Marriage on the Ballot. Again.

A little out of the usual vein of my videos. Here I announce my intention and peculiar (if not unique) strategy to deal with the opposition to gay marriage. How? By going to churches and discussing the matter with congregations.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• homosexuals
• gay
• marriage
• gaymarriage
• prop.
• prop8
• ref71
• ref.71
• referendum71
• referendum
• 71
• domesticpartnership
• domestic
• partnership
• civil
• union
• civilunion

[Surfer240]

Religion is a choice, hatred and ignorance is a choice. Did you choose to be straight? I didnt choose to be gay. In the Bible sin is sin, they are all equally bad. Also judgment is up to "God" not you. Pride is also a deadly sin, to think your way of life is better than others is sinful. Christianity claims to be a religion of love, compassion, and acceptance, yet you show none. You are homophobic, and hide behind religion to justify your hatred towards gays.

[RobTheMonk8]

What a pathetic response: you seem to be laboring under the delusion that "changing a defintion for EVERYONE" is somehow going to make the sky fall. You realize marriage used to be between two people of the same race, don't you? We had to change the definition there... oh, and would ya look at the harm it's done! The gay activist imposes their will and the heterosexual bigot doesn't? Are you fucking deranged? And no, the government doesn't rearrange anything. Even if it did- so?

[Steelriven]

Yes, I have and idea. Find another topic that is just as big as gay marriage which politicians can easily rant and rave about with little or no thinking involved. Gay marriage is an excuse, its a tactic politicians use to deny, or steer off, other topics. "Mr. Politician our gas prices are sky rocketing what do you intend to do about it?" Politician, "Um, er... Same sex partnership is unholy and should not legally exist!"

[RobTheMonk8]

@kenballer00

It baffles me that you think this amorphous lump of disconnected ideas is a functional argument. Do you notice how desperately long your explanation is vs. the way I was able to neatly sum up the problem with allowing murder, theft, rape, safe driver laws etc... with room to spare in a single comment?

That they "could be led" (though you never say how or what choices or what gay marriage has to do with it) is not sufficient reason to limit the choices of others.

[RobTheMonk8]

@kenballer00

This is utter bullshit. What's to stop me saying, "The meaning of marriage is used as a way to encourage those parents to provide tater tots on tuesdays." The meaning of marriage- whether it be defined as between two adults or two adults of opposite sex- makes no explicit or implicit mention of how children are to be raised. And there are ALREADY legal consequences of failing to provide for your children.

Fail.

[kenballer00]

Therefore, heterosexuals (mainly from future generations) could be led to make choices that have the potential to harm their own family and society in general. These choices that have the potential to create instability include cohabitation or prior cohabitation before marriage, divorce, and choosing partners other than the biological father to raise children etc.

This is why we should prevent redefining marriage this way. Incoming heterosexuals could be affected by this type of promotion.

[RobTheMonk8]

@kenballer00

The purpose of marriage is as dynamic and variable as we choose to make it. Marriage is an artificial commitment, it's not like mankind discovered marriage like fire and the atom, it was something we created. Therefore its "purpose" is fluid.

[kenballer00]

@RobTheMonk8

Same sex marriage or redefining marriage to just two people would interfere with this purpose because it would make marriage ONLY be a choice between consenting adults who want to express their love a certain way. Those choices couples have a tendency to select that are considered to be detrimental and have the potential to hurt families would no longer be deemed as such because the well-being of children is no longer apart of the concept of marriage.

[kenballer00]

@RobTheMonk8

The meaning of marriage is used as a way to encourage those parents to provide legal and social support for their offspring after they procreate during the child development process. This is why its called "responsible" procreation and rearing of children because those adults would naturally be taking responsibility for their actions by making sure procreation (regardless whether its unintended or not) and rearing of children happens within marriage, a stable environment.

[kenballer00]

@RobTheMonk8

The state does not require us to procreate once licenses are given mainly because there is no point in doing so. Procreation is already biologically driven and people will do it either by choice or on accident. Its what happens after procreation is what we are talking about as far as the state playing a role in the process of making sure children have a stable environment.

[kenballer00]

@RobTheMonk8

I will try to be as concise as you want me to. You may not be able to understand it ,if its condensed, though.

However,In order to understand how same sex marriage or redefining it would interfere with this purpose, you have to understand what the purpose of marriage is first.

[RobTheMonk8]

@kenballer00

I would prefer it here, but will not require it. It should be fairly straightforward, Murder, theft, rape, should be illegal because it deprives people of their self-determination and violates the social compact . Driving with a movie playing exposes others to unnecessary risks with little to no benefit to no one. Allowing the sale of lemon cars could cripple commerce. See how easily and concisely I can explain why a thing should be illegal when it actually SHOULD be? Why not you?