I support what you said 110%. Those who use their religious beliefs to try to discriminate should not be granted text-exempt statuses. Kudos, and keep doing what you're doing.
Absolutely! Tax exempt privileges should be rescinded to any non-prof organization that does not recognize equality of all society's members, or that works to restrict privileges of any other members of society. Also, federal funding should not be available to organizations that discriminate (ie "faith-based" organizations.) Great video.
Homosexuality is a very strong debate topic. However, I feel that we all have the ability to obtain equal rights, on one condition. That condition being that we do not infringe on the rights of any other human being. (i.e. I don't care if you are gay or straight, I don't want to hear about it.)
As far as marriage is concerned, we allow straight people to have several marriages, yet we won't allow gays even one? If it was truly a religious issue, divorce is an abomination unto God.
I am a Chaplain myself and I am a Christian. I am straight, and I am also a Republican. However, although homosexuality is something I personally choose not to participate in, I do respect the wishes of others and would gladly fight for anyones freedom, so long as they are not trying to harm someone, insult someone, or infringe upon another humans rights.
For some, they would go as far as saying I would even defend burning the American flag. This simply is not true. I believe that burning a flag of any country is a harmful action. Such as spitting on someone, or giving them the finger. It is an insult. So to conclude, I thank you sir for your time and you are now on my subscribe list.
My point is this: if children are raised thinking that gays may do men, they will do it and it will not change their sexuality but yes, their sexual behavior. Society also shapes your sexual behavior. If this law passes, generation after men will do men, even if they like girls because they'll think that it is normal. I kick it with a group of friends and there is no tension of sex between us, would you do a friend of yours (male), Largo?
What a question! I doubt it, but it's never come up. Nor is it likely to.
I think you are wrong about thinking it's okay because you see it in the culture. The fact is, homosexuality has always been with us. In some places where it is more tolerated, the average person is not really affected by it one way or another. This video is about human rights. Majorities don't have the right to restrict minorities who are not hurting them.
1/2Ummmm.... Let me share a quick story with you, Largo. When I went to a city in Panama, I happened to go to a ranch hidden close at the west coast border of Colombia. I went there to visit my uncle who is gay and turns out that it was a huge gay community with children living in that ranch. The majority was gay and some of them were heterosexuals. I stayed there for 5 months and I began to make lots and lots of friends. I did not care they were gays and I began to know gay people beyond level.
I discovered that if children are raised with gay parents it does not change their sexuality. But I know something that changed: sexual behavior. Heterosexuals continued to like girls but they had sex with guys (his friends) I was chilling with them, and they ended up having sex and they invited me to participate but I stayed away as much as possible from them.
Okay, you stayed away from them. Clearly their example didn't change your view of things. You stayed "pure." Good for you. A question for you (since you asked me): if there were no such thing as AIDS, would you have responded differently to their invitation?
I agree with you about the taking of tax-exempt status. Though for all we know, that will never happen. Religion is much too big, so we have to rely on our Constitution to protect us from them, until religion loses much of its favor, and hopefully burns itself out. If the U.S. Gov. made the religious organizations pay taxes, it would mean another source of revenue for the government to use for the country.
It requires a suspension of logic and reason to blindly follow the notion of an all-knowing omnipotent being whos so bothered about how we act or think. Its intellectually ridiculous a waste of lifes time, resources and energy. The most flourishing peaceful civilized societies globally are freely evolving secular humanistic democracies, with freedom of conscience, freedom of thought and freedom of expression as basic human rights for all, plus! A clear separation of religious dogma and State.
Daniel, I'm so sorry, someone, possibly by accident, marked your response as "spam." I don't know when it happened, as I am reviewing this comment section after three months have passed. It could have been just an accident, since the Reply and Spam buttons are right next to each other. In any case, my apologies, my friend. I have hit the "Not Spam" button several times.
religion should be 100% separate from government, we pretty much have gay marriage in the UK although some terminology is different.
There should be no difference in the law for any person, group, race, sexual preference at all, and the cheney brand of bigotry disguising its self as a political persuasion needs to be stamped out
Agree with everyone you said, pretty simple really. Though I found the video name to be a little silly sounding. I assume unamerican means unconstitutional in context. I don't see how prop 8 is unamerican though. The reasons why people voted for it are unamerican, but not prop 8 itself. If you didn't mean unconstitutional, well that just sounds right out stupid. If you simply saying it is unamerican to be an bigot, which would be statisticly unture, the majority of USA are.
I really did mean unAmerican. To me it is obviously unconstitutional, but it seems to me that someone who wants to deprive others of rights he enjoys is unAmerican as well. You may not agree, but that is my opinion nevertheless.
But honestly, it stinks of national pride. If you don't think that is a bad thing, refer to George Carlin. And more so just dumb to start making claims about what it really means to be american. America just like any society is not a consistant existance. A country is only what it's people are. If anything truly defines what it means to be american, it is the american people as a whole. It isn't up to you. You are an american citizen, but only one of many, welcome to democracy.
You are entitled to your opinion, but since you are not an American, I submit that you don't know what you are talking about. Being American is, in one sense, being born in America. That is true of all born here, even criminals. But being American in a more spiritual sense (if an atheist can use that term) is sharing the concept of EQUAL rights of citizenship. To deny equal rights to another is not to be a good American. That is what I meant, and Americans mostly understood it.
In conclusion, your opinion is nonsensical, not even disputable. You are essentially saying "american people aren't americans". America is what it is, despite what you would like to think it is.
Then it has nothing to do with america. Like the american dream, that has nothing to do with america. It is just an idea, renamed with america infront of it. Given a pseudo national status. If it isn't representing american people, don't call it american, call it what it really is. Americans didn't invent equality. American in this secondary sense you speak is completely unrelated to america and americans. It would be like telling the french they are being unamerican.
Because you can try having this second definition of the word american, which is pretty much an idea, which is completely seperate to actual america. But at the same time you use the word as if it should matter to modern americans. This definition is just an idea, and has no real bearing on what an americans should do, despite them sharing the same name. Speak english, there is already a word for these ideas. Fair, equal etc.
Again, I relate the term to the American Constitution, nothing else. I am not defining freedom or rights or equality of anyone else. If you wrote about your own country I would not presume to tell you what you meant or should mean.
You are missing my point. I am merely pointing out the misuse of the word unamerican. My nationality is irrelevant. US const, american issue yes all true but answer my question. If being unamerican means not sharing this idea of equal rights, why not just say prejudice or unfair? "plebiscities which counter the const".. yeah? unconstitutional, but not unamerican, we already established difference in them, now you want to combine them again? You are sounding indecisive.
Wait sorry :) I made a mistake. (Just woke up). The votes were unconstitutional, and unamerican but not the proposition itself isn't. Anyway excuse my last post, some of it might be semi coherent or completely incorrect, as I said I just woke up, but please answer the question I posed to you.
I referred in my video to the US Constitution. It IS an American issue, since it deals with the American Constitution and the fact that some Americans wish to preserve their own rights while depriving others of theirs. Of course Americans didn't invent equality. I never said they did. But this is an American issue since it deals with American plebiscites which run counter to the Constitution. Of what concern it is to you as a Finn I can't imagine.
It is this sort of subliminal arrogance in language that is often found in the speech of american people. How incredibly nationally orientated they are. If you ever ask an american (unknowingly) where they are from, they will almost always say state or city, rather than country. As if the rest of the world outside of USA doesn't exist. Seriously, tell me what is wrong with speaking english. Why must you relabel things to be nation related, when they infact not? Fair and equal are good words.
It was very disappointing to hear that minorities who are themselves subject to discrimination and prejudice would take this opportunity to deny a basic right to people who have fought for THEIR rights in the past.
Right on. Im not gay and I dont ever plan to be gay. But that is why I shouldnt have a say; IT DOESNT AFFECT ME! Gays getting married is in no way going to change my relationship with my wife. These people act like gays are trying to reverse the polarity of marriage and make it illegal to marry women. Id vote against that too! But that isnt what they want. If gays could marry, it would change NOTHING for the rest of us. It really comes down to being too interested in what everyone ELSE is doing.
i honestly agree with what you said. You are the second person today to bring up the churches being tax exempt. I wish to just add something, how can we say that marriage is really a religious situation anymore? most if not all religions say that you cannot be divorced, legally however you can be. As far as i'm concerned, i don't care if homosexuals get religious acceptance, they should however get any legal benifits that any married couple gets. maybe i'm wrong in my thought process though.
Fantastically put ! Yes they lose their tax exempt status ! I dont think Jesus would be very happy about buying votes ! Poor Jesus... I think he would be avoiding his followers if he ever did return ! And if he did.....wow are they going to get a telling off for that one !...lol :)
I REALLY hate the fact that gay/lesbians can't marry (and not that it matters, but I'm hetro). The reason I'm so for it marriage is for all the other rights in entails. Medical consent, financial (superannuation, death with lack of will, government benefits etc), basic equal rights etc.
Here in Australia, marriage is two things at the same time. It's a legal term, but also a religious term. The result, they use whichever definition that benefits the argument.
I agree with you, but you sound soo against churches and religions.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
I am against churches and religions if they seek to put their beliefs and prejudices into the secular law. They don't have a constitutional right nor, to my mind, a moral right to do that. They have the right to their beliefs about what is moral, but not the right to force others to abided by their beliefs. Freedom of religion is also freedom FROM religion.
I got no problem with gay couples getting married. My problem isnt with gays getting the right to be married, it is HOW the courts tried to get this in there. It was legislating from the bench and it was wrong. The legislature should not have the power to make law just because they, or a group is pushing on them to do so. It sets a very dangerous precedent for things down the line. Things that could bring genuine harm to this nation. That's all I have to say about it.
You have it backwards. The Supreme Court of California didn't legislate anything from the bench. They did what it was their duty to do. Proposition 22 in 2000 was just like Prop 8. It was not enacted by the legislature, but inserted by plebiscite (vote on a ballot initiative). The California Supreme Court found that it was unconstitutional. That's what will happen to Prop. 8 as well. California canNOT pass a law that runs counter to the Constitution, no matter what the bigoted majority wants.
I'm from the netherlands and the intolerance in name of religion across the world is a serious problem, i hope more people will see the situation your way and express it in internation news.
It is silly that churches and religion can influence secular society as much as they do. Humans always need to have a group of 'outsiders,' it seems, to make the majority feel secure. A little over 100 years ago, the churches refused to marry black couples. But, there is always a schism. Back then, it was white people have power over black people. These days, it is straight people have power over gay people. It is ridiculous.
Damn straight Largo64. I agree with everything you said. I had a long conversation with my dad the other day (he is Mormon) and I was baffled by his views on the matter. He seems to think that if same-sex marriage is allowed, eventually all churches will be forced to perform such marriages or risk losing tax-exempt status. What a load of bull. Religious ceremonies are not the issue here, equal rights for all citizens is. Side note- Religions should not be tax exempt.
The statement that was made throughout the campaign that churches would be forced to perform marriages for gays is an outright lie. I'm not calling your dad a liar here, but those who started such a rumor did so deliberately to inculcate fear. Some people have the idea that if Christians say something it must be true, because "Christians don't lie." But some Christians have no trouble looking you in the eye and telling you a whopper.
why the heck is anyone in a rush to get married , gays and lesbians aren't missing out on anything .
i thought the rainbow coalition were rebels , stay free and do your thing , you really don't know what you're fighting for . As Kramer said , man made prisons .
Be my guest though if the people of your state vote in favor of it LOL . JV
jvforever: You say gays and lesbians aren't missing out on anything by not being married? If you think that, you haven't been paying attention. Marriage is a civil contract that gives, among other things: rights of survivorship, making medical decisions for spouses who cannot do it for themselves, and visitation rights in the hospital reserved for family members. Marriage affords these rights where being Registered Partners does not.
This is a couple of websters discription for religion. It seems to me many Gays and lesbians practice a religion all there own. I really do not see your argument.3archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
This is just as ridiculous as saying that atheism is a religion, or that evolution is a religion. If you are a bowling enthusiast, under your excessively broad definition, bowling would be a religion. Don't be ridiculous. If you want to make an argument, at least try to be reasonable. This is just inane.
Largo, I can accept the fact that you are an atheist. But can you except the fact I do not want you teaching my child your views or opinions. That is what this is really about , my right to teach my children in (church , school, home) what I see fit. For that matter I also do not want to infringe upon your right to teach your children as you see fit.
If you say that your marriage will be affected by anyone else's marriage or that your children will be taught homosexuality in school that is nothing but propagandistic bullshit! Gay people getting married has nothing to do with what YOU teach YOUR kids, which is YOUR responsibility. It also has no effect on churches, which will continue to teach what they always have, narrow-mindedness and bigotry. But, hey, even I admit that they have the right!
Largo you know this is a lost argument. We can see from states like Mass. and Conn. this is simply not true. It is only a matter of time that Gays and Lesbians push there agenda upon children and society.
It is a matter of time. But the issue is not an "agenda" of gays and lesbians being pushed upon children and society. It is a reaffirmation of the rights of all citizens to do as they wish as long as they don't hurt someone else. No one has yet been able to show how two men or two women getting married to each other hurts anyone else's marriage. You have only prejudice and ignorance on your side. You will lose for that reason and no other.
okay ,if you want to talk money , Obama raised 640 mil or so dollars to defeat the reps , so who should the people who didn't want him as Pres be pissed at .
obviously , someone didn't want Mac as pres and donated millions of dollars to defeat him , it's a conspiracy . Can we tie Ob to Islam or Atheism maybe , you're grabbing at straws . JV
so i guess voting and the rule of the majority is unamerican . hey , if that's the case , i didn't vote for Obama , and he got the majority of the vote , i'm , in your world , oppressed . I'm taking it to the courts . JV
I didn't say majorities should never win. I said representative government protects minorities from unfair domination by majorities. People should, of course, be able to choose their leaders by majority vote. But they shouldn't be able to force such things as their religious beliefs on others by majority fiat.
This kind of categorical and unsupported statement is typical of people who speak from prejudice rather than knowledge. I will link some articles in the sidebar and you can at least see whether there might be room for doubt in your all too certain assessment.
My opinion is: marriage is a strictly religious/social issue. Should the government have any say in what a marriage is or not? Frankly if two or more individuals love eachother and choose to call themselves married, they're married regardless of what the state says. I understand that you can file taxes jointly, but is that even necessary?
Tl;dr: state should give recognition to straight OR gay marriages, and people who want to marry can do so equally then.
Dear Gay community..You will not bully the media you will not bully the people and certainly will not bully the parents. Prop 8 is and always will be about the children. It's about protecting the children. Kids need a mommy and a daddy. Period. We will also not allow you to teach hmosexual lifestyle in our public schools. The people have spoken now deal with it. Your lifestyle is sinful and shameful. Move to massachusetts if you don't like it!this is not a civil rights issue. It's a moral issue
Morality is not from a holy freakin book. Sorry, you cannot claim a moral high road from your sad holy book of horrors or fairytales. Morality is in us from evolution. What do you think we were doing before your blessed book showed up? None of us would be here if it weren't for our social ways millions of yrs ago. I bet you show off your ignorance thinking that being homosexual is a choice. Go read some real books for a change.
Describe to me how, exactly, you came to the conclusion that morals developed during evolution. If this were true, then why do animals continue to fight? Why arn't us humans fighting like savages wherever we go?
While I agree, many will argue the moral law is societal but with proper examination this is not entirely true. The last question is interesting but it seems we still fight but behind the vale of a country or nation.
The moral law did change over time but this doesn't disprove its importance.
No offense but you just committed a contradiction to your previous statement: First you asked why we do not fight and now you ask why we still do.
Go rework your arguments and study arguments in your favor. When you are done you shall be ready to challenge others. I recommend some books by Norman Geisler and William Lane Craig; two famous Christian philosophers and theologians.
The basic foundational traits we exhibit allow us to build moral systems. Our brains got big enough for us to empathize with each other and realize there are other individuals as well as allowing us to reason enough to allow us to work out how best to treat each other. The morals themsleves, not killing, etc. aren't the direct result of evolution, evolution created the ability for us to develop morality. This is not some guy's idea, this is the evolutionary psychology consensus.
But now you argue theory, which is not some guy's idea but an idea of many "guys" and gals. You can surely prove Micro Evolution but not Macro and yes it is necessary to make the distinction, a distinction which does exist; a line drawn through fact and theory.
And now you prove you have no understanding of evolution at all. There is NO such thing as micro versus macro evolution. It's complete bullshit made up by creationists. "Macro" evolution is simply many "micro" evolution events over time. It's a completely arbitrary and pointless distinction. As for not being able to show one species becoming another, well, that's simply not true. Not only have we observed it in short-lived species, we have extensive evidence in fossils and dna.
There are so many ways I can point out the stupidity in your post... I'll simply ask for any bit of evidence that says two men or two women can't raise a child. From what I've read, most abusive families are the "traditional" male-lead household. The idea of a "traditional marriage" is a joke. Up until recently couples were often forced together by their families or social conditions, and throughout history one man, many women has been most common.
Total agreement. Want to remain tax exempt, stay out of politics. They have stepped over the line and as a nation we must act and act quickly before they get the idea that they can get away with abusing their tax privilege. The Mormon church collected money from their flock to use politically and they should lose their tax exemtion, pronto. good vid Larry. Felt the passion.
Legislation is made by the congress, the president signs it into law, and the Court system interprets the laws and acts upon them. THAT IS HOW THIS COUNTRY WORKS. If you don't like it then we would have to disassemble this country and rebuild. There are no good secular arguments and no scientific facts that support Prop 8. If you don't like that then go to another over religious country or move in with Fred Phelps.
Phred Phelps is probably beside himself with glee over all those ballot initiatives that passed. And beside himself makes two Phred Phelpses. That's at least one too many.
I think -20 Fred Phelps' is too many. That sounds like a contradiction... How can you have negative 20 of the guy be too much? Well if you see it as a contradiction you really need to learn about their church/family. :P If you know how crazy his family is, -20 of them is still too many.
Don't be stupid.... the fact that he is here does not prove that there is an external maker.... evolution.... ya..... IT WORKS!!!!! (btw.... don't try to say "evolution is just a theory." THERE IS NO HIGHER "fact" THAN A THEORY IN SCIENCE!!!, the laws in science are not higher than theories, they just explain different things.) and... P.S. He is not narrow minded in thinking that there is not a higher maker, he just thinks rationally and looks a facts.
47f0 The argument you pm me does not hold up. If you were an American you would know this country was established for religious freedoms , not abnormal sexual ones.
The colonists came to North America to escape religious persecution, yes, but not to establish persecution of others. It is not for you to say what is abnormal. Modern science says it isn't abnormal.
52% of California citizens are walking around with their heads firmly inserted in their . . . let's just say that without glass navels they can't see where they are going.
Jesus Christ, Americans! Just look to the North of you! Canada! Canada, which isn't as socially liberal as Netherlands, is doing just fine with gay marriage! Whatever it was that the religious were excepting has not happened nor is there an inkling that it will! Yes, the religious did put up a fight, but when they lost, they were a little more graceful in defeat than America. Wake up guys! Gay marriage is perfectly fine! There is no logical reason to ban it.
I can't believe that bigots have the right to take away other people's rights. What kind of world do we live in? I hate how these religious people try to control other people's lives. Are these control freaks that insecure? And what's worse, I hate how these religious leaders and politicians work together to treat the masses like a bunch of children. You'd think that once one moves out of their parents house that they have freedom, but no, he/she doesn't. Sorry for the rant.
Something a little more meaningful that "yes on 8" would be nice here. That's not an argument. That's a poster that any idiot can recite. If you actually have something to say, let's see it.
I've seen Shemseed before. He doesn't make videos. He just trolls people who do. This "Yes on 8!!" response of his is typical of the non thinking of which he seems to be most capable.
Excellent response, Larry, and I completely agree with you on your last point about tax exemption.
People already had the 'religious right to choose': the right to choose not to marry someone of their own gender. They do not have the 'religious right to choose' who *other people* marry.
i agree 100% larry. i had heard the mormons put op 40g for campaigning but regardless of the amount they should now be stripped of tax exempt status for putting thier nose where it did'nt belong....
You are here because your parent's gametes met and fused to produce a diploid zygote. Then, trillions of mitotic events later, voila. That's how all of us got here. Read a book for christ's sake. Sky-daddy is not responsible for anything other than providing a good delusion for you to escape into. Get some education. Start with a regular high school bio text. This time try learning the concepts instead of sleeping in class.
So I take it that you do not agree with my explanation of how you got your sorry ass on this planet. Any refutation would be gladly welcomed. I love to debate with folks who are delusional and ignorant of truth.
There is no point in debating with someone whose whole "truth" comes from one pre-scientific book. You already know the answers, right? So just go away and be happy and smug in your righteous "knowledge."
It proves only that we are here. You infer an eternal maker, and that's your right. But you can't prove it, and you don't have the right to force your belief on others.
See, that's the difference. I say what I think. But I don't try to legislate my beliefs so YOU have to accept them. You, on the other hand, wish to force others to think your way. Majority rule isn't always right. That's why we have representative government. If majority rule were the way we were governed there would today be no freedom of speech, everybody would be Catholic, and women still would not have the vote.
Listen, For the record I do not hate gay or lesbian people. Some of my best freinds and family are gay and lesbian. THis is not about refusing rights. Its about protecting the values of traditional families. Call it what ever you weant just stop calling it marriage. For people who say they want seperation of church and state, you should learn to except marriage is a biblical term not a right for all to have.
Marriage is not a "biblical term." as you say, just because it is mentioned in the bible. People from cultures all over the world have marriage, and many of them never saw a bible. Are you really that ignorant, or are you just so invested in your argument that you can't stop no matter what?
marriage is a biblical term? i think not. people were getting married without the benefit of christianity before christianity was even around. don't think your religion preempts the meaning of marriaqge. that's ridiculous.
how does the fact that i am here prove there is a maker? remember you will have to prove there is indeed a maker to begin with before you can even answer. have a nice day.
Okay,Just call it something other then marry or marriage.The word itself means what it means,dont make marriage something it isnt. I dont think the mormans used church money for this.
Marriage is the union of two people who love each other. The civil law licenses marriages and claims to recognize them, as if it had the right not to. People were married long before there were governments in the modern sense. Now one huge group whose unions have been recognized by the state wish to deprive a smaller group of that recognition, as if the "others" who are the target of this legislation were not citizens like themselves. But they are, and their loving union is just like yours.
you're right Larry, this is just another way for religious organizations to impose their nonsense on the public, by using the law. Why arent they pushing their polygamy beliefs..seems as though that would be first on their agenda rather than a gay marriage issue?
I'm gay and my siblings are against same sex marriage. I'll have this for ammunition during my next gay bashing - er - I mean family Christmas dinner.
I'm sorry you have to suffer such an indignity in your own family. As an atheist I have to avoid the subject of religion among my extended family, but I can't imagine being gay and having my own siblings bashing me. It may take generations more before most adults are actually mature.
What really disturbing is how such a "prop" got this far, PASSED!!! The fact that this passed speaks volumes. If laws were left "to the people" America would have never made it this far. Law requires intelligent, secular, non-emotional people for it to run properly. This is why we have a representative democracy. Worked well until lobbyist appeared. Now, you buy a law, not debate one.
Great vid.
P.S. If I wanted to live in a theocracy I would move to Saudi Arabia.
You are absolutely correct. I dont think you will change your mind either (though I know you would if logic and reason dictated you should). There really isnt much to add to what you said except...5 stars.
By the way, I always prefer the Largo section of a concerto. Based on your name, I'll assume the same. If you haven't heard it, listen to the second movement of Joaquin Rodrigo's Concierto de Aranjuez. It's breathtaking.
A man with morals , ethics and a sense of justice!
Equal rights means EQUAL rights! Period.
REAL LOYAL US citizens are getting sick and tired of these treasonous fringe groups trying to FORCE their will on a minority and deprive them of their RIGHTS under the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights!
The Mormons need to be prosecuted and taxed...TODAY!!
This video Rocks!!! You're hardcore and ontop of that you make great points!!!!
fallennowbroken 1 year ago
I support what you said 110%. Those who use their religious beliefs to try to discriminate should not be granted text-exempt statuses. Kudos, and keep doing what you're doing.
ashley060189 2 years ago
Absolutely! Tax exempt privileges should be rescinded to any non-prof organization that does not recognize equality of all society's members, or that works to restrict privileges of any other members of society. Also, federal funding should not be available to organizations that discriminate (ie "faith-based" organizations.) Great video.
XaveJamesGrey 2 years ago
Homosexuality is a very strong debate topic. However, I feel that we all have the ability to obtain equal rights, on one condition. That condition being that we do not infringe on the rights of any other human being. (i.e. I don't care if you are gay or straight, I don't want to hear about it.)
As far as marriage is concerned, we allow straight people to have several marriages, yet we won't allow gays even one? If it was truly a religious issue, divorce is an abomination unto God.
Uzi607 2 years ago
I am a Chaplain myself and I am a Christian. I am straight, and I am also a Republican. However, although homosexuality is something I personally choose not to participate in, I do respect the wishes of others and would gladly fight for anyones freedom, so long as they are not trying to harm someone, insult someone, or infringe upon another humans rights.
Uzi607 2 years ago
For some, they would go as far as saying I would even defend burning the American flag. This simply is not true. I believe that burning a flag of any country is a harmful action. Such as spitting on someone, or giving them the finger. It is an insult. So to conclude, I thank you sir for your time and you are now on my subscribe list.
Uzi607 2 years ago
You have a new fan, Ser!
maximus451 2 years ago
Rock on Largo
socialworkergod 2 years ago
A Gentleman and a scholar. Many props, Largo.
FiresideGeorge 3 years ago
My point is this: if children are raised thinking that gays may do men, they will do it and it will not change their sexuality but yes, their sexual behavior. Society also shapes your sexual behavior. If this law passes, generation after men will do men, even if they like girls because they'll think that it is normal. I kick it with a group of friends and there is no tension of sex between us, would you do a friend of yours (male), Largo?
cjla1987 3 years ago
What a question! I doubt it, but it's never come up. Nor is it likely to.
I think you are wrong about thinking it's okay because you see it in the culture. The fact is, homosexuality has always been with us. In some places where it is more tolerated, the average person is not really affected by it one way or another. This video is about human rights. Majorities don't have the right to restrict minorities who are not hurting them.
Largo64 3 years ago
right on,so long as they are not (hurting) anyone else with their own actions, live and let live-but eye for eye!
digzie1 2 years ago
'Even if they like girls'?
So they'll be having sex with men even though they're not attracted to them?
Well that makes lots of sense...
thedoctor1812 2 years ago
1/2Ummmm.... Let me share a quick story with you, Largo. When I went to a city in Panama, I happened to go to a ranch hidden close at the west coast border of Colombia. I went there to visit my uncle who is gay and turns out that it was a huge gay community with children living in that ranch. The majority was gay and some of them were heterosexuals. I stayed there for 5 months and I began to make lots and lots of friends. I did not care they were gays and I began to know gay people beyond level.
cjla1987 3 years ago
I discovered that if children are raised with gay parents it does not change their sexuality. But I know something that changed: sexual behavior. Heterosexuals continued to like girls but they had sex with guys (his friends) I was chilling with them, and they ended up having sex and they invited me to participate but I stayed away as much as possible from them.
cjla1987 3 years ago
Okay, you stayed away from them. Clearly their example didn't change your view of things. You stayed "pure." Good for you. A question for you (since you asked me): if there were no such thing as AIDS, would you have responded differently to their invitation?
Largo64 3 years ago
Bravo sir! You are 100% BRILLIANT
srpchess 3 years ago
Largo64, you are the Voice of Reason. Good arguer.
Samgoogolplexian 3 years ago
Really refreshing to see someone older than myself who agrees with me on almost everything. Great video's, and keep it up.
NumbertNation 3 years ago
seems as though my last post didnt post. i said go to uclj(dot)org to get info on the real separation of chuch and state everyone
Supdude1964 3 years ago
A lawyer site in, what is that, Russian?
Largo64 3 years ago
'separation', pardon the typo thx
Supdude1964 3 years ago
You're amazing!
Xpowaslave 3 years ago
I agree with you about the taking of tax-exempt status. Though for all we know, that will never happen. Religion is much too big, so we have to rely on our Constitution to protect us from them, until religion loses much of its favor, and hopefully burns itself out. If the U.S. Gov. made the religious organizations pay taxes, it would mean another source of revenue for the government to use for the country.
intoanime02 3 years ago
It requires a suspension of logic and reason to blindly follow the notion of an all-knowing omnipotent being whos so bothered about how we act or think. Its intellectually ridiculous a waste of lifes time, resources and energy. The most flourishing peaceful civilized societies globally are freely evolving secular humanistic democracies, with freedom of conscience, freedom of thought and freedom of expression as basic human rights for all, plus! A clear separation of religious dogma and State.
danielnz1 3 years ago
Daniel, I'm so sorry, someone, possibly by accident, marked your response as "spam." I don't know when it happened, as I am reviewing this comment section after three months have passed. It could have been just an accident, since the Reply and Spam buttons are right next to each other. In any case, my apologies, my friend. I have hit the "Not Spam" button several times.
Largo64 2 years ago
WHERE WERE YOU WHEN I VOTED! CHEERS
sfluxi 3 years ago
couldn't agree,
religion should be 100% separate from government, we pretty much have gay marriage in the UK although some terminology is different.
There should be no difference in the law for any person, group, race, sexual preference at all, and the cheney brand of bigotry disguising its self as a political persuasion needs to be stamped out
SgtSlime 3 years ago
I'm with ya all the way Largo.
SplinterCellWarrior 3 years ago
Agree with everyone you said, pretty simple really. Though I found the video name to be a little silly sounding. I assume unamerican means unconstitutional in context. I don't see how prop 8 is unamerican though. The reasons why people voted for it are unamerican, but not prop 8 itself. If you didn't mean unconstitutional, well that just sounds right out stupid. If you simply saying it is unamerican to be an bigot, which would be statisticly unture, the majority of USA are.
Jaikkanen 3 years ago
I really did mean unAmerican. To me it is obviously unconstitutional, but it seems to me that someone who wants to deprive others of rights he enjoys is unAmerican as well. You may not agree, but that is my opinion nevertheless.
Largo64 3 years ago
But honestly, it stinks of national pride. If you don't think that is a bad thing, refer to George Carlin. And more so just dumb to start making claims about what it really means to be american. America just like any society is not a consistant existance. A country is only what it's people are. If anything truly defines what it means to be american, it is the american people as a whole. It isn't up to you. You are an american citizen, but only one of many, welcome to democracy.
Jaikkanen 3 years ago
You are entitled to your opinion, but since you are not an American, I submit that you don't know what you are talking about. Being American is, in one sense, being born in America. That is true of all born here, even criminals. But being American in a more spiritual sense (if an atheist can use that term) is sharing the concept of EQUAL rights of citizenship. To deny equal rights to another is not to be a good American. That is what I meant, and Americans mostly understood it.
Largo64 3 years ago
In conclusion, your opinion is nonsensical, not even disputable. You are essentially saying "american people aren't americans". America is what it is, despite what you would like to think it is.
Jaikkanen 3 years ago
See my answer to your comment above.
Largo64 3 years ago
Then it has nothing to do with america. Like the american dream, that has nothing to do with america. It is just an idea, renamed with america infront of it. Given a pseudo national status. If it isn't representing american people, don't call it american, call it what it really is. Americans didn't invent equality. American in this secondary sense you speak is completely unrelated to america and americans. It would be like telling the french they are being unamerican.
Jaikkanen 3 years ago
Because you can try having this second definition of the word american, which is pretty much an idea, which is completely seperate to actual america. But at the same time you use the word as if it should matter to modern americans. This definition is just an idea, and has no real bearing on what an americans should do, despite them sharing the same name. Speak english, there is already a word for these ideas. Fair, equal etc.
Jaikkanen 3 years ago
Again, I relate the term to the American Constitution, nothing else. I am not defining freedom or rights or equality of anyone else. If you wrote about your own country I would not presume to tell you what you meant or should mean.
Largo64 3 years ago
You are missing my point. I am merely pointing out the misuse of the word unamerican. My nationality is irrelevant. US const, american issue yes all true but answer my question. If being unamerican means not sharing this idea of equal rights, why not just say prejudice or unfair? "plebiscities which counter the const".. yeah? unconstitutional, but not unamerican, we already established difference in them, now you want to combine them again? You are sounding indecisive.
Jaikkanen 3 years ago
Wait sorry :) I made a mistake. (Just woke up). The votes were unconstitutional, and unamerican but not the proposition itself isn't. Anyway excuse my last post, some of it might be semi coherent or completely incorrect, as I said I just woke up, but please answer the question I posed to you.
Jaikkanen 3 years ago
I referred in my video to the US Constitution. It IS an American issue, since it deals with the American Constitution and the fact that some Americans wish to preserve their own rights while depriving others of theirs. Of course Americans didn't invent equality. I never said they did. But this is an American issue since it deals with American plebiscites which run counter to the Constitution. Of what concern it is to you as a Finn I can't imagine.
Largo64 3 years ago
Thank you kindly. I was beginning to lose faith in the Father of Modern Democracy.
nicksum29 3 years ago
It is this sort of subliminal arrogance in language that is often found in the speech of american people. How incredibly nationally orientated they are. If you ever ask an american (unknowingly) where they are from, they will almost always say state or city, rather than country. As if the rest of the world outside of USA doesn't exist. Seriously, tell me what is wrong with speaking english. Why must you relabel things to be nation related, when they infact not? Fair and equal are good words.
Jaikkanen 3 years ago
It was very disappointing to hear that minorities who are themselves subject to discrimination and prejudice would take this opportunity to deny a basic right to people who have fought for THEIR rights in the past.
thatgaybloke 3 years ago
Thank-you, I couldn't have said it better myself!
FrennisDaemon 3 years ago
You're so awesome.
I think you should be nominated for the Supreme Court. ;0
maryslovechild 3 years ago
Im not pissed at you! I think youre cool!
truthofevolution 3 years ago
amazing video, I like your passion
truthofevolution 3 years ago
Thanks Largo. Another great video. Cheers.
dvrogers 3 years ago
Yes! Our polling place is at a Knights of Columbus hall - many are , and I think it shouldn't be..They gave a lot of support to Prop 8 too.
flophousepoodle 3 years ago
Right on. Im not gay and I dont ever plan to be gay. But that is why I shouldnt have a say; IT DOESNT AFFECT ME! Gays getting married is in no way going to change my relationship with my wife. These people act like gays are trying to reverse the polarity of marriage and make it illegal to marry women. Id vote against that too! But that isnt what they want. If gays could marry, it would change NOTHING for the rest of us. It really comes down to being too interested in what everyone ELSE is doing.
OriginXYZ1 3 years ago
i honestly agree with what you said. You are the second person today to bring up the churches being tax exempt. I wish to just add something, how can we say that marriage is really a religious situation anymore? most if not all religions say that you cannot be divorced, legally however you can be. As far as i'm concerned, i don't care if homosexuals get religious acceptance, they should however get any legal benifits that any married couple gets. maybe i'm wrong in my thought process though.
endlesspain1 3 years ago
WOOO! There's Largo! Tellin it like it is!
VitaminTMan 3 years ago
Fantastically put ! Yes they lose their tax exempt status ! I dont think Jesus would be very happy about buying votes ! Poor Jesus... I think he would be avoiding his followers if he ever did return ! And if he did.....wow are they going to get a telling off for that one !...lol :)
sarah1ooo1 3 years ago
Excellent points. It's so simple but some people just dont get it.
Oh the hate I have been getting from the loving religious people. Who would have thought? ;-)
bgjohnla 3 years ago
I REALLY hate the fact that gay/lesbians can't marry (and not that it matters, but I'm hetro). The reason I'm so for it marriage is for all the other rights in entails. Medical consent, financial (superannuation, death with lack of will, government benefits etc), basic equal rights etc.
Here in Australia, marriage is two things at the same time. It's a legal term, but also a religious term. The result, they use whichever definition that benefits the argument.
Crock of shit. Pisses me off.
bersaba 3 years ago
Agreement from me.
TreeStreetPraiser 3 years ago
I agree with you, but you sound soo against churches and religions.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
mrbunnylamakins 3 years ago
I am against churches and religions if they seek to put their beliefs and prejudices into the secular law. They don't have a constitutional right nor, to my mind, a moral right to do that. They have the right to their beliefs about what is moral, but not the right to force others to abided by their beliefs. Freedom of religion is also freedom FROM religion.
Largo64 3 years ago
I got no problem with gay couples getting married. My problem isnt with gays getting the right to be married, it is HOW the courts tried to get this in there. It was legislating from the bench and it was wrong. The legislature should not have the power to make law just because they, or a group is pushing on them to do so. It sets a very dangerous precedent for things down the line. Things that could bring genuine harm to this nation. That's all I have to say about it.
commandox20 3 years ago
You have it backwards. The Supreme Court of California didn't legislate anything from the bench. They did what it was their duty to do. Proposition 22 in 2000 was just like Prop 8. It was not enacted by the legislature, but inserted by plebiscite (vote on a ballot initiative). The California Supreme Court found that it was unconstitutional. That's what will happen to Prop. 8 as well. California canNOT pass a law that runs counter to the Constitution, no matter what the bigoted majority wants.
Largo64 3 years ago
with you all the way.
randompedestrian382 3 years ago
I agree 100%.
I'm from the netherlands and the intolerance in name of religion across the world is a serious problem, i hope more people will see the situation your way and express it in internation news.
CivilNL 3 years ago
It is silly that churches and religion can influence secular society as much as they do. Humans always need to have a group of 'outsiders,' it seems, to make the majority feel secure. A little over 100 years ago, the churches refused to marry black couples. But, there is always a schism. Back then, it was white people have power over black people. These days, it is straight people have power over gay people. It is ridiculous.
markgraf 3 years ago
Damn straight (no pun intended). I agree 100%.
clicb4 3 years ago
Damn straight Largo64. I agree with everything you said. I had a long conversation with my dad the other day (he is Mormon) and I was baffled by his views on the matter. He seems to think that if same-sex marriage is allowed, eventually all churches will be forced to perform such marriages or risk losing tax-exempt status. What a load of bull. Religious ceremonies are not the issue here, equal rights for all citizens is. Side note- Religions should not be tax exempt.
otissimo9 3 years ago
The statement that was made throughout the campaign that churches would be forced to perform marriages for gays is an outright lie. I'm not calling your dad a liar here, but those who started such a rumor did so deliberately to inculcate fear. Some people have the idea that if Christians say something it must be true, because "Christians don't lie." But some Christians have no trouble looking you in the eye and telling you a whopper.
Largo64 3 years ago
why the heck is anyone in a rush to get married , gays and lesbians aren't missing out on anything .
i thought the rainbow coalition were rebels , stay free and do your thing , you really don't know what you're fighting for . As Kramer said , man made prisons .
Be my guest though if the people of your state vote in favor of it LOL . JV
jvforever72 3 years ago
jvforever: You say gays and lesbians aren't missing out on anything by not being married? If you think that, you haven't been paying attention. Marriage is a civil contract that gives, among other things: rights of survivorship, making medical decisions for spouses who cannot do it for themselves, and visitation rights in the hospital reserved for family members. Marriage affords these rights where being Registered Partners does not.
Pauken11 3 years ago
This is a couple of websters discription for religion. It seems to me many Gays and lesbians practice a religion all there own. I really do not see your argument.3archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
— re·li·gion·less adjective
johnnyrotten3993 3 years ago
This is just as ridiculous as saying that atheism is a religion, or that evolution is a religion. If you are a bowling enthusiast, under your excessively broad definition, bowling would be a religion. Don't be ridiculous. If you want to make an argument, at least try to be reasonable. This is just inane.
Largo64 3 years ago
Largo, I can accept the fact that you are an atheist. But can you except the fact I do not want you teaching my child your views or opinions. That is what this is really about , my right to teach my children in (church , school, home) what I see fit. For that matter I also do not want to infringe upon your right to teach your children as you see fit.
johnnyrotten3993 3 years ago
If you say that your marriage will be affected by anyone else's marriage or that your children will be taught homosexuality in school that is nothing but propagandistic bullshit! Gay people getting married has nothing to do with what YOU teach YOUR kids, which is YOUR responsibility. It also has no effect on churches, which will continue to teach what they always have, narrow-mindedness and bigotry. But, hey, even I admit that they have the right!
Largo64 3 years ago
Largo you know this is a lost argument. We can see from states like Mass. and Conn. this is simply not true. It is only a matter of time that Gays and Lesbians push there agenda upon children and society.
johnnyrotten3993 3 years ago
It is a matter of time. But the issue is not an "agenda" of gays and lesbians being pushed upon children and society. It is a reaffirmation of the rights of all citizens to do as they wish as long as they don't hurt someone else. No one has yet been able to show how two men or two women getting married to each other hurts anyone else's marriage. You have only prejudice and ignorance on your side. You will lose for that reason and no other.
Largo64 3 years ago
Hey Largo, if you truly believed in the constitution then you would allow free speech. For some reason you have deleted my post. So who is the bigot.
johnnyrotten3993 3 years ago
I haven't deleted any posts from this video. I tried to post an answer to someone and it didn't show up either. It happens.
Largo64 3 years ago
okay ,if you want to talk money , Obama raised 640 mil or so dollars to defeat the reps , so who should the people who didn't want him as Pres be pissed at .
obviously , someone didn't want Mac as pres and donated millions of dollars to defeat him , it's a conspiracy . Can we tie Ob to Islam or Atheism maybe , you're grabbing at straws . JV
jvforever72 3 years ago
Try to stay on topic, please.
Largo64 3 years ago
so i guess voting and the rule of the majority is unamerican . hey , if that's the case , i didn't vote for Obama , and he got the majority of the vote , i'm , in your world , oppressed . I'm taking it to the courts . JV
jvforever72 3 years ago
I didn't say majorities should never win. I said representative government protects minorities from unfair domination by majorities. People should, of course, be able to choose their leaders by majority vote. But they shouldn't be able to force such things as their religious beliefs on others by majority fiat.
Largo64 3 years ago
Anyone who hates gays or gay marriage should but put in an oven and fed to Venus Fly Traps.
FranzDuckVideos 3 years ago
You make excellent points. Great video.
WhyDidYouGoAndDoThat 3 years ago
Marriage is between a man and a woman but by all means homosexuals can call it something else, not sure what that might be but... by all means.
I did like your inclusion of Tyranny of the Majority though Largo. Also pyromania152,
No one said they can't but it would be detrimental to the child's psychology. Think of all the laughter and rude remarks that child would be given.
Also the idea of a traditional family is not a joke but that REALLY is a matter of statistics which object with you.
OblivionMon 3 years ago
"Marriage is between a man and a woman"
This kind of categorical and unsupported statement is typical of people who speak from prejudice rather than knowledge. I will link some articles in the sidebar and you can at least see whether there might be room for doubt in your all too certain assessment.
Largo64 3 years ago
Hear, hear! I totally concur. It's total bullshit, and it should be overturned. Like, yesterday. :(
ShortbusMooner 3 years ago
My opinion is: marriage is a strictly religious/social issue. Should the government have any say in what a marriage is or not? Frankly if two or more individuals love eachother and choose to call themselves married, they're married regardless of what the state says. I understand that you can file taxes jointly, but is that even necessary?
Tl;dr: state should give recognition to straight OR gay marriages, and people who want to marry can do so equally then.
pyromania152 3 years ago
GO LARGO!
guitarplayer654 3 years ago
Dear Gay community..You will not bully the media you will not bully the people and certainly will not bully the parents. Prop 8 is and always will be about the children. It's about protecting the children. Kids need a mommy and a daddy. Period. We will also not allow you to teach hmosexual lifestyle in our public schools. The people have spoken now deal with it. Your lifestyle is sinful and shameful. Move to massachusetts if you don't like it!this is not a civil rights issue. It's a moral issue
LOVEEET 3 years ago
LOVEEET
Morality is not from a holy freakin book. Sorry, you cannot claim a moral high road from your sad holy book of horrors or fairytales. Morality is in us from evolution. What do you think we were doing before your blessed book showed up? None of us would be here if it weren't for our social ways millions of yrs ago. I bet you show off your ignorance thinking that being homosexual is a choice. Go read some real books for a change.
saxmanchiro 3 years ago
Describe to me how, exactly, you came to the conclusion that morals developed during evolution. If this were true, then why do animals continue to fight? Why arn't us humans fighting like savages wherever we go?
BrenMan94 3 years ago
While I agree, many will argue the moral law is societal but with proper examination this is not entirely true. The last question is interesting but it seems we still fight but behind the vale of a country or nation.
OblivionMon 3 years ago
Yes, but for what reasons. If moral law DID infact evolve, then why are we fighting? Why hasn't the one world union come?
A primal tribe would conclude that finding a compromise would far surpass waging war with each other.
BrenMan94 3 years ago
The moral law did change over time but this doesn't disprove its importance.
No offense but you just committed a contradiction to your previous statement: First you asked why we do not fight and now you ask why we still do.
Go rework your arguments and study arguments in your favor. When you are done you shall be ready to challenge others. I recommend some books by Norman Geisler and William Lane Craig; two famous Christian philosophers and theologians.
OblivionMon 3 years ago
No contradiction was made:
Why do we not fight-like-savages?
As opposed to:
Why do we still fight?
Both terms are seperate.
BrenMan94 3 years ago
The basic foundational traits we exhibit allow us to build moral systems. Our brains got big enough for us to empathize with each other and realize there are other individuals as well as allowing us to reason enough to allow us to work out how best to treat each other. The morals themsleves, not killing, etc. aren't the direct result of evolution, evolution created the ability for us to develop morality. This is not some guy's idea, this is the evolutionary psychology consensus.
Archaneus 3 years ago
But now you argue theory, which is not some guy's idea but an idea of many "guys" and gals. You can surely prove Micro Evolution but not Macro and yes it is necessary to make the distinction, a distinction which does exist; a line drawn through fact and theory.
OblivionMon 3 years ago
And now you prove you have no understanding of evolution at all. There is NO such thing as micro versus macro evolution. It's complete bullshit made up by creationists. "Macro" evolution is simply many "micro" evolution events over time. It's a completely arbitrary and pointless distinction. As for not being able to show one species becoming another, well, that's simply not true. Not only have we observed it in short-lived species, we have extensive evidence in fossils and dna.
Archaneus 3 years ago
Please take this argument someplace else. The topic of this video is California's Proposition 8. There are plenty of other places to argue evolution.
Largo64 3 years ago
Hahahahahahahaha!!!!
There are so many ways I can point out the stupidity in your post... I'll simply ask for any bit of evidence that says two men or two women can't raise a child. From what I've read, most abusive families are the "traditional" male-lead household. The idea of a "traditional marriage" is a joke. Up until recently couples were often forced together by their families or social conditions, and throughout history one man, many women has been most common.
Tradition my ass.
pyromania152 3 years ago
Total agreement. Want to remain tax exempt, stay out of politics. They have stepped over the line and as a nation we must act and act quickly before they get the idea that they can get away with abusing their tax privilege. The Mormon church collected money from their flock to use politically and they should lose their tax exemtion, pronto. good vid Larry. Felt the passion.
saxmanchiro 3 years ago
Why do churches even have tax exempt status?
JTS11d6 3 years ago
Legislation is made by the congress, the president signs it into law, and the Court system interprets the laws and acts upon them. THAT IS HOW THIS COUNTRY WORKS. If you don't like it then we would have to disassemble this country and rebuild. There are no good secular arguments and no scientific facts that support Prop 8. If you don't like that then go to another over religious country or move in with Fred Phelps.
makaisenki 3 years ago
Phred Phelps is probably beside himself with glee over all those ballot initiatives that passed. And beside himself makes two Phred Phelpses. That's at least one too many.
Largo64 3 years ago
I think -20 Fred Phelps' is too many. That sounds like a contradiction... How can you have negative 20 of the guy be too much? Well if you see it as a contradiction you really need to learn about their church/family. :P If you know how crazy his family is, -20 of them is still too many.
makaisenki 3 years ago
christianity Is Un-American!
SuperAtheist 3 years ago
Using the democracy as an instrument for religious opression of minorities.
That's indeed un American.
qanazir 3 years ago
Don't be stupid.... the fact that he is here does not prove that there is an external maker.... evolution.... ya..... IT WORKS!!!!! (btw.... don't try to say "evolution is just a theory." THERE IS NO HIGHER "fact" THAN A THEORY IN SCIENCE!!!, the laws in science are not higher than theories, they just explain different things.) and... P.S. He is not narrow minded in thinking that there is not a higher maker, he just thinks rationally and looks a facts.
yyusenet 3 years ago
47f0 The argument you pm me does not hold up. If you were an American you would know this country was established for religious freedoms , not abnormal sexual ones.
johnnyrotten3993 3 years ago
The colonists came to North America to escape religious persecution, yes, but not to establish persecution of others. It is not for you to say what is abnormal. Modern science says it isn't abnormal.
Largo64 3 years ago
No ,but 52% of CA citizens do.
johnnyrotten3993 3 years ago
52% of California citizens are walking around with their heads firmly inserted in their . . . let's just say that without glass navels they can't see where they are going.
Largo64 3 years ago
I do not see what the problem is with having our head up our .... Oh I forgot only the Gays are aloud to stick things there.
johnnyrotten3993 3 years ago
You are correct sir. Excellent response.
rnistuk 3 years ago
whenver there is a moral majority there are people whose civil rights are being trampled.
nadiaTeeze 3 years ago
Jesus Christ, Americans! Just look to the North of you! Canada! Canada, which isn't as socially liberal as Netherlands, is doing just fine with gay marriage! Whatever it was that the religious were excepting has not happened nor is there an inkling that it will! Yes, the religious did put up a fight, but when they lost, they were a little more graceful in defeat than America. Wake up guys! Gay marriage is perfectly fine! There is no logical reason to ban it.
sthebg20 3 years ago
I can't believe that bigots have the right to take away other people's rights. What kind of world do we live in? I hate how these religious people try to control other people's lives. Are these control freaks that insecure? And what's worse, I hate how these religious leaders and politicians work together to treat the masses like a bunch of children. You'd think that once one moves out of their parents house that they have freedom, but no, he/she doesn't. Sorry for the rant.
Justinfh2point0 3 years ago
I also hate how the fags are sending anthrax to those people who they think are responsible for the proposition passing.
theAstud 3 years ago
Bullshit.
TheBiophiliacBright 3 years ago
Brilliant comment TBB.
Did you think that up all by yourself?
biagi1968 3 years ago
Why, yes I did. And it's all it needed. Gays sending anthrax sounds like prime bull to me.
Where did you copy-paste yours from?
TheBiophiliacBright 3 years ago
I don't think that religious organizations should have tax exempt status anyways.
theatheistevangelist 3 years ago
Telling it like it is, 5 stars and great video
evanfitz 3 years ago
Yes on 8!!
Shemseed 3 years ago
"Yes on 8!!"
Why take away their rights? Do you have any valid reason?
bluecode320 3 years ago
Something a little more meaningful that "yes on 8" would be nice here. That's not an argument. That's a poster that any idiot can recite. If you actually have something to say, let's see it.
Largo64 3 years ago
I've seen Shemseed before. He doesn't make videos. He just trolls people who do. This "Yes on 8!!" response of his is typical of the non thinking of which he seems to be most capable.
Largo64 3 years ago
keep up the good fight, it will be hard but history is on are side
masterhook 3 years ago
I totally agree with you Largo.
iamstevencolbert3 3 years ago
Yeah! Go Largo! Laying a moral and political smack down on prop 8!
brinnmilo 3 years ago
I think it is horrible that Prop 8 was passed, just because other people are homophobic.
TheGreenDayMinority 3 years ago
Excellent response, Larry, and I completely agree with you on your last point about tax exemption.
People already had the 'religious right to choose': the right to choose not to marry someone of their own gender. They do not have the 'religious right to choose' who *other people* marry.
QualiaSoup 3 years ago
I think I'm gonna be youre groupy...the calm and happy way you explain things might even get thrue to some religious people. Good work, good luck and
peace
sometimesido99 3 years ago
I disagree with you on just one point. Churches should not have tax exemption at all.... you probabally agree with me on that, so. yeah :)
MeIoco 3 years ago
I actually do agree with you. But that's a hot button I'm not ready to touch just yet.
Largo64 3 years ago
Awesome video.
agnosticman77 3 years ago
Wonderful! It's time for all religious institutions to start paying taxes. :)
Maiyanna 3 years ago
Fantastic!
TheUndeadLawyer 3 years ago
Largo, fantastic vid!!!
Clemburke1111 3 years ago
i agree 100% larry. i had heard the mormons put op 40g for campaigning but regardless of the amount they should now be stripped of tax exempt status for putting thier nose where it did'nt belong....
hellshade2 3 years ago
The fact that you are here proves there is an enternal maker. But of course you are to narrow minded to believe in anything greater than yourself,
johnnyrotten3993 3 years ago
Hey, johnnyrotten
You are here because your parent's gametes met and fused to produce a diploid zygote. Then, trillions of mitotic events later, voila. That's how all of us got here. Read a book for christ's sake. Sky-daddy is not responsible for anything other than providing a good delusion for you to escape into. Get some education. Start with a regular high school bio text. This time try learning the concepts instead of sleeping in class.
saxmanchiro 3 years ago
Funny, when Christ comes I will probably be the sucker who is responsible for teaching you.
johnnyrotten3993 3 years ago
johnnyrotten
So I take it that you do not agree with my explanation of how you got your sorry ass on this planet. Any refutation would be gladly welcomed. I love to debate with folks who are delusional and ignorant of truth.
saxmanchiro 3 years ago
There is no point in debating with someone whose whole "truth" comes from one pre-scientific book. You already know the answers, right? So just go away and be happy and smug in your righteous "knowledge."
Largo64 3 years ago
It proves only that we are here. You infer an eternal maker, and that's your right. But you can't prove it, and you don't have the right to force your belief on others.
Largo64 3 years ago
Niether do you.
johnnyrotten3993 3 years ago
See, that's the difference. I say what I think. But I don't try to legislate my beliefs so YOU have to accept them. You, on the other hand, wish to force others to think your way. Majority rule isn't always right. That's why we have representative government. If majority rule were the way we were governed there would today be no freedom of speech, everybody would be Catholic, and women still would not have the vote.
Largo64 3 years ago
Listen, For the record I do not hate gay or lesbian people. Some of my best freinds and family are gay and lesbian. THis is not about refusing rights. Its about protecting the values of traditional families. Call it what ever you weant just stop calling it marriage. For people who say they want seperation of church and state, you should learn to except marriage is a biblical term not a right for all to have.
johnnyrotten3993 3 years ago
Marriage is not a "biblical term." as you say, just because it is mentioned in the bible. People from cultures all over the world have marriage, and many of them never saw a bible. Are you really that ignorant, or are you just so invested in your argument that you can't stop no matter what?
Largo64 3 years ago
indeed.
hellshade2 3 years ago
marriage is a biblical term? i think not. people were getting married without the benefit of christianity before christianity was even around. don't think your religion preempts the meaning of marriaqge. that's ridiculous.
hellshade2 3 years ago
how does the fact that i am here prove there is a maker? remember you will have to prove there is indeed a maker to begin with before you can even answer. have a nice day.
hellshade2 3 years ago
Okay,Just call it something other then marry or marriage.The word itself means what it means,dont make marriage something it isnt. I dont think the mormans used church money for this.
no1saphead 3 years ago
Marriage is the union of two people who love each other. The civil law licenses marriages and claims to recognize them, as if it had the right not to. People were married long before there were governments in the modern sense. Now one huge group whose unions have been recognized by the state wish to deprive a smaller group of that recognition, as if the "others" who are the target of this legislation were not citizens like themselves. But they are, and their loving union is just like yours.
Largo64 3 years ago
you're right Larry, this is just another way for religious organizations to impose their nonsense on the public, by using the law. Why arent they pushing their polygamy beliefs..seems as though that would be first on their agenda rather than a gay marriage issue?
BethRN74 3 years ago
I bet taxing just the churchs that openly
interfere would go along way in these economically
challenging times.Great video Largo!
angryislander56 3 years ago
Thank you for this Larry.
I'm gay and my siblings are against same sex marriage. I'll have this for ammunition during my next gay bashing - er - I mean family Christmas dinner.
cavejourney 3 years ago
I'm sorry you have to suffer such an indignity in your own family. As an atheist I have to avoid the subject of religion among my extended family, but I can't imagine being gay and having my own siblings bashing me. It may take generations more before most adults are actually mature.
Largo64 3 years ago
What really disturbing is how such a "prop" got this far, PASSED!!! The fact that this passed speaks volumes. If laws were left "to the people" America would have never made it this far. Law requires intelligent, secular, non-emotional people for it to run properly. This is why we have a representative democracy. Worked well until lobbyist appeared. Now, you buy a law, not debate one.
Great vid.
P.S. If I wanted to live in a theocracy I would move to Saudi Arabia.
TheBigHo111 3 years ago
You are absolutely correct. I dont think you will change your mind either (though I know you would if logic and reason dictated you should). There really isnt much to add to what you said except...5 stars.
TheLogicalTheist 3 years ago
You speak the truth.
Atheist001 3 years ago
Awesome, Larry
ivarbt 3 years ago
Brilliant, Largo....brilliant.
By the way, I always prefer the Largo section of a concerto. Based on your name, I'll assume the same. If you haven't heard it, listen to the second movement of Joaquin Rodrigo's Concierto de Aranjuez. It's breathtaking.
WineisyourFriend 3 years ago
People should make a lawsuit against the state if there is plenty of evidence that this is a religious law.
Censeo 3 years ago
Well done. You are a gentleman and a schollar my friend.
tiemannorm 3 years ago
Well said. As always, Largo.
CornishHeretic 3 years ago
FANTASTIC VIDEO!!!
A man with morals , ethics and a sense of justice!
Equal rights means EQUAL rights! Period.
REAL LOYAL US citizens are getting sick and tired of these treasonous fringe groups trying to FORCE their will on a minority and deprive them of their RIGHTS under the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights!
The Mormons need to be prosecuted and taxed...TODAY!!
Thank you!
t4705mb6 3 years ago
good point!
TheLittleDonkey 3 years ago