politics aside. i seriously think people who support Prop8 look dumb. they look like they have a lower iq. i think their brains are just a bit slower or maybe they lack a chromosome. i want science to go deeper in the origins of homosexuality and of conservatives. because for sure conservatives look weird.
Religion is why, people that support prop 8 can only use bible quotes. This is violating the seperation of state and church.
The only other reason I have ever heard was the "protect the children". This makes no sense because gays would adopt children if they wanted kids. They also say that schools will teach kids about gay marriage... I cant remember the last time I took a core class on marriage.
Why is it that people hate gays when the bible says "love thy neighbor" and "do not hold an idol" you are hating and you are speaking for god if god hates gays I want to hear him say it HIMSELF!
@oddtreenow2 even still, i feel there has to be a reason biologically speaking, that we think the way we do. are brains are different on some level in thought and sexual desire, we just arent programed the same
thats just what i believe. who knows, maybe someday they will discover a reason
awesome VID! and for the record, the only thing you "choose" in being gay is the responsibility and consequences you have to face everyday for "choosing" to act on what you were BORN with. you think we can't choose to be straight? hahahaha, most people do, until they realize in their 30's after a wife and kid that it didnt change what they wanted.
I love that they got that fat, old, unattractive person to play Prop 8. I don't want to be associated with him. I want the young, down to earth, friendly No On Prop 8 guy to think I'm cool.
"So let me get this straight...Larry King is getting his 8th divorce, Elizabeth Taylor is possibly getting married for a 9th time, Britney Spears had a 55 hour marriage, Jesse James and Tiger Woods, while married, were having sex with EVERYONE. Yet, the idea of same-sex marriage is going to destroy the institution of marriage? Really. Please re-post to your page if you agree - Proud to support equal rights for ALL.
@1FavoriteVideos so you think choosing to get gay bashed is a choice? you think being hated by people like you is a choice? you think being considerd a complete and uder sin is a choice? you what i think? being a complete shitless ignorant bigit is also a choice
blackisrealites85, I realize that your idiocy comes from severe mental and social limitations, but please try not to spread your infected, diseased mind and lifestyle of hatred.
"That all men are created equal with unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." (for the idiots that dont know) Decleration of Indpendence. The constiution also mandates a sepration of church and state, and no Christine O'Donnel, it doesnt say it, but "read between the lines" Please.
So why isnt gay marriage legal? There is no reason not to... outside of religion.
@kyboy13 Nothing is keeping the homosexuals from loving and staying with each other for the rest of their lives. So it is not a violation of liberties. What is the need for change? The only two options are for the tax benefits of marriage and the social acceptance from society. Civil union gives them the tax cuts so that leaves social acceptance. Social acceptance is based on the people not about what an official law says that is forced through government.
@swimmer1293 besides, having the right to get married and being recognized instead of shut out and get told we already have it good enough might change the social bullshit. ur not the good guy in this when you say we already live together. yeah, so do unmarried straight couples, you're talking about 2 different things.
people didnt accept african americans out of the blue, they stood up and slowly got the rights they deserved, women too. wtf makes this different? its inevidable so fuck off :I
@501poundmiget haha alright then. Because I said so doesn't quite cut it. That makes it relative to what someone wants and totally undermines your whole argument. You're "common sense" must not be so common considering the various examples of public opinion against official gay marriage (prop 8 results etc.) Lastly, why do you accuse me of being intolerant?
@501poundmiget Let me also say that marriage is not a right. The state can with hold a marriage license for various reasons even for heterosexual couples. So to say that it is a violation of a right is probably not the most accurate way to put it.
@swimmer1293 first of all having a legal right to marry is what we want, we dont want any of the bullshit "oh you can live together nobody is stopping you" no. not the same thing.
and 60 years ago stopping black people from living normal lives like everybody else was their standard, does it make it right? no. because many people lacked common sense, today they still do lack it. point is, it should be legal everywhere and nobody can dance around that. it SHOULD be a right to get married.
@501poundmiget You never answered my question of why you think I'm intolerant. Also let me ask what would you get from making it legal for homosexuals to marry?
@swimmer1293 it sounds intolerant to say that it doesnt matter if we dont have the right to get married and it doesnt change anything, cuz it does. and what would i get from making it legal to marry? oh i dont know...if i were an american citizen I COULD GET MARRIED! <_< its not that hard to figure out.
@swimmer1293 The question is not "what would you get in being married?" it's what would anyone get in being married? You seriously can't think of any reason for two people to marry??? LMFAO
I'm an atheist who lives in downtown Miami and I dont think gay marriage is morally right... Good luck trying to call me a racist, redneck, Jesus lover, etc.
@jessemar69 Gays already do have the right to marry. They can marry someone of the opposite sex. That is the definition of marriage. There is no other.
@angusmcpherson really? cuz i heard that marriage is a bond between 2 people who love eachother. the REAL definition anyways. not the religious bullshit definition ^_^
@swimmer1293 cuz i said so and common sense over rules bigotry in every single case <_<
and besides, im pretty sure if gorillas are able to bond with another gorilla we were able to come up with the idea of spending our entire life with the one we love the most and who loves us back. true definition of marriage. only as humans we tend to make a huge scene about it and make it a ceremony and be childish and say who can and cant have one <_< ignorance is fun when it affects innocent people. -sigh-
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
ISAIAH 5:20 ¶ Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
@smithbrain: The FACT that your church urged it's members to donate to a bigoted propaganda with the money they make from their businesses is how I can say something like that.
@1kemistry: The boycott is still here. Adobe is not a Mormon owned business. The artifiticial heart that we're using today is called the SynCardia temporary CardioWest Total Artificial Heart, not the Jarvic 7, therefore, not Robert Jarvic's business and not Mormon owned. All Homer R. Warner did was help make computer apps to medicine and write a book, not invent the cardiopulmonary bypass, or as you put it, "a heart bypass machine". Again, not a Mormon owned business. Keep trying, though.
@1kemistry: Like I said, It's not a Mormon owned business. John Warnock, one of the co founders, isn't even Mormon. All he did was go to a college in Utah. Guess what? Adobe's shareholders are not primarily composed of Mormons. How much crap are you going to try and pull out of your ass? I suggest a nice laxative so it comes out a little smoother. Oh, and keep trying.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
This "separate but equal" crap is such a joke. Is it "separate but equal" for women since we call them something different than "men"? Different things are called different things.
I think a gay's insecurity over their union being called something different is they're own problem. Elton John is secure enough in his sexuality to be fine w/ civil union. You'd ignore the votes of millions to accommodate a gay's desire to pretend there no difference between gay & straight relationships.
I don't know why people bother to debate this. Marriage means two people who love each other, making a big deal about the gender of the two people is just idiotic.
@whiteontarget1 Originally Marriage was meant as the union of two people so they could procreate. So really, older couples, infertile people, or couples that choose not to have children should "technically" not be allowed to marry, straight or otherwise.
So, yeah, I know the "TRUE" meaning of marriage, but I don't think that reproduction should be the base of a union between two people, though perhaps you do.
@xxMimiHawkinsxx wooow were do we start that's true, but what they don't see either was marriage was also between one man and many wife's then was redefined as one man one woman strictly, a white and or black marriage no interracial couple. then it was defined not too long ago allow interracial couple to get married now we find that it's time we take a move it's not hard to say that it will be changed again.
marriage is about love, not gender and the ability to reproduce. If I lived in california and was able to vote for this, NO would definately be my vote.
@roxasxnamine4evr: Well, the majority of the nation (even in liberal CA) disagree and feel marriage & family go hand in hand and believe traditional family values should continue support this great nation.
Oh...and this "equality" nonsense...nothing more than a well repeated lie. CA (CA Family Code 297.5) & ME both offer the exact same legal rights to domestic partnerships while allowing the people to decide how "marriage" should be defined.
it is not the same, domestic partnerships are not the same, it takes years to get even some of the rights that married couples get from the moment they say I do. And marriage and family do go hand in hand and a person who is homosexual should not feel as though they're going to be excluded from their family do to their sexual preference.
@hexagonmoose: Lie. Stop just believing what some radical gay tells you & actually looking up CA Family Code 297.5. In CA, EVERY SINGE LEGAL RIGHT is given to domestic partnerships.
It's NOTHING like the "separate but equal" the blacks experienced. Saying such an ignorant thing is probably the #1 thing you can do to piss of the blacks. They were actually treated differently with separate school, etc. We still call them "black", and they enjoy all the same legal rights.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Gays don't contribute to society because they don't reproduce. Therefore they should not be allowed to marry, as marriage is reserved for the people who really count.
listen asshat homosexuals DO contribute to society due to the fact that they have jobs and help the economy. Also if EVERY human reproduced then our planet would run out of room very very quickly. plus by saying this you're saying that any person who cannot reproduce due to something wrong with their body shouldn't be aloud to marry either. and think about this thousands of orphans are adopted by homosexual parents, do you want these children to not have parents?
@roxasxnamine4evr how much of the total gdp do they contribute to. Give me the numbers and I will provide you with the number the society has to shell out for keeping their assholes aids free.
@mattt1994 yes and there are straight organizations to take care of it why should organizations developed for the welfare of the straights help these fags. Let them set up their own organizations and let them fund it on their own why allocate money collected for the health betterment of straights to these fagots. The amount of taxes collected from this community is pathetic and the expenditure spent on their health benefit is like 3 times the total amount of tax collected from them.
@G41MCombo Lol so you think that when humanitarians like Bono raise millions for AIDS relief, it's just for the straights. There's no such think as AIDS relief just for straights...that's like saying that there are AIDS clinics for white people and separate ones for black people... that's nonsense.
@mattt1994 Funds should only be collected for the straights let the homos find their own source of cure and funds. Why should the straight pay for the homos health care. It has a lot to do with race as well the hiv strains in africa are far dangerous than the hiv strains found in south east asia. But yes the funds collected for the straights should be diverted to heterosexual research no matter what the race. But homos no way I am not sharing a single penny with these aids infested freaks.
@G41MCombo I feel sorry for you. I can't imagine living my life with so much hate. I hope that one day you will realize that you shouldn't think less of someone because of the way they were born.
@G41MCombo I think it's funny because a lot of people seem to say Homosexuality is wrong because aids is more prevalent in homosexuals but that statement is incorrect. It is more prevalent in homosexual MALES. So... if we're really ranking the "correctness" of sexuality through the occurrence of aids in the population, then lesbianism is really the only "correct" choice of sexual activities since it's much harder for a lesbian couple to get aids than a straight couple. Penises are the problem!
@CreatingPulsars I am just not concerned if the entire homo population die of aids wouldn't make a difference on this fucking planet. I am against spending money on these ass raiders who are having sex just for pleasure at our cost. You want to fuck and die go ahead just don't use my money my funds and the taxes collected from our pockets to get free drugs for the careless ass plundering that you did for pleasure. Calling woman having sex as sex is like comparing breastfeeding to pedophilia.
Actually the CA Constitution did say that BEFORE Prop. 22 was passed. Prop. 8 is just a further adding of it, because 4 fascist judges in robes decided to turn to their views on marriage rather than uphold the CA state constitution or respect the will of the people. I still want them impeached for overturning the Good Samaritan Law.
I am afraid you are incorrect. The CA Constitution prior to Prop 8 was silent on the question of marriage. Marriage had been defined solely by statute until then.
Wow, you don't even know what you're talking about, do you, Aegius?
And those judges weren't "fascist" - fascism is a right-wing ideology, unlike the socially liberal position that same-sex marriage legalization is.
But, I guess you're right. The CA Supreme Court obviously also erred when it overturned its ban on interracial marriage decades before that, also. Blasted judges protecting the Constitution!
Wrong. There are fascists on both the Left and the Right and Mussolini regarded himself on the Left. I never called for interracial marriages to be overturned and that is IRRELEVANT to this. 1)There is no difference between 2 persons on the basis of race. There are enormous differences between a man and a woman. 2)2 people of different races yet opposite sexes can produce kids and raise them as Mom & Dad. 2 men or 2 women can't.
The claim that there is a comparison between not allowing a Black man & White woman to marry and not allowing 2 men or 2 women to marry is ridiculous. There is no comparison to be made on the grounds of discrimination via race where there is no justification, with discrimination via sex where there is(separate bathrooms, separate locker rooms, etc.). Besides US Constitutional Case law per against the Mormon Church in 1890 and every other case favored marriage as 1 man: 1 woman.
Also, since you seem to blissfully unaware, sex-segregated bathrooms aren't legally-imposed. That's what business decide to do to avoid having to have a lot of private bathrooms.
Loving Vs. Virginia didnt establish marriage as a civil right. It only declared that one couldnt discriminate on race via marriage. There was a concurring opinion that declared it a right, but concurring opinions dont make rights. Do you believe slavery is a right too then, as the US Supreme court declared that a right per Dred Scot?
Differences in races? What psychological and emotional differences are there in races?
I didn't advocate procreation to be forced, but cont...
cont... but that marriage has ALWAYS been about procreation and providing kids with a home to be raised w/both a mom and a dad. That has been the case in every society and by every moral, philosophical and religious tradition.
And please answer this: Is there a difference between having sex-segregated bathrooms vs. race-segregated bathrooms? Take a position.
BTW, marriage isn't a right, but a privilege. Is there a right to marry your sibling? No. cont...
Is there a right to marry your immediate relative? No. More than 1 person? NO. A person who refuses? No. Indeed anything that requires consent means that it is a privilege, just like driving a car or entering a person's home or borrowing something from someone.
BTW, Is there a right to own slaves? After all the US Supreme Court declared that a right in Dred Scot. Sorry, but court decisions don't make rights, nor to concurring opinions or dissenting opinions.
No, it has not ALWAYS been about procreation. I know PLENTY of married couples who are married and have no intention of having children. Are you saying they shouldn't be allowed to be legally wed? What about infertile couples?
And, no, not every society, you're stretching the truth.
I'd probably say there's a difference in sex/race segregated bathrooms via public perception, but there really shouldn't (and there isn't) a necessity for either. Segregation was imposed on business, not with sex.
Let me get this straight. You don't think that there is no reason to have segregated bathrooms via sex for both men and women? And having such a segregation is just a public perception? Okay.
Regarding marriage about bearing and raising kids, I'm referring to ideals and every society has had that as the ideal in marriage: to bear and raise kids. Just because certain people don't follow that ideal doesn't mean that it doesn't exist in society. It's ideal that people don't murder, but it happens
correction... You don't think that there is a reason to have segregated bathrooms via sex for both men and women? & having such segregation is just a pubic perception?
More questions: Is there a difference between how a father relates to his kid(s) vs. how a mother relates to her kids? Or can a mother replace a father and vice-versa? Bottom line: Is there no difference psychologically or emotionally with the sexes?
I don't think there really is a reason, other than convenience; men pee most often in urinals, which can make anyone of any sex uncomfortable. It's not perceived as sexism, though I think any form of unnecessary differentiation between any class if wrong.
We're talking about marriage, not parenting, keep to the topic.
I'm referring to differentiation on the basis of sex. Class is different and I don't have a problem w/1st class on board airplanes for example. Do you? YOu have a problem with differentiation between the sexes?
Parenting is directly on topic as it relates directly to marriage. Traditional marriage of 1 man: 1 woman leads directly to 1 father and 1 mother for the kids. 2 men marrying leads to 2 fathers and no mom. 2 women marrying leads to 2 mothers and no dad.
You grammar is off - I'm not sure what "You think there is no reason..?" means to you, but generally that's not going to be articulate. Yes, I've displayed that sexually segregated bathrooms are due to corporational convenience, rather than rationality, or practicality (which I think could lead one to different conclusions on this.)
And, no, "every society" has not had this ideal in regards to marriage. It's what you people propogate, but it's untrue. What about the ancient marriages between those of the same-sex (particularly between same-sex people - including Roman emperors)
Ancient Roman emperors violated Roman traditional taboos galore. Per Lex Scantinius and Lex Julia homosexuality was banned at the point of death. Yes, marriage in every society has been male:female for the sake of bearing and raising kids. That is fact.
Regarding segregated bathrooms, please just answer this question: Is it justified or not? That's all.
"segregated bathrooms"??? Well, I can see you are like Larry Craig, wanting to have sex in bathrooms. Or are you saying we should rear kids in bathrooms???? EEEWW!!!!!
Answer ME on that.
Besides, you haven't shown that gay marriage kids' are worse of than opposite marriage. Infact, evidence shows they are BETTER off: the divorce rate amongst gay couples is FAR less than in opposite marriage.
More importantly: You haven't shown any REAL damage to ANYone, if gays get the right to marry.
Please just answer my questions. 1)Are there no psychological or emotional differences in the sexes? 2)Is there no difference for the kids of 2 dads w/o a mom or 2 moms w/o a dad in contrast to both a mom and dad?
I'm going to ignore most of your baseless and silly statements. Of course I didn't call for kids to be raised in bathrooms.
BTW, if incestual marriage isn't going to be allowed on the basis, that the kids will be genetically defective more likely, then you are making the possibility of bearing children part of the definition of marriage. Only str8 couples can bear kids by themselves, so only str8 couples will then have to be allowed to marry as the ideal of male:female and father:mother for the kids.
Still if there is a right to marry, what if the person refuses? Do I have the right to marry that person then?
Cont courts have been wrong countless times, so just because a judge says something doesnt make it sacrosanct and if a judge declares something a right doesnt mean that it is. Besides rights are attained through the democratic process or a higher form of law. Judges are solely there to secure such rights and not make up new rights. Marriage inst a right, or do I have the right to marry a person who refuses?
Is a couple that can produce kids and raise them as mom & dad just as good for society as a couple that can do neither?
Gays aren't the same as str8s, as they can't produce kids on their own or provide both a mom & dad for the kids. Str8s can and they are better for society, so str8 should remain the ideal for society as 1 man: 1 woman and in turn 1 father: 1 mother for the kids.
It was just a concurring opinion. Go read it yourself. Besides as stated, marriage is NOT a right. It is a privilege. Is there a right to drive a car? That requires consent and there are restrictions just like marriage. How about a right to be airline pilot or any other vocation? Same thing as marriage. Marriage is NOT a right and the concurring opinion of the US Supreme Court is wrong & thank you for admitting that court decisions don't make rights anyway.
No, it was *NOT* a concurring opinion, it was a part of the majority ruling. I've read the entire ruling before. It IS a right, and I recommend you actually read the whole of the ruling before just arbitrarily declaring it merely a concurring opinion.
It was a concurring opinion, but a person in the majority ruling. The ruling only stated that one cannot discriminate on the basis of race in marriage. It stated nothing about same-sex marriage. It is NOT a right anyway.
Questions:
Is there a right to marry your sibling or other immediate relative? Is there a right to marry more than 1 person? Is there a right to marry a person who refuses to marry you?
Other ?s: Okay, are there psychological & emotional differences between men & women? cont...
Wasn't a concurring opinion, yet I wouldn't see how someone who thought the CA Constitution even acknowledged marriage before Prop 8 to have an idea of what they're talking about.
No, because bans on those don't discriminate against you because of your identity, so they don't deny equal protection.
And no, there aren't really major psychological or emotional differences between men and women. A lot of that is societal; why do you think there've been so many matriarchal societies?
"No, because bans on those don't discriminate against you because of your identity, so they don't deny equal protection." -
So there is no right to marriage then via restrictions & identity. Being a polymorist or polygamist can be considered an identity; hence so what?
"And no, there aren't really major psychological or emotional differences between men and women. A lot of that is societal" Ah, here it is. No real differences means no differences between moms & dads... cont...
Cont There are no differences between the sexes psychologically or emotionally in your opinion? Then you must believe that there is no difference between a relationship a mom has w/her kids vs. a dad w/his kids & 2 moms w/o dad or 2 dads w/o a mom are equally good as a mom & dad. Okay.
If I believed that there were no significant differences between the sexes, I would support same-sex marriage & oppose segregated bathrooms via sex. I dont, so I hold the opposite of such views. Were done.
I recommend you read Skinner v Oklahoma, which the court cites in Loving, and see what it was about marriage that made it one of the; "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.' Given that fundamental purpose of marriage, it would be impossible to argue that denying marriage on the basis as sex would be unsupportable in the way the Court found racial classifications to be.
Is there a right to marry your sibling or immediate relative? Is there a right to marry more than 1 person? Is there a right to marry a person who refuses? Is there a right to marry a person already married? If there is a right to marry, then it must exist is ALL OF THOSE cases. You can't say, well the right exists in case A, but not case B.
refuses? Are you insane? siblings? There is a clear and present damage when we allow that, kids will be genetically defective. But for all i care they could get married, if they don't procreate. This doesn't harm me, nor anyone else.
There are ALREADY siblings raising kids together, sometimes even two brothers or 2 sisters, and having adopted each others kids. This is saver for the kids.
Please answer my questions: Is there a right to marry your sibling, parent or other immediate relative? Is there a right to marry more than 1 person? Is there a right to marry a person who refuses? The CA Supreme Court ruled that a person can sue if first aide or CPR is provided after they allowed for same-sex marriage. Courts have been wrong countless times and their opinions aren't sacrosanct and discrimination via sex is often valid and justified while on race it never is.
"ALL OF THOSE cases. You can't say, well the right exists in case A, but not case B. " You don't see the hypocrisy in that? Same sex marriage is between two consenting, unrelated, unmarried, adults, and the only reasons that one wouldn't allow it can be boiled down to bigotry, religion, and faulty logic (but all 3 in most cases)
So what? Polygamy, polymory and incestual marriage is ALL done between consenting & unmarried and usually unrelated adults. But why not allow for related adults too? They love each other, too. AAnd why not more than 2? Polygamy is the oldest form of marital arrangement and if you allow for it, you have to allow for polymory. The ACLU & extremist feminist groups want polygamy legalized after same-sex marriage is.
One of the 7 wonders of the ancient world was built on behalf of a couple called the Mausoleum at Halicarnassus. This couple was brother:sister and were very much in love w/each other. Why not allow for sibling marriages if this is about love?
There are valid concerns regarding keeping marriage male:female, most notably that kids should be raised as dad:mom as the ideal & not 2 dads w/o mom or 2 moms w/o dad. A couple that can produce kids and raise them as mom & dad deserves preference.
The problem I have with your argument is that homosexuals cannot produce offspring, so the only case in which that argument would apply is if they decide to adopt, and that is a different issue entirely. The same logic could be applied to single parents.
Aegius, there is a good reason why brothers and sisters can't get married The possible offspring of an incestuous marriage has a high risk of mental and physical disabilities. Secondly, your assertion about parenting is incorrect. It is the opinion of the American Psychological Association that gay couples are just as good as parents as heterosexual couples. The gender of your parents doesn't matter. It's all about unconditional love.
You referred to offspring. Gays can't provide offspring, but str8s can. If your basis for marriage is providing offspring, then only str8s and in turn male:female should be allowed. As for parenting, the studies were fraudulent. Still here are the questions: Are there no psychological & emotional differences between men and women and in turn how a mom relates to the kids or the dad to the kids? Are such relationships interchangeable? cont....
Professor Don Browning of the University of Chicago wrote in The New York Times, "We know next to nothing" about the effects of same-sex parenting on children.
"The body of sociological knowledge about same-sex parenting," he and his co-author wrote, "is scant at best. ... There are no rigorous, large-scale studies on the effect of same-sex marriage on the couples' children.
Drs. Robert Lerner and Althea Nagai, examine all forty-nine empirical studies on same-sex parenting cont...
Lerner & Nagai found them studies fraudulent. Go figure.
Steven Nock, professor of sociology at the University of Virginia, has also reviewed the full body of literature and arrives at the same conclusion.
Nock cautioned, "I don't think we can draw any conclusions in either direction. These studies, because of sample and methodological problems, just don't give us enough information to make any pronouncements. The literature is inconclusive."
The American Sociological Review "disagree with those who claim that there are no differences between the children of heterosexual parents and children of lesbigay parents ... ." They indicate that problems of gender identity and sexuality might be greater for children raised by homosexual parents than any of the studies recognize.
The Journal of Marriage and the Family also objected to the studies as being to narrow of small samples.
The fact remains that you have no proof to back up your claims. How am I supposed to know that the 3 people you cite are even talking about the same studies I am referencing? I am going with the APA, who I consider to be the authority on the issue. You can find people who want to shoot them down all you want, but if you can't provide sufficient evidence to the contrary then I am not going to change my opinion.
I already provided sources on how the studies have been fraudulent including peer review journals and noted professors. If the APA goes along w/fraudulent studies, then it is corrupt. Given that political correctness dominates many disciplines, it would make sense that it is.
Besides, I'm asking you: Are there no differences in the sexes and how they relate to kids? Just answer that question.
In the 1970's there were fraudulent studies that claimed that men & women were psychologically & emotionally the same. The studies that 1:4 kids are abused or neglected were fraudulent. The claim of 1:4 women raped on campuses were fraudulent. F--- fraud in the name of science. Now answer my questions:
Are there no differences psychologically & emotionally w/the sexes? IS there no difference between how a dad relates to the kids vs. a mom?
The possible offspring of an incestuous marriage has a high risk of mental and physical disabilities. Your words. You cant have it both ways. Either you base your objection upon them being deformed which means that your basis of marriage is on procreation in part or find another basis. Make your choice.
Polygamist marriages would be equal even w/different rights & arrangements, as they would be mutually agreed to.
Answer my ?s & don't tell me what the APA says. I talking to you, NOT THEM.
False dilemma. My basis of marriage is on love, as well of the safety of any possible children. That does not mean that the couple has to have children or even be able to reproduce. That's not what I'm talking about. I mean the same legal rights and everything. And polygamists can't do that. That's funny. You just copy + pasted a bunch of quotes, claiming to disprove all of my evidence, when in fact your quotes are completely irrelevant. And I asked YOU a question.
I have no problem with those either, so long as they are consenting adults; however, there are problems when it comes to, well, inbreeding, for lack of a better word. When it comes to the adoption of children by homosexual couples, I am behind it with all my heart since they actively make the decision to adopt. If they want to adopt, then they plan on staying by the child, presumably. This is, in my mind, a much better option than leaving the children with those who couldn't provide.
"im on....facebook" lol
knowatimean 2 months ago
Stupid bitch and video.
mikeyrobins022585 5 months ago
@mikeyrobins022585 why because she, and this video are pro America, unlike yourself
idaman12345 4 months ago
@mikeyrobins022585 You're clearly gay and just angry and don't wanna admit it.
CrazyMunky84 3 months ago
@CrazyMunky84 No I am not gay thank you very much.
mikeyrobins022585 3 months ago
@mikeyrobins022585 Ya you are. If you weren't you wouldn't be so defensive and against gay marriage. HAHA homo.
CrazyMunky84 3 months ago
@CrazyMunky84 Whatever dude.
mikeyrobins022585 3 months ago
politics aside. i seriously think people who support Prop8 look dumb. they look like they have a lower iq. i think their brains are just a bit slower or maybe they lack a chromosome. i want science to go deeper in the origins of homosexuality and of conservatives. because for sure conservatives look weird.
muellerican 6 months ago
@muellerican
Religion is why, people that support prop 8 can only use bible quotes. This is violating the seperation of state and church.
The only other reason I have ever heard was the "protect the children". This makes no sense because gays would adopt children if they wanted kids. They also say that schools will teach kids about gay marriage... I cant remember the last time I took a core class on marriage.
DrDeathMetalJr 6 months ago
Why is it that people hate gays when the bible says "love thy neighbor" and "do not hold an idol" you are hating and you are speaking for god if god hates gays I want to hear him say it HIMSELF!
wolfstar124 6 months ago
who won?
the no's
or the yes'
Myytmovies 7 months ago
@oddtreenow2 even still, i feel there has to be a reason biologically speaking, that we think the way we do. are brains are different on some level in thought and sexual desire, we just arent programed the same
thats just what i believe. who knows, maybe someday they will discover a reason
invisibleBOBsayz 7 months ago
awesome VID! and for the record, the only thing you "choose" in being gay is the responsibility and consequences you have to face everyday for "choosing" to act on what you were BORN with. you think we can't choose to be straight? hahahaha, most people do, until they realize in their 30's after a wife and kid that it didnt change what they wanted.
invisibleBOBsayz 7 months ago
i couldnt beleive that passed
velvetlove47 7 months ago
I love that they got that fat, old, unattractive person to play Prop 8. I don't want to be associated with him. I want the young, down to earth, friendly No On Prop 8 guy to think I'm cool.
andruandspanky 8 months ago
Hahaha, awesome commercial. Very original.
Ihopyourpancakes 8 months ago
She's so beautiful.
keg10609 8 months ago
"So let me get this straight...Larry King is getting his 8th divorce, Elizabeth Taylor is possibly getting married for a 9th time, Britney Spears had a 55 hour marriage, Jesse James and Tiger Woods, while married, were having sex with EVERYONE. Yet, the idea of same-sex marriage is going to destroy the institution of marriage? Really. Please re-post to your page if you agree - Proud to support equal rights for ALL.
SavMentalityOfficial 11 months ago
BEING GAY IS A FUCKING CHOICE!
1FavoriteVideos 11 months ago
@1FavoriteVideos How so...
MrLastlived 11 months ago
@1FavoriteVideos When did you choose to be straight?
gaylolful 10 months ago 7
@1FavoriteVideos so you think choosing to get gay bashed is a choice? you think being hated by people like you is a choice? you think being considerd a complete and uder sin is a choice? you what i think? being a complete shitless ignorant bigit is also a choice
animenewbie420 9 months ago
That was great.
clarardf 1 year ago
i hope all gays have aids and the jewish people
we hate all gays
blackisrealites85 1 year ago
blackisrealites85, I realize that your idiocy comes from severe mental and social limitations, but please try not to spread your infected, diseased mind and lifestyle of hatred.
GodCreatesGays2 1 year ago
@blackisrealites85 go take your homophobia to iran
idaman12345 1 year ago
@idaman12345 or everywhere else outside of what we call 'the west'
arivas713 1 year ago
"That all men are created equal with unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." (for the idiots that dont know) Decleration of Indpendence. The constiution also mandates a sepration of church and state, and no Christine O'Donnel, it doesnt say it, but "read between the lines" Please.
So why isnt gay marriage legal? There is no reason not to... outside of religion.
kyboy13 1 year ago
@kyboy13 Nothing is keeping the homosexuals from loving and staying with each other for the rest of their lives. So it is not a violation of liberties. What is the need for change? The only two options are for the tax benefits of marriage and the social acceptance from society. Civil union gives them the tax cuts so that leaves social acceptance. Social acceptance is based on the people not about what an official law says that is forced through government.
swimmer1293 1 year ago
@swimmer1293 besides, having the right to get married and being recognized instead of shut out and get told we already have it good enough might change the social bullshit. ur not the good guy in this when you say we already live together. yeah, so do unmarried straight couples, you're talking about 2 different things.
people didnt accept african americans out of the blue, they stood up and slowly got the rights they deserved, women too. wtf makes this different? its inevidable so fuck off :I
501poundmiget 1 year ago
@501poundmiget haha alright then. Because I said so doesn't quite cut it. That makes it relative to what someone wants and totally undermines your whole argument. You're "common sense" must not be so common considering the various examples of public opinion against official gay marriage (prop 8 results etc.) Lastly, why do you accuse me of being intolerant?
swimmer1293 1 year ago
@501poundmiget Let me also say that marriage is not a right. The state can with hold a marriage license for various reasons even for heterosexual couples. So to say that it is a violation of a right is probably not the most accurate way to put it.
swimmer1293 1 year ago
@swimmer1293 first of all having a legal right to marry is what we want, we dont want any of the bullshit "oh you can live together nobody is stopping you" no. not the same thing.
and 60 years ago stopping black people from living normal lives like everybody else was their standard, does it make it right? no. because many people lacked common sense, today they still do lack it. point is, it should be legal everywhere and nobody can dance around that. it SHOULD be a right to get married.
501poundmiget 1 year ago
@501poundmiget You never answered my question of why you think I'm intolerant. Also let me ask what would you get from making it legal for homosexuals to marry?
swimmer1293 1 year ago
@swimmer1293 it sounds intolerant to say that it doesnt matter if we dont have the right to get married and it doesnt change anything, cuz it does. and what would i get from making it legal to marry? oh i dont know...if i were an american citizen I COULD GET MARRIED! <_< its not that hard to figure out.
501poundmiget 1 year ago
@501poundmiget so its because I think I'm right and others are wrong? What would you get from being married?
swimmer1293 1 year ago
@swimmer1293 oh my god stfu -.-
501poundmiget 1 year ago
@swimmer1293 The question is not "what would you get in being married?" it's what would anyone get in being married? You seriously can't think of any reason for two people to marry??? LMFAO
gaylolful 10 months ago
@aaronnephi Indeed, that IS funny. It's funny that you reap what you sow.
EatTinker 1 year ago
@aaronnephi
Um, what? First, it's the internet. You can swear. Second, uh, what? What are you even saying? Sometimes I don't even.
SuperHoboPirateNinja 1 year ago
I'm an atheist who lives in downtown Miami and I dont think gay marriage is morally right... Good luck trying to call me a racist, redneck, Jesus lover, etc.
dadecountyhustler305 1 year ago
@dadecountyhustler305 asshole
scratchmaster101 1 year ago
@dadecountyhustler305 last i checked, where you lived doesnt mean you cant be a redneck
idaman12345 1 year ago
Why is equality so wrong? Can we not discriminate? "Acceptance Is the GREATEST form of Love"
melekecameron 1 year ago 2
Who the 01101000011001010110110001101100 disliked this?
SuperHoboPirateNinja 1 year ago
Hilarious, show me where in the US constitution it says it must allow so called homosexual marriage.
mrcrazydudeful 1 year ago
@mrcrazydudeful that little part where it says all man created equal
idaman12345 1 year ago
@idaman12345 Saying marriage is between one man and one woman is not making homosexuals inferior to anyone.
mrcrazydudeful 1 year ago
@mrcrazydudeful but telling them they cant marry makes them inferior
idaman12345 1 year ago
@idaman12345 It's not marriage though. So your point is null and void
mrcrazydudeful 1 year ago
@mrcrazydudeful they want equal rights, people like you want special rights over them
and by doing so you make them inferior
idaman12345 1 year ago
@idaman12345 I want homosexuals to have the same rights as I do.
mrcrazydudeful 1 year ago
@mrcrazydudeful so your for gay marriage?
idaman12345 1 year ago
@idaman12345 Gay marriage doesn't exist.
mrcrazydudeful 1 year ago
@mrcrazydudeful tell that to Massachusetts and the other states that have it
idaman12345 1 year ago
@idaman12345 Actually they don't. They just called it marriage to seem nice but really and truly it's not!
mrcrazydudeful 1 year ago
@mrcrazydudeful maybe in your "mind" its not, but it is
idaman12345 1 year ago
@mrcrazydudeful
It says everyone should have equality and the right to marry
jessemar69 1 year ago
@jessemar69 Gays already do have the right to marry. They can marry someone of the opposite sex. That is the definition of marriage. There is no other.
angusmcpherson 1 year ago
@angusmcpherson really? cuz i heard that marriage is a bond between 2 people who love eachother. the REAL definition anyways. not the religious bullshit definition ^_^
501poundmiget 1 year ago 6
@501poundmiget why is that the real definition?
swimmer1293 1 year ago
@swimmer1293 cuz i said so and common sense over rules bigotry in every single case <_<
and besides, im pretty sure if gorillas are able to bond with another gorilla we were able to come up with the idea of spending our entire life with the one we love the most and who loves us back. true definition of marriage. only as humans we tend to make a huge scene about it and make it a ceremony and be childish and say who can and cant have one <_< ignorance is fun when it affects innocent people. -sigh-
501poundmiget 1 year ago
I love these ads....nice try by the gay community but you guys failed...haha
imsljr420 1 year ago
I love it!!!
carlasue88 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
fucking fags, you'll never get what you want.
Smiter10 2 years ago
so your anti equality real nice
idaman12345 2 years ago 2
@Smiter10 they will get equality one day
idaman12345 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
ISAIAH 5:20 ¶ Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
1kemistry 2 years ago
yes i am an former mormon and i am free and gay
clarencefields2007 2 years ago 6
I think it's great that Mormon owned businesses are being boycotted until gay marriage is allowed.
EatTinker 2 years ago 45
that's someone lively hood man how can you say something like that
smithbrain 2 years ago
Comment removed
EatTinker 2 years ago
@smithbrain: The FACT that your church urged it's members to donate to a bigoted propaganda with the money they make from their businesses is how I can say something like that.
EatTinker 2 years ago
Comment removed
1kemistry 2 years ago
@1kemistry: The boycott is still here. Adobe is not a Mormon owned business. The artifiticial heart that we're using today is called the SynCardia temporary CardioWest Total Artificial Heart, not the Jarvic 7, therefore, not Robert Jarvic's business and not Mormon owned. All Homer R. Warner did was help make computer apps to medicine and write a book, not invent the cardiopulmonary bypass, or as you put it, "a heart bypass machine". Again, not a Mormon owned business. Keep trying, though.
EatTinker 2 years ago
Comment removed
1kemistry 2 years ago
Comment removed
1kemistry 2 years ago
@1kemistry: Like I said, It's not a Mormon owned business. John Warnock, one of the co founders, isn't even Mormon. All he did was go to a college in Utah. Guess what? Adobe's shareholders are not primarily composed of Mormons. How much crap are you going to try and pull out of your ass? I suggest a nice laxative so it comes out a little smoother. Oh, and keep trying.
EatTinker 2 years ago
You are the expert that knows about pulling stuff out of asses!
1kemistry 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This "separate but equal" crap is such a joke. Is it "separate but equal" for women since we call them something different than "men"? Different things are called different things.
I think a gay's insecurity over their union being called something different is they're own problem. Elton John is secure enough in his sexuality to be fine w/ civil union. You'd ignore the votes of millions to accommodate a gay's desire to pretend there no difference between gay & straight relationships.
wgmyler 2 years ago
Comment removed
hexagonmoose 2 years ago 49
@hexagonmoose
And whenever you try to use that argument, some prick shows up and starts saying how it's offensive to compare blacks to gays and all this nonsense.
The issues, from a legal standpoint, however, are really very similar.
briantotse3 1 year ago
@wgmyler thats because for the most part there is no difference between gay and straight relationships
idaman12345 1 year ago
I don't know why people bother to debate this. Marriage means two people who love each other, making a big deal about the gender of the two people is just idiotic.
xxMimiHawkinsxx 2 years ago 5
@xxMimiHawkinsxx Well those of us who actually value TRUE marriage (the real meaning) disagree with you....you obviously do not value marriage.
whiteontarget1 1 year ago
@whiteontarget1 Originally Marriage was meant as the union of two people so they could procreate. So really, older couples, infertile people, or couples that choose not to have children should "technically" not be allowed to marry, straight or otherwise.
So, yeah, I know the "TRUE" meaning of marriage, but I don't think that reproduction should be the base of a union between two people, though perhaps you do.
xxMimiHawkinsxx 1 year ago
@xxMimiHawkinsxx wooow were do we start that's true, but what they don't see either was marriage was also between one man and many wife's then was redefined as one man one woman strictly, a white and or black marriage no interracial couple. then it was defined not too long ago allow interracial couple to get married now we find that it's time we take a move it's not hard to say that it will be changed again.
23o67 1 year ago
@xxMimiHawkinsxx actually marriage was originally a business transaction. a negotiation between a man and father for the purchase of a daughter.
rokee1979 1 year ago
that chic was really hot!! who was that
AllSpunUp 2 years ago
marriage is about love, not gender and the ability to reproduce. If I lived in california and was able to vote for this, NO would definately be my vote.
roxasxnamine4evr 2 years ago 11
then I should be able to marry a tree, the sunset and the newly released Twilight Zone box set. Douchebag.
Averyofthemain 2 years ago
you're the douchebag, go marry a freakin tree if you want to! I don't give a shit, if that make you happy then go do it!
roxasxnamine4evr 2 years ago
I hope you and the tree, the sunset, and the Twilight Zone box set would live happily together. Douchebag :)
Tifa303 2 years ago 3
@roxasxnamine4evr: Well, the majority of the nation (even in liberal CA) disagree and feel marriage & family go hand in hand and believe traditional family values should continue support this great nation.
Oh...and this "equality" nonsense...nothing more than a well repeated lie. CA (CA Family Code 297.5) & ME both offer the exact same legal rights to domestic partnerships while allowing the people to decide how "marriage" should be defined.
wgmyler 2 years ago
it is not the same, domestic partnerships are not the same, it takes years to get even some of the rights that married couples get from the moment they say I do. And marriage and family do go hand in hand and a person who is homosexual should not feel as though they're going to be excluded from their family do to their sexual preference.
roxasxnamine4evr 2 years ago
Comment removed
hexagonmoose 2 years ago 3
@hexagonmoose: Lie. Stop just believing what some radical gay tells you & actually looking up CA Family Code 297.5. In CA, EVERY SINGE LEGAL RIGHT is given to domestic partnerships.
It's NOTHING like the "separate but equal" the blacks experienced. Saying such an ignorant thing is probably the #1 thing you can do to piss of the blacks. They were actually treated differently with separate school, etc. We still call them "black", and they enjoy all the same legal rights.
wgmyler 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Gays don't contribute to society because they don't reproduce. Therefore they should not be allowed to marry, as marriage is reserved for the people who really count.
evildwarf 2 years ago
listen asshat homosexuals DO contribute to society due to the fact that they have jobs and help the economy. Also if EVERY human reproduced then our planet would run out of room very very quickly. plus by saying this you're saying that any person who cannot reproduce due to something wrong with their body shouldn't be aloud to marry either. and think about this thousands of orphans are adopted by homosexual parents, do you want these children to not have parents?
roxasxnamine4evr 2 years ago 12
troll'd
evildwarf 2 years ago
yeah, you were.
roxasxnamine4evr 2 years ago
@roxasxnamine4evr how much of the total gdp do they contribute to. Give me the numbers and I will provide you with the number the society has to shell out for keeping their assholes aids free.
G41MCombo 6 months ago
@G41MCombo You DO realized that AIDs happens to straight people too, right?
tangent94 6 months ago
@G41MCombo Well , straight people can get aids to, no one seems to get that for some reason...
cadamy4 6 months ago
@G41MCombo Straight people get AID's too...wow, I can't believe I had to explain that to someone.
mattt1994 5 months ago
@mattt1994 yes and there are straight organizations to take care of it why should organizations developed for the welfare of the straights help these fags. Let them set up their own organizations and let them fund it on their own why allocate money collected for the health betterment of straights to these fagots. The amount of taxes collected from this community is pathetic and the expenditure spent on their health benefit is like 3 times the total amount of tax collected from them.
G41MCombo 5 months ago
@G41MCombo Lol so you think that when humanitarians like Bono raise millions for AIDS relief, it's just for the straights. There's no such think as AIDS relief just for straights...that's like saying that there are AIDS clinics for white people and separate ones for black people... that's nonsense.
mattt1994 5 months ago
@mattt1994 Funds should only be collected for the straights let the homos find their own source of cure and funds. Why should the straight pay for the homos health care. It has a lot to do with race as well the hiv strains in africa are far dangerous than the hiv strains found in south east asia. But yes the funds collected for the straights should be diverted to heterosexual research no matter what the race. But homos no way I am not sharing a single penny with these aids infested freaks.
G41MCombo 5 months ago
@G41MCombo I feel sorry for you. I can't imagine living my life with so much hate. I hope that one day you will realize that you shouldn't think less of someone because of the way they were born.
mattt1994 5 months ago
@mattt1994 We are born with a lot of shit but just because we were born with it does not necessarily mean that it has to be appreciated.
G41MCombo 5 months ago
@G41MCombo I think it's funny because a lot of people seem to say Homosexuality is wrong because aids is more prevalent in homosexuals but that statement is incorrect. It is more prevalent in homosexual MALES. So... if we're really ranking the "correctness" of sexuality through the occurrence of aids in the population, then lesbianism is really the only "correct" choice of sexual activities since it's much harder for a lesbian couple to get aids than a straight couple. Penises are the problem!
CreatingPulsars 5 months ago
@CreatingPulsars I am just not concerned if the entire homo population die of aids wouldn't make a difference on this fucking planet. I am against spending money on these ass raiders who are having sex just for pleasure at our cost. You want to fuck and die go ahead just don't use my money my funds and the taxes collected from our pockets to get free drugs for the careless ass plundering that you did for pleasure. Calling woman having sex as sex is like comparing breastfeeding to pedophilia.
G41MCombo 5 months ago
Comment removed
hexagonmoose 2 years ago 2
@evildwarf like infertle people?
idaman12345 1 year ago
@evildwarf actually idiot rather no kids and adoption than over produced inbreed redneck children like your own.
cabrina23 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
you guys are fags. is that the guy from brokeback mountain?
Cropeyes 2 years ago
Who's the guy who plays No? I recognise him from somewhere.
MaskOfSanity999 2 years ago
Okay, the CA state Constitution, Article 1, Section 7.5:
"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
So if that woman were really to represent the CA state Constitution, she would uphold that rather than uphold marriage neutering: same-sex marriage.
Aegius 2 years ago
Just to clarify, the CA Constitution did not say that at the time this ad was made. That section is the result of Prop 8.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Actually the CA Constitution did say that BEFORE Prop. 22 was passed. Prop. 8 is just a further adding of it, because 4 fascist judges in robes decided to turn to their views on marriage rather than uphold the CA state constitution or respect the will of the people. I still want them impeached for overturning the Good Samaritan Law.
Aegius 2 years ago
I am afraid you are incorrect. The CA Constitution prior to Prop 8 was silent on the question of marriage. Marriage had been defined solely by statute until then.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Wow, you don't even know what you're talking about, do you, Aegius?
And those judges weren't "fascist" - fascism is a right-wing ideology, unlike the socially liberal position that same-sex marriage legalization is.
But, I guess you're right. The CA Supreme Court obviously also erred when it overturned its ban on interracial marriage decades before that, also. Blasted judges protecting the Constitution!
Eastmanarium 2 years ago
Wrong. There are fascists on both the Left and the Right and Mussolini regarded himself on the Left. I never called for interracial marriages to be overturned and that is IRRELEVANT to this. 1)There is no difference between 2 persons on the basis of race. There are enormous differences between a man and a woman. 2)2 people of different races yet opposite sexes can produce kids and raise them as Mom & Dad. 2 men or 2 women can't.
Aegius 2 years ago
The claim that there is a comparison between not allowing a Black man & White woman to marry and not allowing 2 men or 2 women to marry is ridiculous. There is no comparison to be made on the grounds of discrimination via race where there is no justification, with discrimination via sex where there is(separate bathrooms, separate locker rooms, etc.). Besides US Constitutional Case law per against the Mormon Church in 1890 and every other case favored marriage as 1 man: 1 woman.
Aegius 2 years ago
It isn't ridiculous just because you say it is.
You're associating different bathrooms with excluding a class of people from basic protections.....?
U.S. Case Law hasn't really ever address same-sex marriage, so I fail to see the relevance of your second comment.
Eastmanarium 2 years ago
Also, since you seem to blissfully unaware, sex-segregated bathrooms aren't legally-imposed. That's what business decide to do to avoid having to have a lot of private bathrooms.
Eastmanarium 2 years ago
(1/2) No. Moussilini was a "third way" candidate and was brought into power by the right wing, as was every other fascist in history.
Interracial marriage is COMPLETELY relevant, as Loving Vs. Virginia established marriage as a civil right.
There ARE differences in people because of their race. If there weren't, there would be races in the first place.
Eastmanarium 2 years ago
Loving Vs. Virginia didnt establish marriage as a civil right. It only declared that one couldnt discriminate on race via marriage. There was a concurring opinion that declared it a right, but concurring opinions dont make rights. Do you believe slavery is a right too then, as the US Supreme court declared that a right per Dred Scot?
Differences in races? What psychological and emotional differences are there in races?
I didn't advocate procreation to be forced, but cont...
Aegius 2 years ago
cont... but that marriage has ALWAYS been about procreation and providing kids with a home to be raised w/both a mom and a dad. That has been the case in every society and by every moral, philosophical and religious tradition.
And please answer this: Is there a difference between having sex-segregated bathrooms vs. race-segregated bathrooms? Take a position.
BTW, marriage isn't a right, but a privilege. Is there a right to marry your sibling? No. cont...
Aegius 2 years ago
Is there a right to marry your immediate relative? No. More than 1 person? NO. A person who refuses? No. Indeed anything that requires consent means that it is a privilege, just like driving a car or entering a person's home or borrowing something from someone.
BTW, Is there a right to own slaves? After all the US Supreme Court declared that a right in Dred Scot. Sorry, but court decisions don't make rights, nor to concurring opinions or dissenting opinions.
Aegius 2 years ago
No, it has not ALWAYS been about procreation. I know PLENTY of married couples who are married and have no intention of having children. Are you saying they shouldn't be allowed to be legally wed? What about infertile couples?
And, no, not every society, you're stretching the truth.
I'd probably say there's a difference in sex/race segregated bathrooms via public perception, but there really shouldn't (and there isn't) a necessity for either. Segregation was imposed on business, not with sex.
Eastmanarium 2 years ago
Let me get this straight. You don't think that there is no reason to have segregated bathrooms via sex for both men and women? And having such a segregation is just a public perception? Okay.
Regarding marriage about bearing and raising kids, I'm referring to ideals and every society has had that as the ideal in marriage: to bear and raise kids. Just because certain people don't follow that ideal doesn't mean that it doesn't exist in society. It's ideal that people don't murder, but it happens
Aegius 2 years ago
correction... You don't think that there is a reason to have segregated bathrooms via sex for both men and women? & having such segregation is just a pubic perception?
More questions: Is there a difference between how a father relates to his kid(s) vs. how a mother relates to her kids? Or can a mother replace a father and vice-versa? Bottom line: Is there no difference psychologically or emotionally with the sexes?
Aegius 2 years ago
I don't think there really is a reason, other than convenience; men pee most often in urinals, which can make anyone of any sex uncomfortable. It's not perceived as sexism, though I think any form of unnecessary differentiation between any class if wrong.
We're talking about marriage, not parenting, keep to the topic.
Eastmanarium 2 years ago
I'm referring to differentiation on the basis of sex. Class is different and I don't have a problem w/1st class on board airplanes for example. Do you? YOu have a problem with differentiation between the sexes?
Parenting is directly on topic as it relates directly to marriage. Traditional marriage of 1 man: 1 woman leads directly to 1 father and 1 mother for the kids. 2 men marrying leads to 2 fathers and no mom. 2 women marrying leads to 2 mothers and no dad.
Aegius 2 years ago
You grammar is off - I'm not sure what "You think there is no reason..?" means to you, but generally that's not going to be articulate. Yes, I've displayed that sexually segregated bathrooms are due to corporational convenience, rather than rationality, or practicality (which I think could lead one to different conclusions on this.)
Eastmanarium 2 years ago
And, no, "every society" has not had this ideal in regards to marriage. It's what you people propogate, but it's untrue. What about the ancient marriages between those of the same-sex (particularly between same-sex people - including Roman emperors)
Crime will always exist.....
Eastmanarium 2 years ago
Ancient Roman emperors violated Roman traditional taboos galore. Per Lex Scantinius and Lex Julia homosexuality was banned at the point of death. Yes, marriage in every society has been male:female for the sake of bearing and raising kids. That is fact.
Regarding segregated bathrooms, please just answer this question: Is it justified or not? That's all.
Aegius 2 years ago
"segregated bathrooms"??? Well, I can see you are like Larry Craig, wanting to have sex in bathrooms. Or are you saying we should rear kids in bathrooms???? EEEWW!!!!!
Answer ME on that.
Besides, you haven't shown that gay marriage kids' are worse of than opposite marriage. Infact, evidence shows they are BETTER off: the divorce rate amongst gay couples is FAR less than in opposite marriage.
More importantly: You haven't shown any REAL damage to ANYone, if gays get the right to marry.
TheSteelGeneral 2 years ago
Please just answer my questions. 1)Are there no psychological or emotional differences in the sexes? 2)Is there no difference for the kids of 2 dads w/o a mom or 2 moms w/o a dad in contrast to both a mom and dad?
I'm going to ignore most of your baseless and silly statements. Of course I didn't call for kids to be raised in bathrooms.
Aegius 2 years ago
BTW, if incestual marriage isn't going to be allowed on the basis, that the kids will be genetically defective more likely, then you are making the possibility of bearing children part of the definition of marriage. Only str8 couples can bear kids by themselves, so only str8 couples will then have to be allowed to marry as the ideal of male:female and father:mother for the kids.
Still if there is a right to marry, what if the person refuses? Do I have the right to marry that person then?
Aegius 2 years ago
Cont courts have been wrong countless times, so just because a judge says something doesnt make it sacrosanct and if a judge declares something a right doesnt mean that it is. Besides rights are attained through the democratic process or a higher form of law. Judges are solely there to secure such rights and not make up new rights. Marriage inst a right, or do I have the right to marry a person who refuses?
Aegius 2 years ago
Is a couple that can produce kids and raise them as mom & dad just as good for society as a couple that can do neither?
Gays aren't the same as str8s, as they can't produce kids on their own or provide both a mom & dad for the kids. Str8s can and they are better for society, so str8 should remain the ideal for society as 1 man: 1 woman and in turn 1 father: 1 mother for the kids.
Aegius 2 years ago
Yes, if you actually read the entire ruling, it DOES establish a civil right to marry, not just a concurring opinion.
Obviously slavery isn't a right since that isn't precedent anymore. However, Living Vs. Virginia still has marriage established as a civil right.
I obviously meant physical differences. I don't see why you're arguing psychological and emotional differences.
Eastmanarium 2 years ago
It was just a concurring opinion. Go read it yourself. Besides as stated, marriage is NOT a right. It is a privilege. Is there a right to drive a car? That requires consent and there are restrictions just like marriage. How about a right to be airline pilot or any other vocation? Same thing as marriage. Marriage is NOT a right and the concurring opinion of the US Supreme Court is wrong & thank you for admitting that court decisions don't make rights anyway.
Aegius 2 years ago
No, it was *NOT* a concurring opinion, it was a part of the majority ruling. I've read the entire ruling before. It IS a right, and I recommend you actually read the whole of the ruling before just arbitrarily declaring it merely a concurring opinion.
Eastmanarium 2 years ago
It was a concurring opinion, but a person in the majority ruling. The ruling only stated that one cannot discriminate on the basis of race in marriage. It stated nothing about same-sex marriage. It is NOT a right anyway.
Questions:
Is there a right to marry your sibling or other immediate relative? Is there a right to marry more than 1 person? Is there a right to marry a person who refuses to marry you?
Other ?s: Okay, are there psychological & emotional differences between men & women? cont...
Aegius 2 years ago
Wasn't a concurring opinion, yet I wouldn't see how someone who thought the CA Constitution even acknowledged marriage before Prop 8 to have an idea of what they're talking about.
No, because bans on those don't discriminate against you because of your identity, so they don't deny equal protection.
And no, there aren't really major psychological or emotional differences between men and women. A lot of that is societal; why do you think there've been so many matriarchal societies?
Eastmanarium 2 years ago
"No, because bans on those don't discriminate against you because of your identity, so they don't deny equal protection." -
So there is no right to marriage then via restrictions & identity. Being a polymorist or polygamist can be considered an identity; hence so what?
"And no, there aren't really major psychological or emotional differences between men and women. A lot of that is societal" Ah, here it is. No real differences means no differences between moms & dads... cont...
Aegius 2 years ago
Cont There are no differences between the sexes psychologically or emotionally in your opinion? Then you must believe that there is no difference between a relationship a mom has w/her kids vs. a dad w/his kids & 2 moms w/o dad or 2 dads w/o a mom are equally good as a mom & dad. Okay.
If I believed that there were no significant differences between the sexes, I would support same-sex marriage & oppose segregated bathrooms via sex. I dont, so I hold the opposite of such views. Were done.
Aegius 2 years ago
I recommend you read Skinner v Oklahoma, which the court cites in Loving, and see what it was about marriage that made it one of the; "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.' Given that fundamental purpose of marriage, it would be impossible to argue that denying marriage on the basis as sex would be unsupportable in the way the Court found racial classifications to be.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Is there a right to marry your sibling or immediate relative? Is there a right to marry more than 1 person? Is there a right to marry a person who refuses? Is there a right to marry a person already married? If there is a right to marry, then it must exist is ALL OF THOSE cases. You can't say, well the right exists in case A, but not case B.
Aegius 2 years ago
refuses? Are you insane? siblings? There is a clear and present damage when we allow that, kids will be genetically defective. But for all i care they could get married, if they don't procreate. This doesn't harm me, nor anyone else.
There are ALREADY siblings raising kids together, sometimes even two brothers or 2 sisters, and having adopted each others kids. This is saver for the kids.
No one rails against THAT.
TheSteelGeneral 2 years ago
Please answer my questions: Is there a right to marry your sibling, parent or other immediate relative? Is there a right to marry more than 1 person? Is there a right to marry a person who refuses? The CA Supreme Court ruled that a person can sue if first aide or CPR is provided after they allowed for same-sex marriage. Courts have been wrong countless times and their opinions aren't sacrosanct and discrimination via sex is often valid and justified while on race it never is.
Aegius 2 years ago
"ALL OF THOSE cases. You can't say, well the right exists in case A, but not case B. " You don't see the hypocrisy in that? Same sex marriage is between two consenting, unrelated, unmarried, adults, and the only reasons that one wouldn't allow it can be boiled down to bigotry, religion, and faulty logic (but all 3 in most cases)
SHSH1212 2 years ago
So what? Polygamy, polymory and incestual marriage is ALL done between consenting & unmarried and usually unrelated adults. But why not allow for related adults too? They love each other, too. AAnd why not more than 2? Polygamy is the oldest form of marital arrangement and if you allow for it, you have to allow for polymory. The ACLU & extremist feminist groups want polygamy legalized after same-sex marriage is.
Aegius 2 years ago
One of the 7 wonders of the ancient world was built on behalf of a couple called the Mausoleum at Halicarnassus. This couple was brother:sister and were very much in love w/each other. Why not allow for sibling marriages if this is about love?
There are valid concerns regarding keeping marriage male:female, most notably that kids should be raised as dad:mom as the ideal & not 2 dads w/o mom or 2 moms w/o dad. A couple that can produce kids and raise them as mom & dad deserves preference.
Aegius 2 years ago
The problem I have with your argument is that homosexuals cannot produce offspring, so the only case in which that argument would apply is if they decide to adopt, and that is a different issue entirely. The same logic could be applied to single parents.
SHSH1212 2 years ago
Aegius, there is a good reason why brothers and sisters can't get married The possible offspring of an incestuous marriage has a high risk of mental and physical disabilities. Secondly, your assertion about parenting is incorrect. It is the opinion of the American Psychological Association that gay couples are just as good as parents as heterosexual couples. The gender of your parents doesn't matter. It's all about unconditional love.
BIitzed 2 years ago
You referred to offspring. Gays can't provide offspring, but str8s can. If your basis for marriage is providing offspring, then only str8s and in turn male:female should be allowed. As for parenting, the studies were fraudulent. Still here are the questions: Are there no psychological & emotional differences between men and women and in turn how a mom relates to the kids or the dad to the kids? Are such relationships interchangeable? cont....
Aegius 2 years ago
Professor Don Browning of the University of Chicago wrote in The New York Times, "We know next to nothing" about the effects of same-sex parenting on children.
"The body of sociological knowledge about same-sex parenting," he and his co-author wrote, "is scant at best. ... There are no rigorous, large-scale studies on the effect of same-sex marriage on the couples' children.
Drs. Robert Lerner and Althea Nagai, examine all forty-nine empirical studies on same-sex parenting cont...
Aegius 2 years ago
Lerner & Nagai found them studies fraudulent. Go figure.
Steven Nock, professor of sociology at the University of Virginia, has also reviewed the full body of literature and arrives at the same conclusion.
Nock cautioned, "I don't think we can draw any conclusions in either direction. These studies, because of sample and methodological problems, just don't give us enough information to make any pronouncements. The literature is inconclusive."
Aegius 2 years ago
The American Sociological Review "disagree with those who claim that there are no differences between the children of heterosexual parents and children of lesbigay parents ... ." They indicate that problems of gender identity and sexuality might be greater for children raised by homosexual parents than any of the studies recognize.
The Journal of Marriage and the Family also objected to the studies as being to narrow of small samples.
Aegius 2 years ago
The fact remains that you have no proof to back up your claims. How am I supposed to know that the 3 people you cite are even talking about the same studies I am referencing? I am going with the APA, who I consider to be the authority on the issue. You can find people who want to shoot them down all you want, but if you can't provide sufficient evidence to the contrary then I am not going to change my opinion.
BIitzed 2 years ago 2
I already provided sources on how the studies have been fraudulent including peer review journals and noted professors. If the APA goes along w/fraudulent studies, then it is corrupt. Given that political correctness dominates many disciplines, it would make sense that it is.
Besides, I'm asking you: Are there no differences in the sexes and how they relate to kids? Just answer that question.
Aegius 2 years ago
Comment removed
Aegius 2 years ago
In the 1970's there were fraudulent studies that claimed that men & women were psychologically & emotionally the same. The studies that 1:4 kids are abused or neglected were fraudulent. The claim of 1:4 women raped on campuses were fraudulent. F--- fraud in the name of science. Now answer my questions:
Are there no differences psychologically & emotionally w/the sexes? IS there no difference between how a dad relates to the kids vs. a mom?
Aegius 2 years ago
Wrong, wrong, wrong. I am not basing my argument on producing offspring, I am stating that incest is illegal FOR A REASON.
BIitzed 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The possible offspring of an incestuous marriage has a high risk of mental and physical disabilities. Your words. You cant have it both ways. Either you base your objection upon them being deformed which means that your basis of marriage is on procreation in part or find another basis. Make your choice.
Polygamist marriages would be equal even w/different rights & arrangements, as they would be mutually agreed to.
Answer my ?s & don't tell me what the APA says. I talking to you, NOT THEM.
Aegius 2 years ago
"The possible offspring of an incestuous marriage has a high risk of mental and physical disabilities." - Your words.
Aegius 2 years ago
False dilemma. My basis of marriage is on love, as well of the safety of any possible children. That does not mean that the couple has to have children or even be able to reproduce. That's not what I'm talking about. I mean the same legal rights and everything. And polygamists can't do that. That's funny. You just copy + pasted a bunch of quotes, claiming to disprove all of my evidence, when in fact your quotes are completely irrelevant. And I asked YOU a question.
BIitzed 2 years ago 2
I have no problem with those either, so long as they are consenting adults; however, there are problems when it comes to, well, inbreeding, for lack of a better word. When it comes to the adoption of children by homosexual couples, I am behind it with all my heart since they actively make the decision to adopt. If they want to adopt, then they plan on staying by the child, presumably. This is, in my mind, a much better option than leaving the children with those who couldn't provide.
SHSH1212 2 years ago