Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Fox Host: Gay Journalists Are Too Biased" video.

+O'dorin Gandy Name me one right straight people have and gay people don't have
2
Gays have the exact same rights as everyone else.
1
To start, that is not a right. Next, statistically the people with the highest rate of HIV are homosexual men. I see no difference in that and car insurance companies charging men more because men, statistically, get into more accidents. So this comes back to that fact that gay people have the exact same rights as straight people.
1
Marriage isn't a right
1
Nowhere in the constitution does it say you have the right to marry. You have to right to pursue happiness and if that is getting married, by whatever standard that may be, then you have that right and not be in fear of persecution. When it comes to the eyes of the law marriage is a state and local law, not a federal law (or at least it shouldn't be). So the states and local government decide if they want to recognize marriage. Now you can make an argument that if they do then they can't discriminate based on the 14th amendment and I would agree to a point. But as far as marriage being a right it isn't at all. So it comes back to that gays have the exact same rights as heterosexuals.
1
I know what the law says, doesn't mean it is correct. The SC ruled in favor of a private business in Kelo vs City of New London which directly violates the 5th amendment. Just because a law exists doesn't mean it is correct. Nowhere in the constitution does it say marriage is a right thus marriage is not a right.
1
" right it doesn't say it anywhere or mention it therefore it is open to change and laws have changed accordingly." In order to do that you have to amend the constitution. All that was ruled was in favor via the 14th amendment which I do see the argument for. "of course experts of the law and constitution have nothing to a a lowly individual who comments on YouTube such as yourself. of views defer from yours it's not right...right?" Those "experts" voted 5-4. What if there were 99 justices? Also, as I said, they ruled incorrectly before. Take the patriot act for example. "people thought it was morally correct to own slaves at one point too." And was changed by amending the constitution. "that's the problem with your kind of people. by providing equal rights to all it somehow impedes on your rights and it really doesn't. you need to find something else to bother you sweetie." I am a person who supports standards. Without standards you create a mess. Gay people could always live together, screw, go on vacation, share an income and so on together. It was that in the eyes of the law they weren't married and thus didn't receive things married people did. They were treated like single people, like me. It begs the question should the government even be involved in marriage to begin with? If it wasn't then guess what, you have nothing to complain about.......but I bet you will find something.
1
"and as I mentioned nowhere does it say gays can't be married" I agreed. I said that gay people could always marry without fear of persecution. The law just won't recognize it. "I understand if you don't agree with having gay Christian weddings but a marriage is just a legal paper saying these people are xomitted and sharing their assets." You can have that without being married. "But what do you care if I got married? In no way does that affect you. The only thing it does is disagree with only your values. Oh no my feelings are hurt, we should make it illegal." Do you even know my feelings on gay marriage? I have a feeling that you think I am against it for some reason. Or that I oppose it. " You have the argument of a 3 year old having a tantrum" How? When did I ever say in all of my comments that I opposed gay marriage, or that it was wrong in any way? All I did was state a fact that marriage is not a right. I have this feeling that you came to this discussion with a predetermined answer and conclusion about me.
1
"The fact that you have no argument except "It doesn't match my values therefore is not right" is proof why we don't make laws based on that alone." When did I ever mention my values? Give me a direct quote. All I said was that, based on the constitution marriage is not a right.
1
"Well if the law doesn't recognize it then it's not legally married therefore it's inequality." There is a strong argument for that which I have made numerous times before. Also a state does not have to recognize marriages, thus no one is married in the eyes of the law. "You clearly are against it. " How so? What did I say to show I was against it? I am against not having and following standards. I couldn't care less what gay people do as long as we have standards and follow them. Marriage is not a right, period. As soon as you understand that then we can move on. You need to understand what rights are in this country and how laws are supposed to be developed. I guess I can argue that I can marry my cat since I have a right to marriage. Why have standards?
1
"I'm on vacation we will continue this discussion in a few days unless you've admitted to your own bigotry then I won't bother." Considering I am not a bigot then bye. I will end with this. It is people like you that hindered the progress in making gay marriage legal. You are reactionary, over emotional, and attack people instead of having an actual intelligent conversation with them. And with you saying that you will refuse to have a discussion with me unless I say I am a bigot really shows how myopic and ignorant you are. If you really are gay then you are an embarrassment to the gay community.
1
"I just want equal rights through and through." So do I. Those rights are clearly listed in the constitution. " Any variation is inequality simple as that so don't pt the blame on me." There are a lot of examples of "inequality". Why are smoking laws 18 but drinking 21? Why is driving 16? Why do married people get benefits? Why do we have a progressive tax code? Why do we have zoning laws? If you want to remove inequality than you should get the government out of marriage. "Also I'm Canadian so I've had equal rights for over a decade lol" And so do US citizens.
1
""I support gays...I just don't want them to have 100% of the same rights as me and they should appeal the ruling and not be recognized as legally married."" No, I never said that. As I said, you are an embarrassment for the gay community and it is people like you why progress takes so long to get. You literally make up what people say. No where did I say I oppose gay marriage. No where did I say I have any values in this at all. My values or morals mean thing when it comes to standards. Let me give an example. I hate what people on TYT, or people like Pat Robertson, Alex Jones, Piers Morgan, Bernie Sanders etc. have to say. I feel the spread a lot of ignorance to society and is against my values as I am a man who feel intelligence is important. At the same time I will support their freedom of speech and will stand by the standard that they have the right to say the ignorant things they do. The same falls for the issue of gay marriage. My values or morals mean nothing. We have standards in place and I will follow those. Here are the facts 1. Marriage is not a right 2. the right to pursue happiness is, thus you can get married in your eyes without fear of persecution 3. marriage, in the eyes of the law is a state an local government issue 4. via the 14th amendment no government can discriminate Those are the standards. Use that to formulate an argument for or against gay marriage. For me I used it to formulate an argument for gay marriage based mainly on the 14th amendment. In the end it is clear that marriage is not a right. Develop some intelligence and you will get more progress done.
1
I agree that 1. marriage is not a right 2. that via the 14th amendment the government can't discriminate I feel that there are legit debates against gay marriage but those that create them, like those that make arguments for it, do so in a very asinine manner. Also, my feeling is that to be opposed to gay marriage and ban it you have to change how marriage is viewed in the eyes of the law in general which those that oppose gay marriage will be against. In a nutshell, I feel the people arguing on the issue on both sides are ignorant. You pretty much supported my case on that.
1
It is ignorant to 1. create rights that don't exists 2. let emotions get the best of you to go against standards 3. not understanding standards to begin with when creating laws " It's a demand to be recognize as completely equal citizens and live our life as any normal adult." As a single person I don't get the benefits of a married person. Is that equal? " If that offends you, that on you not me." It offends me when you try to appeal to emotions to get what you want instead of using logic and standards listed in the constitution. I gave you some ideas on what you can do. "I may have been a bit overzealous but this is my life I'm talking about." And my life too. I don't want laws being created because people arbitrarily make up rights.
1
Sometimes being single is not a choice due to several circumstances. So why should they be treated unequal? "Ok so so if I were black and I wanted to stop being enslaved that would be an emotional need the fore it holds no meaning and you should not have laws to protect you" The constitution was amended to make it a right not to be enslaved. "I now see that you actually are bigoted. " How? What did I ever say to show I was a bigot? "Typical republican bs." You do know I am a moderate? Again, you are a prime example of why it took so long to get gay marriage legal. Anyone or counters you in anyway you simply name call. That is how the term "regressive liberal" was developed.
1
"You are comparing singles to married people. That comparison is irrelevant to this discussion" No it's not because it begs the question why is the government involved in marriage to begin with? And that can create a discussion in if the government is involved in marriage how should it be? In the end marriage is not a right.
1
"Because being married gives certain benefits that not being married does not. " I know, but the question is why? That is one thing we should be asking. "when you are not allowed to marry you are at a disadvantage" But you are allowed to marry, if gay marriage is not recognized then the marriage has to be between a man and a woman. Not finding the opposite sex attractive is no different than someone not finding a mate at all. So it begs the question what is the government's role in marriage if there should be one?
1
"What do I care about whether or not it's in the constitution?" Because that is the standard. "It should be a right for everyone in this world to marry the one they love and get the same rights as other married couples" You can't just arbitrarily make up rights. If you do that then we have no standards and chaos happens. "The only arguments against are religion-based. " No there's not. " You can try to justify it by waving the constitution" Yes I can, that is how all laws are made.
1
"Not everyone lives in the USA so no, your constitution is not 'the standard'." It is in the US. "And I'm sure there are rights you all agree on in the USA that are not specifically mentioned in the constitution either." Nope, all the rights are listed in the constitution. "But we were not discussing constitutional rights here, we were discussing inequalities between people based on their sexual orientation." There are inequalities all over the place. "It is very well possible to have a personal opinion about whether or not something should be a right for everyone." What is a right is not my opinion, they are listed in the constitution. "I find your fear of 'making up rights' and this somehow resulting in 'chaos' quite ridiculous" You have to have standards, period. Without standards you create chaos. "What do you think will happen when gay people can marry just like everybody else" Nothing, as long as we have standards and stick to them.
1
Legalizing gay marriage will change taxes for a lot of people along with a lot of other legal stances. That is why I said initially that we need to consider the government's role in marriage. I never said the federal government couldn't intervene in gay marriage. There is a 14th amendment argument to be made and I said that before. I have this strong feeling that you are not reading my comments and have made the conclusion that I am opposed to gay marriage. I never once said I opposed gay marriage.
1
I don't support the federal government getting involved in any state issue unless it is to enforce the constitution. There is an argument to be made with the 14th amendment in making gay marriage legal. Let us look at CA definition of marriage "Marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between two persons...." Nowhere does it say between a man and woman, or people of the same state. Now look at section 1 of the 14th amendment "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Ok, if two people of the same sex were to get married then CA has to allow them since their law does not specifically say man and woman, but two people. Same with two people of different race. CA, via the 14th amendment, cannot deprive citizens of that. Now if CA's law said between a man and a woman then the 14th amendment can't be applied in gay marriage here. You understand what is going on?
1
Eric Dumont It doesn't matter what is acceptable and what isn't. We have to stick to standards.
1
Again, when did I ever say I did or did not support gay marriage?
1
TYT isn't an actual news station either
1