As much as I like Dr. Hill he is mistaken and completely off-base on this topic.. - gay marriage is NOT a civil rights issue (and for that matter, neither is, say, 'voting' - that's a political right).
There is no right in the constitution of this nation for any given configuration of marriage privilege- that is for society to determine what is best in it's collective interest. For centuries western society has had a consensus that one man/woman is the most beneficial configuration for society
@shieldsff Absolutely not. So long as legal and tax benefits are offered toward hetero couples the same must be offered to same sex couples. My religion embraces gay marriage. We perform the ceremony all the time even though the marriage isn't legally recognized, as such not only are their civil rights being violated so are our religious rights
take a step back & logically consider what you are asserting. You are trying to legally impose a very specific but narrow alternative configuration of marriage entitlement which has no historical basis nor popular electoral support in our nation (principally because in practice it cannot come close to conferring the comparable substantial degree of social benefits which hetero-sexual union do). In UR logic,by virtue of paying taxes.polygamy&family "marriages " are also legitimate
@shieldsff No, we're ensuring that two consenting adults can make a commitment to each other and have the same benefits as every other adult citizen. Anything else is a violation of Equality. It has a long historical basis dating back to the Roman Empire, Ming China, and most indigenous peoples. Civil Rights are not a matter for the electoral process - you couldn't vote to bring back slavery. Gay couples provide MORE social benefits than straight couples, as gay couples adopt the children...
Really ?!? If pple have the right to 'love' whoever they want ( in a relative 'morally neutral'' context as gay marriage supporters would have us accept) by what authority or principal of moral application do you 'ensure' that equally sincere pple (who are 'in love') are not also extended the legal status of marriage? Doesn't UR movement proclaim that yours is a human rights crusade (freedom to 'love')? The 'slavery' analogy is flawed & sloppy thinking- the13th amendment IS in the constitution
@shieldsff I seek to ensure nothing. I want to define marriage as between 2 consenting adults. This will change nothing in how marriage works in our society. It is the next logical step in the long fight for equality for homosexuals. Other groups will come forward with their own definitions of marriage. I will judge each on their own merit. That is what we owe all people
thanks for conceding the point.You hold an unproven value judgment" as to merit. You can certainly hold no ill wil towards those who find gay marriage grossly lacking in social merit.You must therefore also condemn those gay marriage advocates who wrongly&fatuously, w/no objective basis categorically call all opponents of gay marriage "bigots"&the like.Not withstanding that there is NO objective moral criteria/laws to default to your determination of 'merit' I appreciate UR response
@shieldsff There is ONE objective moral criteria. That is harm. If something does no harm to anyone like say removing the gender criteria from marriage then it is good. If something does cause harm like say advancing a prejudiced agenda which violates our country's principles of Equality and the free pursuit of happiness then I have no problem calling a spade a spade. It's simple bigotry
@shieldsff ...that straight couples abandon. Heteros just indiscriminately add to over population. Multiple marriages are impractical from a tax and legal perspective at this time, but in the futue...who knows?
@shieldsff ...that straight couples abandon. Heteros just indiscriminately add to over population. Multiple marriages are impractical from a tax and legal perspective at this time...but in the future..who knows? The definition of marriage will continue to change and grow; and that's for the best
@shieldsff ...that straight couples abandon. Heteros just indiscriminately add to over population. Multiple marriages are impractical from a tax and legal perspective at this time...but in the future..who knows? The definition of marriage will continue to change and grow; and that's for the best
@shieldsff ...that straight couples abandon. Heteros just indiscriminately add to over population. Multiple marriages are impractical from a tax and legal perspective at this time...but in the future..who knows? The definition of marriage will continue to change and grow; and that's for the best
Ann Coulter confirms again she is an ignorant and rude person that can only approach a subject with anger and rhetoric. Ann thinks she can tell a black man how black people think? She never explained that, she only ranted about slaves on ships and 100 years of mistreatment, but she never explained herself. She constantly interrupted Mr. Hill and never let him finish a sentence. I am surprised that Mr. King let her continue her bad behavior for so long.
"They need a mommy AND a daddy"!! Well. My mothers a single parent, and I'm doing quite well in life TY. Please. Pull the stick out of your ars, lady ^ _ ^
I DON,T AGREE ON SAME SEX MARRIAGE BUT AS A CHRISTIAN I WANT TO SAY I,M SORRY FOR OTHERE CHRISTIAN WHO HAVE SLAM THE BIBLE IN U GUYS FACE U GUYS DESERVE TO TREATED LIKE GOD CHILDREN. GOD LOVE YOU AND I DO TO
@firesidechet i can tell you from first hand experience that gay is not a choice...are you saying (as a straight person) that if you had to, you could be gay and automatically have feelings for the same sex that easily? but simply because you "chose" to be heterosexual, thats the sole reason why you're attracted to the opposite sex?...
@MrHarajukuLuva look.... all behavior is a choice, if not... who is pulling your strings? My whole life I have had to curtail my sexual urges...and until now, (thanks to Youtube) my tongue as well. You can control yourself, and not practice anal sex with men- which you have to admit, is unnatural and disgusting.What am I missing here?
@firesidechet Ok, so now you're solely talking about just abstinence, which could be practiced by either a homosexual OR heterosexuall. Honestly, i think we can all agree (gay/straight) that we've had to curtail our sexual urges at one point. HOWEVER, whether practicing sex or not, i've always known that i was gay since i was very young, and btw you didnt answer my question,which was just because someone told you "it's WRONG!!"could you suddenly change the fact ur attracted to the opposite sex?
@paulamerica9493No that just means you can't control your self, because you know in your heart you are wrong. My nuts are not numb - I have 4 kids, and I support and love all of them, as they do me. You will never know the joy of being a real man, and for that I feel sorry for you.
@firesidechet no, actually, i know that in my heart, being with a woman would be wrong. i would be lying to myself. it's not that i can't control myself, i'm still a virgin actually. i'm the oldest of 4 with 33 first cousins and over 50 second cousins. i know the joys of family. sure, i may never watch a woman go through the most painful experience life has to offer so that i can continue my legacy, but i am not ever going to lie to myself and pretend that i am attracted to women.
@firesidechet i also don't understand how being straight makes you a real man. i know some real low-lifes who disgrace the name of masculinity, men who treat women like objects for their sexual pleasure alone. i know how to treat another human being, especially one that i love. if you're referencing 'manly' things like building things, playing with circuitry, i've done all of that. what is a real man... a father? what if his wife cannot bear children? is he not a real man? what if he's impotent?
@firesidechet Not unnatural and not disgusting. Sounds like a fun way to spend Vday. Why do you just mention men? Straights and lesbians practice anal sex. is there's ok, but gay sex isn't? No part of your argument makes sense
@MrHarajukuLuva I can tell you from first hand experience, that when I was a young man, I had to control my urges. It sounds strange...but it is possible. You must know when you see shit on your dick, you are wrong.
@firesidechet ummm, ok im not even talking about just sex, because abstinence works with both gay and straight people, but do you think you could control your actual feelings in terms of the people you are attracted to... meaning even though you controlled your urges you still KNEW you were straight right????
@RealityGrapple Oh, I'm sorry. Did I crush your entire life-philosophy in one paragraph on a YouTube comment link? Typical Liberal. Never able to back an argument; always referring back to insults and baseless innuendos--come on buddy; you’re like 9 for 10...all you have to do now is call me a homophobe and a racist and you’ll become the A-typical, Liberal cum-stick personified. Now go back to eating your Spaghetti-O's Corky and try not to masturbate into your milk this time.
@coleaddison What's awesome is how little your opinion matters. In just a few years gay marriages will be a common sight. Your neighbors, the teachers you send your kids to, the judges you appear before. It's right and it's inevitable
@sammyhain13 U mean like, Totally Awesome!? Look fuck-head; R U really going to give me the “I have a dream” speech for gay marriage? Do U really think I’m going to crawl into your perverse fantasy world and tremble in fear for my impending doom and defeat? Look around asshole; U R losing. U’ve got a hand full of bigoted Left wing judges in NY on your side that are about to be taken to task by the state legislature-- I’ve got 4,000 years of cultural history and common law,
@sammyhain13 4/5ths of the country, every major religion, the federal government and all the reason, logic and truth that reality can muster on my side… Take your discriminatory, childish, insane fantasies about a nation where the 1% degenerate perverts and sexually-challenged among us dictate law to the other 99%; and shove it up your clinically-retarded, American-hating Liberal ass (we’ll call that marriage).
@coleaddison Every major religion? Unitarian Universalist, Presbyterian, some Quaker churches, several Jewish sects, most of Buddhism.and Wiccan/Pagan sects. 4/5's of the country? We have most of the world the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Iceland and Argentina. Just a matter of time till we catch up. You also do not have 4,000 years of cultural history. There's a strong world history of marriage equality
@sammyhain13 Dasdreiuw4w5rfv aser…I’m sorry bud; I’m laughing too hard to type. Wiccan/Pagan sects…Unitarian Universalists…Quakers?! You forgot the 6 guys in Idaho who worship the Taco Bell off I-90!? I can’t wait to hear your examples of great historical societies that allowed same sex marriage/parenting. Wait, let me guess…the 1821 Zimbabwee Amish Sect of Redheaded Basket Humpers? Ah yes, the Islamic Union of Europe...the beacon of prosperity and moral leadership in the
@sammyhain13 World today. Perhaps we can talk about Liberal/Socialist-Europe’s bankruptcy problems and plummeting population rates in a Gov. subsided pot-shop in Amsterdam; just after we shoot some Gov. cooked heroin with Gov. paid transvestite prostitutes. You Liberals do aim high; don’t you?
@coleaddison Legalized drugs instead of wasting money and lives on a pointless war on drugs? Sounds great! Bankruptcy problems? Those who live in glass houses. Plummeting populations rates? Thank the gods! Overpopulation is the most dangerous threat to our species. Legal prostitution? So grown men and women can work in a safe protected environment instead of some back alley? Yea, sign up America for that too! Your outdated way of thinking is making your kind more and more irrelevant
@sammyhain13 Doesn’t it strike you as odd that when this country implemented my ‘old fashion’ way of life; that Europeans migrated here by the boat load? Is there anything to be said about the fact that your perfect model of a Utopian Society, Europe, needs America to bail her out from the likes of ruthless dictators like Stalin and Hitler, every 100 years or so. Isn't it peculiar that Europe’s promise of Cradle to Grave entitlements to its citizens is forcing entire nations to
@sammyhain13 go bankrupt like dominos? You don’t have ‘modern views’ of society…Socialism has been tried countless times; and the end result is always the same…chronic poverty, despotism, and ruthless oppression. America is the hold-out; we are the last best hope for the World…but great humanitarian heroes like you (with your oh-so moral fights to legalize drugs/prostitution and control populations with abortion and euthanasia) intend to change that.
@coleaddison Conservatives do live in their own dream world don't they? We're only staying afloat by borrowing from communists and socialists. Socialist countries are the ones weathering the global recession the best. We're getting way off topic here. If America is the defender of freedom that you claim, then it is inevitable that we will support to the freedom to love and marry whomever one chooses
@sammyhain13 You were better off with your initial point. The fact that ‘communist china’ is the one leveraging most of our debt is, in fact, a supporting argument in favor of Communism that would be (more) difficult for me to defend against. Regarding the topic at hand…I’ll let your last comment slide since I think you’re a little too smart to see the obvious flaws in your position. Tell me: 1. what is your definition of marriage? 2. From what authority do you pull that
@coleaddison Definition of marriage differs between religion and legal definitions. Religions have their own protected standards. Legally it's a binding contract between oneself, a chosen partner and the government -conferring certain legal and tax benefits, which if offered to some people and not others constitutes a violation of civil liberties
@sammyhain13 definition? 3. What types of relationships qualify/disqualify from marriage as you define it? Fair Warning: Everything you say will be used against you.
@coleaddison Any two consenting legal adults. That being said my religion does recognize poly-amorous relationships, but we recognize that it's impractical to make those legally binding at this time. "Legal" prohibits Incest, but even that is a gray area as there are different standard has how closely two must be related for it to be incest. And one must be an adult to enter into legally binding contracts, same with marriage; it's up to the states to determine legal age
@sammyhain13 Okay. So according to you; marriage offers certain ‘legal’ and ‘tax’ benefits to participating (contracted) members. By ‘benefits’ I assume you mean the tax-free passing of one’s assets onto a spouse after death; and other considerations like hospital/prison visits and court testimony laws… But you’re missing one very important consideration... Why? Why would a state be interested in providing benefits to any one ‘special’ group of people? Why would the state
@sammyhain13 care to recognize one relationship-class over another? I agree with you…there does seem to be something discriminatory about this whole thing (forget gay couples for a minute; according to your standards…there’s millions of other relationships being denied there rights as well). I mean; why is my relationship with my best friend not rewarded by the government? Why shouldn’t I get a tax break for having a relationship with the same barber for 10
@sammyhain13 years? I love roast beef sandwiches with a burning passion…clearly the state should recognize my relationship with Arby’s! No; the truth is that there must be something more… It appears that the state is trying to promote something they find significantly valuable. You’ve told me what benefits marriage provides to its participants; and I fully agree (but that’s not what we’re arguing here). What measurable,principaled benefit can a gay couple bring to society’s
@coleaddison Why? I would say to unfairly promote a Judeo-Christian ideology, but I imagine you're going for the - Promoting the stability of the family unit for raising children thing. As such I ask why it is I and my girlfriend could get married and get those benefits when we never ever want children, or an infertile hetero couple could get those benefits. Yet, a gay couple which would love to adopt and give a home to a child without one is denied those benefits?
@coleaddison If the family unit is so important then gay marriage should be encouraged. Last week a lesbian couple I know celebrated the birth of their first child, which they are raising with love. I find it sick that their union is not recognized, while a hetero married couple I know, who got married simply to save on car insurance, have their union fully legally recognized.
@sammyhain13 Wait a minute. You are the one insisting that marriage needs to be redefined and used as a referendum for gay civil rights? I’d just assume that you put some thought into what, exactly; the purpose of marriage is before you took such strong action to change it. All I have from you at this point is that you wish to change, what some consider to be the most important, 4,000 year old, bed-rock institution humanity has…for no other reason except…you know some nice gay
@sammyhain13 people? Ooookay…where do I start: First—I’m going out on a limb here by saying you are not in a position to tell me what internal and personal motives/intentions ‘someone you know’ has regarding their relationships ( you’re not just trying to do this with one person—you’ve got four of them lined up). Second—what is with this ‘love’ word. We are dealing with laws and legal definitions. Law is based on measurable principals; not intermediate incorporeals. The law
@sammyhain13 distinguish a man from a woman; it CAN NOT gauge the value and sincerity of love, attraction or affection. Setting ‘love’ as the base-line standard for marriage is no different than saying “only fabulous people should be allowed to own homes.” How is that possibly legislatable? Third—the fact that you know of a failed heterosexual marriage does not give you the right to assume the entire institution fails. I got food poisoning last year; oddly enough…my doctor
@coleaddison Did I say "love?" No, no one want the law determining what is love. I said "choice." Love may be the motivation for choice, but that's not for us. Choice is the essence of freedom. If two legal adults make the "choice" to live together and make their union official it's not the Law's business to say no. There is not one reason a hetero pairing is any more real than a same sex pairing
@sammyhain13 still encourages me to eat. Moreover; the fact that you know of a failed marriage does not give you the liberty to open the door for alternatives. Even though it was food that got me sick…my doctor still has not put me on a diet of radioactive mercury. Your use of the term ‘gay marriage’ itself reflects the true ‘discriminating’ party in this discussion. The issue is not ‘gay or straight;’ it’s ‘man or woman.’ A gay person is entitled to every right a straight person
@sammyhain13 is and is denied nothing a straight person is granted. A gay man can marry any woman he chooses; just like a straight man can. A gay man cannot marry another man; nor can a straight man. From a legal perspective, being attracted to someone of the same sex is incidentally irrelevant—it has no more bearing than not being attracted to anyone at all—no one is forced to get married). The minute we turn our back on basing laws on measurable principals applicable to all;
@coleaddison Denying someone the choice to marry the one they choose is no type of freedom. That's no different than setting up arranged marriages and calling that freedom. It's the same as saying an African-American person is free to marry any African-American they choose. If two people want to start a partnership and raise a family then whatever set of genitals they have in their pants is no concern of the law.
@sammyhain13 As I said this 4,000 year bedrock of society doesn't hold water. Gay marriage exists throughout history from tribal societies such as the Polynesian and Native American to society that formed the foundation of civilization such as the Ming Dynasty China, classical Greece and the mighty Roman Empire. This isn't something new and shocking
@sammyhain13 Logical reasoning…? I’ve given you nothing but logical reasoning! You are not advocating for ‘hard working, tax paying people to have the same rights you and I are entitled to.’ That is a falsehood steeped in Liberal propagandist misdirection. Gays are not denied any right that I’m granted (I’m not allowed to marry someone of the same sex either). What you want is to change the definition of marriage by eliminating the measurable ‘gender’ constraint and replacing
@sammyhain13 it with the immeasurable ‘love, attraction, affection’ constraint. The Left constantly aims to re-define laws and cultural norms with ‘immeasurable’ of which only they (through their own personal biases) can judge, gauge and evaluate. You said: “Denying someone the right to marry the one they chose is no type of freedom…” and then followed that statement with every reason why adults can’t marry children, men can’t marry animals, brothers can’t marry sisters, and
@sammyhain13 multiple hoards of people can’t engage in communal marriages. Why should we re-define marriage to accommodate the gay community; and not do the same thing to accommodate communities that value arranged marriages with children (Muslims and Hindus), polygamy (orthodox Mormons) incest and man/animal love (my family)? According to your personal bias, these present an unfair, un-opimal, repressive arrangement with potentially dangerous consequences. But I
@sammyhain13 think that your two woman friends raising a child does the exact same thing. What if my best friend and I chose to get married and adopt 15 teen-aged girls from Sweden? Is that a freedom you’d defend or a hazard you’d reject? What’s especially ironic is that many on the Left hold an image in their head of an idealist ‘gay household’ that bears all the characteristics of the most conservative, value-based family one can possibly imagine (probably complete with the
@sammyhain13 white picket fence). But isn’t it this stereotypical, ideological image of conservative family values the exact thing Liberals seek to disenfranchise? The truth is that yes, gays can live like us conservatives; but let’s not forget they also tend to gather in the thousands in public SF parades wearing nothing but leather masks and dildos while dancing on inflatable dildos to the tune of: “I’m too sexy”. Yes, they can be in committed relationships; but let’s not
@sammyhain13 forget that they are also peculiarly hallmarked by an almost pathologic commitment to casual sex, infidelity and promiscuity. Yes they can be kind, loving people; but let’s not forget some of the bad apples of this 1% minority group: Jeffery Dahmer, Aileen Worms, Jerry Sandusky…and 4/5ths of the lucky contestants on “To Catch a Predator.” You have a ‘soft spot’ for gays…and that’s fine. But I have a ‘soft spot’ for children. While you want to
@sammyhain13 ensure that gays are given every opportunity you were given; I only want to do the same thing for kids. By advocating ‘gay marriage;’ you are giving gays a right that no one else is granted (including yourself); and denying kids a right we should all enjoy…a mom and a dad.
@coleaddison Boring. You've slipped from a semi-cogent discussion on legal terms into baseless bigotted name calling. First off your 1% Minority Group is a fallacy. Most estimates place the lgbt population at a little less than 10%, and that doesn't even take into account the large numbers who are forced deep into the closet. Pathological promiscuity is another myth. They wouldn't be fighting so hard for marriage were that the case.The stereotype comes from the reality that casual sex was the..
@coleaddison ..only form of expression they had for a long time as society repressed them. There is no reason having a mom and dad should be the standard of a happy childhood. The American Psychological Association has repeatedly shown that children of gay households are just as happy and stable as their hetero counterparts, with actually the highest scores being shown within lesbian households. We value neither "conservative" nor outlandish lgbts above the other. Both have the same rights...
@coleaddison ..to live their lives as they wish. Your "people could then marry animals and children" argument is precisely the same argument that was used against mixed race marriage. I made the point of showing how even the few qualifications I gave more marriage are not absolutes with many gray areas. Other groups will seek to further change the laws. We will judge them by their own merits and not paint them all with the same broad brush strokes. Don't start with the "bad apple" argument...
@sammyhain13 Think back to your high school days. I want you to be as honest as possible. Are you telling me that every 10th kid you went to school with was gay? I mean come on…we can bullshit each other or try to find some truth here. This notion that gay’s represent 10% of the population is absurd. To claim that the gay community doesn’t have a pre-set obsession with sex and promiscuity is another absurdity. I realize that in the Liberal World; mentioning any negative aspect
@sammyhain13 of a minority group is blasphemous—automatic grounds for degrees of racism, homophobia and bigotry; but I’m not a Liberal (perhaps we can talk further about who really advances stereotypes in a later discussion). When was the last time the Rotary Club hosted an S&M Parade down Main Street? The gays got one coming down my street this weekend. “Promiscuous Sex was the only form of ‘expression’ gays could display after a long time of oppression?” Do you have any idea
@sammyhain13 how ridiculous a statement like that sounds (and I’m the one slipping from a semi-cogent discussion)? In any event; in one breath you tell me I’m a bigoted homophobe advancing gay stereotypes…and in the next breath you justify the factual-basis for the conclusion I drew (see anything wrong with that???). No study shows, with scientific certainty; that a gay couple can provide just as healthy/happy household as a heterosexual couple can. Again, while you rely on a
@sammyhain13 2011 study by the APA (and perhaps Wicca/Pagan religious practices); I’ve got 4,000 years of cultural history; your parents, grandparents and great grandparents; every major religion, the federal government, 4/5ths of the state governments 65% of the country, my own statistical data countering yours and a little thing called nature on my side. Disallowing blacks from marring whites was racism…advanced by Liberal Democrats? There is no biological/psychological
@sammyhain13 differences between a black man and a white man; there are tremendous biological/psychological differences between a man and a woman. The fact that you make this a ‘gay vs. straight’ issue; rather than a ‘man vs. woman’ issue no different than when Liberal Democrats of yester-year made marriage a ‘black vs. white’ issue rather than a ‘man vs. woman’ issue. You missed my point: I’m simply suggesting that it is peculiarly odd to me that your vision of a perfect ‘gay
@sammyhain13 household’ maintains very Conservative characteristics for, otherwise, very Conservative people. If Conservatism is such a negative, repressive force in the World—why is it that you dream of gay’s one day living that lifestyle; and why are you so certain they will (I simply gave you a short list of gays that don’t live the peaceful, loving, passive lifestyle you have conjured up in your head)?
@coleaddison No. I said precisely I don't see the gays living the "conservative family" lifestyle as any better or worse than the ones holding the S&M Parades..oh, and I work with groups that host Fetish Balls and they're all straight and the people who attend are both straight and gay
@coleaddison It once was that gay couples had to completely hide their relationship. Living as a committed couple invited public censure, violence, and even arrest. When one has no way to lead a public committed relationship all that is left is short secret liasons. If you disapprove of this, then you should support gay marriage
@sammyhain13 This may come as a shock to you; but I have the internet too. I can just as easily pull out very official sounding reports that make the exact opposite claim you are making about the quality of same sex parenting. I can also give you reports that suggest cigarettes improve your health; breast feeding leads to acne and every 10th person you know is gay…none of which is true. You work with people who host fetish balls? Jesus man; I’m an MBA and a JD. I hate when
@sammyhain13 people pull out their credentials on YT but at some point you have to consider the credit worthiness of the source you are arguing with. It seems to me like your livelihood depends on appeasing those with ‘alternative’ sexual lifestyles (do you think in any way that could be affecting your motives here?). Why would gays have to hide their relationships when, according to you, virtually every civilization in human history not only embraced homosexuality
@sammyhain13 with open arms; but welcomed their relationships into the fraternity of marriage (maybe history favors gay marriage only when it supports your current argument)? Okay, I’m seeing your reasoning here…gays couldn’t have open, committed relationships (whatever that means); so naturally, they had to sleep around with as many different people as possible in order to somehow harness the quantity/quality of love that would normally come from a single, committed relationship.
@sammyhain13 Do you see a pattern here…you rationalize the shit out of EVERYTHING. You take a fact or circumstance; rationalize it into oblivion; and only stop when an explanation emerges that conveniently molds into a ridiculous conclusion that takes any/all fault away from your horse; and places it directly on mine. You know why gays (particularly the men) sleep around…? Because they can! I’m a guy; I know the power of the male sex-drive. I know that if left it to our own male
@sammyhain13 caveman instants; with no moral direction; and if woman permitted… we’d be having sex wholesale! Gay men simply found themselves in that predicament and dove in like gluttonous sex-slobs without reservation. Don’t try to put their highly risky and dangerous lifestyles off on us; as if Conservatives created some fantasy-world, oppressive, violent, anti-gay society that forced them to bang everything in sight. I disapprove of unchecked, irresponsible promiscuity…gay
@sammyhain13 or straight. I think this greatly increases the odds of deadly diseases being spread and children being born into ‘less than optimal’ environments. More important; I disapprove of children being intentionally conceived; with the pre-set knowledge that they will be raised by people other than their biological parents; and I disapprove of the Left’s notion that two mothers makes a father unnecessary; or that two fathers negate to importance a mother has to her child.
@coleaddison Forget two mothers, just one works just fine-or one father. Families take all kinds of forms and this nuclear family ideal of yours is the invention of 50's sitcoms. You really don't let facts get in the way of your opinions do you? Adopting parents have to go through rigorous screening processes. To become a biological parent you just have to be too dumb or lazy to go buy a condom. Gay families give society the benefit of taking care of the children abandoned by these "parents"
@coleaddison I'm not rationalizing anything. I told you the sexually deviant homosexual is a myth. For some there was a shadowy sex subculture they were forced into by hateful violent conservatives. However, gays are individuals and have the same diversity of relationships and sexual practices as straights. When I was single my sex life put any gay man's to shame, but I was educated and practiced Safe Sex and guess what? I'm fine. One's sex life, gay or straight, isn't the business of the Law
@coleaddison Yes, originally homosexual relationships were accepted as normal, but that was before the conservative monotheistic movement forced themselves on the world. Do you want to go through history and look at the violent tortures and sanctioned murder that forced gays into the shadows? The deviant world conservative heteros created
@coleaddison We aren't in the business of protecting just alternative special interests. As much as I disagree with pretty much the entire conservative agenda I'd defend your right to live as you chose just so long as you don't force it on others. We are taking nothing away from you. There is a large movement asking for one specific right to be granted them. If granting it does not take away anyone else's rights or harm them, then you have no leg to stand on in denying it
@sammyhain13 This idea that a Mom and a Dad is ‘sooo 1950’s’ is crazy! The Left is truly a destructive force in our society. I don’t mind that you have these views; but please stop acting like you are the compassionate ones looking out for the greater good of humanity. You (the left) have entirely taken it upon yourself to disregard everything your predecessors valued and passed onto you; only to embark into a totally unexplored, brave new world that no one knows anything about.
@sammyhain13 You do it so callously, with such ease; totally oblivious to even the consideration that you are experimenting with the health and stability of an entire generation of kid’s. You are experimenting with their upbringings as if they were guanine pigs (did you parents do that to you?). And why? So gays can feel better about themselves? “One father or one mother works just fine?” How can you say that….78% of all Inmates in this country come from single mother homes?
@sammyhain13 Clearly, there is a correlation between a ‘fucked up upbringing;’ and a ‘fucked up life.’ Honestly, I’m completely taken back by how casually you are willing to assume such huge risks against an innocent 3rd party; for such pointless returns. The level of insouciant irresponsibility and reckless selfishness stuns me. You keep telling me that one’s sex life is none of the laws business…and that’s exactly right. The law doesn’t care who you are sexually attracted to,
@sammyhain13 who you want to bang and/or why. Marriage is a bonding contract (used to be a convent before Liberals changed that) reserved exclusively for respective members of the two sexes of our species…because that Union, according to God, nature and the prudent judgment of all those that came before us; is deemed good and decent above all else for its idiosyncratic ability to provide the optimal environment from which children can be raised. As much as a Conservative like me
@sammyhain13 enjoys ripping on the Government; I’m suddenly finding myself thanking God that we have a government willing to protect kids from people with your extreme, radical and yes…dangerous views (I’m sorry; I don’t mean to get personal but this is some scary stuff you’re proposing). Well buddy; I think we said it all and I’m sufficiently ‘freaked out.’ Enjoy your Fetish Balls… I’ll just be the white, straight, working, church-going family guy who thinks kids deserve
@sammyhain13 moms and dads…all while scratching my head trying to figure out how that became a bad thing. Good conversation--for really the first time; I’m realizing that this country is in deep, serious shit.
@sammyhain13 And which political ideology wishes us all to be the same? Who is it that despises gaps in income? Who hates the fact that race divides us? Who is it that wishes all relationship-classes had equal worth and value? Who is it that can’t stand that woman and men are different beings? Who is it that wants the entire country to follow secular beliefs and throw away their judgmental religious prerogatives? It is the left that worships the god of equality.
@sammyhain13 and start picking and choosing which micro-culture (sexual preference, wealth/income, race, religion) is entitled to which ‘special benefits’ based on nothing more than our own personal, biases and interests…is the minute we truly begin living in a bigoted society. Ironically it is the Left (the self-proclaimed crusaders for anti-discriminatory civil rights) who create the very discretionary conditions, separations and definitions they so gallantly pretend to abhor.
@coleaddison That's nothing but jargon. I'm not stopping anyone from getting married who can now. I want tax paying, hard working Americans to enjoy the same rights you and I have. A segment of the community is requesting to be given the same opportunity as the rest of society to have their partnership legalized, and neither you nor anyone else can offer a logical reason to refuse them
@sammyhain13 definition? 3. What types of relationships qualify or disqualify from marriage as you define it? Fair Warning: Everything you say will be used against you.
@RealityGrapple I'm a CCO for a bank. Id really be interested to hear more of your expert opinion on Obamas support for the financial sector? Pro war? Oh ya, N. Korea and Russia didn't spend a penny on military pursuits. Pro-business--as opposed to what; pro-- non-producing fuck-o's like you? Russia didn't encourage work--they demanded it. Gay Marriage? Forget marrige; just being a homosexual in N. Korea is punishable by death. But no, really, you make a compelling point.
I fully support and understand gay marriage rights. As a matter of fact; I’m being denied similar rights! I’m a right-wing, religious nut-job; and I want (well, God told me) to marry 7, fully consenting, adult woman (3 of which are my biological sisters). We plan on having 48 kids—but again, I’m getting a lot of negative feedback from radical Conservative-traditionalists who believe marriage is reserved for 1 man and 1 woman (ha, ha…right?).
I am a Black man and not in a million years did i ever think i would agree with Ann Coulter.....but she is absolutlely right on this issue. Lamont Hill is missing the bigger picture she is trying to show him. Ann Coulter scored big time on this issue. I am glad Lamont Hill is not a professor at a school i went to. Lamont Hill has very low morals i can clearly see that.
I can't speak for most women, but I don't oppose polygamy. If a group of people want to have a spiritual a marriage and live together, that's fine with me. I'm against laws that prohibit such arrangements.
As for a legal recognition of it, that's much more difficult to do than with gay marriage.
There are a myriad of complex issues that would have to be resolved, making it a totally different institution. The same is not true with gay marriage.
@bearchewtoy75 I am opposed to same sex marriage; but I can at least respect your recognition that one cannot be in favor of same sex marriage but somehow appose polygamy. The principal the Left fights for is that marriage should not discriminate against alternative relations (as long as all parties are consenting adults). It's refreshing to hear someone on your side at least open to the idea of interjecting some basic, principled logic into their thought process.
People who use the line "We are equal becouse I cant marry same sex just like gays," clearly miss the point that it is about marrying the person you love in the persuit of happiness.
IM STRAIGHT 20 AND BLACK. AND THIS BITCH SOUND STUPID. MY HOMEBOY HAS TWO MOMS AND HE TURNED OUT GREAT. EVEN THOUGH I HAVE A MOM AND DAD WHO LOVE EACH OTHER AND BTW ARE SUPPORTIVE OF GAY MARRIAGE. I'D RATHER BE RAISED BY PARENTS OF THE SAME SEX WHO LOVE EACH OTHER THAN HOMOPHOBIC PARENTS WHO ARE BOUT HATE. AND THIS IS SIDE NOTE - SOME BLACKS WHO ARE HOMOPHOBIC AND DONT WANNA HELP GAYS ARE HYPOCRITES, THEY WERRE FIGHTIN TO BE ACCEPT BUT CANT HELP OTHERS WHO WANT TO BE ACCEPTED, HYPOCRITES.
@UMANEDAKIDD19 LIKE IVE SAID MILLIONS OF TIMES, IF I SEE A RACIST WHITE MAN BEAT THE SHYT OUT SOME BLACK PERSON WHO DONT WANNA HELP GAYS, IMA KEEP ON MOVIN I AINT HELPIN THAT NIGGA, AND IF HE DIES OH WELL GOD BLESS THE DEAD. YOU DONT WANNA HELP OTHERS, WHY SHOULD I HELP YOU, ITS ONLY FAIR. HYPOCRITICAL BLACKS, HOMOPHOBIC BLACKS, AND HOMOPHOBES FUCK ALL YALL WIT MUCH DISRESPECT. THIS BITCH SOUND DUMB ASS FUCK.
what is a family? because people who talk about "protecting the ideals of a family" seem to have the idea that a family ONLY consist of a mother and a father... well, aside from gay couples having children, are they also saying that a single parent raising their children should have rights as a parent to raise their child or consider themselves a "family" because they dont meat societies stupid interpretation of what a "family" is?
Homosexuality is disgusting and immoral. God did not create man to be with man or woman to be with woman. He created man to be with woman! Homosexuality is just wrong and disgusting.
The Democrats are suppose to be "liberals" then why does Clinton/Obama keep on appointing conservative supreme court justices (3 jewish and 1 catholic) that are philosophically/religiously against theses issues of abortion/gay marriage. Blacks were once discriminated and it took the supreme court (Brown vs Board of Education 1954) to rule that it was unconstitutional and it paved the way for the civil rights movement. ActionSpeaksLouderThanWords
I think that the republicans are now known to be the people who use the Bible for justifying hatred and intolerance against anybody who doesn't belong to their belief of what an American should be. They never use facts, never follow the Bible against the sins they commit, and are never willing to admit to the things people no longer follow from the Bible.They use it as a weapon all the time. Ann Coulter should be grateful that the views about women in the Bible are no longer applied.
@TheNolo73 I believe the Left is now known as the people whose sole aim to discredit religious views regardless of how irrational the path-necessary to do so--may be. Coulter said it: What right is gay's being denied? A straight man cannot marry another man any more than a gay man can...a gay man CAN marry any woman he chooses just like a straight man can. The state does not have a 'sexual desire' measuring meter...what if I wanted to marry 12 women (2 of which were my biological sisters)?
@coleaddison That makes NO sense...A gays right is being denied to marry a person they love. Why the hell would they want to marry a member of the opposite sex if they are gay. Thats totally asenine.
@Spiderweb127 How can someone claim to be 'denied a right' when no one else is being granted that right? Am I denied the right to rape? No--rape is not a behavior that anyone is allowed to practice. Conversely, before 1913, men could vote (right) while woman could not (right denied). Under federal law, no one is allowed to engage in same-sex marriage. And "Love..." What if I was in love with 6 people; 2 of which were my sisters--should the state recognize that relationship?
@coleaddison Straight people are granted the right to marry those they love while gays are not. Rape is a crime commited against some one, violating some one else's rights. Homosexuality is not a "behavior". It is a sexual preference. Polygamy and incest have no bearing on gay marriage as they are completely unrelated.
@Spiderweb127 Does the gov. have some sort of "sexual attraction" meter? Did every person who got married have to pass a "love test?" All the gov. can do (all they do, do) is say that a married couple must be imited to two, unrelated, consenting, opposite-sexed, adults. Now, if you want to take out 'opposite-sexed;' I don't see how it’s 'unrelated' for someone else to want to take out any of the other constraint? Any opposition from your corner would be pure discrimination.
@coleaddison Because the "oppositesex" part is the only part that is unfounded. Limited to two because of the legal and financial benefits that comes with being a spouse. Unrelated due to health concerns. Consenting for obvious reasons and adult for obvious reasons. The only difference between gay couples and straight couples is gender. They work, they have families and they live their lives like the rest of us trying to make out a life for themselves.
@Spiderweb127 "Financial benefits?" If you can divide assets by 2; why can’t you do it by 4, 5.,12? "Health Concerns?" At least an incestrial couple can have a baby...I don't know what biological chemicals mix together during gay sex; but I doubt it forms into two arms, two legs and a head. "Consenting?" Hindus and Muslims have unconsenting, arranged marriages all of the time (often marrying an adult to a minor). If we allow gay marrige; we have to allow the rest; that's it!
@coleaddison So just because gay people cannot procreate on their own that means they can't get married? There are plenty of infertile straight couples that marry. Polygamy is a chosen lifestyle and we limit marriage to two people because of financial AND legal benefits that come from marriage. Such as tax deductions. If we allow polygamy that would be a loophole for everyone to get out of taxes. Arranged marriages in the context you stated are religious in nature.
@Spiderweb127 You’ve been respectful and I aim to reciprocate that gesture; but your arguments are totally baseless. Why do gays want to be married? There is only two logical explanations: 1. the ‘tax loophole’ you mentioned; 2. the existential feeling of having their relationships viewed by society in equal light to heterosexual relationships. Neither of these initiatives has anything to do with the fundamental purpose of marriage—and frankly, is a bit ego-centric when
@Spiderweb127 considering who’s really being affected here. The purpose of marriage is to establish the most optimal environment necessary to raise healthy, productive, law abiding, tax paying citizens. Can a child be raised by a single mother? Yes, but it’s not an Optimal situation. Can a child be raised by 15 parents? Yes, but it’s not optimal. Can a child be raised by same sex parents? Yes but it’s not optimal. According to the Gov. (which is nothing more than a
@Spiderweb127 representative body of the majority of Americans); each of these situations (on a bell cure) represent a departure from the most healthy, responsible, and prudent option available (fill in the blank with all the conditions I mentioned earlier—including opposite sexed couples). The state can only recognize and promote that which is optimal—they cannot be in the business of ‘rating (aka: discriminating for/against)’ all the possible shades of ‘less than optimal’
@Spiderweb127 combinations of relationships. ) Any deviation from that formula is, at best, an experimental departure from proven social science, cultural norms and civil history--and our kids are to be the Guiana pigs (and for what…tax breaks and gay self-esteem?).
@coleaddison There are several things wrong with that statement. 1. The purpose of marriage is not about children, though that is where it is socially acceptable to produce them. The purpose of marriage is a life long permanentt bond between two people, recognized and rewarded by the law. Thus proven by childless couples. 2. It is not up to any one to judge what constitutes a family, least of all the gov't. Single parenthood is legal, despite it being not an "optiman situation".
@coleaddison as you called it. More over it is beside the point, as gay couples already have children and families and many studies have shown them to be every bit as effective as straight couples. So no, the children would not be "guinnea pigs. 3. We do not have the right to tell others how to live, however looked down upon it may be. By denying their right to marry, we do just that. So whatever anyone thinks of gay marriage is fundamentally irrelevant.
@coleaddison as they have the right to marry those they love. 4. The reasons for gays want to marry should be obvious. There is nothing comparable to being a spouse. There is a sense of security, permanency and union. Who wouldn't want that? I frankly am amazed you think it to be ego centric.
@Spiderweb127 Okay; finally we are getting somewhere. The reason you and I are having such a problem seeing eye to eye is because we have differing opinions on what the definition and purpose of marriage is. You feel as if marriage is the state’s arbitrary recognition of a loving relationship between two people; and I feel as if marriage is an institution in which children at least have the potential to be conceived and raised under the most optimal conditions. I think my
@Spiderweb127 definition is correct and yours is, at best, discriminatory, baseless, wishful thinking. If the state was interested in ‘loving/caring relationships’ why wouldn’t ‘friendships’ be recognized and rewarded? I love my dog; why can’t I get a tax write off for that ‘relationship.’ And if the state is interested in something as arbitrary as ‘loving relationships;’ why would they not provide benefits for other random acts of human behavior? I eat a lot of Taco’s…why
@Spiderweb127 can’t the state give me a tax write off for every Taco I consume!? Again, I’ve given you example after example of other ‘alternative’ relationships that you yourself admit are possible, but ‘less valuable’ than two, consenting, of-age, non-related, opposite-sexed couples (single mothers comes to mind); yet, against your own views, you continue to push the notion that ‘love’ is the only prerequisite needed for marriage. Not only that; but every civilized culture in
@Spiderweb127 in history, every religion (the founders of marriage as the gov. sees it today), over half the country; the Federal Government, and Nature itself suggests an agreement with my position. It seems to me that you are more interested in picking and choosing who is entitled to what benefits –using your own discriminatory standards--than you are in advancing ‘equal rights’ to anyone.
@coleaddison You are mistaken if you think I believe any relationship is "less valuable" than another. I believe there is no "right" kind of family. But again this is neither here nor there as it only matters how the law sees marriage. Which is a contract between two people that desire to become a partnership in life. Children are irrelevant to the equation. Gays, and straights for that matter, do not need to be married to have children or to provide a stable home environment.
@coleaddison I did not marry my husband for the sole purpose of procreating with him. I married him to be his wife and share our lives and have our marital status recognized by the law. Now that has happend, if something should god forbid happen to him, I have spousal privleges for everything from health care decisions to financial decisions. Homosexuality occurs in nature in over 1500 species so it is by definition, natural.
@Spiderweb127 It is a testament to the times we live in when a single guy like me defends marriage as a sacred covenant between a man and a woman designed to create a safe-haven for the children their love created; while a married woman like you defends marriage as a legal contract designed to transfer assets and provide for a platform from which to pick political fights. Since, apparently, neither of us is gay; it’s safe to say that we don’t have any pressing, personal biases
@Spiderweb127 here; rather our opinions are only a reflection of what we see as the best course of action for our society. While I only want to ensure children are given a chance to be raised in the most optimal of environments possible; you seem perfectly willing ‘roll the dice’ on that pesky little issue; but damn the country if a homosexual doesn’t feel as important as they ought to! And your arguments are so irrationally contradicting my head hurts: you make statements like
@Spiderweb127 “there is no such thing as valuing relationships—every relationship is equally right;” immediately followed by every reason why polygamy, pedophilia, incest and bestial-relationships are so obviously wrong. Look; if a homosexual wants to pass on his/her assets onto a loved one; they do what we single people do—draft a will. By redefining marriage into value-less-ness (which is exactly what you’re proposing by saying there is no conditional prerequisite needed to
They going in!!!
nighttime85 1 week ago
As much as I like Dr. Hill he is mistaken and completely off-base on this topic.. - gay marriage is NOT a civil rights issue (and for that matter, neither is, say, 'voting' - that's a political right).
There is no right in the constitution of this nation for any given configuration of marriage privilege- that is for society to determine what is best in it's collective interest. For centuries western society has had a consensus that one man/woman is the most beneficial configuration for society
shieldsff 1 week ago
@shieldsff Absolutely not. So long as legal and tax benefits are offered toward hetero couples the same must be offered to same sex couples. My religion embraces gay marriage. We perform the ceremony all the time even though the marriage isn't legally recognized, as such not only are their civil rights being violated so are our religious rights
sammyhain13 6 days ago
take a step back & logically consider what you are asserting. You are trying to legally impose a very specific but narrow alternative configuration of marriage entitlement which has no historical basis nor popular electoral support in our nation (principally because in practice it cannot come close to conferring the comparable substantial degree of social benefits which hetero-sexual union do). In UR logic,by virtue of paying taxes.polygamy&family "marriages " are also legitimate
shieldsff 5 days ago
@shieldsff No, we're ensuring that two consenting adults can make a commitment to each other and have the same benefits as every other adult citizen. Anything else is a violation of Equality. It has a long historical basis dating back to the Roman Empire, Ming China, and most indigenous peoples. Civil Rights are not a matter for the electoral process - you couldn't vote to bring back slavery. Gay couples provide MORE social benefits than straight couples, as gay couples adopt the children...
sammyhain13 5 days ago
Really ?!? If pple have the right to 'love' whoever they want ( in a relative 'morally neutral'' context as gay marriage supporters would have us accept) by what authority or principal of moral application do you 'ensure' that equally sincere pple (who are 'in love') are not also extended the legal status of marriage? Doesn't UR movement proclaim that yours is a human rights crusade (freedom to 'love')? The 'slavery' analogy is flawed & sloppy thinking- the13th amendment IS in the constitution
shieldsff 5 days ago
@shieldsff I seek to ensure nothing. I want to define marriage as between 2 consenting adults. This will change nothing in how marriage works in our society. It is the next logical step in the long fight for equality for homosexuals. Other groups will come forward with their own definitions of marriage. I will judge each on their own merit. That is what we owe all people
sammyhain13 5 days ago
thanks for conceding the point.You hold an unproven value judgment" as to merit. You can certainly hold no ill wil towards those who find gay marriage grossly lacking in social merit.You must therefore also condemn those gay marriage advocates who wrongly&fatuously, w/no objective basis categorically call all opponents of gay marriage "bigots"&the like.Not withstanding that there is NO objective moral criteria/laws to default to your determination of 'merit' I appreciate UR response
shieldsff 5 days ago
@shieldsff There is ONE objective moral criteria. That is harm. If something does no harm to anyone like say removing the gender criteria from marriage then it is good. If something does cause harm like say advancing a prejudiced agenda which violates our country's principles of Equality and the free pursuit of happiness then I have no problem calling a spade a spade. It's simple bigotry
sammyhain13 3 days ago
@shieldsff ...that straight couples abandon. Heteros just indiscriminately add to over population. Multiple marriages are impractical from a tax and legal perspective at this time, but in the futue...who knows?
sammyhain13 5 days ago
@shieldsff ...that straight couples abandon. Heteros just indiscriminately add to over population. Multiple marriages are impractical from a tax and legal perspective at this time...but in the future..who knows? The definition of marriage will continue to change and grow; and that's for the best
sammyhain13 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shieldsff ...that straight couples abandon. Heteros just indiscriminately add to over population. Multiple marriages are impractical from a tax and legal perspective at this time...but in the future..who knows? The definition of marriage will continue to change and grow; and that's for the best
sammyhain13 5 days ago
@shieldsff I agree with you.
AkilB7 6 days ago
thanks & I responded
shieldsff 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shieldsff ...that straight couples abandon. Heteros just indiscriminately add to over population. Multiple marriages are impractical from a tax and legal perspective at this time...but in the future..who knows? The definition of marriage will continue to change and grow; and that's for the best
sammyhain13 5 days ago
Ann Coulter confirms again she is an ignorant and rude person that can only approach a subject with anger and rhetoric. Ann thinks she can tell a black man how black people think? She never explained that, she only ranted about slaves on ships and 100 years of mistreatment, but she never explained herself. She constantly interrupted Mr. Hill and never let him finish a sentence. I am surprised that Mr. King let her continue her bad behavior for so long.
Enpsyte 2 weeks ago
"They need a mommy AND a daddy"!! Well. My mothers a single parent, and I'm doing quite well in life TY. Please. Pull the stick out of your ars, lady ^ _ ^
Satankitteh 2 weeks ago
I DON,T AGREE ON SAME SEX MARRIAGE BUT AS A CHRISTIAN I WANT TO SAY I,M SORRY FOR OTHERE CHRISTIAN WHO HAVE SLAM THE BIBLE IN U GUYS FACE U GUYS DESERVE TO TREATED LIKE GOD CHILDREN. GOD LOVE YOU AND I DO TO
LOVEVIRUS427 3 weeks ago
Marriage isn't a purpose Ann. I couldn't watch anymore
DWarrior4 1 month ago
Comment removed
MrHarajukuLuva 1 month ago
Dumb ass Americans
Lunabeam1 1 month ago
race is not a choice, being gay is.
firesidechet 1 month ago
@firesidechet Then, I assume favoring certain "looks", having a certain talent, and disliking certain foods are choices? Nope.
GaybieBoy 1 month ago
@GaybieBoy you make no sense at all, but why does that not suprise me?
firesidechet 3 weeks ago
@firesidechet i can tell you from first hand experience that gay is not a choice...are you saying (as a straight person) that if you had to, you could be gay and automatically have feelings for the same sex that easily? but simply because you "chose" to be heterosexual, thats the sole reason why you're attracted to the opposite sex?...
MrHarajukuLuva 1 month ago
@MrHarajukuLuva look.... all behavior is a choice, if not... who is pulling your strings? My whole life I have had to curtail my sexual urges...and until now, (thanks to Youtube) my tongue as well. You can control yourself, and not practice anal sex with men- which you have to admit, is unnatural and disgusting.What am I missing here?
firesidechet 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@firesidechet Ok, so now you're solely talking about just abstinence, which could be practiced by either a homosexual OR heterosexuall. Honestly, i think we can all agree (gay/straight) that we've had to curtail our sexual urges at one point. HOWEVER, whether practicing sex or not, i've always known that i was gay since i was very young, and btw you didnt answer my question,which was just because someone told you "it's WRONG!!"could you suddenly change the fact ur attracted to the opposite sex?
MrHarajukuLuva 1 month ago
@firesidechet curtail what sexual urges? having gay sex? because if you're having those urges, that means you're gay, numbnuts.
paulamerica9493 1 month ago
@paulamerica9493No that just means you can't control your self, because you know in your heart you are wrong. My nuts are not numb - I have 4 kids, and I support and love all of them, as they do me. You will never know the joy of being a real man, and for that I feel sorry for you.
firesidechet 3 weeks ago
@firesidechet no, actually, i know that in my heart, being with a woman would be wrong. i would be lying to myself. it's not that i can't control myself, i'm still a virgin actually. i'm the oldest of 4 with 33 first cousins and over 50 second cousins. i know the joys of family. sure, i may never watch a woman go through the most painful experience life has to offer so that i can continue my legacy, but i am not ever going to lie to myself and pretend that i am attracted to women.
paulamerica9493 3 weeks ago
@firesidechet i also don't understand how being straight makes you a real man. i know some real low-lifes who disgrace the name of masculinity, men who treat women like objects for their sexual pleasure alone. i know how to treat another human being, especially one that i love. if you're referencing 'manly' things like building things, playing with circuitry, i've done all of that. what is a real man... a father? what if his wife cannot bear children? is he not a real man? what if he's impotent?
paulamerica9493 3 weeks ago
@firesidechet Not unnatural and not disgusting. Sounds like a fun way to spend Vday. Why do you just mention men? Straights and lesbians practice anal sex. is there's ok, but gay sex isn't? No part of your argument makes sense
sammyhain13 1 month ago
@firesidechet the fact its seen in nature, and not disgusting is what you are missing
idaman12345 1 month ago
@MrHarajukuLuva I can tell you from first hand experience, that when I was a young man, I had to control my urges. It sounds strange...but it is possible. You must know when you see shit on your dick, you are wrong.
firesidechet 3 weeks ago
@firesidechet Oh stop with using anal sex as a valid arguments. Heteros practice anal too.
sammyhain13 3 weeks ago
@firesidechet ummm, ok im not even talking about just sex, because abstinence works with both gay and straight people, but do you think you could control your actual feelings in terms of the people you are attracted to... meaning even though you controlled your urges you still KNEW you were straight right????
MrHarajukuLuva 3 weeks ago
@firesidechet actually being gay is not a choice either
idaman12345 1 month ago
@idaman12345 all behavior is a choice, stop listening to the idiots who tell you otherwise. TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR LIFE!
firesidechet 3 weeks ago
@RealityGrapple Oh, I'm sorry. Did I crush your entire life-philosophy in one paragraph on a YouTube comment link? Typical Liberal. Never able to back an argument; always referring back to insults and baseless innuendos--come on buddy; you’re like 9 for 10...all you have to do now is call me a homophobe and a racist and you’ll become the A-typical, Liberal cum-stick personified. Now go back to eating your Spaghetti-O's Corky and try not to masturbate into your milk this time.
coleaddison 1 month ago
@coleaddison What's awesome is how little your opinion matters. In just a few years gay marriages will be a common sight. Your neighbors, the teachers you send your kids to, the judges you appear before. It's right and it's inevitable
sammyhain13 1 month ago
@sammyhain13 U mean like, Totally Awesome!? Look fuck-head; R U really going to give me the “I have a dream” speech for gay marriage? Do U really think I’m going to crawl into your perverse fantasy world and tremble in fear for my impending doom and defeat? Look around asshole; U R losing. U’ve got a hand full of bigoted Left wing judges in NY on your side that are about to be taken to task by the state legislature-- I’ve got 4,000 years of cultural history and common law,
coleaddison 1 month ago
@coleaddison "Separate But Equal" ... Dead!
"No Vote For Women" ... Dead!
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" ... Dead!
"Marriage Inequality" ... Next in line
sammyhain13 1 month ago
@sammyhain13 4/5ths of the country, every major religion, the federal government and all the reason, logic and truth that reality can muster on my side… Take your discriminatory, childish, insane fantasies about a nation where the 1% degenerate perverts and sexually-challenged among us dictate law to the other 99%; and shove it up your clinically-retarded, American-hating Liberal ass (we’ll call that marriage).
coleaddison 1 month ago
@coleaddison Every major religion? Unitarian Universalist, Presbyterian, some Quaker churches, several Jewish sects, most of Buddhism.and Wiccan/Pagan sects. 4/5's of the country? We have most of the world the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Iceland and Argentina. Just a matter of time till we catch up. You also do not have 4,000 years of cultural history. There's a strong world history of marriage equality
sammyhain13 1 month ago
@sammyhain13 Dasdreiuw4w5rfv aser…I’m sorry bud; I’m laughing too hard to type. Wiccan/Pagan sects…Unitarian Universalists…Quakers?! You forgot the 6 guys in Idaho who worship the Taco Bell off I-90!? I can’t wait to hear your examples of great historical societies that allowed same sex marriage/parenting. Wait, let me guess…the 1821 Zimbabwee Amish Sect of Redheaded Basket Humpers? Ah yes, the Islamic Union of Europe...the beacon of prosperity and moral leadership in the
coleaddison 1 month ago
@sammyhain13 World today. Perhaps we can talk about Liberal/Socialist-Europe’s bankruptcy problems and plummeting population rates in a Gov. subsided pot-shop in Amsterdam; just after we shoot some Gov. cooked heroin with Gov. paid transvestite prostitutes. You Liberals do aim high; don’t you?
coleaddison 1 month ago
@coleaddison Legalized drugs instead of wasting money and lives on a pointless war on drugs? Sounds great! Bankruptcy problems? Those who live in glass houses. Plummeting populations rates? Thank the gods! Overpopulation is the most dangerous threat to our species. Legal prostitution? So grown men and women can work in a safe protected environment instead of some back alley? Yea, sign up America for that too! Your outdated way of thinking is making your kind more and more irrelevant
sammyhain13 1 month ago
@sammyhain13 Doesn’t it strike you as odd that when this country implemented my ‘old fashion’ way of life; that Europeans migrated here by the boat load? Is there anything to be said about the fact that your perfect model of a Utopian Society, Europe, needs America to bail her out from the likes of ruthless dictators like Stalin and Hitler, every 100 years or so. Isn't it peculiar that Europe’s promise of Cradle to Grave entitlements to its citizens is forcing entire nations to
coleaddison 1 month ago
@sammyhain13 go bankrupt like dominos? You don’t have ‘modern views’ of society…Socialism has been tried countless times; and the end result is always the same…chronic poverty, despotism, and ruthless oppression. America is the hold-out; we are the last best hope for the World…but great humanitarian heroes like you (with your oh-so moral fights to legalize drugs/prostitution and control populations with abortion and euthanasia) intend to change that.
coleaddison 1 month ago
@coleaddison Conservatives do live in their own dream world don't they? We're only staying afloat by borrowing from communists and socialists. Socialist countries are the ones weathering the global recession the best. We're getting way off topic here. If America is the defender of freedom that you claim, then it is inevitable that we will support to the freedom to love and marry whomever one chooses
sammyhain13 1 month ago
@sammyhain13 You were better off with your initial point. The fact that ‘communist china’ is the one leveraging most of our debt is, in fact, a supporting argument in favor of Communism that would be (more) difficult for me to defend against. Regarding the topic at hand…I’ll let your last comment slide since I think you’re a little too smart to see the obvious flaws in your position. Tell me: 1. what is your definition of marriage? 2. From what authority do you pull that
coleaddison 1 month ago
@coleaddison Definition of marriage differs between religion and legal definitions. Religions have their own protected standards. Legally it's a binding contract between oneself, a chosen partner and the government -conferring certain legal and tax benefits, which if offered to some people and not others constitutes a violation of civil liberties
sammyhain13 3 weeks ago
@sammyhain13 definition? 3. What types of relationships qualify/disqualify from marriage as you define it? Fair Warning: Everything you say will be used against you.
coleaddison 1 month ago
@coleaddison Any two consenting legal adults. That being said my religion does recognize poly-amorous relationships, but we recognize that it's impractical to make those legally binding at this time. "Legal" prohibits Incest, but even that is a gray area as there are different standard has how closely two must be related for it to be incest. And one must be an adult to enter into legally binding contracts, same with marriage; it's up to the states to determine legal age
sammyhain13 3 weeks ago
@sammyhain13 Okay. So according to you; marriage offers certain ‘legal’ and ‘tax’ benefits to participating (contracted) members. By ‘benefits’ I assume you mean the tax-free passing of one’s assets onto a spouse after death; and other considerations like hospital/prison visits and court testimony laws… But you’re missing one very important consideration... Why? Why would a state be interested in providing benefits to any one ‘special’ group of people? Why would the state
coleaddison 3 weeks ago
@sammyhain13 care to recognize one relationship-class over another? I agree with you…there does seem to be something discriminatory about this whole thing (forget gay couples for a minute; according to your standards…there’s millions of other relationships being denied there rights as well). I mean; why is my relationship with my best friend not rewarded by the government? Why shouldn’t I get a tax break for having a relationship with the same barber for 10
coleaddison 3 weeks ago
@sammyhain13 years? I love roast beef sandwiches with a burning passion…clearly the state should recognize my relationship with Arby’s! No; the truth is that there must be something more… It appears that the state is trying to promote something they find significantly valuable. You’ve told me what benefits marriage provides to its participants; and I fully agree (but that’s not what we’re arguing here). What measurable,principaled benefit can a gay couple bring to society’s
coleaddison 3 weeks ago
@sammyhain13 table; that cannot be achieved by me and my best friend?
coleaddison 3 weeks ago
@coleaddison Why? I would say to unfairly promote a Judeo-Christian ideology, but I imagine you're going for the - Promoting the stability of the family unit for raising children thing. As such I ask why it is I and my girlfriend could get married and get those benefits when we never ever want children, or an infertile hetero couple could get those benefits. Yet, a gay couple which would love to adopt and give a home to a child without one is denied those benefits?
sammyhain13 3 weeks ago
@coleaddison If the family unit is so important then gay marriage should be encouraged. Last week a lesbian couple I know celebrated the birth of their first child, which they are raising with love. I find it sick that their union is not recognized, while a hetero married couple I know, who got married simply to save on car insurance, have their union fully legally recognized.
sammyhain13 3 weeks ago
@sammyhain13 Wait a minute. You are the one insisting that marriage needs to be redefined and used as a referendum for gay civil rights? I’d just assume that you put some thought into what, exactly; the purpose of marriage is before you took such strong action to change it. All I have from you at this point is that you wish to change, what some consider to be the most important, 4,000 year old, bed-rock institution humanity has…for no other reason except…you know some nice gay
coleaddison 3 weeks ago
@sammyhain13 people? Ooookay…where do I start: First—I’m going out on a limb here by saying you are not in a position to tell me what internal and personal motives/intentions ‘someone you know’ has regarding their relationships ( you’re not just trying to do this with one person—you’ve got four of them lined up). Second—what is with this ‘love’ word. We are dealing with laws and legal definitions. Law is based on measurable principals; not intermediate incorporeals. The law
coleaddison 3 weeks ago
@sammyhain13 distinguish a man from a woman; it CAN NOT gauge the value and sincerity of love, attraction or affection. Setting ‘love’ as the base-line standard for marriage is no different than saying “only fabulous people should be allowed to own homes.” How is that possibly legislatable? Third—the fact that you know of a failed heterosexual marriage does not give you the right to assume the entire institution fails. I got food poisoning last year; oddly enough…my doctor
coleaddison 3 weeks ago
@coleaddison Did I say "love?" No, no one want the law determining what is love. I said "choice." Love may be the motivation for choice, but that's not for us. Choice is the essence of freedom. If two legal adults make the "choice" to live together and make their union official it's not the Law's business to say no. There is not one reason a hetero pairing is any more real than a same sex pairing
sammyhain13 3 weeks ago
@sammyhain13 still encourages me to eat. Moreover; the fact that you know of a failed marriage does not give you the liberty to open the door for alternatives. Even though it was food that got me sick…my doctor still has not put me on a diet of radioactive mercury. Your use of the term ‘gay marriage’ itself reflects the true ‘discriminating’ party in this discussion. The issue is not ‘gay or straight;’ it’s ‘man or woman.’ A gay person is entitled to every right a straight person
coleaddison 3 weeks ago
@sammyhain13 is and is denied nothing a straight person is granted. A gay man can marry any woman he chooses; just like a straight man can. A gay man cannot marry another man; nor can a straight man. From a legal perspective, being attracted to someone of the same sex is incidentally irrelevant—it has no more bearing than not being attracted to anyone at all—no one is forced to get married). The minute we turn our back on basing laws on measurable principals applicable to all;
coleaddison 3 weeks ago
@coleaddison Denying someone the choice to marry the one they choose is no type of freedom. That's no different than setting up arranged marriages and calling that freedom. It's the same as saying an African-American person is free to marry any African-American they choose. If two people want to start a partnership and raise a family then whatever set of genitals they have in their pants is no concern of the law.
sammyhain13 3 weeks ago
@sammyhain13 As I said this 4,000 year bedrock of society doesn't hold water. Gay marriage exists throughout history from tribal societies such as the Polynesian and Native American to society that formed the foundation of civilization such as the Ming Dynasty China, classical Greece and the mighty Roman Empire. This isn't something new and shocking
sammyhain13 3 weeks ago
@sammyhain13 Logical reasoning…? I’ve given you nothing but logical reasoning! You are not advocating for ‘hard working, tax paying people to have the same rights you and I are entitled to.’ That is a falsehood steeped in Liberal propagandist misdirection. Gays are not denied any right that I’m granted (I’m not allowed to marry someone of the same sex either). What you want is to change the definition of marriage by eliminating the measurable ‘gender’ constraint and replacing
coleaddison 3 weeks ago
@sammyhain13 it with the immeasurable ‘love, attraction, affection’ constraint. The Left constantly aims to re-define laws and cultural norms with ‘immeasurable’ of which only they (through their own personal biases) can judge, gauge and evaluate. You said: “Denying someone the right to marry the one they chose is no type of freedom…” and then followed that statement with every reason why adults can’t marry children, men can’t marry animals, brothers can’t marry sisters, and
coleaddison 3 weeks ago
@sammyhain13 multiple hoards of people can’t engage in communal marriages. Why should we re-define marriage to accommodate the gay community; and not do the same thing to accommodate communities that value arranged marriages with children (Muslims and Hindus), polygamy (orthodox Mormons) incest and man/animal love (my family)? According to your personal bias, these present an unfair, un-opimal, repressive arrangement with potentially dangerous consequences. But I
coleaddison 3 weeks ago
@sammyhain13 think that your two woman friends raising a child does the exact same thing. What if my best friend and I chose to get married and adopt 15 teen-aged girls from Sweden? Is that a freedom you’d defend or a hazard you’d reject? What’s especially ironic is that many on the Left hold an image in their head of an idealist ‘gay household’ that bears all the characteristics of the most conservative, value-based family one can possibly imagine (probably complete with the
coleaddison 3 weeks ago
@sammyhain13 white picket fence). But isn’t it this stereotypical, ideological image of conservative family values the exact thing Liberals seek to disenfranchise? The truth is that yes, gays can live like us conservatives; but let’s not forget they also tend to gather in the thousands in public SF parades wearing nothing but leather masks and dildos while dancing on inflatable dildos to the tune of: “I’m too sexy”. Yes, they can be in committed relationships; but let’s not
coleaddison 3 weeks ago
@sammyhain13 forget that they are also peculiarly hallmarked by an almost pathologic commitment to casual sex, infidelity and promiscuity. Yes they can be kind, loving people; but let’s not forget some of the bad apples of this 1% minority group: Jeffery Dahmer, Aileen Worms, Jerry Sandusky…and 4/5ths of the lucky contestants on “To Catch a Predator.” You have a ‘soft spot’ for gays…and that’s fine. But I have a ‘soft spot’ for children. While you want to
coleaddison 3 weeks ago
@sammyhain13 ensure that gays are given every opportunity you were given; I only want to do the same thing for kids. By advocating ‘gay marriage;’ you are giving gays a right that no one else is granted (including yourself); and denying kids a right we should all enjoy…a mom and a dad.
coleaddison 3 weeks ago
@coleaddison Boring. You've slipped from a semi-cogent discussion on legal terms into baseless bigotted name calling. First off your 1% Minority Group is a fallacy. Most estimates place the lgbt population at a little less than 10%, and that doesn't even take into account the large numbers who are forced deep into the closet. Pathological promiscuity is another myth. They wouldn't be fighting so hard for marriage were that the case.The stereotype comes from the reality that casual sex was the..
sammyhain13 3 weeks ago
@coleaddison ..only form of expression they had for a long time as society repressed them. There is no reason having a mom and dad should be the standard of a happy childhood. The American Psychological Association has repeatedly shown that children of gay households are just as happy and stable as their hetero counterparts, with actually the highest scores being shown within lesbian households. We value neither "conservative" nor outlandish lgbts above the other. Both have the same rights...
sammyhain13 3 weeks ago
@coleaddison ..to live their lives as they wish. Your "people could then marry animals and children" argument is precisely the same argument that was used against mixed race marriage. I made the point of showing how even the few qualifications I gave more marriage are not absolutes with many gray areas. Other groups will seek to further change the laws. We will judge them by their own merits and not paint them all with the same broad brush strokes. Don't start with the "bad apple" argument...
sammyhain13 3 weeks ago
@coleaddison as their are many more heteros than lgbts I can name way more straight bad apples
sammyhain13 3 weeks ago
@sammyhain13 Think back to your high school days. I want you to be as honest as possible. Are you telling me that every 10th kid you went to school with was gay? I mean come on…we can bullshit each other or try to find some truth here. This notion that gay’s represent 10% of the population is absurd. To claim that the gay community doesn’t have a pre-set obsession with sex and promiscuity is another absurdity. I realize that in the Liberal World; mentioning any negative aspect
coleaddison 3 weeks ago
@sammyhain13 of a minority group is blasphemous—automatic grounds for degrees of racism, homophobia and bigotry; but I’m not a Liberal (perhaps we can talk further about who really advances stereotypes in a later discussion). When was the last time the Rotary Club hosted an S&M Parade down Main Street? The gays got one coming down my street this weekend. “Promiscuous Sex was the only form of ‘expression’ gays could display after a long time of oppression?” Do you have any idea
coleaddison 3 weeks ago
@sammyhain13 how ridiculous a statement like that sounds (and I’m the one slipping from a semi-cogent discussion)? In any event; in one breath you tell me I’m a bigoted homophobe advancing gay stereotypes…and in the next breath you justify the factual-basis for the conclusion I drew (see anything wrong with that???). No study shows, with scientific certainty; that a gay couple can provide just as healthy/happy household as a heterosexual couple can. Again, while you rely on a
coleaddison 3 weeks ago
@sammyhain13 2011 study by the APA (and perhaps Wicca/Pagan religious practices); I’ve got 4,000 years of cultural history; your parents, grandparents and great grandparents; every major religion, the federal government, 4/5ths of the state governments 65% of the country, my own statistical data countering yours and a little thing called nature on my side. Disallowing blacks from marring whites was racism…advanced by Liberal Democrats? There is no biological/psychological
coleaddison 3 weeks ago
@sammyhain13 differences between a black man and a white man; there are tremendous biological/psychological differences between a man and a woman. The fact that you make this a ‘gay vs. straight’ issue; rather than a ‘man vs. woman’ issue no different than when Liberal Democrats of yester-year made marriage a ‘black vs. white’ issue rather than a ‘man vs. woman’ issue. You missed my point: I’m simply suggesting that it is peculiarly odd to me that your vision of a perfect ‘gay
coleaddison 3 weeks ago
@sammyhain13 household’ maintains very Conservative characteristics for, otherwise, very Conservative people. If Conservatism is such a negative, repressive force in the World—why is it that you dream of gay’s one day living that lifestyle; and why are you so certain they will (I simply gave you a short list of gays that don’t live the peaceful, loving, passive lifestyle you have conjured up in your head)?
coleaddison 3 weeks ago
@coleaddison No. I said precisely I don't see the gays living the "conservative family" lifestyle as any better or worse than the ones holding the S&M Parades..oh, and I work with groups that host Fetish Balls and they're all straight and the people who attend are both straight and gay
sammyhain13 3 weeks ago
@coleaddison It once was that gay couples had to completely hide their relationship. Living as a committed couple invited public censure, violence, and even arrest. When one has no way to lead a public committed relationship all that is left is short secret liasons. If you disapprove of this, then you should support gay marriage
sammyhain13 3 weeks ago
@coleaddison Do two seconds of research. Do I need to give you the exact studies by the APA? Hetero parenting has zero advantages over gay parenting
sammyhain13 3 weeks ago
@sammyhain13 This may come as a shock to you; but I have the internet too. I can just as easily pull out very official sounding reports that make the exact opposite claim you are making about the quality of same sex parenting. I can also give you reports that suggest cigarettes improve your health; breast feeding leads to acne and every 10th person you know is gay…none of which is true. You work with people who host fetish balls? Jesus man; I’m an MBA and a JD. I hate when
coleaddison 3 weeks ago
@sammyhain13 people pull out their credentials on YT but at some point you have to consider the credit worthiness of the source you are arguing with. It seems to me like your livelihood depends on appeasing those with ‘alternative’ sexual lifestyles (do you think in any way that could be affecting your motives here?). Why would gays have to hide their relationships when, according to you, virtually every civilization in human history not only embraced homosexuality
coleaddison 3 weeks ago
@sammyhain13 with open arms; but welcomed their relationships into the fraternity of marriage (maybe history favors gay marriage only when it supports your current argument)? Okay, I’m seeing your reasoning here…gays couldn’t have open, committed relationships (whatever that means); so naturally, they had to sleep around with as many different people as possible in order to somehow harness the quantity/quality of love that would normally come from a single, committed relationship.
coleaddison 3 weeks ago
@sammyhain13 Do you see a pattern here…you rationalize the shit out of EVERYTHING. You take a fact or circumstance; rationalize it into oblivion; and only stop when an explanation emerges that conveniently molds into a ridiculous conclusion that takes any/all fault away from your horse; and places it directly on mine. You know why gays (particularly the men) sleep around…? Because they can! I’m a guy; I know the power of the male sex-drive. I know that if left it to our own male
coleaddison 3 weeks ago
@sammyhain13 caveman instants; with no moral direction; and if woman permitted… we’d be having sex wholesale! Gay men simply found themselves in that predicament and dove in like gluttonous sex-slobs without reservation. Don’t try to put their highly risky and dangerous lifestyles off on us; as if Conservatives created some fantasy-world, oppressive, violent, anti-gay society that forced them to bang everything in sight. I disapprove of unchecked, irresponsible promiscuity…gay
coleaddison 3 weeks ago
@sammyhain13 or straight. I think this greatly increases the odds of deadly diseases being spread and children being born into ‘less than optimal’ environments. More important; I disapprove of children being intentionally conceived; with the pre-set knowledge that they will be raised by people other than their biological parents; and I disapprove of the Left’s notion that two mothers makes a father unnecessary; or that two fathers negate to importance a mother has to her child.
coleaddison 3 weeks ago
@coleaddison Forget two mothers, just one works just fine-or one father. Families take all kinds of forms and this nuclear family ideal of yours is the invention of 50's sitcoms. You really don't let facts get in the way of your opinions do you? Adopting parents have to go through rigorous screening processes. To become a biological parent you just have to be too dumb or lazy to go buy a condom. Gay families give society the benefit of taking care of the children abandoned by these "parents"
sammyhain13 3 weeks ago
@coleaddison I'm not rationalizing anything. I told you the sexually deviant homosexual is a myth. For some there was a shadowy sex subculture they were forced into by hateful violent conservatives. However, gays are individuals and have the same diversity of relationships and sexual practices as straights. When I was single my sex life put any gay man's to shame, but I was educated and practiced Safe Sex and guess what? I'm fine. One's sex life, gay or straight, isn't the business of the Law
sammyhain13 3 weeks ago
@coleaddison Yes, originally homosexual relationships were accepted as normal, but that was before the conservative monotheistic movement forced themselves on the world. Do you want to go through history and look at the violent tortures and sanctioned murder that forced gays into the shadows? The deviant world conservative heteros created
sammyhain13 3 weeks ago
@coleaddison We aren't in the business of protecting just alternative special interests. As much as I disagree with pretty much the entire conservative agenda I'd defend your right to live as you chose just so long as you don't force it on others. We are taking nothing away from you. There is a large movement asking for one specific right to be granted them. If granting it does not take away anyone else's rights or harm them, then you have no leg to stand on in denying it
sammyhain13 3 weeks ago
@sammyhain13 This idea that a Mom and a Dad is ‘sooo 1950’s’ is crazy! The Left is truly a destructive force in our society. I don’t mind that you have these views; but please stop acting like you are the compassionate ones looking out for the greater good of humanity. You (the left) have entirely taken it upon yourself to disregard everything your predecessors valued and passed onto you; only to embark into a totally unexplored, brave new world that no one knows anything about.
coleaddison 3 weeks ago
@sammyhain13 You do it so callously, with such ease; totally oblivious to even the consideration that you are experimenting with the health and stability of an entire generation of kid’s. You are experimenting with their upbringings as if they were guanine pigs (did you parents do that to you?). And why? So gays can feel better about themselves? “One father or one mother works just fine?” How can you say that….78% of all Inmates in this country come from single mother homes?
coleaddison 3 weeks ago
@sammyhain13 Clearly, there is a correlation between a ‘fucked up upbringing;’ and a ‘fucked up life.’ Honestly, I’m completely taken back by how casually you are willing to assume such huge risks against an innocent 3rd party; for such pointless returns. The level of insouciant irresponsibility and reckless selfishness stuns me. You keep telling me that one’s sex life is none of the laws business…and that’s exactly right. The law doesn’t care who you are sexually attracted to,
coleaddison 3 weeks ago
@sammyhain13 who you want to bang and/or why. Marriage is a bonding contract (used to be a convent before Liberals changed that) reserved exclusively for respective members of the two sexes of our species…because that Union, according to God, nature and the prudent judgment of all those that came before us; is deemed good and decent above all else for its idiosyncratic ability to provide the optimal environment from which children can be raised. As much as a Conservative like me
coleaddison 3 weeks ago
@sammyhain13 enjoys ripping on the Government; I’m suddenly finding myself thanking God that we have a government willing to protect kids from people with your extreme, radical and yes…dangerous views (I’m sorry; I don’t mean to get personal but this is some scary stuff you’re proposing). Well buddy; I think we said it all and I’m sufficiently ‘freaked out.’ Enjoy your Fetish Balls… I’ll just be the white, straight, working, church-going family guy who thinks kids deserve
coleaddison 3 weeks ago
@sammyhain13 moms and dads…all while scratching my head trying to figure out how that became a bad thing. Good conversation--for really the first time; I’m realizing that this country is in deep, serious shit.
coleaddison 3 weeks ago
@coleaddison It's only a bad thing when you try to force everyone to be the same as you
sammyhain13 3 weeks ago
@sammyhain13 And which political ideology wishes us all to be the same? Who is it that despises gaps in income? Who hates the fact that race divides us? Who is it that wishes all relationship-classes had equal worth and value? Who is it that can’t stand that woman and men are different beings? Who is it that wants the entire country to follow secular beliefs and throw away their judgmental religious prerogatives? It is the left that worships the god of equality.
coleaddison 3 weeks ago
@sammyhain13 and start picking and choosing which micro-culture (sexual preference, wealth/income, race, religion) is entitled to which ‘special benefits’ based on nothing more than our own personal, biases and interests…is the minute we truly begin living in a bigoted society. Ironically it is the Left (the self-proclaimed crusaders for anti-discriminatory civil rights) who create the very discretionary conditions, separations and definitions they so gallantly pretend to abhor.
coleaddison 3 weeks ago
@coleaddison That's nothing but jargon. I'm not stopping anyone from getting married who can now. I want tax paying, hard working Americans to enjoy the same rights you and I have. A segment of the community is requesting to be given the same opportunity as the rest of society to have their partnership legalized, and neither you nor anyone else can offer a logical reason to refuse them
sammyhain13 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sammyhain13 definition? 3. What types of relationships qualify or disqualify from marriage as you define it? Fair Warning: Everything you say will be used against you.
coleaddison 1 month ago
@RealityGrapple I'm a CCO for a bank. Id really be interested to hear more of your expert opinion on Obamas support for the financial sector? Pro war? Oh ya, N. Korea and Russia didn't spend a penny on military pursuits. Pro-business--as opposed to what; pro-- non-producing fuck-o's like you? Russia didn't encourage work--they demanded it. Gay Marriage? Forget marrige; just being a homosexual in N. Korea is punishable by death. But no, really, you make a compelling point.
coleaddison 1 month ago
Q: How does a gay guy remove his condom?
A: Farts
FlashyLifeTV 1 month ago
She is a cunt
yankeehater237 1 month ago
I fully support and understand gay marriage rights. As a matter of fact; I’m being denied similar rights! I’m a right-wing, religious nut-job; and I want (well, God told me) to marry 7, fully consenting, adult woman (3 of which are my biological sisters). We plan on having 48 kids—but again, I’m getting a lot of negative feedback from radical Conservative-traditionalists who believe marriage is reserved for 1 man and 1 woman (ha, ha…right?).
coleaddison 1 month ago
Who let this fucking cunt out of her kennel?
ProGayAgenda 1 month ago
Comment removed
AllMightyTallestEmma 2 months ago
This is one of many reasons why I won't vote Republican. Unbelievably ignorant
jusitke07 2 months ago
I am a Black man and not in a million years did i ever think i would agree with Ann Coulter.....but she is absolutlely right on this issue. Lamont Hill is missing the bigger picture she is trying to show him. Ann Coulter scored big time on this issue. I am glad Lamont Hill is not a professor at a school i went to. Lamont Hill has very low morals i can clearly see that.
DaOrigTruthSeeker 2 months ago
@Bossk333
But I think you're going to find more first hand accounts of various kinds of abuse as a result of polygamy than same sex marriage.
bearchewtoy75 2 months ago
@Bossk333
I can't speak for most women, but I don't oppose polygamy. If a group of people want to have a spiritual a marriage and live together, that's fine with me. I'm against laws that prohibit such arrangements.
As for a legal recognition of it, that's much more difficult to do than with gay marriage.
There are a myriad of complex issues that would have to be resolved, making it a totally different institution. The same is not true with gay marriage.
bearchewtoy75 2 months ago
@bearchewtoy75 I am opposed to same sex marriage; but I can at least respect your recognition that one cannot be in favor of same sex marriage but somehow appose polygamy. The principal the Left fights for is that marriage should not discriminate against alternative relations (as long as all parties are consenting adults). It's refreshing to hear someone on your side at least open to the idea of interjecting some basic, principled logic into their thought process.
coleaddison 1 month ago
People who use the line "We are equal becouse I cant marry same sex just like gays," clearly miss the point that it is about marrying the person you love in the persuit of happiness.
TheEarthbeard 2 months ago
IM STRAIGHT 20 AND BLACK. AND THIS BITCH SOUND STUPID. MY HOMEBOY HAS TWO MOMS AND HE TURNED OUT GREAT. EVEN THOUGH I HAVE A MOM AND DAD WHO LOVE EACH OTHER AND BTW ARE SUPPORTIVE OF GAY MARRIAGE. I'D RATHER BE RAISED BY PARENTS OF THE SAME SEX WHO LOVE EACH OTHER THAN HOMOPHOBIC PARENTS WHO ARE BOUT HATE. AND THIS IS SIDE NOTE - SOME BLACKS WHO ARE HOMOPHOBIC AND DONT WANNA HELP GAYS ARE HYPOCRITES, THEY WERRE FIGHTIN TO BE ACCEPT BUT CANT HELP OTHERS WHO WANT TO BE ACCEPTED, HYPOCRITES.
UMANEDAKIDD19 2 months ago 9
This has been flagged as spam show
@UMANEDAKIDD19 LIKE IVE SAID MILLIONS OF TIMES, IF I SEE A RACIST WHITE MAN BEAT THE SHYT OUT SOME BLACK PERSON WHO DONT WANNA HELP GAYS, IMA KEEP ON MOVIN I AINT HELPIN THAT NIGGA, AND IF HE DIES OH WELL GOD BLESS THE DEAD. YOU DONT WANNA HELP OTHERS, WHY SHOULD I HELP YOU, ITS ONLY FAIR. HYPOCRITICAL BLACKS, HOMOPHOBIC BLACKS, AND HOMOPHOBES FUCK ALL YALL WIT MUCH DISRESPECT. THIS BITCH SOUND DUMB ASS FUCK.
UMANEDAKIDD19 2 months ago
Ann Coulter is the typical biggoted american. She's horrible. Marc is so much more impressive.
Why would anyone even listen to Ann Coulter? I say kick her off TV.
kerr72211 2 months ago
Homosexuality is a biological defect.
000000000o000000000 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@000000000o000000000
"Homosexuality is a biological defect."
So, in other words, gay are born that way! Do you think we might be able to park in handicap spots?
bearchewtoy75 2 months ago
this woman is pathetic >.<
QW33RGA5M 2 months ago
best ending ever.. Coultergeist "...you liberals always trying to spin..." Hill "yeah, it's called data!" END OF VIDEO... :-)
ERAUPRCWA 2 months ago
what is a family? because people who talk about "protecting the ideals of a family" seem to have the idea that a family ONLY consist of a mother and a father... well, aside from gay couples having children, are they also saying that a single parent raising their children should have rights as a parent to raise their child or consider themselves a "family" because they dont meat societies stupid interpretation of what a "family" is?
ERAUPRCWA 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Homosexuality is disgusting and immoral. God did not create man to be with man or woman to be with woman. He created man to be with woman! Homosexuality is just wrong and disgusting.
28804ecorrell 3 months ago
@28804ecorrell yet forcing your sick religious beliefs on others is not sick and disgusting?
mermaidsareppl222 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Democrats are suppose to be "liberals" then why does Clinton/Obama keep on appointing conservative supreme court justices (3 jewish and 1 catholic) that are philosophically/religiously against theses issues of abortion/gay marriage. Blacks were once discriminated and it took the supreme court (Brown vs Board of Education 1954) to rule that it was unconstitutional and it paved the way for the civil rights movement. ActionSpeaksLouderThanWords
EndTheScam 3 months ago
Ann Coulter is wrong on every point she made.
TheQuaker10 3 months ago
I think that the republicans are now known to be the people who use the Bible for justifying hatred and intolerance against anybody who doesn't belong to their belief of what an American should be. They never use facts, never follow the Bible against the sins they commit, and are never willing to admit to the things people no longer follow from the Bible.They use it as a weapon all the time. Ann Coulter should be grateful that the views about women in the Bible are no longer applied.
TheNolo73 3 months ago 10
@TheNolo73 I believe the Left is now known as the people whose sole aim to discredit religious views regardless of how irrational the path-necessary to do so--may be. Coulter said it: What right is gay's being denied? A straight man cannot marry another man any more than a gay man can...a gay man CAN marry any woman he chooses just like a straight man can. The state does not have a 'sexual desire' measuring meter...what if I wanted to marry 12 women (2 of which were my biological sisters)?
coleaddison 1 month ago
@coleaddison That makes NO sense...A gays right is being denied to marry a person they love. Why the hell would they want to marry a member of the opposite sex if they are gay. Thats totally asenine.
Spiderweb127 1 month ago
@Spiderweb127 How can someone claim to be 'denied a right' when no one else is being granted that right? Am I denied the right to rape? No--rape is not a behavior that anyone is allowed to practice. Conversely, before 1913, men could vote (right) while woman could not (right denied). Under federal law, no one is allowed to engage in same-sex marriage. And "Love..." What if I was in love with 6 people; 2 of which were my sisters--should the state recognize that relationship?
coleaddison 1 month ago
@coleaddison Straight people are granted the right to marry those they love while gays are not. Rape is a crime commited against some one, violating some one else's rights. Homosexuality is not a "behavior". It is a sexual preference. Polygamy and incest have no bearing on gay marriage as they are completely unrelated.
Spiderweb127 1 month ago
@Spiderweb127 Does the gov. have some sort of "sexual attraction" meter? Did every person who got married have to pass a "love test?" All the gov. can do (all they do, do) is say that a married couple must be imited to two, unrelated, consenting, opposite-sexed, adults. Now, if you want to take out 'opposite-sexed;' I don't see how it’s 'unrelated' for someone else to want to take out any of the other constraint? Any opposition from your corner would be pure discrimination.
coleaddison 1 month ago
@coleaddison Because the "oppositesex" part is the only part that is unfounded. Limited to two because of the legal and financial benefits that comes with being a spouse. Unrelated due to health concerns. Consenting for obvious reasons and adult for obvious reasons. The only difference between gay couples and straight couples is gender. They work, they have families and they live their lives like the rest of us trying to make out a life for themselves.
Spiderweb127 1 month ago
@Spiderweb127 "Financial benefits?" If you can divide assets by 2; why can’t you do it by 4, 5.,12? "Health Concerns?" At least an incestrial couple can have a baby...I don't know what biological chemicals mix together during gay sex; but I doubt it forms into two arms, two legs and a head. "Consenting?" Hindus and Muslims have unconsenting, arranged marriages all of the time (often marrying an adult to a minor). If we allow gay marrige; we have to allow the rest; that's it!
coleaddison 1 month ago
@coleaddison So just because gay people cannot procreate on their own that means they can't get married? There are plenty of infertile straight couples that marry. Polygamy is a chosen lifestyle and we limit marriage to two people because of financial AND legal benefits that come from marriage. Such as tax deductions. If we allow polygamy that would be a loophole for everyone to get out of taxes. Arranged marriages in the context you stated are religious in nature.
Spiderweb127 1 month ago
@Spiderweb127 You’ve been respectful and I aim to reciprocate that gesture; but your arguments are totally baseless. Why do gays want to be married? There is only two logical explanations: 1. the ‘tax loophole’ you mentioned; 2. the existential feeling of having their relationships viewed by society in equal light to heterosexual relationships. Neither of these initiatives has anything to do with the fundamental purpose of marriage—and frankly, is a bit ego-centric when
coleaddison 1 month ago
@Spiderweb127 considering who’s really being affected here. The purpose of marriage is to establish the most optimal environment necessary to raise healthy, productive, law abiding, tax paying citizens. Can a child be raised by a single mother? Yes, but it’s not an Optimal situation. Can a child be raised by 15 parents? Yes, but it’s not optimal. Can a child be raised by same sex parents? Yes but it’s not optimal. According to the Gov. (which is nothing more than a
coleaddison 1 month ago
@Spiderweb127 representative body of the majority of Americans); each of these situations (on a bell cure) represent a departure from the most healthy, responsible, and prudent option available (fill in the blank with all the conditions I mentioned earlier—including opposite sexed couples). The state can only recognize and promote that which is optimal—they cannot be in the business of ‘rating (aka: discriminating for/against)’ all the possible shades of ‘less than optimal’
coleaddison 1 month ago
@Spiderweb127 combinations of relationships. ) Any deviation from that formula is, at best, an experimental departure from proven social science, cultural norms and civil history--and our kids are to be the Guiana pigs (and for what…tax breaks and gay self-esteem?).
coleaddison 1 month ago
@coleaddison There are several things wrong with that statement. 1. The purpose of marriage is not about children, though that is where it is socially acceptable to produce them. The purpose of marriage is a life long permanentt bond between two people, recognized and rewarded by the law. Thus proven by childless couples. 2. It is not up to any one to judge what constitutes a family, least of all the gov't. Single parenthood is legal, despite it being not an "optiman situation".
Spiderweb127 1 month ago
@coleaddison as you called it. More over it is beside the point, as gay couples already have children and families and many studies have shown them to be every bit as effective as straight couples. So no, the children would not be "guinnea pigs. 3. We do not have the right to tell others how to live, however looked down upon it may be. By denying their right to marry, we do just that. So whatever anyone thinks of gay marriage is fundamentally irrelevant.
Spiderweb127 1 month ago
@coleaddison as they have the right to marry those they love. 4. The reasons for gays want to marry should be obvious. There is nothing comparable to being a spouse. There is a sense of security, permanency and union. Who wouldn't want that? I frankly am amazed you think it to be ego centric.
Spiderweb127 1 month ago
@Spiderweb127 Okay; finally we are getting somewhere. The reason you and I are having such a problem seeing eye to eye is because we have differing opinions on what the definition and purpose of marriage is. You feel as if marriage is the state’s arbitrary recognition of a loving relationship between two people; and I feel as if marriage is an institution in which children at least have the potential to be conceived and raised under the most optimal conditions. I think my
coleaddison 1 month ago
@Spiderweb127 definition is correct and yours is, at best, discriminatory, baseless, wishful thinking. If the state was interested in ‘loving/caring relationships’ why wouldn’t ‘friendships’ be recognized and rewarded? I love my dog; why can’t I get a tax write off for that ‘relationship.’ And if the state is interested in something as arbitrary as ‘loving relationships;’ why would they not provide benefits for other random acts of human behavior? I eat a lot of Taco’s…why
coleaddison 1 month ago
@Spiderweb127 can’t the state give me a tax write off for every Taco I consume!? Again, I’ve given you example after example of other ‘alternative’ relationships that you yourself admit are possible, but ‘less valuable’ than two, consenting, of-age, non-related, opposite-sexed couples (single mothers comes to mind); yet, against your own views, you continue to push the notion that ‘love’ is the only prerequisite needed for marriage. Not only that; but every civilized culture in
coleaddison 1 month ago
@Spiderweb127 in history, every religion (the founders of marriage as the gov. sees it today), over half the country; the Federal Government, and Nature itself suggests an agreement with my position. It seems to me that you are more interested in picking and choosing who is entitled to what benefits –using your own discriminatory standards--than you are in advancing ‘equal rights’ to anyone.
coleaddison 1 month ago
@coleaddison You are mistaken if you think I believe any relationship is "less valuable" than another. I believe there is no "right" kind of family. But again this is neither here nor there as it only matters how the law sees marriage. Which is a contract between two people that desire to become a partnership in life. Children are irrelevant to the equation. Gays, and straights for that matter, do not need to be married to have children or to provide a stable home environment.
Spiderweb127 1 month ago
@coleaddison I did not marry my husband for the sole purpose of procreating with him. I married him to be his wife and share our lives and have our marital status recognized by the law. Now that has happend, if something should god forbid happen to him, I have spousal privleges for everything from health care decisions to financial decisions. Homosexuality occurs in nature in over 1500 species so it is by definition, natural.
Spiderweb127 1 month ago
@Spiderweb127 It is a testament to the times we live in when a single guy like me defends marriage as a sacred covenant between a man and a woman designed to create a safe-haven for the children their love created; while a married woman like you defends marriage as a legal contract designed to transfer assets and provide for a platform from which to pick political fights. Since, apparently, neither of us is gay; it’s safe to say that we don’t have any pressing, personal biases
coleaddison 1 month ago
@Spiderweb127 here; rather our opinions are only a reflection of what we see as the best course of action for our society. While I only want to ensure children are given a chance to be raised in the most optimal of environments possible; you seem perfectly willing ‘roll the dice’ on that pesky little issue; but damn the country if a homosexual doesn’t feel as important as they ought to! And your arguments are so irrationally contradicting my head hurts: you make statements like
coleaddison 1 month ago
@Spiderweb127 “there is no such thing as valuing relationships—every relationship is equally right;” immediately followed by every reason why polygamy, pedophilia, incest and bestial-relationships are so obviously wrong. Look; if a homosexual wants to pass on his/her assets onto a loved one; they do what we single people do—draft a will. By redefining marriage into value-less-ness (which is exactly what you’re proposing by saying there is no conditional prerequisite needed to
coleaddison 1 month ago