IN
Upload
You're viewing YouTube in English (US).
Switch to another language: | | | | | | | | | | View all
You're viewing YouTube in English.
Switch to another language: | | | | | | | | | | View all

True Danger behind Gay Marriage

by meleagrisfelis • 307 views

What we really need to fear http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8LNiKVdfng&list=PLECA7CF441087FD23&index=27&feature=plpp_video

I know +Red Line is definitively going to be first in line for this kind of marriage 
Report spam or abuse
Man, you took the words right out of my mouth because this is what I was going to tell Eric Holder in an email since he thinks same sex marriages should be allowed.  Did you know a large majority of gays have Autism and most Autistics have sexual disorders whether they are same sex, object, multiple partners and the list goes on.  I should have equal rights to marry my backhoe loader!  Right! 
Report spam or abuse
We're talking about a legal system which is based on Christianity in the vast majority of its law. I don't particularly like that fact but it doesn't stop it from being true. I agree with you that the word "marriage" has been used for many different sorts of social contracts but at the end of the day we're just playing with semantics if we do that. Therefore if people just call it what it is, there is no need for a rosetta stone to social constructs. I actually did enjoy your video but disagree.
Report spam or abuse
@KennyTew2 You haven't used a verb other than "is" but I'd not class that as non-negotiable because, in other words, it's ambiguous as to its meaning defining the purpose that the concept we call marriage is "doing" (using doing words, i.e. verbs) BUT be prepared that the woman in the video (gasp!) & other people (gay, straight, bisexual, asexual, married, never-married, divorced etc) will all keep disagreeing with your definition, so a legal definition is MAYBE what YOU want before SHE does it.
Report spam or abuse
I imagine that people asked the same thing years ago about why a white woman would want to marry a black man. I mean if we let a black and white get married, what will she want to marry next? A horse? A rock? It doesn't appear that horse or rock marriages happened, nor does it appear as if the erosion of the definition of the word marriage caused any irreparable damage to the institution. I think we will find the same is true of same-sex marriages.
Report spam or abuse
You are quite correct, I was unaware of this change in etiquette. I joined youtube years ago when comments were stacked as written and a simple ‘2)’ at the start of a second comment would suffice, since I haven’t got involved much over the last couple of years I must have missed this, so thank you for letting me know.
Report spam or abuse
@KennyTew2 2bof2(addendum) BTW I'm not religious. I'm not promoting the koran or putting it down either. I'm just saying the woman in the video is talking about some "meaning being lost". Yet what is inferred is that there is some unspoken rule between breeding heterosexual couples whereby marriage did once (&maybe does) equal: "lifelong agreement between 1man&1woman to biologically & naturally sexually-reproduce exclusively" Truly it'd be taboo for most to de-romance it as "5year agreement etc"
Report spam or abuse
(1of2) I'm not personally talking about being offended e.g. I have gay friends & I feel Alan Turing was treated awfully. I think however that saying people aren't "grown up" smacks of ad-hom which ironically is what calling somebody (e.g. a gay man) offensive does in some cases. So it's a bit of circular argument to say that. . Regarding DNA/Marriage thing.I previously wrote of: ...2groups of biological parents: The "marrieds" & the "bastards" i.e. children who are "separate-but-equal". . Cont>
Report spam or abuse
Are you serious? Do you really think that an institution as nuanced as marriage can be summed up meaningfully in a single phrase? Some marriages are about love, others about convenience, some are polygamous some monogamous, some marriages believe in fidelity while others are open, some marriages are about following gods commandments while others recognise no god/s. If marriage were compared to taxonomy then marriage could only be meaningfully thought of as a genus, or even a family of...
Report spam or abuse
@1n354a Actually dude, I think you have hit the nail on the head there. This is a dance that has been danced before. Marriage OFFERS legal Rights amongst other things. Example: I'm not religious but the story is the same as Adam & Eve. The person who wrote that part of bible was probably a nice dude warning people that the book they are about to read, like any 3rd party will be changed. We are OFFERED the Garden as a trick for the apple snake. "Marrying" is to a 3rd party when love only needs 2.
Report spam or abuse
I read and understood what you were saying, but this is a discussion about the right to marry, not a discussion about whether society is always fair, which it is not. Please stay on topic and explain how the essence of marriage is eroded by removing a prejudicial clause. Ill even start you off, marriage is eroded by allowing homosexuals to marry because ....
Report spam or abuse
It may be significant to my argument. As it happens I was referring to the idea of gay-marriage becoming part of the same thing. So it would all just be named "marriage" even if it were between same-sex or opposite-sex BUT does it matter that it's called the same thing? e.g if there were civil-unions for same-sex couples & marriage for opposite-sex couples would the same rules apply to either arrangement? People get sidetracked in "I want a blah as they have a blah" rather than what a "blah" IS.
Report spam or abuse
What you mean is, you now know I am hitting on an exact example showing marriage is a discriminatory institution which gay people wish to join in the name of "equality". It is you who cannot stay on topic. You scurry away when I get to the crux of it. Children of their biological parents who never married are treated differently by law from children of married parents. Once married, gay couples and straight couples will constantly be updating their rights within marriage. Bastards will lose out.
Report spam or abuse
Ok. Got it. Yes I agree that the man and the woman should be able to sort it out themselves. Problem is, at that time there is usually a lot of animosity. I think that they should agree in their contract to submit to arbitration in that case. You do have to hire an arbitrator tho, but that would be cheaper than lawyers. Especially since I think the lawyers cause some of the problems in divorce cases.
Report spam or abuse
@meleagrisfelis Typo should have said: dragging IN a 3rd party
Report spam or abuse
If you had taken the time to read what I had written you would have seen that my comment is spread over two posts, during the second of which I offered a definition that covers all views on marriage as a taxanomic family, from which all genus and species of marriage can be derived.
Report spam or abuse
You can vote/lobby/petition for gay marriage by all means. Likewise other people can make similar campaigns against it. I'm just some person on a youtube comments section. I'm therefore only saying that I would not be totally trusting of the 3rd party arranging it all.
Report spam or abuse
@KennyTew2 2of2 On the matter of ramblings, you have resorted repeatedly to argumentum ad-hominem & frankly it smacks of your cognitive dissonance in light of you expecting a creationist argument defending the sanctity of marriage, whereas you have encountered my bringing to the table the point of demographics & the way people are discriminated against or for, legally. It is your logic that has limited value if any. BTW On the subject of which, I have a 1st Class Hons Degree in Computer Science.
Report spam or abuse
@meleagrisfelis Because the point is that if the definition is the title, "agreement between 1 man & 1 woman to sexually reproduce exclusively", then how one earth can somebody erode it? If marriage never had a "title" to begin with and was only called by it's definition then nobody could (in theory) erode it. Well I'm sure they actually would just use brute force to overide it & they'd need to destroy it, but by doing so, it would be crystal clear what they were doing (much to public reaction).
Report spam or abuse
Sure thing. I even don't mind waiting a day or two. People have all sort of commitments offline, working weekends or split weeks etc.
Report spam or abuse
But I have explained, marriage is 'doing' all sorts of different things for all sorts of people, hence my contention that it represents a group of concepts. When defined at the inclusive level it tells you little about the relationship types beyond the relationships it excludes. You claim that my definition is ambiguous, I can see no way in which it is open to interpretation. Please offer two distinct interpretations of my description to demonstrate the ambiguity.
Report spam or abuse
The "4marriages-in-1" are only one difference between atheist traditional marriage (which in Britain is basically the same as in USA whereby it originated from a christian thing since henry the 8th but is just a state thing nowadays as you can get married in a registry office or a church etc). Thusly if somebody got married in a registry office they do not have the option of the outcome of a SL-Court process arbitration as they're not muslim. See? The 4 arent recognised hence the legal oxymoron.
Report spam or abuse
Does anything you have said have any baring on my comment whatsoever? Not that I disagree with your comment, except of course religious marriages clearly involve no third party that can be demonstrated to even exist, let alone content to their part in the relationship. Why do I want to marry? Im already married, and I married my wife because I love her and wanted to make a public commitment to her, I wanted my friends and family to be able to share our joy,...
Report spam or abuse
Well I was interested to see what your rebuttal or agreement would be because people learn what each other mean when they talk it over. I honestly don't think that anybody knows what they want marriage to be, even the law makers. Yet somehow it is a template. Nobody has ever said it is for the purpose of sexual reproduction I think. Maybe I am incorrect & in fact that was once written in? However, it sounds like you have opted out from continuing and that is fair enough. Your choice, no worries.
Report spam or abuse
The latter definition would be what I refer to. The video of him talking about naming conventions becoming meaningless is what I mean & it is what the woman in the video sort of means but ironically she hasn't thought it through. Here's the thing, like the "bird" in the video, it doesn't matter what it's name is but what it is actually doing that matters. And so, one could call marriage (for gay people) "gay marriage" however, I'm pretty sure people want it to be simply called "marriage". Agree?
Report spam or abuse
Wow you crammed loads into that comment. I'll need to span 2 to reply. 1of2 I think the point you make about groups is worth making whether I agree or not. It shows some people who support gay marriage would too support group marriage. As for there being plenty of people falling in love & getting married, your point comes down to a matter of opinion (fair enough) about if it is at all a good or bad sign that retention&results differ wildly from previous incarnations of USA or UK marriage. (cont)
Report spam or abuse
I have no problem with that. It could also be "agreement between 1 man & 1 man to have an exclusive reproductive relationship wherein we decide to have x number of children through surrogacy" or something to that effect. This is why I think the state should only do civil unions, the details of that union left up to the consenting adults - just like any other contract. But we're stuck with marriage for the moment.
Report spam or abuse
Regarding SL-courts, a person not using them or other marriage/divorce counseling services does so of their own accord and should read "The Fox and the Grapes" before complaining. Are the four marriages recognized by the British government? Or does the British government tell them that they can only marry one woman?
Report spam or abuse
LOL! You so didn't get what I mean. Don't call it anything other than your aforementioned agreement in quotes. This is such an age old political mechanism, Ok, let's take the "ten commandments" in the book Animal Farm. They keep changing: 4 legs good 2 legs bad.... 4 legs good 2 legs also good... 4 legs good 2 legs better... 2 legs good, 4 legs bad. The title becomes the second definition and so the meaning is lost. Just put the agreement on a 2-named blank piece of paper with a time date stamp.
Report spam or abuse
2) ...made clear, and here we agree. The purpose of allowing gay marriage, is to allow gays to marry. To afford to the gay community rights the rest of us share. So now, (and I just know you can do this) explain how, the view that having children is an important part of how many people think about marriage, is eroded by extending the right to marry to gays? You see you actually need to make an argument. Once again if you are off topic I will not reply.
Report spam or abuse
You're wrong about the DNA/Marriage fathers. The "Rights" of the child are what I'm getting at with that. A "Love-Child" is separate but equal, yet the meaning of "Bastards" still applies despite our laws' modern platitudes. As for the mechanism, I never contested that your mechanism would be effective. Mind you, if are currently happy to take the stance of "I can do X because I have a mechanism" be prepared that you may later find yourself in a position where somebody has a mechanism over you.
Report spam or abuse
Divorce in groups or in singles seems to have the same effect on marriage....though mainly focused on the people who got divorced as there are still plenty of people falling in love and getting married. How are single parents separate but equal to married parents? They are different entities. They are similar but different, maybe...but unless laws are created to intentionally discriminate against one or the other I fail to see where you are getting that one is good and the other bad....
Report spam or abuse
@KennyTew2 1of2 My point was that each time the definition of marriage is changed that it would be wise to define its purpose. Clearly there is much disagreement as to what it pertains to. Many people strongly feel it either has been or is still very much to do with parenting and that this purpose has been lost along the way throughout the many changes. It is the meaning, by which I refer to as definition which erodes. I never made a claim to defend the "essence" or sanctity of marriage. (cont)
Report spam or abuse
I meant something else. You've shown 1 mechanism by which this law can (and most probably will) be shown as discriminatory. But there are and have been many other ways of doing so. For example, showing the "effect" of a set of laws or clauses combined to be discriminatory. I mentioned "mechanisms" before. The biological father thing depends on where you live. Paternity rights differ across states of USA and are certainly different in Britain. The DNA/Marriage fathers do not have the same rights.
Report spam or abuse
Really? I thought it was pretty all encompassing; please give an example of a type of marriage that does not fit within my description.
Report spam or abuse
@1n34a >Cont Essentially the Sharia Law courts are themselves a court of arbitration to deal with the seperations/divorces of Muslims because the way they marry differently. The British family courts can be sometimes an "incompatible" process for those parts. An example is one husband can marry up to 4wives (nightmare! Talk about ears bleeding). So essentially the proceedings within the SL-court aren't recognised but the agreement they come to is taken into account yet not legally binding. cont>
Report spam or abuse
Just because the definition of terms can be eroded, does not mean that removing a prejudicial term from a definition necessarily does so. In this case marriage is strengthened by removal of an archaic, irrelevant, prejudicial clause. Redefining terms isn’t necessarily detrimental to them, your argument is the logical equivalent to saying, subsidence can exist, and therefore your house is falling down. You have identified a type of argument; you have yet to make it.
Report spam or abuse
So would you be talking about something more like a verbal agreement or would it be written? I guess I'm thinking about a formal written agreement and I included the "shoulds" as things that could cause problems in a future disagreement. I think people should (excuse me there) try to avoid anything that could have them end up in the courts in the future. Unfortunately no matter what kind of agreement you make with someone you can't always trust them not to go whining in the future.
Report spam or abuse
Report spam or abuse
Just want to clarify. I'm not saying you should not use ad-hom attacks (or anything else based on emotive language) Jesus, I have and still do. I'm just saying that if, in the same breath, you then say that the person you are talking of cannot give "I am offended" or "I feel strongly emotive about this" as an argument, then you are making a circular argument. On a tangent, I should mention that I have made 3 comments rather than 2. Hope that doesn't confuse the issue and it'll still be readable.
Report spam or abuse
yep. God only knows - according to them we women might start marrying our washing machines. They do vibrate after all.
Report spam or abuse
I agree and I would like to state that I am gay and againt gay marriage
Report spam or abuse
... Sorry a typo (which of course wouldn't be in my proposed agreements youtube...cough). I'll elaborate. I should have written: Put the 2 names of the agreeing people on a blank piece of paper with a time/date stamp, and a location (like an address of the ceremony), along with the aforementioned agreement in quotes. There "may" be a witness to sign it but I would be highly suspicious of giving that witness any other duties or responsibilities at all... other than to say, "Yep I was there".
Report spam or abuse
But, just for a moments thought experement, lerts pretend that you are correct and marriage is an unfair institution in other ways. So what? Are you really suggesting that we should never improve any institution unless we can remove all of its failings in one go? Your point is both illogical and irrelevant, Now why not have a gop at making your case; marriage is eroded by allowing homosexuals to marry because .... Come on you can do this!
Report spam or abuse
Absolutely! And clearly Detroit is the place for the honeymoon.
Report spam or abuse
Isnt it a strange debate where one side has nothing but logical fallacies to support their case? "What if people want to marry furniture?" Well does marrying furniture have anything to do with gay marriage? No, so it’s an absurd argument of the general fallacious thin end of the wedge type. And where has anyone proposed removing the rights of heterosexuals to marry? Nowhere, marriage isn’t under threat, the only thing under threat is prejudice.
Report spam or abuse
...group marriages should be allowed or shouldn't be allowed, but their existence/non-existence has no bearing on whether we should regulate which kind of people are permitted to enter into a marriage/civil union. An aside- my opinion is we should do away with marriages on the state/federal level and refer to all such unions on paper as Civil Unions. If a couple wants to get married in a church or in a field or on a rock they can do that and give themselves a certificate and maybe even a
Report spam or abuse
Disagreed. The act of grouping up was a mechanism used to increase the chance of survival. Like our cousins we are creatures of community. I would actually argue that we are anything but monogamous creatures so asserting that the point of unions was to procreate is patently false. At any rate, this community behavior began long before the word 'marriage' was even thought up and I think that it remains what it was long long ago...the union of two people's lives not dependent on the ability or...
Report spam or abuse
Straight to gay marriages are two people deciding to unify their lives for whatever reason. Some do it so that they can have kids, some do it so that they can have a partner in life, some do it because it is financially advantageous, and so on. Group marriages...well I guess you would have to clarify what you are talking about there, but the fact that you are introducing multiple people into the equation vs two people then I would say it is apples and oranges. Not that you couldn't argue that...
Report spam or abuse
Who the hell wants to argue with you? I made my comment to show that this dance has been danced before and we all know how it is going to turn out.
Report spam or abuse
I'm glad you liked it. We do love our cars! But not that much I hope. Yes, we would surely disagree. However people like this woman don't do her cause any good by being so outrageous. That is how any cause or opinion gets laughed at by others, to the point that any serious points they may make are overlooked or disregarded completely.
Report spam or abuse
didja hear about the woman who wants to marry a corporation b/c corporations r people now?
Report spam or abuse
It applied to the video about marrying in groups. Divorcing in groups is 1way to start eroding the "marriage" originally written into USA or British Law. It appears as if the erosion of the definition of the word marriage causes irreparable damage to the institution Because the institution of marriage doess, has done, & continues to create 2groups of biological parents: The "marrieds" & the "bastards". 4legs good 2legs bad. Marrieds good, Bastards bad. Parent groups who are "separate-but-equal".
Report spam or abuse
I find the US Constitution fascinating in that regard. It's very written-in-stone whereas in England the Magna Carta eroded. Marriage aside, it's interesting how, when talking to Libertarians, they're criticised when their rigidity is outdated. But then you've given me a classic example, comparible to a statement from the left, also ironically using that rigidity of non-negotiable terms. Can I ask your opinion on marrying-in-groups. Have you heard of Sharia-Law courts of arbitration, in Britain?
Report spam or abuse
...The clip is 10 seconds long. You've spent at least a day taking BS in this comment section alone, ten seconds is nothing. As for your Tudor definition of marriage... its 2012 not 1509 ..things change ...except religious dogma, homophobia, bigotry etc.. as you may be able to tell you're now boring me & its late. I hope your BS is of a better quality tomorrow. If its not consider this 'debate' over as I can't be arsed reading the same drivel again & again.
Report spam or abuse
@1n354a 2of2 (cont) Exposing if laws are "intentionally" created is dodgy. One can indeed say that about a law one has spotted but when it comes to removing the thing, one has to take a neutral approach to say it is "counterproductive" or similar. There are many examples. One might be, if a mother passes away, the biological father will have a much better chance of being able to continue seeing his children if he had been married to her at some point. e.g. if the father became estranged from her
Report spam or abuse
This is so dumb it burns, the right to marry is not the same thing as parental rights. There is a connection, but you do not need to be married to achieve full parental responsibilty, but lets us pretend that the only way to achieve parental responsibility were through marriage, since it might almost make it appear as though you have an argument cont,
Report spam or abuse
thank you, you seem very polite I will subscribe to you, I was born and rase in what we like to call a "Shitville" Pennsylvania town a very small Polish Catholic community where their is still prayer in school, I absolulty love my town (i still live here), I meet so many rude people when I tell them my opinion but you were just so nice. Thank You
Report spam or abuse
What absolute nonsense, parental responsibilty has nothing to do with the right to marry. Parental responsibility is given to fathers in three ways, 1 being married to the mother at the time the child is born, 2 being listed as the father on the birth certificate and 3 by a court. But why are you waffeling on about children? It is the right to marry that is under discussion. Not the right to parental responsibility of fathers.
Report spam or abuse
I bet you that if people who get gay-married accept that apple, they will be screwed over big time. It's like Tom sawyer convincing his friends to paint fences. They will change the straight marriage version by coming up with some law about both biological parents taking priority or something (for example in the case of kids) and then they'll maybe change that to "potential dual biological parents etc". One option is for gay people to adopt when single and then get together (or some other idea).
Report spam or abuse
@KennyTew2 (2of3) People who are married-biological-parents therefore are "separate-but-equal" to never-marrieds, a discriminatory state of affairs which is similar to situations we have seen before in society. I might add that, even if biological-parents did have the "option" to marry, holding such "Rights" against them at a gunpoint is "your choice... or else". But even if you dont agree with that, I've already shown 1 scenario, of which there are many, in which not everybody can marry. cont:
Report spam or abuse
2) ...relationship types, and never as a single species. Your pathetic attempt to cram the complexities of human coupling into a single phrase demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of humanity. So let’s try and pin down those features common to all marriage types that exist in the world today, Marriage is a commitment between at least 2 individuals who become spouses as a result.
Report spam or abuse
Here's the thing, though...two consenting adults getting married has no effect on anybody but themselves. There are plenty of actions that people take that completely offend me (fat men and hot chicks getting married, for instance) but that doesn't give me the right to deny them the ability to marry. Their union causes me no harm at all. Stating that only attractive people should marry each other sounds asinine but no more so than saying two men can't get married. So if people do things that...
Report spam or abuse
I went to Catholic schools for most of elementary school and all of high school. I am thankful for the excellent education I received. I do try to be respecful. I believe in dialogue because that's the only way we can learn about each other, but I do sometimes lose my Irish temper (I'm German-Irish). Don't be afraid to call me out if you feel I've stepped over the line. Hope you liked the vid too. I am a 62 year old gay woman myself. And I do like cars - but not that much!
Report spam or abuse
If I have shown a mechanism by which the law is discriminatory with no justifiable reason for said discrimination then the law should be dropped like a hot potato. If nobody can show exactly how and why denying rights to large groups of people is a good and beneficial action then doing so is in direct conflict with the rights secured by our Constitution. DNA/Marriage fathers don't have the same rights because they choose to have or not have them (largely - I know there are exceptions).
Report spam or abuse
Thanks for replying. I recently touched upon this subject in a thread with you on the video titled "female bigots" (not quite what I'd title a video but nevermind) /watch?v=KcljXIuOwrY Alas I could cut & paste the double-comment here if you wish but don't wish to be counterproductive. Let me know if you would like me to. My point is that as an individual, if I were to come to an agreement with another (e.g a woman with whom to have a kid). I don't want a 3rd party involved. You're the 3rd party.
Report spam or abuse
I would love that law IF all heterosexual couples who took part in "The Following" were forced to live together their entire lives (no divorce), produce at least one offspring that is tested to ensure that it belongs to them and is not a bastard love child, be incarcerated for up to 10 years if they are caught using any contraception. I think that you will agree that these requirements would make "The Following" a very unpopular legal document....
Report spam or abuse
Okay...so they don't have the right to attend an arbitration that is established and utilized by members of a select religious group. They couldn't attend an Amish divorce/marriage arbitration either...I'm sorry, not being a smart ass but I don't see how this applies to the conversation we are having?
Report spam or abuse
This is a double comment. I asked "why do you want it?" As in "Why do you want gay marriage?" I didn't ask why do you personally want to marry. However you answered my question all the same. As for the tripartite agreement with religion, I must disagree. I myself am not religious but God or no God, is not my point. The institution is the 3rd party in the agreement we call marriage. So that would be the legal institution (government) or in times gone by the religious institution rebranded. (cont)
Report spam or abuse
Autoerotisisum (?) isn't that what David Carradine died of?
Report spam or abuse
When we say gay marriage, we must point out that we are talking about western countries, in this case USA & what its family law was based on i.e British family law which was based on the Christian idea of marriage. The issue of erosion of the definition of it started when Henry the 8th created the divorce version via Protestant vs Catholic. If it was never called marriage but instead "agreement between 1 man & 1 woman to sexually reproduce exclusively". Then there'd be no issue of who "marries".
Report spam or abuse
I didn't make a final comment, I'm still waiting for you to make an argument. All you have done is refer to animal farm and the notion that when redefining terms, the meaning of the term, can be lost or damaged, which is the type of argument you seem to want to make, now make a case that removing a prejudicial term is deleterious. How could granting the right to marry to the remaining adults in a society affect those who choose not to take up that right? This is bordering on insane.
Report spam or abuse
If you'd been listening, I never said anything about anybody losing "the right to marry". I was saying, people who are married have rights that those who never-married do not have. Because it takes agreement from BOTH man & woman to marry, it's common that either party are left with less entitlement (oftentimes Rights but not always) e.g Like a mother with a lesser separation financial settlement or a father without access to child custody. Reading my previous comment again, does it make sense ?
Report spam or abuse
Firstly, your example is ridiculous, no one has lost a right to marry under the circumstances you offer. Nobody has the right to force marriage because that removes someone else's right not to marry. Neither party has lost their right to marry. You keep claiming that marriage is eroded by removing a prejudicial term, yet find it impossible to even make an argument to that effect. Do you even have an argument?
Report spam or abuse
@1n34a >.cont SL-courts are a voluntary option. A bit like mediation but with an imam. Anyway there has been protest about this. One example is that there may be a trend of outcomes which are noticeably different between muslim men's divorces and those of people who don't use that system (e.g an atheist married in a registry office). So essentially, atheist ex-husbands can say: "So basically I have a comparibly raw deal in a given area of divorce because I don't have the option of that process".
Report spam or abuse
I wanted the legal protections for myself and my wife that marital status conveys, to a certain extent, I wanted to do what others do within my community when they love one another. I wanted my relationship to be considered as important and valid as any other. However, after consideration of the prejudice against gays, I probably would not marry if the choice we're mine now since I don't like the idea of being part of a prejudiced institution.
Report spam or abuse
(cont 2) But we all know that those who would push for such a distinction between straight and gay marriages would never live up to the standards they set in their own laws...
Report spam or abuse
@KennyTew2 (cont) So it does have a bearing on your comment. Do you recall that scientist Feynman? Here is a nice video of him talking about naming conventions becoming meaningless (although I totally understand if you don't have time or inclination to watch it) /watch?v=PsgBtOVzHKI The point is that the title itself of something especially constructs (like marriage or ten commandments etc) becomes the 2nd meaning like a binomial definition. What it "means" like legal rights etc erodes for all.
Report spam or abuse
Ah now there you go again with the word "should" and also the words "have to". Do you see why applying that template to me is something that I will refuse to engage with? Do you get that? "One day they will make a war and nobody will come". Effectively, when I don't show up to your little party with its mandatory invite-card, essentially it is now you and the mother. Just like the snake marrying eve. So where are we now? Remember my scenario did not involve a 3rd party contract such as marriage.
Report spam or abuse
This will take 3 comments: (1of3) One example: Currently, Biological-parents who "never married" (or, in some ways, their children) do not have the same rights as biological parents who married. For instance, if a woman fell pregnant, a man cannot "force" her to marry her (even if he wanted to, which is not what I advocate here). So he has no choice in being a married biological-parent. Depending on if you live in certain states in USA or in Britain, he has no entitlement to see his child. cont:
Report spam or abuse
We haven't disagreed. The act of grouping-up was a mechanism used to increase the chance of survival? (Group sexual mates you men). Sure I'm not arguing that. I'm just saying that marriage was about having babies. I'm not saying monogamy it was the only way of having babies: A different "Act". I'm saying that the "marriage" that was defined in USA law is based on the Christian version of 2people pairing up. So I never said: "asserting that the point of unions was to procreate is patently false."
Report spam or abuse
No we aren't talking about the establishment of a seperate institution only the removal of a prejudicial clause from the existing one. but the difference is probably not important to your argument, so please do continue.
Report spam or abuse
I am certain we would disagree about gay marriage, but I wanted to let you know that I found this commentary very clever. "Auto eroticism!" Hilarious! Ah...but almost wasted on your youtube audience I'm afraid.
Report spam or abuse
vs a third party leading the charge in discriminating against a section of our society in direct violation of the rights guaranteed by the US Constitution? I think I'll stick with them arranging the process.
Report spam or abuse
Yes I have spent my free moments talking on this thread. Why do you think I have so little time? LOL I had to fire off that message before leaving the house and so I didn't even look at the video. But I will. My last comment actually supported the idea of a straight woman married (wife) to a man as if she were closet bi-sexual and that it would be very difficult to argue that she is suddenly a bad parent the moment she came out. So I was supporting a gay woman with kids. I can tell you're tired.
Report spam or abuse
Serious. Put it into a few sentences if you want. Knock yourself out. But if there is no legally defined purpose for marriage then maybe both parties should ask themselves what they're fighting over in these emperors new clothes. This applies to either side of (A) those wishing to preserve the sanctity of marriage or (B) those who want gay marriage. Because guess what! Many of us who never-married will tell either side to keep their crossfire to themselves because we're sick of "bastardisation".
Report spam or abuse
All talk of rigidity, libertarians, and the magna carta aside, this approach of separate but equal has already been tried and has been found to be unconstitutional. Just look at Prop 8 after it was initially found to be unconstitutional...the CA government had no intention of fighting that because they knew that that was the truth. This dance has been danced before; we know the ending already. I have no opinion on the practice of marrying in groups. I suppose that is a fight that will probably
Report spam or abuse
I can totally see what you mean about being unconstitutional, so if that is a mechanism by which the US laws are to be decided then so be it I guess. I must say that I seems very much that the apples-and-oranges argument is setting it self up for a fall because, people can make such comparisons with straight-to-gay marriages. But yes the "what is a marriage" argument is the key here. And this is why I absolutely cannot stand definitions becoming names for concepts (binomial) & vice versa. Cont>.
Report spam or abuse
If a law is designed to state that only a man-woman couple who is married is afforded certain rights is "intentionally" created to discriminate against civil unions, domestic partnerships, same-sex marriages. And a biological father would have rights if he could show that he is the biological father which could be discovered via DNA testing. Marital status in this case is irrelevant.
Report spam or abuse
Report spam or abuse
I think the core thing that people are worried about is the age old way that people reproduce. I'm not going to argue whether I think it is right or wrong to adop or any of the other combinations like if a person was, say, bi-sexual and biologically had a baby with somebody of the opposite sex but then widowed and remarried but to somebody of the same sex. Or whatever multitude of events. I'm just saying that, ultimately, whether they are right or wrong, people are worried about children. Right?
Report spam or abuse
They do not, however, gain anything from living with another person of their own gender and in many states are not legally allowed to register their union with the state. So there is no separate but equal status between the unmarried with kids and the married with kids as they are different groups altogether. *Amending previous statement* procreation was an interest in unions, however humans do not and never did procreate exclusively, nor is procreation the only reason they formed/form unions.
Report spam or abuse
Of course, the consummation aspect. I forgot about that. I think that people can all too easily be slaves to updated, or outmoded or any kind of definition. Regardless of whether gay marriage is in theory a good thing or a bad thing or a boring neutral thing, I think that once granted, the gay-married people will find themselves at the mercy of some horrid government nonsense, because attitudes change for better or worse (ancient Greece) but governments are always shits. Maybe decline the apple.
Report spam or abuse
Marriage is a tripartite arrangement between two individuals (currently a man and a woman) and some other third party, such as the state or a religion or whatever. Whether the two individuals are a man and a man, or whether they are a woman and a woman, or whether they are a woman and a man... the third party is always "in" the marriage, there to enforce rules in it and so on. This video mentions "What if people want to marry in groups?" Marriage already is a group contract. Why do you want it?
Report spam or abuse
It is a prejudice institution but I mean because of the rights that parents & their children have. My opinion about your closing statement is that it could have read as follows. . "However, after consideration of the prejudice against bastards-and-their-parents, I probably would not marry if the choice we're mine now since I don't like the idea of being part of a prejudiced institution." . If any group joins the "legal" institution, ensure your new found rights leave never-married-parents alone.
Report spam or abuse
So we are pretending that a man who's partner will not marry him does not have access to the parental rights as others, he now has no rights over his child. A gay man marries his partner, (and lets even pretend that marriage instantly conferred adoption rights), and they addopt a child. Your poor hypothetical man has lost nothing, he has gained nothing he still has the same marriage rights as everyone else, he is not affected. Please make a relevant point soon, you are like a creationist.
Report spam or abuse
Actually so far I've been very attentive to the fact that you have continually replied to "yourself" via own username reply. If you want a reply to show up to me instead of to @KennyTew2 then youtube convention is that you must write @TableWolfMusic at the start. Thirdly, your comment hadn't even appeared by then. But rather than saying "ner ner I'm right you're wrong", I'm just saying to be practical. That aside I appreciate you've made a definition. Thank you for that. My comment still stands.
Report spam or abuse
Give me a moment. I don't have time to watch that youtube clip right now, but I will when I get time. (I appreciate the info on that). I'm not saying gay people would be worse or better or equivalently talented parents. For example what if a awesome straight married mother were a closet bi-sexual? She wouldn't lose ability upon coming out. I'm not saying people who are worried about kids are correct. It may have some logic or it may be a fear or maybe hate but kids are a big factor in some ways.
Report spam or abuse
@KennyTew2 2of2 I mean there once was a definition which jars in a very politcally-incorrect way. And people think Im trying to protect the sanctity of marriage when I say so. But honestly I am neutral. It could even be argued that it may be in my benefit for gay-marriage to be a nail in the coffin for marriage - if it were even true. The definition were those vows "for better or for worse etc". 1doctrine keeping a title AND meaning is the koran as it says "dont change this" after each sentence.
Report spam or abuse
Show more Loading...
Sign in to add this to Watch Later

Add to

Loading playlists...