Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "" video.

  1. Alito has a point on same sex marriage. Marriage is not a right. But the bigger question is why is government involved in marriage to begin with?
    5
  2. It isn't until they shoved it in our faces and singing about wanting to convert children. I don't advertise that I am straight. So don't advertise being gay and we can all move on. Also, the whole "gay rights" issue is a bad take. Why should there be special rights for gay people?
    2
  3.  @katb1145  so married people get special benefits and rights where single people don't? I see that as unequal.
    2
  4.  @purevenus6359  where was it considered illegal to be gay? Also, that was decades ago, we are talking about now. The pendulum is swinging the other way. Is it now illegal to to be gay? If the answer is no then we are fine. And saying "gay rights" is a bad route to take. So gay people should be special rights? The convert your children song was unnecessary and creepy and gives the lgbt...alphabet plus minus community a bad imagine. Also, here is the irony of that group. They want tolerance and acceptance. I cannot join that choir because I am not gay. They discriminate in that case.
    1
  5.  @brandonm949  there is no right to marriage. Also, there is no right to adopt a child. And don't call them "gay rights" but instead rights. If you give gay people this so call "right go marriage" it is not a "gay right" but a right. It is that simple. Saying "gay rights" is making it sound that gays get special rights others don't.
    1
  6.  @JanglesPrime999  no rights should be taken away by anyone without due process. No special protection needed. And marriage is not a right. And on marriage, a real question is why is the government involved to begin with?
    1
  7.  @fast-yi9js  if you are referring to me how am I a homophobe? I actually want to treat gays as equals. That is why I don't like the phrase "gay rights" as it suggests they get special rights that are different than everyone else. It is too similar to "separate but equal".
    1
  8.  @JanglesPrime999  not really. Equal treatment under the law is a right via the 14th amendment. How marriage is defined is key. If between a man and a woman then gay people always had the ability to get married, it had to be with someone of the opposite gender. Not saying I agree or disagree, saying that is the standard. If you want to make it a right amend the constitution. I can argue that married people should not get special benefits from the government as that is unequal. What about people in long term relationships? What about people who are single?
    1
  9.  @fast-yi9js  getting yelled at is freedom of speech. As long as they are not threatening you they can yell all they want, and you can yell back. And what basic rights are you talking about?
    1
  10.  @JanglesPrime999  the courts legislated from the bench, thus we all lost. If the law says between man and woman that is the law. As I said, a gay man always had the ability to get married, it just had to be with a woman. Again, not saying I agree or disagree with the law, saying that is the standard and for great reasons. The 14th essentially means equal treatment under the law. There are ways to involve property, healthcare decisions and children without government getting involved in marriage. Heck, many times you have children out of wedlock. And again, I will say being single I am not treated equally if married people get special benefits.
    1
  11.  @JanglesPrime999  I never said they had the right to get married because marriage is not a right. What I am saying is that they can get married that will be recognized by the government as long as it is with a woman. That is how the law is written. And you say there should be no legal difference, ok, what about polygamy? Should the government recognize that? "And, no you can't have those things without the government involved in marriage. " You very well could. You can, and do have situations where there is joint ownership of property. On healthcare issues you can list someone as an emergency contact. And again, on children, born out of wedlock, how do you handle that? On medical decisions, either change the law of next of kin, or have an agreement before hand. You can do that.
    1
  12.  @hopeintruth5119  how am I homophobic? Also, what about people who aren't attracted to anyone? Or what about people who decide not to get married? And forcing what beliefs? And who said I go to church? You are making assumptions about me which is a problem in itself, to many people make assumptions. Why should the government get involved in marriage?
    1
  13.  @hopeintruth5119  What I am saying is that if someone who is not attracted to someone but wants the benefits of marriage they will have to do it with the opposite gender. Again, not saying the law if right or wrong, but that is how it is written. In fact, as I said, why should government be involved in marriage to begin with?
    1
  14.  @hopeintruth5119  why should the government get involved in marriage?
    1
  15.  @hopeintruth5119  how am I forcing my belief on someone else? So you can't access other people's belonging without being married?
    1
  16.  @223Drone  how are LGBT people facing discrimination? Also, saying LGBT rights is treating them differently, the same as separate but equal. Why do you support separate but equal?
    1
  17.  @223Drone  "You don't want LGBT people to be treated as equals because you're openly defending/supporting anti-LGBT laws and support discrimination against LGBT people." What laws do I support? And you are the one that wants to discriminate against them but giving them special rights that only they have. "LGBT people don't have special rights" Ok, they why call them "gay rights"?
    1
  18.  @kurisu7885  how does it gets advertise on my behalf? The San Fran gay men choir is singing about converting children. Look it up. I don't agree with organized religion doing it. Difference is that parents choose that. Churches are not forcing kids to attend church.
    1
  19. Oh no, the SC is going to give power back to the states. What are we going to do?
    1
  20. I agree, people should be free to discriminate. I am all for it so I know who are the actual bigots and who aren't. If a business fires someone for being gay you will know, will you still do business with them?
    1
  21.  @BardaLiefson  how will a business stay open if no one goes there? And you saying conservatives are bigots speaks volumes about you. And in rural areas if they are not racist those minorities would have left long ago. But trust me, they are not racists.
    1
  22.  @BardaLiefson  but again, you calling conservatives bigots and saying in rural areas they are all racists speaks volumes about you, and not in a good way.
    1
  23.  @BardaLiefson  ok, here we go. I can easily argue the left is racist via the soft bigotry of low expectations. So there is that. And how many conservatives do you actually know? You calling them bigots means that is on your mind. If there is a lot of racism in rural areas those minorities would have left long ago or would be flat out dead due to being denied a lot of access to resources.
    1
  24.  @223Drone  people discriminate all the time. I support freedom. If a person wants to discriminate, even as a business owner, i am fine with that. And I will discriminate against them for being a bigot.
    1
  25.  @223Drone  you see, you want to make it so the bigots find secret ways to discriminate. You know, a racist finds any excuse to not hire a potentially black employee. Such as interviewing them to claim "I am not a racist, I interview black individuals" but never hires them. Me, I want to make it so they are out in the open. We know who they are and we can discriminate against them. Why do you want to protect bigots?
    1
  26.  @purevenus6359  and why? That should be step one.
    1
  27.  @superjetguy388  how would it be a disaster? Also, why should marriage be in the tax code? Why should married people get special tax privileges where single people don't?
    1
  28.  @Nagisa9397  where in the constitution does it says it is a right? Also, even at that, the government does not have to get involved.
    1
  29.  @superjetguy388  so a private sector does not have to recognize marriage. It is that simple. If two people want to get married that is fine, people do not have to recognize it. You saying one private institution will recognize it but another won't will lead to what issues really? Also, why do they get special benefits and taxes from the government? I find that to be unequal. And just because it has been around a long time does not make it the best route. Slavery was around for a long time.
    1
  30.  @Nagisa9397  where in the Constitution? Point it out. Article, section.......
    1
  31.  @devonlynch6042  I was meaning marriage. On life, liberty and happiness, all that means is that government cannot take those away from you without due process. You are not guaranteed it.
    1
  32.  @captainawesome730  I don't agree with the deeply rooted in history part, and I also never said I agree with Alito 100%. With that, I will agree with you in what Alito is saying is flawed.
    1
  33.  @223Drone  never said it was wrong. Why do you feel that I think it is wrong? And what rights do LGBT people lack?
    1
  34.  @223Drone  agreeing with Alito's LGBT marriage ruling is not me saying LGBT marriage is wrong. It is similar to free speech. When you say something racist I won't agree with your comments, but I will defend your right to say it without punishment from the government. On marriage, it is a state issue as marriage is not in the Constitution. So where did I ever oppose LGBT marriage? Point to any comment.
    1
  35.  @223Drone  "You've openly defended/supportred the idea of banning LGBT marriage several times" Where? Until you point to any comment I made supporting banning LGBT marriage, you have nothing. As usual, in our other discussions, I will wait for a little bit even though you will produce no results.
    1
  36.  @223Drone  " Interracial marriage and abortion weren't on the constitution but both of them were considered constitutional by the SC " So by your standards we should still have segregation based on the Plessy v Fergurson ruling.
    1
  37.  @223Drone  "Alito's stance on LGBT marriage not to mention you're using the "state issue" BS to argue in favor of anti-LGBT laws" What anti-LGBT laws do I support? Again, point to any law I said I support. I asked this many times from you and you produce nothing.
    1
  38.  @223Drone  "Again you openly admitted that you agree with Alito's stance on LGBT marriage" Now please explain to me that means I support banning LGBT marriage? Again, me supporting you saying racist things does not mean I support your racist statements. I support freedom of speech.
    1
  39.  @223Drone  again, what law? A court ruling is not a law. Do you know how laws are made? So I ask again,, what law?
    1
  40.  @223Drone  "and you openly admitted that discrimination against LGBT people is a good thing. " When? What comment?
    1
  41.  @223Drone  "You openly agree with Alito, how is that not seen as being in favor of banning LGBT marriage?" Alito wants to keep LGBT marriage issue at the state level. I agree with that as nowhere in the Constitution is marriage listed as a right. Thus it goes to the states. I support state rights and limited federal government. That agreement of Alito has nothing to do about if I support LGBT marriage or not. It is a separate issue. "You're grasping straws as. At no point did I say anything racist." And nowhere did I say I supporting banning LGBT marriage and nowhere did I say I support discrimination of LGBT people, women, minorities, etc.
    1
  42.  @223Drone  "You've gone out of your way to defend/support openly anti-LGBT laws in several comment sections" So it should be easy to find just one comment.
    1
  43.  @223Drone  "You outright said people should be allowed to discriminate in several comments. " Sure, we all discriminate. If there is a business that discriminates against someone due to their color, gender, etc. you can discriminate against them by not doing business with them. You will be discriminating against bigots. Answer this, please. I know answering questions is hard for you, but would you hang out with a racist? "Why would some like you think discrimination against LGBT people women etc is a good thing?" I don't think it is good. You see, I can answer your questions. Now answer mine. Will you ever hang out with a racist?
    1
  44.  @223Drone  so is that it? You run away?
    1
  45.  @223Drone  ok, what law? You have yet to point to just one comment, just one. It can't be that hard.
    1
  46.  @223Drone  ok, what law? Still waiting.......
    1
  47. It is in the Constitution. Article III Section 2.
    1
  48. The reality is that an employer should be allowed to fire someone if they are gay, black, white, straight, etc. And we should support that. Why? Because we will then know what businesses are ran by racists, sexists, homophobics, etc. And guess what? We can not do business with them.
    1
  49.  @kurisu7885  Trump backed candidates won.
    1
  50. Ok, what is this court?
    1
  51.  @laserramon9926  how have I been proven wrong? You saying so is not a rebuttal
    1
  52.  @223Drone  says the man who completely misrepresents me.
    1
  53.  @keirfarnum6811  how am I wrong? Please explain.
    1
  54.  @223Drone  uh, you say I support anti LGBT laws. I ask which ones, and what comment supports that. You provide nothing.
    1
  55.  @223Drone  so it should be very easy to find just one comment, just one.
    1