Man SLAYS Piers Morgan and Suze Orman on Gay Marriage debate

[russwest0]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrk1R-3X9Hc

I don't even fall on his side of the argument but he clearly won that debate the instant that woman started screaming that he was "uneducated" and resorted to trying to get the audience on her side and shit.

[KyrieTheFuture]

There really isn't a good argument against gay marriage, and this does not change that

[russwest0]

There really isn't a good argument against gay marriage, and this does not change that

Agreed, but man did they get COOKED in that debate. Resorting to evoking the audience into a mob mentality, are you serious? :lol

[Patrick Chewing]

Who still doesn't understand that if someone opposes gay marriage, it doesn't mean they hate/dislike gay people??

[KyrieTheFuture]

Agreed, but man did they get COOKED in that debate. Resorting to evoking the audience into a mob mentality, are you serious? :lol
Pretty embarrassing for her. She was an ATROCIOUS debater I can't believe she made it onto the air.

[ace23]

Cringe at that sensationalist strawman Piers brought up about prisoners having the right to get married.

[ThePhantomCreep]

Who still doesn't understand that if someone opposes gay marriage, it doesn't mean they hate/dislike gay people??

Most right-wingers lack self-introspection skills, so it's understandable.

[longtime lurker]

Who still doesn't understand that if someone opposes gay marriage, it doesn't mean they hate/dislike gay people??

It just means that you think of them as less then human.

[sammichoffate]

I feel for the guy, he has to try and explain his position to a pair of morons :facepalm

[Magic731]

Who still doesn't understand that if someone opposes gay marriage, it doesn't mean they hate/dislike gay people??
This.

[Patrick Chewing]

Most right-wingers lack self-introspection skills, so it's understandable.


Far from true. When you say "most", you don't know that. Left-wingers, through history have been the most prejudiced people ever. Do some research.

[Bless Mathews]

Slayed.

[travelingman]

Left-wingers, through history have been the most prejudiced people ever.

Bias detection: 100%

[gigantes]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrk1R-3X9Hc

I don't even fall on his side of the argument but he clearly won that debate the instant that woman started screaming that he was "uneducated" and resorted to trying to get the audience on her side and shit.
whenever i see a thread like this, i think "cool... time for piers to have his long-awaited comeuppance!"

then it actually amounts to some blowhard religious dipshit acting like a brain-washed parrot upon piers' logistical questions. Q1-- answer 1. Q2-- A1. Q3-- A1. etc.

i mean, isn't there just ONE jesus-freak (or variation of such) who has the chutzpah and logistical ability to actually take down piers?? C'MON!! this is getting depressing, TBH.

[Cactus-Sack]

What argument is there for being against gay marriage again?

"Don't like them queers"???

[Boarder Patrol]

Gay marriage should be legal for sure, but he wins the argument here by a landslide. They just go straight to the typical audience pandering, personal insults and hyperbole.

[Myth]

Ryan Anderson deflects from the social security, health benefits, etc. issues by calling them secondary issues and saying: "The primary function that marriage serves in every society is protecting the rights of children." I want to hear how he thinks keeping gays from getting married protects children.

[Myth]

Gay marriage should be legal for sure, but he wins the argument here by a landslide. They just go straight to the typical audience pandering, personal insults and hyperbole.

Agreed. Luckily, being a better debater doesn't make you right.

[kNIOKAS]

Ugh Piers Morgan bottomline ugly. Trying to make it all a dirt contest, trying to offend on personal level, etc.

The guy did a good job laying down the argument.

[russwest0]

I don't even agree with his viewpoint but if I was neutral it'd be clear to me which one was "winning" the debate and who I'd more likely side with.

A man trying to rationalize the subject and view it from a logical standpoint vs a woman getting all emotional, name calling, and trying to act like being in the minority = wrong.

[Milbuck]

Agreed on the premise of the thread..it's not about the actual substance of the debate, it's just another example of Piers supporting a position he just "feels" is fundamentally right by clinging to arguments he hasn't made nor is he capable of making. He'll always be the pseudo-intellectual that gets routinely cooked by genuine intellectuals. Watch his debate with Shapiro. If you can get over Shapiro's voice, it's another amusing demolition of Piers.

[NumberSix]

Ryan Anderson deflects from the social security, health benefits, etc. issues by calling them secondary issues and saying: "The primary function that marriage serves in every society is protecting the rights of children." I want to hear how he thinks keeping gays from getting married protects children.
He actually didn't deflect at all. His explanation obviously just flew over your head.

I'll simplify it for the children.....


There are bad tax laws. Instead of relying on creating loopholes for exemptions, like loopholes afforded to married people, just do away with the bad tax laws in the first place. Then you don't need to rely on qualifying for loopholes.

[NumberSix]

I don't even agree with his viewpoint but if I was neutral it'd be clear to me which one was "winning" the debate and who I'd more likely side with.

A man trying to rationalize the subject and view it from a logical standpoint vs a woman getting all emotional, name calling, and trying to act like being in the minority = wrong.
People on the left generally value emotion over logic.

[Balla_Status]

Ryan Anderson deflects from the social security, health benefits, etc. issues by calling them secondary issues and saying: "The primary function that marriage serves in every society is protecting the rights of children." I want to hear how he thinks keeping gays from getting married protects children.

Pretty sure you missed a couple of his points man and I'm sure if he was given more time and not being interrupted by Suze Orman he could've explain it more clearly. He wanted gay couples to have those things without redefining marriage.

Personally, I'd like to hear more about what he has to say.

[bagelred]

Who still doesn't understand that if someone opposes gay marriage, it doesn't mean they hate/dislike gay people??

Exactly! Geez, somebody finally gets it!

I've been saying for years that black people should not have the right to vote. It doesn't mean I hate/dislike black people.

Finally, somebody understands. Thanks Patrick Chewing. :cheers:

[russwest0]

Agreed on the premise of the thread..it's not about the actual substance of the debate, it's just another example of Piers supporting a position he just "feels" is fundamentally right by clinging to arguments he hasn't made nor is he capable of making. He'll always be the pseudo-intellectual that gets routinely cooked by genuine intellectuals. Watch his debate with Shapiro. If you can get over Shapiro's voice, it's another amusing demolition of Piers.

Lol yes, I have seen that debate with Shapiro and it was epic because Shapiro COOKED him.

[kNIOKAS]

Exactly! Geez, somebody finally gets it!

I've been saying for years that black people should not have the right to vote. It doesn't mean I hate/dislike black people.

Finally, somebody understands. Thanks Patrick Chewing. :cheers:
What a straw strawman. :eek:

[bagelred]

What a straw strawman. :eek:

Not a strawman argument at all. Quite equal actually.

I also don't believe Chinese people should have the right to drive. Again, it doesn't mean I hate/dislike Chinese people.

[kNIOKAS]

Not a strawman argument at all. Quite equal actually.

I also don't believe Chinese people should have the right to drive. Again, it doesn't mean I hate/dislike Chinese people.
Quite another strawman. :no:


What are you trying to achieve here?

[bagelred]

Quite another strawman. :no:


What are you trying to achieve here?

Not at all, right to drive, right to vote, right to marriage....these are all on same level. Just because you say "strawman" doesn't mean it's accurate or dismisses it. You'd have to show how these 3 rights are different.

[knickballer]

whenever i see a thread like this, i think "cool... time for piers to have his long-awaited comeuppance!"

then it actually amounts to some blowhard religious dipshit acting like a brain-washed parrot upon piers' logistical questions. Q1-- answer 1. Q2-- A1. Q3-- A1. etc.

i mean, isn't there just ONE jesus-freak (or variation of such) who has the chutzpah and logistical ability to actually take down piers?? C'MON!! this is getting depressing, TBH.

I suppose they do pick the religious idiots as it tends to create a more entertaining "debate" which can drive up viewership. If they want a real debate then Piers Morgan is clearly the wrong host as he's the most disrespectful, arrogant and ignorant host I've saw. If he doesn't agree with the person he'll automatically just start cutting into the persons talk by yelling loudly and start calling the other person an idiot. He's the worst debater there is and he gets owned multiple times(and by religious idiots as well)

LOL @ you for looking up to Piers Morgan as a hero though. Is he your source of intellect?

[magic chiongson]

they (piers morgan) sound just like fox news hosts

[kNIOKAS]

Not at all, right to drive, right to vote, right to marriage....these are all on same level. Just because you say "strawman" doesn't mean it's accurate or dismisses it. You'd have to show how these 3 rights are different.
There's no right to marriage. Marriage is an artificial idea. There's no right to engage to somebody, also. These are just some ideas that are shared between two people. There is no such thing as a right to be blood-brothers. It's silly.

You want state benefits you can change tax laws, the guy said it.

[chosen_one6]

There's no right to marriage. Marriage is an artificial idea. There's no right to engage to somebody, also. These are just some ideas that are shared between two people. There is no such thing as a right to be blood-brothers. It's silly.

You want state benefits you can change tax laws, the guy said it.

Except there IS a right to marriage because in order for it to be valid it has to be done through the state that you're getting married in. :facepalm

[iamgine]

I've been saying for years that black people should not have the right to vote. It doesn't mean I hate/dislike black people.

I also don't believe Chinese people should have the right to drive. Again, it doesn't mean I hate/dislike Chinese people.
There's nothing wrong with those statements. The reasoning behind it could be dumb, but that doesn't always mean dislike or hate.

It's like the statement "I believe 17 year olds shouldn't be legal to drive, drink, smoke or have sex, but it doesn't mean I hate/dislike them."

[ThePhantomCreep]

There's nothing wrong with those statements. The reasoning behind it could be dumb, but that doesn't always mean dislike or hate.

It's like the statement "I believe 17 year olds shouldn't be legal to drive, drink, smoke or have sex, but it doesn't mean I hate/dislike them."

:lol "Hello black people, I want to take away your right to vote, marginalizing you to a level not seen since the 19th century...but I don't hate you."

Definitely comparable to not wanting teenagers to smoke and drive. :facepalm

[ThePhantomCreep]

There's no right to marriage. Marriage is an artificial idea. There's no right to engage to somebody, also. These are just some ideas that are shared between two people. There is no such thing as a right to be blood-brothers. It's silly.

You want state benefits you can change tax laws, the guy said it.

Try again. Seriously.

Richard Ramirez, a serial killer who murdered 17 people while they slept, got married while in prison. That was a right the state could not take away.

[fpliii]

What argument is there for being against gay marriage again?
"lol religion"

[iamgine]

:lol "Hello black people, I want to take away your right to vote, marginalizing you to a level not seen since the 19th century...but I don't hate you."

Definitely comparable to not wanting teenagers to smoke and drive. :facepalm
Dislike and hate are feelings. You can marginalize people without hating them.

i.e Rapists don't hate or dislike their victims but to satisfy themselves.

[NumberSix]

Not a strawman argument at all. Quite equal actually.

I also don't believe Chinese people should have the right to drive. Again, it doesn't mean I hate/dislike Chinese people.
You're wrong. It's not comparable.

The government doesn't regulate relationships. It DOES regulate driving. You can be in whatever relationship you like without requiring government recognition. You can't just choose to drive without a license. You NEED government approval to drive. It's illegal to do so without permission. You don't need any permission to have a gay relationship. YOu can be as gay as you want without government recognition.

For it to be an appropriate comparison, you would need to be allowed to drive with or without a license. If that is the case, who even cares about a government issued license if you can drive with or without it?

[NumberSix]

Not at all, right to drive, right to vote, right to marriage....these are all on same level. Just because you say "strawman" doesn't mean it's accurate or dismisses it. You'd have to show how these 3 rights are different.
They are NOT on the same level. :facepalm

Voting is a constitutional RIGHT. Driving isn't. Marriage is a right in regards to it being free practice of religion. Government sanctioned marriage however is not a right.

[navy]

There's no right to marriage. Marriage is an artificial idea. There's no right to engage to somebody, also. These are just some ideas that are shared between two people. There is no such thing as a right to be blood-brothers. It's silly.

You want state benefits you can change tax laws, the guy said it.
You can change tax laws, but you could also...radical idea I know....allow same sex marriages.

[chosen_one6]

You're wrong. It's not comparable.

The government doesn't regulate relationships. It DOES regulate driving. You can be in whatever relationship you like without requiring government recognition. You can't just choose to drive without a license. You NEED government approval to drive. It's illegal to do so without permission. You don't need any permission to have a gay relationship. YOu can be as gay as you want without government recognition.

For it to be an appropriate comparison, you would need to be allowed to drive with or without a license. If that is the case, who even cares about a government issued license if you can drive with or without it?

But you do need government approval to be married. That's what we're talking about. Not relationships.

[irondarts]

Ryan Anderson deflects from the social security, health benefits, etc. issues by calling them secondary issues and saying: "The primary function that marriage serves in every society is protecting the rights of children." I want to hear how he thinks keeping gays from getting married protects children.
Didn't watch the video, but this reminds me of this

http://i.imgur.com/gNgnB.jpg

[ace23]

What argument is there for being against gay marriage again?
The premise of the "argument" against gay marriage is that it is in fact not marriage. People act like that's so hard to understand.

[christian1923]

All this ass out here and dudes wanna be with other dudes:( how ****ing weird

[navy]

The premise of the "argument" against gay marriage is that it is in fact not marriage. People act like that's so hard to understand.
We can literally make marriage anything we want it to be. Your state says marriage is only between man and women my state says marriage is between two individuals.

What's the problem now? Historical accuracy?

[outbreak]

who wants to see piers morgan having his wrist and ribs broken?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCgAqNSAD1U

I don't even understand how you can oppose gay marriage so strongly without being insecure about yourself. Whys it matter to you if two guys want to get married?

[Patrick Chewing]

Exactly! Geez, somebody finally gets it!

I've been saying for years that black people should not have the right to vote. It doesn't mean I hate/dislike black people.

Finally, somebody understands. Thanks Patrick Chewing. :cheers:


Don't be an idiot.

The argument here is one side wants marriage to equal a civil union between a man and a woman, and the other side wants to marry who they want.

Where do you see the bigotry/hatred here? How come you can't tell the difference?

[PHX_Phan]

Don't be an idiot.

The argument here is one side wants marriage to equal a civil union between a man and a woman, and the other side wants to marry who they want.

Where do you see the bigotry/hatred here? How come you can't tell the difference?

More like one side wants a legally recognized union with all the same economic benefits given to hetero couples while the other side wants to define it a certain way for their own silly reasons.

It's like people are fighting to maintain exclusive membership to a club, only it's not really a club and allowing other people in will change nothing for you personally or devalue your membership in any way. So, why does it even concern you?

This all seems to boil down to a childish group mentality of not wanting others in so you can feel apart of something special. I can't see any other logical reason for being so hell bent over the definition of marriage.

[NumberSix]

More like one side wants a legally recognized union with all the same economic benefits given to hetero couples while the other side wants to define it a certain way for their own silly reasons.

It's like people are fighting to maintain exclusive membership to a club, only it's not really a club and allowing other people in will change nothing for you personally or devalue your membership in any way. So, why does it even concern you?

This all seems to boil down to a childish group mentality of not wanting others in so you can feel apart of something special. I can't see any other logical reason for being so hell bent over the definition of marriage.
I'd actually like if the government didn't recognize marriage at all.

[navy]

I'd actually like if the government didn't recognize marriage at all.
So what just cancel all the marriages out there?

[sammichoffate]

I'd actually like if the government didn't recognize marriage at all.What makes you say that? The divorce rates, the shitty liberal standards people interacting with the media have to endure when discussing the subject, or our growing apathy for social standards in the first place?

[KyrieTheFuture]

You're wrong. It's not comparable.

The government doesn't regulate relationships. It DOES regulate driving. You can be in whatever relationship you like without requiring government recognition. You can't just choose to drive without a license. You NEED government approval to drive. It's illegal to do so without permission. You don't need any permission to have a gay relationship. YOu can be as gay as you want without government recognition.

For it to be an appropriate comparison, you would need to be allowed to drive with or without a license. If that is the case, who even cares about a government issued license if you can drive with or without it?
The government regulates relationships to an extent, you can't be in one with a child. Also, what about people who marry foreign loves so they can stay in the country? Gays don't have that luxury

[NumberSix]

So what just cancel all the marriages out there?
Why should the government have any interest in whether people are married or not? Should they recognize best friends acquaintances too?

[sammichoffate]

Why should the government have any interest in whether people are married or not? Should they recognize best friends acquaintances too?Identification reasons for a number of things I would imagine. Also, that's ludicrous but I get where you're coming from.

[navy]

Why should the government have any interest in whether people are married or not? Should they recognize best friends acquaintances too?
Because they've created a massive web of marriage related things that at this point seems a tad messy to untangle ranging from testifying in court, hospital policies, taxes, picking up children from school, and hell even name changes.

Should they have let it get this far? Well I guess that question is too late. We did.

[NumberSix]

Because they've created a massive web marriage related things that at this point seems a tad messy to untangle ranging from testifying in court, hospital policies, taxes, picking up children from school, and hell even name changes.

Should they have let it get this far? Well I guess that question is too late. We did.
Fair point.


As for the gay marriage point, my honest opinion is I don't care which way it goes. Being that the government does recognize marriage, I can't really see any reason to not include the gay ones.

[navy]

Fair point.


As for the gay marriage point, my honest opinion is I don't care which way it goes. Being that the government does recognize marriage, I can't really see any reason to not include the gay ones.
This is how I feel. Had marriage not been interwoven into a wide range of things not just the tax policy as people try to suggest, I wouldnt care. Get rid of government recognized marriages and perform your marriage ceremonies and give them as much worth as a baptism. None.

But at this point it seems silly to exclude marriages from gays because they are the same sex. Children isnt a requirement of straight marriages.

[ThePhantomCreep]

What makes you say that? The divorce rates, the shitty liberal standards people interacting with the media have to endure when discussing the subject, or our growing apathy for social standards in the first place?

Like most right-wingers, he'd rather end the institution of marriage rather than be on equal footing with "teh gay".

There's no sound reason to deny them the right to marry.

[NumberSix]

Like most right-wingers, he'd rather end the institution of marriage rather than be on equal footing with "teh gay".

There's no sound reason to deny them the right to marry.
I'm not sure I'd qualify as a right winger.

I just don't see any value in marriage. And I'm an atheist, so I don't care about the religious value of it. I honestly wouldn't even care if marriage somehow became gays only. It's utterly meaningless to me.

[navy]

Like most right-wingers, he'd rather end the institution of marriage rather than be on equal footing with "teh gay".

There's no sound reason to deny them the right to marry.
Nope. But we can debate definitions, technicalities, historical accuracy, and some other bullshit. The smart ones make sure to avoid religion.

[NumberSix]

Nope. But we can debate definitions, technicalities, historical accuracy, and some other bullshit. The smart ones make sure to avoid religion.
Well, I wouldn't say there are no reasons to be against gay marriage. I don't think there is any reason to be against it in America. What's appropriate for America isn't necessarily appropriate for everywhere.

[russwest0]

I'd actually like if the government didn't recognize marriage at all.

I agree with this.

It still makes me laugh in that debate how she acted like his stance was that she didn't have the "right to marry" when he was completely fine with her getting married as long as it met his definition of marriage.

[navy]

Well, I wouldn't say there are no reasons to be against gay marriage. I don't think there is any reason to be against it in America. What's appropriate for America isn't necessarily appropriate for everywhere.
I can agree with this.

[Patrick Chewing]

This all seems to boil down to a childish group mentality of not wanting others in so you can feel apart of something special. I can't see any other logical reason for being so hell bent over the definition of marriage.


Nonsense. Marriage between a man and a woman has been around for thousands upon thousands of years. Heterosexuals didn't wake up one day and say we don't want gay people to get married. There is such a thing as tradition and traditionalists with the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" way of life that has suited us just fine until now.

Plus, the majority of the country is spiritual and religious. Marriage between same sex couples was and has always been considered unnatural. You can't procreate that way. You think scholars and old world senators and law-men were discussing this years ago?? Hell no. Why do we think that we are wiser, more progressive, or more enlightened than those that came before us??

[navy]

Nonsense. Marriage between a man and a woman has been around for thousands upon thousands of years. Heterosexuals didn't wake up one day and say we don't want gay people to get married. There is such a thing as tradition and traditionalists with the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" way of life that has suited us just fine until now.

Plus, the majority of the country is spiritual and religious. Marriage between same sex couples was and has always been considered unnatural. You can't procreate that way. You think scholars and old world senators and law-men were discussing this years ago?? Hell no. Why do we think that we are wiser, more progressive, or more enlightened than those that came before us??

Marriage is not a static thing by any means. And dont pretend that it is. Im sure by now you have researched this. A simple google search easily suffices.
http://theweek.com/article/index/228541/how-marriage-has-changed-over-centuries

It should also be noted that current marriage is not even the same in every country of the world today. Let's not sit here and waste time arguing over traditions. Traditions that have already been clearly changed can be changed again. The people in the past certainly couldn't have anticipated the way the world is today. And clearly they didn't.

Let's also keep church and state separate. We don't need to bring religion into this. We shouldn't be making decisions based on the religions of the world. Especially considering the different sects and beliefs of religions. Not all Christians believe the same things. Not all Christians in the same denominations believe the same things.

Is homosexuality unnatural? Sure. I dont care about natural and unnatural labels. Do homosexuals exist? Yes. Can homosexuals procreate? No. Is procreation a requirement of marriage? No.

[Patrick Chewing]

That's all fine and dandy. I'm not worried about gay marriage in this country because all the states will allow it, just like all the states will allow marijuana at some point. The country has even elected a black President to represent them.

If this doesn't prove we've evolved ourselves as a nation, then I don't know what will. I only have a problem when people who are in support of gay marriage can't fathom or understand why someone would be in opposition to it, and immediately label them a bigot. We do have a right to oppose and not like certain things ya know?? The simple reason people oppose it right now is because marriage between a man and a woman has been a social archetype for thousands of years and some people want to change that overnight. Not going to happen that fast.

[navy]

That's all fine and dandy. I'm not worried about gay marriage in this country because all the states will allow it, just like all the states will allow marijuana at some point. The country has even elected a black President to represent them.

If this doesn't prove we've evolved ourselves as a nation, then I don't know what will. I only have a problem when people who are in support of gay marriage can't fathom or understand why someone would be in opposition to it, and immediately label them a bigot. We do have a right to oppose and not like certain things ya know?? The simple reason people oppose it right now is because marriage between a man and a woman has been a social archetype for thousands of years and some people want to change that overnight. Not going to happen that fast.

Well everyone is different. Some people who oppose gay marriage are bigots, others religious, others traditionalist, etc. But I bring up the points I made because we should be able to reason with traditionalist and religious individuals. Bigots on the other hand? No hope there.

(Religion can hide bigotry as can tradition)

[outbreak]

That's all fine and dandy. I'm not worried about gay marriage in this country because all the states will allow it, just like all the states will allow marijuana at some point. The country has even elected a black President to represent them.

If this doesn't prove we've evolved ourselves as a nation, then I don't know what will. I only have a problem when people who are in support of gay marriage can't fathom or understand why someone would be in opposition to it, and immediately label them a bigot. We do have a right to oppose and not like certain things ya know?? The simple reason people oppose it right now is because marriage between a man and a woman has been a social archetype for thousands of years and some people want to change that overnight. Not going to happen that fast.

I get what your saying but at the same time things like slavery or women's rights to vote were once traditions too. Some traditions and social archetypes need to be changed. The USA was largely built on change and their ideas of freedom and amendments.

[ThePhantomCreep]

Nonsense. Marriage between a man and a woman has been around for thousands upon thousands of years. Heterosexuals didn't wake up one day and say we don't want gay people to get married. There is such a thing as tradition and traditionalists with the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" way of life that has suited us just fine until now.

Plus, the majority of the country is spiritual and religious. Marriage between same sex couples was and has always been considered unnatural. You can't procreate that way. You think scholars and old world senators and law-men were discussing this years ago?? Hell no. Why do we think that we are wiser, more progressive, or more enlightened than those that came before us??

How many centuries was slavery around for? Hey, it's tradition, our forefathers practiced it, it must be good for us then! No.

This is a secular nation btw, and even if it wasn't, we don't hand out basic rights based on majority rule. Interracial marriage might still be illegal in the red south if we governed that way. The Constitution was created and amended specifically to prevent tyranny of the majority.