Comments by "Dennis" (@Dennis-nc3vw) on "Joe and Matt Walsh Disagree Over Gay Marriage" video.

Yes, "It's the current year!" is such a great argument.
5
@Nonalhomophobie If it's about homophobia then the suicide rate should have shrunk significantly over the past 20 years. Instead its slightly increased.
3
@Nonalhomophobie It shows that suicide correlates very little with the homophobia in society, so there's something else causing gay suicides.
2
@Nonalhomophobie And homophobia is now much less, so why isn't suicide much less?
2
When people say "marriage is about love" it's just so bizarre I struggle to even find words to address it. Why would you bring the government into a statement of your personal affections for some one else? "I love you, but it doesn't count until the government says so." What?
2
@ZetsubenSama Would you stop saying "Karen"? WTF does that even mean anymore? It's become like the insult "f-g" was in Idiocracy.
2
@repelsteeltje310 A union between two people for the purpose of raising children, or adding members to your family. The latter part is a recent addition when we started bringing marriage into issues like who could make medical decisions for an unconscious spouse, so maybe the true definition is only the first part.
2
@repelsteeltje310 I'm just saying its not about love.
2
@ZetsubenSama Literally they were before we redefined the word. And yet how many people who take the fashionable side on "gay marriage" are freaking out someone dare redefine the term "woman"?
2
@ZetsubenSama Would you stop saying "Karen"? It's like the modern of version of what "f-g" was for Middle Schoolers when I was growing up. It's a fad word that means nothing. How would you like it if someone turned your name into a generic insult?
2
@ZetsubenSama He called YOU those words. You are insulting everyone named Karen with you posts.
2
@ZetsubenSama Stop saying Karen. Get some actual vocabulary instead of throwing around a generic fad word. The modern world is like Idoicracy except instead of everyone being a "f-g" everyone is a "Karen."
2
@ZetsubenSama Consequenes? On youtube? Give me a f***ing break.
2
Why would you need to bring the government into "symbolizing love." That's such a bizarre idea I struggle to even find the words to address it. In India they have a saying "A marriage that begins with love ends with tears." Marriage for love was considered an *ideal*, not a norm, for most of human history, like working a job you love.
2
@Nonalhomophobie They are absolutely not women because every dictionary on the planet defines a woman as "an adult female human." They are not female. If they are, what makes them "trans?" At best you can argue we should redefine the word woman to include them. Eitherway YOUR comment isn't relevant because you're not one the "fashionable people" I mentioned. You support both the redefinition of marriage and "woman."
2
@LogicCaster The divorce rate was not 2% 30 years ago, not even close. Maybe 100 years ago, but its been around 50% since 1970.
2
@Nonalhomophobie And being a woman is not a matter of gender. We call prejudice against women SEXISM for a reason. Gender, as applied to humans, was a term invented in the 1950s. "Woman" is an ancient term.
2
@Nonalhomophobie Your argument is "We are not calling men women because I call those men we call women women". Please don't play these mind games with me.
2
@repelsteeltje310 So you need the government to tell you whether or not you are in a loving relationship? If "marriage is just the recognition of a loving relationship", it's just a word. Marriage for love had been considered an ideal, not a norm, for most of human history. It would be like having a job you loved. Heck, in India they have a saying "A marriage that begins in love ends in tears."
2
@repelsteeltje310 Why on God's Green Earth would you bring the government into recognition of a loving relationship? "I love you, but it doesn't count until the government says so." Would you listen to yourself? Think about how bizarre the sounds. I'm not against gay marriage, but marriage is not about love.
2
@repelsteeltje310 A union between two people the offers economic protection to the homemaker for raising children. Do you think King Louis and Marie Antoinette, who never met eachother before the wedding, got married to "recognize a loving relationship"? Now it is true people who don't raise children often get married to be considered part of another person's family, so they can make medical decisions for them if they're unconscious, etc. So maybe marriage could be said to be about adding someone to your family. I don't know, but it's definitely not "recognition of a loving relationship", 99% of the time "I love you" comes before the marriage, and 1% it comes after.
2
I'm not against gay marriage, I just wish it wasn't such a sacred cow. Our world has lips surgically glued to gay people's asses. We can openly disparage relationships with age gaps, but dare express that you disagree with homosexual relationships and you're crucified. Homosexuals and bisexuals have 2X the suicide rate of heterosexuals, and this has been stagnant for 20 years, even as gay acceptance has skyrocketed. That suggests these relationships could be psychologically damaging. People need to stop ignoring the natural order of things. Does anyone truly believe pedophilia (I'm talking about sex acts with prepubescent children) is so damaging simply because kids are stupid? Animals are dumber than pre-schoolers, but they're not traumatized by mating. No, I think its intuitive it's not just that, especially when pedophilia leads to psychological abnormalities such as victims being pedophiles (people with a strong and exclusive attraction to prepubescent children) themselves. Similarly, look at teenage angst. For 99% of human history, teenagers were adults, but we treat them like kids. As a result, they are miserable. This is the price we pay for ignoring the natural order of things. Maybe adolescence is a necessary evil, but its still an evil, and yet people only seem to want to extend it, ignoring the trauma and dysfunction caused by this unnatural system.
1
@Nonalhomophobie Critical Public Health, 2015
1
Thank you. Seeing how society today has its lips surgically glued to gay people's asses, but can openly disparage age gaps in relationships, often leaves me feeling resentful of teh gheyz. I appreciate your willingness to have open dialogue about this.
1
@repelsteeltje310 "first marriage by definition is the recognition of a loving relationship." You just completely made that up. Do you think people who were in arranged marriages between royal families from two different nations, like King Louis and Marie Antoinette, did so to recognize they loved each other? They hadn't even met before the wedding! What about mail order brides, which still exist today? Love and marriage correlate, because its hard to grow attached to someone you live with and bang for years on end, but they are not a "statement of love."
1
@ZetsubenSama It's called a parrallel. Why can't we redefine woman if we can redefine marriage. To be fair, maybe you think we can. But so many people are drones blowing the winds of fashion, and know the gay marraige is one of those "cool kid" positions but transgenderism isn't.
1
It's not clear if this is a debate about legal rights or semantics, plenty of people oppose gay marriage but support same sex "civil unions" with the same right. It's hard to argue against calling trans-women women when we've already redefined marriage. If union between a man and woman can have the same name as a union between two men, why can't one man be called the same thing as one woman?
1
 @ZetsubenSama I'm not saying Logic caster doesn't deserve to be insulted, I'm saying everyone named Karen doesn't deserve to be insulted.
1
Australia, Germany, and Finland didn't legalize gay marriage until 2017, Switzerland didn't legalize gay marriage until 2022. Yet Americans was still painted as nation of rubes by the left because it wasn't legal in 2004. Just shows the ruthless anti-Americanism that powered the pre-Trump left.
1
Society: Let's redefine a word that used to mean a union between an adult human female and an adult human male, and use it include two men Fashionable people: Yay!!!! Society: Let's redefine a word that used to mean an adult human female, and redefine it to include a man! Fashionable people: REEEEEEEEEE! The sky is falling!!!!
1
@ZetsubenSama So how far do you take this logic. If I find once example of a woman joined a fraternity in history, do we redefine the term "fraternity" to include any gender?
1
@ZetsubenSama No one is talking about gay people's right to form unions with legal rights equal to marriage, the point is whether we had the right to redefine the word "marriage" which if you looked in any dictionary priory to 20 years ago would have been defined as a union between a man and woman. I'd also like to know what these examples of gay marriages throughout history were, because prior to the ERA marriage gave specific duties to men and women so gay marriage was, by definition, impossible.
1
He's not controlling anything. He said his issue is not the legal rights but a definitional. It was your side who decided to "control" and change the definition.
1
@ZetsubenSama Your first sentence is correct. The second and third sentence is non-sense. What does that even mean?
1
@ZetsubenSama People complain that we redefined "woman", but can you really complain about that when we redefined a word that meant (in part) "a union between a man and woman." That's the zinger Matt seems to keep missing here. If a union between a man and a woman can be called the same thing as a union between two men, why can't an individual man be called the same things as an woman, namely "woman."
1
But if a union between a man and woman can be called the same things as a union between two men, how can we complain when an individual man is called the same thing as an individual woman (namely "woman"). It's a logical progression.
1
@milajovic7252 Then you have no beef with Matt Walsh. He's said his issue with gay marriage is a "definitional issue." And of course trans people rights should be protected, but what are their rights? A cis man can't use scholarships for women because he's male, a trans-woman can't use a scholarship for women because "she's" male. That's equal rights. The question is not whether they should have equal rights, but equal to whom?
1
@repelsteeltje310 Matt Walsh's objection is a definitional issue, he doesn't object to gay unions having equal rights. Many people feel this way. Fraternities and sororities have equal rights but we don't call them the same thing.
1