Looking back, I wish I had asked my parents to vote no on 8. I don't think they voted at all, but since I'm not old enough to vote....I wish I had asked a bunch of people that ARE to vote no.
Yes there is something wrong with the word GAY! And second of all, I'm sorry but I think you're mistakening. You're suppose to vote YES on PROP 8 to BAN gay marriage, b/c we don't want it in CA!
My grandmother is a 65 year old mormon, and she is for gay marriage. I have an amazing grandma. hahaha She told me that she used to have a friend who was gay a while ago, and I said "Grams, how'd you know?" and she said, "Honey, you know I have that gaydar." And I BUSTED UP! hahaha We we're in San Fransisco at the time :P
Right on scramasboy! Most people go off about the gay marriage issue without EVER meeting or talking to a gay person. I think that it should be a requirement to do so before going off about whether being gay is a choice or not. Ignorance is truly ugly!
"EQUALITY FOR ALL?" Great, fine, make it legal for people to marry whoever they want. Let relatives marry one another. Let polygamist marry as many people as they want.
You can't make a legal execption for one group of people and deny it to others.
That is DISCRIMINATION. That is HATE.
DON'T DISCRIMINATE!
A law that would extend the PRIVELEGE of only letting Gays and Lesbians marry DISCRIMINATES against other people. Those who say is would not are either ignorant or HYPOCRITICAL.
Okay, just because you are letting gays get married does not take that right from anyone else. And how are you stopping any other group? Seriously interspecies is just fucked up, family members already HAVE a family together and actually its not illegal for two people with the same last name to get married. Even if its not right. And in some countries, people can marry as many people as they want. They can do it here too. Of course they do it secretly or under another name. But still.
If you are goig to make a major change to society and state law, then you have to do it for everyone, if you only do it for one group, that is discrimination.
Homosexuals that cry "equality for all" and whine about discrimination that don't support marriage for EVERYONE are hypocrites and loose any validly in their argument for "equal rights." If you're going to make such a major change, then do it for everyone otherwise leave it alone.
If Polygamy is banned, people can still marry, but only marry ONE person at a time. First cousin marriage is legal in 26 states ,while ALL states allow marriage of second cousins . There is no valid reason or argument for gay marriage to be banned. None whatsoever.
There is no argument against close relationship marriage, that's why it's legal in the majority of states.
Polygamy is pulling at straws. I'd have no problem with it, but it's obviously not an issue in modern day America. If it was, then people would be campaigning for it to be legalized.
"Equal rights for all" means exactly what it says. EQUAL. One person, one marriage (the way it has been for years). NOT one person, one marriage, no gays.
Close relationships are not legal in most states. Name one state where you can marry your brother, sister, mother, father, grandparent, grandchild. Some states allow you to marry a first cousin after age 55, but thats it.
Again, why just limit it to one person. If you are going to change the word marriage for one group, why not the other. That is fair and equal thing to do, if you are going to change law.
stana: Ok. So let's take this into perspective. If I call for the rights of apples and not oranges, does that make me a hypocrite? What about elephants and bendy straws? Because everyone knows that elephants and bendy straws are the same exact bloody thing. So it makes perfect sense that people who decry elephants but support bendy straws are so obviously hypocrites. Yeah... makes perfect sense.
Ever realize that the losing side of a moral arguement attempts to ride the fame of celebrities who have no real personality or brain of their own? Celebrities JOBS are to do what they are told by definition! They are ACTORS!
Why does everyone keep calling me ignorant? Is that your new favorite word or something...I KNOW the facts guys. I just disagree with you. What now, are you going to label me "ignorant" or "dumb" or "homophobic" or "evil," just because of my point of view? You win! Happy now?
nadene, just because youre logical and have common sense, doesn't mean that everyone will understand you. it's an uphill battle against leftists who brainwash themselves. im glad cali is thinkin straight.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
She is an embarrassment to the Korean community. She represents everything that the community don't want their children to be. Most people in the community hates the fact that she is the most visible Korean in America. Her views and values are not what the overwhelming majority of Koreans agree with. She couldn't hack it as a member of the Korean American community (be thin, beautiful, or smart) and sold out big time to the white mainstream American liberal party. We can do without her.
I AM A PROUD ASS HOLE GET IT RIGHT GAY IS NOT A CHOICE IT'S WHAT YOUR SICC MIND MAKE YOU THINK THAT and i am tried of people saying they where born gay so you saying god made in perfect people i don't think so.... CONGRADULATIONS ON THE PEOPLE WHO CAME OUT AND VOTE THE RIGHT WAY WHICH WAS yes on 8 and i mean that.one man and one woman let god plan it.. I KNOW YOU GOING TO LASH OUT ON MY COMMENTS SO WHAT I DON'T CARE
nobody cares about your aincient old fashioned four hundred year old grandmother point of veiew and guess what I think its pretty safe to say that Cho is not waking up in the moring and saying " hmmm waht can i do to better represent the "Korean Community" she is not tied to nationalism in the way that you are. she is a free thinking independant woman, so perhaps in that way if All koreans are aincient grannies with sand in the vagina, then yes, shes not repsresentational.
AEGIOUS please go drink Drano or something, Extreme Homophobia according to the APA is considered a form of mental illness, you are a drain on society, not ass pirates you fool
sick of hollywood hype trying to influence you and tell you what to believe, then join me in boycotting hollywood and all of it's no on 8 supporters. Make it clear that they need to learn to shut up and keep their opinions to themselves. Not all of hollywood is liberal defend conservative actors and actresses right to believe! Ban the Boycott and boycott them instead! I would also like to state I do not live in california so people in california do not recieve any backlash from this.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Marriage has always been about raising the next generation. 1 man: 1 woman leads to father/mother/kids as the ideal for kids. Sorry, but a masculine woman is still a woman and thinks like a woman, not a man. And a feminine man is still a man and thinks like a man. Kids enter this world via a man and a woman, not 2 men or 2 women as gays cannot reproduce; only str8s can. Heterosexuality is best for society and should remain the ideal in marriage.
So infertile people, or people who don't have any plans as of yet to have kids, shouldn't be allowed to marry? And old people?
The ideal marriage used to be that only white people should get married, does the western world really have to drag bigots like you towards sanity now?
Actually the ideal marriage has always been that it was male-female. Societies base ideals based upon what is best, not what exceptions may occur. And as for bigots and sanity, sorry, but it is quite sane to have marriage remain as 1 man: 1 woman as that is what is best for society and for children. What is insane is stating that a woman can be a father figure or a man can be a mother figure.
The ideal marriage? Which is a twisted way of saying of your view of marriage. It used to be illegal for black people could marry, are you against that exception?
It's also sane, and a lot safer to not have religious bigots making laws because they cant deal with different people.
Ok, lets take children away from single parents, since it's obviously wrong to allow single parents to be parents.
Wrong. Black people were able to marry, but only to Black people. That is race and is irrelevent as it didn't go against the ideal. In the Bible Moses married a Black woman. I never stated that kids should be taken away from single parents, but 2 parents are better than 1. I already described that w/same-sex marriage children will be deprived of either a mom or a dad and heterosexuality will be put en par with homosexuality. Heterosexuality leads to kids and new generations. Gays don't.
BTW, my view is twisted? My view has been around for 1000s of years. The idea of same-sex marriage has NEVER been around until very recent times. Same-sex marriage doesn't take into account the needs of society for new generations for its survival, nor the need or right of children for both mothers and fathers. Via history, biology, evolution and nature, same-sex marriage is the real twisted view as it isn't mating as marriage is really human mating.
BTW, two persons of opposite sexes yet different races can raise children as mother and father and actually PRODUCE KIDS. Two men or two women cannot produce kids on their own or raise them as mother and father. Race is trivial. Sexuality is the most important part of the psychological being. What is twisted and insane is comparing race and sexuality which gay 'rights' activists frequently do and it's ludicrous to compare gays' situation in 2009 to Blacks in 1959.
and for that matter im not even sure why its so important to you that more children are produced in the first place? Does the world really need more mouths to feed? Why does it matter if gays can't have children? And actually they CAN have children. Just because you are gay does not mean that you can not have sex with someone of the opposing gender. I know more than one lesbian moms where the father of the children is still actively involved in the childs life.
Can two gay men or two gay women produce kids on their own? No. And soceity needs new generations of kids that gays CANNOT PROVIDE FOR. that is the point. Kids also need both mothers and fathers and gay couples cannot provide for both.
Thank you for the compliment. I love being called bigoted jackass by gay 'wants' activists who have no concern for the needs of society or of children and only for their selfish wants.
Bahaha, what makes you think I'm gay? I used 'we' in reference to the human race. WE don't want people like you.
You say 'gays cannot provide for' the new generations of kids... well.. STRAIGHT people can't provide for kids. How many kids are born out of wedlock, and the father is nowhere to be found?
I'd rather have 2 dads or 2 moms than a mom and no dad. I'd rather be in a loving household than one filled with resentment and abandonment.
None of what you stated invalidates my points. A mother and father can provide a loving home and most kids aren't born out of wedlock. The ideals should be maintained as they are best for society. That is what matters here. What is best for kids and for society, not what do certain adults want. If we put the needs of kids beneath the wants of adults, our civ. doesn't deserve to survive. Gays don't need marriage as 1/7 are opposed and marriage leads to kids anyway.
BTW, regarding bigotry, there has been a lot of bigotry from the gay 'wants' groups: harassment, vandalism and invasion of churches; people forced from their jobs; extortion of businesses such as El Coyote in LA; the use of the N-word for Blacks at rallies and frankly the insulting ad nauseum of str8 couples for their probs. while deliberately ignoring that gays have similar probs. I have personally known gays who were victims of abuse by their partners.
Yes, I do think that I have encounterred a lot of bigotry from gays against str8s here on YT!, most notably mocking us, trashing us, exaggerating whatever probs. we may have to the fullest possible while ignoring that they have the same probs. if not worse and not showing any gratitude for the fact that we brought them into this world, not the other way around. Shame on them.
Good. You deserve it. You in essence tell them that their feelings are worthless, immoral, and against some ideal some big man in the sky apparently enforces.
Tell me. Are your ideals religiously based or is this COMPLETELY for social/childrens' reasons? If it's the latter, you're full of shit, and if it's the former, you're the one who should be ashamed.
I guess what's best for kids and society is for only men and women to love one another, get married, and to have sex. It must be missionary, and they both must have their eyes closed. It can't last for more than 3 minutes, as that would be immoral.
A man and a man can provide a loving home as well, if you haven't noticed. A woman and a woman can provide one, too. By 'ideals' you mean RELIGIOUS ideals? Who exactly are 2 guys hurting when they marry each other? What exactly is so horrible?
Its not as if when gay people are allowed to marry that everyone would stop being straight or that there would some how be a shortage of babies. Regardless of what the law is, there will always be generations of new children, so really there is no legitimate reason to worry about that, is there?
I would like to thank the anti-8 people with their vacuous hate as they call me a bigot. When Leftists call someone a bigot, the term is worthless as they made it worthless by declaring anyone who differs w/them on anything at all in any way as a bigot. They have diluted the term and made it worthless.
BTW, non-Whites have also always gotten married and marriage has always been about raising kids. Showing concern for society and children is prudence and compassion, not bigotry.
A comment I left here yesterday is not showing up... I didn't even post a yorl address, I merely _described_ how to find it by putting on the Internet Goggles.
@kiwisunshine "Above all,you can't stop gay couples from having kids" that is true-- things like biology, and reality seemed to have already done it.
Many studies have already shown that 2-parent, mom-and-dad homes offer the best chance of success. That particular diversity in parents is important for healthy envn. for children (kids' chances are more important to me than what you are calling marital "rights").
What are these studies?Who did them?What was the data for these studies?How were they preformed?How exactly were the kids effected?Is there an actual segnificant difference on how the kids turned out?Are the gay individuals bad as parents themselves or is it the nature of being a same-sex couple?How did they know?Diversity of gender or diversity of sex(yes,they're 2 different things)?Did they have transgender, intersex, & androgyne couples?
Utube comments don't allow URLs but I recommend Google; plenty of studies out there. At least one even done by a gay man. Kids more likely to turn to crime/alcohol/drugs, that sort of thing. But forget about the studies because you don't like their conclusions, rite? Gay people may even have the ability to do some parental things well, as anyone, but cannot provide the basics like diversity of parental gender, as their very unions discriminate against gender-diverse parents from the get-go.
You didn't awnser my questions,you only awnsered one.One of my important questions were who did them, how were the studies preformed, & what is the logic/reasoning on why the results turned out the way they did. From what I've found,the only studies that are like you've mentioned are from religious radicals & anti-gay groups.I've not found a study that isn't obviously biased.There are many factors that are most likely providing the negative results such as society's homophobia/isolation.
Your use of "gender diversity" is raping the dictionary. Not allowing ppl to marry & be parents based on their gender is what is discrimination. Heterosexuals are not being discriminated in any way, don't bullshit me. You have not explained why & how "gender diversity" is important in the 1st place.All you're doing is enforcing gender roles.Sex "diversity" is not the same as gender "diversity". Butch et Femme relationships exist, females can be manly & males can be girly.
Same-sex couples ARE INDEED included in the definition of marriage. This comes from the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary:
mar•riage \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\ (n.) 1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage
So much for changing the definition of marriage, huh?
Marriage has ALWAYS been about how the next generation is to be raised. Andrea Yates in an anamoly, so it's irrelevent. Of course gays can raise kids, but gay couples cannot provide a mom and dad as str8 couples can. All love should be ideal? Okay, why not incestual love then? Why not polygamy? Heck, why not beastiality then?
Marriage is a privilege as mutual consent is required. It's not a right. If a person says "no", there is no marriage. Privileges aren't rights.
Marriage has ALWAYS been about the needs of society for new generations and about how kids are to be raised in EVERY SOCIETY in history. It has never been solely about the couple itself. Str8 couples can reproduce and that is why str8 couples are better for society as the ideal than gay couples. Str8 copules can provide moms and dads that kids are entitled to. Gay couples cannot provide for both.
In marriage there are also requirements and restrictions. cont...
Is becoming an airline pilot a right? That requires mutual consent with the pilot and the company and the gov. There are restrictions and requirements for the pilot that need to be overcome for the license. Of course not. The same applies to marriage. Just as being a pilot is a privilege, so is getting that marriage license. a privilege and NOT a right.
Do I have the right to force a person to marry me? No. I need that person's PERMISSION first and permission denotes privilege.
Not allow for beastiality love if all love is ideal? 1)There are groups like PETA that equate humans and animals. 2)Many people get along much better with animals than other people. 3)A relationship does exist between a pet and the pet's 'companion'(I prefer 'owner', but that's me.). So since all love is now the ideal, why not a pet and the companion of the person?
The gay community has done its share of "discrimination" against an entire group of people: NAMBLA. In fact, the gay community at large has completely ostracized them for many years running now. Marriage only for some gays, but not others?
Don't play dumb on the reasons why kids shouldn't & can't marry. Its not because its different or taboo, its because its forced marriage. NAMBLA wants to marry kids, that is forced marriage. Marriage draws a line at consent, being willing to get married to a person. Kids can't consent thus they can't marry. When the kids are at the age of consent, then they can marry.
What you call "playing dumb" is just me trying to speak in terms you can understand, because there's a lot of us talking past each other going on. How is it necessarily "forced marriage" when children are involved, that's only if you accept "old fashioned traditional antiquated notions" that children have no say in the matter. True, I'm not actually for NAMBLA/"civil rights of age-challenged people" but for the same reason I don't see why I have to be for gay marriage either. "Equality" my ass.
This is the double standard ot these pro-Gay/pro-Liberal Holywood agenda. When Gore won the popular vote (meaning by majority), they were mad and they even wanted a COnstitutional amendment to do away with the Electoral College. Now that the MAJORITY of Californians, Mormons and non-mormons voted for Prop 8, they want to repel the popular vote. Please make up your mind people.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
As children are born into this world via a mother and father, that is why they are entitled to a mother and father. That is also how mammals having been raising children for the last 100 million years - with moms & dads, not just either. Str8 love is better for society than gay love as str8s produce kids. Gay couples don't & can't. That is why str8 love should be the ideal for society and marriage should remain as 1 man: 1 woman. BTW, a privilege is NOT a right at all. Only a fool would think it
Alright so only marriages that produce children should be legal? I guess the elderly, infertile couples, and people who just don't want kids shouldn't get married either. I think you're onto something, let's stop all those people from getting married to. Make it so that in order to get married you MUST produce a child. sounds simple enough, eh?
How do you know whats best for society? Marriage is a right not a privilege. Gays were probably put here by god to adopt children that are in orphanages. they are unfortunate of not having a mother or father. SO gays should be able to get married instead having to pay all these fees to help children out of the situation they are in.
Everybody here thinks your biased.. I see your point and i think you are making a very one sided point.. If you don't like gay marriage then just mind your own business.. why do you have to go and spread your nonsense all over?.. especially such monotonous biased remarks..
Marriage isn't a right, but it is a privilege. 2(in some societies more) must mutually agree via permission and the state must permit pending restrictions and requirements. Marriage is also about how children are to be raised as the ideal of 1 man: 1 woman leads to father/mother/children. Gay couples cannot provide for both mothers and fathers, that children need and are entitled to, nor produce children, so str8 love is better for society than gay love & should be the ideal for kids and society
Gay couples cannot ever provide for both mothers and fathers. which children need and are entitled to. Gay couples cannot produce children, so str8 love is better for society than gay love and str8 love should be the ideal. Marriage should remain 1 man: 1 women for the sake of children and of society.
Children do not NEED a mother and a father and, considering many divorces result in sole custody of one parent, they are obviously not ENTITLED to them either. Infirtile couples cannot produce children either, should they be allowed to marry? Considering gay people are a part of society, i think it's safe to say that gay love is just as good for society as straight love.
It's easy to have the view you have when the "majority" doesn't piss all over your rights isn't it?
Yes they can, even all studies done gays raising kids have confirmed this. What about orphans? Don't kids at least deserve 2 parents instead of none? This is the real world mind you. Gays aren't infertile. All love should be ideal, all you're talking about is superficial, you're judging by appearences.
Marriage is between the couple, not children & not society. You're assuming that all straight couples good at raising kids, fertile, & going to raise kids. Andrea Yates, need I say more?
Marriage is not between the couple (reciprocally), it is between the couple on one side and society on the other. Otherwise couples would just shack up and not ask society's permission, because there'd be no point.
"Don't kids at least deserve 2 parents instead of none?"
Kids "deserve" both a mother, AND a father. It is wrong to discriminate and deprive children one of each, leaving them with a lack of diversity in their household.
Marriage is between the couple & the law.Law & society are 2 different & separate things.Should blacks have asked their society during the 1940s to marry their white partner?
Kids deserve 2 loving & caring parents regardless of what they are.You're discriminating on the sex of the parents. Than same-race & same-religion marriages be illegal then.You're depriving them diversity!
Same sex couples can/often are quite diverse, sex doesn't define diversirty.Diversity means more than appearences
Blacks during the 1940's? If they were trying to marry someone of the same gender then um YEAH.
btw I am not the one "discriminating on the sex of the parents". Read what I said: I am for diverse-gendered parents. "Same sex couples can/often are quite diverse" actually NO they are not, by um DEFINITION. Why are you for depriving some children mothers, and others, fathers? Your intolerance for diversity erodes your stance's integrity. "Oh but my BEST FRIENDS are so diverse!" yeah whatever.
No, you're purposly missing the point.Ppl were restricted of marrying based on race, now its on sex.Many same sex parents are diverse-gendered.What about opposite sex parents that aren't diverse-gendered?Definition of what?Diversity isn't defined by sex.Gay ppl are one of the most diverse ppl.Why are you depriving kids of moms & dads?W/o gays,many orphans wouldn't have parents.You're saying it as if I'm divorcing a couple. Inforced diversity is intolerance of natural non-diversity.
"Many same sex parents are diverse-gendered." Uh... actually no, they are not. btw there is no such thing as "Opposite sex parents that aren't diverse-gendered". "W/o gays, many orphans wouldn't have parents" this is a valid point I suppose- the state has little choice maybe, however it is Less Than the ideal of providing them w/ more healthy environment of Diversely-gendered parents. Why are you so anti-children? Discriminate against NAMBLA, don't care about kids' healthy upbringing etc?
You're confused.Gender & sex are 2 different & separate things,wiki it.Its called transgendered when your sex doesn't match your gender.Ambigender or genderless is when you don't fit into a gender.Theres also intersex & androgyne.You haven't explained,proven,nor given evidence on how same sex couples can't/don't provide a healthy environment & how exactly the kids are effected.Your ideal is just YOUR ideal & no set of parents are ever perfect.Above all,you can't stop gay couples from having kids
Oh I'm confused? I must be because all those definitions don't change reality nor biology: A child may only be produced by a man and a woman (the "man" and "woman" are the parents). You can go and label me a "lesbian trapped inside a man's body" or whatever, but it still won't change that fact. You sure like to dress up sexual identities as you discard mothers and fathers, just don't call it "diversity" because that is disingenuous. Please don't piss on my head and call it rain.
So what you're saying is that a black male transgender drag queen & a Buhddist Japanese male androgynous are not diverse and that allowing these people to marry is depriving children of diversity & that this is intolerance against diversity.
I'm not diverse, I'm a bisexual polyamorous childfree marriage-free Atheist Republican! But hey, my friends are heterosexual white Christains, that makes them so diverse!
Aegius, "Marriage isn't a right, but it is a privilege"? First of all, a right is a privilege. It's just the right of a particular group of people. Secondly, that figure of speech is usually used in the context where something has to be earned and not just given. Straight people do NOT earn their right to marry and, in fact, many do a very poor job of it.
"Gay couples cannot provide for both mothers and fathers, that children need and are entitled to, nor produce children, so str8 love is better for society than gay love & should be the ideal for kids"
Lets stamp this one "Ignorent" shall we?
That statement assumes ALL strait married couples want to have children and that ALL strait married couples are good parents. Gay couples who dont want children have the right to marry as well. Barren women can marry correct? Gays can be good parents
who really cares who gets married!!?? no one is telling us heteros you who to marry or not marry. Why should anyone think they get to decide what goes on in one's private life !?!? Pierre Trudeau said - Governement doe not belong in the bedrooms of the people.
Thankfully I live in canada where i can marry whomever i wish, and so can my gay friends!
Yin-yang is a dynamic equilibrium. Because they arise together they are always equal: if one disappears, the other must disappear as well, leaving emptiness. This is rarely immediately apparent, though, because yang elements are clear and obvious while yin elements are hidden and subtle.
If straight and gays are Yin and Yang, thats a distorted equilibrium. In this context, gays are more like parasites, because they still have to depend on a man & woman to create a child. There is no way around it. And I just want to say Margaret Cho is the worst comedian to date. I dont see how her career lasted this long because she is not remotely funny.
Well, Margaret Cho is only funny to people who believe in strange things like joy and happiness and that newfangled equal rights business. Not to, yaknow, douches like you.
comedians and politics are like wearing plaids with stripes. They just dont mix. Plus she still is not funny. She cant tell a good joke. The asian girl role doesnt work for her. Her jokes are too long just to get to the punch line. She is almost as bad as when Mr. Miyagi (RIP) tried to do stand up in the early 90's. Her show in the mid-90's was cancelled quick because she wasnt funny then. (Bet you forgot she had a sitcom then.) She needs to study how others are funny and do her homework.
lol absolutely! Even in the State Of Florida, Amendment 2 (that bands gay marriage) was worded very strangely, many people didn't know whether to vote "yes or no." I found it tough because I expected it to be something that i voted yes for, yes for gay marriage ;) But it was a ban on gay marriage? it just seemed very wrong when i read it... i had to ask someone if that was right, so I asked a black lady that worked there, and she tried to trick me into voting yes for the banning of gay marriage!
When will you gays understand that your living in a global conspiracy, HM 50 pentagrams on the American Flag,Bush and his family publicly hold up the satan hand sign, a pentagram carved into the center of the Pentagon from an aerial view. Satan and his people control the earth 1 john 5:19 and they are building a population for the Antichrist who the bible says will be a gay Homo life leads to possesion Romans 1:26-28 & Ephesians 2:2.B born again or miss the rapture and b persecuted n a FEMA camp
I voted yes on prop 8 and im not mormon LOL I dont know why yall think that this is a racial issue it isnt marraige has always been between a man and a woman and shall forever stay that way. Whats wrong with you people Isnt a fact that man and another man cannot reproduce? Is that not evidence enough that your so called lifestyle will not work what more do you need. Yall need some serious help I dont understand how some dudes wake up in the morn with there butt hurtin after having d@#k up theass
hasn't it occured to you that because something's always been some way, doesn't mean it can't change?
the only reason you think marriage is between a man and a woman is because society has defined it that way. i'm sure you're well not aware that in greece and rome, it was common to have both male and female partners, and a man could marry a man and vice versa. only christianity changed that.
okay lets see here lets use an example what happens when a father and a father raise a daughter and one night the daughter comes to the fathers and says fathers why am I bleeding from my vagina. Remember these are men who tryna ACT like women but the truth is they arent so what do they do how can men try to fulfill womens roles in the family if they arent WOMEN. Just because they act feminine doesnt mean they fit the role of a mother
Why do you mistakenly believe that either man acts feminine? It's not a requirement for a same-sex relationship. There's nothing inherently feminine about doing laundry or dishes or cooking; every bachelor does these activities too. And it's not hard to explain the sex organs, menstruation and sexual activity. I'm a guy and I understand how menstruation works and you do too. Women understand how male ejaculation works. There's nothing that inherently makes this men's work or women's work.
mayne can u give birth too probably not never will happen dude. sorry u can only do so much as man u need that woman by your side to complete the fam. A man was meant for the women that is your opposite you put two people of the same gender the end result you get nothing but lustful desires. The children deserve a mother and a father until the day you a man can have that baby then we will accept gay marraige. But can you make it happen is the question.
So a family does not exist unless they have children? And without family one can't get married? You know this isn't right, so don't waste our time with this silly argument.
Stable relationships are key for family. Legal protections help stabilize relationships. Open communication does too. Gay advocates are fighting for legal protections to stabilize relationships and make it possible for them to remove children from Foster Care and give them a healthy childhood.
A man taking a penis into his anus is acting in a passive role. He is receiving the reproductive organ of another man, an organ that is meant to secrete fluid that produces child. A man's anus is made to expel waste, not have things inserted in it. Additionally, a woman has no extended genitalia, except the breasts, and cannot produce a child without the seed of the man. There's an underlying difference between men and women that transcends daily activities, whether that be reproduction or..
If a man's anus is made to expel waste, what of a woman's? Is it socially unacceptable for a woman to receive the penis during anal sex? The quantity of this sort of porn that is available says no.
What of the mouth? Or masturbation? You're once again conflating reproduction, sex and relationships. They are correlated, but they are not the same.
Same-sex parents raise children as well or better than mixed-sex parents. This has been shown time and time again. The stable relationship is the key.
Same goes for women. Do you think that porn reflects what sexual values should be held? Regardless of the amount of porn being produced, do you find porn, sexually deviant acts being publically supported to the extent that homosexuality is? Do you think they should be?
By what criteria are children raised well?
I call your research regarding same-sex parenting into question. First of all, it's a young area of research. Secondly, I request some proof, preferably from a scientific journal.
These are good points. I'm not arguing what's right or wrong. I'm discussing what is actually socially accepted. Until we can all agree on which interpretation of which religious text is the one true one, that's the best we can do in the context of a secular government, which is what the First Amendment established.
For your second set of questions, search for children same-sex parent on Google Scholar. The studies go back some 30 years and are very consistent.
I am arguing what is right and wrong, and that is the difference. While those who merely assert social opinion live in the future, those who move forward with the truth in their eyes gain victory and the world.
But then you run into the problem of evolving concepts of right and wrong. Slavery is the most overused example, but lets go back to Greco-Roman sexuality. Penetration during sex was the manifestation and expression of the penetrator's authority over the penetrated. This is no long accepted as a valid interpretation of the sex act. It has become wrong to think of sex as an expression of a power dynamic; as Americans it is right to think of it as an expression of love between equal partners.
I think it still is a valid interpretation, whether anyone else does or not. To some extent, concepts of right and wrong have evolved, but there are universally right and wrong concepts, e.g. killing one's parents, stealing, lying, cannibalism, rape. There have been exceptuions to each one of these, yet for the most part they have been held throughout humanity's history.
Killing one's parents -> Even if they are homicidal sociopaths?
Cannibalism -> An entire tribe of Papua New Guineans ate the brains of the vanquished foes to steal their power; Aztecs fed their victims to the Gods
Again, you can't apply the average to every situation. Usually right doesn't mean universally right and that means it's not universally applicable. Life is full of gray areas and our laws should reflect that.
Sure, there are grey areas, but like I said, there are general patterns of behavior that human beings follow for their own good. All those are exceptions, but you neglect to see how things work most of the time.
So, do you think that because these people did not adhere to certain behavior that they were right to do so? Even the homocidal sociopaths killing their parents? do you endorse that? I doubt it. Do you endorse eating other people's brains? I doubt it. Do you endorse stealing?
Anyway, what I mean is that we can't rely on our own moral compass to force our moral values on other people. We have to be able to objectively justify our stance. A lot of research has gone into human sexuality and it all very consistently supports the arguments of gay rights advocates. The self-destructive so-called "gay lifestyle" is a learned response to repression by society, not a unavoidable result of being gay.
But this means that if the same-sex relationship is as stable and as healthy as the mixed-sex, it is just as legitimate and as worthy of social recognition. Otherwise, you're arbitrarily forcing your own beliefs on other people - and the majority of people disagree about something when it comes to morals!
And again, the objective research consistently shows same-sex couples are as stable and as healthy, no more, no less.
So what grounds have you for subjecting non-believers to your morals?
Men could not marry men in ancient Greece. You are wrong. Christianity had little to do with the abnormality of homosexual relations, it has always been an anomaly in most life forms.
Read up on the third sex among Plains Indians in North America and then talk to me about how this was considered abnormal about "always". Then read up on ancient Greco-Roman concepts of sexuality or even pre-Darwinian concepts of homosexuality. They were very different than how we think of them today.
California Family Code 297.5 (a) says that those registered as "Domestic Partnership" have the same rights, benefits, etc as a traditionally married couple. Domestic Partnership is an variation that stemmed off of traditional marriage. Two compare the two, its just like having a restroom for a male and a female. Both are the same, but one is men, while the other is for women. So what more do you want? Stop trying to shove your sexuality down our throats. We respected your area. Respect ours.
Bzzt. DP's aren't portable without tying up legislatures in arcane legal agreements and even then, they're not terribly stable, so you're still restricting the pursuit of economic betterment by gay and lesbian couples. They also require co-residency, a stipulation not placed upon married couples. And the modern employment environment means lots more couples need to live apart to get ahead. So again, you're hurting gays and lesbians needlessly.
wth? America was established and formed by Christians. When they says Equal right according to the Gods law didnt mean gays getting married. like blacks being freed is equal right because its not a sin. 2nd people born gay still ahve choices. I know this guy that was born gay and is now streight because he prayed like crazy to God and God fixed it. So saying "i was born gay" is another excuse not wanting to be streight. another thing, God doesnt hate people, he says love one another but hate sin
so are you saying gay people who struggle with homosexuality don't pray hard enough? Because I ask God every day to take away these feelings. And youy are right America was formed by christians who fled from religious persecution. and now they are using their religion to persecute. how ironic
You don't pray your way to different brain structures, neurochemical levels and hormone levels. You don't pray new pheromone receptors.
Either your gay friend is actually bisexual, or he's hiding and ignoring his desires and pretending to love someone he doesn't actually love. Either way, you're grossly mistaken.
Further, slavery was not considered a sinful activity for nearly two millenia of Christianity. We were wrong about slavery. Why can't we be wrong about homosexuality?
i have heard many pastors say that the passage was simply "misinterpreted"
seems like that's always the excuse the religious people use when they're holy book is proven wrong. when the earth was proven to be round, when it was proven the earth ISN'T the center of the universe, and so on.
so you know ONE guy? that's not very convincing. let me give you some facts
most of the gay people WANT to be straight, but they rarely end up happy or fail to become straight. why would someone choose to be gay? does it seem like a very appealing lifestyle to you? do YOU want to get picked on in high school or get excommunicated from your church?
Most well adjusted gay people do NOT want to be straight. They understand that their sexuality is perfectly healthy, natural and normal, albeit in the minority.
They understand that they are not alone, that gays and lesbians have existed in every society in every land throughout history (and we can reasonably expect pre-history as well).
Well adjusted gays are not self-destructive and interact well with gay and straight people alike.
No problem. And sorry for pouncing on you there. There are just so many misconceptions about gays and lesbians and I don't want to give even the appearance of implicit support for grossly harmful sexual orientation reparative therapy.
To be precise then, many CLOSETED gays want to be straight. Gay people who have come to terms with their inherent sexuality simply have no desire to be straight, any more than a well adjusted left handed person longs to be right handed.
What you don't understand is that homosexuality has never been a sexual-choice openly endorsed or supported for long periods of time. Even the ancient Greeks who homosexuals say were for homosexuality, thought it laughable that a man would be in a long-term sexual relationship with another man. Inevitably one man would have to adopt the passive female role, which is unnatural.
"passive female role, which is unnatural." This is correct. Gender is always defined by society, so male and female roles are always totally unnatural. They are always constructed and they vary wildly across time and place.
So while two males in the male gender couldn't wed, as long as one assumed the female gender role, they could - and it wasn't considered homosexuality either.
Wrong. It is evident that gender and sex go hand in hand. There has never been a conspiracy to make women something and men something else. Gender roles have arisen from the biological limitations humans are born with and nothing else. The male member corresponds to an active role - that of penetrating. The female genitalia corresponds to a passive role - that of being penetrated.
No conspiracy, but every society has gender roles. African women do most of the heavy labor now. In some societies, men raise children. You're now conflating sexual acts with all of the rest of life's activities, and as before, there is not a 1:1 correlation.
Being a woman doesn't prevent someone from serving in the military and fighting; ask any adult Israeli woman. Being a man doesn't prevent him from being empathetic; ask any male psychiatrist.
You have a point, but sex limits the expressions of gender. Again, the penis is an active reproductive tool, while the vagina is passive and receptive. There is no getting around that. Also, I would argue that there is a set of behaviors for each gender that are universal in all cultures. At the very least, there are patterns. Women are more emotional, physically weaker, and predominate the home. Men are physically stronger, and predominate the public sphere.
not at all. the whole point of a man and a woman is to reproduce. but just because something normal doens't mean it isn't right.
the way i think of it is that who in there right mind would choose to be gay? to be shunned from community like that? the bible says a lot. a lot that pretty much everyone doesn't follow. it also says to grow that piece of hair out. woops guess your all going to hell because your hairs short. God is love not hate.
WHY SHOULD WE TRUST AN ASIAN!
AurumP0testasEst 9 months ago
Margeret and selena are so adorable! hahaha <3
vim92 1 year ago
Looking back, I wish I had asked my parents to vote no on 8. I don't think they voted at all, but since I'm not old enough to vote....I wish I had asked a bunch of people that ARE to vote no.
ILovePinkDaSinger22 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I don't like gays, but this was a decent commercial.
ZoneTHS 2 years ago
Selene is so adorable
lilclarinets 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
m83 Sure I've seen the rest of this video at fieryvid [dot] com
ThatParker 2 years ago
I voted NO on 8.
latequilera22 2 years ago 22
bye.
patmold 2 years ago
bye.
patmold 2 years ago
yes on communisim all day fits too with you yes on h8 people
idaman12345 2 years ago
instead of calling you the yes on 8 people you should instead call yourselves the yes on hate people
idaman12345 2 years ago
marriage in the us use to be white man and white woman, wife was property and divorce was illegal why not go back to that?
idaman12345 2 years ago
no you narrow minded bigots are the lost cause
no on hate
no on prop 8
idaman12345 2 years ago
people dont choose what they are sorry
idaman12345 2 years ago
Yes there is something wrong with the word GAY! And second of all, I'm sorry but I think you're mistakening. You're suppose to vote YES on PROP 8 to BAN gay marriage, b/c we don't want it in CA!
WatchTherefore 2 years ago
watchtherefore...honey listen i may not ant gay marrige in CA but i do!
jackthayer 2 years ago
My grandmother is a 65 year old mormon, and she is for gay marriage. I have an amazing grandma. hahaha She told me that she used to have a friend who was gay a while ago, and I said "Grams, how'd you know?" and she said, "Honey, you know I have that gaydar." And I BUSTED UP! hahaha We we're in San Fransisco at the time :P
scramasboy 2 years ago 13
Right on scramasboy! Most people go off about the gay marriage issue without EVER meeting or talking to a gay person. I think that it should be a requirement to do so before going off about whether being gay is a choice or not. Ignorance is truly ugly!
peaceispatriotic7 2 years ago
I completely agree. :)
scramasboy 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"EQUALITY FOR ALL?" Great, fine, make it legal for people to marry whoever they want. Let relatives marry one another. Let polygamist marry as many people as they want.
You can't make a legal execption for one group of people and deny it to others.
That is DISCRIMINATION. That is HATE.
DON'T DISCRIMINATE!
A law that would extend the PRIVELEGE of only letting Gays and Lesbians marry DISCRIMINATES against other people. Those who say is would not are either ignorant or HYPOCRITICAL.
stanademas 2 years ago
Okay, just because you are letting gays get married does not take that right from anyone else. And how are you stopping any other group? Seriously interspecies is just fucked up, family members already HAVE a family together and actually its not illegal for two people with the same last name to get married. Even if its not right. And in some countries, people can marry as many people as they want. They can do it here too. Of course they do it secretly or under another name. But still.
JoshPJ 2 years ago
Name one group that doesn't have the rights to marry other than gays.
JoshPJ 2 years ago
Polygamist and close relatives
If you are goig to make a major change to society and state law, then you have to do it for everyone, if you only do it for one group, that is discrimination.
Homosexuals that cry "equality for all" and whine about discrimination that don't support marriage for EVERYONE are hypocrites and loose any validly in their argument for "equal rights." If you're going to make such a major change, then do it for everyone otherwise leave it alone.
stanademas 2 years ago
If Polygamy is banned, people can still marry, but only marry ONE person at a time. First cousin marriage is legal in 26 states ,while ALL states allow marriage of second cousins . There is no valid reason or argument for gay marriage to be banned. None whatsoever.
nymphaluna 2 years ago
If there exists valid arguments against polygamy or close relationship marriage, then those same argument exist against gay marriage.
Why just ONE person?
The gay community is preaching "EQUALITY FOR ALL" and crying out that "PEOPLE SHOULD MARRY WHO THEY WANT."
If they truly believed in those ideals and principles, they would support marriage for all groups and not just homosexuals.
Those who say differently are hypocrites.
stanademas 2 years ago
There is no argument against close relationship marriage, that's why it's legal in the majority of states.
Polygamy is pulling at straws. I'd have no problem with it, but it's obviously not an issue in modern day America. If it was, then people would be campaigning for it to be legalized.
"Equal rights for all" means exactly what it says. EQUAL. One person, one marriage (the way it has been for years). NOT one person, one marriage, no gays.
nymphaluna 2 years ago
Close relationships are not legal in most states. Name one state where you can marry your brother, sister, mother, father, grandparent, grandchild. Some states allow you to marry a first cousin after age 55, but thats it.
Again, why just limit it to one person. If you are going to change the word marriage for one group, why not the other. That is fair and equal thing to do, if you are going to change law.
stanademas 2 years ago
stana: Ok. So let's take this into perspective. If I call for the rights of apples and not oranges, does that make me a hypocrite? What about elephants and bendy straws? Because everyone knows that elephants and bendy straws are the same exact bloody thing. So it makes perfect sense that people who decry elephants but support bendy straws are so obviously hypocrites. Yeah... makes perfect sense.
Fluffypear 2 years ago
Ever realize that the losing side of a moral arguement attempts to ride the fame of celebrities who have no real personality or brain of their own? Celebrities JOBS are to do what they are told by definition! They are ACTORS!
darthspeaks 2 years ago
so true.
sintetsu 2 years ago
never realized what a thick neck margaret has.
Michellekai79 2 years ago
Why does everyone keep calling me ignorant? Is that your new favorite word or something...I KNOW the facts guys. I just disagree with you. What now, are you going to label me "ignorant" or "dumb" or "homophobic" or "evil," just because of my point of view? You win! Happy now?
NadeneDramaQueen 2 years ago
nadene, just because youre logical and have common sense, doesn't mean that everyone will understand you. it's an uphill battle against leftists who brainwash themselves. im glad cali is thinkin straight.
sintetsu 2 years ago
Finally! At least someone is being reasonable...
NadeneDramaQueen 2 years ago
the only ones brainwashing themselves or anyone else are the conservatives
"protect the sanctity of marriage"
come on if you want to do that ban divorce not gay marriage
idaman12345 2 years ago
Misleading Nadene? It pretty much just explains what a yes and no vote meant.
FightForHope 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
this is absurd
misleading ads like these disgust me
yes on 8
NadeneDramaQueen 2 years ago
Wow thanks for the laugh.
Idiocy is the best form of humor.
Fyrstorm180 2 years ago 3
Are you trying to say I'm an idiot for having an opinion? Ha. I rest my case...
NadeneDramaQueen 2 years ago
Nope. Your hypocrisy is just hilarious.
Fyrstorm180 2 years ago
This comment is ironic to the point that either you are a hilarious satire writer or incredibly ignorant...
Spiffylee 2 years ago
Margaret i want your baby!!!
thiagojlle 2 years ago
Margaret, you're awsome! Always willing to fight for what's right, and always throwing a little humor into the mix. BTW...Love the Tats!!!
Rba2086 2 years ago
PS the only koreans that are embarassed are conservative fuck wads. please go play in traffic and then jump off a bridge
poosaypirate 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
She is an embarrassment to the Korean community. She represents everything that the community don't want their children to be. Most people in the community hates the fact that she is the most visible Korean in America. Her views and values are not what the overwhelming majority of Koreans agree with. She couldn't hack it as a member of the Korean American community (be thin, beautiful, or smart) and sold out big time to the white mainstream American liberal party. We can do without her.
sluttybog 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
YES ON 8 ALL DAY CALIFORNIA DID A GREATT JOB.
I AM A PROUD ASS HOLE GET IT RIGHT GAY IS NOT A CHOICE IT'S WHAT YOUR SICC MIND MAKE YOU THINK THAT and i am tried of people saying they where born gay so you saying god made in perfect people i don't think so.... CONGRADULATIONS ON THE PEOPLE WHO CAME OUT AND VOTE THE RIGHT WAY WHICH WAS yes on 8 and i mean that.one man and one woman let god plan it.. I KNOW YOU GOING TO LASH OUT ON MY COMMENTS SO WHAT I DON'T CARE
MACCAPONE60 3 years ago
people are born gay
people like you choose to be ignorant
idaman12345 2 years ago
trust me, YOU CAN'T DO WITHOUT HER.
vim92 2 years ago
nobody cares about your aincient old fashioned four hundred year old grandmother point of veiew and guess what I think its pretty safe to say that Cho is not waking up in the moring and saying " hmmm waht can i do to better represent the "Korean Community" she is not tied to nationalism in the way that you are. she is a free thinking independant woman, so perhaps in that way if All koreans are aincient grannies with sand in the vagina, then yes, shes not repsresentational.
poosaypirate 2 years ago
Selene Luna is a firggin legend!
Always makes me laugh!
GunsAndPumpkins 3 years ago 3
THANK YOU MARGARET CHO JUST FOR BEING YOU!!!
AEGIOUS please go drink Drano or something, Extreme Homophobia according to the APA is considered a form of mental illness, you are a drain on society, not ass pirates you fool
poosaypirate 3 years ago 2
Mormons are gay, no on prop 8
Cinderskull27 2 years ago
I love my dog, can I marry that too?
moosy786 3 years ago
That's bestiality totally different category. I dislike that, polygyny, incest, and pedophilia/Ephebophilia.
BrownBrother27 3 years ago
Dogs aren't humans
KoutetsuTenshin 3 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
sick of hollywood hype trying to influence you and tell you what to believe, then join me in boycotting hollywood and all of it's no on 8 supporters. Make it clear that they need to learn to shut up and keep their opinions to themselves. Not all of hollywood is liberal defend conservative actors and actresses right to believe! Ban the Boycott and boycott them instead! I would also like to state I do not live in california so people in california do not recieve any backlash from this.
actheaterstudent 3 years ago
too bad it didnt fucking help. and fuck this rule, all should have the right to marrie no matter what sexuality they have ffs..
XxSonyCxX 3 years ago
WOW why the fuck do people have to ruin a completely good clip containing margaret cho with shit like this. Seriously people grow up.
Jigidk 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Marriage has always been about raising the next generation. 1 man: 1 woman leads to father/mother/kids as the ideal for kids. Sorry, but a masculine woman is still a woman and thinks like a woman, not a man. And a feminine man is still a man and thinks like a man. Kids enter this world via a man and a woman, not 2 men or 2 women as gays cannot reproduce; only str8s can. Heterosexuality is best for society and should remain the ideal in marriage.
Aegius 3 years ago
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
go to hell.
ilikepanda 3 years ago 2
So infertile people, or people who don't have any plans as of yet to have kids, shouldn't be allowed to marry? And old people?
The ideal marriage used to be that only white people should get married, does the western world really have to drag bigots like you towards sanity now?
GarethandSarah 3 years ago
Actually the ideal marriage has always been that it was male-female. Societies base ideals based upon what is best, not what exceptions may occur. And as for bigots and sanity, sorry, but it is quite sane to have marriage remain as 1 man: 1 woman as that is what is best for society and for children. What is insane is stating that a woman can be a father figure or a man can be a mother figure.
Aegius 3 years ago
The ideal marriage? Which is a twisted way of saying of your view of marriage. It used to be illegal for black people could marry, are you against that exception?
It's also sane, and a lot safer to not have religious bigots making laws because they cant deal with different people.
Ok, lets take children away from single parents, since it's obviously wrong to allow single parents to be parents.
Or we could, you know, be rational about this.
And how is gay marriage a problem for society?
GarethandSarah 3 years ago 2
Wrong. Black people were able to marry, but only to Black people. That is race and is irrelevent as it didn't go against the ideal. In the Bible Moses married a Black woman. I never stated that kids should be taken away from single parents, but 2 parents are better than 1. I already described that w/same-sex marriage children will be deprived of either a mom or a dad and heterosexuality will be put en par with homosexuality. Heterosexuality leads to kids and new generations. Gays don't.
Aegius 3 years ago
BTW, my view is twisted? My view has been around for 1000s of years. The idea of same-sex marriage has NEVER been around until very recent times. Same-sex marriage doesn't take into account the needs of society for new generations for its survival, nor the need or right of children for both mothers and fathers. Via history, biology, evolution and nature, same-sex marriage is the real twisted view as it isn't mating as marriage is really human mating.
Aegius 3 years ago
BTW, two persons of opposite sexes yet different races can raise children as mother and father and actually PRODUCE KIDS. Two men or two women cannot produce kids on their own or raise them as mother and father. Race is trivial. Sexuality is the most important part of the psychological being. What is twisted and insane is comparing race and sexuality which gay 'rights' activists frequently do and it's ludicrous to compare gays' situation in 2009 to Blacks in 1959.
Aegius 3 years ago
and for that matter im not even sure why its so important to you that more children are produced in the first place? Does the world really need more mouths to feed? Why does it matter if gays can't have children? And actually they CAN have children. Just because you are gay does not mean that you can not have sex with someone of the opposing gender. I know more than one lesbian moms where the father of the children is still actively involved in the childs life.
Whats wrong with that, exactly?
brainbow 3 years ago
Can two gay men or two gay women produce kids on their own? No. And soceity needs new generations of kids that gays CANNOT PROVIDE FOR. that is the point. Kids also need both mothers and fathers and gay couples cannot provide for both.
Aegius 3 years ago
You do know that there are straight couples that are a) infertile
b) sterile
or
c) don't want kids
BrownBrother27 3 years ago 2
people have babies ALL THE TIME
plus theres sterile people
and people who dont want kids
besides like i said before all the people who HAVE BABIES ALL THE TIME
believe me we will have no shortage of a generation
alotofcheese76 3 years ago
You're just a biggoted jackass, go away, we don't want you.
KoutetsuTenshin 3 years ago
Thank you for the compliment. I love being called bigoted jackass by gay 'wants' activists who have no concern for the needs of society or of children and only for their selfish wants.
Aegius 3 years ago
Bahaha, what makes you think I'm gay? I used 'we' in reference to the human race. WE don't want people like you.
You say 'gays cannot provide for' the new generations of kids... well.. STRAIGHT people can't provide for kids. How many kids are born out of wedlock, and the father is nowhere to be found?
I'd rather have 2 dads or 2 moms than a mom and no dad. I'd rather be in a loving household than one filled with resentment and abandonment.
KoutetsuTenshin 3 years ago 2
None of what you stated invalidates my points. A mother and father can provide a loving home and most kids aren't born out of wedlock. The ideals should be maintained as they are best for society. That is what matters here. What is best for kids and for society, not what do certain adults want. If we put the needs of kids beneath the wants of adults, our civ. doesn't deserve to survive. Gays don't need marriage as 1/7 are opposed and marriage leads to kids anyway.
Aegius 3 years ago
BTW, regarding bigotry, there has been a lot of bigotry from the gay 'wants' groups: harassment, vandalism and invasion of churches; people forced from their jobs; extortion of businesses such as El Coyote in LA; the use of the N-word for Blacks at rallies and frankly the insulting ad nauseum of str8 couples for their probs. while deliberately ignoring that gays have similar probs. I have personally known gays who were victims of abuse by their partners.
Aegius 3 years ago
Yes, I do think that I have encounterred a lot of bigotry from gays against str8s here on YT!, most notably mocking us, trashing us, exaggerating whatever probs. we may have to the fullest possible while ignoring that they have the same probs. if not worse and not showing any gratitude for the fact that we brought them into this world, not the other way around. Shame on them.
Aegius 3 years ago
Good. You deserve it. You in essence tell them that their feelings are worthless, immoral, and against some ideal some big man in the sky apparently enforces.
Tell me. Are your ideals religiously based or is this COMPLETELY for social/childrens' reasons? If it's the latter, you're full of shit, and if it's the former, you're the one who should be ashamed.
KoutetsuTenshin 3 years ago 4
Lawl. An extreme minority doesn't represent the whole group.
Unfortunately, the most offensive people speak the loudest.
Maybe stop taking away their basic human rights and they'd stop being so angry? I dunno. Seems awfully easy to me.
KoutetsuTenshin 3 years ago 4
I guess what's best for kids and society is for only men and women to love one another, get married, and to have sex. It must be missionary, and they both must have their eyes closed. It can't last for more than 3 minutes, as that would be immoral.
A man and a man can provide a loving home as well, if you haven't noticed. A woman and a woman can provide one, too. By 'ideals' you mean RELIGIOUS ideals? Who exactly are 2 guys hurting when they marry each other? What exactly is so horrible?
KoutetsuTenshin 3 years ago 5
Its not as if when gay people are allowed to marry that everyone would stop being straight or that there would some how be a shortage of babies. Regardless of what the law is, there will always be generations of new children, so really there is no legitimate reason to worry about that, is there?
brainbow 3 years ago
so then straight couples only raise straight kids right?
lol
alotofcheese76 3 years ago
I would like to thank the anti-8 people with their vacuous hate as they call me a bigot. When Leftists call someone a bigot, the term is worthless as they made it worthless by declaring anyone who differs w/them on anything at all in any way as a bigot. They have diluted the term and made it worthless.
BTW, non-Whites have also always gotten married and marriage has always been about raising kids. Showing concern for society and children is prudence and compassion, not bigotry.
Aegius 3 years ago
LMAO
KaptainChronic69 3 years ago
A comment I left here yesterday is not showing up... I didn't even post a yorl address, I merely _described_ how to find it by putting on the Internet Goggles.
dhalsim27 3 years ago
@kiwisunshine "Above all,you can't stop gay couples from having kids" that is true-- things like biology, and reality seemed to have already done it.
Many studies have already shown that 2-parent, mom-and-dad homes offer the best chance of success. That particular diversity in parents is important for healthy envn. for children (kids' chances are more important to me than what you are calling marital "rights").
dhalsim27 3 years ago
What are these studies?Who did them?What was the data for these studies?How were they preformed?How exactly were the kids effected?Is there an actual segnificant difference on how the kids turned out?Are the gay individuals bad as parents themselves or is it the nature of being a same-sex couple?How did they know?Diversity of gender or diversity of sex(yes,they're 2 different things)?Did they have transgender, intersex, & androgyne couples?
kiwisunshine5233 3 years ago
Utube comments don't allow URLs but I recommend Google; plenty of studies out there. At least one even done by a gay man. Kids more likely to turn to crime/alcohol/drugs, that sort of thing. But forget about the studies because you don't like their conclusions, rite? Gay people may even have the ability to do some parental things well, as anyone, but cannot provide the basics like diversity of parental gender, as their very unions discriminate against gender-diverse parents from the get-go.
dhalsim27 3 years ago
You didn't awnser my questions,you only awnsered one.One of my important questions were who did them, how were the studies preformed, & what is the logic/reasoning on why the results turned out the way they did. From what I've found,the only studies that are like you've mentioned are from religious radicals & anti-gay groups.I've not found a study that isn't obviously biased.There are many factors that are most likely providing the negative results such as society's homophobia/isolation.
kiwisunshine5233 3 years ago
Your use of "gender diversity" is raping the dictionary. Not allowing ppl to marry & be parents based on their gender is what is discrimination. Heterosexuals are not being discriminated in any way, don't bullshit me. You have not explained why & how "gender diversity" is important in the 1st place.All you're doing is enforcing gender roles.Sex "diversity" is not the same as gender "diversity". Butch et Femme relationships exist, females can be manly & males can be girly.
kiwisunshine5233 3 years ago
Sorry you lost the election.Ha Ha Ha.
DogSaliva 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Same-sex couples ARE INDEED included in the definition of marriage. This comes from the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary:
mar•riage \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\ (n.) 1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage
So much for changing the definition of marriage, huh?
Firestar120 3 years ago
Marriage has ALWAYS been about how the next generation is to be raised. Andrea Yates in an anamoly, so it's irrelevent. Of course gays can raise kids, but gay couples cannot provide a mom and dad as str8 couples can. All love should be ideal? Okay, why not incestual love then? Why not polygamy? Heck, why not beastiality then?
Marriage is a privilege as mutual consent is required. It's not a right. If a person says "no", there is no marriage. Privileges aren't rights.
Aegius 3 years ago
Marriage has ALWAYS been about the needs of society for new generations and about how kids are to be raised in EVERY SOCIETY in history. It has never been solely about the couple itself. Str8 couples can reproduce and that is why str8 couples are better for society as the ideal than gay couples. Str8 copules can provide moms and dads that kids are entitled to. Gay couples cannot provide for both.
In marriage there are also requirements and restrictions. cont...
Aegius 3 years ago
Is becoming an airline pilot a right? That requires mutual consent with the pilot and the company and the gov. There are restrictions and requirements for the pilot that need to be overcome for the license. Of course not. The same applies to marriage. Just as being a pilot is a privilege, so is getting that marriage license. a privilege and NOT a right.
Do I have the right to force a person to marry me? No. I need that person's PERMISSION first and permission denotes privilege.
Aegius 3 years ago
Not allow for beastiality love if all love is ideal? 1)There are groups like PETA that equate humans and animals. 2)Many people get along much better with animals than other people. 3)A relationship does exist between a pet and the pet's 'companion'(I prefer 'owner', but that's me.). So since all love is now the ideal, why not a pet and the companion of the person?
Aegius 3 years ago
The gay community has done its share of "discrimination" against an entire group of people: NAMBLA. In fact, the gay community at large has completely ostracized them for many years running now. Marriage only for some gays, but not others?
dhalsim27 3 years ago
Don't play dumb on the reasons why kids shouldn't & can't marry. Its not because its different or taboo, its because its forced marriage. NAMBLA wants to marry kids, that is forced marriage. Marriage draws a line at consent, being willing to get married to a person. Kids can't consent thus they can't marry. When the kids are at the age of consent, then they can marry.
kiwisunshine5233 3 years ago
What you call "playing dumb" is just me trying to speak in terms you can understand, because there's a lot of us talking past each other going on. How is it necessarily "forced marriage" when children are involved, that's only if you accept "old fashioned traditional antiquated notions" that children have no say in the matter. True, I'm not actually for NAMBLA/"civil rights of age-challenged people" but for the same reason I don't see why I have to be for gay marriage either. "Equality" my ass.
dhalsim27 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is the double standard ot these pro-Gay/pro-Liberal Holywood agenda. When Gore won the popular vote (meaning by majority), they were mad and they even wanted a COnstitutional amendment to do away with the Electoral College. Now that the MAJORITY of Californians, Mormons and non-mormons voted for Prop 8, they want to repel the popular vote. Please make up your mind people.
alexgomez2 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
As children are born into this world via a mother and father, that is why they are entitled to a mother and father. That is also how mammals having been raising children for the last 100 million years - with moms & dads, not just either. Str8 love is better for society than gay love as str8s produce kids. Gay couples don't & can't. That is why str8 love should be the ideal for society and marriage should remain as 1 man: 1 woman. BTW, a privilege is NOT a right at all. Only a fool would think it
Aegius 3 years ago
Alright so only marriages that produce children should be legal? I guess the elderly, infertile couples, and people who just don't want kids shouldn't get married either. I think you're onto something, let's stop all those people from getting married to. Make it so that in order to get married you MUST produce a child. sounds simple enough, eh?
seagullx18 3 years ago 2
How do you know whats best for society? Marriage is a right not a privilege. Gays were probably put here by god to adopt children that are in orphanages. they are unfortunate of not having a mother or father. SO gays should be able to get married instead having to pay all these fees to help children out of the situation they are in.
Timmyflare 3 years ago 2
Everybody here thinks your biased.. I see your point and i think you are making a very one sided point.. If you don't like gay marriage then just mind your own business.. why do you have to go and spread your nonsense all over?.. especially such monotonous biased remarks..
vim92 3 years ago
I love you Margeret Cho. Keep up the good work. As a gay Filipino American, I'm inspired by your courage.
Much love and thank you again,
Army MC
stageandfilm 3 years ago 2
Marriage isn't a right, but it is a privilege. 2(in some societies more) must mutually agree via permission and the state must permit pending restrictions and requirements. Marriage is also about how children are to be raised as the ideal of 1 man: 1 woman leads to father/mother/children. Gay couples cannot provide for both mothers and fathers, that children need and are entitled to, nor produce children, so str8 love is better for society than gay love & should be the ideal for kids and society
Aegius 3 years ago
actually i know a heck of a lot of gay couples that would be better parents then a lot of straight couples are
liber8me 3 years ago
Gay couples cannot ever provide for both mothers and fathers. which children need and are entitled to. Gay couples cannot produce children, so str8 love is better for society than gay love and str8 love should be the ideal. Marriage should remain 1 man: 1 women for the sake of children and of society.
Aegius 3 years ago
Children do not NEED a mother and a father and, considering many divorces result in sole custody of one parent, they are obviously not ENTITLED to them either. Infirtile couples cannot produce children either, should they be allowed to marry? Considering gay people are a part of society, i think it's safe to say that gay love is just as good for society as straight love.
It's easy to have the view you have when the "majority" doesn't piss all over your rights isn't it?
ffliz217 3 years ago
Yes they can, even all studies done gays raising kids have confirmed this. What about orphans? Don't kids at least deserve 2 parents instead of none? This is the real world mind you. Gays aren't infertile. All love should be ideal, all you're talking about is superficial, you're judging by appearences.
Marriage is between the couple, not children & not society. You're assuming that all straight couples good at raising kids, fertile, & going to raise kids. Andrea Yates, need I say more?
kiwisunshine5233 3 years ago
That is incorrect.
Marriage is not between the couple (reciprocally), it is between the couple on one side and society on the other. Otherwise couples would just shack up and not ask society's permission, because there'd be no point.
"Don't kids at least deserve 2 parents instead of none?"
Kids "deserve" both a mother, AND a father. It is wrong to discriminate and deprive children one of each, leaving them with a lack of diversity in their household.
dhalsim27 3 years ago
Marriage is between the couple & the law.Law & society are 2 different & separate things.Should blacks have asked their society during the 1940s to marry their white partner?
Kids deserve 2 loving & caring parents regardless of what they are.You're discriminating on the sex of the parents. Than same-race & same-religion marriages be illegal then.You're depriving them diversity!
Same sex couples can/often are quite diverse, sex doesn't define diversirty.Diversity means more than appearences
kiwisunshine5233 3 years ago
Blacks during the 1940's? If they were trying to marry someone of the same gender then um YEAH.
btw I am not the one "discriminating on the sex of the parents". Read what I said: I am for diverse-gendered parents. "Same sex couples can/often are quite diverse" actually NO they are not, by um DEFINITION. Why are you for depriving some children mothers, and others, fathers? Your intolerance for diversity erodes your stance's integrity. "Oh but my BEST FRIENDS are so diverse!" yeah whatever.
dhalsim27 3 years ago
No, you're purposly missing the point.Ppl were restricted of marrying based on race, now its on sex.Many same sex parents are diverse-gendered.What about opposite sex parents that aren't diverse-gendered?Definition of what?Diversity isn't defined by sex.Gay ppl are one of the most diverse ppl.Why are you depriving kids of moms & dads?W/o gays,many orphans wouldn't have parents.You're saying it as if I'm divorcing a couple. Inforced diversity is intolerance of natural non-diversity.
kiwisunshine5233 3 years ago
"Many same sex parents are diverse-gendered." Uh... actually no, they are not. btw there is no such thing as "Opposite sex parents that aren't diverse-gendered". "W/o gays, many orphans wouldn't have parents" this is a valid point I suppose- the state has little choice maybe, however it is Less Than the ideal of providing them w/ more healthy environment of Diversely-gendered parents. Why are you so anti-children? Discriminate against NAMBLA, don't care about kids' healthy upbringing etc?
dhalsim27 3 years ago
You're confused.Gender & sex are 2 different & separate things,wiki it.Its called transgendered when your sex doesn't match your gender.Ambigender or genderless is when you don't fit into a gender.Theres also intersex & androgyne.You haven't explained,proven,nor given evidence on how same sex couples can't/don't provide a healthy environment & how exactly the kids are effected.Your ideal is just YOUR ideal & no set of parents are ever perfect.Above all,you can't stop gay couples from having kids
kiwisunshine5233 3 years ago
Oh I'm confused? I must be because all those definitions don't change reality nor biology: A child may only be produced by a man and a woman (the "man" and "woman" are the parents). You can go and label me a "lesbian trapped inside a man's body" or whatever, but it still won't change that fact. You sure like to dress up sexual identities as you discard mothers and fathers, just don't call it "diversity" because that is disingenuous. Please don't piss on my head and call it rain.
dhalsim27 3 years ago
So what you're saying is that a black male transgender drag queen & a Buhddist Japanese male androgynous are not diverse and that allowing these people to marry is depriving children of diversity & that this is intolerance against diversity.
I'm not diverse, I'm a bisexual polyamorous childfree marriage-free Atheist Republican! But hey, my friends are heterosexual white Christains, that makes them so diverse!
kiwisunshine5233 3 years ago
Aegius, "Marriage isn't a right, but it is a privilege"? First of all, a right is a privilege. It's just the right of a particular group of people. Secondly, that figure of speech is usually used in the context where something has to be earned and not just given. Straight people do NOT earn their right to marry and, in fact, many do a very poor job of it.
ffliz217 3 years ago
"Gay couples cannot provide for both mothers and fathers, that children need and are entitled to, nor produce children, so str8 love is better for society than gay love & should be the ideal for kids"
Lets stamp this one "Ignorent" shall we?
That statement assumes ALL strait married couples want to have children and that ALL strait married couples are good parents. Gay couples who dont want children have the right to marry as well. Barren women can marry correct? Gays can be good parents
MrImmune 3 years ago
I can see why No lost. All their commercials, while happy and upbeat do absolutely nothing to adress the concerns of the voters.
Dyoni1 3 years ago
who really cares who gets married!!?? no one is telling us heteros you who to marry or not marry. Why should anyone think they get to decide what goes on in one's private life !?!? Pierre Trudeau said - Governement doe not belong in the bedrooms of the people.
Thankfully I live in canada where i can marry whomever i wish, and so can my gay friends!
mondazechild 3 years ago 2
As a taoist I belive:
Yin-yang are balanced
Yin-yang is a dynamic equilibrium. Because they arise together they are always equal: if one disappears, the other must disappear as well, leaving emptiness. This is rarely immediately apparent, though, because yang elements are clear and obvious while yin elements are hidden and subtle.
Rounder2205 3 years ago
If straight and gays are Yin and Yang, thats a distorted equilibrium. In this context, gays are more like parasites, because they still have to depend on a man & woman to create a child. There is no way around it. And I just want to say Margaret Cho is the worst comedian to date. I dont see how her career lasted this long because she is not remotely funny.
paul19781105 3 years ago
Well, Margaret Cho is only funny to people who believe in strange things like joy and happiness and that newfangled equal rights business. Not to, yaknow, douches like you.
ekawapeelsa 3 years ago
comedians and politics are like wearing plaids with stripes. They just dont mix. Plus she still is not funny. She cant tell a good joke. The asian girl role doesnt work for her. Her jokes are too long just to get to the punch line. She is almost as bad as when Mr. Miyagi (RIP) tried to do stand up in the early 90's. Her show in the mid-90's was cancelled quick because she wasnt funny then. (Bet you forgot she had a sitcom then.) She needs to study how others are funny and do her homework.
paul19781105 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Get over it already! Prop 8 passed! So you can't marry fags and carpet munchers!!! HAHAHAHA!!!
cdrpnt2007 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I think I got physically ill watching this. Both of these women belong in a radio ad, DEFINITELY NOT television.
chucknorris51 3 years ago
lol absolutely! Even in the State Of Florida, Amendment 2 (that bands gay marriage) was worded very strangely, many people didn't know whether to vote "yes or no." I found it tough because I expected it to be something that i voted yes for, yes for gay marriage ;) But it was a ban on gay marriage? it just seemed very wrong when i read it... i had to ask someone if that was right, so I asked a black lady that worked there, and she tried to trick me into voting yes for the banning of gay marriage!
RodTalon0000 3 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
both of these women are ugly
livetime77 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
When will you gays understand that your living in a global conspiracy, HM 50 pentagrams on the American Flag,Bush and his family publicly hold up the satan hand sign, a pentagram carved into the center of the Pentagon from an aerial view. Satan and his people control the earth 1 john 5:19 and they are building a population for the Antichrist who the bible says will be a gay Homo life leads to possesion Romans 1:26-28 & Ephesians 2:2.B born again or miss the rapture and b persecuted n a FEMA camp
YaOkRight 3 years ago
Margaret Cho is so cute.
JoanieDriftwood 3 years ago 2
I voted yes on prop 8 and im not mormon LOL I dont know why yall think that this is a racial issue it isnt marraige has always been between a man and a woman and shall forever stay that way. Whats wrong with you people Isnt a fact that man and another man cannot reproduce? Is that not evidence enough that your so called lifestyle will not work what more do you need. Yall need some serious help I dont understand how some dudes wake up in the morn with there butt hurtin after having d@#k up theass
haterraiders 3 years ago
hasn't it occured to you that because something's always been some way, doesn't mean it can't change?
the only reason you think marriage is between a man and a woman is because society has defined it that way. i'm sure you're well not aware that in greece and rome, it was common to have both male and female partners, and a man could marry a man and vice versa. only christianity changed that.
think about it.
RasputinaMan 3 years ago
okay lets see here lets use an example what happens when a father and a father raise a daughter and one night the daughter comes to the fathers and says fathers why am I bleeding from my vagina. Remember these are men who tryna ACT like women but the truth is they arent so what do they do how can men try to fulfill womens roles in the family if they arent WOMEN. Just because they act feminine doesnt mean they fit the role of a mother
haterraiders 3 years ago
Why do you mistakenly believe that either man acts feminine? It's not a requirement for a same-sex relationship. There's nothing inherently feminine about doing laundry or dishes or cooking; every bachelor does these activities too. And it's not hard to explain the sex organs, menstruation and sexual activity. I'm a guy and I understand how menstruation works and you do too. Women understand how male ejaculation works. There's nothing that inherently makes this men's work or women's work.
glorpy2 3 years ago
mayne can u give birth too probably not never will happen dude. sorry u can only do so much as man u need that woman by your side to complete the fam. A man was meant for the women that is your opposite you put two people of the same gender the end result you get nothing but lustful desires. The children deserve a mother and a father until the day you a man can have that baby then we will accept gay marraige. But can you make it happen is the question.
haterraiders 3 years ago
So a family does not exist unless they have children? And without family one can't get married? You know this isn't right, so don't waste our time with this silly argument.
Stable relationships are key for family. Legal protections help stabilize relationships. Open communication does too. Gay advocates are fighting for legal protections to stabilize relationships and make it possible for them to remove children from Foster Care and give them a healthy childhood.
glorpy2 3 years ago
A man taking a penis into his anus is acting in a passive role. He is receiving the reproductive organ of another man, an organ that is meant to secrete fluid that produces child. A man's anus is made to expel waste, not have things inserted in it. Additionally, a woman has no extended genitalia, except the breasts, and cannot produce a child without the seed of the man. There's an underlying difference between men and women that transcends daily activities, whether that be reproduction or..
SonofIndra 3 years ago
If a man's anus is made to expel waste, what of a woman's? Is it socially unacceptable for a woman to receive the penis during anal sex? The quantity of this sort of porn that is available says no.
What of the mouth? Or masturbation? You're once again conflating reproduction, sex and relationships. They are correlated, but they are not the same.
Same-sex parents raise children as well or better than mixed-sex parents. This has been shown time and time again. The stable relationship is the key.
glorpy2 3 years ago
Same goes for women. Do you think that porn reflects what sexual values should be held? Regardless of the amount of porn being produced, do you find porn, sexually deviant acts being publically supported to the extent that homosexuality is? Do you think they should be?
By what criteria are children raised well?
I call your research regarding same-sex parenting into question. First of all, it's a young area of research. Secondly, I request some proof, preferably from a scientific journal.
SonofIndra 3 years ago
These are good points. I'm not arguing what's right or wrong. I'm discussing what is actually socially accepted. Until we can all agree on which interpretation of which religious text is the one true one, that's the best we can do in the context of a secular government, which is what the First Amendment established.
For your second set of questions, search for children same-sex parent on Google Scholar. The studies go back some 30 years and are very consistent.
glorpy2 3 years ago
I am arguing what is right and wrong, and that is the difference. While those who merely assert social opinion live in the future, those who move forward with the truth in their eyes gain victory and the world.
SonofIndra 3 years ago
But then you run into the problem of evolving concepts of right and wrong. Slavery is the most overused example, but lets go back to Greco-Roman sexuality. Penetration during sex was the manifestation and expression of the penetrator's authority over the penetrated. This is no long accepted as a valid interpretation of the sex act. It has become wrong to think of sex as an expression of a power dynamic; as Americans it is right to think of it as an expression of love between equal partners.
glorpy2 3 years ago
I think it still is a valid interpretation, whether anyone else does or not. To some extent, concepts of right and wrong have evolved, but there are universally right and wrong concepts, e.g. killing one's parents, stealing, lying, cannibalism, rape. There have been exceptuions to each one of these, yet for the most part they have been held throughout humanity's history.
SonofIndra 3 years ago
Stealing -> Les Miserables
Lying -> Except for that little white lie
Killing one's parents -> Even if they are homicidal sociopaths?
Cannibalism -> An entire tribe of Papua New Guineans ate the brains of the vanquished foes to steal their power; Aztecs fed their victims to the Gods
Again, you can't apply the average to every situation. Usually right doesn't mean universally right and that means it's not universally applicable. Life is full of gray areas and our laws should reflect that.
glorpy2 3 years ago
Sure, there are grey areas, but like I said, there are general patterns of behavior that human beings follow for their own good. All those are exceptions, but you neglect to see how things work most of the time.
So, do you think that because these people did not adhere to certain behavior that they were right to do so? Even the homocidal sociopaths killing their parents? do you endorse that? I doubt it. Do you endorse eating other people's brains? I doubt it. Do you endorse stealing?
SonofIndra 3 years ago
Who modded you down? You made good points.
Anyway, what I mean is that we can't rely on our own moral compass to force our moral values on other people. We have to be able to objectively justify our stance. A lot of research has gone into human sexuality and it all very consistently supports the arguments of gay rights advocates. The self-destructive so-called "gay lifestyle" is a learned response to repression by society, not a unavoidable result of being gay.
glorpy2 3 years ago
But this means that if the same-sex relationship is as stable and as healthy as the mixed-sex, it is just as legitimate and as worthy of social recognition. Otherwise, you're arbitrarily forcing your own beliefs on other people - and the majority of people disagree about something when it comes to morals!
And again, the objective research consistently shows same-sex couples are as stable and as healthy, no more, no less.
So what grounds have you for subjecting non-believers to your morals?
glorpy2 3 years ago 2
Men could not marry men in ancient Greece. You are wrong. Christianity had little to do with the abnormality of homosexual relations, it has always been an anomaly in most life forms.
SonofIndra 3 years ago
Read up on the third sex among Plains Indians in North America and then talk to me about how this was considered abnormal about "always". Then read up on ancient Greco-Roman concepts of sexuality or even pre-Darwinian concepts of homosexuality. They were very different than how we think of them today.
glorpy2 3 years ago
California Family Code 297.5 (a) says that those registered as "Domestic Partnership" have the same rights, benefits, etc as a traditionally married couple. Domestic Partnership is an variation that stemmed off of traditional marriage. Two compare the two, its just like having a restroom for a male and a female. Both are the same, but one is men, while the other is for women. So what more do you want? Stop trying to shove your sexuality down our throats. We respected your area. Respect ours.
paul19781105 3 years ago
Bzzt. DP's aren't portable without tying up legislatures in arcane legal agreements and even then, they're not terribly stable, so you're still restricting the pursuit of economic betterment by gay and lesbian couples. They also require co-residency, a stipulation not placed upon married couples. And the modern employment environment means lots more couples need to live apart to get ahead. So again, you're hurting gays and lesbians needlessly.
glorpy2 3 years ago
wth? America was established and formed by Christians. When they says Equal right according to the Gods law didnt mean gays getting married. like blacks being freed is equal right because its not a sin. 2nd people born gay still ahve choices. I know this guy that was born gay and is now streight because he prayed like crazy to God and God fixed it. So saying "i was born gay" is another excuse not wanting to be streight. another thing, God doesnt hate people, he says love one another but hate sin
comedian010 3 years ago
so are you saying gay people who struggle with homosexuality don't pray hard enough? Because I ask God every day to take away these feelings. And youy are right America was formed by christians who fled from religious persecution. and now they are using their religion to persecute. how ironic
crtnyevans 3 years ago
You don't pray your way to different brain structures, neurochemical levels and hormone levels. You don't pray new pheromone receptors.
Either your gay friend is actually bisexual, or he's hiding and ignoring his desires and pretending to love someone he doesn't actually love. Either way, you're grossly mistaken.
Further, slavery was not considered a sinful activity for nearly two millenia of Christianity. We were wrong about slavery. Why can't we be wrong about homosexuality?
glorpy2 3 years ago
i have heard many pastors say that the passage was simply "misinterpreted"
seems like that's always the excuse the religious people use when they're holy book is proven wrong. when the earth was proven to be round, when it was proven the earth ISN'T the center of the universe, and so on.
JigsawMaster 3 years ago
so you know ONE guy? that's not very convincing. let me give you some facts
most of the gay people WANT to be straight, but they rarely end up happy or fail to become straight. why would someone choose to be gay? does it seem like a very appealing lifestyle to you? do YOU want to get picked on in high school or get excommunicated from your church?
JigsawMaster 3 years ago
Most well adjusted gay people do NOT want to be straight. They understand that their sexuality is perfectly healthy, natural and normal, albeit in the minority.
They understand that they are not alone, that gays and lesbians have existed in every society in every land throughout history (and we can reasonably expect pre-history as well).
Well adjusted gays are not self-destructive and interact well with gay and straight people alike.
Homophobia MAKES gay people maladjusted.
glorpy2 3 years ago 3
my bad. i should have said MANY gays. thanks for the correction.
JigsawMaster 3 years ago
No problem. And sorry for pouncing on you there. There are just so many misconceptions about gays and lesbians and I don't want to give even the appearance of implicit support for grossly harmful sexual orientation reparative therapy.
To be precise then, many CLOSETED gays want to be straight. Gay people who have come to terms with their inherent sexuality simply have no desire to be straight, any more than a well adjusted left handed person longs to be right handed.
glorpy2 3 years ago 3
What you don't understand is that homosexuality has never been a sexual-choice openly endorsed or supported for long periods of time. Even the ancient Greeks who homosexuals say were for homosexuality, thought it laughable that a man would be in a long-term sexual relationship with another man. Inevitably one man would have to adopt the passive female role, which is unnatural.
SonofIndra 3 years ago
"passive female role, which is unnatural." This is correct. Gender is always defined by society, so male and female roles are always totally unnatural. They are always constructed and they vary wildly across time and place.
So while two males in the male gender couldn't wed, as long as one assumed the female gender role, they could - and it wasn't considered homosexuality either.
You mustn't conflate gender and sex.
glorpy2 3 years ago
Wrong. It is evident that gender and sex go hand in hand. There has never been a conspiracy to make women something and men something else. Gender roles have arisen from the biological limitations humans are born with and nothing else. The male member corresponds to an active role - that of penetrating. The female genitalia corresponds to a passive role - that of being penetrated.
SonofIndra 3 years ago
No conspiracy, but every society has gender roles. African women do most of the heavy labor now. In some societies, men raise children. You're now conflating sexual acts with all of the rest of life's activities, and as before, there is not a 1:1 correlation.
Being a woman doesn't prevent someone from serving in the military and fighting; ask any adult Israeli woman. Being a man doesn't prevent him from being empathetic; ask any male psychiatrist.
Sex is simply not the same as gender.
glorpy2 3 years ago
You have a point, but sex limits the expressions of gender. Again, the penis is an active reproductive tool, while the vagina is passive and receptive. There is no getting around that. Also, I would argue that there is a set of behaviors for each gender that are universal in all cultures. At the very least, there are patterns. Women are more emotional, physically weaker, and predominate the home. Men are physically stronger, and predominate the public sphere.
SonofIndra 3 years ago
How disingenuous. The woman on the stool clearly doesn't approve of gay marriage, but Ms. Cho somehow duped her into backing it with a "No" vote.
Shameless.
kensimmonsmba 3 years ago
Im not going to say gay marriage is normal.
not at all. the whole point of a man and a woman is to reproduce. but just because something normal doens't mean it isn't right.
the way i think of it is that who in there right mind would choose to be gay? to be shunned from community like that? the bible says a lot. a lot that pretty much everyone doesn't follow. it also says to grow that piece of hair out. woops guess your all going to hell because your hairs short. God is love not hate.
BlinkX94 3 years ago
is her(Margaret) Backwards? It's probably cause shes gay too. :P
enemay 3 years ago
I mean her shirt