Comments by "Dennis" (@Dennis-nc3vw) on "Debunking Gay Marriage - It Can't Exist" video.

  1. He literally said "It's a definitional issue" in the video. How can people wail about people redefining the words "man" and "woman" when they supported redefining a word that meant "a union between a man and a woman."
    4
  2.  @mint_soup9743  You have some growing up to do because you'd rather be one of the cool kids and take the fashionable side on this issue than consider what he's saying. If you can redefine as a word that means a union between a man and woman, why can't you redefine a word that means a single, individual woman like...I don't know, the word woman? He said its a definitional issue, this is not about legal rights.
    3
  3. Those fans have simply proven themselves to be drones blowing in the winds of fashion. The fact that their own hypocrisy goes right over their head makes me wonder if there's any hope for the human race.
    3
  4. You don't care when they redefine "marriage" but screech in horror when they redefine "woman." How does that work?
    2
  5. He means the legal rights can continue, but it should be called something else FFS. Are you really surprised that after redefining a word that meant "A union between a man and woman" we went on to redefine the words "man" and "woman" themselves?
    2
  6. No it's not. That's like saying if someone denies trans-women are not women, they are saying "cis women" are better people. They're not. Tell me how you can refuse to consider refuse to use the word "woman" to describe a male, but can use the word "marriage" to describe a union between two men? Both require you to change the definition.
    2
  7. I really really hope most of these haters are really the fans of leftist youtubers who made response videos and not Matt Walsh's base. Speaking from the bottom of my heart, I despair for the human race if people can screech and wail when someone redefines "woman" but then unquestioningly defend the redefinition of "marriage."
    2
  8. This isn't about legal rights, as Matt said. His issue is definitional. Is it any surprise that after we said two men could be a marriage, that a male could be a woman?
    2
  9. You don't understand what "The Ceremonial Law" is.
    2
  10. Yes, you follow all the opinions of your favorite celebrities, your college professors, and everything the elites believe without question, and yet we are the mindless zombies for going against the grain.
    2
  11. That's what he said. He said its a definitional difference.
    1
  12. So then so do women with penises.
    1
  13. So do women with penises by your logic.
    1
  14. How is redefining a word a matter of freedom? I'm I less free because the Federal Government doesn't codify my belief that chicken is a fruit?
    1
  15. Look what happened when society caved on this issue. Now there's no such thing as mental illness, only a beautiful spectrum of identities. I say that was someone who used to support gay marriage, but now I'm on the fence.
    1
  16. I feel like I'm back in Middle School. Everyone is dog-piling on Matt to prove they're on the "cool kid" side of the issue. It's disgusting. Matt said this is "a definitional issue" in the video. He's not trying to take away anyone's legal rights. But how you can support redefining a union between a man and woman to include a union between two men, but then screech in horror at the idea that someone can redefine the term "woman" to include males?
    1
  17.  @havocxmosquito2839  That's Matt entire f***ing point. He said as much in the video.
    1
  18. There's no hope for the human race. They just side with gay marriage because its the "cool kid" stance.
    1
  19. They changed the dictionary. If they change the definition of woman in the dictionary, will you go along with that.
    1
  20.  @tfarr8138  That divorce statistic is completely made up, divorce rates are nearly identical.
    1
  21. So you're fine with changing the definition of marriage, but screech when people want to change the definition of "woman"?
    1
  22. He said "It's a definitional issue" if the fricking video. This has nothing to do with rights and freedoms. The question is how can you screech in protest when someone redefines "woman" when you've already redefined a word that meant "a union between a man and a woman."
    1
  23.  Greg LeJacques  Oh STFU, he's made maybe 500 videos in the past year and perhaps one is about gay marriage? This is why I can't stand the Pride movement, even when it's just about teh gheyz. The fact we live in a society where two men getting married is some kind of untouchable sacred idea, but we openly disparage age gaps, shows how messed up our society is.
    1
  24. Sort of like he does with the definition of woman, saying his definition the word "woman" is better than other people's because it's the original definition. The only difference is you probably agree with that, because pro-trans isn't one of those cool-kid stances like being pro gay marriage is. He's not trying to restrict Pete's freedoms, just what the state calls the union. He says it's "a definitional issue" in the video.
    1
  25. So? This isn't that country.
    1
  26. For the fuckteenth time, he said in the video "It's a definitional issue." How can you wail that someone redefines the word "woman" when you redefined the word "marriage"?
    1
  27. No he's saying it never was a marriage, just like a trans-woman never was a woman.
    1
  28. Try a dictionary that's more than 20 years old.
    1
  29. He said "it's a definitional issue." He's not denying their union deserves legal and formal recognition, but it's not a marriage, just like a "woman" with a wiener is not a woman.
    1
  30. He's not talking about what they can do. He makes it crystal clear its a definitional issue. How do you miss the irony that you shriek in horror when someone redefines "woman" but are equally horrified when someone dares question the redefinition of marriage?
    1
  31. But how do you enforced the union without the government?
    1