If God is the author of the Bible, then he put the rules of homosexuality. His book, his rules. He is supposed to be a God of love. But, many believers in his word also kill one another in his name. The Bible also states that, "Those who live by the sword, shall die by the sword". Killing & hatred persist among those that claim to follow God's word. If He is a god of love, then love your "brother", even the gay ones. If your brother wants to please God, then let them do it God's way.
@leonanim You make some good points. "Love your "brother", even the gay ones", for example. Yes, the Bible agrees. However, it doesn't approve of sin. If God is the author of the Bible, you have to do things his way (totally, not mostly his way) in order to please him. That said, we have all failed at keeping his laws. According to the Bible, homosexuality is wrong, but so are so many other things (hatred, for one...). You and I are as deserving of hell as anyone else, gay or straight.
@3dmarth And that is why Jesus stepped in and paid the price for our wrongdoings so we could have life with God in heaven instead of going to hell. The issue (according to the Bible) is not "gay or straight", though again, it condemns homosexual thoughts and actions along with many other things.
The plan that God put forth is that he'll forgive us if we accept the gift of life provided by Jesus. He'll help us take care of any junk in our lives after.
Klavan does not understand civil rights movements. They are started by so called "radicals", as he calls them, members within a community facing discrimination who are willing to stand up and fight for their rights. People like him only get on board when the fight is nearly won. This man is a fool.
@74sjlennox Email your congressman, start a petition, start a fundraiser, reasonably raise awareness, parading down a street making out with your boyfriend in a g-string doesn't help that much.
@MetalSights Your attitude toward "radicals" speaks to the limits of your perception. I've never walked outside my own home without at least a t-shirt on, but I applaud anyone who feels comfortable enough with themselves to walk down the street in a g-string while kissing his partner. You are a small human being, trapped inside a tiny box.
@74sjlennox It was an exaggeration, numbnuts. And that's not how you make a political statement.
He meant radicals asin people who violently or hatefully attack ANYONE who don't support them, and yes, they are fucking crazy on both sides. I was talking politely to another youtuber about gay rights or something similar, someone randomly butted in and told me their opinion, I don't him I didn't really care, he called me a bigoted homophobe and told me to fuck off.
@MetalSights There is a difference, the "anger" felt by the oppressed, is not the same "anger" that is felt by the oppressor. They come from two very different sources.
@MetalSights As a gay man who has suffered a violent attack to my face and neck with battery acid, I understand the pain of oppression very well. I also suffer the subtle daily oppression all gays live with every day of their lives, here, in the "civilized" world. Grow up, MetalSights.
@74sjlennox I'm sure it wasn't incited. You are somewhat different. People suck and don't like different people, sometimes. I'm sorry for the hate you receive, but not EVERYONE is going to like you and accept you.
I have learned from chatting with radical Muslims and holocaust deniers, you cannot simply tell people not to be ignorant.
In the mean time, quit bitching, gays in the middle east/Africa die for the very same reason.
@MetalSights Violent acts of hatred, wherever in the world they are committed, are incited by bigotry. For example, the WBC incites the hatred of others every time they hold one of their "protests". The fact that you don't understand the connection between inciting hatred and the resulting acts of violence against the oppressed minorities of the world, reveals your ignorance. I will continue to "bitch" for my rights.
@MetalSights You lack the perspective to engage in a debate of this nature, nor do you understand the struggle of oppressed minorities. Your ignorance is clear, and all to common.
@MetalSights I am hardly unique, nor is the violence and hatred I have experienced. Perhaps you should stop talking out of your ass, you are making a fool of yourself.
@MetalSights Sarcasm is a tool used by people who are incapable of supporting their argument. I enjoy watching stupid people flounder in their ignorance, and you put on a great show!
@MetalSights Another fine example of your use of sarcasm. Thank you for the entertaining encore, moron. Sorry, but you cannot form a proper sentence, let alone understand complex social issues.
@74sjlennox Wait, you live in Canada? Oh, well then forget EVERYTHING, you're not even in the same country. And I thought Canada would embrace your kind.
@74sjlennox Ahh, actually, I'll stop here, petty insults and calling each other out on intelligence are rather childish. I'll let you take the last word.
@bjlayd61 That would solve the problem but solving the problem isn't desired on the right. These is too good an issue to give up without a fight. Besides the fundies bring in a lot of money. So we have to put up with them foaming at the mouth and having their eyes roll up into their heads.
@colddrake80 This is why while I am very conservative strictly in the sense of limiting government. The government should not be allowed to dictate the definition of marriage, including preventing a demographic from receiving it. Sadly, most "conservatives" still think the government should play a strong role in shaping society. That's where the republican party loses me.
@bjlayd61 No, make marriage a personal issue, not a state issue. Why does it matter for a government to decide what constitute a marriage? It's a personal/religious choice between individuals.
@bjlayd61 You Are Correct! I've been saying this for over a year now. But then I also say that the Fed needs to stay out of it in general and leave it up to the states as to whether they recognize the union itself.
Well, this guy is a smarmy knuckle dragger. On one side we have the gays who have remained pretty civilized despite the odd balls, extremists, political hangers-on and the other problems associated with any mass movement. On the other we have bigots who wish death on those who disagree, deny the very existence of the other side, tar all opposition with the pervert brush and use the issue as a stalking horse for a politically extremist agenda. Our host can't seem to tell the difference.
Did you even watch the video? There are radicals on both sides of the issue. The fact that you denigrate only those who object to homosexuality speaks volumes to your own prejudice.
@Jmartintx80 Did you even read my post? I admitted both sides have extremists. On the gay rights side they are marginal on the anti-rights side they are the very leaders.
Yes, I'm biased against bigots. Only in the right-wing would that be considered a character flaw.
I did read your post, as a matter of fact. You resorted to petty name calling when it came to describing those who you don't agree with while at the same time trying to hold the moral high ground for those that you support.
Only in the left-wing would that be considered a virtue.
@Jmartintx80 When I see someone acting like a bigot I will call them a bigot. When I see someone lying I will call them a liar. Pretty simple actually. Klavan is a tool at best he's shown that in video after video.
What is also unmistakable is you completely missed the qualifier I put in the post and prattled on about my lack of objectivity. I was less biased than Klavan.
@MedicinalArtist I didn't make the claim. You made a rather extraordinary claims. Namely, religious fundies vote against the party that most supports them. YOU have to provide SOME kind of support or you can shove it up your ass.
The definition of marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Any different than that, and it should not be called a marriage. I have no problem with gay people having the same freedoms as any other person, nor am I against them living together or having the same economic status as a married couple, but to change the definition of a word will have serious consequences in the future. Once the definition is changed, the word is no longer sacred and can be changed again and again.
@RockoJoe90 you're so pointless, THE DEFINITION ALREADY HAS BEEN CHANGED, as you said, "again and again." if it hadn't changed again and again, RockoJoe90, sir, we'd still have the definition of marriage as 1 man and multiple women (per the Old Testament).
@moroney1 It has changed once, from the old times to slightly newer. I think we can all agree a change from polygamy to monogamy was a good change, but it has always been between a man and a woman.
It has been an economic contract, a permanent arrangement, a relgious ceremony, a racially segregated act, a female slave contract, a way of aquiring many men's daughters etc.
Today marriage can be civil, it can be divorced, women have eqality in it, it is not racially divided, it can be interfaith. Marriage does not have a set definition. Your own definition of marriage is infact a redefinition itself ...
I will stop opposing gay marriage when if the law allowing it says they cant sue churches for refusing to marry them and for refusing them access to their property to hold their ceremonies. If you dont like a church for this start your own you have that freedom.
He acts like gays have nothing to be pissed about. And really, people who oppose gay marriage are somehow legitimized? How? How is it anything but prejudice and ignorance to not want to allow gays to marry? What constitutional argument could you possibly give?
@areujokingme The federal government is a government of limited powers. No where in the constitution does the Fed gov't have the power to regulate marriage. The tenth amendment reserves that to the states and people. Ergo, the supreme court and congress has no right to rule on the matter, other than to strike any federal law commenting on it in any way. Don't get me wrong, homosexuals should be able to get married, but that issue is reserved to the states.
@BuckandRider Except that the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution requires that every state recognize the judicial proceedings of another state, that's why criminals who flee from one state to another must be extradited. Marriage is a judicial procedure, and people move from one state to another, the idea that I can get rights in MA then have them revoked by moving to MI is ludicrous and you know it. Also, there are federal marriage benefits that the states can never give.
I could just as easily say being for Gay Marriage is nothing but ingorance of the need for traditional values or the knowingly reckless self indulgent whims of perverts. But like what you just said, that would be just stupid. Your opinion of the opposing viewpoint is just as erroneous as you believe their's is of you. Elton John opposes gay marriage too, and I dont think he's prejudiced or ignorant about homosexuality. There is legitimate concern to be had.
@joanbeatrington001 u Nazi Jew haters are crazy, only. Every time you people disagree with someone you say the same thing "zionist Marxist Jew" It's like a retarded tick... "zionist Marxist Jew" I hate u... "zionist Marxist Jew" ... Ur stupid ... "zionist Marxist Jew" ... I'm an idiot ... "zionist Marxist Jew" ... WOW!!! PLEASE KEEP POSTING UR IGNORANCE IS VERY TELLING.
the vast majority of mainstream American Christians, could not care less what a fellow American does with his wiener , as long as they don't have to pay a tax to subsidize it . or pay a tax to take a picture of it, and send that picture on a whirlwind tour of federally subsidized "art" museums, or pay a tax to produce and broadcast, a Saturday morning cartoon, to teach their children how frickin' diverse it is.
as a liberal who watches your videos in order to try to understand the conservative viewpoint, this is definitely a something I can agree with you on. good job.
This guy is a manipulative Zionist Marxist Jew who supports Every cultural marxist anti-white anti-western way of life, yet have a very conservative traditional stance when it comes to his beloved Israel, which he believes owns space called "Greater Israel" in lebanon etc. Notice how he used pictures of extremist arabs and also Adolf hitler? the propaganda is ripe. These sick cowardly Jews are brainwashing you with buzz words and you are eating it up. But his hand gesture are cool right?
Gay people want to marry for the same reason that straight couples do. Yes gay mariage might redifine the institution, that is obvious, but i think it would redifine it in a very inclusive progressive way.
@DraughtOfPeace I don't see how you can compare a religion which predisposes the potential for violence with inclusion of gays into an institution built on the protection of loving relationships. I would say that would be a complete category error
Not a complete category error, mind.. it does have at least an ounce of validity. Look, even Americans aren't against same sex civil partnerships. Giving same-sex relationships the same status as marriage would cause all sorts of problems - theologically, socially, morally, culturally, ethically and religiously. Even the poster boy of gays, Elton John agreed that marriage isn't the way to go for gays.
@DraughtOfPeace Well we will have to agree to disagree, theologoically and religously are irrelevant since it would be a civil marriage, morally and ethically again is nearly always based religon or psuedo anti gay fringe science which isnt important in a civil marriage. And I have no idea how letting gays marry hampers society or culture in anyway, mountain out of a molehill I think. And I'm definetly not going to listen to a fool like Elton fucking John lol, great singer, not a great
because he disagrees with you? Look, he's gay himself, and I daresay he knows a bit more about the 'plumbing' behind being gay than you do. Giving same-sex relationships the same status as marriage would cause trouble for religious institutions which will deny conducting such marriages in their premises. What then? Can't deny someone their civil 'right'.. I never said I was in favor of banning same-sex relationships. But they shouldn't be given the 'marriage' status.
@DraughtOfPeace I didnt think he was a smart man before you informed me he was anti gay marriage, so no that is not the reason. The 'plumbing' of being gay, tbh i have no clue what you are talking about. And thirdly i responded to you two weeks ago explaining how gay marriage would be a civil one. I have no interest in what any theistic organization thinks, gay marriage would be a civil one to do with the government, thus religous recognition is unrequired and irellevent
You may not care, but think about it.. if 2 gay people walk into a church asking the pastor if they could get married; and the pastor says no.. he's just denied them their right to be married, and they now have legal ground to sue the pastor and said church for denying them that right. Making gay civil unions equal to marriages will give people tools to legally attack churches.
@DraughtOfPeace Civil marriage is the legal concept of marriage as a governmental institution regardless of religious affiliation, in accordance with marriage laws of the jurisdiction. The priest or pastor etc has not denied them the right to a civil marriage, only a religious one, and since this whole movement is about the state's recognition of these marriages ,any theistic stance on such marriage is therefore irrelevant and thus as I said before, I do not care what any religion claims.
@DraughtOfPeace OOOHHH boo hoo yeah gay people can't officialy be married because it would just cause so much inconvenience for the church...really? and not once did Mr.Klavan mention his sexuality... so your judging him on his apearance i would presume...your a sick judgemental person and your wasting your time making a bigger deal of gay marriage than it really is, so do us all a favor if you dont like gay marriage suck it up, because in no way would gay marriage negativley affect you.
Yea, and by that logic, why don't you suck up slavery too? If you don't like it, you just needn't own slaves.. People aren't against same-sex 'civil unions'. Marriage is something meant for opposite sexes. There are many same-sex couples living together already. It's not people who are actually gay who make the case for gay marriage. They're perfectly happy with their civil unions.
Thought: You cant name a Radical? Or if you did, is it the suit and boycotting grandstanding that they'll do to try to silence you?
I have lived within and associate with the gay community, I have gay family members and I have heard may gay issues that sound interesting. But the radicals are NOT hard to find, and sometimes, it hard to see past them.
Its not the rights I dont want them to have, its the ADVANTAGE. The right to "ACLU" everything once a right is given.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
This guy is a manipulative Zionist Marxist Jew who supports Every cultural marxist anti-white anti-western way of life, yet have a very conservative traditional stance when it comes to his beloved Israel, which he believes owns space called "Greater Israel" in lebanon etc. Notice how he used pictures of extremist arabs and also Adolf hitler? the propaganda is ripe. These sick cowardly Jews are brainwashing you with buzz words and you are eating it up. But his hand gesture are cool right?
I love to listen to all the homophobes say, "Being against gay marriage doesn't make you homophobic." Well, I guess being against straight marriage doesn't make me heterophobic LOL
I love to listen to all the homophobes say, "Being against gay marriage doesn't make you homophobic." Well, I guess being against straight marriage doesn't make me heterophobic LOL
@TheTruthHurtsAlot3 No it really doesnt. If you're against straight marriage that doesnt make you heterophob, unless you honestly hate straight people and not just the institution of marriage THEN you're a heterophob.
PLEASE DONT READ THIS. YOU WILL GET KISSED ON THE NEAREST POSSIBLE FRIDAY BY THE LOVE OF YOUR LIFE. TOMORROW WILL BE THE BEST DAY OF YOUR LIFE. HOWEVER IF YOU DONT POST THIS COMMENT something bad will happen. NOW UV STARTED READIN DIS DUNT STOP THIS IS SO SCARY. SEND THIS TO 5 VIDEOS IN 143 MINUTES WHEN UR DONE PRESS F6 AND UR CRUSHES NAME WILL APPEAR ON THE SCREEN IN BIG LETTERS. THIS IS SO SCARY CAUSE IT ACTUALLY WORKS THIS ACTUALLY WORKS
@anthrax442 As stated above... Because you can go to a court house and get married by a judge. Why should we have two seperate "But equal" sets of rights? Thought we had a political battle about that. Seperate but equal never works because then one side tries to eek out MORE rights than another. Because humans whether straight or gay are greedy.
Why the right-wing double standard when it comes to gay people? What they do in private is NONE OF YOUR CONCERN! Are you going to fuck a gay person or use a needle that a gay druggie used anytime soon? Are you planning on getting in a random relationship with a gay man or woman? Why do you CARE?
Get a life, right-wingers. To be fair, this WAS not a bad video for a 'conservative' channel, but the claim that it was "perfectly reasonable" for ignoramuses to think that homosexuality was
"deviant" or whatever is just ridiculous. IGNORANT "scientists" and so-called psychologists IMPOSED THEIR OWN BIGOTED MORALITY and called it "science." They masked their ideology as "scientific." What "centrality" of the masculine and feminine spheres? Yes, women and men are more likely to have various (or so the evidence seems to suggest) traits respectively than the other sex, but HOW we use those differences is determined by culture.
Why is it "tyranny" if gay people get their DESERVED rights "imposed upon us" from the judiciary, but it was A-OK for blacks to do it via cases like Brown??
HYPOCRISY? I think so
This assumes that gays and blacks are SO FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT, esp. when it comes to what rights they should have, that one group should have their rights VOTED ON by an ignorant majority, and the other should be able to use whatever means necessary. THAT is disgusting, not homosexuality.
This culture is seemingly more concerned with the form rather than the substance... Thus because a gay relationship might "look" in some ways like a "marriage", then that's what it must be...
But... marriage has already been defined, for millenia, as the union between a man and a woman,,,
So to all our gay friends, have your relationships... just stop insisting on calling it a marriage... "get your own effin' word for it" , as the kids might say...
Gay people are 'part of the creation'? How does that work? Doesn't your Bible condemn homosexuality and say those who practice it should be put to death? How about the much more logical conclusion that there is no grand designer with a plan for us and that nature is, rather, a chaotic emergence of varieties of life which really tells us nothing about how we ought to live?
@razoodocks Nonsense.... natural selection doesn't allow for non reproducing organisms to reproduce... No, God knew men, under Satan's influence, would do all kinds of disgusting, stupid stuff.......... that's why He gave instructions on what is right and what is wrong.
@Thistlesifter220 Since when were gay people an 'organism'? Homosexuality has been observed throughout the animal kingdom - read Biological Exuberance by Bruce Bagemihl. Are those animals influenced by your fairytale bogeyman Satan too? Trying reading a book that's not the Bible or written by wild-eyed creationists, you might learn something. Also, please explain why homosexuality is 'stupid' and 'disgusting'. What business is it of yours to judge who people choose to fall in love with?
I'm fine with gay people, but not with the arrogant ones who think that being gay makes them superior. There is a threshold though. If society begins to change enough that people enjoy being gay even when they are inherently not, then we have a problem :) I believe the reason why the bible is against it, is simply because it wants to protect us from finally reaching that point.
Andrew Klaven, you are slightly right, but mostly wrong here. When the "people of goodwill" are voting in laws to restrict the rights of other people, whether it has to to with the gay issue or any other issue, this is part of the problem.
This is the the only Klavan video I have ever disagreed with. Homosexuality is 1)a choice, and 2)a sin. Anyone who disagrees, please read the book of Genesis. God did not make you that way, and it is not a sickness or a disease.
@FubarAlAkbar I love it when straight people try to tell gay people that its a choice. Since you are not gay I highly doubt your credibility. Judge not lest ye be judged.....Words that everyone seems to miss when they read the "good book".
@moroney1 If He was not capable of proving Himself without my help, he would not be worthy of being God. So I will pray for you and we will see what happens in your life. And before you start laughing...this has worked before. :-)
Why can't two adults who love eachother have that ackwoledged and protected under the law, I really don't understand what the fuss is about. I mean marriage has been re defined many times by divorce and contraception or inter racial and inter faith marriages or by non religous marriages or women's rights movement, why can't we redifine it again, surely nothing bad can actually occur, I'm just kinda stumped why anyone would even make it their business about who you can marry
huge agape can spring up between two men, but they don't have to be deceived into thinking it needs to be expressed in a sexual way, or listen to what others interpret it to be! the Light-filled (not dishonest or illegal) Love you have for any brother or sister is Real!...overwhelming needs to express it sinfully aren't...not even if they're the opposite sex unless God brought them to you! (physical gender anomolies cause a deformed person to make difficult choices which others should respect!)
each person takes it to God if they think it important. i believe God made woman for man because He thought he needed her, not necessarily because the man knew that! but if the man abandon the woman, she will be left friendless (to bring up their kids) & the gift thrown back in God's face!...true for abortion also. ( ask God yourself) so many struggle with this issue...but it's so easy to dismiss in Jesus' name the twisted spirits trying to transform good men & women into rebels against nature!
david & jonathan weren't gay, Holy Scriptures describe their friendship: "...when David had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David & Jonathan loved him as himself. Saul took him that day & did not let him return to his father's house. Then Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was on him & gave it to David with his armor, including his sword & his bow & his belt. So David went out..."
Wow. I have to admit this is one of the most balanced view points on gays I've seen in my life.
There would be a simple solution to the mariage issue : let the state out of it. Don't give outrageous incitatives to mariage, don't recognize any type of union and let religious groups/ civil organizations do it instead. This way everyone is equally un/happy about the result
So he's not totaly anti-homosexual. Doesn't suprise me. Iv'e always thought that he wanted to get boned by Hannity. He's in love with Limbaugh though. Don't worry Andrew, I won't tell Rush.
I agree with Dragdmar....why in the hell would I wanna be married in Church that burned people at the stake simply for being different. Not just gay but anything that they found fearful....shoot they even crucified Christ for this reason......Screw religion and all it dogmas.....If I was to married it would not be in a frigging Church
What those opposed to gay rights should get through their heads is there are 2 kinds of marriages. Secular and sacred. Marriage as defined by a church is up to the church, but marriage defined by the state is a set of rights granted by secular social contract, e.g. the right to file taxes jointly, inheritance rights, the right to visit loved ones in a hospital, etc. But to enforce your church's rules on the secular rules is subverting the government with your religion, which is capital treason.
@phantom1000a that's not the definition of marriage. This is the def of marriage: Marriage is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship.
The reason gay marriage is opposed is not because of their sexual preferences but it entails the loss of tax $ for marriage exemptions and reduced insurance premium costs on life,health and car policies.
What the Gays need is not marriage, but a disconnection of holy matrimony from the legal rights that all 'men' are endowed with from their creator. I've been telling people this since, oh, 1989...
So if you want to win the right to choose who gets to visit you in the hospital or inherit your goods when you die, marriage is not the vehicle you are looking for. (jedi hand wave) You need to fight to separate the legal rights from the religious rite and that will solve both problems.
@Dragdamar "Separate but equal" was ruled necessarily not equal by the supreme court. Creating a separate class of citizen that must use separate means to achieve their ends that is based solely on how they were born or their religion is a violation of the Constitution. Equal protection and treatment under the law cannot exist if gay citizens are required to go through extra series of steps to achieve the same benefits that non-gay citizens do. Go further, take marriage out of Govt completely
@Dragdamar But the legal right IS called Marriage since you can go to a courthouse and have a judge marry you. There are many weddings which are not religious ceremonies. Unless you think there's a church of Elvis in Las Vegas.
@Rensune The problem is that marriage is a religious ceremony with legal, social, and economic ramifications. Two married adults will pay less federal income taxes, be able to cover their spouse under their employer's health insurance, have certain rights when the other is hospitalized, and so on. There is a laundry list of entirely secular benefits two people gain through marriage, thereby undermining the argument that marriage is solely a religious institution.
That's a huge problem there. Marriage should be a solely religious institution and if you're asking me, the 'legality' or gay marriage should be the provenance of each congregation. I don't know what the hell the state is doing meddling in holy matrimony, but I can only imagine its intentions aren't holy.
I am a theologian, and there is nothing wrong with consensual love. On the issue of marriage, it is a RELIGIOUS ceremony, and government should have no right to regulate it.
@Rensune Right. But marriage is not just a religious practice anymore, it's also a legal status. And I see no reason why any religion should have influence over that.
Really, the churchly ceremony of marriage needs to be fully separated from the legal act of marriage.
@raizumichin then you're letting the state tell you who can and can't get married (and they're a little bit harder to "switch") talk about frying pan into the fire.
@Rensune No, I mean separating the concepts entirely. If you're married in the eyes of god shouldn't in any way be connected to being married in the eyes of the law. The state already decided who can and cant be married in the legal sense, I'm just proposing to disassociate that with any religious connotations. That way, the state isn't imposing on or regulating any religious ceremony, and religious beliefs are not legaly imposing on homosexuals.
@john42t Ideally, yes. If a balance of a happy medium must be struck, then I would recommend a license for a civil union be granted (and that could be argued over from state to state). But NEVER any reference to a religious ceremony.
@Rensune What difference does that make? Clearly the acceptance of the status of "being married" will still depend on the state's laws if it governs civil unions. In Germany, for example, civil unions are separated from religious ceremonies. There are usually two wedding ceremonies: The civil first, held by a bureaucrat, and then a religious one in the afternoon. But that's just window dressing, the state still gets to define what a marriage is.
@john42t the difference is simple. If you don't like it, you can move. (this goes either way, BTW). The only reason such a thing even needs to be established is due to contract rights (inheritance, guardianship, etc.) So long as the people can move freely between states, this should not be a problem.
I would actually be willing to take it one step further and say it should be on a county or even city level, but that would be unlikely to happen.
@Rensune Are you willing to take it another step further and have no civil marriage at all? Let it be a purely ritual thing? Of course people might additionally form a legal contract, similar to prenups, but without an actual legal marriage?
If God is the author of the Bible, then he put the rules of homosexuality. His book, his rules. He is supposed to be a God of love. But, many believers in his word also kill one another in his name. The Bible also states that, "Those who live by the sword, shall die by the sword". Killing & hatred persist among those that claim to follow God's word. If He is a god of love, then love your "brother", even the gay ones. If your brother wants to please God, then let them do it God's way.
leonanim 4 days ago
@leonanim You make some good points. "Love your "brother", even the gay ones", for example. Yes, the Bible agrees. However, it doesn't approve of sin. If God is the author of the Bible, you have to do things his way (totally, not mostly his way) in order to please him. That said, we have all failed at keeping his laws. According to the Bible, homosexuality is wrong, but so are so many other things (hatred, for one...). You and I are as deserving of hell as anyone else, gay or straight.
3dmarth 3 days ago
@3dmarth And that is why Jesus stepped in and paid the price for our wrongdoings so we could have life with God in heaven instead of going to hell. The issue (according to the Bible) is not "gay or straight", though again, it condemns homosexual thoughts and actions along with many other things.
The plan that God put forth is that he'll forgive us if we accept the gift of life provided by Jesus. He'll help us take care of any junk in our lives after.
So there's no room for hatred here.
3dmarth 3 days ago
You can't compare supporters of gay marriage to the WBC.
Mrpastry909 5 days ago
you can tell hitler to bite you personally if you don't repent & place your trust in Jesus Christ alone.
dustydirt 6 days ago
Klavan does not understand civil rights movements. They are started by so called "radicals", as he calls them, members within a community facing discrimination who are willing to stand up and fight for their rights. People like him only get on board when the fight is nearly won. This man is a fool.
74sjlennox 6 days ago
@74sjlennox Email your congressman, start a petition, start a fundraiser, reasonably raise awareness, parading down a street making out with your boyfriend in a g-string doesn't help that much.
MetalSights 5 days ago
@MetalSights Your attitude toward "radicals" speaks to the limits of your perception. I've never walked outside my own home without at least a t-shirt on, but I applaud anyone who feels comfortable enough with themselves to walk down the street in a g-string while kissing his partner. You are a small human being, trapped inside a tiny box.
74sjlennox 5 days ago
@74sjlennox It was an exaggeration, numbnuts. And that's not how you make a political statement.
He meant radicals asin people who violently or hatefully attack ANYONE who don't support them, and yes, they are fucking crazy on both sides. I was talking politely to another youtuber about gay rights or something similar, someone randomly butted in and told me their opinion, I don't him I didn't really care, he called me a bigoted homophobe and told me to fuck off.
MetalSights 5 days ago
@MetalSights *By "both sides", I mean those who are angrily pro-gay and angrily anti-gay.
MetalSights 5 days ago
@MetalSights There is a difference, the "anger" felt by the oppressed, is not the same "anger" that is felt by the oppressor. They come from two very different sources.
74sjlennox 5 days ago
@74sjlennox Oppression is used very loosely here in the civilized world. Stop using it when it you don't get your way.
WBC and other radically anti-gay parties aren't oppressing anyone. They're just annoying.
MetalSights 4 days ago
@MetalSights As a gay man who has suffered a violent attack to my face and neck with battery acid, I understand the pain of oppression very well. I also suffer the subtle daily oppression all gays live with every day of their lives, here, in the "civilized" world. Grow up, MetalSights.
74sjlennox 4 days ago
@74sjlennox I'm sure it wasn't incited. You are somewhat different. People suck and don't like different people, sometimes. I'm sorry for the hate you receive, but not EVERYONE is going to like you and accept you.
I have learned from chatting with radical Muslims and holocaust deniers, you cannot simply tell people not to be ignorant.
In the mean time, quit bitching, gays in the middle east/Africa die for the very same reason.
MetalSights 4 days ago
@MetalSights Violent acts of hatred, wherever in the world they are committed, are incited by bigotry. For example, the WBC incites the hatred of others every time they hold one of their "protests". The fact that you don't understand the connection between inciting hatred and the resulting acts of violence against the oppressed minorities of the world, reveals your ignorance. I will continue to "bitch" for my rights.
74sjlennox 4 days ago
@74sjlennox Ignorance to what, exactly? You just explained what I just said. Good job.
I don't know what rights you are missing out on.....nothing unconstitutional is being put on you.....
MetalSights 4 days ago
@MetalSights You lack the perspective to engage in a debate of this nature, nor do you understand the struggle of oppressed minorities. Your ignorance is clear, and all to common.
74sjlennox 4 days ago
@74sjlennox Sure. Whatever makes you feel unique and misunderstood.
MetalSights 4 days ago
@MetalSights Unless you are a youth who lacks life experience, then you are a simpleton.
74sjlennox 4 days ago
@74sjlennox See? You think you're unique and misunderstood.
MetalSights 4 days ago
@MetalSights I am hardly unique, nor is the violence and hatred I have experienced. Perhaps you should stop talking out of your ass, you are making a fool of yourself.
74sjlennox 4 days ago
@74sjlennox You done yet?
MetalSights 4 days ago
@MetalSights Sarcasm is a tool used by people who are incapable of supporting their argument. I enjoy watching stupid people flounder in their ignorance, and you put on a great show!
74sjlennox 4 days ago
@74sjlennox Thanks for telling me that I don't know something, and making no attempt to explain it for some reason. I sure am ignorant.
MetalSights 4 days ago
@MetalSights Another fine example of your use of sarcasm. Thank you for the entertaining encore, moron. Sorry, but you cannot form a proper sentence, let alone understand complex social issues.
74sjlennox 4 days ago
@74sjlennox And finishing strong with another petty insult. GOOD SHOW, MY DEAR BOY, GOOD SHOW
MetalSights 4 days ago
@MetalSights You should run for office in your country, judging by the discourse you provide, I think your chances for success are excellent.
74sjlennox 4 days ago
@74sjlennox Wait, you live in Canada? Oh, well then forget EVERYTHING, you're not even in the same country. And I thought Canada would embrace your kind.
MetalSights 4 days ago
@74sjlennox Ahh, actually, I'll stop here, petty insults and calling each other out on intelligence are rather childish. I'll let you take the last word.
MetalSights 4 days ago
@MetalSights *is
MetalSights 4 days ago
@MetalSights Use your words, little one.
74sjlennox 5 days ago
Comment removed
bjlayd61 1 week ago
If gays go to hell. Hell is gonna be fabulous
musicMan1445 1 week ago 9
@musicMan1445 You mean "faaaaaaaaaaabulous!"
Objectivist1994 2 days ago
"Gays are bad" says the preist as he rapes the 12 year old boy.
ohnoezmininuke 1 week ago 3
gays do go to hell jmo
sharpshooternick 2 weeks ago
How to fix the gay marriage problem: Give gays civil uinions. Give heterosexuals civil unions. Get a marriage from your church.
bjlayd61 2 weeks ago 28
@bjlayd61 Yes x 1000
bigboss686 2 weeks ago
@bjlayd61 That would solve the problem but solving the problem isn't desired on the right. These is too good an issue to give up without a fight. Besides the fundies bring in a lot of money. So we have to put up with them foaming at the mouth and having their eyes roll up into their heads.
colddrake80 1 week ago
@colddrake80 This is why while I am very conservative strictly in the sense of limiting government. The government should not be allowed to dictate the definition of marriage, including preventing a demographic from receiving it. Sadly, most "conservatives" still think the government should play a strong role in shaping society. That's where the republican party loses me.
bjlayd61 1 week ago
@bjlayd61
Ron Paul is the only candidate that supports that course of action.
daflyingkiwifilms 1 week ago
@bjlayd61 No, make marriage a personal issue, not a state issue. Why does it matter for a government to decide what constitute a marriage? It's a personal/religious choice between individuals.
Arielslopa 4 days ago
@Arielslopa That's my whole point...
bjlayd61 4 days ago
@bjlayd61 That's literally the best Idea I have ever heard.
fuckifacation123 3 days ago
@bjlayd61 You Are Correct! I've been saying this for over a year now. But then I also say that the Fed needs to stay out of it in general and leave it up to the states as to whether they recognize the union itself.
TheHornedOne81 2 days ago
@bjlayd61
No no no! We can't do that! It would totally remove the reason to argue, fight, and hate each other!
diskpanic 1 day ago
Well, this guy is a smarmy knuckle dragger. On one side we have the gays who have remained pretty civilized despite the odd balls, extremists, political hangers-on and the other problems associated with any mass movement. On the other we have bigots who wish death on those who disagree, deny the very existence of the other side, tar all opposition with the pervert brush and use the issue as a stalking horse for a politically extremist agenda. Our host can't seem to tell the difference.
colddrake80 4 weeks ago
@colddrake80
Did you even watch the video? There are radicals on both sides of the issue. The fact that you denigrate only those who object to homosexuality speaks volumes to your own prejudice.
Jmartintx80 1 week ago
@Jmartintx80 Did you even read my post? I admitted both sides have extremists. On the gay rights side they are marginal on the anti-rights side they are the very leaders.
Yes, I'm biased against bigots. Only in the right-wing would that be considered a character flaw.
colddrake80 1 week ago
I did read your post, as a matter of fact. You resorted to petty name calling when it came to describing those who you don't agree with while at the same time trying to hold the moral high ground for those that you support.
Only in the left-wing would that be considered a virtue.
Jmartintx80 1 week ago
@Jmartintx80 When I see someone acting like a bigot I will call them a bigot. When I see someone lying I will call them a liar. Pretty simple actually. Klavan is a tool at best he's shown that in video after video.
What is also unmistakable is you completely missed the qualifier I put in the post and prattled on about my lack of objectivity. I was less biased than Klavan.
colddrake80 1 week ago
Fred Phelps and a large majority of WBC vote Democrat. Just sayin'.
MedicinalArtist 1 month ago
@MedicinalArtist Obvious troll is obvious.
colddrake80 4 weeks ago
Look it up, retard.
MedicinalArtist 4 weeks ago
@MedicinalArtist I didn't make the claim. You made a rather extraordinary claims. Namely, religious fundies vote against the party that most supports them. YOU have to provide SOME kind of support or you can shove it up your ass.
colddrake80 4 weeks ago
@MedicinalArtist Well, you've had two weeks and nothing. Thank you for admitting you were engaged in trolling.
colddrake80 1 week ago
@colddrake80 Two weeks for what, exactly?...
MedicinalArtist 1 week ago
@MedicinalArtist Two weeks to provide any evidence to support your WBC allegations.
colddrake80 1 week ago
@colddrake80 Look up Fred Phelps on Google you stupid prick.
MedicinalArtist 1 week ago
@MedicinalArtist Again. If you make extraordinary claims it is up to YOU to provide the proof of it.
colddrake80 1 week ago
@colddrake80 Look up Fred Phelps (WBC leader).
MedicinalArtist 1 week ago
@MedicinalArtist Do your own homework. I'm teaching you lesson about trolling.
colddrake80 1 week ago
@colddrake80 Liek omg trole so gud. Grow up, fag.
MedicinalArtist 1 week ago
@MedicinalArtist Nothing but petty name calling. Sad, very sad.
colddrake80 1 week ago
The definition of marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Any different than that, and it should not be called a marriage. I have no problem with gay people having the same freedoms as any other person, nor am I against them living together or having the same economic status as a married couple, but to change the definition of a word will have serious consequences in the future. Once the definition is changed, the word is no longer sacred and can be changed again and again.
RockoJoe90 1 month ago
@RockoJoe90 you're so pointless, THE DEFINITION ALREADY HAS BEEN CHANGED, as you said, "again and again." if it hadn't changed again and again, RockoJoe90, sir, we'd still have the definition of marriage as 1 man and multiple women (per the Old Testament).
dirtyfishydishcloth 1 month ago
@RockoJoe90 That statement is wrong, the fluidity over this definition is contsant. It has changed many many times
moroney1 3 weeks ago
@moroney1 It has changed once, from the old times to slightly newer. I think we can all agree a change from polygamy to monogamy was a good change, but it has always been between a man and a woman.
RockoJoe90 3 weeks ago
@RockoJoe90 It hasnt changed once...
It has been an economic contract, a permanent arrangement, a relgious ceremony, a racially segregated act, a female slave contract, a way of aquiring many men's daughters etc.
Today marriage can be civil, it can be divorced, women have eqality in it, it is not racially divided, it can be interfaith. Marriage does not have a set definition. Your own definition of marriage is infact a redefinition itself ...
moroney1 3 weeks ago
@pimpdalyrical 0f course my mate
guanaguacoa 1 month ago
i hope you are in favour of free unions
guanaguacoa 1 month ago
@guanaguacoa
Is that the new tagline the activists are trotting out?
pimpdalyrical 1 month ago
I will stop opposing gay marriage when if the law allowing it says they cant sue churches for refusing to marry them and for refusing them access to their property to hold their ceremonies. If you dont like a church for this start your own you have that freedom.
Jameshstone 1 month ago
This is the problem when government gets in the meddling of individual affairs. The states should get out of marriage.
BuckandRider 1 month ago
He acts like gays have nothing to be pissed about. And really, people who oppose gay marriage are somehow legitimized? How? How is it anything but prejudice and ignorance to not want to allow gays to marry? What constitutional argument could you possibly give?
areujokingme 1 month ago
@areujokingme The federal government is a government of limited powers. No where in the constitution does the Fed gov't have the power to regulate marriage. The tenth amendment reserves that to the states and people. Ergo, the supreme court and congress has no right to rule on the matter, other than to strike any federal law commenting on it in any way. Don't get me wrong, homosexuals should be able to get married, but that issue is reserved to the states.
BuckandRider 1 month ago
@BuckandRider Except that the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution requires that every state recognize the judicial proceedings of another state, that's why criminals who flee from one state to another must be extradited. Marriage is a judicial procedure, and people move from one state to another, the idea that I can get rights in MA then have them revoked by moving to MI is ludicrous and you know it. Also, there are federal marriage benefits that the states can never give.
calthopian 1 month ago
@areujokingme
I could just as easily say being for Gay Marriage is nothing but ingorance of the need for traditional values or the knowingly reckless self indulgent whims of perverts. But like what you just said, that would be just stupid. Your opinion of the opposing viewpoint is just as erroneous as you believe their's is of you. Elton John opposes gay marriage too, and I dont think he's prejudiced or ignorant about homosexuality. There is legitimate concern to be had.
pimpdalyrical 1 month ago
gays scary muslims away
gothicsoul100 2 months ago
@joanbeatrington001 u Nazi Jew haters are crazy, only. Every time you people disagree with someone you say the same thing "zionist Marxist Jew" It's like a retarded tick... "zionist Marxist Jew" I hate u... "zionist Marxist Jew" ... Ur stupid ... "zionist Marxist Jew" ... I'm an idiot ... "zionist Marxist Jew" ... WOW!!! PLEASE KEEP POSTING UR IGNORANCE IS VERY TELLING.
denniscasey5 2 months ago
the vast majority of mainstream American Christians, could not care less what a fellow American does with his wiener , as long as they don't have to pay a tax to subsidize it . or pay a tax to take a picture of it, and send that picture on a whirlwind tour of federally subsidized "art" museums, or pay a tax to produce and broadcast, a Saturday morning cartoon, to teach their children how frickin' diverse it is.
halloranedward 2 months ago in playlist other 10
as a liberal who watches your videos in order to try to understand the conservative viewpoint, this is definitely a something I can agree with you on. good job.
daflyingkiwifilms 2 months ago
@daflyingkiwifilms one of the few things though...
scratchfg212 1 month ago
@scratchfg212
one of the very few things indeed...
daflyingkiwifilms 1 month ago
more gays the better..the planet is getting full..
WhitesAwaken 2 months ago
This guy is a manipulative Zionist Marxist Jew who supports Every cultural marxist anti-white anti-western way of life, yet have a very conservative traditional stance when it comes to his beloved Israel, which he believes owns space called "Greater Israel" in lebanon etc. Notice how he used pictures of extremist arabs and also Adolf hitler? the propaganda is ripe. These sick cowardly Jews are brainwashing you with buzz words and you are eating it up. But his hand gesture are cool right?
JoanBeatrington001 2 months ago
muslims hate gays more gays less muslims
gothicsoul100 3 months ago
Gay people want to marry for the same reason that straight couples do. Yes gay mariage might redifine the institution, that is obvious, but i think it would redifine it in a very inclusive progressive way.
moroney1 3 months ago
@moroney1
in the same way that accepting islam as a legit and civilized religion would redefine tolerance and faith in a 'very progressive inclusive way'..
DraughtOfPeace 3 months ago
@DraughtOfPeace I don't see how you can compare a religion which predisposes the potential for violence with inclusion of gays into an institution built on the protection of loving relationships. I would say that would be a complete category error
moroney1 3 months ago
@moroney1
Not a complete category error, mind.. it does have at least an ounce of validity. Look, even Americans aren't against same sex civil partnerships. Giving same-sex relationships the same status as marriage would cause all sorts of problems - theologically, socially, morally, culturally, ethically and religiously. Even the poster boy of gays, Elton John agreed that marriage isn't the way to go for gays.
DraughtOfPeace 3 months ago
@DraughtOfPeace Well we will have to agree to disagree, theologoically and religously are irrelevant since it would be a civil marriage, morally and ethically again is nearly always based religon or psuedo anti gay fringe science which isnt important in a civil marriage. And I have no idea how letting gays marry hampers society or culture in anyway, mountain out of a molehill I think. And I'm definetly not going to listen to a fool like Elton fucking John lol, great singer, not a great
moroney1 3 months ago
@moroney1
or maybe, just maybe, he saw problems with allowing 'marriage' status for gay couples a little better than you can..
DraughtOfPeace 3 months ago
@DraughtOfPeace I dont regard Elton John as my go to guy for answers
moroney1 2 months ago
@moroney1
because his view differs from yours, and aligns more with something you disagree with?
DraughtOfPeace 2 months ago
@DraughtOfPeace No, because he is a bit of a nutter tbh lol
moroney1 2 months ago
@moroney1
because he disagrees with you? Look, he's gay himself, and I daresay he knows a bit more about the 'plumbing' behind being gay than you do. Giving same-sex relationships the same status as marriage would cause trouble for religious institutions which will deny conducting such marriages in their premises. What then? Can't deny someone their civil 'right'.. I never said I was in favor of banning same-sex relationships. But they shouldn't be given the 'marriage' status.
DraughtOfPeace 2 months ago
@DraughtOfPeace I didnt think he was a smart man before you informed me he was anti gay marriage, so no that is not the reason. The 'plumbing' of being gay, tbh i have no clue what you are talking about. And thirdly i responded to you two weeks ago explaining how gay marriage would be a civil one. I have no interest in what any theistic organization thinks, gay marriage would be a civil one to do with the government, thus religous recognition is unrequired and irellevent
moroney1 2 months ago
@moroney1
You may not care, but think about it.. if 2 gay people walk into a church asking the pastor if they could get married; and the pastor says no.. he's just denied them their right to be married, and they now have legal ground to sue the pastor and said church for denying them that right. Making gay civil unions equal to marriages will give people tools to legally attack churches.
DraughtOfPeace 2 months ago
@DraughtOfPeace Civil marriage is the legal concept of marriage as a governmental institution regardless of religious affiliation, in accordance with marriage laws of the jurisdiction. The priest or pastor etc has not denied them the right to a civil marriage, only a religious one, and since this whole movement is about the state's recognition of these marriages ,any theistic stance on such marriage is therefore irrelevant and thus as I said before, I do not care what any religion claims.
moroney1 2 months ago
@DraughtOfPeace OOOHHH boo hoo yeah gay people can't officialy be married because it would just cause so much inconvenience for the church...really? and not once did Mr.Klavan mention his sexuality... so your judging him on his apearance i would presume...your a sick judgemental person and your wasting your time making a bigger deal of gay marriage than it really is, so do us all a favor if you dont like gay marriage suck it up, because in no way would gay marriage negativley affect you.
juliajuly4th 2 months ago
@juliajuly4th
Yea, and by that logic, why don't you suck up slavery too? If you don't like it, you just needn't own slaves.. People aren't against same-sex 'civil unions'. Marriage is something meant for opposite sexes. There are many same-sex couples living together already. It's not people who are actually gay who make the case for gay marriage. They're perfectly happy with their civil unions.
DraughtOfPeace 1 month ago
God = Good, Phelps = Bad
Thought: You cant name a Radical? Or if you did, is it the suit and boycotting grandstanding that they'll do to try to silence you?
I have lived within and associate with the gay community, I have gay family members and I have heard may gay issues that sound interesting. But the radicals are NOT hard to find, and sometimes, it hard to see past them.
Its not the rights I dont want them to have, its the ADVANTAGE. The right to "ACLU" everything once a right is given.
avenqer 3 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This guy is a manipulative Zionist Marxist Jew who supports Every cultural marxist anti-white anti-western way of life, yet have a very conservative traditional stance when it comes to his beloved Israel, which he believes owns space called "Greater Israel" in lebanon etc. Notice how he used pictures of extremist arabs and also Adolf hitler? the propaganda is ripe. These sick cowardly Jews are brainwashing you with buzz words and you are eating it up. But his hand gesture are cool right?
JoanBeatrington001 3 months ago
@JoanBeatrington001
Wow, were you abbused as a child???
WTF does him being ajew- which he isnb't, he's christian- have to do with anything
i am sorry you were dropped on your head
DidiBrn 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I love to listen to all the homophobes say, "Being against gay marriage doesn't make you homophobic." Well, I guess being against straight marriage doesn't make me heterophobic LOL
TheTruthHurtsAlot3 3 months ago
I love to listen to all the homophobes say, "Being against gay marriage doesn't make you homophobic." Well, I guess being against straight marriage doesn't make me heterophobic LOL
TheTruthHurtsAlot3 3 months ago
@TheTruthHurtsAlot3 No it really doesnt. If you're against straight marriage that doesnt make you heterophob, unless you honestly hate straight people and not just the institution of marriage THEN you're a heterophob.
GermanConquistador08 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
PLEASE DONT READ THIS. YOU WILL GET KISSED ON THE NEAREST POSSIBLE FRIDAY BY THE LOVE OF YOUR LIFE. TOMORROW WILL BE THE BEST DAY OF YOUR LIFE. HOWEVER IF YOU DONT POST THIS COMMENT something bad will happen. NOW UV STARTED READIN DIS DUNT STOP THIS IS SO SCARY. SEND THIS TO 5 VIDEOS IN 143 MINUTES WHEN UR DONE PRESS F6 AND UR CRUSHES NAME WILL APPEAR ON THE SCREEN IN BIG LETTERS. THIS IS SO SCARY CAUSE IT ACTUALLY WORKS THIS ACTUALLY WORKS
pigscanfly522 3 months ago
being against Gay Marriage does NOT make you Homophobic
ajsaccount1991 4 months ago
@ajsaccount1991 But being against gays IS. marriage is part of gay people and people in general.
petrovichization 3 months ago
Why not satisfy everyone and call it something like "civil union" and once they enter that union give them all the same rights as marriage.
anthrax442 5 months ago 2
@anthrax442 As stated above... Because you can go to a court house and get married by a judge. Why should we have two seperate "But equal" sets of rights? Thought we had a political battle about that. Seperate but equal never works because then one side tries to eek out MORE rights than another. Because humans whether straight or gay are greedy.
Darkeklaw 4 months ago
So people getting their rights, simply because it's done "without asking the people to vote on it", is "tyranny"? Nice projection.
whoo689 5 months ago
Why the right-wing double standard when it comes to gay people? What they do in private is NONE OF YOUR CONCERN! Are you going to fuck a gay person or use a needle that a gay druggie used anytime soon? Are you planning on getting in a random relationship with a gay man or woman? Why do you CARE?
Get a life, right-wingers. To be fair, this WAS not a bad video for a 'conservative' channel, but the claim that it was "perfectly reasonable" for ignoramuses to think that homosexuality was
whoo689 5 months ago
"deviant" or whatever is just ridiculous. IGNORANT "scientists" and so-called psychologists IMPOSED THEIR OWN BIGOTED MORALITY and called it "science." They masked their ideology as "scientific." What "centrality" of the masculine and feminine spheres? Yes, women and men are more likely to have various (or so the evidence seems to suggest) traits respectively than the other sex, but HOW we use those differences is determined by culture.
whoo689 5 months ago
A CULTURE is to blame for gay-bashing, gay executions, etc. For ridiculous "science" that was really moralism disguised
whoo689 5 months ago
Comment removed
whoo689 5 months ago
Comment removed
whoo689 5 months ago
Comment removed
whoo689 5 months ago
Comment removed
whoo689 5 months ago
Comment removed
whoo689 5 months ago
Comment removed
whoo689 5 months ago
Comment removed
whoo689 5 months ago
Why is it "tyranny" if gay people get their DESERVED rights "imposed upon us" from the judiciary, but it was A-OK for blacks to do it via cases like Brown??
HYPOCRISY? I think so
This assumes that gays and blacks are SO FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT, esp. when it comes to what rights they should have, that one group should have their rights VOTED ON by an ignorant majority, and the other should be able to use whatever means necessary. THAT is disgusting, not homosexuality.
whoo689 5 months ago
This culture is seemingly more concerned with the form rather than the substance... Thus because a gay relationship might "look" in some ways like a "marriage", then that's what it must be...
But... marriage has already been defined, for millenia, as the union between a man and a woman,,,
So to all our gay friends, have your relationships... just stop insisting on calling it a marriage... "get your own effin' word for it" , as the kids might say...
YooTooobJeff 5 months ago
nice
Veredika 5 months ago
Gay people are 'part of the creation'? How does that work? Doesn't your Bible condemn homosexuality and say those who practice it should be put to death? How about the much more logical conclusion that there is no grand designer with a plan for us and that nature is, rather, a chaotic emergence of varieties of life which really tells us nothing about how we ought to live?
razoodocks 5 months ago
@razoodocks Nonsense.... natural selection doesn't allow for non reproducing organisms to reproduce... No, God knew men, under Satan's influence, would do all kinds of disgusting, stupid stuff.......... that's why He gave instructions on what is right and what is wrong.
Thistlesifter220 5 months ago
@Thistlesifter220 Since when were gay people an 'organism'? Homosexuality has been observed throughout the animal kingdom - read Biological Exuberance by Bruce Bagemihl. Are those animals influenced by your fairytale bogeyman Satan too? Trying reading a book that's not the Bible or written by wild-eyed creationists, you might learn something. Also, please explain why homosexuality is 'stupid' and 'disgusting'. What business is it of yours to judge who people choose to fall in love with?
razoodocks 5 months ago
this is the only video i've seen of his where he isn't being hateful and lying
thebestanswerever 5 months ago
I'm fine with gay people, but not with the arrogant ones who think that being gay makes them superior. There is a threshold though. If society begins to change enough that people enjoy being gay even when they are inherently not, then we have a problem :) I believe the reason why the bible is against it, is simply because it wants to protect us from finally reaching that point.
TheComp462 5 months ago
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death"
oilhammer04 5 months ago
@MoonGuardRealm Prove it ? And why people can't disagree ? Sounds like Hitler to me .
Comrade4561 5 months ago
this video is soo low (as in volume)
CocoaBarbie16 5 months ago
Andrew Klaven, you are slightly right, but mostly wrong here. When the "people of goodwill" are voting in laws to restrict the rights of other people, whether it has to to with the gay issue or any other issue, this is part of the problem.
noidonotgofish 5 months ago
@FubarAlAkbar
You know what else is a sin? eating shellfish.
So why don't you go protest red lobster?
Riceqween01 5 months ago
This is the the only Klavan video I have ever disagreed with. Homosexuality is 1)a choice, and 2)a sin. Anyone who disagrees, please read the book of Genesis. God did not make you that way, and it is not a sickness or a disease.
FubarAlAkbar 5 months ago
@FubarAlAkbar I love it when straight people try to tell gay people that its a choice. Since you are not gay I highly doubt your credibility. Judge not lest ye be judged.....Words that everyone seems to miss when they read the "good book".
slickstick13579 5 months ago
@FubarAlAkbar Actually, if you check out Romans 1; homosexuality is :
1) a choice
2) a sin
3) a curse, which originally resulted from Idolatry. Look at the 10 commandments.
Tie Romans 1: 21-28 in with Exodus 20:4 & 5 and see the connection.
CAUGHTUPALIVE1 5 months ago
@moroney1 If He was not capable of proving Himself without my help, he would not be worthy of being God. So I will pray for you and we will see what happens in your life. And before you start laughing...this has worked before. :-)
CAUGHTUPALIVE1 5 months ago
Why can't two adults who love eachother have that ackwoledged and protected under the law, I really don't understand what the fuss is about. I mean marriage has been re defined many times by divorce and contraception or inter racial and inter faith marriages or by non religous marriages or women's rights movement, why can't we redifine it again, surely nothing bad can actually occur, I'm just kinda stumped why anyone would even make it their business about who you can marry
moroney1 5 months ago
I am BI and i think he gots it
gothicsoul100 5 months ago
.... I'm fine with gay people just not extremely feminine gay men.
O.o
ChiefandSamus 6 months ago
huge agape can spring up between two men, but they don't have to be deceived into thinking it needs to be expressed in a sexual way, or listen to what others interpret it to be! the Light-filled (not dishonest or illegal) Love you have for any brother or sister is Real!...overwhelming needs to express it sinfully aren't...not even if they're the opposite sex unless God brought them to you! (physical gender anomolies cause a deformed person to make difficult choices which others should respect!)
InnerMittenSignal 6 months ago
each person takes it to God if they think it important. i believe God made woman for man because He thought he needed her, not necessarily because the man knew that! but if the man abandon the woman, she will be left friendless (to bring up their kids) & the gift thrown back in God's face!...true for abortion also. ( ask God yourself) so many struggle with this issue...but it's so easy to dismiss in Jesus' name the twisted spirits trying to transform good men & women into rebels against nature!
InnerMittenSignal 6 months ago
david & jonathan weren't gay, Holy Scriptures describe their friendship: "...when David had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David & Jonathan loved him as himself. Saul took him that day & did not let him return to his father's house. Then Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was on him & gave it to David with his armor, including his sword & his bow & his belt. So David went out..."
InnerMittenSignal 6 months ago
Wow. I have to admit this is one of the most balanced view points on gays I've seen in my life.
There would be a simple solution to the mariage issue : let the state out of it. Don't give outrageous incitatives to mariage, don't recognize any type of union and let religious groups/ civil organizations do it instead. This way everyone is equally un/happy about the result
fadelapouit 6 months ago
So he's not totaly anti-homosexual. Doesn't suprise me. Iv'e always thought that he wanted to get boned by Hannity. He's in love with Limbaugh though. Don't worry Andrew, I won't tell Rush.
vylet271 7 months ago
I agree with Dragdmar....why in the hell would I wanna be married in Church that burned people at the stake simply for being different. Not just gay but anything that they found fearful....shoot they even crucified Christ for this reason......Screw religion and all it dogmas.....If I was to married it would not be in a frigging Church
princejask 7 months ago
@TerminallyPsychotic The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; known in present times as Jesus Christ.
Though my previous comment made this obvious.
CAUGHTUPALIVE1 7 months ago
@IHavAUTubeSadly That would be the Phelps 'See you in Hell (from Heaven)' movement?
Maybe Fred forget that Jesus not only died for his sins, but for other peoples' as well?
Fred and family will have alot to answer for.
CAUGHTUPALIVE1 7 months ago
What those opposed to gay rights should get through their heads is there are 2 kinds of marriages. Secular and sacred. Marriage as defined by a church is up to the church, but marriage defined by the state is a set of rights granted by secular social contract, e.g. the right to file taxes jointly, inheritance rights, the right to visit loved ones in a hospital, etc. But to enforce your church's rules on the secular rules is subverting the government with your religion, which is capital treason.
medexamtoolsdotcom 7 months ago
@phantom1000a that's not the definition of marriage. This is the def of marriage: Marriage is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship.
It's for anyone.
DaBroskiBro 7 months ago
marriage is between a man and a woman
anything else will get you aids
phantom1000A 7 months ago
The reason gay marriage is opposed is not because of their sexual preferences but it entails the loss of tax $ for marriage exemptions and reduced insurance premium costs on life,health and car policies.
goldensassenach 7 months ago
Religion is bullshit.
mcpencil 7 months ago
What the Gays need is not marriage, but a disconnection of holy matrimony from the legal rights that all 'men' are endowed with from their creator. I've been telling people this since, oh, 1989...
So if you want to win the right to choose who gets to visit you in the hospital or inherit your goods when you die, marriage is not the vehicle you are looking for. (jedi hand wave) You need to fight to separate the legal rights from the religious rite and that will solve both problems.
Dragdamar 7 months ago 31
@Dragdamar "Separate but equal" was ruled necessarily not equal by the supreme court. Creating a separate class of citizen that must use separate means to achieve their ends that is based solely on how they were born or their religion is a violation of the Constitution. Equal protection and treatment under the law cannot exist if gay citizens are required to go through extra series of steps to achieve the same benefits that non-gay citizens do. Go further, take marriage out of Govt completely
JohnConnor352 6 months ago
@Dragdamar
All of that and more can be done with a trip to a lawyers office. So whats the real agenda?
FLHTP2007 6 months ago
@Dragdamar But the legal right IS called Marriage since you can go to a courthouse and have a judge marry you. There are many weddings which are not religious ceremonies. Unless you think there's a church of Elvis in Las Vegas.
Darkeklaw 4 months ago
@Rensune The problem is that marriage is a religious ceremony with legal, social, and economic ramifications. Two married adults will pay less federal income taxes, be able to cover their spouse under their employer's health insurance, have certain rights when the other is hospitalized, and so on. There is a laundry list of entirely secular benefits two people gain through marriage, thereby undermining the argument that marriage is solely a religious institution.
Leperconvict 7 months ago
@Leperconvict
That's a huge problem there. Marriage should be a solely religious institution and if you're asking me, the 'legality' or gay marriage should be the provenance of each congregation. I don't know what the hell the state is doing meddling in holy matrimony, but I can only imagine its intentions aren't holy.
MrTrenchcoatguy 7 months ago
good point there on hitler and leonardo da vinci! da vinci was one genius gay!!!
cf182 7 months ago
I am a theologian, and there is nothing wrong with consensual love. On the issue of marriage, it is a RELIGIOUS ceremony, and government should have no right to regulate it.
Rensune 8 months ago
@Rensune Right. But marriage is not just a religious practice anymore, it's also a legal status. And I see no reason why any religion should have influence over that.
Really, the churchly ceremony of marriage needs to be fully separated from the legal act of marriage.
raizumichin 8 months ago
@raizumichin then you're letting the state tell you who can and can't get married (and they're a little bit harder to "switch") talk about frying pan into the fire.
Rensune 8 months ago
@Rensune No, I mean separating the concepts entirely. If you're married in the eyes of god shouldn't in any way be connected to being married in the eyes of the law. The state already decided who can and cant be married in the legal sense, I'm just proposing to disassociate that with any religious connotations. That way, the state isn't imposing on or regulating any religious ceremony, and religious beliefs are not legaly imposing on homosexuals.
raizumichin 8 months ago
@Rensune So would you be happy to have the state retreat from marriage entirely? As in, no laws could refer to it?
john42t 6 months ago
@john42t Ideally, yes. If a balance of a happy medium must be struck, then I would recommend a license for a civil union be granted (and that could be argued over from state to state). But NEVER any reference to a religious ceremony.
Rensune 6 months ago
@Rensune What difference does that make? Clearly the acceptance of the status of "being married" will still depend on the state's laws if it governs civil unions. In Germany, for example, civil unions are separated from religious ceremonies. There are usually two wedding ceremonies: The civil first, held by a bureaucrat, and then a religious one in the afternoon. But that's just window dressing, the state still gets to define what a marriage is.
john42t 6 months ago
@john42t the difference is simple. If you don't like it, you can move. (this goes either way, BTW). The only reason such a thing even needs to be established is due to contract rights (inheritance, guardianship, etc.) So long as the people can move freely between states, this should not be a problem.
I would actually be willing to take it one step further and say it should be on a county or even city level, but that would be unlikely to happen.
Rensune 6 months ago
@Rensune Are you willing to take it another step further and have no civil marriage at all? Let it be a purely ritual thing? Of course people might additionally form a legal contract, similar to prenups, but without an actual legal marriage?
john42t