Ah, yes. Once again we have arrived at this small nugget of nonsense “completely redefine marriage”.
As if the marriages between men and women would somehow no longer be what they are simply because we broaden the scope of marriage to permit other marriages also.
Is this excellent for society? It’s certainly excellent for the 5% or so of the population which is homosexual – for everyone else it is irrelevant. So, yes. Yes it is excellent.
PS: homosexuals can raise children just as well as everyone else.
I swear you’re making this crap up. Who are YOU to say who anyone else should like and marry?
Your words are just more homophobic hatred and dread posing as intellectual debate. A load of patronising semantics. And we all know every homophobe is a frightened homosexual.
dailymotion(dot)com/video/x8234l_middle-sexes-experience-sur-lhomoph_news
Making gays have “civil unions” while straight people have marriage puts gays in an inferior legal status. There is no such thing as “seperate but equal.”
And if he is worried of polygamous marriage, then what is to stop polygamous civil unions?
Most bans on gay marriage ban civil unions too. Civil unions do not come with the same rights or the same dignity that marriage does. Marriage makes two people legally FAMILY.
Gay people deserve the same rights as everyone else.
culture-less? Are you saying that nonreligious people are “culture-less”?? There will be more culture world when religion & fairy tale fantasies finally completely die.
Raising children shouldnt be about some stupid and bigoted thought that only a man and woman can raise a child, it should be if the couple has the financial ability and the mental capacity to raise children.
You contradict yourself by saying that marriage is a ceremony between a man and a woman, and then admit that same sex couples can already get married in America. That said, marriage is not just between a man and a woman, except in some states (including California since last November 2008, thanks to intolerant nutjob bigots). You have poor logic by coming to the conclusion that I’m very uneducated because I base my logic on what you call a “broken society” & your detrimental block is religion
Honestly, I doubt it. You’d hope it were parody (and it does have the ironic effect of endorsing atheism as opposed to curing it) but I reckon the guy’s delusion is a real one.
you base marriages in the time of the end, and you find yourself a detrimental block that only you can remove “r u willing to change”
you sound like a broken record at best and you base your logic on a broken society, which is not very smart on your part and i have come to a conclusion that you’re very uneducated
“Marriage” is a ceremony between a MAN and a WOMAN
and why do you even speak and since when did you not know that people of the same sex can get marry already in america?
Simple: Theists need to stop banning same sex marriage based on their “sanctity of marriage” argument when marriage is far from sanctified or holy when so many get divorced, sometimes after just a few days. It’s literally none of your business if same sex couples get married. You need not attend their weddings. Don’t want same sex marriage, don’t have one.
And I don’t know what you mean by your question “r u willing to change”.
I dont know what is scarier blatant and honest homophobia, or those who reckon they are doing homosexuals a favor by denying them their happiness.
Please link these loverly studies that kids grow up “unbaanced”, because I have a sneaking suspicion your just saying that these studies exist, more over that you HOPE that these studies exist.
christian & heterosexual marriages end in divorce, sometimes after just a few days; so much for sanctity of marriage -
you know, we have all range of levels of people
and im gonna break this down to you in excellent faith that you dont remain as retarded, that not all children who goes to school gets an A and not everyone has the same learning capability and for every culture there is a defect and we’re not here to make fun of them but to right ourselves for a better future
Q:r u willing to change
Hey man. Congratulations. This really is an awesome video. The reasons you give are valid and excellent arguments. Being a proponent of traditional heterosexual marriage is not about disrespecting gay people, it’s about looking at the benefits to society.
The current model is outdated, but has not been reformed.
Marriage exists so that society can give an incentive to those who wish to perpetuate that society.
I agree that marriage is no longer necessarily about procreation, as it’s currently codified in law.
This is a mistake. Marriage should be reformed to provide two persons the incentive to take joint custody of a child, through birth and/or adoption, and to raise that child as best they can.
@bombkangaroo I reckon the ancient model that you’re referring to HAS BEEN outdated & reformed, as there are many married couples who have never had children, many that died after having a marriage with no children, many elderly couples that get married in their 70′s, 80′s, or 90′s and often are incapable of having children. Marriage is no longer just for procreating.
Throughout the entire history of the world marriage has been a social institution where two people dedicate themselves to the creation of a family together. The man obtains exclusive breeding rights, and the woman obtains exclusive access to the man’s resources.
And no, I don’t reckon childless couples should be able to get the privileges society provides for those who raise a family and contribute back to that society.
I do reckon the current model is outdated and should be reformed.
What do you say to all the heterosexual couples that get married that are incapable of having children or don’t ever want children? Would you ban children for them? Marriage isn’t just for procreation. “to remain together” – amusing many christian & heterosexual marriages end in divorce, sometimes after just a few days; so much for sanctity of marriage.
How dreadfully dismissive. I’m still willing to talk. But I don’t even know what YOU’RE talking about anymore.
You started with animal-talk, then you went to gay-talk, without even coming to a final conclusion on the animal topic, and then you say I don’t know what I’m talking about.
I could use all sorts of fancy quotes, and call all kinds of logical fallicies, but I prefer to keep it small and sweet: I don’t agree with you, so clearly I must be retarded, and not know what I’m talking about.
this guy likes to hear himself talk
How does it feel to be objectively incorrect?
Ah, yes. Once again we have arrived at this small nugget of nonsense “completely redefine marriage”.
As if the marriages between men and women would somehow no longer be what they are simply because we broaden the scope of marriage to permit other marriages also.
Is this excellent for society? It’s certainly excellent for the 5% or so of the population which is homosexual – for everyone else it is irrelevant. So, yes. Yes it is excellent.
PS: homosexuals can raise children just as well as everyone else.
Wow! You judge just like a right Christian.
I swear you’re making this crap up. Who are YOU to say who anyone else should like and marry?
Your words are just more homophobic hatred and dread posing as intellectual debate. A load of patronising semantics. And we all know every homophobe is a frightened homosexual.
dailymotion(dot)com/video/x8234l_middle-sexes-experience-sur-lhomoph_news
Making gays have “civil unions” while straight people have marriage puts gays in an inferior legal status. There is no such thing as “seperate but equal.”
And if he is worried of polygamous marriage, then what is to stop polygamous civil unions?
Most bans on gay marriage ban civil unions too. Civil unions do not come with the same rights or the same dignity that marriage does. Marriage makes two people legally FAMILY.
Gay people deserve the same rights as everyone else.
culture-less? Are you saying that nonreligious people are “culture-less”?? There will be more culture world when religion & fairy tale fantasies finally completely die.
I want to see the studies hes talking about.
Raising children shouldnt be about some stupid and bigoted thought that only a man and woman can raise a child, it should be if the couple has the financial ability and the mental capacity to raise children.
i dont state these things and you do state things from the void of your soul; culture-less bastards, who bash and bash in vain
family MUST function, the smallest unit is 2
why am i explaining the world to you?
a child without any social intellect
!! Clearly, we have different study sources!!
I do believe you don’t know what you are talking about.
Studies have shown that kids brought up in a gay family environment are well adjusted.
You may not mean to come across in such a way but what you are ‘preaching’ is pure arrogance!
You contradict yourself by saying that marriage is a ceremony between a man and a woman, and then admit that same sex couples can already get married in America. That said, marriage is not just between a man and a woman, except in some states (including California since last November 2008, thanks to intolerant nutjob bigots). You have poor logic by coming to the conclusion that I’m very uneducated because I base my logic on what you call a “broken society” & your detrimental block is religion
Honestly, I doubt it. You’d hope it were parody (and it does have the ironic effect of endorsing atheism as opposed to curing it) but I reckon the guy’s delusion is a real one.
you base marriages in the time of the end, and you find yourself a detrimental block that only you can remove “r u willing to change”
you sound like a broken record at best and you base your logic on a broken society, which is not very smart on your part and i have come to a conclusion that you’re very uneducated
“Marriage” is a ceremony between a MAN and a WOMAN
and why do you even speak and since when did you not know that people of the same sex can get marry already in america?
Simple: Theists need to stop banning same sex marriage based on their “sanctity of marriage” argument when marriage is far from sanctified or holy when so many get divorced, sometimes after just a few days. It’s literally none of your business if same sex couples get married. You need not attend their weddings. Don’t want same sex marriage, don’t have one.
And I don’t know what you mean by your question “r u willing to change”.
Ok, ok, ok, seriously, is this channel satire??
I dont know what is scarier blatant and honest homophobia, or those who reckon they are doing homosexuals a favor by denying them their happiness.
Please link these loverly studies that kids grow up “unbaanced”, because I have a sneaking suspicion your just saying that these studies exist, more over that you HOPE that these studies exist.
christian & heterosexual marriages end in divorce, sometimes after just a few days; so much for sanctity of marriage -
you know, we have all range of levels of people
and im gonna break this down to you in excellent faith that you dont remain as retarded, that not all children who goes to school gets an A and not everyone has the same learning capability and for every culture there is a defect and we’re not here to make fun of them but to right ourselves for a better future
Q:r u willing to change
Hey man. Congratulations. This really is an awesome video. The reasons you give are valid and excellent arguments. Being a proponent of traditional heterosexual marriage is not about disrespecting gay people, it’s about looking at the benefits to society.
Marriage predates recorded history, and homosexual marriage predates Christianity.
Forcing people to adhere to the christian view of marriage is a violation of the constitution.
You’re a dick just for putting “my fantastic movie” in the description.
The current model is outdated, but has not been reformed.
Marriage exists so that society can give an incentive to those who wish to perpetuate that society.
I agree that marriage is no longer necessarily about procreation, as it’s currently codified in law.
This is a mistake. Marriage should be reformed to provide two persons the incentive to take joint custody of a child, through birth and/or adoption, and to raise that child as best they can.
@bombkangaroo I reckon the ancient model that you’re referring to HAS BEEN outdated & reformed, as there are many married couples who have never had children, many that died after having a marriage with no children, many elderly couples that get married in their 70′s, 80′s, or 90′s and often are incapable of having children. Marriage is no longer just for procreating.
Throughout the entire history of the world marriage has been a social institution where two people dedicate themselves to the creation of a family together. The man obtains exclusive breeding rights, and the woman obtains exclusive access to the man’s resources.
And no, I don’t reckon childless couples should be able to get the privileges society provides for those who raise a family and contribute back to that society.
I do reckon the current model is outdated and should be reformed.
What do you say to all the heterosexual couples that get married that are incapable of having children or don’t ever want children? Would you ban children for them? Marriage isn’t just for procreation. “to remain together” – amusing many christian & heterosexual marriages end in divorce, sometimes after just a few days; so much for sanctity of marriage.
How dreadfully dismissive. I’m still willing to talk. But I don’t even know what YOU’RE talking about anymore.
You started with animal-talk, then you went to gay-talk, without even coming to a final conclusion on the animal topic, and then you say I don’t know what I’m talking about.
I could use all sorts of fancy quotes, and call all kinds of logical fallicies, but I prefer to keep it small and sweet: I don’t agree with you, so clearly I must be retarded, and not know what I’m talking about.