His summary at the end is worth an upvote. Well put.

*findthumb

A different thumbnail image for this video could not be found for findthumb request by lucky760.

*findthumb

A different thumbnail image for this video could not be found for findthumb request by lucky760.

Well now I have to go watch the entire thing.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'gay marriage rights homosexuality proposition 8' to 'gay marriage, rights, homosexuality, proposition 8, prop 8' - edited by gwiz665

*law *talks

Adding video to channels (Law, Talks) - requested by gwiz665.

*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by Tymbrwulf.

Downvote judicial activism.

I'd be thrilled if an activist judge suddenly legalized marijuana against the will of the people, but that's not how the system works. Gay "marriage" was voted on and lost. We already have too much tyranny in the name of "goodness."

Gay "marriage" is a NEW "right" that heretofore never existed. Even child marriage has a longer history than gay "marriage".

Men and women are not interchangeable. As Dennis Prager puts it: "Ask anyone who supports same-sex marriage this: Do you believe that a mother has something unique to give to a child that no father can give and that a father has something unique to give a child that no mother can give?

One has to assume that most people -- including supporters of same-sex marriage -- would respond in the affirmative. How, then, can they support same-sex marriage? The left's trinity -- compassion, fairness and equality -- is one reason. And "studies" and "facts" are another."

Do you believe Disneyland has something unique to give to a child that no cycling trip can give?

>> ^quantumushroom:
one has to assume that most people...

Luckily we live in a world where "assumptions" aren't grounds for anything.

Oh you're buying a gun? I'm going to assume that you're going to commit a crime because you're black, so you're going to get arrested.

Oh are you a Mexican driving in a nice car? I'm going to assume you got that through ill-gotten gains, so you should definitely get pulled over and searched unlawfully.

Are you a Muslim? I'm going to assume you're a terrorist and you're gonna get your ass shipped out to Guantanamo.

(During WWII) Oh you're Japanese? Time for your ass to get into an internment camp, you're a threat to national security.

(Before Civil Rights) Oh you're black? Well you're obviously not as good as me, therefor you can't vote, go to the same school as me, and I can own you as a slave.

Oh you're Irish in England? I'm going to assume you're part of the IRA and just arrest your ass.

Should I keep going? By the way, some of the things I've said were also relatively "NEW" rights. Go figure.

QM,

1. The will of the people does not override the Constitution. I love how Conservatives want to keep the government out of everything. Except the bedroom. And a woman's womb. And the science lab. And where certain buildings are placed. And... well the list of hypocrisy goes on and on. The simple fact is the government should not be in the business of deciding who can marry whom. It is between the individuals involved, and no one else.

2. You talk about "new" rights as if they are something bad which should be feared. Straight people currently have the right to marry whoever they fall in love with. Gays just want the same right. That is a lot less scary than giving slaves their freedom or women the right to vote. I don't see what all the fear is about.

3. Marriage is not about children. You can have children without getting married. You can get married without ever having children. You can raise a child alone, or with a vast extended family in the house. Should we take away the right of the single parent to raise a child because they are not getting input from the opposite sex? Never mind the fact that gay couples already have the right to adopt children despite not being married. Get over this argument, it is lame. Marriage is about two people joining together on their journey through life. That might involve children, it might not. It might involve a business venture, it might not. It might involve the purchase of property, it might not. There are as many different types of marriage as there are different people. And the only people damaging the "sacred institution of marriage" are the people trying to label it and restrict it.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Men and women are not interchangeable. As Dennis Prager puts it: "Ask anyone who supports same-sex marriage this: Do you believe that a mother has something unique to give to a child that no father can give and that a father has something unique to give a child that no mother can give?


So... you support mandatory abortions for pregnant single women?

Here's the full video, it's over an hour.

http://fora.tv/2010/08/05/overturning_Prop_8_David_Boies

"Men and women are not interchangeable."

Careful boys!

He's on to something!

Unfortunately no QM, there is no "something only a man can give that a woman can't" and vise versa to a child. The "average" woman/man might tend towards certain things they would be better at teaching than a man, but there isn't anything a child gets out of a male/female parental unit that they can't get from a same sex couple. Children need love, understanding, discipline, and a myriad of other intangible things but NONE of these things are unique to either sex. Take the bigotry elsewhere. Opponents to same sex marriage can pretend morality all you want but that's all it is.

QM is from the homo monstrosus lineage of...what plausibly passes for humanity.

Word of caution: keep puppies away from his face.

>> ^Enzoblue:

His summary at the end is worth an upvote. Well put.


Indeed. Thomas Jefferson also emphasized this in his first inaugural address:

"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression."

I appreciate your intellectual honesty. Altho you didn't say it, I also assume you believe there's no significant differences between the sexes? Because I disagree. And I don't appreciate being called a "bigot". The way liberals throw around words like 'racist' and 'bigot' is rather tiresome.

"You don't think 10-year-olds should be allowed to drive cars? You're obviously a bigot." That's what it sounds like.

>> ^RadHazG:

Unfortunately no QM, there is no "something only a man can give that a woman can't" and vise versa to a child. The "average" woman/man might tend towards certain things they would be better at teaching than a man, but there isn't anything a child gets out of a male/female parental unit that they can't get from a same sex couple. Children need love, understanding, discipline, and a myriad of other intangible things but NONE of these things are unique to either sex. Take the bigotry elsewhere. Opponents to same sex marriage can pretend morality all you want but that's all it is.

No, but how about this: no welfare for unmarried breeders. Let them pay for their bastards; they might actually think twice about being responsibly active.

>> ^shponglefan:

>> ^quantumushroom:
Men and women are not interchangeable. As Dennis Prager puts it: "Ask anyone who supports same-sex marriage this: Do you believe that a mother has something unique to give to a child that no father can give and that a father has something unique to give a child that no mother can give?

So... you support mandatory abortions for pregnant single women?

1. The will of the people does not override the Constitution. The Constitution isn't being overridden, there's nothing in it about marriage either way. No one political party has the patent on hypocrisy. The legitimate State exists to preserve rights and protect private property, and since marriage is a legal contract it IS the State's business, and still would be even under the flawed 'marriage privatization' libertarian model.

2. You talk about "new" rights as if they are something bad which should be feared. Is one of the two major political movements more concerned with actual consequences than the other? Yes. The Right defends traditional values, for better or for worse. Why? To be mean? Or is it because 99 out of 100 "new" ideas fail?

Straight people currently have the right to marry whoever they fall in love with. Gays just want the same right. That is a lot less scary than giving slaves their freedom or women the right to vote. I don't see what all the fear is about.

The left has no real idea what the ultimate effects of legalizing gay marriage will be. We're talking 30 years of sketchy, activist-driven data versus 5000 years of history, during which no lasting society or moral thinker--religious or otherwise--condoned gay "marriage". It could be harmless, or it could turn the legal system and society on its ear. What personally ticks me off is if gay 'marriage' proves harmful to society, the left will deny it and try to hide the evidence.

3. Marriage is not about children. A rather large part of it is. Should we take away the right of the single parent to raise a child because they are not getting input from the opposite sex? No, but if the left cannot admit that two loving parents are better than one, then once again we are mired in intellectual dishonesty and the disavowal of common sense.

Never mind the fact that gay couples already have the right to adopt children despite not being married. Get over this argument, it is lame. Marriage is about two people joining together on their journey through life. That might involve children, it might not. It might involve a business venture, it might not. It might involve the purchase of property, it might not. There are as many different types of marriage as there are different people. And the only people damaging the "sacred institution of marriage" are the people trying to label it and restrict it.

Society has a right to define what relationships it values the most. If society decides one man/one woman legally bound works the best, then it has the the right to place that union on a pedestal. Gays like to make this all about them and how they're being persecuted over a "right" that IS new, but there is a line out the door and circling the block twice of relationship configurations society will also not place on "the pedestal".

Like a great number of Americans--though obviously not a majority--I couldn't care less about what gays do in their personal lives, but nor will I pretend there are no consequences for legitimizing 3% of the populations' will over the other 97%.

Freeing slaves, giving women the right to vote, legalizing drugs or prostitution...these aren't even blips on the radar compared to the fundamental societal changes that legalizing gay 'marriage' might bring.

I don't expect agreement here, just acknowledgment that there are other points of view, thoughtful and well-intentioned.














>> ^MaxWilder:

QM,
1. The will of the people does not override the Constitution. I love how Conservatives want to keep the government out of everything. Except the bedroom. And a woman's womb. And the science lab. And where certain buildings are placed. And... well the list of hypocrisy goes on and on. The simple fact is the government should not be in the business of deciding who can marry whom. It is between the individuals involved, and no one else.
2. You talk about "new" rights as if they are something bad which should be feared. Straight people currently have the right to marry whoever they fall in love with. Gays just want the same right. That is a lot less scary than giving slaves their freedom or women the right to vote. I don't see what all the fear is about.
3. Marriage is not about children. You can have children without getting married. You can get married without ever having children. You can raise a child alone, or with a vast extended family in the house. Should we take away the right of the single parent to raise a child because they are not getting input from the opposite sex? Never mind the fact that gay couples already have the right to adopt children despite not being married. Get over this argument, it is lame. Marriage is about two people joining together on their journey through life. That might involve children, it might not. It might involve a business venture, it might not. It might involve the purchase of property, it might not. There are as many different types of marriage as there are different people. And the only people damaging the "sacred institution of marriage" are the people trying to label it and restrict it.

Oh, you're a gun owner? You must be part of a militia.

Oh, you own a business? You must be exploiting your employees with low wages and long hours.

Oh, you're a Christian? You must hate gays.

You look down the mouth of a dark alley and see three figures standing in the shadows. Since "assumptions" mean nothing, why not stroll past them while counting aloud the cash in your wallet?


>> ^Tymbrwulf:

>> ^quantumushroom:
one has to assume that most people...
Luckily we live in a world where "assumptions" aren't grounds for anything.
Oh you're buying a gun? I'm going to assume that you're going to commit a crime because you're black, so you're going to get arrested.
Oh are you a Mexican driving in a nice car? I'm going to assume you got that through ill-gotten gains, so you should definitely get pulled over and searched unlawfully.
Are you a Muslim? I'm going to assume you're a terrorist and you're gonna get your ass shipped out to Guantanamo.
(During WWII) Oh you're Japanese? Time for your ass to get into an internment camp, you're a threat to national security.
(Before Civil Rights) Oh you're black? Well you're obviously not as good as me, therefor you can't vote, go to the same school as me, and I can own you as a slave.
Oh you're Irish in England? I'm going to assume you're part of the IRA and just arrest your ass.
Should I keep going? By the way, some of the things I've said were also relatively "NEW" rights. Go figure.

Pardon the generality, I did however say "bigotry" and did not directly call you a bigot. I had considered such but rephrased specifically because it was the action of denying what has been deemed a basic human right to fellow humans I was referring to. I don't know you personally and can not legitimately claim such a view with the limited evidence. As for any differences between the sexes anyone still breathing can tell that there are differences, the question is whether having two moms or two dads prevents those parents from giving a child something fundamentally important that a child needs to grow up healthy, educated (or not) and with a chance to succeed. There is not.

There have already been many many children adopted and raised by G/L couples that are perfectly normal. There has been no study that has produced any viable evidence that suggests being raised such prevents you from being a normal human being. To continue to spout otherwise in the face of the current facts is a puerile act of willful ignorance and merits no further discussion. To wit : there was no discussion in the first place.
>> ^quantumushroom:

I appreciate your intellectual honesty. Altho you didn't say it, I also assume you believe there's no significant differences between the sexes? Because I disagree. And I don't appreciate being called a "bigot". The way liberals throw around words like 'racist' and 'bigot' is rather tiresome.
"You don't think 10-year-olds should be allowed to drive cars? You're obviously a bigot." That's what it sounds like.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Freeing slaves, giving women the right to vote, legalizing drugs or prostitution...these aren't even blips on the radar compared to the fundamental societal changes that legalizing gay 'marriage' might bring.


Though I would argue several points of your response, this is the fundamental position that I find patently ridiculous. Gays are already living together in loving, committed, long-term relationships. They are already raising children. They already have some of the same rights as marriage through "civil unions". And there is not one shred, not one single iota of data to suggest that anyone is being harmed by this except for thick-headed conservatives who can't get over their "ewwww" reaction. Allowing gays to apply the word "marriage" to their relationships would do nothing except give them a few more of the privileges that heterosexual couples have and, more importantly, bring an end to the legally sanctioned classification of second-class citizen.

I challenge you or any other homophobe to explain one single concrete harm that would befall society by allowing gays full marriage rights. You can't, because all opposition arguments are based on religion and fear of the unknown, combined with a fundamental distaste for anything that is categorized as "different than me".