"homosexual lifestyles have been proven to be more unhealthy than smoking" cite your peer reviewed source please."marriage between same sex couples would open the door to a whole plethora of other alternatives of true marriage" what exactly is a 'True marriage'? and what is your source for this information" this would damage and weaken the institution of marriage, which is one of the cornerstones of our society" how can it be a cornerstone when more than 50% of marriages fail....

the PROTECTION OF SOCIETY-homosexual lifestyles have been proven to be more unhealthy than smoking-marriage between same sex couples would open the door to a whole plethora of other alternatives of true marriage-this would damage and weaken the institution of marriage, which is one of the cornerstones of our society-unhealthy lifestyles should not be promoted by are government, so homosexual activity should not be promoted.

where do you source this supposed lack of right?who would you attribute this rule too?

yea and you can fuck all your faggotass friends. but i don't have the right to marry my dog, and you dont have the right to marry your buttbuddies. get over it.

You can fuck your dog now. I suppose that's what makes you a bitch.

oh yay!!!maybe next year I can marry and fuck my dog!!!

Unfortuantly It will most likely be taken away.

This was a lovely video. Thankyou!

I don't go to happy theist communities and attempt to destroy their faith - at least as long as their faith doesn't cause harm.Creationists do cause harm, so i do go towards them. Otherwise I only defend atheists' videos.I'd feel terrible if I would sway a dying theist from their faith: better to die happy in ignorance then unhappy while knowing the truth.

1. The truth is required to make a correct assessment of the changes of happyness: somebody who betrayed someone might have done that for correct reasons.2. The truth is often unavoidable: people will discover things on their own and the damage can be greater later on.3. Sometimes lying is good. Things people have done in the past are sometimes better to not be told.

The instance of one man's death for a billion men's suffering can take place thousands of times with about the same people. Large groups want more people dead then their happyness can make up for. Although killing the guy would increase happyness on the short term, educating the masses would increase happyness in the long term.Environmentalism also decreases happyness in the short term (oil-based products), but increases it later on (habitable planet).

But what if the people hate learning and don't want to be re-educated? Philip1201, I'd like you to consider something carefully. You have made the point that happiness is the basis for morality. But often the truth leads to pain and unhappiness. You are an atheist because you believe there is no proof for God. But suppose my community's belief in God brings us great happiness. Is it not then immoral to attempt to take away our belief in God?

Again: better options are available thus better.

Again, better to do something else: eat pigs/chicken/fish/cow/sheep instead. If better options are available, better to choose that; it is instantly bad to choose another option.Fake fur looks like real fur. That's the better option. Fashion is a smaller joy then animal life. Rare animals' death upsets people and debalances the ecosystem.

No, it would be just as bad."6 -> 12 million" (1) People know the jews; (2) taking life and replacing it causes more unhappyness then simply keeping (and increasing) it: dying is painful (increases suffering). Better to simply turn 6 million Jews into 6 million Jews and 6 million Germans.

Those people should be re-educated for their suffering-causing behavior.

Those people should be educated. The secular dictator should be saved.Everyone should try to achieve maximum happyness - for themselves and others. In a sense you can see this as simply being social to others. If everyone, including the superstitious people, would do that, none of them would want to kill him. Therefore, not killing him is a good action.If i'm hard to follow, it's because i'm figuring things out as i type.There's probably some aristoteles in this too: who knows good does good

I said there were multiple values. It isn't 'good' to murder. Overall happyness is very hard to increase through murder.When murder is felt to be just, nobody calls it murder. People would agree more with "Hitler was killed" then "Hitler was murdered" (i know he commited suicide, but for the sake of argument, the allies killed/murdered him).Murder should only be used as a last resort: better to keep someone alive. But if there is no better (/happier) way, 'murder' should happen.

(cont)Again, what if it can be shown that 100000 people will gain blissful happiness by murdering and cannibalising an entire but small village of 100 people while they sleep (assumption being there will be nobody to miss them and that the murdered will feel no pain), is that a good thing. Clearly, overall happiness would have increased. If you don't like that then make the number of people who want to murder 1000exp(1000)exp(1000).

(cont)"Intelligence counts as to how much suffering/happyness something can have. Animals are much less intelligent than humans."Well, this is blatant speciesism. If aliens came to earth, and they cried for 5 years after one of their own was killed, would it then be okay for them to kill us for food?But also, is it okay for a woman to kill a number of animals because she wants a fashionable fur coat, just because she is more intelligent than the animals.