My channel, my rules, feel free to leave if you don't like me arbitarary making them up as I go, you didn't pay for the goods and services of being allowed to post here and so I'm under no obligation to continue providing them to you if I don't feel like it.

Our constitution does not permit any branch of government to resolve these types of religious debates and entrusts to courts the task of ensuring that government avoids them, - Justice Mark Cady

I consider gay marriage bans are the same thing as Muslims using diet pills during Ramadan, they both miss the entire bloody point of scripture.

About Me: I'm an agnostic/atheist who finds religious books interesting to analyze as analogies for philosophy, interesting but in the end they are just analogies.

Some parts of the bible can be interpreted in many ways, for example "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." and "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." can be taken as Jesus advocating the separation of church and state, the first quote generally doesn't just refer to taxes but also the laws of man being separate from the laws of religion meanwhile the second quote means not using man's law (the stoning) to enforce religious laws (the woman).

Or the part where Jesus gets crucified, that was when religious leaders (church) of the time convinced Pilate (state) to arrest, try and execute him, basically the mixing of church and state killed Jesus who was preaching the separation of church and state as well as not involving himself in matters of state.

If you open your bible you'll notice there is no reference to gay marriage in the bible, only gay sex, and while 1 Corinthians 7:9 is referring to heterosexual couples when it says "But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion." it would indirectly mean that it's better for gays to marry other gays than to go to hell for having alot of gay sex as marriage tends to kills sex, in which case by banning gay marriage you are condemning people to hell and therefore the bible is for gay marriage.

Basically what I am saying is that the New Testament advocates the separation of church and state and is against banning gay marriage.


In my opinion, the institution of civil unions is discriminatory against heterosexual couples, these couples who are looking for rights and privileges that will help them are denied the right to have a secular civil union but instead are forced into marriage which by the action of creating civil unions the state has acknowledged that marriage is a religious institution and there is a working secular alternative to marriage.
By forcing heterosexual couples into what it acknowledged as a religious institution while denying others the right to have the same religious institution the state has violated the 1st and 14th amendment by simultaneously respecting an establishment of religion denying the rights of equal protection under the law for two groups of people.



As far as substantive issues goes I am a pragmatist who prefers applying progressive policies of giving those without the means to help improve their own lives a way to improve themselves in a domestic setting, if giving people bootstraps to pull themselves up by is socialism then feel free to call me a socialist.
I also prefer to apply the libertarian ideals of free trade in terms of foreign relations, the way I see it the phrase death to America becomes much less popular when a large segment of a population works for McDonalds or KFC and best of all you can make some money doing it, its worked for China so why not?

As far as the economic downturn goes, all this has happened before in the 1920-1940s, the end of the Cold War, the following age of excess, the oil shock, the mortgage crisis, the credit crunch, the economic downturn, they are the same as what happened at the end of the first World War, the Gilded Age, The Great Stock Market Crash and the Great Depression, the answer to getting out of this mess is right in front of everyone in the history book, if only the Democrats would grow a brain to see that, and grow some balls to steam roll over the Republicans rather than be compromise mongers who would vote to kick 500 kittens if the Republicans introduced a bill to kick 1000 of them.