Man SLAYS Piers Morgan and Suze Orman on Gay Marriage debate

[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.

[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."

"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.

[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]

"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.

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.

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

[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.