Has anyone seen the show "Sister Wives"? What is the rationale of that sort of polygamist "union" being acceptable and not a marriage between two people of the same sex? This blows my mind. Thank you for this video.
Has anyone seen the show "Sister Wives"? What is the rationale of that sort of polygamist "union" being acceptable and not a marriage between two people of the same sex? This blows my mind. Thank you for this video.
churches should patent the word marriage. Marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman. Getting married has nothing to do with love and other bullshit.
love is one of the reason why people get married but it is always the only reason.People created this constitution at a time when gay marriage was never an issue. Being gay just disqualifies you to do anything with marriage, forget about even getting married.
Dr. Robert L. Spitzer published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior studies contradict people are born gay.The study's author is viewed as a historic champion of gay right.Spitzer played a pivotal role in 1973 in removing homosexuality from the psychiatric manual of mental disorders.Dr. Spitzer following therapy, many of the participants experienced an increase in frequency & satisfaction of heterosexual activity.If he can conclude being gay is not true. Why can't you?
telling gay people they can't drink at the same fountain. my argument is, Marriage is between two people--a man, and woman--and GOD. unlike civil unions which are between two people, and a judge, or a government. by all means, allow civil unions, but marriages are religious statements.
1. none. marriage as a word however, is associating with the church. this could "devalue" someones marriage by questioning the churches priority's, and ideas.
2. none. Civil unions are not the same as marriages. a civil union between two people is a different subject entirely. as i said before, marriage is a religious experience. gay marriage is--at least where i grew up--sacrilegious.
3. again, none. you should not associate the gay marriage argument, with the civil rights movement. we're not
You misuse separate but equal; no one is being held separate, again, you insult the struggle of African American's by using these concepts, please stop.
3) Can't tell you, i haven't read the US constitution (i'm living in Europe). There is probably no reason. As there is no reason to ban bonds between someone (or something) that can seem to be absurd right now (even for progressives)
I'm not from US, so i haven't seen the document. But i will answer your question:
1) No practical harm. Marriage sucks, because people forgot what it was all about
2) People do not realize that legalizing gay marriage is just a step away from legalizing a bond between a man(or a woman) with something obscure? That won't happen? Well, a few years ago gay marriage was taboo and now we have states as a lot of countries in Europe, who support this.
cont'd: I'm a libertarian, so I actually do have a problem with people not being able to enter into a private contract for a gay, polygamous, or even incestuous marriage, because, well...I believe there is a right to freedom of contract. But I cannot in good conscience support state recognition of same-sex marriage. I would much prefer it if the states stopped recognizing marriage altogether, and it is beyond me why homosexuals have not simply pushed for this if they are concerned with rights.
I oppose same-sex marriage, but I really appreciate the civil tone of this video--no straw men, etc. here. It's true that a lot of people against same-sex marriage don't have good arguments. To answer your questions: 1.) none, to my knowledge, unless the members of the heterosexual marriage were psychotic; 2.) again, none, to my knowledge, though that's not necessary; 3.) the tenth amendment. I read your blurb about the Full Faith and Credit clause, but it shouldn't change overall state laws.
Here's a fourth one, that not many dare to ask, but that I think is a valid question too.
Anyone belonging to a minority;
Why is it okay to deny one minority (gay people) rights, if it is not okay to deny your minority rights?
I have to say I'm very disappointed in how many minorities came out in opposition to gay rights. Even though they themselves had to fight hard for their rights, they happily deny another group theirs.
@Shavarnarak Any time people who fight for their rights deny others their rights, or engage in bigotry generally, it's hypocritical and sad. Unfortunately, being progressive in one area does not mean being progressive in all areas. Even back in the fight for women's right to vote, when black men won the vote before women did, quite a few came out as racist, demanding to know why an uneducated black man should be allowed more political power that a highly educated white woman.
@Shavarnarak There were also bigotries based on class differences too. The fight for women's right to vote was, of course, noble and important, the hypocrisy of some shouldn't be used to disparage the integrity of all.
With that in mind, and being a person who prefers to regard people as individuals rather than as demographics, I'm not sure how to address what role race plays in attitudes toward gays. My goal is to appeal to people's reason and compassion, regardless of race, religion, etc...
@Shavarnarak ... and, hopefully, get them to see that they have nothing to fear from gay rights. So while I think it's important to note the connection between all minorities fighting for their rights, I don't think it's useful to blanket blame minorities for the success of Prop 8 in California. Not only are there many, *many* homophobic white people throughout America, but statistically white people are the majority, so ...
@Shavarnarak ... if white people as a group were so much more liberal than minorities, there'd be no problem passing legislation protecting gay rights.
The best strategy, imho, is to emphasize connection rather than discord. So, when it comes to race and gay rights, we need to remind minorities and women (as well as white men) that they have nothing to fear from gay marriage, gay adoption, etc, and that protecting minority civil rights also reinforces protection for their own civil rights.
@Shavarnarak "Why is it okay to deny one minority (gay people) rights, if it is not okay to deny your minority rights?" Gays and straights have the same rights as far as marriage is concerned. Any man, straight or gay, has the right to marry any woman. Flipside for women. A gay man has the legal right to marry another gay - as long as she's a she. It's the same for everyone.
I want to offer a full-hearted thank you to all the posters here who've taken up my slack in dealing with comments and responses. I tend to respond to the pro-prop 8 group when I do respond here, but I don't want you to think your support goes unnoticed. Your patience and persistence in these debates are admirable. Thank you so much.
a dyke asking a bunch of questions. The most important thing is civil rights, you are correct. Tell me where it says a gay man or woman can NOT get married. Show me. A gay man or woman CAN get married. Just a person of the opposite sex. They have the right, they choose not to use it. They want to distort the definition of mariage, but only for their own purpose. Not for a dad that wants to marry their daughter. So they only want rights for their own cause, which isn't a right at all
@jonerton15 *quizzical* I'm sorry, do you have a problem with a "slope or wall to regulate water levels, known as a dyke or levee" sharing its opinions? What an ... odd prejudice. ;-D
The rest of your message makes no discernible sense, so I'll just leave those ramblings alone. Much love to all, man. :`)-
@pmcrimson you couldn't figure the rest of that "nonsense?" You want gays to have the right to get married. They already do have that right. They can get married. There are certain rules that even I have to follow when getting married. opposite sex, over 18, not a family member. So if you want to change the opposite sex part, will you change the age and family member too? If not, you do not stand for equality for all, just your own little group of "homosexuals" aka dykes
@jonerton15 As the couple is a pair of consenting adults, it's nobody else's business if they want to legally marry. Cousins marrying makes no sense because said individuals are *already* family members, so they don't need a legal document to establish that. People under 18 are minors, which won't change when gay marriage becomes legal.
Please, don't forget that my lovely male gay pals deserve gay marriage too.
Any actual answer to how any gay marriage has hurt your own (if you're married)?
@pmcrimson you say it's "nobody else's business" and then you go on to say its a Legal document. Oh with who? The government, so the people. You're lovely gay male friends already have the right to marriage, and they have to follow the rules of marriage like i do.
@jonerton15 Legal marriage involves tax benefits, the protection of familial rights in hospitals, and a way to settle disputes in a divorce. But it isn't the government's role to tell people who they should marry (as long as we're talking consenting adults). No straights would stand for that, so why should gays?
Also, when you talk about the rules of marriage, which ones are you talking about? The Old Testament one which demands that a widow must marry her husband's brother to produce kids? ...
@jonerton15 The rule in which women in early America had no legal rights outside their husband, and got nothing if there was ever a divorce? And what about adultery? Religions shun adultery, but it isn't illegal. Nobody here gets jailed for the "crime" of adultery, so is that part of the "rules" of marriage or isn't it? And, of course, what about former laws against interracial marriage and former laws allowing cousin marriages? If we can amend those rules, why not the opposite-gender-only rule?
Answer 1: Gay marriage does affect true (straight) marriage. Gay marriage is alternative, much like a man and animal getting married or an animal and animal etc. Gays getting married is a gateway for other alternatives to get married, which ruins the main point of marriage. A man and a woman.
Answer 2:I am non-religious and I think gay marriage is naturally wrong. It isn't natural. Having them breathing oxygen is unnatural enough.
1) if you read transcripts of the recent federal court case, boies has sufficiently proven (and the yes on prop 8 lawyers of conceded this to be the truth) that gay marriage has no effect on straight marriage, and that if it does have an effect, it's a positive one.
2) it is natural. did you know that all animals engage in 'gay' activities. it's a natural (and nice) way of population control.
Animals also cannibalize their young. And kill each other in competition for mating. That can also be considered "natural". So using that as a benchmark of something's desirability doesn't hold up. Albinism, color blindness and hermaphrodism is also naturally occuring, but it's an error in genetic code, which I think homosexuality also falls under in some cases, in some cases I do believe it is chosen as well such as what you see going on in prison.
One more thing just on a technical note regarding the law. People always say gays are being denied their rights under the law, but gays have the same right under the law as anyone, to marry one person of the opposite sex. If I wanted to marry a man in a non-sexual marriage for whatever reason(say to get him US citizenship or inherit money), I can't do it either. Nobody is stopping gays from loving each other or being life long partners. And most Americans see no need to change the law.
The right they want is not "to marry someone of the opposite sex," it's "to marry the person of their choosing." In the past, people argued that making interracial marriage illegal wasn't denying anyone their rights because they were still free to marry anyone of their own race. Would that be justice, equality or freedom? Of course not.
Also, Google "1400 marriage rights." The Religious Tolerance link explains what gays are missing by not being able to get married.
If the standard is simply, "the right to marry a person of their choosing", then we are legally compelled to recognize polygamy and incestuous marriages which are now illegal.
I know IR marriage is often compared to gay marriage, but I think they are entirely seperate issues. The purpose of banning IR marriage was to enforce a caste system that preserved white racial purity and slavery. It really didn't even have much to do with the "sanctity of marriage" or anything like that.
Gay marriage would not lead to the legalization of incestuous marriage because those marriages often lead to actual harm via inbred children.
Polygamy is the sole issue in which I can see slippery slope fears having any merit whatsoever. I find it unlikely that polygamy would be legalized due to the history of exploitation of women in such, and due to the complex new divorce law that would result -- especially when involving kids. ....
Since it would be near impossible to ensure all partners equal rights in a polygamist marriage, I simply cannot see that happening. However, when it gets down to it, and even though I REALLY don't like it, if people want to have a plural marriage involving multiple wives or husbands, what business of it is mine?
Ah, but people who argued against allowing interracial marriage DID argue that it was to "protect the sanctity of marriage," and cited Biblical verses to prove it.
If eharmony can be sued and end up paying out why couldn't this happen with churches down the line? Eharmony is a private company yet they have to be brow beaten into providing services for gays when there are already plenty of gay dating sites. Anyway, I think we are going to see more and more of this type of thing. I don't hate gays, don't view them as lessor humans, but I think men and women pairing should be the ideal while still being tolerant towards those that are gay.
I haven't investigated the e-harmony case, but the fact of the matter is that in the U.S., due to the 14th Amendment, private businesses cannot discriminate against others. Churches, due to the separation of church and state, are a separate matter. Already, churches that discriminate against gays may lose their tax exempt status. They're free to operate as they believe, but only get tax exemption if they don't discriminate. I think that's fair since tax exemption is a privilege, not a right.
I'm sure there are exceptions carved out where legal discrimination is accepted. Keep in mind, there's such a thing as rational non-malicious discrimination. For example if a sushi bar only hires Japanese staff, that's discrimination but not of the malicious sort. It makes sense given the context. I think eharmony would fall in that same category. Gays suing eharmony would be like whites Christians suing Jdate because it's a Jewish only site and them filing religious discrimination.
I think the complexity here is b'c with dating sites the commodities ARE the customers, so niche companies would HAVE to discriminate. Could a white person sue a black dating service? Possibly, but it makes more sense to simply go to a site with mixed race matchings available if that's what you want. And why any gay or bi women or men would want to spend their money on an organization associated with Focus on the Family I have no idea.
It's possible the suit was primarily an attempt to punish Focus on the Family for the anti-gay message they spread; or, perhaps, it was a way to keep gay rights in the news and get additional precedent for protecting gay rights and relationships in the legal system. I really don't know, but it'll be interesting if there's ever a similar lawsuit brought against other speciality dating sites (for gays, for Jews, etc.)
I think what bothers people about same sex marriage when it comes down to it is that it destroys the social/cultural as well as religious NORM of male-female pair bonding as being ideal. This has all kinds of implications. It means you are now a bigot if you prefer your son grow up straight. Eharmony was sued because they don't provide options for gay couples. Parents who object to their kids being read "King & King" will be the equivalent of racists.
Well, if someone said that they "didn't think black people were lesser humans who didn't deserve their rights, but that nevertheless interracial couplings shouldn't be called a marriage," I would still call them a racist. Perhaps low on the racist scale since they're obviously not hate-mongering or out to commit violence based on their feelings, but certainly showing fear of the "other" when it comes to interracial marriage. The view you express is, in my view, comparable.
Herein lies a major difference: people that are opposed blacks marry whites usually hate blacks across the board. They don't want blacks marrying whites, they don't want blacks in their neighborhood, or their kids hanging with them etc. No racist is going to say, "I approve of IR civil unions, but not marriage", they don't believe in ANY relationship between races. However most Americans support civil unions, so there's probably other issues at work besides sheer homophobia.
Ah, but all -isms lie in a spectrum or scale. There are plenty of people with relatively low (perhaps subconscious) racist tendencies. They'd never support any sort of hate crime, but maybe feel uncomfortable with the idea of a close family member dating outside their race. That may be relatively low-grade racism compared to a KKK member, but it's still on the racism spectrum. The same goes for feelings of homophobia. That's my point. I'm not saying you're hateful, but your view IS homophobic.
You're right there is a gradation of -isms, I probably am mildly homophobic in that I do feel uncomfortable seeing two men making out. That may be just because I'm not used to seeing it and it's a bit of a shock when I do. However, I don't believe people should stare at them and make them feel hated either. Even though I'm only 33, I do have more traditional feelings about sexuality and marriage that make it hard to outright EMBRACE homosexuality, even though I have no feelings of hate for them.
And that feeling, although I disagree with it, I can understand. I think that gut feeling of being uncomfortable is the other reason (besides religious belief) that certain people oppose gay marriage. But the idea that it makes some people feel uncomfortable is not *legal* justification for outlawing gay marriage. I don't feel particularly comfortable with the thought of a fifty-year-old marrying a twenty-year-old, but as long as they are both consenting adults, it's none of my business ...
... how they want to define their relationship, and it would be discriminatory of the government to prevent them. It certainly wouldn't justify calling their marriage a "civil union" just to make me feel comfortable because, again, their union has absolutely nothing to do with me. Why should my feelings have anything to do with their right to get married?
It doesn't destroy the norm at all. The vast majority of people who get married will still be straight couples because, percentage-wise, straights greatly outnumber gays. And I have to ask, how would knowing that there are gay people out there enjoying their own marriages in any way affect your own (assuming you are married or ever plan to be)? Would that knowledge somehow make the love and devotion straights have for their spouses any less?
I am in favor of civil unions for gays that give the full rights of marriage, but I feel that the word "marriage" should only be reserved for men/female marriage. I do not hate gays, view them as inferiors or wish them any harm. If a gay man were running for president and I thought he was good for the job, I'd vote for him in a second. If I had a gay son, I'd treat him no different than a straight son. So I don't think I'm just a crass homophobe by being against same sex marriage.
I would have no problem with the compromise of having the state regulate ONLY civil unions, whether straight or gay. In other words, we could have civil union be the term for the legal agreement between two people similar to modern marriage, and the word marriage would be reserved for religious ceremonies. That has the added bonus of further reinforcing the separation of church and state, which is fabulous.
Though we disagree, I appreciate your candor and tact. Thanks for the comments. :-)
The state only recognizing civil unions may be the only solution in the end if this matter ends up going to the Supreme Court. I have the feeling that's what will eventually end up happening. The thing is, even then we are still going to have to define who gets civil union rights and who doesn't. We aren't going to grant them to people who want polygamous civil unions or incestuous civil unions and then we may be back at square one.
Again, incest won't be an issue because 1) incest leads to inbreeding, which does actual harm to an innocent person, and 2) those people are already family members. They already have the rights of being family members, so the need to make an additional legal agreement to define their relationship as double-family makes no sense.
Also, it should be noted that there weren't always laws against incest. Cousins used to marry. Therefore, precedent for outlawing incestuous marriage exists.
This issue is going to go to the Supreme Court very soon. Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the suit disputing the constitutionality of Proposition 8 in California, is extremely likely to go to the Supreme Court. Keep your eyes on the news for that one. Justice Kennedy, from what I've been reading, is expected to be the swing vote.
They can love all they want but no marriage,I love my father and mother and don't want to marry them.Its not about love its about the sexual perversion defining marriage.
You do realize that outlawing gay marriage in no way reduces the amount of gay sex going on, right? Frankly, given the fact that straight couples have sex less often during marriage than outside it, and assuming that gay marriages would follow the same trend, allowing gay marriage might actually reduce the amount of gay sex going on. So shouldn't be advocating for it? :`D
What practical harm has homosexuality caused?Its called AIDS and HIV,forget the homoganada,but aids was spread like wildfire in the 80s at the gay bathhouses.
Butt sex caused a transfer of infected blood from one gay to the next gay.And if one gay was a bi,he infected a woman.
Back in the 80s hiv was the new plague in the gay community,yes I lived in california in the 80s and the news about aids and gays was everywhere in the local california community newspapers.
Saying that the HIV/AIDS problem resulted from gay people is unbelievably ridiculous. It's ignorant homophobes like you that shouldn't be allowed to marry, not two people who love each other but who happen to live a lifestyle that is beyond their control. Tell me, at what age did you decide to not be gay? It's not a choice, and it certainly did not cause HIV to be spread as much as it has. That is just ignorant and stupid.
If you would stop watching FOX News and actually do your research you would realize that the correlation between HIV and gay people was a rumor that, yes, the newspapers helped perpetuate (the same way the media circulates lies today). We don't live in the '80s, we don't hold those stupid notions anymore.
Anyone with a discernable IQ would deny that it's true. "if sex wasn't a part of being gay,would marriage be necessary?" Dude, what does that even *mean*?? If sex weren't a part of being hetero, would marriage be necessary?
As for "gay" being "all about the sexual perversion," gay people want to fall in love, get married and live a good life. You call that perverted?
Homosexual sex's existence has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not marriage is needed. Marriage is an institution two people join because they wanted to be formally united; they love each other and so want to demonstrate their commitment, as well as legally protect their joint rights (to see each other as family in hospitals, to do taxes together, perhaps to raise children together, and so on).
Child molestation most certainly IS a perversion (much like rape is a perversion) because it is a criminal-victim relationship. Gay sex between consenting adults is not a perversion because it is an expression of love and/or lust (like hetero sex) not exploitation and harm (like child molestation).
Polygamy has a history of exploitation of women, so in general I don't like it. But if people want a plural marriage, that's their business, because it's their marriage.
It is deviating from the natural use of our bodies,because we know better,Animals don't know any better so their so called homosexuality is not the same as ours.Thats the difference between man and animal.Man has rules of conduct.animals have no rules other than survival
I'm not sure how you can argue gay sex is "deviating from the natural use of our bodies" since gay men and women use their bodies to engage in it AND there are pleasure nerves in the anus and vagina which cause pleasure during it. In other words, our bodies are hard wired for the potential for gay sex, although, of course, not everybody does -- since much of sex depends on who we're sexually attracted to. Gays are naturally sexually attracted to their own gender.
"I'm not sure how you can argue gay sex is "deviating from the natural use of our bodies" since gay men and women use their bodies to engage in it AND there are pleasure nerves in the anus and vagina which cause pleasure during it."
Lol, I'm not sure about pleasure nerves in the anus. I actually WISH you were right, so most us men wouldn't cringe at prostate cancer screenings so much! I think the anal pleasure thing is probably more psychological than physiological.
The start of morality is recognizing what causes you suffering and not doing that to others. If you don't want to be cheated, don't cheat others. If you don't want other people telling you who you can or can't love, why would you do that to other people?
In other words, empathy + logic = universal morality. The various formal rules that societies have come up have had to do with that or with their own hangups. I don't see why homophobes from centuries ago should tell us how to treat gays now.
Well then, that's your hang up. But that doesn't make it wrong for other people to enjoy oral sex. And just because you don't enjoy gay sex doesn't mean it's wrong for others to enjoy gay sex.
1) Since marriage tends to slow the spread of STDs (married folk are typically expected to be having sex only with their spouse), if gay marriage had existed in the '80s that may very well have slowed the spread of AIDS.
2) Homosexuality is not responsible for the spread of AIDS any more than heterosexuality is responsible for the spread of syphilis, gonorrhoea, chlamydia, herpes, hepatitis, or crabs. Unprotected sex with iffy partners, regardless of sexuality or gender, spreads STDs.
You are quite correct. And while, to be fair, there HAVE been thoughtful objectors throughout and I've appreciated those conversations (though I continue to disagree); yes, the majority of comments have been from knee-jerk homophobes, at least 95% of whom are objecting for religious reasons.
First, kudos to you for your investment of time and effort in being a level-headed voice of reason to those here who suffer from some confusion and illusion.
Second, what do you believe to be the greatest organizational fear of religion as a whole on the subject of homosexuality? In other words, what is it really trying to protect in your estimation?
Thanks for your informative reply, and continued 'clarity of thought' to you.
If we're talking OT, I think homophobia began as a population growth issue. It fits in with their laws against masturbation (poor Onan), against marriage outside their clans, in favor of polygamy, and requiring the brothers of a man who dies childless to impregnate his wife. It was a numbers game where the population/culture/belief system with the most adherents would win.
At the same time, fear of "the other" is a huge factor too. People are so often scared of anything different from themselves. Plus, it's a convenient cop out to blame the weirdo down the street for the lack of rainfall than to do the necessary work to solve the problem yourself through science and engineering, or perhaps even moving to new land. It's this emotion which inspires the harsh -isms of our existence: racism, sexism, ethnocentrism, and so on.
Babe, you might want to browse past the first page before you make such a claim. Start at the beginning of the 972 responses here instead of at the end. Read them ALL. Then please let me know if you have any points I haven't already dealt with 20 times already.
Question 1 can be answered with another question. What practical harm has not allowing gay marriage ever caused?
Question 2: Question 2 would apply to natural moral values of an individual. Secular people don't choose their morals. Some people might not view drug use as wrong yet most other people do.
Question 3: I don't really think the constitution says anything about marriage at all so if you are looking for some type of justice from it you are looking in the wrong place.
...to be able to visit their partner in the hospital, and make life-sustaining or -ending decisions instead of letting that responsibility fall on family.
...to collect the remains of their deceased partner for proper burial or cremation.
...to be married instead of simply living together, especially when raising children, financially and psychologically.
I've heard this argument before, but the reasons for it don't make sense.
Are you that insecure? If gays were allowed to marry, and it was actually called "marriage" (since that's what it would be), would your own marriage would feel less special? Why?
To get so hung up over the terminology used... You don't see anything petty about that? Or selfish?
I respect the sanctity of marriage, which is why I wish to partake in it. You would deny me that opportunity? Over a word?
This is the same argument I always hear. You say that its us that is hung up over the terminology used, yes the terminology is important to me but its just as important to you. If it wasn't than you wouldn't be fighting for it. So clearly yes the terminology is something to be hung up over.
Assuming that gay civil unions ARE given all the same rights and regulations, that still leaves the situation as a "separate but equal" one, which is inherently discriminatory. Plus, assuming that each state can determine which rights are included in a civil union, any differences would be overtly discriminatory. I don't see why the government should have two terms for the same exact institution.
That being said, I would not object to leaving "marriage" as a religious term and having "civil union" the term for BOTH straight and gay couples legally uniting themselves. That would be fair to all parties since everybody really would be getting the same term and the same rights. It may be overly PC, but it's better than people citing mythical nonsense like God not creating "Adam and Steve" as a reason to deny gays their rights.
noclip14, civil union is the same as "separate but equal". Have you not learn history yet? How would one civil union from one state be viewed when they move to another. State by state, their own interpertation of this civil union would be different. Why must we single out this group and give them a different label? gays have been around and they have been raising their own family for the longest time. Have that destroy anything? If a gay couple get marry today, would you even know that?
Your question-answer is disturbingly apathetic, too. The existence of practical harm aside, why rely on such lazy logic? Is it that hard to think about or research?
Also, gay marriage and drugs are not comparable. It's relatively easy to look at drugs and point to not just potential but actual damage. Addiction, debt, death, crime. It's beyond a moral issue, there are hard facts to consider, and the known negatives seem to outweigh potential positives. Not the case with gay marriage.
1) Changing the question is just avoiding giving your own answer. Since you want to ban gay marriage, the onus is on you to prove that there is a valid reason for doing so. That said, it hurts gay relationships and gays' couples rights just as much as it would hurt straight couples to not have the option of legal marriage. Legal marriage means becoming legally family members (the right to hospital visits, etc.), doing taxes together, and all the same stuff straight married couples want.
Secular people don't choose their morals? Well, I do think the basics of morality are empathy and logic combined, but once we get beyond "don't do unto others what you wouldn't want done unto you," once moral rules get any more particular than that, they become notoriously idiosyncratic -- or, at the very least, culturally defined. But basic respect and freedom for all people (as long as they are not harming others) is a great way to live.
In any case, on question 2, you again don't seem to have answered the question. What moral objections do you have against gay marriage?
3) Exactly. There is no constitutional basis for outlawing gay marriage. I suspect laws against gay marriage will be struck down like laws against interracial marriage were struck down by Loving v. Virginia, not only because those laws are discriminatory, but also because people's marital status shouldn't change depending on which state they're currently in.
3) What I am saying is that the constitution doesn't say anything about any type of marriage. It doesn't say anything about killing or murder either. Yet murderers aren't claiming that banning murder isn't constitutional. I'm not saying that homosexuality is anything close to killing, so please don't get angry
No offence taken. Believe me, I've been on here long enough to recognize the difference between people who are simply disagreeing with me and those who are trolls.
But yes, it doesn't say anything regarding marriage. What it does say (Amendment 9) is that just because a given right isn't explicitly listed doesn't mean that people lack that right.
Also, the Full Faith and Credit Clause (Article IV, Sec. 1) states that each state must respect legal contracts made in other states. (Meaning, moving from Massachusetts to Wisconsin, or even just visiting other states, shouldn't change your marital status.) So this cannot remain a "states' rights" issue. Furthermore, the Supreme Court decision Loving v. Virginia identified marriage as a civil right and it IS unconstitutional (14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause) to discriminate.
Hello everyone. most of you guys wouldnt be able to realize the harm that prop 8 really caused for people like me. It was a dream come true, when they legalized gay marriage in Cali. my boyfriend and I were psyched! we were totally contemplating marriage, and how it would be like to live together and say "this is my husband" and then immediately follow with "jinx!" But then, November came, and people decided that we didnt deserve to be happy, and made an "amendment" to the constitution.
goofydiegog: I don't laugh at your tears. And I very much know you deserve to be happy. Your story is poignant and sad and I do wish you and your boyfriend happiness, however that may be achieved. However, none of that can alter my belief that the legal definition of "marriage" should be designated as between a man and a woman.
This is what I don't get. No one is out to alter /your/ belief. If you believe gays marrying is wrong, you don't have to marry someone of the same sex. You can even raise your children to believe the same, which I'm sure you will.
But there is no logical, rational reason to deny gays marriage based on your personal belief. None. We are talking about tax-paying citizens, of legal age, like any other couple, who want to marry. It's a simple technicality, the sexes involved are the same.
I guess what really gets to me is the selfishness of this perspective. Gays marrying won't affect your marriage. They won't affect your family, unless you happen to have gays in your family (who I'm sure feel very unwelcome at gatherings).
There is no slippery slope, bestiality and pedophilia won't get the green light because two guys tied the knot.
As I asked another poster earlier, how would any of this actually affect you, or any existing marriage?
The Romans were brought down by inept government and marauding Vandals, not gays. Plus, there was a Greek regiment of all gay lovers who were considered some of the most fearsome fighters to do battle with precisely *because* they cared so much about protecting one another. Additionally, gay people contribute a great deal to culture and the arts and, gosh darn it, are plain old awesome people who deserve their rights.
I second OrochiTabris's suggest about causality -- and logic generally.
But the question is WHY? What nonreligious (since our government is secular), constitutionally sound reason do you have for not allowing gays to "marry"? Or, if you simply object to the term, what about calling all legal couplings, *including* straight unions, "civil unions"? That's really all the government can preside over anyway: a union of individuals according to civil law.
I remember the day when they announced Prop 8 had passed. I started sobbing like a child while he held me in my arms and said its gonna be ok. And now, one year later, nothing seems ok. I thought that with Obama, people would be more accepting if not tolerant of us. Sadly, advocates of prop 8 are smiling at our tears. Why, I do not know, but what I do know is that we will just never have a chance. No
No matter how hard we try, people are going to hate our lifestyle, even though we dont even mention the flaws in theirs. good people are still going to see us as scum, while we just see them as human. And I really do hope that the god that I love and worship doesnt take offense to how I live, because I really dont want to go to hell. All I want is acceptance, and the opportunity to be happy. But if things keep going as they do, I wont be able to see that in my lifetime. Thank you.
Never forget that there are a lot of people who do support gay rights. Times are changing. I don't know how fast they'll change, but progress WILL come, and my hope is that open discussion (even on YouTube) will help that day come faster. Slavery existed in this country for hundreds of years. It took decades for African Americans and women to gain the right to vote -- decades to overcome segregation. Don't give up hope, man. Live your life in joy, if only to spite the haters. :-D
Sadly, you will not find one christian who will not bring the bible into a LEGAL matter. That is how they base and justify their bigotted, hateful, ugly disdain for gays.
I appreciate you advocating on behalf of gays. We need more allies.
mixed race marriage is not the same as gay marriage my answer to Q1: its not just about harming straight marriages its about harming the beliefs and values that oppose gay marriage.
I support your arguments, & I do believe marriage should be a term universally used for any type of union.
However, I do not think the actual term "marriage" is significant enough to raise a big stink out of, whether FOR or AGAINST prop 8. For instance, take the word "mating." That generally identifies the participants as heterosexual. Should that term be legally changed? I would be happy with a word like marriage, gay-marriage, civil-union, etc. as long as the word used was a respectful one
When we talk about the "legal terms" of marriage and civil union, we're only talking about how those terms are used in legal contracts. It has nothing to do with everyday conversation. Mating is conversational term, not a legal term, so it's up to dictionaries to record it's uses, not our government.
so what your saying is if a 16 year old girl is rapped by her father and gets pregnant and has no money to raise the baby she should still have it because abortion is murder even though it isn't
Did you just advocate a rape victim giving birth to a child that was literally forced into her against her will?
At first for use as evidence in a trial, then as a gift for those who can't have children of their own?
No one is truly "pro-abortion," no one thinks it's a good thing, and I haven't seen it touted as a viable form of birth control. But then, you probably oppose /any/ birth control. And sex education, that's bad.
So ... bring on the unplanned pregnancies, I guess? Oh, and the rape.
Thankfully, the terrorist Scott Roeder was recently found guilty of first degree murder. Hooray for justice! May that psychopath rot in prison for the rest of his life.
Yeah, I'm real sure God(if he exists as you say he does) would just LOVE the fact that you make other people feel bad about themselves by calling them "fags" and telling them they're going to hell. Yes, if God was here now, he'd be telling all the homosexuals how gross they are and telling them they're gonna burn in hell. Sounds like a real loving God, doesn't it?
So the issue isn't two people being in love? The issue is two people(men) having sex behind closed doors?
The "truth" you're referring to..is that the Bible per chance?? I don't believe in the Bible. Many people have many views on things. Different religions, morals, etc..if it's not hurting anyone, then it's not our place to interfere.
Yes it's all about two men having sex behind closed doors. For two men who want to have really close, non-sexual relationship, there's already a term for it, and that's called "buddies", or "best friend".
Oh, yeah, because buddies and best friends have romantic relationships with each other..... And no couple could ever face the possibility of not being able to have sex with each other. What a moron.
Finding an uncomfortable number of Bible-following, Jesus-revering, God-fearing people throwing the word "fag" around. Not the first time for the supposedly pious ... I guess they just needed a something new.
Whats with all these people saying that only christians oppose gays? I'm christian, I don't oppose gays. I see plenty of high schoolers picking on other guys and calling them fags, and I think the LAST thing they are, are christians. I don't think douchebags that smoke weed at school and start fights over color are anything but christians so where are all these people getting the notion that if you hate gays, you MUST be christian?
I didn't say that only Christians are homophobes, but unfortunately Prop 8's funding mostly came from religious groups. Also, most people who oppose gay marriage will say it's because 1) they don't think God would approve, or 2) gay sex grosses them out; odd, since outlawing gay marriage doesn't prevent gay sex. Just because I'm grossed out by the idea of people with a 30 year age gap having sex doesn't mean it would be right to make marriage between a 50 year old and 20 year old illegal.
"What NONreligious reasons are there to hate gay marriage?" Are you crapping me? I know PLENTY of guys that are atheist that oppose gays. I'm not one of them, but thats just a dumb question. Religious or not the simple fact that gays have butt sex disturb men. Its a crap tube. Thats like having sex through the ear. If it was possible, I'm pretty sure someone would do it.
Ah, but that's a reason to dislike gay sex, NOT a reason to oppose gay *marriage*. What reasons would your atheist friends who oppose gay marriage give for doing so?
mhm. people who are so put off by homosexuality that they devote their time to trying to strike fear into the hearts of the easily-led public.
Many things lead to an early death. Use of alcohol, medicines, drugs, and lack of diet and excersize. you're more likely to die in a car accident, death by get hit by a car, to be shot dead while being mugged then to die from being gay. Nothing is without risk. Including love.
I'm not a liberal. Stop screaming at liberals. Crazy fuck.
You are awesome. Thanks for stating these questions so very well. Too bad reality and rationality so seldom win in our present political climate.
desertsongtv 4 weeks ago
Are you still busy?
kenballer00 5 months ago
Has anyone seen the show "Sister Wives"? What is the rationale of that sort of polygamist "union" being acceptable and not a marriage between two people of the same sex? This blows my mind. Thank you for this video.
steponsteph 7 months ago
Has anyone seen the show "Sister Wives"? What is the rationale of that sort of polygamist "union" being acceptable and not a marriage between two people of the same sex? This blows my mind. Thank you for this video.
steponsteph 7 months ago
churches should patent the word marriage. Marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman. Getting married has nothing to do with love and other bullshit.
G41MCombo 1 year ago
love is one of the reason why people get married but it is always the only reason.People created this constitution at a time when gay marriage was never an issue. Being gay just disqualifies you to do anything with marriage, forget about even getting married.
G41MCombo 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dr. Robert L. Spitzer published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior studies contradict people are born gay.The study's author is viewed as a historic champion of gay right.Spitzer played a pivotal role in 1973 in removing homosexuality from the psychiatric manual of mental disorders.Dr. Spitzer following therapy, many of the participants experienced an increase in frequency & satisfaction of heterosexual activity.If he can conclude being gay is not true. Why can't you?
BlackRepublican2010 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Online marriage service from Asia rockmycity.info
ETHEUNICE 1 year ago
She is from Thailand and need to marry you rockmycity.info
chandlerseals 1 year ago
telling gay people they can't drink at the same fountain. my argument is, Marriage is between two people--a man, and woman--and GOD. unlike civil unions which are between two people, and a judge, or a government. by all means, allow civil unions, but marriages are religious statements.
HerrMueller93 1 year ago
1. none. marriage as a word however, is associating with the church. this could "devalue" someones marriage by questioning the churches priority's, and ideas.
2. none. Civil unions are not the same as marriages. a civil union between two people is a different subject entirely. as i said before, marriage is a religious experience. gay marriage is--at least where i grew up--sacrilegious.
3. again, none. you should not associate the gay marriage argument, with the civil rights movement. we're not
HerrMueller93 1 year ago
You misuse separate but equal; no one is being held separate, again, you insult the struggle of African American's by using these concepts, please stop.
RageagainstRacism 1 year ago
3) Can't tell you, i haven't read the US constitution (i'm living in Europe). There is probably no reason. As there is no reason to ban bonds between someone (or something) that can seem to be absurd right now (even for progressives)
Andyeeee 1 year ago
I'm not from US, so i haven't seen the document. But i will answer your question:
1) No practical harm. Marriage sucks, because people forgot what it was all about
2) People do not realize that legalizing gay marriage is just a step away from legalizing a bond between a man(or a woman) with something obscure? That won't happen? Well, a few years ago gay marriage was taboo and now we have states as a lot of countries in Europe, who support this.
Andyeeee 1 year ago
cont'd: I'm a libertarian, so I actually do have a problem with people not being able to enter into a private contract for a gay, polygamous, or even incestuous marriage, because, well...I believe there is a right to freedom of contract. But I cannot in good conscience support state recognition of same-sex marriage. I would much prefer it if the states stopped recognizing marriage altogether, and it is beyond me why homosexuals have not simply pushed for this if they are concerned with rights.
SeventhHanyou 1 year ago
I oppose same-sex marriage, but I really appreciate the civil tone of this video--no straw men, etc. here. It's true that a lot of people against same-sex marriage don't have good arguments. To answer your questions: 1.) none, to my knowledge, unless the members of the heterosexual marriage were psychotic; 2.) again, none, to my knowledge, though that's not necessary; 3.) the tenth amendment. I read your blurb about the Full Faith and Credit clause, but it shouldn't change overall state laws.
SeventhHanyou 1 year ago
who cares what you advocate?
fecalmadder 1 year ago
Here's a fourth one, that not many dare to ask, but that I think is a valid question too.
Anyone belonging to a minority;
Why is it okay to deny one minority (gay people) rights, if it is not okay to deny your minority rights?
I have to say I'm very disappointed in how many minorities came out in opposition to gay rights. Even though they themselves had to fight hard for their rights, they happily deny another group theirs.
Shavarnarak 1 year ago
@Shavarnarak Any time people who fight for their rights deny others their rights, or engage in bigotry generally, it's hypocritical and sad. Unfortunately, being progressive in one area does not mean being progressive in all areas. Even back in the fight for women's right to vote, when black men won the vote before women did, quite a few came out as racist, demanding to know why an uneducated black man should be allowed more political power that a highly educated white woman.
pmcrimson 1 year ago
@Shavarnarak There were also bigotries based on class differences too. The fight for women's right to vote was, of course, noble and important, the hypocrisy of some shouldn't be used to disparage the integrity of all.
With that in mind, and being a person who prefers to regard people as individuals rather than as demographics, I'm not sure how to address what role race plays in attitudes toward gays. My goal is to appeal to people's reason and compassion, regardless of race, religion, etc...
pmcrimson 1 year ago
@Shavarnarak ... and, hopefully, get them to see that they have nothing to fear from gay rights. So while I think it's important to note the connection between all minorities fighting for their rights, I don't think it's useful to blanket blame minorities for the success of Prop 8 in California. Not only are there many, *many* homophobic white people throughout America, but statistically white people are the majority, so ...
pmcrimson 1 year ago
@Shavarnarak ... if white people as a group were so much more liberal than minorities, there'd be no problem passing legislation protecting gay rights.
The best strategy, imho, is to emphasize connection rather than discord. So, when it comes to race and gay rights, we need to remind minorities and women (as well as white men) that they have nothing to fear from gay marriage, gay adoption, etc, and that protecting minority civil rights also reinforces protection for their own civil rights.
pmcrimson 1 year ago
@Shavarnarak Dude heavy words man!
Danovio 1 year ago
@Shavarnarak "Why is it okay to deny one minority (gay people) rights, if it is not okay to deny your minority rights?" Gays and straights have the same rights as far as marriage is concerned. Any man, straight or gay, has the right to marry any woman. Flipside for women. A gay man has the legal right to marry another gay - as long as she's a she. It's the same for everyone.
megagagnon1 1 year ago
Prop 8 supporters may "dress" like Christians, but the similarity ends there.
TVWriterGuy 1 year ago
heyhey anyone want to play with me
AnteiaAnshu1 1 year ago
I want to offer a full-hearted thank you to all the posters here who've taken up my slack in dealing with comments and responses. I tend to respond to the pro-prop 8 group when I do respond here, but I don't want you to think your support goes unnoticed. Your patience and persistence in these debates are admirable. Thank you so much.
pmcrimson 1 year ago
a dyke asking a bunch of questions. The most important thing is civil rights, you are correct. Tell me where it says a gay man or woman can NOT get married. Show me. A gay man or woman CAN get married. Just a person of the opposite sex. They have the right, they choose not to use it. They want to distort the definition of mariage, but only for their own purpose. Not for a dad that wants to marry their daughter. So they only want rights for their own cause, which isn't a right at all
jonerton15 1 year ago
@jonerton15 *quizzical* I'm sorry, do you have a problem with a "slope or wall to regulate water levels, known as a dyke or levee" sharing its opinions? What an ... odd prejudice. ;-D
The rest of your message makes no discernible sense, so I'll just leave those ramblings alone. Much love to all, man. :`)-
pmcrimson 1 year ago
@pmcrimson you couldn't figure the rest of that "nonsense?" You want gays to have the right to get married. They already do have that right. They can get married. There are certain rules that even I have to follow when getting married. opposite sex, over 18, not a family member. So if you want to change the opposite sex part, will you change the age and family member too? If not, you do not stand for equality for all, just your own little group of "homosexuals" aka dykes
jonerton15 1 year ago
@jonerton15 As the couple is a pair of consenting adults, it's nobody else's business if they want to legally marry. Cousins marrying makes no sense because said individuals are *already* family members, so they don't need a legal document to establish that. People under 18 are minors, which won't change when gay marriage becomes legal.
Please, don't forget that my lovely male gay pals deserve gay marriage too.
Any actual answer to how any gay marriage has hurt your own (if you're married)?
pmcrimson 1 year ago
@pmcrimson you say it's "nobody else's business" and then you go on to say its a Legal document. Oh with who? The government, so the people. You're lovely gay male friends already have the right to marriage, and they have to follow the rules of marriage like i do.
jonerton15 1 year ago
@jonerton15 Legal marriage involves tax benefits, the protection of familial rights in hospitals, and a way to settle disputes in a divorce. But it isn't the government's role to tell people who they should marry (as long as we're talking consenting adults). No straights would stand for that, so why should gays?
Also, when you talk about the rules of marriage, which ones are you talking about? The Old Testament one which demands that a widow must marry her husband's brother to produce kids? ...
pmcrimson 1 year ago
@jonerton15 The rule in which women in early America had no legal rights outside their husband, and got nothing if there was ever a divorce? And what about adultery? Religions shun adultery, but it isn't illegal. Nobody here gets jailed for the "crime" of adultery, so is that part of the "rules" of marriage or isn't it? And, of course, what about former laws against interracial marriage and former laws allowing cousin marriages? If we can amend those rules, why not the opposite-gender-only rule?
pmcrimson 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Answer 1: Gay marriage does affect true (straight) marriage. Gay marriage is alternative, much like a man and animal getting married or an animal and animal etc. Gays getting married is a gateway for other alternatives to get married, which ruins the main point of marriage. A man and a woman.
Answer 2:I am non-religious and I think gay marriage is naturally wrong. It isn't natural. Having them breathing oxygen is unnatural enough.
This is not a bigoted reply, it's a logical one.
Volumesofdoom 1 year ago
this is coming one week late but...
answers to your answer.
1) if you read transcripts of the recent federal court case, boies has sufficiently proven (and the yes on prop 8 lawyers of conceded this to be the truth) that gay marriage has no effect on straight marriage, and that if it does have an effect, it's a positive one.
2) it is natural. did you know that all animals engage in 'gay' activities. it's a natural (and nice) way of population control.
this is also a logical reply :)
claythepoet 1 year ago
Animals also cannibalize their young. And kill each other in competition for mating. That can also be considered "natural". So using that as a benchmark of something's desirability doesn't hold up. Albinism, color blindness and hermaphrodism is also naturally occuring, but it's an error in genetic code, which I think homosexuality also falls under in some cases, in some cases I do believe it is chosen as well such as what you see going on in prison.
luckydooby 1 year ago
This is not a bigoted reply, it's a logical one.
the fact you had to post this shows it is a bigoted response
gay marraige is allowed in 5 states, none of which have had any other types of marriage (ie incest) allowed
how is having gays breath oxygen unnatural?
as for being gay
it is natural
idaman12345 1 year ago
One more thing just on a technical note regarding the law. People always say gays are being denied their rights under the law, but gays have the same right under the law as anyone, to marry one person of the opposite sex. If I wanted to marry a man in a non-sexual marriage for whatever reason(say to get him US citizenship or inherit money), I can't do it either. Nobody is stopping gays from loving each other or being life long partners. And most Americans see no need to change the law.
luckydooby 1 year ago
The right they want is not "to marry someone of the opposite sex," it's "to marry the person of their choosing." In the past, people argued that making interracial marriage illegal wasn't denying anyone their rights because they were still free to marry anyone of their own race. Would that be justice, equality or freedom? Of course not.
Also, Google "1400 marriage rights." The Religious Tolerance link explains what gays are missing by not being able to get married.
pmcrimson 1 year ago
If the standard is simply, "the right to marry a person of their choosing", then we are legally compelled to recognize polygamy and incestuous marriages which are now illegal.
I know IR marriage is often compared to gay marriage, but I think they are entirely seperate issues. The purpose of banning IR marriage was to enforce a caste system that preserved white racial purity and slavery. It really didn't even have much to do with the "sanctity of marriage" or anything like that.
luckydooby 1 year ago
Gay marriage would not lead to the legalization of incestuous marriage because those marriages often lead to actual harm via inbred children.
Polygamy is the sole issue in which I can see slippery slope fears having any merit whatsoever. I find it unlikely that polygamy would be legalized due to the history of exploitation of women in such, and due to the complex new divorce law that would result -- especially when involving kids. ....
pmcrimson 1 year ago
Since it would be near impossible to ensure all partners equal rights in a polygamist marriage, I simply cannot see that happening. However, when it gets down to it, and even though I REALLY don't like it, if people want to have a plural marriage involving multiple wives or husbands, what business of it is mine?
Ah, but people who argued against allowing interracial marriage DID argue that it was to "protect the sanctity of marriage," and cited Biblical verses to prove it.
pmcrimson 1 year ago
cont...
If eharmony can be sued and end up paying out why couldn't this happen with churches down the line? Eharmony is a private company yet they have to be brow beaten into providing services for gays when there are already plenty of gay dating sites. Anyway, I think we are going to see more and more of this type of thing. I don't hate gays, don't view them as lessor humans, but I think men and women pairing should be the ideal while still being tolerant towards those that are gay.
luckydooby 1 year ago
I haven't investigated the e-harmony case, but the fact of the matter is that in the U.S., due to the 14th Amendment, private businesses cannot discriminate against others. Churches, due to the separation of church and state, are a separate matter. Already, churches that discriminate against gays may lose their tax exempt status. They're free to operate as they believe, but only get tax exemption if they don't discriminate. I think that's fair since tax exemption is a privilege, not a right.
pmcrimson 1 year ago
I'm sure there are exceptions carved out where legal discrimination is accepted. Keep in mind, there's such a thing as rational non-malicious discrimination. For example if a sushi bar only hires Japanese staff, that's discrimination but not of the malicious sort. It makes sense given the context. I think eharmony would fall in that same category. Gays suing eharmony would be like whites Christians suing Jdate because it's a Jewish only site and them filing religious discrimination.
luckydooby 1 year ago
I think the complexity here is b'c with dating sites the commodities ARE the customers, so niche companies would HAVE to discriminate. Could a white person sue a black dating service? Possibly, but it makes more sense to simply go to a site with mixed race matchings available if that's what you want. And why any gay or bi women or men would want to spend their money on an organization associated with Focus on the Family I have no idea.
pmcrimson 1 year ago
It's possible the suit was primarily an attempt to punish Focus on the Family for the anti-gay message they spread; or, perhaps, it was a way to keep gay rights in the news and get additional precedent for protecting gay rights and relationships in the legal system. I really don't know, but it'll be interesting if there's ever a similar lawsuit brought against other speciality dating sites (for gays, for Jews, etc.)
pmcrimson 1 year ago
continuing...
I think what bothers people about same sex marriage when it comes down to it is that it destroys the social/cultural as well as religious NORM of male-female pair bonding as being ideal. This has all kinds of implications. It means you are now a bigot if you prefer your son grow up straight. Eharmony was sued because they don't provide options for gay couples. Parents who object to their kids being read "King & King" will be the equivalent of racists.
con't...
luckydooby 1 year ago
Well, if someone said that they "didn't think black people were lesser humans who didn't deserve their rights, but that nevertheless interracial couplings shouldn't be called a marriage," I would still call them a racist. Perhaps low on the racist scale since they're obviously not hate-mongering or out to commit violence based on their feelings, but certainly showing fear of the "other" when it comes to interracial marriage. The view you express is, in my view, comparable.
pmcrimson 1 year ago
@pmcrimson
Herein lies a major difference: people that are opposed blacks marry whites usually hate blacks across the board. They don't want blacks marrying whites, they don't want blacks in their neighborhood, or their kids hanging with them etc. No racist is going to say, "I approve of IR civil unions, but not marriage", they don't believe in ANY relationship between races. However most Americans support civil unions, so there's probably other issues at work besides sheer homophobia.
luckydooby 1 year ago
Ah, but all -isms lie in a spectrum or scale. There are plenty of people with relatively low (perhaps subconscious) racist tendencies. They'd never support any sort of hate crime, but maybe feel uncomfortable with the idea of a close family member dating outside their race. That may be relatively low-grade racism compared to a KKK member, but it's still on the racism spectrum. The same goes for feelings of homophobia. That's my point. I'm not saying you're hateful, but your view IS homophobic.
pmcrimson 1 year ago
You're right there is a gradation of -isms, I probably am mildly homophobic in that I do feel uncomfortable seeing two men making out. That may be just because I'm not used to seeing it and it's a bit of a shock when I do. However, I don't believe people should stare at them and make them feel hated either. Even though I'm only 33, I do have more traditional feelings about sexuality and marriage that make it hard to outright EMBRACE homosexuality, even though I have no feelings of hate for them.
luckydooby 1 year ago
And that feeling, although I disagree with it, I can understand. I think that gut feeling of being uncomfortable is the other reason (besides religious belief) that certain people oppose gay marriage. But the idea that it makes some people feel uncomfortable is not *legal* justification for outlawing gay marriage. I don't feel particularly comfortable with the thought of a fifty-year-old marrying a twenty-year-old, but as long as they are both consenting adults, it's none of my business ...
pmcrimson 1 year ago
... how they want to define their relationship, and it would be discriminatory of the government to prevent them. It certainly wouldn't justify calling their marriage a "civil union" just to make me feel comfortable because, again, their union has absolutely nothing to do with me. Why should my feelings have anything to do with their right to get married?
pmcrimson 1 year ago
It doesn't destroy the norm at all. The vast majority of people who get married will still be straight couples because, percentage-wise, straights greatly outnumber gays. And I have to ask, how would knowing that there are gay people out there enjoying their own marriages in any way affect your own (assuming you are married or ever plan to be)? Would that knowledge somehow make the love and devotion straights have for their spouses any less?
pmcrimson 1 year ago
I am in favor of civil unions for gays that give the full rights of marriage, but I feel that the word "marriage" should only be reserved for men/female marriage. I do not hate gays, view them as inferiors or wish them any harm. If a gay man were running for president and I thought he was good for the job, I'd vote for him in a second. If I had a gay son, I'd treat him no different than a straight son. So I don't think I'm just a crass homophobe by being against same sex marriage.
con't....
luckydooby 1 year ago
I would have no problem with the compromise of having the state regulate ONLY civil unions, whether straight or gay. In other words, we could have civil union be the term for the legal agreement between two people similar to modern marriage, and the word marriage would be reserved for religious ceremonies. That has the added bonus of further reinforcing the separation of church and state, which is fabulous.
Though we disagree, I appreciate your candor and tact. Thanks for the comments. :-)
pmcrimson 1 year ago
The state only recognizing civil unions may be the only solution in the end if this matter ends up going to the Supreme Court. I have the feeling that's what will eventually end up happening. The thing is, even then we are still going to have to define who gets civil union rights and who doesn't. We aren't going to grant them to people who want polygamous civil unions or incestuous civil unions and then we may be back at square one.
luckydooby 1 year ago
Again, incest won't be an issue because 1) incest leads to inbreeding, which does actual harm to an innocent person, and 2) those people are already family members. They already have the rights of being family members, so the need to make an additional legal agreement to define their relationship as double-family makes no sense.
Also, it should be noted that there weren't always laws against incest. Cousins used to marry. Therefore, precedent for outlawing incestuous marriage exists.
pmcrimson 1 year ago
This issue is going to go to the Supreme Court very soon. Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the suit disputing the constitutionality of Proposition 8 in California, is extremely likely to go to the Supreme Court. Keep your eyes on the news for that one. Justice Kennedy, from what I've been reading, is expected to be the swing vote.
pmcrimson 1 year ago
They can love all they want but no marriage,I love my father and mother and don't want to marry them.Its not about love its about the sexual perversion defining marriage.
MrTabby5000 2 years ago
You do realize that outlawing gay marriage in no way reduces the amount of gay sex going on, right? Frankly, given the fact that straight couples have sex less often during marriage than outside it, and assuming that gay marriages would follow the same trend, allowing gay marriage might actually reduce the amount of gay sex going on. So shouldn't be advocating for it? :`D
pmcrimson 2 years ago
*shouldn't you*
pmcrimson 2 years ago
What practical harm has homosexuality caused?Its called AIDS and HIV,forget the homoganada,but aids was spread like wildfire in the 80s at the gay bathhouses.
Butt sex caused a transfer of infected blood from one gay to the next gay.And if one gay was a bi,he infected a woman.
Thats how it became a hetero disease as well.
First gays demand AZT,now marriage,no.
MrTabby5000 2 years ago
MrTabby5000, may I just say that you do not know what the fuck you are talking about?
FlightOfTheMastodon 2 years ago
Back in the 80s hiv was the new plague in the gay community,yes I lived in california in the 80s and the news about aids and gays was everywhere in the local california community newspapers.
MrTabby5000 2 years ago
Saying that the HIV/AIDS problem resulted from gay people is unbelievably ridiculous. It's ignorant homophobes like you that shouldn't be allowed to marry, not two people who love each other but who happen to live a lifestyle that is beyond their control. Tell me, at what age did you decide to not be gay? It's not a choice, and it certainly did not cause HIV to be spread as much as it has. That is just ignorant and stupid.
FlightOfTheMastodon 2 years ago
Thats the way it was in the 80s. stop believing that homoganda and research the california newspapers from the 80s.
MrTabby5000 2 years ago
If you would stop watching FOX News and actually do your research you would realize that the correlation between HIV and gay people was a rumor that, yes, the newspapers helped perpetuate (the same way the media circulates lies today). We don't live in the '80s, we don't hold those stupid notions anymore.
FlightOfTheMastodon 2 years ago
Well I am glad obamacare is failing because I am not paying for a gay mans azt,let him die.
MrTabby5000 2 years ago
Who the hell says things like that? How can you even call yourself a human being?
Stupid, right-wing individualism. People like you make me sick.
FlightOfTheMastodon 2 years ago
Im not paying for stuff like that,no obamacare or welfare care for anyone,Butt sex is a lifestyle choice and the wrong choice.
MrTabby5000 2 years ago
The wrong choice according to your opinion. How conceited are you?
FlightOfTheMastodon 2 years ago
You seem to be focused on penises and anuses. Why is that?
OeditpusRex 2 years ago
Thats what gay is all about,the sexual perversion,if sex wasn't a part of being gay,would marriage be necessary?
MrTabby5000 2 years ago
In. fucking. credible.
OeditpusRex 2 years ago
Do you deny that it is true.
MrTabby5000 2 years ago
Anyone with a discernable IQ would deny that it's true. "if sex wasn't a part of being gay,would marriage be necessary?" Dude, what does that even *mean*?? If sex weren't a part of being hetero, would marriage be necessary?
As for "gay" being "all about the sexual perversion," gay people want to fall in love, get married and live a good life. You call that perverted?
OeditpusRex 2 years ago
The so called lovemaking is the perversion,if they stay celibate they don't need marriage.
MrTabby5000 2 years ago
*headdesk*
You're dangerously ill. Please refrain from contact with decent humans and all animals. Please. For the good of the Earth.
OeditpusRex 2 years ago
you never denied thats true.
MrTabby5000 2 years ago
Let's go ahead and break this down:
Homosexual sex is not a perversion.
Homosexual sex's existence has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not marriage is needed. Marriage is an institution two people join because they wanted to be formally united; they love each other and so want to demonstrate their commitment, as well as legally protect their joint rights (to see each other as family in hospitals, to do taxes together, perhaps to raise children together, and so on).
pmcrimson 2 years ago
@pmcrimson
child molestation is no perversion either,neither is polygamy.But pedophiles and polygamists do love to.
MrTabby5000 2 years ago
Child molestation most certainly IS a perversion (much like rape is a perversion) because it is a criminal-victim relationship. Gay sex between consenting adults is not a perversion because it is an expression of love and/or lust (like hetero sex) not exploitation and harm (like child molestation).
Polygamy has a history of exploitation of women, so in general I don't like it. But if people want a plural marriage, that's their business, because it's their marriage.
pmcrimson 2 years ago
@pmcrimson
It is deviating from the natural use of our bodies,because we know better,Animals don't know any better so their so called homosexuality is not the same as ours.Thats the difference between man and animal.Man has rules of conduct.animals have no rules other than survival
MrTabby5000 2 years ago
I'm not sure how you can argue gay sex is "deviating from the natural use of our bodies" since gay men and women use their bodies to engage in it AND there are pleasure nerves in the anus and vagina which cause pleasure during it. In other words, our bodies are hard wired for the potential for gay sex, although, of course, not everybody does -- since much of sex depends on who we're sexually attracted to. Gays are naturally sexually attracted to their own gender.
pmcrimson 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"I'm not sure how you can argue gay sex is "deviating from the natural use of our bodies" since gay men and women use their bodies to engage in it AND there are pleasure nerves in the anus and vagina which cause pleasure during it."
Lol, I'm not sure about pleasure nerves in the anus. I actually WISH you were right, so most us men wouldn't cringe at prostate cancer screenings so much! I think the anal pleasure thing is probably more psychological than physiological.
luckydooby 1 year ago
The start of morality is recognizing what causes you suffering and not doing that to others. If you don't want to be cheated, don't cheat others. If you don't want other people telling you who you can or can't love, why would you do that to other people?
In other words, empathy + logic = universal morality. The various formal rules that societies have come up have had to do with that or with their own hangups. I don't see why homophobes from centuries ago should tell us how to treat gays now.
pmcrimson 2 years ago
Thanks for fightin' the good fight out there, man. I know it's crazy out here in the wilds of the Internet. Great comments.
pmcrimson 2 years ago
Oral sex is also a choice and has nothing to do with making babies, so do you turn it down?
NoSaltyPeanuts 2 years ago
She dont like it.She my significant other dont like doing it to me either.
MrTabby5000 2 years ago
Well then, that's your hang up. But that doesn't make it wrong for other people to enjoy oral sex. And just because you don't enjoy gay sex doesn't mean it's wrong for others to enjoy gay sex.
pmcrimson 1 year ago
Okay, now THAT is hate speech. Nobody deserves to die from lack of medical care just because you don't approve of their sex life.
pmcrimson 1 year ago
1) Since marriage tends to slow the spread of STDs (married folk are typically expected to be having sex only with their spouse), if gay marriage had existed in the '80s that may very well have slowed the spread of AIDS.
2) Homosexuality is not responsible for the spread of AIDS any more than heterosexuality is responsible for the spread of syphilis, gonorrhoea, chlamydia, herpes, hepatitis, or crabs. Unprotected sex with iffy partners, regardless of sexuality or gender, spreads STDs.
pmcrimson 1 year ago
mmmmm,
Something tells me you're not getting a flood of intelligent, cohesive and coherent answers to your questions.
How come???
bando8000 2 years ago
You are quite correct. And while, to be fair, there HAVE been thoughtful objectors throughout and I've appreciated those conversations (though I continue to disagree); yes, the majority of comments have been from knee-jerk homophobes, at least 95% of whom are objecting for religious reasons.
pmcrimson 2 years ago
@ pmcrimson
First, kudos to you for your investment of time and effort in being a level-headed voice of reason to those here who suffer from some confusion and illusion.
Second, what do you believe to be the greatest organizational fear of religion as a whole on the subject of homosexuality? In other words, what is it really trying to protect in your estimation?
Thanks for your informative reply, and continued 'clarity of thought' to you.
Cheers
bando8000 2 years ago
If we're talking OT, I think homophobia began as a population growth issue. It fits in with their laws against masturbation (poor Onan), against marriage outside their clans, in favor of polygamy, and requiring the brothers of a man who dies childless to impregnate his wife. It was a numbers game where the population/culture/belief system with the most adherents would win.
pmcrimson 1 year ago
At the same time, fear of "the other" is a huge factor too. People are so often scared of anything different from themselves. Plus, it's a convenient cop out to blame the weirdo down the street for the lack of rainfall than to do the necessary work to solve the problem yourself through science and engineering, or perhaps even moving to new land. It's this emotion which inspires the harsh -isms of our existence: racism, sexism, ethnocentrism, and so on.
pmcrimson 1 year ago
I've never seen this chick respond to anyone's response to her bold challenge. It's just a set of bullshit rhetorical questions. No dialogue.
tonestar100 2 years ago
*smiles*
Babe, you might want to browse past the first page before you make such a claim. Start at the beginning of the 972 responses here instead of at the end. Read them ALL. Then please let me know if you have any points I haven't already dealt with 20 times already.
pmcrimson 2 years ago
Question 1 can be answered with another question. What practical harm has not allowing gay marriage ever caused?
Question 2: Question 2 would apply to natural moral values of an individual. Secular people don't choose their morals. Some people might not view drug use as wrong yet most other people do.
Question 3: I don't really think the constitution says anything about marriage at all so if you are looking for some type of justice from it you are looking in the wrong place.
noclip14 2 years ago
So if I answer your question-response, do I win?
For gays, it would be practical...
...to be able to visit their partner in the hospital, and make life-sustaining or -ending decisions instead of letting that responsibility fall on family.
...to collect the remains of their deceased partner for proper burial or cremation.
...to be married instead of simply living together, especially when raising children, financially and psychologically.
Seems like practical harm to me.
OrochiTabris 2 years ago
I think all those things should be allowed to happen for gays, but it shouldn't be called marriage. It should be called a civil union
noclip14 2 years ago
I've heard this argument before, but the reasons for it don't make sense.
Are you that insecure? If gays were allowed to marry, and it was actually called "marriage" (since that's what it would be), would your own marriage would feel less special? Why?
To get so hung up over the terminology used... You don't see anything petty about that? Or selfish?
I respect the sanctity of marriage, which is why I wish to partake in it. You would deny me that opportunity? Over a word?
OrochiTabris 2 years ago
This is the same argument I always hear. You say that its us that is hung up over the terminology used, yes the terminology is important to me but its just as important to you. If it wasn't than you wouldn't be fighting for it. So clearly yes the terminology is something to be hung up over.
noclip14 2 years ago
Assuming that gay civil unions ARE given all the same rights and regulations, that still leaves the situation as a "separate but equal" one, which is inherently discriminatory. Plus, assuming that each state can determine which rights are included in a civil union, any differences would be overtly discriminatory. I don't see why the government should have two terms for the same exact institution.
pmcrimson 2 years ago
That being said, I would not object to leaving "marriage" as a religious term and having "civil union" the term for BOTH straight and gay couples legally uniting themselves. That would be fair to all parties since everybody really would be getting the same term and the same rights. It may be overly PC, but it's better than people citing mythical nonsense like God not creating "Adam and Steve" as a reason to deny gays their rights.
pmcrimson 2 years ago
noclip14, civil union is the same as "separate but equal". Have you not learn history yet? How would one civil union from one state be viewed when they move to another. State by state, their own interpertation of this civil union would be different. Why must we single out this group and give them a different label? gays have been around and they have been raising their own family for the longest time. Have that destroy anything? If a gay couple get marry today, would you even know that?
danny458 2 years ago
what you are saying makes no sense
noclip14 2 years ago
Your question-answer is disturbingly apathetic, too. The existence of practical harm aside, why rely on such lazy logic? Is it that hard to think about or research?
Also, gay marriage and drugs are not comparable. It's relatively easy to look at drugs and point to not just potential but actual damage. Addiction, debt, death, crime. It's beyond a moral issue, there are hard facts to consider, and the known negatives seem to outweigh potential positives. Not the case with gay marriage.
OrochiTabris 2 years ago
1) Changing the question is just avoiding giving your own answer. Since you want to ban gay marriage, the onus is on you to prove that there is a valid reason for doing so. That said, it hurts gay relationships and gays' couples rights just as much as it would hurt straight couples to not have the option of legal marriage. Legal marriage means becoming legally family members (the right to hospital visits, etc.), doing taxes together, and all the same stuff straight married couples want.
pmcrimson 2 years ago
Like I said earlier, I'm fine with it being called a civil union and allowing all the legal benefits you mentioned.
noclip14 2 years ago
Secular people don't choose their morals? Well, I do think the basics of morality are empathy and logic combined, but once we get beyond "don't do unto others what you wouldn't want done unto you," once moral rules get any more particular than that, they become notoriously idiosyncratic -- or, at the very least, culturally defined. But basic respect and freedom for all people (as long as they are not harming others) is a great way to live.
pmcrimson 2 years ago
In any case, on question 2, you again don't seem to have answered the question. What moral objections do you have against gay marriage?
3) Exactly. There is no constitutional basis for outlawing gay marriage. I suspect laws against gay marriage will be struck down like laws against interracial marriage were struck down by Loving v. Virginia, not only because those laws are discriminatory, but also because people's marital status shouldn't change depending on which state they're currently in.
pmcrimson 2 years ago
3) What I am saying is that the constitution doesn't say anything about any type of marriage. It doesn't say anything about killing or murder either. Yet murderers aren't claiming that banning murder isn't constitutional. I'm not saying that homosexuality is anything close to killing, so please don't get angry
noclip14 2 years ago
No offence taken. Believe me, I've been on here long enough to recognize the difference between people who are simply disagreeing with me and those who are trolls.
But yes, it doesn't say anything regarding marriage. What it does say (Amendment 9) is that just because a given right isn't explicitly listed doesn't mean that people lack that right.
pmcrimson 2 years ago
Also, the Full Faith and Credit Clause (Article IV, Sec. 1) states that each state must respect legal contracts made in other states. (Meaning, moving from Massachusetts to Wisconsin, or even just visiting other states, shouldn't change your marital status.) So this cannot remain a "states' rights" issue. Furthermore, the Supreme Court decision Loving v. Virginia identified marriage as a civil right and it IS unconstitutional (14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause) to discriminate.
pmcrimson 2 years ago
this is not letting me comment
noclip14 2 years ago
Hello everyone. most of you guys wouldnt be able to realize the harm that prop 8 really caused for people like me. It was a dream come true, when they legalized gay marriage in Cali. my boyfriend and I were psyched! we were totally contemplating marriage, and how it would be like to live together and say "this is my husband" and then immediately follow with "jinx!" But then, November came, and people decided that we didnt deserve to be happy, and made an "amendment" to the constitution.
goofydiegog 2 years ago
goofydiegog: I don't laugh at your tears. And I very much know you deserve to be happy. Your story is poignant and sad and I do wish you and your boyfriend happiness, however that may be achieved. However, none of that can alter my belief that the legal definition of "marriage" should be designated as between a man and a woman.
tonestar100 2 years ago
This is what I don't get. No one is out to alter /your/ belief. If you believe gays marrying is wrong, you don't have to marry someone of the same sex. You can even raise your children to believe the same, which I'm sure you will.
But there is no logical, rational reason to deny gays marriage based on your personal belief. None. We are talking about tax-paying citizens, of legal age, like any other couple, who want to marry. It's a simple technicality, the sexes involved are the same.
OrochiTabris 2 years ago
I guess what really gets to me is the selfishness of this perspective. Gays marrying won't affect your marriage. They won't affect your family, unless you happen to have gays in your family (who I'm sure feel very unwelcome at gatherings).
There is no slippery slope, bestiality and pedophilia won't get the green light because two guys tied the knot.
As I asked another poster earlier, how would any of this actually affect you, or any existing marriage?
Why are you so selfish?
OrochiTabris 2 years ago
It effects our society like it effected the roman and greek empires.These empires are gone.
MrTabby5000 2 years ago
Causality. Get acquainted with it.
OrochiTabris 2 years ago
MrTabby5000, OMG, you did not used that as your arguement did you? OMFG!
danny458 2 years ago
The Romans were brought down by inept government and marauding Vandals, not gays. Plus, there was a Greek regiment of all gay lovers who were considered some of the most fearsome fighters to do battle with precisely *because* they cared so much about protecting one another. Additionally, gay people contribute a great deal to culture and the arts and, gosh darn it, are plain old awesome people who deserve their rights.
I second OrochiTabris's suggest about causality -- and logic generally.
pmcrimson 2 years ago
But the question is WHY? What nonreligious (since our government is secular), constitutionally sound reason do you have for not allowing gays to "marry"? Or, if you simply object to the term, what about calling all legal couplings, *including* straight unions, "civil unions"? That's really all the government can preside over anyway: a union of individuals according to civil law.
pmcrimson 2 years ago
I remember the day when they announced Prop 8 had passed. I started sobbing like a child while he held me in my arms and said its gonna be ok. And now, one year later, nothing seems ok. I thought that with Obama, people would be more accepting if not tolerant of us. Sadly, advocates of prop 8 are smiling at our tears. Why, I do not know, but what I do know is that we will just never have a chance. No
goofydiegog 2 years ago
No matter how hard we try, people are going to hate our lifestyle, even though we dont even mention the flaws in theirs. good people are still going to see us as scum, while we just see them as human. And I really do hope that the god that I love and worship doesnt take offense to how I live, because I really dont want to go to hell. All I want is acceptance, and the opportunity to be happy. But if things keep going as they do, I wont be able to see that in my lifetime. Thank you.
goofydiegog 2 years ago
*hugs*
Never forget that there are a lot of people who do support gay rights. Times are changing. I don't know how fast they'll change, but progress WILL come, and my hope is that open discussion (even on YouTube) will help that day come faster. Slavery existed in this country for hundreds of years. It took decades for African Americans and women to gain the right to vote -- decades to overcome segregation. Don't give up hope, man. Live your life in joy, if only to spite the haters. :-D
pmcrimson 2 years ago
Sadly, you will not find one christian who will not bring the bible into a LEGAL matter. That is how they base and justify their bigotted, hateful, ugly disdain for gays.
I appreciate you advocating on behalf of gays. We need more allies.
sidian3 2 years ago
mixed race marriage is not the same as gay marriage my answer to Q1: its not just about harming straight marriages its about harming the beliefs and values that oppose gay marriage.
q2:
LOVEMEBIGMUCH 2 years ago
This seems to be an incomplete post, and a week old, but I'm curious, and bored right now, so I'll reply.
How does the existence of one marriage harm, or for that matter affect in any way, another, gay or straight?
How would gay marriage harm the beliefs or the values opposing it, when no one is asking anyone to change them?
Why should the personal beliefs and values of some dictate who can marry, when those beliefs and values are not held by everyone?
Slippery slope arguments don't hold up.
OrochiTabris 2 years ago
I support your arguments, & I do believe marriage should be a term universally used for any type of union.
However, I do not think the actual term "marriage" is significant enough to raise a big stink out of, whether FOR or AGAINST prop 8. For instance, take the word "mating." That generally identifies the participants as heterosexual. Should that term be legally changed? I would be happy with a word like marriage, gay-marriage, civil-union, etc. as long as the word used was a respectful one
mistercristofer 2 years ago
When we talk about the "legal terms" of marriage and civil union, we're only talking about how those terms are used in legal contracts. It has nothing to do with everyday conversation. Mating is conversational term, not a legal term, so it's up to dictionaries to record it's uses, not our government.
Glad you like my arguments. :-)
pmcrimson 2 years ago
oh my god.
I love you(:
Your arguments are so logical and thought out.
A lot of peoples' arguments are "it's not fair" or "that's just the way it should be," but yours makes perfect sense.
<3
SummaAshley 2 years ago
Hahah, thanks! I always love hearing the love. :-)
pmcrimson 2 years ago
gay sex hurts my feelings
fecalmadder 2 years ago
It should hurt the anus.
MrTabby5000 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
then don't have gay sex.
sidian3 2 years ago
I am glad it passed,maybe san fransicko can change back to san francisco.Fags and lesbo will never marry in california,praise jesus,
MrTabby5000 2 years ago
but it's perfectly fine to kill a doctor who does an abortion
TurkeyBoy94 2 years ago
An abortion doctor is a murderer.
MrTabby5000 2 years ago
so what your saying is if a 16 year old girl is rapped by her father and gets pregnant and has no money to raise the baby she should still have it because abortion is murder even though it isn't
TurkeyBoy94 2 years ago
Its evidence of a crime.She could give it up for adoption,ever hear of that?
There are thousands of couples that cant have children
MrTabby5000 2 years ago
Did you just advocate a rape victim giving birth to a child that was literally forced into her against her will?
At first for use as evidence in a trial, then as a gift for those who can't have children of their own?
No one is truly "pro-abortion," no one thinks it's a good thing, and I haven't seen it touted as a viable form of birth control. But then, you probably oppose /any/ birth control. And sex education, that's bad.
So ... bring on the unplanned pregnancies, I guess? Oh, and the rape.
OrochiTabris 2 years ago
Thankfully, the terrorist Scott Roeder was recently found guilty of first degree murder. Hooray for justice! May that psychopath rot in prison for the rest of his life.
pmcrimson 2 years ago
@MrTabby5000
Yeah, I'm real sure God(if he exists as you say he does) would just LOVE the fact that you make other people feel bad about themselves by calling them "fags" and telling them they're going to hell. Yes, if God was here now, he'd be telling all the homosexuals how gross they are and telling them they're gonna burn in hell. Sounds like a real loving God, doesn't it?
*note sarcasm*
ilakster 2 years ago
The truth is the truth,you can be gay all you want,but no sodomy,none at all you must be celabut.
No fudgepacking for the fags.
MrTabby5000 2 years ago
So the issue isn't two people being in love? The issue is two people(men) having sex behind closed doors?
The "truth" you're referring to..is that the Bible per chance?? I don't believe in the Bible. Many people have many views on things. Different religions, morals, etc..if it's not hurting anyone, then it's not our place to interfere.
ilakster 2 years ago
@ilakster
Yes it's all about two men having sex behind closed doors. For two men who want to have really close, non-sexual relationship, there's already a term for it, and that's called "buddies", or "best friend".
tickle2012 2 years ago
Oh, yeah, because buddies and best friends have romantic relationships with each other..... And no couple could ever face the possibility of not being able to have sex with each other. What a moron.
firegod001 2 years ago
Moar like celaBUTT. Amirite? Yeh, Imrite.
Finding an uncomfortable number of Bible-following, Jesus-revering, God-fearing people throwing the word "fag" around. Not the first time for the supposedly pious ... I guess they just needed a something new.
OrochiTabris 2 years ago
Whats with all these people saying that only christians oppose gays? I'm christian, I don't oppose gays. I see plenty of high schoolers picking on other guys and calling them fags, and I think the LAST thing they are, are christians. I don't think douchebags that smoke weed at school and start fights over color are anything but christians so where are all these people getting the notion that if you hate gays, you MUST be christian?
gundammeistersetsuna 2 years ago
I didn't say that only Christians are homophobes, but unfortunately Prop 8's funding mostly came from religious groups. Also, most people who oppose gay marriage will say it's because 1) they don't think God would approve, or 2) gay sex grosses them out; odd, since outlawing gay marriage doesn't prevent gay sex. Just because I'm grossed out by the idea of people with a 30 year age gap having sex doesn't mean it would be right to make marriage between a 50 year old and 20 year old illegal.
pmcrimson 1 year ago
"What NONreligious reasons are there to hate gay marriage?" Are you crapping me? I know PLENTY of guys that are atheist that oppose gays. I'm not one of them, but thats just a dumb question. Religious or not the simple fact that gays have butt sex disturb men. Its a crap tube. Thats like having sex through the ear. If it was possible, I'm pretty sure someone would do it.
gundammeistersetsuna 2 years ago
Ah, but that's a reason to dislike gay sex, NOT a reason to oppose gay *marriage*. What reasons would your atheist friends who oppose gay marriage give for doing so?
pmcrimson 1 year ago
If you're not a liberal then what in the world are you ?
Plzzzr 2 years ago
Im an independent, who is MOSTLY republican, except on this issue
AlesandraMarie 2 years ago
AlesandraMarie: No bullshit: I am an Independent, mostly Republican. I have never belonged to any party. Neither party deserves my undivided support.
tonestar100 2 years ago
HAHA! You rock! This video owns!
sepifi 2 years ago
Thank you much!
pmcrimson 1 year ago
Oh, you're fighting poeple like me ????
Holding their hands ????
Im suggesting they never have to go to their death bed in the first place.
But I forget.....liberals don't put any value on results.........just intentions....their heart is in the right place.......
WHEN YOU'RE DEALING WITH LIBERALS YOU HAVE TO IGNORE THE RESULTS
Plzzzr 2 years ago
mhm. people who are so put off by homosexuality that they devote their time to trying to strike fear into the hearts of the easily-led public.
Many things lead to an early death. Use of alcohol, medicines, drugs, and lack of diet and excersize. you're more likely to die in a car accident, death by get hit by a car, to be shot dead while being mugged then to die from being gay. Nothing is without risk. Including love.
I'm not a liberal. Stop screaming at liberals. Crazy fuck.
AlesandraMarie 2 years ago
Why are you cheering on from the sidelines as homosexuals die an early death ???
Do you care about them or just political correctness.
Political correctness wont' change the law of gravity nor will it change self destructive behavior from being anything other than self destructive .
Plzzzr 2 years ago
Die and early death? They live as long as any other person.
I care about them. I love my gay friends. Not that I see whats so bad about being POLITE and caring for your fellow man.
you're grasping at straws.
oh, and im not on the sidelines. im right there, next to them, holding signs, writing letters, and fighting people like you.
AlesandraMarie 2 years ago
Why not, instead of trying to stop gay people from having sex, put your energy into telling how important using a condom is for EVERYONE!?
AND WHY is it that the only problem that comes up about homosexuality is the fact that they like to have sex anally? What about LESBIANS!?!?!?
ilakster 2 years ago
yes them too,
MrTabby5000 2 years ago