Ah Asmo, this is humorous. Not in a way that has me thinking less of you, but due to the fact that even the smartest people make the most indefensible arguments. Stewart always has a joke when Republicans (and sometimes Democrats) do the same thing Chaos just did and which you defended--which is to ignore the "implied" in a statement. Usually Republicans use hate speech or such, but they just don't say the hate literally (Often when Obama's policies were compared to Nazi Germany's policies, for example.)

I.e, "Hey, I'm not saying Obama is like Hitler, but look at the smoke stacks coming from the White House?! They look like Jew smoke to you?!"

Another, but this one in more relation to our conversation.

I.e., Hey Lawdeedaw, when you have dick in your mouth does it taste good? WOAH, I DIDN'T SAY YOU SUCK DICK! YOU IMPLIED THAT! I just asked, you know, when dick is in your mouth...

See how utterly indefensible that above statement is? Or why Stewart gets so pissed, rightly so, when people make that argument? People can hide behind the most obvious statements and it's bullshit. Or people can be ignorant of the statements you make, and it's just as bullshit.

If you can't see the sense that makes, don't respond to this post please. I don't argue with ideology that blinds people to clear points and I have agreed with my fair share of points over the years when I have been wrong...so I expect it returned in kind.

Second, you do have a point about me being judgmental. I am jaded because every marriage I observed growing up was toxic. "Dad can't divorce mom, even tho she abuses us kids." Was a wonderful house I lived in. My wife was beaten for years by her husband, until she took poverty and destitution over that, and then met me. The list goes on and on, yada yada, no more need to explain my own life history because it isn't necessarily what happens in all of America. So I look at the worst aspects of marriage. Aspects that are as universal as the fact that we eat, breathe, shit and die.

Of course I also use history and stats to back up my judgment. So; marriage is a civil contract based on liberty and property (At least the part of marriage that matters to the government insofar as the rights they give you.) If the world's population of homosexuals is around 2.5% or so, depending on the estimates, then cheating (seeking out more than one relationship at a time) is much more naturally inherent to humans than sexual orientation by far. This is also natural in regards to the homosexual relationships as well. Cheating causes so much grief, repercussions, and yet it is only one bad aspect of being tied into a contract that many societies make difficult to break either through legal means or cultural taboos. Furthermore, abuse, divorce, long-term separation for business matters, much of these things kind of lend credence to the fact that marriage is created by society and has nothing to do with the "apparent" definitions we apply to it.

And Asmo, naughty naughty Asmo, you implied something...I am in no way shape or form telling other people what "their relationship is about." Just because I say something is inconvenient for damn near everyone (For some it is not) doesn't really mean much of anything. Shoes are inconvenient because you have to tie their laces. Is that me telling you how to shoe? No. How about kids? Kids are a hell of an inconvenience, but if you said I was degrading parenthood, especially my own, I would tell you to fuck yourself with that bold-faced lie.

If you are focused on the "property" aspect of that comment, well, you have an issue with my definition of the government's hand in marriage.

So...are we talking about Swan monogamy or situational or temporary monogamy? Because last time I checked the majority of Americans or others haven't had just one partner. Nor, even if they have, do they keep those "feelings" of relationship to one individual (Such as that soulmate feeling, sex-free.)

You could argue that boning, fucking, sucking, dating people until you decide it is convenient to settle down is monogamy, and that's fine. Well, right until most people leave/cheat/explore. Then they gotta get back into the routine eventually, because you know it's so natural...

You are born human, sexual, primal, and society tames you. You are born uncircumcised, and who tells you it is wrong? Religious freaks. Who tells you missionary is right, and sex is for procreation? Society. Basically, anything that Rome and Greece did, after they committed atrocities around the world, is now considered wrong. Orgies, emperors, GAY SEX, etc. Coincidence? Probably not.

Tell me Chaos, who did tell you polyamory was "learned"? Biologists? Or society? Or some crappy half-witted data that just says so?

No, devil's advocate here is the same, to me, as devil's advocate against homosexuals.

At least that's my heartfelt belief. I was once wholly monogamous, even turned down a threesome with my first girlfriend. Then I realized that marriage was based on ownership, a very human trait, but monogamy is inconvenient for damn near everyone who practices it.

To play devil's advocate, there's a reasonable argument to be made that polygamists really aren't worthy of marriage equality.

His point is absolutely valid. People are born homosexual, people choose to be polygamous. It might be that as a society we make an arbitrary decision that polygamy is not ok. Maybe future generations will decide that it is ok.

Personally, I don't give a damn what consenting adults get up to, but I think it's pretty important not to let the issue of SSM equality get sidetracked by the orthogonal issue of polygamous marriage.

If you want to campaign for polygamous marriage, go for it, but I think it's reasonable to pick your battles and in the USA, change happens slowly. It was over a century from the emancipation proclamation to the Civil Rights Act.

I'll quite happily say that SSM is a more important (but unrelated) issue than polygamous marriage.

I'm calling bullshit on your statement 'homosexuals have always compared polygamy closer to bestiality than to their own sexual orientation'.
Most homosexuals I've known have lived in what would be called polygamist relationships if they had been allowed to marry at the time. Certainly there are those that want a monogamous relationship with only one person, but far more seem to enjoy multiple sexual partners, often at the same time.
The difference... multiple adults can give consent, animals can't.

"Because people aren't born polygamists..." Sorry John, but whether you learn a behavior of mutual love and respect for the bonds with other human lives, you're still fucking human. I hate this shit that he spouts, the veiled hatred that conservatives jack off to with glee. The same hatred discriminating blacks used against gays... That's great...I love the support the gay community gets but not those that believe in alternative forms of marriage. It is funny that if read that another way, most people are born gay or straight. Essentially, if they aren't born that way and instead grow naturally into it, John thinks you're a pickle puffing faggot who doesn't deserve equality? I say that pissed off because homosexuals have always compared polygamy closer to bestiality than to their own sexual orientation. Its been laughed at. Haha. Fuck Stewart's views on this. I love him, but fuck his stupidity here.

Good old Mallard ducks, proof if ever there was of our all loving creators perfection....

......The first non-human species ever observed engaging in homosexual necrophilia and I believe the only species know to reproduce exclusively by gang rape.

He is genuinely quite cute here though, I still want one!

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.

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.

Glad someone sifted this.

I was just about to post this so I could rip into @bobknight33's butthole.

*Ahem*

You see Bob, you're so focused on hating Liberals & Democrats you willfully ignore all these vicious white SAVAGES & THUGS.

Just look at those wild white beasts.
They're destroying property, acting like animals, and tearing apart THEIR OWN COMMUNITIES!

Just common thugs rioting and looting, committing white on white violence.

And for what? Because the didn't like some sporting event results?

How trivial and uneducated of them.

It's a shame, this is exactly why we can't make any progress as a country.

You know, this is precisely what the Conservative Agenda is promoting. White on White crime.

Repulicans, they can keep lining their pockets on Wall Street.

While the average single white mothers fight over the scraps.

~Fin~

See Bob, doesn't that sound like a shit argument? No?

Oh wait, I already know your answer to that. "It's the liberal agenda!" Right?

The Liberal-homosexual-illegal-alien-It-makes-me-uncomfortable-to-acknowledge-the-centuries-of-global-oppression-that-my-white-privilege-represents-so-I'l
l-just-blame-every-minority-for-the-problems-my-forefathers-created Agenda!

Right?!?!

It does not go unnoticed how society used to make derogatory fun of homosexuality, and now they make comedy with homosexuality, but the scenarios haven't changed a bit! Awesome.

I think the problem is ultimately a political one.

There are absolutely social issues in Islam (similar to every religion, but marginally more repressive), but the terrorist angle is there because of geography. Most of the adherents to Islam live in the third world and yeah, they absolutely have genuine, legitimate grievances with the west. Not because we're secular godless infidels, but because of the way we've exploited people.

And these people are exploited by their religious leaders.

Look at Northern Ireland. You had Catholics on one side and Protestants on the other, but because both were Christians, it was framed as a political struggle. If the republicans had been druids or something, then it would be recast as a religious issue.

If most Christians were living in the third world, we'd be looking at the exact same problem. The only reason Christianity is any less problematic than Islam is because it has had to live in an affluent education demographic who increasingly won't put up with it's original treatment of women, homosexuals, etc.

In poorer areas, (southern US, South America, parts of Africa) Christianity is indistinguishable from the Taliban.

I have to agree with Bill that Islam DOES instruct it's followers to spread the religion with the sword....but I must also say he has recently ignored that ALL religions do the same. The difference with Islam these days is the fundamentalists have taken control in many Islamic countries...but a fundamentalist Christian just introduced a bill in America to allow people to shoot homosexuals based on the bible, so lets not pretend hate and murder is just an Islamic thing.
Xenophobia is a religious thing, not just an Islamic thing. I wish Bill would remember that, it might have kept the PC police from starting their latest campaign against him.

How so? If anything, it means gay people can normalize into family units, rather than choosing paths of rebellion against their families.

I've never understood your path of logic. The only thing I can imagine you mean is... well, sort of what this video is poking fun at. Gay marriage does not convince heterosexual people to be gay, nor does it convince them to somehow give up on the concept of the family unit.

Have you even really thought this out beyond some abstract belief that somehow *gasp* through the process of natural selection, we slowly EVOLVE into homosexuals... Is that what you're trying to say? That the hardwired heterosexual drive in some humans will fade out, sort like how eventually all white people will be gone because of all the Mexican and Chinese immigrants in America?

Who knew that the our final step in evolution is the break down of the family unit via gay marriage. I guess that means no more babies. Is this the end of the world God predicted for us? Gay marriage apocalypse!!

I'm going to be devil's advocate here and take the side of fearful American white trash:

Dear gays,

You're ruining the last good thing we had going on here in this country. We took care of the natives, forcing them into small communities where they slowly became psychologically oppressed and fraught with addiction.

But then we lost our control over niggers, who had their places down on our plantations. No matter, we can still push asians around because they're our bitches. But then we started to take them seriously. I don't even understand that.

I can't tell the difference between India people (Indians? Like our natives?) and allah-la-las -- and, really, I suspect because they're all in a similar area of the globe, they're the same. I might even believe Asia and India/Middle East are separate continents or somehow not entangled socially, economically and politically.

I think that's all the colored people, so lastly, addressing devil worshipers and homosexuals, who are really very similar in their connection to Satan. I can't tell you how disgusted I am about a penis going into an anus. It's just so gross. Hot lesbians are alright, but even that goes a little far, as I'm uncomfortable talking about that with people and church says no. Yes, that's bad too... and my wife definitely doesn't need to know anything about what I just said about lesbos. Now, a dyke, on the other hand, I think men are technically allowed to punch dykes.

I've already said too much. I feel gross.

In conclusion, it's been a downward spiral into immorality. Starting with the freedom of black people, who slowly made us lose sight on what is right and decent in the nation which God granted us. From negroes, came homosexuality.