track355 Because public ignorance of how well LGBT people raise children is vast and easy to exploit. Its not about the quality of the arguments, its about the lack of information in the people who hear them. Religious fascists have built power structures on that for thousands of years, so naturally thanks to global digital communication and distribution of facts, evidence and empirical data, their power is dying.
track355 I'm kind of surprised that I'm the only one who has responded in this manner. You say, "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" How does this involve children?" Well, a man and a woman is the only way to make a child.
Unfortunately, Jon didn't have any more candy to give out, so he slipped a righteous takedown into the kid's bag. --Dave, and yeah, that bowtie needs propellor capacity, stat!
She has to survive for 7 more months. It would have been 4 years 7 months until the coronavirus hits. Trump's incompetence in dealing with something that isn't self-imposed is honestly actually hurting his chances.
I myself am bi-sexual, and my philosophy is this: Our country was made according to three Inalienable Rights: Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness. My, or anyone else's, sexuality does not limit any of those rights from you. However, when you discriminate against us because of our sexual orientation, you are limited one, if not all, of those rights from us. To be clear, I am not someone who forces my belief on others, that would be wrong. The reason I speak out so often is because America is a Democratic Republic where the people hold the power, and a major asset we have to exercise that power is our voice. If we don't peacefully speak our mind, we can't expect our politicians to so what we want them to do.
+QuikVidGuy And its's so fucking ridiculous. Do dogs have a legal standing? Can they sign a marriage contract? Like, stop pulling random bs arguments out of your ass, and just admit you're prejudiced.
Besides: if dogs were sentient, they'd be MUCH nicer than we are. Heck, they already are, they're just not in positions of power (and before you point out how lots of them bark, and some of them might even bite, here's a point to consider: if they were sentient, they'd be able to know and understand that we don't like and/or are annoyed by the first behavior, and that the second behavior is something that they should never do, except in self-defense).
Justin Cate There is one that although isen't strong enough to deny them the right it is important enough to discuss. The children. I am not saying gay people will not make good parents but the fact of the matter is other kids are brutal. I remember kids being bullied for the smallest differences. Also a few people raised by gay parents have stepped forward and said that their child hood was significantly more difficult because of haveing two moms or two dads.
***** "Their argument is, it should go through the voters and not the Supreme Court. Which I would say is a fair argument." So, should things like the intergration of races in school should have been voted upon by normal citizens back then and not "imposed" on by the courts? It ain't a fair argument when you replace this issue with other issues the courts had discided upon back then.
***** You can still fuck people over in a mass vote, and keep them fucked over. The idea you are pushing is an Appeal to Popularity fallacy. If something is popular amoung a large group of people, it must be right or true way of doing things. The thing is, that's *not always* the case. It's popular to install the Ten Commandments as laws of the land, does that mean it's the right thing to do in the land of "seperation of church and state" and "religious freedom?"
***** Polygamy IS the traditional form of marriage, so the 1 man,1 woman argument is just nonsense. If Christians would actually read their bible, instead of bashing people with it, then they would know that.
I love how Chief Justice John Roberts qualified his statement "prior to a dozen years ago." Wouldn't it be great if we could do that? I mean, every definition of marriage before 100 C.E. said polygamy is okay. So I guess having a second wife should be legal.
"Only a dozen years ago blacks were all defined as slaves, and freedom was only something for hetero white men, so we... we can't just go around redefining words. I mean, the dictionary is far more important than the Constitution, or people..."
Know what's awesome? The fact that most of the comments here are talking about how stupid the anti-gay marriage argument is. When even the internet is becoming open minded, you know it's time to change toward that openness.
Okay. Most of the people I've talked to who support the "one man, one woman" argument are very religious. Do these people not remember that the bible has other types of marriage? That many religions allow a man and many wives? That Islam allows a man and a female child? Marriage is different all over the world, and changing all the time. The one man, one woman argument is the biggest load of bullshit I've ever heard. You know what I think? I think that adults should be able to decide for themselves who they love. If all parties involved in the relationship are consenting adults and the relationship is not abusive, why should we stop love?
This is why I support a more-than-two marriage. It two consenting women and a consenting man, two consenting men and a consenting woman, or any other combination of men, women, hermaphrodites, WHATEVER, want to get married, then it is the LAND of the FUCKING FREE that should allow that. It's stupid how hypocritical that slogan is "land of the free"
+nerdatheart94 It's the WORD OF GOD!... As defined by the past few hundred years of extreme Euronationalist revisionism, cultural translation and deep-seated insecurities among competing groups.
This is my one argument I always gave to the whole same sex marriage argument...."Let them get married and find out that it's a heartless, evil, soulless institution like the rest of the world....The hard way!"
My question to those anti-gay marriage people is this, 'If a man living down the street were to marry another man, will you miraculously die of a heart attack?' What I'm saying is... why should gay-marriage be an issue when we have more important things to worry about... like economy stagnation, war in the Middle East, maintaining world peace.
I come from Teh Future to comment! Aaaaand no, unfortunately, those a-g-m people did not in fact die of heart attacks. They're still around, but most of them have gone really quiet on the subject. Possibly because it turns out it really DIDN'T make their own marriages any more of a mockery and sham than they already were, and didn't suddenly draw otherwise-God-fearing folks into unwanted gay marrige... just into wanted ones. Meanwhile, weather of almost Biblical proportions is responding to America's first orange President's office residency. --Dave, alas, Puerto Rico, we hardly knew ye
The way the extreme anti-marriage equality lobby carry on, they would have you believe that all those issues are _caused_ by accepting gay marriage. At best, according to them, it's a sign of our "liberal" mentalities travelling so far from God's word that we no longer know what's right and therefore allow all sorts of evil to happen. At worst, God is literally crying and is trying to destroy us because we accept gays.
A true conservative doesn't want a government telling him who or why he can't marry. It doesn't matter if you want kids. If you want to marry someone, you have the liberty and freedom to do so. The government, serving the people, has no more right to define marriage than they do to define what food you are allowed to eat. I say allowed, fully aware of the fda, because there are many unhealthy foods on the market, yet we have the freedom to choose to eat from them. Let them marry. If it's not what you consider as marriage, then consider it a different type of marriage. It doesn't matter. A marriage is a union. A civil union is a marriage. Why do we still discuss this?
/I/ could be the one getting things mixed up a little, but: are you sure you don't mean libertarians? (Political ideology, like conservatism or progressive, not political party, like Democrat or Republican or Libertarian or Green.)
This is 2018 calling. ... can we pretty please go back to it being as sane and reasonable and happy as "Arrrrrw"? --Dave, srsly, past you would not BELIEVE what's been happening
I'm.... I'm sorry, but.... did John Roberts just say "People feel very differently about something if they have a chance to vote on it than if it's imposed on them by the courts"?????? Had he not heard of ABORTION in April of 2015??? The irony is so thick here that it's......................I can't even think of anything. Jesus.
To paraphrase the point of a tedx talk I just enjoyed watching, government should just get the hell out of marriage altogether. As long as there's informed consent, let people form whatever family structures they want to form.
Mark Love Government through legislation is still necessary to ensure the contractual obligations and rights involved in the "Marriage". I agree it should have the same treatment as a business agreement.
its not that easy. back in 2004 Hillary was shitting on gays asking for the right to marry, as at the time most states did not allow gays to marry. a natural, much more nationally accepted opposition came together and have been fighting till today. Logically marriage isnt a thing the government wants involvement in, but they have to when it involves a lersons rights, such as a gay mans right to marry.
The problem is, that these "family structures" often are tied to legal concepts where the state has something to say. Like tax-paying. So, there are reasons, why the government is involved. I'm not necessarily saying, that it SHOULD be involved. I'm just saying that there are a lot of things that we have to consider, if we want to make "marriage" an entirely personal (and essentially symbolic) matter.
Please put an asterix at the end stating that the people involved _have_ to be adults, please! (Also a thing that they shouldn't be intoxicated at the time etc, stuff that impaires judgement, you know, those kind of things)
It's a terrifying concept that the country should vote on providing equal rights to it's own citizens. The entire idea of trying to put a label on the way people choose to make their personal relationships (marriage), then point at that label to declare your defending it's definition, is one huge straw man. If it's the home of the free, then we're all free together, and consenting adults can marry whomever they please. It's up to you to make these decisions for yourself, but not for anyone else. That's the definition of liberty, and it's what this country has always strived to be like. I pray to God for equal rights under the law for all of the lovers in this world
This was great, but it would have been 10 times better if they used the "real dogs, fake paws" footage from Last Week Tonight with John Oliver. That improves any supereme court argument
How did we get stupid people in the Supreme Court? Oh right, Bush was in charge and appointed religious republicans..... Please vote, we deserve better, much better.
***** I'm sorry there was logic to debate? Let's start over. Give me your stance. Do you think gay marriage should be legal? I'm not sure if it's a "yes and this stuff should be too" or if it's a "no because this stuff isn't." If you'd be so kind, please clarify.
***** Incest being nasty isn't the issue, what happens when a child is born of it is. I agree that it is disgusting to me, but I would assume it is so because of my culture more than anything. Anything other than the health issues is irrelevant to me when considering laws about it. I've always thought the anti polygamy arguments were stupid. If you can call them arguments. It's just the same bigoted misguided nonsense that people use against gay marriage.
4:47 for the person who works in the Greko-Roman building it's kinda ironic that he forgot that the greeks and romans were not exacty just marying woman either.
I live in Vermont. WE didn't need any court ruling...WE just went ahead and WE were the FIRST State to grant Marriage Equality by Legislative Action and was signed by OUR Governor into OUR Law. By the way, I testified at the Senate Committee Hearing on this...I asked, at the end of my 2 minutes (all the time we were each allotted), "What are you afraid of?" Apparently nothing as the Committee recommended unanimously to bring the Bill to the Floor. WE made History.
Actually, Vermont was six years behind Massachusetts. Vermont was 2009, Massachusetts was 2003. Vermont is the fourth state, not the first, to grant same sex marriage.
Quick question what the hell did he mean by a group of Two Men and two women getting married like the four of them marry each other because I think that's legal in Utah either that or sister wife is something a lot weirder than I thought it was and how the hell was that made legal before same-sex marriage
The notorious RBG is definitely my second favorite Justice. She's right behind Scalia, speaking of him, I wonder what he's been saying. I'll check online, I can probably find the transcript and audio file.
Mohamed Musse FUCK THESE TYRANTS ! GUYS WE HAVE TI GO OUT A BECOME EXTREMLY POLITICALY ACTIVE FROM THIS ELECTION CYCLE AND ON ! AND KEEP CALLIN CONGRESS AN LETTING THEM KNOW TO STOP THIS SHIT !!!! DISARM THE PEOPLE AN THE EARTH WILL BE ENSLAVED AND TYRANNY WILL REIGN EXTRA HEAVY ILLEGAL SHIT LIKE CHILDREN SERVICES TAKING YOUR BABY'S WITHOUT THE NEED FOR TRIAL AND KEEP THEM AN JUST FUCKING U OVER WHEN EVERY "PEACE" OFFICER KNOWS THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH EVIL !!!! WE MUST BE READY TO SHOOT TO KILL ANY BRAINWASHED PERSON WHO BREAKS INTO OUR HOUSE WHEN WE DONE NOTHING WRONG TO DISARM US BECAUSE OF THE CHEMICALS IN THE FOOD WATER AND AIR TO POSION US AND THE PHYSCO DRUGS PERSCRIBED FOR THOSE AILMENTS THAT MAKE SHIT WAY WORSE !!!!! I DON'T CARE IF THEY ARE LEO'S U CROSS THE ULTIMATE LINE WHEN U TRY TO DISARM THE PEOPLE !!!!!! OVER MY COLD DEAD HANDS AND U BETTER NOT FUCKING TAKE THAT STATEMENT LIGHTLY!!!!!!
HipsterShiningArmor similarly Lesbian women can also have children via invetro. But you know that is logical and factual, therefore can't be a part of the anti-marriage equality thought process.
DarkKuno Yes, lesbian women can also have children, whether via in vitro fertilization or good old fashioned penis in vagina fertilization. Anti-gay marriage people also forget that gay people aren't incapable of sex with the opposite gender, they're just generally uninterested in it.
HipsterShiningArmor Don't forget. They expanded their "think of the children" argument by saying the legalization of gay marriage would account for 900,000 abortions ... within the next twenty years I think it was, as well as lower birthrates. Seriously. where the f*ck did that number come from?
Fireshadow And how can a same-sex couple get pregnant in the first place in such circumstances that would make an abortion necessary? If anything, the opposite is true.
the govt has no business being involved in marriage at all; consenting adults should be able to enter into whatever contracts they want, and the government shouldn't be giving special privileges to anybody because of their status
Although I am starkly in favor of marriage equality, the point Chief Justice Roberts makes at 2:45 is reasonable. We have seen public perception change drastically as a result of the national conversation on marriage equality. Even if it becomes legal, many people will face discrimination from the prejudiced. Now, I don't think this is enough to sway the decision, certainly, but it is important to keep the conversation going to hopefully enact more positive change.
do couples require a license after all the manner which we use to construct laws requires respect for substance of equality of different sex marriage to marry without that license as well being that their counter parts are not required to do this
I say again, who imagines s/he has the right to deny a loving couple a formal ceremony in a churchful of witnesses, a Justice, a vicar and a Registrar? I don't. Do you?
John Benton Maybe not a church, that would infringe on the rights of that organization. I'm gay and I wouldn't support that. It would be akin to allowing the WBC to protest me in my home.
Here's a question aimed at the ones chanting "slippery slope!". Who the fuck cares if a polygamous couple wants to marry? Or if a guy wants to marry his toaster? It doesn't affect you! So long as someone isn't being hurt or coerced into something, marriage should be open to choice.
+Doug Holmes well, marriage contains some privileges, so i wouldn't grant those to a toaster. but you are right, if two humans marry and take responsibility for each other, sex shouldn't matter.
To show just how idiotic (no to mention ahistorical) the “marriage is based on procreation” argument is, here’s a real story: A man and a woman married. They had children, raised them, but then divorced. Some years later, they got back together and decided to (re)marry at a time when the woman was clearly beyond the child bearing age. A strict application of the procreation argument would make their first marriage valid, but the second one invalid. The fact is that marriage has never been about procreation, but about property (pooling, sharing and inheritance), as well as social and legal recognition and status.
I love this . The first time I ever heard from inside the SC.. I always Wondered if they really did work in there. But hey I'm not gay. But I believe these people should have the same rights as others do. So to that I leave. Enjoy get marry love and die well. But remember always fight. Cause as fast as they give to you. They can take it away. And they are going to try..
The Courts should back out of marrying people altogether. If you want to have a wedding, have one. Should you desire to qualify that relationship further, record a domestic corporation; much more detailed than the quasi-religious jabber of civil marriages, full of hearts and roses, signifying nothing. That's why divorces are so messy. Corporations list things like assets and their disposal upon dissolution, all down in black and white. Many would second think the whole adventure when faced with the reality of many marriages. Again, the only kind of relationships of the couple variety the government should recognize are civil unions.
I love Jon, and all his counter-arguments are sound. However, if the answer to this question is dependent on Justice Kennedy, then I highly doubt states will be required to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. In US v Windsor opinion, he practically affirmed that the power to regulate domestic relationships is reserved to the sovereignty of the states. However, there might be an argument for requiring the recognition of other states' gay marriages under the Full Faith and Credit Clause.
5:21 this piece of work is really trying to argue that gays don't raise children? there's this thing called adoption, and frankly we need more of it to happen because there are so many kids who need loving families.
