I grew up with 12 years of Catholic education. The Catholic Church teaches that marriage is an institution created for the main purpose of having children. Now, I understand Pat isn't Catholic, but he uses the same reasoning - that marriage, under God's law, is defined as being between a man and a woman for the purpose of humans being able to procreate.

Going along with that "logic," people who are infertile should not be able to get married (which Catholicism also teaches) because they are incapable of having children - no matter how much the couple loves each other. They must accept that it's "God's plan" for them.

Now, if Pat wants to stick by God's law, he should also be supporting laws to stop infertile people from marrying each other. Gee, I wonder how well that would go over. I doubt he would do that, but if he didn't, what religious reasoning could he use for their marriage being legitimate? Only that they love each other - but admitting that as a basis for marriage would make his lame argument against gay marriage crumble.

He also says "I believe that the unity we had is gone. The United States, as a community, is dissolving." Is he saying that marriage is what unites us as Americans? First of all, that doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Second of all, if it were true, I guess the fact that 50% of marriages in the U.S. end in divorce means our "unity" as Americans was pretty shitty to begin with.

That's kind of a straw man argument. There are all kinds of fertility treatments, and new ones come along all the time, and we're almost at a point where a completely infertile couple could produce a genetic offspring (through surrogates, but genetically theirs). A more valid argument is that since women can produce children simply by going to a sperm bank, why is Pat Buchanan against homosexual women getting married? With sperm easily available, they're even more fertile than a heterosexual couple.

In California, where domestic partnerships by law grant all the same rights as marriages, the gay marriage debate is simply a culture war over a word. Both sides of the argument seem petty to me, one for having couple's rights but wanting a different name for it, and the other for exaggerating the effects of redefining a word.

Government should stay the fuck out of it.

Neither create a law for or against any way or the other, marriage is an issue between a couple and their church. If their church wants to marry them, then the govt. has no say in it.

They have to recognize it is a legal relationship, regardless if its a man / woman, or man/man, or woman/woman.

Also, it isn't an aberration of nature, homosexuality is rife in the natural world.
Lions, tigers, all of the ape/chimp/monkey species, mice..etc.

Nothing happened in Massachusetts?

Catholic Charities has ceased placing children for adoption, as a result of legalizing gay marriage.

Say what you will about the debate, but say it to the kids that aren't going to find families because of political correctness.

Personally, in California there will be a measure saying that government will not legislate marriage at all, which I will be voting for.

^ Sorry Shaka, I think its the backward church-folk who made the decision to let their ugly bigotry stand in the way of finding kids loving homes.


btw: Who gives one shit what Pat Buchanan has to say about marriage? Jesus fucking christ!

Moving this video to Haldaug's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

>> ^volumptuous:
^ Sorry Shaka, I think its the backward church-folk who made the decision to let their ugly bigotry stand in the way of finding kids loving homes.

btw: Who gives one shit what Pat Buchanan has to say about marriage? Jesus fucking christ!

Catholic Charities is not the only adoption agency in the state. They found additional placements for kids without homes. They wouldn't compromise on their beliefs, and the state wouldn't let them only adopt to straight couples. You could just as easily argue that the state's bigotry was at fault, but the real losers here are the kids who won't get to live in a loving household.

Personally, I have no problem if there's a Jewish adoption agency that only finds placements with Jewish families, or whatever, as long as there's a state agency that will adopt to whoever. Getting more kids adopted is a Good Thing, and it sort of makes me sick to think that people would put their politically correct bullshit first over kids who need families.

*equality

Adding video to channels (Equality) - requested by geo321.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by critical_d.

Awarding Boise_Lib with one Power Point for fixing this video's dead embed code.

*length=6:29

The duration of this video has been updated from unknown to 6:29 - length declared by Boise_Lib.

*law *controversy

Adding video to channels (Controversy, Law) - requested by MrFisk.