sound scary.
Thomas
tdfisk 5 months ago
Wait so is this a man or a woman?
TheSantaKruz 5 months ago
@TheSantaKruz Those categories aren't really mutually exclusive or collectively exhaustive.:)
She's a woman.
/watch?v=g1gukLnbAIY
Smischmal 4 months ago
@Smischmal
No, I'm pretty sure it's a male.
TheSantaKruz 4 months ago
@Smischmal
No, I'm pretty sure it's a male.
TheSantaKruz 4 months ago
@TheSantaKruz classic dehumanization tactic. I bet you are a wonderful person to know in real life.
endthedisease 4 months ago
@endthedisease
No, I'm pretty sure when I'm wondering if a human being is of the male gender, that has nothing to do with dehumanization. You clearly don't know what that word even means.
TheSantaKruz 4 months ago
@TheSantaKruz you said it. Stop trying to backpedal.
endthedisease 4 months ago
@endthedisease
Yes, I said it. I said, is this a man? Purely pondering this person's gender as it is hard to tell from ugliness. No dehumanization there, stop using big words you don't understand. Nobody is backpedaling here. ;)
TheSantaKruz 4 months ago
@TheSantaKruz
There's actually a video addressing this by ZJemptv, though I can't really see how it's relevant to this video.
jakebowkett01 4 months ago
Napkins are useful.
samOFblorx 5 months ago
Strange... People go to some archaic book to define marriage as "between ONE man and ONE woman" but in this same book there were people who had several wives. Does this seem contradictory to anyone else?
boyceps 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Is there some kind of discipline to harden your nerves and steady your vigilance in the midst of face to face confrontation?
astraltarsier 5 months ago
Is there some kind of discipline to harden your nerves and steady your vigilance in the midst of direct face to face confrontation?
astraltarsier 5 months ago
I meant to type " Still, I feel you would fare better than I in direct confrontation with a person diametrically opposed to YOUR views."
astraltarsier 5 months ago
It's not so difficult to sound articulate, bold and unshakeable when you're reading to a camera; though certainly not nearly as easy as just writing a comment. Still, I feel you would fare better than I in direct, face to face confrontation with a person diametrically opposed to my views. Probably in part because making these videos has helped you flesh out your own views. I'd like to know your thoughts on nurturing steadfastness in the face of adversity. Is there some kind of dicipline to
astraltarsier 5 months ago
fags shouldnt marry
santorum is god
DarkBazil 5 months ago
Nah. RSantorum is more like a prophet. X-D
shackupyourstruly 5 months ago
You're pretty and smart.
astraltarsier 5 months ago
I'm no mind reader, but I can reasonably assume that RSantorum believes not so much that "Marriage is what the Bible says it is." It's more like: "Marriage is what I say it is, so get on board, or get out of the way."
shackupyourstruly 5 months ago
did yo move, or is it just the background that is new?
workescapist 5 months ago
I had a family member counter that marriage is about reproduction. I countered that 80 year old straight couples are not discouraged from marriage. This ended that argument quickly. Your vid offers fantastic logical insight as well. And I am also not a napkin.
baconccookie 5 months ago
Whenever I heard that, I used to imagine government-mandated annulments for infertile couples.
shackupyourstruly 5 months ago
What??? What's wrong with polygamy?? Insest for reproduction is inherently dangerous otherwise wtf? Who cares what two or more concenting adults do
Lordpoison67 5 months ago
Not necessarily 'inherently dangerous', since not all recessive traits are dangerous. The ones that are die off, or leave fewer offspring.
shackupyourstruly 5 months ago
You can lead a bigot to logic, but you can't make him think.
Darrylizer1 5 months ago
Anti-gays will always exist. You can't fix stupid.
BassKilla47 5 months ago 2
My penis is so confused.
Shinyafreak 5 months ago
Great piece per usual, Zinnia... my only thought is that real biblical, 'traditional' marriage IS polygamist. Polygamy had fallen out of fashion by the time of Christ, but it's not banned anywhere in the Bible...
Of course, that's a book that's A-Ok with slavery, so I'm not sure why anyone is still using it as their ultimate moral guide...
Oruboris 5 months ago 2
That's a marriage amendment I can support. "Marriage is not a napkin." I'm sure we can all agree on that, and it certainly would have less opposition than, say, that first-ish amendment.
MtnCurProductions 5 months ago