Creepy Condescending Wonka

It's partly the businesses that control the show's content

"Stop using facts and logic! It hurts my feelings and I'll call you a racist homophobic fascist!" says the brain dead leftist.

I saw an interview on BBC America. There were two actors, a male and a female, both played bit parts, nothing major, but making a pretty good living out in L.A. The guy said that he made it known to his actor friends that he had voted Republican during this past presidential election. Word went around in the acting community about that and he was dropped by his agent and couldn't find work, not even in commercials. The female said that she's a Conservative and had to keep it a secret just so she could keep getting work. Now she's finally sick of all that shit and is finally speaking up. She realizes that her career is probably over but " total thine own self be true. " You're all correct. Television and movies have a huge influence on people's thoughts and the biggest lever they have is that it's a billion dollar business. Imagine our kids watching a show featuring illegal aliens and thinking that they're heroes.

I thought it tough being a parent in the 80's and 90's.

I have the weekend off. I should see if that's on Netflix.

yea would not want them thinking that right? smh... From illegal migrant worker to Hopkins brain surgeon: http://esgweb1.nts.jhu.edu/hmn/W07/feature1.cfm

I can't believe this made the front page! Thanks everyone! My First front page meme.

keep it up bro!

I actually have, but this is the only one that gained this much traction. I even did a pie chart. Lol.

Lol. yeah, so have I. you just have to keep trying

That 90 percent of the media we see and read are owned by 6 corporations? Pattern found. Lol

Watching that show was a weekly family event. Everyone knows it was political why they cancelled it. It was a great show! ??

They pull shows all the the time. This one happens to be one with a conservative slant. Big deal. Do you see outcray and whining from liberals when they pulled the real oniells? Jeez. Get a grip ya conservative snowflakes!

lol

Outcray is CRAZY outcry.

Yes, like Bruce...errr Katylin Jenners show, but there are far more shows on the liberal end than the conservative end. There are very few to begin begin with and when one is knocked off despite success and ratings it makes a person such as myself take notice.

But the last man standing was hugely popular.

Tim wrote most of the show and he had creative freedom in his contract much like the Simpsons do with fox, that is why they have so many jabs against fox

Because logic need not apply when conservative feels are denied.

Networks don't always make their own shows. FOX or Warner Bros. could produce it for all I know. I think all the networks have their own studios. For some reason the networks don't have exclusive rights or care to buy their own studio's shows. Now though, they realize they make more money on the back end (syndication, selling streaming rights, etc) so they're buying more and more from than own studios than even 5 years ago.

Come on, Octavia, you're smarter than this. We both know that's not how the entertainment business works. ABC didn't write the show. And ABC didn't even produce the show. It was actually a show produced by a Fox Production Company. ABC aired it. And It'd be more like you cooking great food at a popular restaurant, and then the owners deciding that they're shutting down the restaurant because they don't like your customer base and how big it's getting. Are you really gonna sit here and tell me that these corporate monoliths don't make decisions that are politically motivated? It's their network, and their money, and they can do what they want. But I can get angry about it and point it out, if I want, too.

If it's so awesome then surely another network will pick it up. No problem. Capitalism!

I know. It was a good show that I always thought they would pull the plug on.

And when it got to 6 seasons I thought it was good for a few more years. Just when I let my guard down. Boom . Cancelled

I have never heard of such laws that force Christians into accepting a gay "lifestyle".

The legalization of same sex marriages at the federal level, which would technically put it higher ranked than that of traditional marriage which is at the state level. It is possible for one state to not accept the traditional marriage of another state, but if it is a same sex couple it has to be accepted everywhere. With that, anyone who has the ability to sign a marriage certificate, which does include pastors, is required by law to provide a same sex couple their services to marry them, even if it is against the pastor's beliefs. It is all hidden within the disguise of being considered a discrimination law.

Has anyone made an effort to outlaw traditional marriage with that loophole? Meanwhile, several efforts are made to outlaw marriage equality. Some months ago, an Arkansas official made a legislation for an Amendment calling for traditional marriage. It fell short of votes, however.

Let me ask you 1 simple question, and regardless of what you think it is simple. Why did the definition of marriage need to be changed to make same-sex marriage legal instead of changing how and what privileges are given with civil unions? BTW, besides changing the definition of marriage, it also forced religions to change what they have believed for centuries to avoid being sued for discrimination which is a violation of the separation of church and state, and for those who didn't change it forced pastors to give up their right to sign marriage certificates for the state in order to prevent having to change their beliefs and from being sued for discrimination. All of this could have been avoided by changing the privileges given by something that was already legal for them.

Another fact you should also consider, marriage was created by religion, not the government. The government created benefits for married couples and families when the government saw the benefits to the community that these couples and families provided. These benefits were created AFTER marriage was created, not before.

Did the definition of marriage get changed? The definition I looked up states that some jurisdictions call marriage a union between a man and a woman, not all.

"BTW, besides changing the definition of marriage, it also forced religions to change what they have believed for centuries to avoid being sued for discrimination which is a violation of the separation of church and state,..."

The separation of church and state really means that the church has no influence on government power.

"and for those who didn't change it forced pastors to give up their right to sign marriage certificates for the state in order to prevent having to change their beliefs and from being sued for discrimination."

Actually, no. Pastors weren't forced. Some pastors are accepting, while others refuse and get reported for an act against human rights when a gay couple does come for a wedding.

"All of this could have been avoided by changing the privileges given by something that was already legal for them."

Gay marriage wasn't legal until the Supreme Court lifted the bans off of gay marriages.

"Another fact you should also consider, marriage was created by religion, not the government."

If you're criticizing the government for not keeping church and state separate, then marriage's religious influence shouldn't have power, either. Another fact you should consider is that the Bible never actually condemns homosexuality. Watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGNZQ64xiqo

"The separation of church and state really means that the church has no influence on government power."

This is a major misconception. The purpose of the separation of church and state was to keep the government from making a singular religion everyone has to follow or defining what religions are allowed to practice. "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." Thomas Jefferson January 1, 1802. Find me any legal document that states otherwise.

"Actually, no. Pastors weren't forced. Some pastors are accepting, while others refuse and get reported for an act against human rights when a gay couple does come for a wedding."

You are contradicting yourself when you say that they were not forced and then spout off what has happened since. Pastors who did not want to get sued by refusing to sign gay marriage certificates but still wanted to sign for traditional marriage certificates made the decision to accept it by changing their core beliefs. Those who refused were sued because of discrimination. Had gay marriage never been legalized at the federal level, none of this would had to have happen. So when it became legal, either they had to change their beliefs or give up their ability to sign marriage certificates, they didn't have a choice. Not having a choice means they were forced.

"Gay marriage wasn't legal until the Supreme Court lifted the bans off of gay marriages."

Learn how to read. CIVIL UNIONS WERE AND STILL ARE LEGAL FOR GAY COUPLES. Civil unions give couples the same rights as married couples when filing the proper paperwork. They could have fought to change the paperwork needed instead of changing marriage.

"If you're criticizing the government for not keeping church and state separate, then marriage's religious influence shouldn't have power, either."

Except for the FACT that separation of church and state was not meant to keep the church out of the government. However there is a huge difference between telling the church/religious people what they are allowed to practice and the government giving rewards to people because of their status of being married and having a family.

When Jefferson said Congress would make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion, he also said that there would be no law respecting an establishment of one, which means no anti-gay laws.

"Learn how to read. CIVIL UNIONS WERE AND STILL ARE LEGAL FOR GAY COUPLES. Civil unions give couples the same rights as married couples when filing the proper paperwork. They could have fought to change the paperwork needed instead of changing marriage."
For a start, how did they change marriage? All they did was make the federal laws flexible for a man to marry another man, woman to another woman, etc. Secondly, no. Civil unions are protected at a state level, in which case the state can outlaw a gay civil union and criminalize the two individuals. Show me proof where paperwork had something to do with the fight against LGBTQ discrimination.

"Except for the FACT that separation of church and state was not meant to keep the church out of the government. However there is a huge difference between telling the church/religious people what they are allowed to practice and the government giving rewards to people because of their status of being married and having a family."
Except for the fact that separation of church and state was meant to keep church and other religious affiliated institutions out of the government, hence the name. Not to mention that I've never, ever heard about a married couple gaining rewards from the government.

"However when the federal government stated that it is unconstitutional to deny a gay couple the right to get married, it throws the state's definition out the window and replaces it with "The legal union of a couple as spouses. The basic elements of a marriage are: (1) the parties' legal ability to marry each other, (2) mutual consent of the parties, and (3) a marriage contract as required by law." making it no longer defined as just between a man and a woman."

I see. Does marriage have to be defined as being between a man and a woman?

"As far as that video of yours go, I stopped after they state that the importance of a subject in the Bible is limited to the number of times it is mentioned in the Bible."
And you didn't continue to listen to their point about Sodom and Gomorrah? I could go further to list more facts about marriage in the Bible if you'd like.

"When Jefferson said Congress would make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion, he also said that there would be no law respecting an establishment of one, which means no anti-gay laws."
Do you not realize how stupid you are making yourself look? Let me break down the quote for you. "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature (THE GOVERNMENT) should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion (NOT CREATE A SINGLE RELIGION), or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (TELL RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS HOW TO PRACTICE),' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." NOWHERE IN THIS QUOTE DOES IT SAY SHIT ABOUT KEEPING THE CHURCH OUT OF THE GOVERNMENT.

"For a start, how did they change marriage?" LEARN HOW TO F**KING READ. BY MAKING IT F**KING LEGAL FOR GAYS TO GET MARRIED, IT NOW PUT PASTORS AND CHURCHES IN A POSITION IN WHICH THEY COULD AND DO GET SUED IF THEY WANT TO PRACTICE THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AND NOT CONDONE HOMOSEXUALITY BY PERFORMING THEIR MARRIAGE SERVICE AND SIGNING THEIR MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE. THEY DIDN'T JUST MAKE IT LEGAL FOR A MAN TO MARRY ANOTHER MAN OR WOMAN WITH ANOTHER WOMAN. THEY MADE IT WHERE THE CHURCHES HAD TO CHANGE THEIR DOCTRINE, PASTORS GIVING UP THEIR ABILITY TO SIGN MARRIAGE CERTIFICATES, AND/OR RISK GETTING SUED FOR DISCRIMINATION. IT BECAME THE FIRST STEP IN VIOLATION OF FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE WHICH WILL ALWAYS MEAN KEEPING THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF THE CHURCH NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

"Civil unions are protected at a state level, in which case the state can outlaw a gay civil union and criminalize the two individuals." DID YOU F**KING FORGET THAT TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE IS PROTECTED AT STATE LEVELS AS WELL, WHICH MEANS SOME STATES CAN HAVE CERTAIN REGULATIONS THAT DON'T RECOGNIZE THE MARRIAGE BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN FROM ANOTHER STATE? WHY SHOULD GAY MARRIAGE BE REGULATED AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL AND TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE BE REGULATED AT THE STATE LEVEL?

"Show me proof where paperwork had something to do with the fight against LGBTQ discrimination." WHY SHOULD I SHOW YOU PROOF OF ANYTHING WHEN YOU HAVEN'T PROVIDED PROOF OF SHIT, ESPECIALLY THAT REGARDING THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE IS SUPPOSEDLY MEANT TO KEEP THE CHURCH OUT OF THE GOVERNMENT?

"Except for the fact that separation of church and state was meant to keep church and other religious affiliated institutions out of the government, hence the name." F**K PROVE IT!!!!!!!! THE NAME ONLY IMPLIES THAT THERE IS SUPPOSE TO BE A SEPARATION BETWEEN THE 2, BUT DOESN'T DEFINE WHAT THAT SEPARATION IS SUPPOSE TO BE. EVEN IF IT WAS TO MEAN BOTH WAYS, IT IS STILL A F**KING VIOLATION OF THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE FOR THE STATE TO TELL THE CHURCH THEY HAVE TO RECOGNIZE GAY MARRIAGE AND PERFORM GAY MARRIAGES, REGARDLESS OF WHAT THEIR DOCTRINE SAYS. STILL I WANT YOU TO SHOW SOME F**KING EVIDENCE THAT THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE WAS MEANT FOR ANYTHING OTHER THAN KEEPING THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF THE CHURCH.

"I see. Does marriage have to be defined as being between a man and a woman?" CONSIDERING MARRIAGE WAS A SACRED PRACTICE STARTED BY THE CHURCH AND WAS INTENDED TO BE BETWEEN 1 MAN AND 1 WOMAN, THEN YES THE DEFINITION SHOULD REFLECT THAT. BUT SINCE YOU THINK IT IS OKAY FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO TELL THE CHURCH WHAT IT IS ALLOWED TO BELIEVE AND PRACTICE (AND IT DID THAT BY LEGALIZING GAY MARRIAGE AND MAKING IT WHERE PASTORS AND CHURCHES CAN BE SUED FOR DISCRIMINATION FOR WANTING TO PRACTICE THEIR BELIEFS AND NOT PERFORM A GAY MARRIAGE) I DON'T EXPECT YOU TO UNDERSTAND THAT.

"And you didn't continue to listen to their point about Sodom and Gomorrah?" I DID LATER TRY TO LISTEN TO THE REST OF THEIR BS, BUT THEY LOST A LOT OF CREDIBILITY BY SAYING THE IMPORTANCE OF SOMETHING MENTIONED IN THE BIBLE IS BASED ON HOW OFTEN IT IS IN THE BIBLE. AND FOR THEM TO ALSO LATER STATE THAT BECAUSE OF HOW SOCIETY HAS CHANGED WE SHOULDN'T BASE OUR VALUES OF HOW WE LIVE ON STORIES IN A BOOK WRITTEN THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO, THAT THERE MADE EVERYTHING THEY STATED COMPLETE BULLSHIT AND I CANNOT ACCEPT ANYTHING THEY SAY TO REFLECT ANYTHING OF GOD.

"I could go further to list more facts about marriage in the Bible if you'd like." FIND ME 1 VERSE WHERE IT CONDONES A MAN SLEEPING WITH ANOTHER MAN OR A WOMAN SLEEPING WITH ANOTHER WOMAN.

"So now answer my question that you decided to so clearly ignore. If CIVIL UNIONS were and still are legal for gay couples prior to the federal government legalizing marriage for gay couples, then why did marriage need to be altered instead of altering civil unions which was already available for them?"

Anti-gay marriage laws were ruled as unconstitutional because it states that an individual as the right to pursue Life, Liberty, and Happiness, which includes being able to have a Gay Marriage. My answer to your question is that marriage is part of what America offers as liberty, otherwise being in a civil union would be the only thing gay couples could do, while being in a civil union would be an option to a straight couple, which is not liberty, or justice, or a pursuit of happiness. Why would calling it a "Civil Union" be just as good as calling it a "Marriage"?

My question is this: Why does it matter so much to the religious that gay marriage was legalized? They haven't been harmed in any way, and neither has the United States had a "negatively impacted society". Is it dangerous to have a secular United States, like one they have in Britain or Iceland, or dangerous to have a United States under religious rule, similar to Saudi Arabia or Iran?

"My answer to your question is that marriage is part of what America offers" FIRST MISTAKE, BECAUSE AMERICA DIDN'T CREATE MARRIAGE, THE CHURCH DID THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO. THE GOVERNMENT GIVES CERTAIN RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES TO MARRIED COUPLES AND FAMILIES, AND ALSO EXTENDS THOSE TO CIVIL UNIONS.

"right to pursue Life, Liberty, and Happiness, which includes being able to have a Gay Marriage" WHY DOES A COUPLE HAVE TO BE MARRIED IN ORDER TO PURSUE LIFE, LIBERTY AND HAPPINESS?

"otherwise being in a civil union would be the only thing gay couples could do, while being in a civil union would be an option to a straight couple, which is not liberty, or justice, or a pursuit of happiness." SO IT IS GOOD ENOUGH FOR STRAIGHT COUPLES BUT NOT GAY COUPLES? WHY THE F**K NOT? WHAT ABOUT CIVIL UNIONS PREVENTS LIBERTY, JUSTICE, OR THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS?

"Why would calling it a "Civil Union" be just as good as calling it a "Marriage"?" IT IS NOT A MATTER OF WHAT YOU CALL IT, IT IS A MATTER OF TAKING THE RELIGIOUS RIGHTS AWAY FROM PASTORS AND CHURCHES TO STILL PRACTICE THEIR DOCTRINE WITHOUT WORRYING WHO IS GOING TO SUE THEM NEXT. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE NAME BUT THE VIOLATION OF THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE AND FREEDOM OF RELIGION.

"Why does it matter so much to the religious that gay marriage was legalized?" WELL I HAVE SAID IT ABOUT A THOUSAND TIMES NOW, BECAUSE IT FORCES CHURCHES TO CHANGE THEIR DOCTRINE OR GET SUED FOR NOT PERFORMING A GAY MARRIAGE.

"They haven't been harmed in any way," EXCEPT FOR THE MULTITUDE OF PASTORS AND RELIGIOUS BUSINESS OWNERS THAT WANT TO PRACTICE THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS BY NOT PERFORMING SERVICES FOR SOMETHING THEY BELIEVE IS MORALLY WRONG. IT IS MORALLY WRONG TO SHOOT SOMEONE REGARDLESS IF THE INTENT IS JUST TO INJURY THEM OR KILL THEM (UNLESS IT IS MEANT SOLELY FOR SELF DEFENSE AND IT IS THE ONLY OPTION). SHOULD A GUN STORE OWNER SELL SOMEONE A GUN THAT OPENLY ADMITS THEY PLAN ON SHOOTING PEOPLE ONLY TO INJURE THEM BUT NOT KILL THEM? IF THE GUN SHOP OWNER REFUSES, SHOULD THE PERSON BE ALLOWED TO SUE HIM FOR DISCRIMINATION? THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE. YOU MAY THINK THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS HARMLESS, BUT RELIGIOUS PEOPLE WHO STICK WITH THE DOCTRINE AS IT WAS ORIGINALLY WRITTEN BELIEVE THAT THE ACT AND LIVING THAT LIFESTYLE LEADS TO ETERNAL DAMNATION. WHY SHOULD THEY CONDONE THE ACT BY PARTICIPATING?

"Is it dangerous to have a secular United States, like one they have in Britain or Iceland, or dangerous to have a United States under religious rule, similar to Saudi Arabia or Iran?" CONSIDERING YOU JUST COMPARED CHRISTIANITY TO A RELIGION THAT DOESN'T PROMOTE ANY KIND OF LOVE BUT INSTEAD TELLS ITS FOLLOWERS TO KILL THOSE WHO DON'T BELIEVE, YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY LOST ANY FOOTING YOU HAD IN ANY OF YOUR ARGUMENT. BESIDES THE FACT YOU REFUSE TO PROVIDE A SHRED OF EVIDENCE FOR YOUR CLAIMS, THIS HERE JUST LOST ANY REASONING FOR ME TO CONTINUE WITH YOU ANY MORE. I WILL STATE THIS, I NEVER ONCE STATED WE NEEDED A THEOCRATIC GOVERNMENT. I HAVE STATED MULTIPLE TIMES THAT THE GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO NOT TELL THE CHURCH WHAT IT IS ALLOWED TO PRACTICE, AND BY MAKING GAY MARRIAGE LEGAL IT IS DOING THAT. NOW IF YOU WANT TO COMPARE HAVING A THEOCRATIC GOVERNMENT OVER A SECULAR GOVERNMENT, MAYBE YOU SHOULD COMPARE WITH A COUNTRY THAT HAS A CHRISTIAN THEOCRATIC GOVERNMENT. IN FACT THE ONLY COUNTRY THAT HAS A THEOCRATIC GOVERNMENT THAT ISN'T ISLAMIC IS VATICAN CITY. IT IS CONSIDERED ITS OWN COUNTRY DESPITE ITS SIZE. EVEN THOUGH THE CRIME RATE IS 1.5 PER CITIZEN, THIS IS BASED OFF OF ITS MOST POPULAR CRIME OF PICK-POCKETING. OTHER THAN THAT, CRIME IS PRETTY LOW THERE. REGARDLESS I STILL NEVER STATED WE NEEDED A THEOCRATIC GOVERNMENT. NOW AS FAR AS WHICH IS DANGEROUS, THE QUESTION SHOULD REALLY BE WHICH IS MORE DANGEROUS AND HOW IS IT DANGEROUS. A PURE SECULAR GOVERNMENT WITH NO RELIGIOUS INFLUENCE WHAT SO EVER IS DANGEROUS ON MANY LEVELS. IT WILL BE VIEWED BY RELIGIOUS PEOPLE AS DANGEROUS FOR THE SOUL FOR EVERYONE. IT ALSO CREATES THE POSSIBILITIES OF MAKING ANYTHING LEGAL BASED OFF OF WHAT WE NOW WANT TO DETERMINE IS ACCEPTABLE WITHIN THE SOCIETY. THIS GIVES US AN UNSTABLE DEFINITION OF WHAT IS RIGHT AND WRONG BECAUSE IT WILL ALWAYS CHANGE. HAVING A PURE THEOCRATIC GOVERNMENT IS ALSO DANGEROUS AS IT CREATES A COUNTRY BASED OFF A SINGLE RELIGION MAKING EVERYONE PRACTICE ONLY 1 RELIGION, WHICH IS WHY MANY FROM ENGLAND STARTED COMING HERE AND FORMING AMERICA IN THE FIRST PLACE. THE ONLY CORRECT ANSWER IS HAVING A GOVERNMENT WITH AN EQUAL BALANCE, WHICH IS WHAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS INTENDED AND TRIED TO FORM. HOWEVER WE ARE MOVING TO BEING A MORE SECULAR GOVERNMENT WHICH IS GOING TO BE DANGEROUS ON MANY LEVELS.

It is always annoying when dumbasses comment in a way that you can’t give them a direct response, so let’s see if butthurt decides to come back and read this.

The issue with what you posted about the concubine, woman’s property, and polygamy is that they are not all married to each other, just each one “married” to the man. None of those examples show anything other than a man marrying a woman. There is no man marrying man or woman marrying woman. Also if you actually were to study the Bible and history of the cultures from back then, you would better understand why some of those marriages took place. Back then it was part of the culture to remain a virgin until married. If a woman was not a virgin, chances are she would never get married. In the culture of that time, the husband provided the finances, food, shelter, and protection, among other things. If a woman never got married, most likely she would end up on the streets as a prostitute. There was no exception to this is a woman was raped. So if a woman was raped, she was actually given the choice if she wanted to marry her predator. By doing so, the predator was required to provide all the services a husband was required to perform, however she was not required to perform and wifely duties in the bedroom unless she chose to. It was never a requirement for her to marry him, but the alternative could be much worse.

Concubines were often acquired mainly to provide offspring for when the wife couldn’t.

Polygamy may never have been condemned by God in the Old Testament, and there are multiple theories as to why. However the New Testament does clearly state 1 man and 1 woman. None of the incidences listed in concubine and polygomy all happened in Old Testament.

Keep trying, maybe with more studying and research you might actually say something intelligent.

1 FINAL NOTE. UNLESS YOUR NEXT RESPONSE HAS EVIDENCE COMING FROM A GOVERNMENT SITE OR ANY CREDIBLE SITE STATING THAT THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE WAS ONLY MEANT FOR KEEPING THE CHURCH OUT OF THE GOVERNMENT, I REALLY DON'T GIVE A F**K ABOUT ANYTHING ELSE YOU HAVE TO SAY. EVERYTHING YOU SAY FROM THIS POINT ON IS NULL AND VOID IF YOU CANNOT PROVIDE ANY EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THIS CLAIM OF YOURS.

"Did the definition of marriage get changed? The definition I looked up states that some jurisdictions call marriage a union between a man and a woman, not all." https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/marriage However when the federal government stated that it is unconstitutional to deny a gay couple the right to get married, it throws the state's definition out the window and replaces it with "The legal union of a couple as spouses. The basic elements of a marriage are: (1) the parties' legal ability to marry each other, (2) mutual consent of the parties, and (3) a marriage contract as required by law." making it no longer defined as just between a man and a woman.

As far as that video of yours go, I stopped after they state that the importance of a subject in the Bible is limited to the number of times it is mentioned in the Bible. There are many passages in which it states that homosexuality is a sin, that those who practice homosexuality will not inherit the kingdom of God, and that all sins are equal in the eyes of God, except for denying the power of God itself. So regardless of what you think that video states, they lost all credibility when they tried to say that because homosexuality is in less than 1% of the Bible that it isn't that important to God so therefore we can ignore it. So yes the Bible does condemn homosexuality, regardless of how often it is mentioned in it, PERIOD.

So now answer my question that you decided to so clearly ignore. If CIVIL UNIONS were and still are legal for gay couples prior to the federal government legalizing marriage for gay couples, then why did marriage need to be altered instead of altering civil unions which was already available for them?

Canada's government didn't issue such law. That is a fake news story that has spread around several conservative news sites to paint the liberal government in Canada as totalitarian.

They? Assuming only conservatives slant stories........ Octavia, I have always read you as a centrist....

Bill 89 leaves alot of room for interpretation regarding negative psychological effects...while not specifically naming trans youths it does include them in the discrimination piece. It is written purposefully vague.