And the only actual reasons people are opposed to gay marriage....

Don't let your head explode from bigotry and self-righteousness!

Why should any society capitulate for such an insignificant demographic group?

Statically speaking Gays are not even on the radar. Gays make up less then 4% of population. Just because gays have a larger demographic in media and hence have a greater opportunity promote their cause still does not change that fact that they are insignificant in the eyes of society.

And WE have decided that gay marriage is wrong and will not be tolerated.

NAMBLA probably has a bigger demographic. Either way should they be recognized?

Yeah, fuck those 280 million gay people! Look at them... asking for rights like real people. They should just crawl back to their holes so bob can continue his racist, bigoted, homophobic, uneducated ways without fear of seeing anything that he doesn't like.

Btw, there are more gay people than people named bob. Does that mean you can't marry either? For the sake of the women of the world, I can only hope so.

Adding video to channels (Love) - requested by PlayhousePals.

Because it's the decent thing to do. Giving another group a right that you have has no effect on you at all. You aren't being oppressed by them gaining rights and it takes no more effort for society to allow them these rights.

The question is better put 'why should society treat a minority group differently to the majority of the population?'

The very notion that a right can be granted by society is absurd. Either you have the right, or you don't. Society has nothing to do with it.

The reason sodomites insist on receiving extrinsic, public sympathy and support is because their lifestyle has no intrisic virtue. Every sodomite is by definition an evolutionary dead-end, and that community struggles with suicide and depression far more than the general populace - for a reason. Change is possible, but the world would have them believe they are "born that way and should never change". Horse hockey.

Wow. You don't understand the concepts of civilization, society, or legal rights at all, do you?
You know that, by FAR, most sodomites are not gay, right? Apparently not.

What are you capitulating? What are you losing? How does gay people getting married affect your life in any way? Can you give me a reason beyond "I don't like it"?

Your use of the word "sodomite" seems to suggest a fixation on the sex act. Why do homophobes seem to focus on that as if it's the only thing that matters? It's so bizarre.

Because some actions are morally just and some are not. Any way you look at it being gay is not.

Racist, bigot and homophobic have nothing to do with this argument, Yet another straw man argument from the left.

The question really becomes Why should 1% demographic force the 99% to change its thinking?



http://www.gallup.com/poll/182837/estimated-780-000-americans-sex-marriages.aspx?utm_source=SAME_SEX_RELATIONS&utm_medium=topic&utm_campaign=tiles

Approximately 0.3% of adults in the U.S. are married to a same-sex spouse, and another 0.5% identify as being in a same-sex domestic partnership

Quote:
"1) Gay people put their penises in each other’s mouths.
It’s not just a playground rumour; gay people really do engage in oral sex with each other. Just think about that for a second; a man who sometimes enjoys putting his penis in the mouth of another man, wants the same rights as a man who sometimes enjoys putting his penis in the mouth of a woman. Not on our watch, pal."

It's funny because it points out the hypocrisy in a sarcastic way.

Look up what the word bigot means. It describes nearly every talking point you've ever put forth here.

The only people who are truly threatened by gays are probably gay themselves, just in denial.

I'm not gay.

I even have a slight discomfort viewing gays kissing passionately. I also have a slight discomfort watching obscenely fat straight people kissing passionately. Or people who are vastly different ages kissing passionately. Or Republicans talking. Or responding to people who just say shit to cause a ruckus even though they really couldn't give a shit either way.

You're in there somewhere.

I'm confused on why the religious right want to deny equal rights to people. Even if it is a sin, it doesn't effect anyone but themselves. Jesus spent His whole time hanging with sinners and ministering to them. He wouldn't be arguing against them having equal rights under the law just because they sin differently than others. He taught again and again that Love was the greatest Commandment, that being all self righteous and showing how holy you are was bad. Modern Christianity has turned from love to a denial of equal rights under the law based on people sinning differently than they do. Let they without sin cast the first stone... and yet they cast their stones in the form of votes and denying products/services with their business and so on because they don't like the sin, as if they are so holy and sin free theme selves. Not only did Jesus say let those without sin cast the first stone, He Himself, with out sin didn't cast any stones. These holy crusaders ask, "What Would Jesus Do" but then ignore what He'd actually do... Why this obsession over people sinning differently than they do? If that sin doesn't hurt anyone else directly, then who cares? If God wants to convict them of their sin, then let Him do it, not us... it's almost as if the Christian Right don't think God is doing enough convicting and are trying to do it themselves, as if God isn't strong enough to do it, or it upsets them so much they don't want to let go and let God...

And why does Sodom get the rap for gay stuff and sodomy? The Bible specifically says the sin of Sodom was being a land of plenty without enough concern for the needy and the poor (basically full of Republicans). "'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy." - NIV. "This is what your sister Sodom has done wrong. She and her daughters were proud that they had plenty of food and had peace and security. They didn't help the poor and the needy." - God's Word... all versions equal to the same basic thing... People blame the gays on correlative texts, mostly relating to what happened to the angels when they arrived to rescue Lot's family... where Lot offered his betrothed daughters to be raped instead (which by Biblical law meant they'd have to be stoned to death as well as their rapist, though one could perhaps argue that Deuteronomy 22:23-24 comes after the story of Sodom so that law might not yet have applied). Anyhow, the Bible speaks that the Sin of Sodom was not helping the needy and the poor... why God, who knows every single secret thought you have ever had or ever will have before you were even formed in the womb (before the foundations of the world were even formed) and yet needs angels to see if there are good people???

And a million and one more rants...

Actually, I sorta agree with this. People's rights should not be put to popular vote.

Democracy be damned, the majority has no right to deny rights to a minority.

Shame you followed it up with some insane, nonsensical, anally fixated rant.

Firstly, i don't remember seeing an american referendum on gay marriage, so i don't know what makes you think your "WE" decided anything.

But did i really just see this troglodyte compare consensual same-sex relationships to paedophilia - child rape - like there was no difference?

You are fucking sick in the head - genuinely disturbing and offensive homophobic point of view. This is not the 1930s.

Is this allowed on the sift? Imagine a gay person reading this... and being told they are morally equal to paedophiles? Being told that this community tolerates people who compares them so? Surely this is an offensive and inflammatory insult. I feel as though choggie has been banned for less in the past. I'm disgusted.

Update: looking like a landslide win for marriage equality.

https://www.facebook.com/irishtimes/photos/a.10150091152971158.270119.45441411157/10152919152556158/?type=1

What gives you the right to impose your 'morals' onto others?

Exactly

What gives the gay agenda the right to impose their " morals" onto others?

bigot -- a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.

By definition Most sifters are bigots towards me.

I tolerate your ( fellow sifters) views even though I disagree with lots of them.

" WE" is a newtboy thing.

The rest of your rant is totally from a bigot point of view.

Between the extraordinary ignorance, the bigotry, the painfully unaware hypocrisy, the quick-draw self victimization

I really don't even believe his schtick anymore... I think many of us, myself included have been had. It has to be an act.

That ignore button does wonders, I promise you. Also if you can't help yourself there is always http://videosift.com/talk/Completely-Erase-Entire-Comments-from-People-Youre-Ignoring

Just sayin

Because we want racist, homophobic, ostensibly "straight" but showing all the signs of being a closeted self loather morons like yourself to suffer under the gay tyranny!!

Change is coming/has come/will keep coming, and there's not a fucking thing you can do about it. You're impotent, flaccid, unable to become erect, a floppy fossil that has already passed in to irrelevance. You can rant and rave and troll to your hearts content, but if you really feel that strongly about it, prepare to be fucking disappointed bitch! ; )

So instead of answering the question you go on a personal attack.

Shows you lack of maturity and understanding.

Yet this xenophobe still represents our community with his vile attacks on anyone "different" in the eyes of the casual visitor who does not have the experience we do.

Imagine seeing the page as a fresh newbie, seeing some disgusting homophobic rant and seemingly no one batting an eyelid at it.

After months offline I just wanted some cat videos and now this...

You know, Bob, I think you are right. I may not be a US citizen but I think there should be an international law, enforced by the UN.
As a species we can not allow morally bankrupt people to define what marriage should be, especially if that definition is ethically questionable and radically diverging from what the Bible, Torah or Quran describe.
Not only are we subjected to this bizarre propaganda of how normal this sickening behaviour is, this agenda is being sold to children as well. Even if we ignore the risk factors and possible fallout from this dangerous interaction with our youth, I think we can't deny that letting somebody that unstable adopt children isn't the best of ideas.
As you point out, this minority has a strong grasp on the media and an even stronger grip around the neck of political systems around the globe. Even our economy isn't safe of their influence which everyone can see everytime they hurt american businesses with their boycotts. Like disgusting, entitled children, they throw tantrums everytime they don't get their will, no mattere what the cost.
You're right, mankind shouldn't capitulate to their demands. I say annul their existing marriages or domestic partnerships and make it illegal for those people to marry. Worldwide.
According to Wikipedia (yes, I know, Wikipedia) there are 7.2 billion humans on earth and the GOP has around 30 million members. That's only 0.4% of the world population. You're right. Why should any society capitulate for such an insignificant demographic group? Why should we allow republicans to marry or recognize their marriages as legally binding? Nobody needs them to procreate.
Having said that, as far as I'm concerned, George W. Bush is a bastard, even by westerosi standards.

I see (and love) what you did there. I wish I could double or triple upvote that comment.

While I totally get your point, and that's the only reason I used to engage these few people that come here to complain about tolerance, inclusion, or forced responsibility for one's own actions. That said, I came to the conclusions that replying to them is giving them the attention they seek, and more 'air time' for their ridiculous hateful ideals. If no one replied to them, they would quickly become a group of 4, passing hate speech back and forth to each other, but in their own little bubble, obviously shunned by the 'community' without being banished. That seems the best option available at this time, as their hateful, racist, misogynist, anti-(choose your minority) speech is seen as 'opinion' so it's considered to be (just barely) not rising to the level where they should be outright banned (not in my opinion, I think they crossed that line long ago, but mine is not the important opinion...just like in most other situations).
I now have them on ignore-plus (see the sift talk post), where I no longer see that they even exist...and I'm SOOOO much happier visiting the site now. It is an unpleasant side effect that now, some of their vocal detractors are silent (when it comes to them), but that also means they have far fewer to 'argue' with...meaning they post far less nonsense for 'noobs' to see, and will likely eventually move on when they stop getting any reaction (that's why they're here, for the negative reaction. There's a word for people who lurk on websites with the intent to upset other users...I just can't put my finger on it).

...and welcome back.

I can understand why people who are for gay marriage think this way about people who are opposed to it. It is the vocal minority who are acting out of hate and bigotry, and not following the teachings of the Lord Jesus, who draw all of the attention. The response of a Christian towards a homosexual should be love. That does not mean approving of the sin, but we love the person because they were created in the image of God and He loves them, and He sent His Son to die for them as well as us.

From a Christian perspective, I am against the idea of gay marriage for two reasons; One is that God calls homosexuality a sin. The other is that it was God who created the institution of marriage, which you can read about in Genesis 2, which Jesus quotes when talking about marriage:

Matthew 19:4 He answered, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female,
Matthew 19:5 and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?
Matthew 19:6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."

I am also well aware that the world sees nothing wrong with gay marriage, because they believe man created the institution of marriage and not God. If that is true, that man created the institution of marriage, then what should it matter if a man desires to marry another man, or 5 men and a willow tree? But if God created it, then we are accountable to Him and have no right to modify it.

Christians have often tried to enforce their 'morality' on the rest of us....it NEVER works out well for anyone, and in hind sight is always seen as evil and stupid, as well as non-christian. Morality is a personal decision. When you start legislating/forcing it, you've lost your freedom to decide for yourself. In America, it's 100% legal to sin, the only excuse for singling out this 'sin' is the hatred for those disenfranchised by doing so.
The bible also said I'm to stone anyone working on Sunday, or worshiping incorrectly (even if they're Christian), or worshiping idols (like a cross), or adulterers...where's the standing up for that, if it's so important to follow the bible? It also said to take slaves, rape, murder, sacrifice children, ...shall I go on explaining why 'the bible said so' is the worst argument ever?
Doesn't the bible say it's not OK to marry a different 'race', what about a different religion...why aren't you fighting to end inter racial marriage, and inter faith marriage? Come on, let's hear the logic.
The day marriage was recognized as a civil process, the institution was removed as a religious one and became a civil one, which means one religious groups idea about it matters not. Even if you believe it was 'created by god', you must admit it's now a civil process with civil benefits, not religious one's, so YOUR religion has nothing to do with it anymore. That's YOUR religions fault for insisting on benefits for 'married' people.

As for 5 men...well, I can't really see a reason plural marriage is illegal beyond someone's morals...but a tree? How does a tree consent and affirm their wish to be married? If it can, go for it. Why do you want to stand in the way of that tree's happiness?

Here's a fact to ruin your day, Bob: YOU'RE the evolutionary dead-end -- progress has a liberal agenda.

God may have created the institution of marriage, but humans created the system of legal rights and benefits surrounding it. If you're going to claim the first to deny the second, you're no better than ISIS or the Taliban.

Look @shinyblurry, nobody sane wants to mess with religious viewpoints regarding marriage. Your religious community gets to decide who can marry in your church and that is how it should be. Don't like it? Leave the religious community. Don't like, for example, the rules of the Amish? Stop being one. It's as simple as that.
The government can not afford to pick a religion. It needs to stay neutral. Would you like your government to simply endorse and act upon what the pope says? Imagine the government turns atheist and bans going to church. Nobody wants that.
That's why the government should stay the fuck out of who I or my children can marry. It's none of their business. As long as I want to marry a legal person that is neither a close blood relative (incest is bad, mmmmkay), married or underage, it shouldn't be their business. Neither trees nor dogs are legal persons.
I don't want big government to control my life. Why is that hard to understand? Why is this something that needs debating?

No-one gives a shit what your neolithic deity thinks. The same boring arguments were trotted out when interracial couples wanted to get married.

Here's the thing, most people are already in favour of gay marriage. It's just past the point where more than 50% of the US population lives in a state with legal SSM. Most of the developed world has either legalised gay marriage, allows civil unions or recognises marriages performed in other countries. You have more in common with Uganda than Utah.

Enjoy being on the wrong side of history (again).

I don't get this argument. What do you have to change your thinking on, exactly?

That's a big if, isn't it. Your god hasn't been demonstrated to exist, let alone to have created marriage. Regardless, it's still a non sequitur, I'm afraid. We're asking for the state institution of marriage rights to be extended to same-sex couples, not trees, or to polygamous relationships. To suggest otherwise is a ridiculous slippery-slope argument and a strawman.

Your church is free to choose who gets married within its premises. But like it or not, it's already possible for straight couples to get married with zero church involvement in the US and where I live in the UK. That right to a secular marriage is all that anyone is asking for. Whether gods or their earthly advocates want it is irrelevant; the church is already not involved in other non-religious marriages already, so it's not within its purview to argue against its implementation for same-sex couples.

Again another straw man answer.

Just answer the question at hand.

Why should any society capitulate for such an insignificant demographic group?

Gays make up less then 4% of population.

And for gay marriage the % is even less than 1%
The question really becomes Why should 1% demographic force the 99% to change?

Fact is you are wrong.
long term gay relationships are the evolutionary dead-end.

Oh FFS, are you really THAT stupid?

Rights are rights. They apply to everyone equally, regardless of how big or small your demographic is.

No-one is asking you to change. You don't want to have a gay marriage? Don't marry a gay guy.

Otherwise, it has fucking nothing to do with you, so stop trying to ruin it for the people who it does matter to.

Anyway, as I said to shiny, your opinion is irrelevant. SSM is here and it's only going to become more widely accepted, and there isn't a goddamn thing you can do about it.

You've already lost. Enjoy being on the wrong side of history.

I'm fairly certain you must have heard this before, but one cannot be bigoted against bigotry. Attempting to victimize yourself only further degrades your argument.

Two things, no, actually three:
1. To answer your question directly: because letting LGBT people have these rights has no negative effects for society and requires very little effort. There are no measurable downsides here.
What's supposed to happen? Tell me what the negative effects will be. God's gonna make a pouty face and floods the earth again?
Another thing is, how is it the government's business who you can marry? Why should they get to decide that you can't marry shinyblurry if you really want to? Are you that fond of government intrusion in your life?
2. Capitulate? Are you at war with the gays? Did they stick a flag in your ass and declared it their territoty? Is it really an us vs. them situation? Are you sure you are not actually the problem?
You can only capitulate to an adversary. How are the homosexuals harming you? Are they taking anything away? Are they threatening you? Fact is, you are the one who wants to deny right and limit other people's freedom to be left the fuck alone. You're the agressor here. If you would stop that behaviour, nobody would give a fuck about you.
Why should I, who doesn't care what unknown gay people do, and we, who want them to have their rights, capitulate to agressors like you, who insist on regulating nobody's and especially not their own business? Why can't you leave the homosexuals alone? What's your fixation here?
3. Stop it with that "evolutionary dead end" crap! Every marriage with someone who is unable or unwilling to have kids is according to your definition one. Are you really willing to argue that people who can't procreate shouldn't marry? Are you going to tell every woman over 50 they can't (re)marry? Are you willing to walk up to a soldier who got his nuts blown off in Iraq that he can never ever marry the woman who doesn't care about his lack off balls? I'd love to see that. And what his buddies will do to you. And his wife.

Fact is, you don't like homosexuals. I don't know why but I do know that more and more people don't care about them. We're past the tipping point. That's why you feel it's "capitulating", because you know you're the minority now and your hatred and abuse won't be tolerated for long anymore. That's what you loose, the right to treat other's like shit. You can't kick that dog no more because it found the courage to bite back and we took away your ability to go old yeller on his ass. Must make you mad, foaming at the mouth mad.

What are they forcing you to change? They aren't changing your life at all, nothing is being imposed on you. Your rights don't change. Nothing changes for you. Why is this so hard to understand?

Instead of you BS just answer the simple question.

Why should any society capitulate for such an insignificant demographic group?

Gays make up less then 4% of population.

And for gay marriage the % is even less than 1% The question really becomes Why should 1% demographic force the 99% to change?

The "change" is not the issue for me. Its the tail wagging the dog that I am asking about.


Why should any society capitulate for such an insignificant demographic group?

Gays make up less then 4% of population.

And for gay marriage the % is even less than 1% The question really becomes Why should 1% demographic force the 99% to change?

IF the word gay is clouding you thoughts change it ti KKK, NAMBLA, Black supremacist or any another insignificant demographic group...



To answer you question the very definition of marriage would change.

Because it's the morally right thing to do. Like not keeping slaves or not murdering Jews.

That's why. What were you thinking it could be? Is it really just a childish tantrum you're having here? "I'm Bob and if I don't get my will I lie down on the floor and scream as loud as I can!"
Are you seriously telling me that you're pissed because a tiny minority gets what they want although you, mighty bobknight33, object?
Welcome to the grown-up-world.

BTW, you should actually read repliesof your posts you're replying to.
I'm just saying...

"Why should any society capitulate for such an insignificant demographic group?

Gays make up less then 4% of population. "

We are talking about letting two people marry each other, in what way exactly is this capitulation?

The gun fondling nutters in the NRA make up about 1% of the population. Personally, I think their obsession with guns is rather perverse and more than a little creepy. Why cant we just take away their right to bear arms? They are just 1%! why should they have the same rights as other people?

Mormons are like less than 4% too, Take away their freedom of religion! No need to give them the same rights as catholics?

Take some of your own advice - just answer the simple question. What are you being asked to capitulate? What are you being asked to give up? Your right to be an arsehole to gay people? Nobody's asking you to give that up. Be as much of an arsehole as you like. We can all see it plain as day. But gay people can get married. That's the quid pro quo of your freedom to be an arsehole.

Thing is, he probably does understand it, but, he just doesn't like the gays.

You're new to Bob, aren't you? Allow me to baldly state what I'm pretty sure you already suspect. At BEST, Bob's a troll. At worst, he actually is delusional enough to believe the bile and hatred he spews here.

I personally believe the first, as I don't believe anyone could actually come up on the wrong side of every single social issue, without making a conscious decision to do so. IOW, his dedication to being a complete asshole is intentional, if for no other reason than that nobody could keep up such a long running string by accident.

@bobknight33: If it makes you feel better, think of it as Marriage Deregulation.

The issue for you is not "change", but that society would "capitulate" for "such an insignificant demographic group" of "less than 4% of the population", correct?

You cited this Gallup poll (http://www.gallup.com/poll/182837/estimated-780-000-americans-sex-marriages.aspx?utm_source=SAME_SEX_RELATIONS&utm_medium=topic&utm_campaign=tiles) of how many Americans were in same sex marriages.

Another Gallup poll shows the historical trend of religious self-identification in America from 1948 to 2014: http://www.gallup.com/poll/1690/religion.aspx

In 1948, the proportion of respondents who self-identify as either Protestant, Roman Catholic, or Jewish, is 95%. ~5% said "None" or didn't answer (less than 0.5% said "Other").

In following years, they tracked more detailed responses and grouped some as "Christian (nonspecific)" and Mormon, and changed the Roman Catholic grouping to just Catholic.

In 2014, those who specified a religion (which is everyone except those who said their religion was "None" or didn't answer) represented 80%.

The full statistics are in that link -- these two years are endpoints in the polls, but not outliers.

Thus, over 66 years Americans who identified as religious (not all of whom follow the Bible, but most do so I'll be generous to you) lost 15 percentage points. That's a rate of 0.227272 percentage points per year.

If Americans keep leaving religion behind at this same rate, in 2348 all religious people will represent less than 4% of the population.

Then we get to trample your rights, right Bob?

I personally expect the trend away from religiosity in America to accelerate. In more urban areas where people are exposed to more diversity, they tend to leave behind the tribal myths of their elders. The Internet is bringing some of that diversity to the masses.

That was a great answer.

GOD does not believe in deregulation.

I agree that religious trend is slipping toward zero. But until then the tables are still turned.

"Might makes right" is the language of tyranny and the morally infirm.

To my reprobate friend.

There would be no christian men just Sodom and Gomorrah.

Yeah, we're starting once they're down to 4 percent.

*promote the landslide 2:1 victory for equality!

Self promoting this video back to the front page; last published Thursday, May 14th, 2015 3:40pm PDT - promote requested by original submitter ChaosEngine.