Why Marriage? (Why not Civil Unions?) - John Corvino
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 17 сен 2012
- Some people wonder why the fight for marriage rights is important to gays and lesbians, given marriage's spotty history. Others wonder why it's important to call it "marriage" -- aren't "civil unions" enough? John Corvino explains why the rights and responsibilities of marriage are important, and how "separate but equal" never really ends up being truly equal.
Dr. John Corvino, also known as the "Gay Moralist," is a writer, speaker, and philosophy professor at Wayne State University in Detroit. He is the co-author, with Maggie Gallagher, of the book Debating Same-Sex Marriage (Oxford Univ. Press, 2012).
SPECIAL THANKS to "Son of Thunder" for the Arabic subtitles.
Find the book here: amzn.to/ZuIrsl.
Video by Chase Whiteside. Read more at JohnCorvino.com.
I would have loved to have had this guy as a philosophy professor when I was in college.
Thanks John
You make me remember when gay people were labeled as the "Inteligent Ones", not the "Promiscuous Ones".
Make me remember and I quote Mark Ruffalo on The New Heart - "I'm part of a culture that gave the world Plato, Sapho, Alexander The Great, Michelangelo (1475-1564), Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519), William Shakespeare, Walt Whitman (1819-1892), Oscar Wilde (1854-1900), Marcel Proust, Alan Turing (1912 - 1954) - The man who cracked the German Cryptic Code in WWII, amogst many others.
This people and you of course make me feel proud of who I am every day of my life.
That made me cry. People like you (and John, too!) make me proud of who I am every day of *my* life.
Thanks
Welcome!
Completely reasonable and well-articulated. I don't understand how any person could disagree.
1. If a child cannot fully understand what they are engaging in - it is not truly consent. The same could be said, and has been said, of people with mental deficiencies who are of legal age. Just because they are of legal age doesn't mean they fully grasp the full implications of what they are doing OR what someone is doing to them.
I agree, but the government should not recognize the legal privileges as Marriage. That word is too closely tied to religious tradition. The government should use a neutral term to refer to all relationships under it. Including homosexual and heterosexual couples alike, because indeed, "separate but equal" is not equal. That said, I do sympathize with the desire to bring the change about as quickly as possible.
Spot on, keep up the good work, Steve
You are speaking so much sense!
Read Paula Ettelbricks "Since when is marriage a path to liberation". Where she devoted her life to the establishment and acceptance of alternative types of relationships, this movement further perpetuates a bourgeois idea about relationships and how to build them. Very shortsighted.
Yes, let's examine foreign countries and their policies in regards to marriage. Are you suggesting we follow the beliefs/laws in countries where men can treat their women like property? Where a woman raped by her husband is not protected? Where a woman raped by a man other than her husband is killed while the man is not? Which country and which definition of heterosexual marriage are we looking at?
I'll take your word for it. Been single for 51 years and no prospects on the horizon. Carry on.
(cont.) 1. Your argument that a child can clearly tell you what and whom they like doesn't mean they fully understand the entirety of a sexual relationship. Anyone can tell you who they are friends with or "like" and that something feels "okay" or "good". That does not equal consent under the law. That does not show an adult's grasp of the situation and what consequences could come of a relationship - whether it be with someone their own age or with a pedophile.
John Corvino is a superb never-seen-before mediatic phenomenon deserving a criterious sense of psychology and politics. His unparallelled expertise in sophistry is stounding. Sometimes he stands out as a stand-up comedian philosophing sophisms like a quick thought-juggler entertaining adolescent psyches, sometimes he captivates even his enemies with a sense of exquisite, shocking serenpendity. He reflects perfectly and brilliantly the core reality not only of the transmediatic society, but also of the post-most modern collective mind of masses and the core spirit of our times. His aura is magnetic and charismatic. He has designed himself to excel himself in such a most perfect balance between mediatic appeals and ideologies that seems pure artificial intelligence mirroring the matrix of the New Order.
Anatomy is something common between us and animals. It speaks for itself.
Can you tell me why I am drawn by professor John Corvino? I like to freeze his videos only to see his A.I.-like ventriloquist's phisiognomy.
He is... so surreal...!
Who besides only professor John Corvino represents so exactly the core of tertiary education and its ongoing now-future? He seems to be self-designed and designed for these times.
I can't believe this is happening! Tell me: Is this for real?
Hitler reborn? What would this look like today? Hitler would instantly discern and respond adequately to the present zeitgeist. He would not come again to kill like a Caesar. He would be much more like a developed emperor Constantine. No. He would be like John Corvino: redeemer, consoler, cajoler, sophistic, mass-oracular, transmediatically sex appealing, sexologist, physically fit, ventriloquistically eloquent, self-designed, yes-no philosophically ambiguous, people-oriented, charismatic, gay friendly, etc... John Corvino is the ideal antichrist because he alleges to be a follower of Christ while simultaneously he discontrues what Jesus preached, Jesus' God Father's values and Jesus' character by substituting the gospel for transmediatic mass ideologies. Ideologies have been largely used as a narcissistic ethical falacious embelishment make-up.
The luciferian spirit of Hitler would come not killing Jews and throwing christians into the furnaces. He would create such an ideological and political pressure that the social context would directly and indirectly force you to deny your faith to be politically correct and sociologically acceptable. The new present Collesium doesn't have real lions today. They have an invisible unimaginable power to make you compromise your faith with silence, omission, post-modern transmediatic ethical appropriacy, etc, by making you hide your witness of the Light of the gospel behind ideological gospel fashions, media-appealing gospel fashions, icons, symbols, popular world-friendly novelties. This is the 666. Alhtough the chip is also a yield of this commercial transmediatic ideological narcissistic anthropocentric culture worldwide. It appeals to the beast more than to the spirit in us. It has to do directly with an immediate fusing intimate contact with the earth and its material and physical commercial reality than something ethereal and transcendent, unless it is "indigo vogue" also appealing to mystical narcissism anyway.
John Corvino is an ideological pseudo-philophical superbly sophistic ventriloquist of the social mass media's ideo-narcissistic appeal, a stand-up comedian appealing to sarcasm within that mean and wicked corner of the minds of the masses, a quick thought-juggler entertaining adolescent psyches, a brainwasher, and that's something that translates exactly what education and politics these last days mean.
John Corvino is selling himself very well, and his price is 666... The beast emerges from the masses... People are buying his ideas euphorically. The zeitgeist of the times!
2 Tessalonians 2 and John 3: 19 to 21.
Homossexuality is an affective self-catering retro-projection. It is sexual self-idolatry just like narcissism, egocentrism, pride, hetero lust, greed, mediatic self-centeredness, flattering. Anatomy shows God's purpose and speaks for itself. From anti-homophobia campaign this gay ideology has reversed itself into gay indoctrination, explicitly. John Corvino will be America's y generation's priest, father, leader, mirror, oracle, god, pope, antichrist.
666 is a culture. It is an ideology. A chip is a product of this culture. What contaminates our souls come from within. So, these ideologies with strong political and social power will affect the order of our surroundings, of our society, up to a global crescendo of everything directly and indirectly involving our psychosocial relationship with the world and backwards the other way around. It is a type of meta-neo-nazism. The more governments empower televisive media, image media, commercial media, etc, the more they will be creating a geopolitical checkmate much more complex than simply a catch-22 situation. Transender spectrum politics coming from sociology in the U.S.A., for example, will create a political pole reversion scenario that will strengthen and attract conflictual issues related to Iran, for example, even empowering even more of communism as a link between China and Russia, even though these countries don't necessarily agree with these issues or ideologies, but they will take advantage of them to manipulate countries in South America. Islamic causes in the Trojan Horse of immigration will, for example, get agglutinated with gender causes, and this will consequently allow for alliance and allegiance to China and Russia. You are creating your own ruin pathway of self-destruction like, alegorically speaking, matter and antimatter meeting together. This will be God's perfect judgement last checkmate. You will harvest the consequences of your folly. In Brazil and Venezuela we already can see examples of Islamism in the package of immigration binding together with transgender causes, and guess which side of the world political pole it tips over to?
You Americans are working freely for the Triplet Russia-China-Islamic nations because you Americans create ideologies with a very high social appeal for the masses empowering them with an ideo-narcissistic self-worth that are indissociable from what is considered authentic socialism and communism here in South America and around the world because these basic political ideologies are subsequently faithful and allied to its origins, and its origins are from Russia and China. So the more desperate to gain public appeal by using gender and gay ideologies, you are working harder and freely for the polarization towards the Russia-China-Islamic nations triplet. The United States create, China copies, and that will be the practice off in the deal because it is a strict question of survivance more than peace and commercial agreements. They will not abide to what you sign up for a long time. You are investing in your own cultural and ethnic extinction.
You are empowering Iran-Russia-China trade and politics, and masonic articulations because in Latin America Islamists, socialists, communists, immigrants from Syria, Venezuala, Cuba, Colombia, etc, can't dissociate communism-socialism from the triplet that I have just mentioned. For them, it would be contradictory to call any socialist and communist cause legimate if any local president had any affinity with the U.S.A., except for the culture of American vanities and ideologies and mediatic products, which can be easily copied by China. Have you already forgotten that Venezuela and Mahmoud Ahmadinejab are in good terms? Have you already forgotten that Putin or China won't admit intervention in Venezuela? If you are a legimate sociologist-communist in these countries, you have to be agaisnt the U.S.A., otherwise you are out of the game of negotiations. Muslim, Arabic and Islamic immigrants tend to vote for people from their own culture in Europe and the U.S.A.. You are in darkness about the reality that gender and gay ideologies in South America is fusingly bound to immigration ideologies, green ideologies, communist ideologies, ideologies of humanization of animals, witchcraft ideologies, etc. They are inseparable. If you are for any of these ideologies, you can't be for the U.S.A. in practice. Only in words. These transmediatic narcissistic ideologies highly appeal to self-centeredness and are polarized for China-Iran-Russia masonically. If masonically, also commercially and politically. The U.S.A. creates the technological, mediatic, ideological culture that will certainly backlash like a witchcraft turning back to its witch.
I don't believe in one personal antichrist. But in a union of antichrists in a system called "the antichrist". The antichrist, the beast, the false ideological prophet, the son of lawlessness ( anarchy ) are systems and a generation. I see them very clearly and securely as a type of trinity of evil. You are walking to the abyss. Your effets cannot control La Palma volcano, the volcanos in Iceland, the volcanos around the world, the Cascadian Subduction Zone movement, the hot blobs, the super-bomb-fusing-cyclones, the sequence hurricanes, the pests, the meteors, and that meteor coming towards the earth. I will just wait and see your downfall and the World New Order fiasco and permanent collapse.
You hate my sincerity because you fear me or because subconsciosly you know deep inside I am being not only truthful and sincere? You sense something you are denying rationally. Ok then. Give it a try.
Luke 22:53: "... this is your hour, and the power of darkness.”
First, I think it's great what you're doing. I wanted you to know how much I laughed. When your partner played one of my favorite Celine songs. =)) I can totally relate. I'm the one that has a penchant for Celine Dion songs. :)
Same here. She is amazing!
What about calling it Type A Marriage or Type Red Marriage or something.
The verb "marry" and the noun "marriage" will still be in effect. Just different sub-types.
As South Park said in one of their episodes, "Instead of marriage, how about 'butt-buddies?" That's just slightly more insulting than we find people who want to debate terminology and the semantics of definitions.
I love you John Corvino. Your arguments are so well presented. Can I marry you?
That would be gay
LoL... his penchant for Celine Dion albums. I share your husband's fondness for Queen Celine. She is absolutely the best!
On a happier note, more marriage means more jobs for florists and wedding photographers.
My thoughts on the civil union idea is that they were still opposed to any form of recognition, and it hinges on the separate but equal principle, which in this country at least was illegal.
Thank you
I love you....... Like I love you..... You my life saver
Why put your happiness in someone else's hands? Being single is better.
How?
I'm trying to go through each video just to see what kinds of jokes he tries to do at the end.
Amen brutha!
thanks for bringing that to light. From now on i understand the flexibility of language and have reinforced my pro-same-sex 'marriage'. Though it may bug me in the same way that the word sociopath may bother me(just look up definition, I'm not implying anything), I will adjust. the only down side to this(which is also comical upside) is if to men slash women were to get married and they both had the same androgynous first name, like Taylor.
Where?
watch john's other video called "the definition of marriage"
Okay.
John and Kile gay-married in 2011, and they are caring for an adopted child, Peter.
Did I use the verb "gay-married" correctly?
Should I refer Kile as John's PARTNER or John's HUSBAND?
John Corvino is hot.
The word happy comes from the word happen.
In my opinion, any "marriage" not performed or approved by a religious group is a civil union, whether homosexual or heterosexual.
Also, just think of everytime the word 'marriage' comes up in conversation... now imagine a gay person would have to replace that with something like 'civil partnership'. E.g. "aw you remember the day we got civil partnered?", or even worse.. "Will you civil partner me?". That just sounds horrible. Let's not forget about the weight the word "marriage" carries in a person's mind. Let's try to remember this is not just a legal contract, it's about people's feelings first of all.
Marriage is a covenant with God
Its 1919 and i say yes yes yes
I mean getting united
I'm bi and I'm more in support of civil unions than full "marriage". Now I know this is politically unpopular and no I do not hate myself, I accept the fact that I'm bi and I can be in a long term monogamous relationship, it's just that I believe more in Justice than "Equality". We are different compared to straight people and I think we need to acknowledge that. Marriage as a social institution is part of a heterosexual culture. What's wrong with civil unions which promise the same benefits of marriage to LGBT people.
Mashi920
Civil union and domestic partnerships are a second-class status, and
when people take on all the commitments and responsibilities of marriage
they should not be treated like second-class citizens. While these
legal mechanisms provide a measure of protections to same-sex couples
and their families, they are no substitute for the full measure of
respect, clarity, security and responsibilities of marriage itself. They
exclude people from marriage and create an unfair system that often
does not work in emergency situations when people need it most.
The only way to achieve equality is to provide the freedom to marry for all committed couples.
Despite their inequality, some states are creating these legal
mechanisms to recognize gay couples. While this does show progress and
provides same-sex couples with important responsibilities and
protections previously withheld, we also see the repeal of these laws
when the freedom to marry is achieved because they are found unequal to
marriage.
How, exactly, are "we" different than straight people? Speak for yourself and only yourself please.
We are different compared to straight people and I think we need to acknowledge that. Yes the purpose of a gay union is still love and commitment however we have to acknowledge that the gender is the same in the case of gay marraige/ unions. Marriage as a social institution is part of a heterosexual culture. Anthropology, sociology all can confirm that the institution of marriage was born out of heterosexual lifestyles,, centered around the other social institution like the traditional family. And thus marriage is (or was) defined as the union of one man and one women. Gay marriage is thus an oxymoron. It contradicts the very definition of marriage and its purpose.
I am a conservative as I don't believe you should just go around changing definitions each time you fancy. Because in principle this can lead to a slippery slope. And lead to a society we barely recognize. Leave the word "marraige" alone for those who want it. However I am all for granting LGBT people the same rights to participate in social life as straight couples through civil unions. This is where I deviate from the religious nuts of the conservatives. I'm not religious at all. And my argument for standing by a civil union solution aren't based on religion at all. Its based on political science. Its based on avoiding conflict between social groups.
The heterosexual couples who want the word marriage to remain an institution that is reserved to a man and a women should be able to stand by that belief. You as an LGBT individual have no right to tell them what they can or can't believe. And if you demand gay marraige or nothing, then you are advocating a form of coercion, your forcing people to change the definition to broaden it to include things it wasn't meant to include. However create a separate social institution, namely civil unions/ domestic partnerships to provide LGBT people with the same rights as marriage. Now that doesn't infringe on anyone's rights. And its a more balanced solution of compromise. Each side loses and gain something of value.
Now on to the "second class status" argument. Its not second class status. Your case of "sloppy seconds" is just a fuss over words through that lens. However if you aren't given the same rights as in a marraige through a civil union then I do understand why you would want full marraige. There are many words in the English language that refer to the same thing but have different words. Also; the case of segregation of black people in US history isn't completely synonymous to me with your claim that civil union's are a; "separate but equal" doctrine. Black people were segregated across many aspects of social life. They rode on the back of public busses, they used separate wash rooms, they were required to attend different schools. Thus even if LGBT individuals were required to take the offer of civil unions; you still wouldn't be required to attend different schools or go to separate wash rooms! No one's asking that of you! All that is going to be different under civil unions is the name of the union which is recognized by the state (assuming rights and else being equal).
Just let the word marriage be reserved to opposite sex unions. It doesn't take any rights away from anyone, it's simply in the interest of respecting the conservative view of preserving their own social institutions and values they hold. But that doesn't mean they too can infringe on the rights of others; which is why civil unions should have the same rights as a marriage including immigration, asylum and the such. I don't want kids myself as a gay person but for the purpose of legislation, civil unions should grant the same rights as a marriage. Assuming the only thing that's different is the word of the union recognized by the state; I think that LGBT people would be more concerned about rights than a word. They still get to live life to the fullest, they shouldn't be discriminated in the workplace, they should have the opportunities to live the social life, the "good life" as it's called in politics. "Respect and empathize with the other person's view as long as it doesn't infringe on your own rights.
Civil Union / Civil Partnership is a public outing since only same sex couples can enter into such contracts. This could potentially be a problem due to privacy and possible discrimination issues. There is also "portability" issues, marriages are respected everywhere on the planet but civil unions/partnership are not recognised in many countries. Since Marriage Equality became legal in Great Britain civil partnership became the least preferred option.
***** They ARE different to straight couples. It's two men (or women) as opposed to one man and one woman. Why does that have to be assumed a bad thing? Sounds to me LGB people want to hide the fact that their gay by getting the word marriage. Just accept the difference but I'm all for having the same legal rights as a straight couple. The word "civil union" does the partnership justice. Different types of partnership different words to identify them. What's wrong with that? Thats better Instead of using the word marriage for something it wasn't initially intended for (to me that seems more awkward as well as a bit of an oxymoron).
Mashi920 "Different types of partnership different words to identify them."
There is no difference between the love and commitment that a gay couple has and the love an commitment that a straight couple
has.
I almost have to thumb-down for making me listen to that music at the end!! :)
Well you see, marriage predates both christianity in specific and religion in particular. Gays are not "bullying" christians rather than lobbying politicians.
Why do we want to get married? Did you you even watch the video?
I'm not denying anything; and I'd be surprised if polygamy or bestiality had a massive groundswell of support for their legalisation. But you know, I'm not going to argue against this point, because the video I mentioned before argues against it far, far better than I can. If that logic that Prof. Corvino puts forward does not satisfy, then I doubt anything else will.
You still haven't answered my question: why is homosexual marriage 'messed up' as you put it? What precisely is 'messed up'?
You need to be in a good marriage for it to be true.
Love you John! I'm from Pakistan 🙌🏼🌹
Run for President, please.
Wish he mentioned how marriage did not originate from Christianity and that many religions/sects that have marriage ceremonies do believe in same-sex marriage.
Ha. I'm going for civil union. I'm strait and I don't want it in the ass financially.
or if you want to get married go to someone's backyard, or a boat, or rent a hall, ..... Or maybe we should let the government do civil unions only and the people who were legally joined by the government can call it marriage and fore go the ceremony in the church, hall, backyard, or boat altogether if that is what they want. Are you saying that the people who don't have a marriage ceremony either religious or otherwise aren't actually married if they have only a legal civil union?
You say that now- but once you let this go people will question and argue that those other things can or do involve mutual consent, and other people who don't stand on moralistic foundation will find the logic or justification in it and support it for equality and because it wont hurt them as individuals..
yes there are straight immoral ppl everywhere, but straight marriage in itself isn't immoral, unlike gay marriage which is and is considered so in most cultures.
Have a watch of the "If Gay Marriage, Why Not Polygamy" video on this playlist. Your argument does not follow.
How is straight marriage moral but gay marriage is not? What's the difference?
Wow !!!! Please. In spanish we need you in latín america
1. Heterosexuality being good does not preclude homosexuality from being good.
2. Same answer.
3. I don't live in the US, I live in Australia. And I have asked many people here; they have no problem with it. I have met gay couples, I have met straight couples that have no problem with gays being married.
Disagree. Fact is, there IS a difference between M/F, M/M, and F/F type family units.
I just want clear terminology for these family units.
I don't care if you differentiate them with "Civil Union" or "Type A/B/C Marriage" or "Type Red/Green/Yellow Marriage".
Just DEFINE THE TERMS.
Plus, there is a lack of agreement on whether I should call a person "John's PARTNER" or "John's HUSBAND".
You've got to have a clearly defined set of vocabularies for people to recognize your relationship.
Marriage
Watch John's commentary on the word "bigot".
I can't help but think of that episode of South Park... "You're not... 'married,' you're 'butt-buddies!'" That's basically the situation in a nutshell. People are just fucking stupid sometimes.
Haha near the end, it sounded like you were about to quote "all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others." Wouldn't fit properly though. Oh well, random triggered thoughts =.="
I think the best thing would be to get the government out of marriage altogether. Just give everyone, straight or gay civil unions, and beyond that, if you want to marry, go to a church or place of worship.
I come from a far East non-Christian culture, and I can reassure you that marriage is NOT a RELIGIOUS tradition. It is a SOCIAL tradition.
Marriage is a covenant with God
it's like saying that only reason that people do not want to call a blind person "a painter" is that they do not want blind people to be mmbers of society :)))
Marriage is, by definition, lgal union of man and a woman.
Why do you want to change definition? Why wouldn't you just pick new name fo new sort of union?
If marriage is a union between you,her and god.....WHY EVEN BOTHER WITH GETTING A LICENSE AT THE COURTHOUSE?.....Confess your love and keep it moving...when it doesn't work.....GET THE HELL OUT OF IT....FREE AND CLEAR!
sorry you didn't get to see my later comment, I eventually recanted, but that doesn't mean anyone with the same ideals can't learn from your argument. Honestly since then I haven't set any definitions in stone. so, yeah pro-gay-MARRIAGE over here!
How about... I don't know... Gay marriage?
Well that sounds perfectly fine to me. But isn't that what they are doing by calling it "gay marriage"? Thing is, you see, in the long run I think all of these distinctions we make among ourselves are simply gonna rip society apart. Like, just cuz I am gay should I put the word "gay" in front of everything i do? Like gay-job, gay-school...gay-life?? Sometimes it feels like straight ppl want us to walk around with a label on our forehead, just to make sure they can spot us wherever we are... =/
Many people get married without religious involvement.
its not called marriage dumbass, THERE IS NO RELIGIOUS INVOLVEMENT
@epeo22
If theres a religion u dont like dont be apart of it simple. If a religion says it doesnt agree to homosexuality then dont be apart of it. Im not straight because my religion tells me i cant be gay im straight coz i choose to be, i wasnt born straight. I grew up and found i was attracted to the opposite sex. My friend who is gay found he was attracted to the same sex. I dont hate him and i dont have any problems with him. He has never said that he was born gay.
What if it’s true?
Pedophilia: A child is not legally considered able to give consent to sexual behaviour. A homosexual relationship between two adults results from consent between both parties.
Bestiality: An animal cannot give explicit consent to sexual behaviour with a human. Two gay adult humans can give explicit consent.
"Marriage equality" is homophobic because it is premised upon the notion that opposite- and same-sex couples are basically the same and that therefore sexual difference does not matter. But sexual difference does matter for identities premised upon sexual orientation. Otherwise, the Lesbian and gay (not to mention the heterosexual) identities are unintelligible. Thus, "marriage equality" by trivializing sexual difference erases gay and Lesbian identities and is ipso facto homophobic.
That’s stupid and wrong
hey... that is happier lol
1. Whom a child likes translates to who they want a consenting sexual relationship with? No, just. . . no.
2. Doesn't mean they'll succeed, and they do that without gay marriage being legalised. They aren't the same thing, and legalising one does not mean the other will be.
I did answer them. A child cannot give consent, and neither can an animal. Having a sexual relationship with someone/thing that cannot explicitly consent to sexual activity strikes me as wrong.
Why? Because, by allowing homosexuality, all other sexualities will come up and use the same arguments and claim that allowing one thing and not the other/rest is unfair/wrong- which it honestly would be.
You are denying it, but if you take any time to seriously think about it- allowing homosexuality is no different than allowing the others. They are all messed up for many of the same reasons.
Just because you can logically argue or justify something, doesn't mean it should be accepted.
GBU
Celine Dion?! Ok now you make push the stop bottom.
Reality or Joke?
His partner loves Queen Celine and I think he is irritated by that obsession. Lol
The ONLY reason that people don't want gay couples to call it "marriage" is that they don't want gay people to be considered equal members of society. If that isn't bigotry, I'm not sure what is. It is also the antithesis of what it means to be an American.
That’s not the reason
1. Laws can be changed, children clearly can tell you what and whom they like. People will stand on this and do everything you currently are doing to prove homosexuality include using the legalization of homosexuality as due cause to allow this.
2. Though not as clear, people can and will do everything in their power to test and prove that animals can make the decision to freely mate w/ anything and anyone they choose.
You didn't even answer my question- what's WRONG with those two things?
I've watched ALL his videos and none of them satisfy my qualms against gay marriage. ESPECIALLY that one- literally, if gay marriage is fine than try to explain what makes all other forms of non heterosexuality NOT okay, and before you say any of them think of whether or not people can or will find a way to argue against that in FAVOR of those other sexualities. Cause I bet you, most of your arguments against them apply against homosexuality exactly the same.
Thanks for this explanation. To me it's the legal things that justify it and mean that denying it would mean discrimination. Especially the visiting in hospital, being the first person heard for the funeral arrangements, that's serious stuff, it matters.
I do think it would be ok if the term 'marriage for the state' would become 'Civil Unions', for all.
I know a man, married to another man, they adopted a child, that turned out to be and stay heterosexual. The man is a doctor.
Why should a gay marriage advocate explain why polygamy, or anything else that isn't gay marriage is acceptable? That's not their argument. Their argument is about allowing gay marriage. People advocating polygamy can make their own argument and put forward their own logic. Allowing one does not logically follow to allowing the other.
Also, you didn't answer my question. How is straight marriage moral where gay marriage is not?
"Segregation: The action or state of setting someone or something apart from other people or things." The word is sometimes used in other context that being physically separated, in this case I was talking about having different laws for people depending on their sexual orientation. Maybe using another word would be better, sorry, english is not my mother language.
And anyhow, while it's not really relevant to my point, yes, there are many regions in the world where gays are not allowed.
Really? You are going to dismiss something and walk away just because you find it disgusting? OMG you know what? That's sorta like how people have looked at homosexuality for an incredible amount of time- but here we are, actually considering it.
You wonder why people get so over-the top angry and disgusted at gay marriage and are against it completely? Cause you just tapped into the true understanding of the other side.
and how long has religion been pushing in everyones face how BAD it is to be gay and how being a christian is the only way to live?! well guess what, people are FINALLY pushing back with real force cause you DON'T have to be a christian or religious at all to be a good persona and there's nothing wrong with sexual diversity, EVERYBODY is different and now its time people realized that and learn to understand each others difference and live with them
What about Heaven?
btw - a lots of bullshit in this video. I laughed a lot :)))
Dude, marriage is not good for relationships. Most marriages fail in colossal and destructive fashion. Families with children are literally ripped to shreds in the process. Men are separated from assets, children and financially annihilated. And the cycle continues with the children, who grow up believing this is "normal" affecting their own relationships. Some marriages do not fail, but those numbers are dwindling. I'm very pleased that gays and lesbians have the same rights to marry. But honestly, I question the wisdom of anyone getting married gay or straight today. Gays used to be the happiest, most self-fulfilled people I knew. With straights (wisely) not marrying anymore because of the risks of obliteration and misery, now the only people left who are going to be happy will be divorce attorneys. In fact, they're probably all licking their chops right now saying "fresh meat".
Your stance is closer to the pro-gay marriage than the other side. Indeed, if you got what you wanted, there would be equality between homosexuals and non-homosexuals. Marriage is not the only problem here, it's the segregation.
You do realize you just defined how pedophilia typically works? They target children who they can build trust with and exploit that trust. Does that make it any less disgusting, that the child trusted them? No, it makes it doubly foul. To take an innocent child and warp their beliefs and trusts for your own sick perversion has NOTHING to do with the definition of a consensual sexual relationship. "Same goes w/ ppl on animal and the such." WHAT?! WHAT?!
2. "Thought not as clear"? Not as clear as what? Saran Wrap?! You can't seriously be trying to argue that homosexuality is akin to bestiality because some people "can and will do everything in their power" to prove that the creature whom they are sexually abusing is consenting to said abuse. I would say your logic is flawed - but WHAT LOGIC WAS USED? I cannot find any.
Huh? What does that have to do with communism?
"Why do you want to change definition? Why wouldn't you just pick new name fo new sort of union?"
2:47
So it's not about logic, or slippery slopes, or anything else like that, then? You're just disgusted by it?
Well, why didn't you say so? That's fine, and I'm not gonna judge you on it Don't have gay marriage, and we can get along. I don't see the problem.
6% are GLBT. I got that number in college. When I say 10 to 100% are straight I mean maybe they are straight but they are quietly cross dressing or they are a straight male but they are feminine and like to oogle at the same sex. Maybe not such a good choice of words. But don't call me stupid for having an opinion. I am open minded and I am just saying I would have voted in favor of it as would most of us if it just had a different name like a union. That is the ONLY reason I voted against it.
if they legalize gay marrage wouldn't lawyers be getting more jobs, because statisticly speaking 50% of all marriages end up in divorce sooo... do the math. moe money (no i'm not black)... (not that there's anything wrong with it)
This doesn't make any sense.
And when I say 10 to 100% Christian I mean they go to church but they are not totally into it blah blah blah.
First off, I'm calling the bs card on your assumption. I'm not gay, I'm a supporter of gay rights. Wait 50 years and see what people think about the current thoughts on homosexuality. You'll feel like a fool then.
Heterosexuality's morality can be determined in a multitude of ways.
1. Look at the many countries and human civilizations around the world and find out their view. (Many would say Heterosexuality is good, especially in comparison to other sexualities)
2. Look through the histories of many nations, many (particularly those still around and/or generally successful ones) would also be in favor of heterosexuality.
3. Just be real and go around asking people all over the US - see what they tell you.
Gays
Bullsheet !
Like what?
Trevor, how about you stop wasting your time here?
Meh. This is one of the weaker arguments for allowing same sex marriage. People don't have to be married in order to care for each other, and people who never marry have relationships that are just as long lasting as people who marry. You also don't need someone to take care of you. The aspect he should be focusing on and being more strident about is the legal one. Leave the rest out, or it starts to sound just like the arguments the religious bigots make about people who live in sin.
how boring!:D
Marriage is good for people? Total crap.
I'm sure if someone wanted to have said relationship with a child, and if the child knew and trusted them they could build a convincing relationship- the only thing that would stop people from accepting the most convincing case of pedophilic relationship is the fact that they just find it as an abomination.
Same goes w/ ppl on animal and the such.
Look, the fact is we will clearly never agree on this subject. I say there is no point in continuing this for it will gain us nothing.
Im sure you can also expain away beastiality
this guy mind is set to his own way..
our comments will not change him but our prayers will
thanks for coming out now I know who to pray for
Yes, having sex with animals that are unable to consent is exactly the same as having consentual relationships with adults we love. If you spent less time praying maybe you'd be able to think for yourself.
Expect that beastiality is a paraphilia not a sexual orientation, and it’s a crime. No comparable
Traditionally, marriage was the law stepping in and saying, "if you're going to have sex, you'll need to commit, under oath and by law, that you'll stay together through thick and thin for the sake of the children you'll inevitably create (before birth control). it's why adultery is a sin and used to be punishable by death, and why a bastard was ostracized and was not legally eligible to inheritance from the illegitimate father. A civil union is just two people who want similar benefits without the force of law demanding that they stay together for the sake of the children. It used to be very very difficult or impossible to get a divorce. But it's relatively easy to get a separation from a civil union. There's no reason to go through the trouble of getting married if you don't plan on having kids. The fact that marriage is taken so lightly these days is why so many kids grow up in single parent households; and we all know the horrific string of negative effects that has on our culture as a whole.