Lesbian Activist: Gay Marriage Is a Lie

No video

Lesbian Activist: Gay Marriage Is a Lie

Рет қаралды 13,998

ThomasPaine3

Күн бұрын

Masha Gessen Surprisingly Candid Speech: Gay Marriage Fight Is a 'Lie' to Destroy Marriage.
www.theblaze.co...

Пікірлер: 141

@Saewelo-returns 9 жыл бұрын

John Kerry {Cohen} is the Jewess Masha Gessen's number one promoter and sponsor in the United States. John Kerry speaking recently on this monster Masha Gessen... “The government in Moscow may look at Masha as a troublemaker to contend with, but here in the United States, we know that she is a wonderful person - a mother, a journalist, an extraordinary human rights defender - and we are honored by her presence here.”

@aarongtr180 11 жыл бұрын

"I feel the only way I can find companionship is with a guy." That doesn't make you gay, that makes you desperate.

@d621123 10 жыл бұрын

What you do as consenting adult at home is your business, but what happens to children DOES affect society, my life, etc. Parenting issues in general impact society

@Poppadop1 11 жыл бұрын

“Redefined” refers to the purpose, structure, and norms of marriage. In most jurisdictions, marriage is a sexually complimentary union that binds men and women exclusively and permanently to each other and to any kids they may have. Same-sex marriage turns the institution into a public affirmation of a consensual personal relationship.

@nicholasstemm8591 11 жыл бұрын

I am gay and a Christian. And even I know that gay marriage is a bad idea. God even say marriage is between a man and a woman! I am gay because I feel the only way I can find companionship is with a guy.

@d621123 10 жыл бұрын

Ok here's the deal. Childhood attachment, birth parent first years of Life, etc. Etc. Insecure bonding in early childhood causes inability to self soothe and regulate emotions. If you normalize mass adoption and dissolution of birth families, you have insecure attachment and generations of easily emotionally manipulated, programmed

@ThomasPaine3 11 жыл бұрын

The Church is not dictating, The Gay community with the power of the State is dictating.

@ThomasPaine3 11 жыл бұрын

WRONG! "Gays SUE Methodist Church for not performing a Gay Marriage!!" "Lesbians to sue Church for Discrimination"

@Siegetower 11 жыл бұрын

Who said I disapprove of gay people. I am standing up to support marriage.

@Poppadop1 11 жыл бұрын

For starters, this redefinition does exactly what Gessen says it does: Make other redefinitions equally “inevitable.” To quote Hawaii’s US District Court on Jackson v. Abercrombie, “Once the link between marriage and procreation is taken away, and encouraging a socially desirable family structure is deemed irrational, there is no rational limiting principle for other types of relationships.”

@Siegetower 11 жыл бұрын

They're the same thing. Just because irreligious people still get married doesn't change that marriage is a religious function, a bond between man and woman.

@ThomasPaine3 11 жыл бұрын

You have a right to be wed by a JOP in city hall. You don't have a right to be wed by a Priest in a Church. The church is private property, Not state property. REMEMBER (Separation of Church & State)

@ThomasPaine3 11 жыл бұрын

It outlines the theory of communism, in which the lazy & corrupt (proletariats) violently overthrow the hard working middle class (bourgeois). The Manifesto influenced the Communist Revolution in Russia and elsewhere, leading to the Cold War and numerous atrocities committed throughout Eastern Europe, such as the Holodomor in Ukraine. Currently, China, Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam and Laos are widely considered to be communist countries.

@mattbillings3224 11 жыл бұрын

Everybody, here's the history of the government always intervening in the tradition of marriage. When the time the Black Codes were past by liberal democrats, blacks weren't even allowed to get married at all. In the 1960's, one of the things that Martin Luther King Jr. fought for was the government stop intervening the tradition of marriage and that blacks didn't need permeation from the state to marry white's or non blacks. Now the Government is telling us to redefine marriage.

@aarongtr180 11 жыл бұрын

A popular slippery slope fallacy among opponents of SSM is that "if homosexuals marry, what's to stop a person from marrying their dog or even an object?" Animals and objects are physically incapable of consent. There is no reason to restrict polygamy, but again, that has nothing to do with the issue at hand, regardless of "limiting principles". Also, a hetero marriage is not the only "socially desirable" form of family - many more factors come into play than the parents' sexual orientation.

@aarongtr180 11 жыл бұрын

This isn't my opinion, this is the opinion of the French populace. 53% support gay marriage and 72% oppose the protests. Also, "culture" has nothing to do with law. Legally, marriage is heterosexual in some Western countries and includes gay marriages in others. Marriage is not being "redefined"- have a look in Webster or chat with a lexicographer. Marriage is not inherently religious in nature and never has been. Marriage was not a Christian sacrament until the 12th century AD.

@YuhtupAKKaunt 11 жыл бұрын

first and foremost marriage is a promise to your beloved to stay faithful and be there for them through good and bad times. no need for a god there.

@Nunya_Bidness_53 3 жыл бұрын

No it isn't. You can do that without marriage. Marriage is a ritual, based on Adam and Eve in Genesis, wherein a man and a woman are joined and made one flesh by a monotheistic creator God, and in honor of *that* , remain faithful to each other. Why would two men or two women, especially non-Christians, care about that?! Especially since the premise involves the assertion that said God hates homoerotic stuff? And isn't the point of an alternative lifestyle to be unconventional? Why then embrace the most conventional of conventions? The goal of gay marriage is clearly not fidelity, you can have that without the ritual; the goal is to defile and destroy the particular monotheistic ritual. Why not come up with your own thing instead? Some kind of secular union? Or pagan? Or Satanic? Anything but Christian or Jewish, with which is it innately incompatible. You have religious liberty, use it. Why deliberately insult and undermine someone else's belief system?

@aarongtr180 11 жыл бұрын

Removing restrictions on a contract does not necessarily allow for additional unrelated restrictions to be removed. Monogamy refers to the number of spouses in a marriage, SSM refers to the sex of the spouses in a marriage. That said, I am in no way opposed to polygamy, which has existed for thousands of years alongside heterosexual and homosexual marriage (yes, you read that right).

@anim242 11 жыл бұрын

so you see i do agree with glenn beck on this in the direction that he said this church should not dictate another's church and things like that. all i was saying was that not all gay people or gay activists feels like how this woman feels or what another individual activist feels.

@Siegetower 11 жыл бұрын

Gay 'marriage' is a violation of the principle of separation of Church and State. And the violation is by the State. The people always going on about separation of Church and State are always up in arms over something. They are the same people cheering gay 'marriage'. Think about that.

@Poppadop1 11 жыл бұрын

Justice Sotomayor said the same thing: “If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what State restrictions could ever exist?.... I can accept that the State has probably an overbearing interest on protecting a child until they're of age to marry, but what's left?” If your claim is that this is a slippery slope logical fallacy, you need to explain what the “rational limiting principle for other types of relationships” is; otherwise, there isn't one.

@Siegetower 11 жыл бұрын

And we come back to the argument that marriage is a religious institution. If there are "some churches who believe differently" and you're not a member of them how can you claim to speak for them.

@Siegetower 11 жыл бұрын

You're well versed in the Grascian/Frankfurt School of Critical Theory. Attack, attack, attack.

@ThomasPaine3 11 жыл бұрын

Those are not Christians, They are Pagans that pick & choose parts of the Holy Bible that support their agenda.

@Poppadop1 11 жыл бұрын

Not sure where you got those values from, but according to an Ifop poll taken between April 30 and May 2, French support for the “(translated) Taubira law allowing marriage and child adoption for gay couples” for all their poll takers is at 36%. fichier-pdf.fr/2013/05/04/sondage-ifop-3-mai-2013/preview/page/7/

@anim242 11 жыл бұрын

agree to gay marriage if we want to be politically correct of course.

@anim242 11 жыл бұрын

in cases of heterosexuals it's usually the spouse who wins rather than the family. in homosexuals not so much.

@Siegetower 11 жыл бұрын

That's not a right. That's just an invention.

@Siegetower 11 жыл бұрын

And this whole argument you've involved yourself in is that the premise of gay 'marriage' is a violition of the principle of the separation of church and state.

@Siegetower 11 жыл бұрын

Something being drafted as law doesn't make it right. You're happy with everywhere being wrong.

@wotan237 10 жыл бұрын

In Huff Post about 4 weeks ago another lesbian activist wrote a column saying the same stuff this 'woman' is saying......can anyone tell me this columnists name, please ??

@ogunsiron2 10 жыл бұрын

wotan237 possibly sally Kohn who was telling "conservative" s.e. cupps that gay marriage must revolutionize and abolish normal marriage. Sally Kohn is of course another Jwxz , err Jwez, i mean Joow, J,J, Jordanian I go it!

@anim242 11 жыл бұрын

but as for polygamy the only reason the government will never officially make that legal is bc they would have to calculate all the taxes and have to rewrite things to make everything apply to multiple people in that marriage which would be alot harder than just two other people to get married. so yes it is very different from those other things you mentioned.

@aarongtr180 11 жыл бұрын

You seem to be making two false assumptions - that, A, homosexuality is chosen and that, B, even if it weren't, the choice to be homosexual would be negative in any way, shape, or form. Proof, please.

@Poppadop1 11 жыл бұрын

Think about what you’re saying here. If one pulls out sexual complimentarity and then claims marriage has nothing to do with the two people that can only ever be a kid’s biological parents [one man, one woman], how is keeping monogamy justified? How is it fair that a SS couple can get married and have it legally recognized while a SS trio can get married and have it criminally prosecuted? What one thinks marriage is has to also fit with what is expected of marriage.

@ThomasPaine3 11 жыл бұрын

If you believe that a church is a business, You just proved yourself to be a idiot.

@anim242 11 жыл бұрын

you are aware that not all gay people feel the same way as this woman? there gays out there that don't believe what they are doing is destroying marriage which means that no gay marriage is not a lie. just bc this woman says it is doesn't mean that's how all of them feels. i don't care how she feels she does not represent the entire LGBT community or how they feel about the issue.

@aarongtr180 11 жыл бұрын

You are making the fallacious assertion that marriage has anything to do with children inherently. It does not - it is simply a contract between spouses. If you think that I am incorrect, please point out a court ruling, Constitutional Amendment or dictionary definition that proves me wrong.

@aarongtr180 11 жыл бұрын

You've given me a broken link so I have no way to respond to your claim.

@Poppadop1 11 жыл бұрын

Similar to no-fault divorce, sociological damage from SSM doesn’t come directly from changing marriage laws; it comes from laws changing marriage culture, what people think of marriage. SS couples are inherently not procreative, so if marriage no longer reflects an innate ability to form one’s own family, society will dissociate one’s own family from marriage. In other words, as SSM advocate E.J. Graff puts it, SSM “cut[s] the link between sex and diapers.”

@Poppadop1 11 жыл бұрын

Of course I confuse marriage with parenthood: Marriage is there to promote positive parenting traits. The fact that you think I'm confusing them is part of SSM's problem. If SSM removes the family emphasis from marriage, what do you think will pick up the slack?

@Siegetower 11 жыл бұрын

I've mentioned marriage licences on this page about 4 or 5 times now. Please read below.

@Siegetower 11 жыл бұрын

It's no use yelling freedom of religion at me while trying to subvert a religious function to mean whatever you want it to mean. You've misunderstood what I said about other religions and people of no religion. I'm not dictating who can marry or not, our culture is. If civil unions are what you want, call them that, argue for them. Not many people against civil unions. But stop arguing for the redefinition of marriage to suit your own agenda.

@Poppadop1 11 жыл бұрын

True, the ability to marry is a right. The ability to marry anyone one wants is not a right. If the ability to marry anyone one wants is a right, how could the government enact any restrictions? Sotomayor said as much at the Supreme Court hearings.

@Siegetower 11 жыл бұрын

If they wanted to 'marry' gay people maybe they would have started a LONG time ago. Say, 1400 (moslem) to 8000 (Jewish) years ago when the faiths codified their beliefs.

@Poppadop1 11 жыл бұрын

If I told you ~40 years ago that no-fault divorce would be harmful to society, would you have believed me then? It took decades for no-fault divorce’s damage to fully manifest, and yet you think SSM’s damage will show in nine years? 12 years if you look at Canada? That doesn't sound the least bit reckless to you?

@Siegetower 11 жыл бұрын

Exactly, the state is only involved in 'protections' so to regulate the contract of marriage and breaches of marriage in divorce. This was originally to prevent women becoming destitute and left to rely on state welfare after divorce by unscrupluous men. The actual marriage is still a religious function, even if you have no religious people performing it. It is the same marriage.

@6Churches 11 жыл бұрын

I actually cannot tell the difference between Masha's position and Beck's position - sounds like they both want the government to drop marriage, so why aren't they best buds?

@Siegetower 11 жыл бұрын

You don't even understand the terms I'm using. Established religion involving a codified set of beliefs and people trained in those beliefs, not just someone with a shred of knowledge in wicca claiming they have formed their own religion. Nothing to do with a government prefering one religion over another. If followers of an established religion claim to be in favour of gay marriage,then they're contradicting what their religion teaches, doesn't make it right or the beliefs valid to the religion

@ThomasPaine3 11 жыл бұрын

If what you say is true, Why are gays not satisfied with civil unions? (It doesn't bother Christians if Gays are married by a judge at city hall) Why are they suing Churches & Priests that refuse to marry them? Why do Gays insists on violating separation of Church & State? Priests should not be forced to marry Heathens & Pagans.

@Siegetower 11 жыл бұрын

Polls are not referendums. Polls are a sample of people who subscribe to a poll company or read a particular newspaper. Votes, referendums, are what matter, which I am speaking of here and you are ignoring. A majority of people who answer the polls you like support something, which proves nothing. Look at the protests against gay 'marriage' in France, a very progressive country. Have I used enough logic there for you? No emotion here, just considered reasoning.

@Poppadop1 11 жыл бұрын

Are you’re suggesting we change the fundamentals of America’s marriage laws and culture based on anecdotal evidence and studies using small, cherry picked samples? This requires studies with large, random samples, and to quote Child Trends’s study which meets these standards, “.... family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage.”

@Siegetower 11 жыл бұрын

Debunk this: Marriage is between one man and one woman in Western cultures. I bet when you see a protest for a cause you like, you claim they are the majority, and protests for things you dislike, they couldn't possibly be a majority. Everyone you know thinks like you don't they, so you must be right? My dedication to limited government is such that I do not believe governments should have the ability to exercise power to redefine a cultural and religious practice to be something that it is not.

@anim242 11 жыл бұрын

now not all christians or churches are trying to dictate but there are those that are trying to.

@longfellowrocked 11 жыл бұрын

The actual act and state of being married is NOT solely religious. Marriages can be performed by any number of licensed institutions, including the justice of the peace. Besides all that and probably more to the point, YOUR interpretation of religious text concerning marriage is YOURS and not ALL Christian denominations agree with you. Are you claiming to speak for them as well? And would you deny THEIR freedom of religion to perform same sex marriages in favor of yours?

@Siegetower 11 жыл бұрын

Perhaps listen to this video, listen to the applause when the speaker says the aim of gay marriage is to abolish marriage itself and you may have some understanding of why there is so much opposition to gay 'marriage' in normal people.

@anim242 11 жыл бұрын

ah but you see as i said two sides to every coin. you are basically attacking another person's belief in their religion no matter how major or miniscule by not allowing them to marry a homosexual couple if you claim it's an attack on religion. if one person believes their religion says homosexuality is ok (and there are some who do) then you are attacking their religion by saying "NO you can't do that"

@aarongtr180 11 жыл бұрын

Sexually complimentary meaning procreation is possible. Procreation has nothing, inherently, to do with marriage, and thus sexually complimentary partners are not necessary. Attempting to link the two adds a section to the definition of marriage (a union between spouses of either sex as per Webster, Oxford, etc.) to add to the definition rather than leave it be. Perceived cultural values, I'm afraid, do not direct public policy.

@YuhtupAKKaunt 11 жыл бұрын

you confuse marriage with parenthood.

@aarongtr180 11 жыл бұрын

The fact that you put marriage in quotes when many gay marriages have been deemed legal is reason enough for me to believe you have emotional investment in this issue. Tell me what you think marriage is and I'll be happy to do some debunking. Also, the protesters against gay marriage in France are in the minority and are the poster children for 'noisy activists' (particularly the religious right, a dwindling minority in Europe). Your dedication to limited government is questionable at best.

@Siegetower 11 жыл бұрын

You're twisting court rulings to suit your argument without any thought of the legal definitions. Sorry.

@Poppadop1 11 жыл бұрын

True, OS couples aren’t denied marriage because binding men and women to each other and their kids would be difficult otherwise. In light of the societal benefits of exclusivity and permanence, marriage law and marriage culture promote them. SSM, however, undermines those ideals. If OS couples and SS couples are truly equal, why should one emphasize fidelity and life-long commitments while the other doesn’t?

@Siegetower 11 жыл бұрын

The government is not allowing anyone to get married. They get married and the government gets involved after the fact to protect people from breaches of the marriage contract and in the event of divorce creating disadvantaged parties. They do licence who can perform marriages so that they are performed properly and not leave either party contractually disadvantaged or unaware of the seriousness of what marriage implies. Perhaps it is you who should take the civics class.

@nicholasstemm8591 11 жыл бұрын

It's not desperate! Its natural!

@ceilingsandfloors 8 жыл бұрын

the uploader calls themselves thomas paine...wait a second this must be glenn becks own youtube account!

@edinshealtiel3754 8 жыл бұрын

+ceilingsandfloors I AGRE OF WHAT GLEN SHOWS HERE THE TRUTH. BUT WHAT YOU SAID WAS STILL FUNNY. GOOD JOKE....

@YuhtupAKKaunt 11 жыл бұрын

so couples who decide not to have children shouldnt be married ?

@Siegetower 11 жыл бұрын

If civil 'marriages' = civil unions then why the need for the name marriage at all. Be fine with civil unions and go on with your lives. Stop trying to dictate to everyone else to change their beliefs and our entire culture to suit you.

@Siegetower 11 жыл бұрын

Huh? Where did I mention the Bible? Go Click 'Show the Comment' back 15 messages and I can't see where I mentioned it. I don't believe I did. Were you hoping I'd reply with some scripture. People have motivations and reasons beyond their faith. If you see everything in terms of opposition to the Bible why not just say that, instead of trying to goad others into quoting something that I'm guessing is like a moth to flame for you.

@Siegetower 11 жыл бұрын

There is no difference, marriage is marriage. I think you're arguing for civil unions and calling them marriage. Have civil unions, go ahead, they are perfect for gay peoples' tax planning, estate planning, social security, jointly paying bills and buying property. If civil unions don't allow this in your jurisdiction, then you have a legislative problem, not a cultural crusade to change marriage.

@Poppadop1 11 жыл бұрын

Not all OS couples have kids, but kids benefit most when raised by their biological parents. No study using large, random samples [preferably with controls for economic class and genetics] confirms another family configuration as equal to biological parents. Even Child Trends’s study says stepfamilies and cohabiting relationships don’t compare, and there’s insufficient data on SS and adoption parents to draw a conclusion.

@ThomasPaine3 11 жыл бұрын

Your are an idiot, PUBLIC PROPERTY means that it is owned by the tax payer, Church owned property is owned by a private entity, meaning they can deny access of any facilities owned by church to anyone for any reason.

@Poppadop1 11 жыл бұрын

I think KZfaq is mangling the French poll’s URL. Run a search for “Sondage Ifop 3 mai 2013.pdf” and turn to page 6.

@Siegetower 11 жыл бұрын

Now you're clutching at new threads and not addressing the rebutted claims.

@Siegetower 11 жыл бұрын

No you are wrong, this is the State legislating a new definition of marriage, telling the Church what do to - how is that not a violation? The State only became involved in marriage to protect people in divorce (a contracts issue). Without that issue marriage would still be a purely religious function. Please go find some Jewish, moslem, Zoroastrian or Buddhist texts that agree to gay marriage, pretty sure you won't find any. Christians do not 'own' marriage, it is a religious function.

@Siegetower 11 жыл бұрын

Do you attempt to use 14th Amend. for this: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"? I don't think this applies at all to marriage or civil unions. The law doesn't treat any marriage as separate, the law only involves the state after the actual marriage has taken place, and to licence people who will do it properly. I think civil unions are what you really want, marriage is not what you want when you say u want it

@anim242 11 жыл бұрын

yes they could have an attorney do that but there are cases where an immediate family member who doesn't approve of the relationship can challenge those papers and more often than not win the case. and there are also religions that do accept homosexual marriage such as wicca so by not allowing it is also attack on them. you see there are two sides to every coin and no marriage shouldn't be left alone.

@Siegetower 11 жыл бұрын

You're creating a circular argument. No established religions believe in gay marriage. If you're not religious you have no basis for arguing what a religion believes in or not, as you've deliberately removed yourself from that part of our culture.

@Poppadop1 11 жыл бұрын

Why do suppose exclusivity and permanence are marriage norms? Strong emotions like romantic love aren't limited to one person and they tend not to last forever. Kids, however, benefit most from being raised by their married biological parents [see: "Marriage from a Child's Perspective"] and kids are expected to outlive their parents. Hence, marriage is not primarily about strong emotions; it's about binding men and women to each other and to their kids 'til death do them part.

@Siegetower 11 жыл бұрын

If you can find an explanatory document written about the 14 Amend. at the time of its' drafting/inception that lists marriage as a government privilege and not a cultural/religious institution, then you have an argument. Otherwise you're making things up. You're talking about where the state/government has chosen to participate in the marriage process. The power vested in is declaration that a minister/celebrant is licenced to perform the ceremony.

@anim242 11 жыл бұрын

and also yes they can be challenged with anything but with heterosexuals who are married it's alot harder to challenge as there isn't anything that keeps heterosexuals from those rights as much as they do to homosexuals so no they don't hold the same legal strength.

@anim242 11 жыл бұрын

it's not a violation of seperation of church and state as for one gay's don't have to get married in church and two the church doesn't own marriage and belongs to other religions established or not and some churches who believe differently than you which doesn't make it wrong also agree to gay marriage so therefore it's still seperation of church and state.

@anim242 11 жыл бұрын

Wicca has been around for thousands of years longer than Christianity by history's standards and they do have plenty of books out there on it so don't tell me it doesn't have a set of beliefs most of them having to do with nature. they didn't claime to have formed their own religion and if you're going to go that route i can say that Christians and such formed their own religion. and no if an established religion is in favor of gay marriage then they just believe things different than you.

@anim242 11 жыл бұрын

that's cute as it's not just part of your culture so stop trying to dictate everyone else to follow your beliefs to suit you. see how that works out.

@anim242 11 жыл бұрын

noooo you're standing up to oppose other people from marriage.

@anim242 11 жыл бұрын

ummm siegetower there are christians and churches that do believe in gay marriage and i really don't care what they believed or did 8000 years ago. there were lots of things that were believed and done 8000 years ago that don't happen today.

@helenjackman8984 6 жыл бұрын

In the end days good will become evil and evil will become good. This is in the word of GOD.

@str480602 11 жыл бұрын

Glenn Beck is right.

@Siegetower 11 жыл бұрын

Yes because it doesn't apply to them. It applies to one man and one woman. Not one man to a man or woman to a woman or two woman to a man or a man to a washing machine. Sorry.

@anim242 11 жыл бұрын

and that doesn't make it wrong. sorry if you can't accept that.

@Siegetower 11 жыл бұрын

So you DO want to abolish marriage just like the video speaker.

@5HlNOBI 11 жыл бұрын

LOL! What poll shows that? LMAO

@anim242 11 жыл бұрын

we don't have an established religion we have freedom of religion which means there is no so called "established religion". and i do have basis for an argument bc oh i don't know if most of the people say they believe in gay marriage who is in that religion. so therefore marriage can still be redefined and still be a religious institution but nice try coming up with an excuse there.

@Siegetower 11 жыл бұрын

I reiterate what ThomasPaine3 stated to you.

@anim242 11 жыл бұрын

plus the government is lazy in alot of things and they'd have to calculate all the taxes and this and that and other things within polygamy and everything else.

@anim242 11 жыл бұрын

first off civil unions do not grant the same rights and benefits of marriage thanks to things like DOMA. would you be satisfied if it was the other way around? and there are still some areas that don't even allow civil unions. secondly i agree that priests and churches shouldn't have to marry gays if they don't want to as that is completely violating freedom of religion. if a church wants to marry them then that's their business if this church doesn't want to then it shouldn't have to.

@anim242 11 жыл бұрын

you can call them what you want but they still have the right to believe what they want and should not be dictated by what another church believes. and i would be careful about the pick and choosing as almost all christians pick and choose parts of the bible to suit whatever they want.

@longfellowrocked 11 жыл бұрын

Second of all, since all this has been proven to be true, even though scientists are not quite sure of the hows (which is not surprising considering how complicated genetics and other bio-physiological process are by themselves, much less in how they work together), racial and orientation equality issues are EXACTLY one in the same, since both minority groups are discriminated against for something that they cannot help. As for your stereotypes, they are exactly that: stereotypes..nothing less.

@aarongtr180 11 жыл бұрын

You (and the ruling) are committing the slippery slope fallacy. It's committed quite often by opponents of same-sex marriages so I don't particularly blame you but I would definitely look it up. You're examining consequences rather than the subject at hand.

@anim242 11 жыл бұрын

i don't care what he stated to me as i said you can call them whatever you want but they still have the right to believe what they want that's why it's called FREEDOM OF RELIGION. did you miss that in the bill of rights somewhere? it's still a religion just wiccan buddhism and other religions are still religions so they're not irreligious like you claim so therefore you have no right to dictate who they marry or who they don't.

@anim242 11 жыл бұрын

oh really? allow me to elaborate some things that Christians have said about it and why gay marriage should never be allowed no matter what church it is in or what religion another maybe a part of. "marriage is between one man and one woman bc that's how God made it" "it is abomination" really common one "adam and eve not adam and steve" "it's immoral bc God says it is" any of these should at least sound familiar to you. so yes in ways the church is trying to dictate as well.

@anim242 11 жыл бұрын

you would have a point except it's still seperation of church and state and christians aren't the only ones who have ownership of marriage. there are other religions as well that have marriage some of which agree to gay marriage. so yep still a seperation of church and state and i just love how Christians seem to act like that they own marriage and how if anyone who doesn't follow their term for marriage it's automatically violationg seperation of church and state when it's not.