Wow, like straight out of a communist manifesto. That argument is a standard argument in all communist regimes such as the Soviet Union at the time, China and North Korea.

Rejecting banalities like freedom of speech and democracy are sacrifices required to advance mankind!

So you think that increasing freedom of speech for women and minorities, increasing the rights of minorities, like for example extending the ability to get married to homosexual couples, is somehow like taking rights away from people as demonstrated in Russia and China and North Korea? In North Korea, nobody can speak against the government. In America, a woman wanting to get paid as much as a man for the same job is the same thing, to you?

It's like we live on different planets.

It's about the narrative, how you describe reality.

Women getting a fair pay, nobody is against that. We're against the narrative that women are paid unfairly in relation to men, and we're against the notion that if women as a group don't earn exactly as much as men as a group then that's discrimination. The big difference is that in my world literal equality isn't the same as justice. To me justice means equal opportunity and fair treatment, but individuals and groups will often have different wishes and goals in life which reflects in the choices they make and which usually can be measured as a difference in outcome of some end-point parameter, like wage. But you just can't assume that a difference in outcome means some group has been discriminated. The wage-gap is a myth.

Extending marriage and still call it marriage, yes it is actually taking away something from the unique religious ceremony of marriage between a man and a woman. Therefore I prefer the Swedish solution where the union between a same-sex couple is officially called "registered partnership" and not marriage.

Btw, you didn't address the threats against freedom of speech or democracy that follow from that progressive "it's always worth it for the higher cause" mindset.

I love the people who believe that nobody got married before their religion. They seem to honestly believe that cultures that never came into contact with Christianity don't have marriage ceremonies. That the concept of marriage doesn't predate their religion of choice, be it Islam, Christianity, or Judaism, by thousands and thousands of years. Newsflash: it's not a uniquely Christian idea. My wife and I are atheists, and we got married in a secular manner. That doesn't offend you? Then why should same sex marriage? And even if it does offend you, why should my wife and I, or same sex married couples, give a flying crap how you feel?

Enjoy being angered by more and more and more and more things your whole life. I imagine the plantation owners felt the same way. How does your concern that a private company (Google) might censor comments on its privately owned website (keyword being 'might') in a way you don't like have JACK SH*T to do with constitutional freedom of speech (where the government can't punish you for saying what ever you want.). Freedom of speech from the government doesn't mean freedom to post whatever you want on a private company's website. That you are acting like they are related is pretty mind-blowing. I will refrain from interacting with you from this point on.

.

"I will refrain from interacting with you from this point on" lol seriously? Is that the VGC equivalent of blocking somebody on twitter?

You didn't even address my whole post.

I very well know Google is a privately owned website, but it's funny you as a leftie use this argument now that it suits you, but when employees and companies fire people or treat them differently then all of a sudden that argument of "it's a private company" goes out the window. And your side even counts the number of minorities represented in movies and magazines and raise a huge storm if your view on what percentages are the "correct ones" are not respected!

You're just using this argument because the left is dominating traditional media and social media. I think it's hypocriticial.

It's not constitutional freedom of speech but it's still freedom of speech. If nobody lifts the issue how will people know that this is a huge concern for a big part of society?

Iceland, I disgaree. Youtube is not anarchy, it is privately owned organization that has stakeholders. It is not good for the growth of revenue from advertisement, to have absolute anarchy. Now do I think they should be doing something else, yes I do (like giving channel owners more power to moderate better, not the user).I always felt the current method of moderatation on youtube is awful. However, doing nothing, is worse, youtube comment section is still in the wild west days, and it truthfully needs law and order. So many youtubers have literally closed down comment section, or stopped paying attention to them because of anarchistic nature of the comment section. 

Now this argument is a good argument. Obviously this point should be taken into consideration - that marriage is a univeral institution and not solely dependent on religion. But we do take that argument into consideration and point still stands that the religious marriage must have a unique feature or else it's not a proper marriage. The woman-man exclusivity it's in its inherent nature and you must discriminate (in the neutral sense of the word) to fullfill that requirement.

Like I said, the Swedish model. Address the Swedish model for marriage and partnership. Apparently our authorities did "give a crap".

In 2012 I was thinking that Youtube reached rock bottom.... I was clearly wrong.

If someone is doxing, or making threats then sure. Everything else is fair game. Can't take negative opinions time to log out or disable the comments (like you mention). I see this being abused by overly sensative people and that's why I'm against it. Rather Youtube be chaotic then a place where any opinion might be flagged because of hurt feelings.