I'm not following you here, except as personal opinion. Do you not believe that Christians have the right to, "petition the Government for a redress of grievances?"
The purpose of which, although not required of the government, must be to have those grievances heard and acted upon. As the grievance against homosexuality has been in this nation and most nations for thousands of years.
Or are you claiming the US Constitution protects and provides, in some way, for homosexual marriage?
@KayBeeEee1983 The 14th amendment was ratified at a time when homosexuality was illegal and continued to be illegal for over 100 years after. To me that's not very convincing that it requires states to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples.
I only asked it as a rhetorical question for a lawyer as civil marriage has always been governed by state law in the US. My point in posing it was that the federal constitution does not address marriage directly.
@warterra "The 14th amendment was ratified at a time when homosexuality was illegal and continued to be illegal for over 100 years after. To me that's not very convincing that it requires states to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples."
The Constitution supersedes any federal or state law, so any laws against homosexuality became unconstitutional as soon as the 14th amendment was passed. Unfortunately, few people cared, until recently.
@KayBeeEee1983 I assume you agree that the writers of the 14th amendment were unaware they were legalizing same sex marriage when the 14th amendment was drafted.
@warterra The only things the writers of Section 1 of the 14th amendment were thinking about were black citizenship and black civil rights, but does that mean it only applies to race? They were codifying the "all men are created equal" concept.
@KayBeeEee1983 As you apply the "all men are created equal" concept, but they, the writers of the 14th Amend., would have disagreed with you and me on same sex marriage.
I support same sex marriage, but believe it, like all laws, should be established by the consent of the governed and through representative democracy not through a re-imagining of the intent of the 14th amendment.
@warterra The intent of the 14th amendment was to ensure equality under the law. You're adding things that aren't there and that's dangerous. Chief Justice Taney did the same thing in the Dred Scott case. He declared that blacks could never be citizens because he didn't think the founders intended blacks to have citizenship. That's judicial activism and it's unethical.
@warterra "I only asked it as a rhetorical question for a lawyer as civil marriage has always been governed by state law in the US."
Yes, and the 14th amendment deals specifically with state laws. "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
@KayBeeEee1983 I am aware of the text of the amendment. Getting long text quotes reminds me of debating with Christians.
You must know that the constitutionality of state restrictions on marriage has been challenged before and without success for same sex marriage advocates.
@warterra "You must know that the constitutionality of state restrictions on marriage has been challenged before and without success for same sex marriage advocates."
That's judicial activism. Prohibiting same-sex marriage is a blatant violation of the 14th amendment.
@warterra "You must know that the constitutionality of state restrictions on marriage has been challenged before and without success for same sex marriage advocates."
And they've also had successes. See, e.g., the Proposition 8 case--just one example.
Obviously the amendment was not drafted to address this issue and we might be better off in the long run changing current law than imagining new meanings to established law.
Loving dealt with the specific issue the 14th sought to redress. I will acknowledge that state law is not exclusive.
"...Marriage has always been regarded as a constitutionally protected fundamental right."
@ProfMTH What I meant was homosexuality has been illegal in the US for hundreds of years and for thousands of years in nations on which some of American law is based.
I think I see what you did there and I agree in the PRECISE way you responded. On the broader issue though I don't think you can make a convincing argument that the US federal constitution requires States, that define marriage in a certain way, to issue licenses outside that definition.
@warterra "I don't think you can make a convincing argument that the US federal constitution requires States, that define marriage in a certain way, to issue licenses outside that definition."
You're wrong. You should see my other videos on same-sex marriage, including the video series I did on the Proposition 8 case. Your claim would, among other things, make state law superior to the Constitution, which it is not. That would render decisions such as Loving v. Virginia legally invalid.
@ProfMTH Oh I've watched most of your videos, they're really good.
I did not propose state law as supreme to the federal. If the argument can be made, then state law becomes unenforceable.
Loving, of course, overturned supreme court precedent before it, but ignoring that, the concern at the time in the Loving decision as in the drafting of sec.1 of the 14th was racial.
@Schwazoom "Not denying you, but wondering under which.14th Amendment under equal protection of the law, right?"
I think denying same-sex couples the legal right to marry violates both equal protection and due process (the latter inasmuch as it precludes the exercise of a fundamental right without sufficient reason).
What the edge probably meant is that people argue with him, loudly, about his beliefs. Unfortunately, modern westerners often regard argument itself as intolerant and borderline violent. I often get "Free speech!" thrown at me when I argue with people, as though expressing my disagreement were a violation of their rights.
I liked this video, but sort of feel that your "if you regard homosexuality as immoral, don't do it" line is a cop-out. A Christian presumably believes that homosexuality is a moral evil, so that your line may make as much sense to them internally as "if you don't like murder, don't do it."
In other words, I think the argument to make is "homosexuality is not immoral," rather than "if you don't like immorality, don't do it."
@simplic1000 As I understand it, a cop-out is an avoidance of commitment or responsibility. How exactly can 'live and let live' be the same as avoidance? Tolerance doesn't require you to advocate your preferences, let alone to sell them to the unappreciative.
The argument S/B 'don't do things you think are wrong, but don't make me to run my life by your values -- especially since I think you don't really believe all that much in the values you tout, except when they suit your momentary needs.'
What IS ironic the way some people use the word tolerance; existence would be much more pleasant if everyone was tolerant, to quote Voltaire: "What is tolerance? It is the consequence of humanity. We are all formed of frailty and error; let us pardon reciprocally each other's folly - that is the first law of nature." and Evelyn Beatrice Hall: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. "
@ProfMTH That is because we live in democratic societies. Democracy does not care about our Christians beliefs. We teach what we will in our Churches, and teach this to our children. That is our right. However, democracy is indifferent to our beliefs. Should we destroy democracy and replace it with an Iranian style theocracy? Fine, as long as we get to destroy Baptists because their doctrines are clearly immoral.
@ProfMTH Yeah, sure I get the humor thing, but eventually it leads to prancing around in some gay parade with a forty foot wig and your arse-cheeks hanging out the back.
@jbooks888 "Yeah, sure I get the humor thing, but eventually it leads to prancing around in some gay parade with a forty foot wig and your arse-cheeks hanging out the back."
Well, that's not something I've ever done. But if you find doing it amusing to do, well, whatever blows your skirt up, Alice.
I don't like the term tolerate used in this context. In fact that word has historically had a negative connotation. My personal practice is heterosexuality which I preach, but to demand it of you would be counterproductive. It is the government who puts these ignominious nonpolitical issues to the voters. They are distractions. My hope is not this system or world so here you may choose. Choice is the reason we have freewill, religiously speaking.
@jimprjayp: "In fact that word historically had a negative connotation." Where's the proof? And don't quote the Bible either, I need REAL historical proof.
speaking of tolerance, in ancient greece, they didn't have much problem with homosexuality. remember the sacred band of thebes? however, the bible simply says that homosexual act is punishable by death, by stoning. they don't do that anymore and that is why ted haggard is still alive. i know it is hypocritical but it really is.
Actually, almost every culture has condemned homosexuality as an alternative for heterosexuality throughout history as a sexual perversion, much like bestiality, necrophilia and pedophilia. The Christian ethic towards homosexuality is rather the norm than the exception.
It is not Christians who are intolerant but "gay rights activists" who for some irrational reasons believe they are still not treated fairly and who like to force people politically to consider their deviance normal.
How little you know about history. besides the egyptians, greeks and romans, the hawaiians and other polynesian cultures had a place for it. others, esp in asia, do not condemn nor endorse. you need to do some more studying before you comment...
Name any culture in history where a monogamous sexual and love relationship between either two men or two women has a status equal to a monogamous sexual and love relationship between a man and a woman, especially when bound by marriage. Certainly, phenomena like pedastry don't prove that homosexuality isn't either a cultural of genetic deviance.
Don't be foolish. Pederasty, in the classical meaning of the word, was a respected social construct, as it was among the ancient Hawaiians. There is a well known story of the Chief of the island of Kauai asking Capt Cook how much would be the "dowry" for his first mate.
Others have obviously frowned upon sexuality between men. But the point is, there has never been a world-wide "consensus" on the matter and certainly not "every culture". Regardless, gay is good!
Pedastry may have been a respected social construct, but it was not a homosexual equivalent to marriage. It was more of a cultural phenomenon based on the philosophical principle that the bond between a young boy and his male mentor is even stronger than the bond between a man and a woman. I consider it "culturally accepted man-boy pedophilia" rather than anything similar to the homosexual relationships that are common today.
We need to be more tolerant of the people who say that HETEROsexual marriage should be outlawed.
It's ironic that heterosexuals want their marriages to be tolerated, but sometimes react intolerantly toward those who say that heterosexuality is immoral.
Tolerance = Approval and consequent suppression of what I believe to be right. Tolerance thus leads to aggressive encroachment on the structure of my self & my belief system, redefining me in the process of apathy or as you call it tolerance
Tolerance is NOT approval. It's recognizing that people have a right to live their lives as equals, especially when it doesn't affect your own life. Gay rights don't impact you, not in the schools, not in your religious beliefs.
You can still teach your kids that you don't believe in it, just like you might with other things schools teach (evolution, contraception, etc.)
Churches should retain their right to preach as they wish. But, religious beliefs should NOT impact civil rights.
When "gay rights" (a silly name since homosexuals already have equal rights) propaganda is pushed in schools and impressionable young heterosexuals become confused about their sexuality, this is a major concern. When women are encouraged to become lesbians because feminist propaganda taught them all men are evil, this is a major concern. Liberal "multi-cultural" propaganda is extremely aggressive and corrosive and our children will inevitably become its victims once they're off to school.
the only thing silly, and the only major concern, is someone who doesn't understand equal rights... "breeders" like you. gays do not have equal rights-- just try to prove otherwise!
school programs help kids clarify and come to grips with their sexuality. my hetero cousin experimented w/guys when he was a teen, but knows that it was normal. he got the info he needed!
this neo-fascist agenda of exclusion that you endorse is a major threat to our nation.
In what way do you not have equal rights? In many Western countries, homosexuals and lesbians can now marry and/or obtain a status of official cohabitation, which has some of the same legal benefits of marriage. What more do you need, really?
I understand that teenagers can be curious, but there's no need to start indoctrinating kids with "gay" propaganda in kindergarten or high school (which does occur!). Oh, and I don't endorce exclusion of anyone.
There is no indoctrination! Schools teach many things that parents may not agree with. Evolution, global warming and contraception are three that come to mind. Parents simply teach their kids what they believe... LIKE ANY PARENT SHOULD. This is a false fear.
We fight for those parts of the world where marriage is not available, and where gays are still persecuted in regards to jobs, health care, and basic human rights.
Maybe you should go live in those countries where gays are still persecuted in regards to jobs, health care, and basic human rights and stand on the barricades there, rather than annoying Joe Public with your obscene "gay pride parades" and whining about marriage. Marriage is an ancient sacred (in all religions) institution created to legally bond a man and a woman as to provide a safe haven for future offspring. It makes no sense for 2 men or 2 women to marry. That's not what it's meant for.
maybe you should just not worry about it and get out of the way. civil marriage is clearly different from religious marriage. it makes complete sense for same-sex couples to marry.
And most certainly there's indoctrination with all sorts of liberal "multicultural" agendas. I encourage you to read "The Diversity Myth" by David Sacks and Peter Thiel (CEO of PayPal) that details on how Stanford became the target of an ultra-left agenda and graduately more and more propaganda for causes like "black awareness", "Latino awareness", "gay rights" or "diversity" was shoved down students' throats, with students being treated in an almost totalitarian fashion.
@OutOfTheBoxThinker: Well, well another old enemy of mine....... At least if this were even true, observance of gay rights would be a step forward for Stanford.............but given their pro-racist and pro-eugenics past, I seriously doubt it.
Seriously pal, how long you going to keep shilling for the globalists? People are waking up to your masters' sick agendas.
What started at Stanford, would soon to a lesser degree by applied to other major university and eventually the entire American public became exposed to a multitude of "multiculturalist" based reports, viewpoints and strategies through media and "education". And graduately, dissent became less and less socially acceptable as the guardians of "political correctness" have replaced the old Spanish inquisition to label all as heretics who disagree with their foolishness and thereby ostrasize them.
Now, like many neo-coms, I'm sure it pains you to use the word gay. However, trying to re-define us as "homosexuals" is a losing battle... most people prefer the popular term to the clinical. And it makes for amusing stories... like the one "christian" website that had a program that automatically changed gay to homosexual.... great, except there was an article in which the subject's last name was gay... "Mr. Homosexual won the race with seconds to spare"...
What's a neo-com? I guess you mean a NEO-CON, but I can tell you I'm no such thing. My spiritual views are a mixture of Oriental and European paganism, my economical views are a mixture of libertarian and collectivist principles, I object to "democracy" in favor of techocracy and my moral views are a mixture of traditionalist and post-modern.
Nevertheless, to me the word "gay" still means "joyful" and I object this lovely word is hijacked by the "gay rights" movement to represent homosexuality.
So do I. Those commercials are ridiculous. Every teacher at school spouting about the need to be tolerant and not use the word "gay" because it's derogatory. Please! There are derogatory terms for homosexuals but "gay" is not one of them. Where did this standardized text of tolerance come from? In another era people used the term "flower-child" one groups attitude was negative toward it one group embraced it. SHOW yourself to be a positive person and pay attention to yourself!
and now you have done the same silly thing, insisting on calling us "homosexuals and lesbians". guess what.... all lesbians are homosexual, but not all homosexuals are lesbians! if you insist on continuing this silly game at least get it right!
Like the word "socialist" is used as an equivalent for "liberal", "communist" and "social democrat" or like the word "fascism" is used as an equivalent for "tyranny" or "an Italian ideology conceived by Mussolini", so is "homosexuality" used as an equivalent of "a relationship between two men" or "a relationship between two people of the same sex". The first definition (which I use when I distinguish between male homosexuals and lesbians) arose because the word "homo" is mostly used for men.
maybe in Luxermbourg, but not here. the fact that you object to it being "hijacked" just points out your bigotry against gay folk. a history lesson for you... gay folk didn't start out calling themselves gay... it was their detractors. WE reclaimed it and made it into something good!
@divinehumanism: "this neo-fascist agenda of exclusion that you endorse is a major threat to our nation." And this liar OutOfTheBoxThinker is working for them.
I should learn to be less of a "doubting thomas" I know these videos that you make are not JUST for the non-believer community, but the faithful who have never really sat and questioned their belief as well. I shall try to be less pessimistic in the future. You have proven to me that even a non believer needs to have hope and patience.
i agree with you on the tax exemption. but at the same time, liberals want things like abortions socially funded..so how do you feel about that? do you support taxpayer-funding for that? because that would make you a hypocrite..or a liberal (the terms are synonymous)
I am hetero and I am damned if I allow any Christian organization dictate how I am going to live. The same goes for any other organization. I believe that "Religious Organizations" should pay taxes just like everyone else does. I also believe that all individuals have the right to form committed, loving relationships.
In case you missed it, Jon Stewart had Mike Huckabee on his show last night, 12/9/08. Huckabee was there to promote his book but Stewart used the majority of the interview defending gay marriage. If you havent seen it already I thought you might be interested in taking a look.
I think also the point should be made that not all Christians agree in their perspective on homosexuality. This varies according to the degree to which the person believes the Bible is literal or figurative, along with consideration of the cultural context in which the Bible was written and the implications that would have on what was written down, along with the consideration that no matter the belief that God inspired it, humans physically did the writing- the start of potential for abuse.
I think this falls along the same lines when it comes to respecting their beliefs. I respect their right to have the beliefs that they have, but I do not have to respect the beliefs themselves. This is typically lost on the average christian.
The law needs to be respected. But the law also needs to be interpreted.
Rights need to be interpreted.
Who's rights and freedoms should trump who's is always the question.
The law should be the moral authority, not the church, and there should not be any parallel legal institutions. But recieving tax money should not come with strings attatched, it shouldn't happen period.
What this issue really boils down to the integrity and autonomy of a religious institution. They are not trying to control how other people live thier lives, but they do seek the power to decide who merits their official seal of approval. The only tangible effect of this is on status, honor, and prestige. This does not impinge on rights, it is merely an officially expressed and recognized opinion about what constitutes a valid marriage. No one has the right to universal approval.
Legal marriage is not the property of any religion. If it was, then 'which' religion gets to call the shots? A lot of churches don't want people to marry non members of their church. Atheists can get legal marriage 'without' any religious 'Seal of Approval'. Churches have nothing to do with Legal marriage. The are free to refuse weddings to whoever they want, no matter who is allowed to 'legally' marry.
"They are free to refuse weddings to whoever they want" - That may have been true at one time Darkbison, but laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, do in fact take away the freedom of religious institutions to decide what constitutes a legitimate marriage. Right?
The bulk of this controversy is over the definition of the word "marriage" as opposed to "civil union". As a word that carries heavy associations, official recognition is what it boils down to.
"...laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, do in fact take away the freedom of religious institutions to decide what constitutes a legitimate marriage. Right?"
Tolerance of beliefs and opinions is important, but you are REALLY talking about the tolerance of actions. Marriage is an action, adoption is an action, and so is discrimination. The beliefs or opinions invovled are irrelevant to begin with. But you would not know that from your video!
Bugs and Elmer can agree to disagree on philosophical point, or about what time of year it is, but this has NO bearing on whether or not Elmer should be allowed to shoot Bugs.
Great video! But, it is really not as simple as you make it sound.
Your use of the word "rights" is misleading and circular.
There are more or less speculative ideas about the negative effects on society that persuade us to limit our tolerance.
What about the "rights" of polygamists, or adults who love children and vice versa. We mustn't exclude or marginalize asexuals, who should also be able to mary, but still can't.
What about the rights of vegans. Shouldnt we redefine "chicken" to include tofu or "beef" to include beans, or just drop the soy from "soy milk". They are all healthy for you and contain protein. You can't discriminate and say that one is better than the other. That way vegans will be able to blend in with the rest of us without being reminded that they are different somehow, it wouldnt be such a big change.
All holidays should be called "holiday that might just belong to your ethnic group."
We come to greater conclusions of others with greater examples and religion because of it's life lessons has become a prominent factor in daily life, is a hefty one that weighs deeply on us when we speak of it.
Morally objectifying a way of life is to exercise your own. But to claim self righteousness, to hark on about how only one true way of living can be correct - well that's wrong. Truly, deeply wrong. Because that's not even being subjective.
When someone preaches about something and tells you that you either accept the answers you are given or you live a broken life, is wrong.
If someone says "My way should be the only way." that makes them a fool.
One person can make a statement and accomplish a lot. But how are these accomplishments measured? Oh so not only am I doing it wrong, but I've accomplished nothing because without the love of your god I am a wayward nobody, a fool and a wretch? Is that right?
I've certainly heard of civil unions and domestic partnerships being dissolved, which is like divorce. I'm not sure if any same-sex couples who married in Massachusetts have divorced yet. It's bound to happen at some point though. Too soon for California, I suppose.
Im sure if Gay people were allowed to marry their divorce rate would be much lower than that of mainstream society.
Its not really fair that they have to travel all the way to places like Canada for the ceremony and when they get back, it isn't even legally recognised.
I don't know why they keep toteing the "sanctity of marriage" line, the divorce rate is at least 50% these days.
Marriage is cheap nowadays, yet they would still like us to think of it as a sacred right...
The same idiocy is applied same sex couples and kids.
Considering the work they have to go through just to have a kid (artificial insemination, adoption, surrogate), it's a tad ridiculous that their parenting comes into question so much.
How about the trailer trash that got knocked up AGAIN? The government seems to have no problem with her, but if a gay couple is willing to go through years of trials and discrimination for a child... naw, they're just doing it so they have a kid to abuse! -_-
I always love the "If two gay's raise a kid, they'll end up messed up from it" arguement:
The irony is, the reason the kids end up messed up is they spend their entire lives being picked on by the kids of the conservative christian families for having two mums/dads...
This video is quite hypocritical. Basically, it says that Christians can believe whatever they want as long as they don't try to shape public policy or influence their society. Meanwhile, it's ok for others to come along and exercise their own ideologies and redefine marriage, kill babies, teach evolution to our kids, yada yada yada. Is that your definition of a democracy? Where you guys call the shots and Christians are to be confined to their living rooms? What nonsense.
"This video is quite hypocritical. Basically, it says that Christians can believe whatever they want as long as they don't try to shape public policy or influence their society."
It doesn't say that at all, INTJ22. What it *does* say is that tolerance of Christian viewpoints doesn't give Christians the right to call the shots for everyone else. Quite different. As I said very clearly in the video, Christians may preach their beliefs to whoever is willing to listen, including policymakers.
I do not see the distinction you are trying to make between "calling the shots" and policy making. You said:
"i will not countenance interference with the exercise of my rights"
What do you think policy making does? It changes people's rights. So if Christians are able to get a law passed forbidden gay marriage, you'd be ok with that? If no, then that is not democracy and my original point stands. If yes, then your "right" was interfered with and your argument is contradictory.
"I do not see the distinction you are trying to make between 'calling the shots' and policy making."
Once again, tolerance of Christian views does not equate to Christians getting to control how the rest of us live. They have as much right to participate in the marketplace of ideas -- in which I'm including appealing to policymakers -- as anyone else. If their viewpoints don't carry the day, then that's it. Tolerance =/= control.
"So if Christians are able to get a law passed forbidden gay marriage, you'd be ok with that?"
OK with it, no. I'd work to get the law repealed. But Christians may certainly work to get such laws passed. If Christians who oppose same-sex marriage prevail in the marketplace of ideas and policymaking circles, then those of us who support same-sex marriage need to double our efforts to defeat their ideas. Again, the point is that tolerance =/= control. Quite simple really.
Your entire video suggests that Christians are stepping their bounds and are being controlling. You even used the limitation of marriage as an example of exercising such control. However, you are now saying it's legitimate if done through democratic means. So what Christian practices are you objecting to as falling under the "=/= control" part of your argument? Seems to me your argument has become moot.
"Your entire video suggests that Christians are stepping their bounds and are being controlling."
When they equate tolerance of their views with getting to control things for everyone else, they are overstepping their bounds. That's why I asked TheEdge what he meant by 'tolerance'.
"...you are now saying..."
Your feeble attempt to create a contradiction where there is none is, well, feeble. It's hard to believe that you actually don't understand what I've said.
"When they equate tolerance of their views with getting to control things for everyone else, they are overstepping their bounds."
As you agreed, tolerance includes free expression of ideas and shaping of public policy. Since shaping of public policy DOES "control things for everyone else" then control IS included in the concept of tolerance. The only control that would NOT be part of tolerance is undemocratic forced control, which is obviously not the case with Christians. Thus moot argument.
To put it another way. When Christians pass laws that restricts your rights then that is a form of control, and yet you have conceded that you would be tolerant of such scenarios.
So tolerance is not only tolerance of conceptual ideas but of democratic control. Control is inherent in the concept of tolerance in a democratic society.
"...control IS included in the concept of tolerance."
No, it isn't. I said before that it was hard to believe that you actually don't understand what I've said. I take that back. It's either that or you're merely being a contrarian. I'll go with the former since it's the charitable explanation.
I explained to you how it is and you have offered nothing in return except an ad hominem. If you are being tolerant of policy making then you are being tolerant of control. It's a basic principle of democracy.
You may believe you did, but you failed to make the case. I believe each of us has made himself clear. If you have nothing additional of substance to add, it would be best to leave the matter where it is. If you can't bring yourself to do that, I shall be compelled to assist you.
INTJ22, I think the point you're making is that if Christians are able to pass a policy by influencing the majority opinion, then it's legitimate "control" that is within the bounds of tolerance.
I think ProfMTH's point is that policy that is passed democratically is indeed within the bounds of tolerance, but control that is opposed to the majority will is not.
So he seems to actually agree with your point, but you aren't understanding him.
mavaddat, you are precisely correct, and I pointed that out in one of my messages, and then pointed out that since "control that is opposed to the majority will" is not an issue with Christians his video seems to make a moot point. If Christians were going around forcing control upon people then he'd have a point. And he seemed to have gotten upset when I pointed this distinction out, so he tells me to shut up and threatens to block me. Oh well.
"And he seemed to have gotten upset when I pointed this distinction out...."
Even this you fail to get correct. What upset me was your apparent need to keep repeating yourself in comment after comment. Now stop complaining, learn to pay attention to what someone other than yourself is saying -- in short, grow up already.
You've stated, probably much better than I, exactly what I have tried to explain concerning tolerance to evangelicals who often use that very same scapegoat. To me they are making a very different argument about the word tolerance when they feel that the mere act of two men holding hands is somehow forcing homosexuality on them, while somehow, a heterosexual couple's act of holding hands is not the same. go figure? LOL
Excellent video! one of my favorite sayings "Live!and let live" I like to say it like "Live!" that means me to the most positive I can be and for the others "live" which means my attitude of tolerance and humility with a pinch of mercy. For me who is barely a christian anymore(which might actually make me a christian) I think the test of my spirituality with gay civils rights is one of tolerance and acceptance/support. I hope I pass that test. imho
"Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. It's no different. It is the same thing. It is happening all over again. It is the Democratic Congress, the liberal-based media and the homosexuals who want to destroy the Christians. Wholesale abuse and discrimination and the worst bigotry directed toward any group in America today. More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history." --Pat Robertson
Carloz1 quoting Pat Robertson: "Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians."
With that statement Pat Robertson does vile dishonor to those who were murdered, tortured, and persecuted by the Nazi regime. But he is one of those Christians who will say absolutely anything, no matter how false or disgusting, to prop up his mythological view of the world. If there were a hell, he'd be a prime candidate to roast in it.
It is hard to believe that these guys really believe themselves. There is so much money flowing around and they are so ridiculous. I don't know which is worse, if they believe in what they say or if they are just ripping people off.
When I first started to read this I thought it was witty sarcasm on your part only to be horrified at the end to see it was an actual quote from Pat Robertson. Can you imagine if his bid for the presidency had been successful?
It does seem that a lot of Christians have a persecution complex. It is ironic when so many civil rights issues have had to, and continue to, fight with the religious right for basic freedoms. I feel sorry for Christians and all the discrimination that they have to go through in this Christian hating nation.
On a side note, I knew a guy who had the word intolerance tattooed across his belly in big letters. He thought it meant that he didn't take any shit from anyone.
I fucking hate christians who act like they're so oppressed in the US. "oh, the government oppresses my belief that homosexuality is wrong, blah blah blah" Give me a fucking break. American government is in a christian stranglehold. It's xianity that makes laws that are unfair to non-religious people and gays. If the US gov didn't pander so much to the deluded xians, gay people would have the rights they deserve. 80% of americans are xian, they have no reason to think they're oppressed.
Fundamentalist Christians have a hard time accessing dictionaries apparently.
Tolerance means, in this sense:
the act of allowing something
It does not place their dogma above criticism. It means we don't round them all up and execute them, which is probably what they would do with witches, homosexuals, women who have had abortions and adulterers if they had their way.
We have freedom of and from religion BECAUSE of Europe's religious wars during the Reformation. That and Anglicanism in England.
As you say, religious individuals can be as wilfully ignorant as they like. It is the wealthy, powerful religious ORGANISATIONS which must be terminated, because they have gained the power to dictate and indoctrinate this delusional, insane nonsense at societal level.
As soon as the churches are forced to give up their power and wealth (and it *will* happen in the future), personal religious beliefs will become completely insignificant; the remaining proponents will simply be ridiculed.
in the US "tolerance" towards gays is like freedom for immigrants, blacks, women, non-christains/jews.....you get the picture. Nice vid BTW.......sorry but never rely on your rights, only a gun. remember japanese americans 1942. keep a glock nine always.
Well, I'm not the shootin' type, Nooblock. Nor do I think having a gun handy would have kept the U.S. government from collecting up Japanese-Americans and relocating them during WWII.
In any case, thanks for the nice words about the video. :-)
Another straw man argument that the religious and social conservatives launch forth is the idea that tolerance=approval. Tolerance is approval only is as far as approving of the RIGHT to believe/act freely. It does NOT imply approval of those acts or beliefs. So I can believe that people are entitled to consider homosexuality an abomination, or that the war in Iraq is justified, but I don't have to share or approve of those beliefs. The fundies don't seem to get that concept.
"So I can believe that people are entitled to consider homosexuality an abomination, or that the war in Iraq is justified, but I don't have to share or approve of those beliefs."
Exactly.
This is why I want to get to the bottom of what the person to whose video I replied means by 'tolerance'. It seems to me he means much more than what the word actually means.
When you say 'classically liberal', are you sure about that? Because the closest approximation to 'classically liberal' you'll find these days is probably libertarianism. For which I'm all for, but modern liberals, while against the government controlling your body (although not as against as I'd like,) they're fine with government controlling your money and property. I noticed the big "Obama" logos on your home. Definitely NOT a 'classically liberal' candidate.
Classical and contemporary liberalism agree with respect to things like freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, personal autonomy vis-a-vis intimate personal choices such as whether one procreates and whom, if anyone, one marries. It was to those things that I referred in the video.
Okay, just clarifying. I was hoping to draw you over to the 'dark side' of libertarianism. (cackles evilly). Although if Obama would push a platform of drug decriminalization, and consensual crime decriminalization, he'd probably get my vote.
I'm not following you here, except as personal opinion. Do you not believe that Christians have the right to, "petition the Government for a redress of grievances?"
The purpose of which, although not required of the government, must be to have those grievances heard and acted upon. As the grievance against homosexuality has been in this nation and most nations for thousands of years.
Or are you claiming the US Constitution protects and provides, in some way, for homosexual marriage?
warterra 2 months ago
@warterra "Or are you claiming the US Constitution protects and provides, in some way, for homosexual marriage?"
The 14th amendment. Equal Protection clause.
KayBeeEee1983 1 month ago
@KayBeeEee1983 The 14th amendment was ratified at a time when homosexuality was illegal and continued to be illegal for over 100 years after. To me that's not very convincing that it requires states to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples.
I only asked it as a rhetorical question for a lawyer as civil marriage has always been governed by state law in the US. My point in posing it was that the federal constitution does not address marriage directly.
warterra 2 weeks ago
@warterra "The 14th amendment was ratified at a time when homosexuality was illegal and continued to be illegal for over 100 years after. To me that's not very convincing that it requires states to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples."
The Constitution supersedes any federal or state law, so any laws against homosexuality became unconstitutional as soon as the 14th amendment was passed. Unfortunately, few people cared, until recently.
KayBeeEee1983 2 weeks ago
@KayBeeEee1983 I assume you agree that the writers of the 14th amendment were unaware they were legalizing same sex marriage when the 14th amendment was drafted.
warterra 2 weeks ago
@warterra The only things the writers of Section 1 of the 14th amendment were thinking about were black citizenship and black civil rights, but does that mean it only applies to race? They were codifying the "all men are created equal" concept.
KayBeeEee1983 2 weeks ago
@KayBeeEee1983 As you apply the "all men are created equal" concept, but they, the writers of the 14th Amend., would have disagreed with you and me on same sex marriage.
I support same sex marriage, but believe it, like all laws, should be established by the consent of the governed and through representative democracy not through a re-imagining of the intent of the 14th amendment.
warterra 2 weeks ago
@warterra The intent of the 14th amendment was to ensure equality under the law. You're adding things that aren't there and that's dangerous. Chief Justice Taney did the same thing in the Dred Scott case. He declared that blacks could never be citizens because he didn't think the founders intended blacks to have citizenship. That's judicial activism and it's unethical.
KayBeeEee1983 2 weeks ago
@warterra Marriage hasn't always been governed by state law. The Defense of Marriage Act is a federal law.
KayBeeEee1983 2 weeks ago
@KayBeeEee1983 Yes, I was not referring to federal territories or the military.
warterra 2 weeks ago
@warterra "I only asked it as a rhetorical question for a lawyer as civil marriage has always been governed by state law in the US."
Yes, and the 14th amendment deals specifically with state laws. "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
KayBeeEee1983 2 weeks ago
@KayBeeEee1983 I am aware of the text of the amendment. Getting long text quotes reminds me of debating with Christians.
You must know that the constitutionality of state restrictions on marriage has been challenged before and without success for same sex marriage advocates.
warterra 2 weeks ago
@warterra "You must know that the constitutionality of state restrictions on marriage has been challenged before and without success for same sex marriage advocates."
That's judicial activism. Prohibiting same-sex marriage is a blatant violation of the 14th amendment.
KayBeeEee1983 2 weeks ago
@warterra "You must know that the constitutionality of state restrictions on marriage has been challenged before and without success for same sex marriage advocates."
And they've also had successes. See, e.g., the Proposition 8 case--just one example.
ProfMTH 1 week ago
@ProfMTH Yes, a very recent 2-1 success by the most reversed circuit court in the US. It will be interesting to see what the full Ninth says.
I believe some district courts have struck down state restrictions before but only to be reversed.
warterra 1 week ago
@warterra "The 14th amendment was ratified at a time when homosexuality was illegal and continued to be illegal for over 100 years after."
Even if true, so what?
"civil marriage has always been governed by state law in the US"
Not exclusively. See, e.g., Loving v. Virginia.
"My point in posing it was that the federal constitution does not address marriage directly."
So what? Marriage has always been regarded as a constitutionally protected fundamental right.
ProfMTH 1 week ago
@ProfMTH "...so what?"
Obviously the amendment was not drafted to address this issue and we might be better off in the long run changing current law than imagining new meanings to established law.
Loving dealt with the specific issue the 14th sought to redress. I will acknowledge that state law is not exclusive.
"...Marriage has always been regarded as a constitutionally protected fundamental right."
If so then there wouldn't be an issue to discuss.
warterra 1 week ago
@warterra "Obviously the amendment was not drafted to address this issue...."
Where does one find the list of the things that the 14th Amendment was "drafted to address"?
"Loving dealt with the specific issue the 14th sought to redress."
So the 14th Amendment applies only to race, is that correct?
"If so then there wouldn't be an issue to discuss."
Again, I refer you to Loving and the other marriage cases.
ProfMTH 1 week ago
@warterra "Do you not believe that Christians have the right to, 'petition the Government for a redress of grievances?'"
Every American has that right.
" the grievance against homosexuality has been in this nation and most nations for thousands of years"
I haven't a clue what you mean here.
"are you claiming the US Constitution protects and provides, in some way, for homosexual marriage?"
Yes, denying same-sex couples the legal right to marry is unconstitutional.
ProfMTH 1 month ago
@ProfMTH What I meant was homosexuality has been illegal in the US for hundreds of years and for thousands of years in nations on which some of American law is based.
I think I see what you did there and I agree in the PRECISE way you responded. On the broader issue though I don't think you can make a convincing argument that the US federal constitution requires States, that define marriage in a certain way, to issue licenses outside that definition.
warterra 2 weeks ago
@warterra "I don't think you can make a convincing argument that the US federal constitution requires States, that define marriage in a certain way, to issue licenses outside that definition."
You're wrong. You should see my other videos on same-sex marriage, including the video series I did on the Proposition 8 case. Your claim would, among other things, make state law superior to the Constitution, which it is not. That would render decisions such as Loving v. Virginia legally invalid.
ProfMTH 1 week ago
@ProfMTH Oh I've watched most of your videos, they're really good.
I did not propose state law as supreme to the federal. If the argument can be made, then state law becomes unenforceable.
Loving, of course, overturned supreme court precedent before it, but ignoring that, the concern at the time in the Loving decision as in the drafting of sec.1 of the 14th was racial.
warterra 1 week ago
@warterra "the concern at the time in the Loving decision as in the drafting of sec.1 of the 14th was racial"
So it's your view that the 14th Amendment only applies to matters of race, is that correct?
ProfMTH 1 week ago
@ProfMTH Not denying you, but wondering under which.
14th Amendment under equal protection of the law, right?
Schwazoom 1 week ago
@Schwazoom "Not denying you, but wondering under which.14th Amendment under equal protection of the law, right?"
I think denying same-sex couples the legal right to marry violates both equal protection and due process (the latter inasmuch as it precludes the exercise of a fundamental right without sufficient reason).
ProfMTH 1 week ago
@WakkoXtreme: Who gives you the right to arbitrarily discriminate against people?
mikefromwa 5 months ago
What the edge probably meant is that people argue with him, loudly, about his beliefs. Unfortunately, modern westerners often regard argument itself as intolerant and borderline violent. I often get "Free speech!" thrown at me when I argue with people, as though expressing my disagreement were a violation of their rights.
simplic1000 6 months ago
@simplic1000
I liked this video, but sort of feel that your "if you regard homosexuality as immoral, don't do it" line is a cop-out. A Christian presumably believes that homosexuality is a moral evil, so that your line may make as much sense to them internally as "if you don't like murder, don't do it."
In other words, I think the argument to make is "homosexuality is not immoral," rather than "if you don't like immorality, don't do it."
simplic1000 6 months ago
@simplic1000 As I understand it, a cop-out is an avoidance of commitment or responsibility. How exactly can 'live and let live' be the same as avoidance? Tolerance doesn't require you to advocate your preferences, let alone to sell them to the unappreciative.
The argument S/B 'don't do things you think are wrong, but don't make me to run my life by your values -- especially since I think you don't really believe all that much in the values you tout, except when they suit your momentary needs.'
skoockum 6 months ago
Tolerance precludes the toleration of intolerance.
I mean, Duh.
SSJ3Ulcer 6 months ago
What IS ironic the way some people use the word tolerance; existence would be much more pleasant if everyone was tolerant, to quote Voltaire: "What is tolerance? It is the consequence of humanity. We are all formed of frailty and error; let us pardon reciprocally each other's folly - that is the first law of nature." and Evelyn Beatrice Hall: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. "
Miners666 7 months ago
the guy at :30 looks just like christopher maloni
nailo1 9 months ago
@nailo1 That's because it is Christopher Meloni.
ProfMTH 9 months ago
@ProfMTH ahh, thanks
nailo1 9 months ago
@WakkoXtreme Who gives you the right to be such a crackpot?
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH hahahhaha!
skoockum 6 months ago
@ProfMTH That is because we live in democratic societies. Democracy does not care about our Christians beliefs. We teach what we will in our Churches, and teach this to our children. That is our right. However, democracy is indifferent to our beliefs. Should we destroy democracy and replace it with an Iranian style theocracy? Fine, as long as we get to destroy Baptists because their doctrines are clearly immoral.
allsaintsmonastery 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ProfMTH "Who gives you the right to be such a crackpot?"
LOL, I would have preferred you explain it to the guy, I have a feeling he sincerely doesn't get it.
saintpine 1 month ago
what's with the man-candy??? the guy in the yellow t-shirt??? can't really help yourself, can you?
jbooks888 1 year ago
@jbooks888 I can't help having a sense of humor, no. You should try it some time.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH Yeah, sure I get the humor thing, but eventually it leads to prancing around in some gay parade with a forty foot wig and your arse-cheeks hanging out the back.
jbooks888 1 year ago
@jbooks888 "Yeah, sure I get the humor thing, but eventually it leads to prancing around in some gay parade with a forty foot wig and your arse-cheeks hanging out the back."
Well, that's not something I've ever done. But if you find doing it amusing to do, well, whatever blows your skirt up, Alice.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Great job, ProfMTH. I agree completely. These ideas are what made me change my mind on gay marriage even before I questioned the bible.
Pilotwing64 1 year ago
@Pilotwing64 Thanks.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
I don't like the term tolerate used in this context. In fact that word has historically had a negative connotation. My personal practice is heterosexuality which I preach, but to demand it of you would be counterproductive. It is the government who puts these ignominious nonpolitical issues to the voters. They are distractions. My hope is not this system or world so here you may choose. Choice is the reason we have freewill, religiously speaking.
jimprjayp 2 years ago
@jimprjayp: "In fact that word historically had a negative connotation." Where's the proof? And don't quote the Bible either, I need REAL historical proof.
SixtiesFan90 2 years ago
speaking of tolerance, in ancient greece, they didn't have much problem with homosexuality. remember the sacred band of thebes? however, the bible simply says that homosexual act is punishable by death, by stoning. they don't do that anymore and that is why ted haggard is still alive. i know it is hypocritical but it really is.
alexyguillermoreyes 2 years ago
Actually, almost every culture has condemned homosexuality as an alternative for heterosexuality throughout history as a sexual perversion, much like bestiality, necrophilia and pedophilia. The Christian ethic towards homosexuality is rather the norm than the exception.
It is not Christians who are intolerant but "gay rights activists" who for some irrational reasons believe they are still not treated fairly and who like to force people politically to consider their deviance normal.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 2 years ago
How little you know about history. besides the egyptians, greeks and romans, the hawaiians and other polynesian cultures had a place for it. others, esp in asia, do not condemn nor endorse. you need to do some more studying before you comment...
divinehumanism 2 years ago
Name any culture in history where a monogamous sexual and love relationship between either two men or two women has a status equal to a monogamous sexual and love relationship between a man and a woman, especially when bound by marriage. Certainly, phenomena like pedastry don't prove that homosexuality isn't either a cultural of genetic deviance.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 2 years ago
Don't be foolish. Pederasty, in the classical meaning of the word, was a respected social construct, as it was among the ancient Hawaiians. There is a well known story of the Chief of the island of Kauai asking Capt Cook how much would be the "dowry" for his first mate.
Others have obviously frowned upon sexuality between men. But the point is, there has never been a world-wide "consensus" on the matter and certainly not "every culture". Regardless, gay is good!
divinehumanism 2 years ago
Pedastry may have been a respected social construct, but it was not a homosexual equivalent to marriage. It was more of a cultural phenomenon based on the philosophical principle that the bond between a young boy and his male mentor is even stronger than the bond between a man and a woman. I consider it "culturally accepted man-boy pedophilia" rather than anything similar to the homosexual relationships that are common today.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 2 years ago
We need to be more tolerant of the people who say that HETEROsexual marriage should be outlawed.
It's ironic that heterosexuals want their marriages to be tolerated, but sometimes react intolerantly toward those who say that heterosexuality is immoral.
tifforo1 2 years ago
Tolerance = Approval and consequent suppression of what I believe to be right. Tolerance thus leads to aggressive encroachment on the structure of my self & my belief system, redefining me in the process of apathy or as you call it tolerance
Armando7654 2 years ago
"Tolerance = approval"
No, it doesn't.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Tolerance is NOT approval. It's recognizing that people have a right to live their lives as equals, especially when it doesn't affect your own life. Gay rights don't impact you, not in the schools, not in your religious beliefs.
You can still teach your kids that you don't believe in it, just like you might with other things schools teach (evolution, contraception, etc.)
Churches should retain their right to preach as they wish. But, religious beliefs should NOT impact civil rights.
divinehumanism 2 years ago
Exactly right.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
When "gay rights" (a silly name since homosexuals already have equal rights) propaganda is pushed in schools and impressionable young heterosexuals become confused about their sexuality, this is a major concern. When women are encouraged to become lesbians because feminist propaganda taught them all men are evil, this is a major concern. Liberal "multi-cultural" propaganda is extremely aggressive and corrosive and our children will inevitably become its victims once they're off to school.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 2 years ago
the only thing silly, and the only major concern, is someone who doesn't understand equal rights... "breeders" like you. gays do not have equal rights-- just try to prove otherwise!
school programs help kids clarify and come to grips with their sexuality. my hetero cousin experimented w/guys when he was a teen, but knows that it was normal. he got the info he needed!
this neo-fascist agenda of exclusion that you endorse is a major threat to our nation.
divinehumanism 2 years ago
In what way do you not have equal rights? In many Western countries, homosexuals and lesbians can now marry and/or obtain a status of official cohabitation, which has some of the same legal benefits of marriage. What more do you need, really?
I understand that teenagers can be curious, but there's no need to start indoctrinating kids with "gay" propaganda in kindergarten or high school (which does occur!). Oh, and I don't endorce exclusion of anyone.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 2 years ago
There is no indoctrination! Schools teach many things that parents may not agree with. Evolution, global warming and contraception are three that come to mind. Parents simply teach their kids what they believe... LIKE ANY PARENT SHOULD. This is a false fear.
We fight for those parts of the world where marriage is not available, and where gays are still persecuted in regards to jobs, health care, and basic human rights.
divinehumanism 2 years ago
Maybe you should go live in those countries where gays are still persecuted in regards to jobs, health care, and basic human rights and stand on the barricades there, rather than annoying Joe Public with your obscene "gay pride parades" and whining about marriage. Marriage is an ancient sacred (in all religions) institution created to legally bond a man and a woman as to provide a safe haven for future offspring. It makes no sense for 2 men or 2 women to marry. That's not what it's meant for.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 2 years ago
maybe you should just not worry about it and get out of the way. civil marriage is clearly different from religious marriage. it makes complete sense for same-sex couples to marry.
divinehumanism 2 years ago
And most certainly there's indoctrination with all sorts of liberal "multicultural" agendas. I encourage you to read "The Diversity Myth" by David Sacks and Peter Thiel (CEO of PayPal) that details on how Stanford became the target of an ultra-left agenda and graduately more and more propaganda for causes like "black awareness", "Latino awareness", "gay rights" or "diversity" was shoved down students' throats, with students being treated in an almost totalitarian fashion.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 2 years ago
@OutOfTheBoxThinker: Well, well another old enemy of mine....... At least if this were even true, observance of gay rights would be a step forward for Stanford.............but given their pro-racist and pro-eugenics past, I seriously doubt it.
Seriously pal, how long you going to keep shilling for the globalists? People are waking up to your masters' sick agendas.
SixtiesFan90 2 years ago
What started at Stanford, would soon to a lesser degree by applied to other major university and eventually the entire American public became exposed to a multitude of "multiculturalist" based reports, viewpoints and strategies through media and "education". And graduately, dissent became less and less socially acceptable as the guardians of "political correctness" have replaced the old Spanish inquisition to label all as heretics who disagree with their foolishness and thereby ostrasize them.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 2 years ago
Now, like many neo-coms, I'm sure it pains you to use the word gay. However, trying to re-define us as "homosexuals" is a losing battle... most people prefer the popular term to the clinical. And it makes for amusing stories... like the one "christian" website that had a program that automatically changed gay to homosexual.... great, except there was an article in which the subject's last name was gay... "Mr. Homosexual won the race with seconds to spare"...
divinehumanism 2 years ago
What's a neo-com? I guess you mean a NEO-CON, but I can tell you I'm no such thing. My spiritual views are a mixture of Oriental and European paganism, my economical views are a mixture of libertarian and collectivist principles, I object to "democracy" in favor of techocracy and my moral views are a mixture of traditionalist and post-modern.
Nevertheless, to me the word "gay" still means "joyful" and I object this lovely word is hijacked by the "gay rights" movement to represent homosexuality.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 2 years ago
So do I. Those commercials are ridiculous. Every teacher at school spouting about the need to be tolerant and not use the word "gay" because it's derogatory. Please! There are derogatory terms for homosexuals but "gay" is not one of them. Where did this standardized text of tolerance come from? In another era people used the term "flower-child" one groups attitude was negative toward it one group embraced it. SHOW yourself to be a positive person and pay attention to yourself!
jimprjayp 2 years ago
and now you have done the same silly thing, insisting on calling us "homosexuals and lesbians". guess what.... all lesbians are homosexual, but not all homosexuals are lesbians! if you insist on continuing this silly game at least get it right!
divinehumanism 2 years ago
Like the word "socialist" is used as an equivalent for "liberal", "communist" and "social democrat" or like the word "fascism" is used as an equivalent for "tyranny" or "an Italian ideology conceived by Mussolini", so is "homosexuality" used as an equivalent of "a relationship between two men" or "a relationship between two people of the same sex". The first definition (which I use when I distinguish between male homosexuals and lesbians) arose because the word "homo" is mostly used for men.
OutOfTheBoxThinker 2 years ago
maybe in Luxermbourg, but not here. the fact that you object to it being "hijacked" just points out your bigotry against gay folk. a history lesson for you... gay folk didn't start out calling themselves gay... it was their detractors. WE reclaimed it and made it into something good!
divinehumanism 2 years ago
@divinehumanism: "this neo-fascist agenda of exclusion that you endorse is a major threat to our nation." And this liar OutOfTheBoxThinker is working for them.
SixtiesFan90 2 years ago
@SixtiesFan90: and he's quite the buffoon, too!
divinehumanism 2 years ago
prof, yet another brilliant video, but I am afraid it will fall on deaf ears.
shade421 3 years ago
Thanks. Not all ears are deaf, though, Shade. I'm confident of that. :-)
ProfMTH 3 years ago
I should learn to be less of a "doubting thomas" I know these videos that you make are not JUST for the non-believer community, but the faithful who have never really sat and questioned their belief as well. I shall try to be less pessimistic in the future. You have proven to me that even a non believer needs to have hope and patience.
thanks again for the videos!!!
shade421 3 years ago
i agree with you on the tax exemption. but at the same time, liberals want things like abortions socially funded..so how do you feel about that? do you support taxpayer-funding for that? because that would make you a hypocrite..or a liberal (the terms are synonymous)
VoiceOfModeration 3 years ago
I am hetero and I am damned if I allow any Christian organization dictate how I am going to live. The same goes for any other organization. I believe that "Religious Organizations" should pay taxes just like everyone else does. I also believe that all individuals have the right to form committed, loving relationships.
musicandlaughter 3 years ago
Awesome video, thanks for clearing that up!
PerianArdocyl 3 years ago
You're welcome. Glad you liked it.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
This is a great video and I agree 100%
:]
Now, if only everyone was like this.. our country would be a better place.
PhoenixFirewolf 3 years ago
The old "separate but equal" argument does not allow both sides equal say in what "equal" means.
Lohitaksha 3 years ago
Prof
In case you missed it, Jon Stewart had Mike Huckabee on his show last night, 12/9/08. Huckabee was there to promote his book but Stewart used the majority of the interview defending gay marriage. If you havent seen it already I thought you might be interested in taking a look.
dunwrkn4 3 years ago
Thanks, Dun. The one night I miss "The Daily Show" and there's a discussion that pertains to me. ;-) I'll look for it online.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
"Tolerance is not a license to control or oppress."
True. And it follows that all laws are an imposition of one group's commonly held belief on another. That's the nature of laws.
adorima 3 years ago
I think also the point should be made that not all Christians agree in their perspective on homosexuality. This varies according to the degree to which the person believes the Bible is literal or figurative, along with consideration of the cultural context in which the Bible was written and the implications that would have on what was written down, along with the consideration that no matter the belief that God inspired it, humans physically did the writing- the start of potential for abuse.
peachykeensteve 3 years ago
I think this falls along the same lines when it comes to respecting their beliefs. I respect their right to have the beliefs that they have, but I do not have to respect the beliefs themselves. This is typically lost on the average christian.
I really enjoy your videos. Keep them coming.
tribidemp 3 years ago
Thanks, Tribidemp.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
The law needs to be respected. But the law also needs to be interpreted.
Rights need to be interpreted.
Who's rights and freedoms should trump who's is always the question.
The law should be the moral authority, not the church, and there should not be any parallel legal institutions. But recieving tax money should not come with strings attatched, it shouldn't happen period.
St37One 3 years ago
What this issue really boils down to the integrity and autonomy of a religious institution. They are not trying to control how other people live thier lives, but they do seek the power to decide who merits their official seal of approval. The only tangible effect of this is on status, honor, and prestige. This does not impinge on rights, it is merely an officially expressed and recognized opinion about what constitutes a valid marriage. No one has the right to universal approval.
St37One 3 years ago
Legal marriage is not the property of any religion. If it was, then 'which' religion gets to call the shots? A lot of churches don't want people to marry non members of their church. Atheists can get legal marriage 'without' any religious 'Seal of Approval'. Churches have nothing to do with Legal marriage. The are free to refuse weddings to whoever they want, no matter who is allowed to 'legally' marry.
Darkbison7 3 years ago
Exactly right, Darkbison.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
"They are free to refuse weddings to whoever they want" - That may have been true at one time Darkbison, but laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, do in fact take away the freedom of religious institutions to decide what constitutes a legitimate marriage. Right?
The bulk of this controversy is over the definition of the word "marriage" as opposed to "civil union". As a word that carries heavy associations, official recognition is what it boils down to.
St37One 3 years ago
"...laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, do in fact take away the freedom of religious institutions to decide what constitutes a legitimate marriage. Right?"
Wrong.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Tolerance of beliefs and opinions is important, but you are REALLY talking about the tolerance of actions. Marriage is an action, adoption is an action, and so is discrimination. The beliefs or opinions invovled are irrelevant to begin with. But you would not know that from your video!
Bugs and Elmer can agree to disagree on philosophical point, or about what time of year it is, but this has NO bearing on whether or not Elmer should be allowed to shoot Bugs.
St37One 3 years ago
Great video! But, it is really not as simple as you make it sound.
Your use of the word "rights" is misleading and circular.
There are more or less speculative ideas about the negative effects on society that persuade us to limit our tolerance.
What about the "rights" of polygamists, or adults who love children and vice versa. We mustn't exclude or marginalize asexuals, who should also be able to mary, but still can't.
St37One 3 years ago
What about the rights of vegans. Shouldnt we redefine "chicken" to include tofu or "beef" to include beans, or just drop the soy from "soy milk". They are all healthy for you and contain protein. You can't discriminate and say that one is better than the other. That way vegans will be able to blend in with the rest of us without being reminded that they are different somehow, it wouldnt be such a big change.
All holidays should be called "holiday that might just belong to your ethnic group."
St37One 3 years ago
Awesome vid, yet again.
CrumblyButGood 3 years ago
Thanks very much.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
We come to greater conclusions of others with greater examples and religion because of it's life lessons has become a prominent factor in daily life, is a hefty one that weighs deeply on us when we speak of it.
Morally objectifying a way of life is to exercise your own. But to claim self righteousness, to hark on about how only one true way of living can be correct - well that's wrong. Truly, deeply wrong. Because that's not even being subjective.
Bibbly53 3 years ago
When someone preaches about something and tells you that you either accept the answers you are given or you live a broken life, is wrong.
If someone says "My way should be the only way." that makes them a fool.
One person can make a statement and accomplish a lot. But how are these accomplishments measured? Oh so not only am I doing it wrong, but I've accomplished nothing because without the love of your god I am a wayward nobody, a fool and a wretch? Is that right?
Bibbly53 3 years ago
Many people...it seems mostly religious people...misunderstand the meaning of "tolerance". Thanks for setting the record straight.
Rationalific 3 years ago
Quite right, Rationalific. Thank *you* for taking the time to comment.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
No problem! It's a great video. Keep up the good work!
Rationalific 3 years ago
People need to be able to express their opinions freely.
But governments should not be based around any kind of dogma.
Religions or belief systems should always be consulted from the outside, but should not be the basis for our laws that are passed.
In my opinion, if two people love each other enough, regardless of who they are, then by all means they should marry if they want to.
I have not heard of a 'gay divorce' before, have you?
universalJok3r 3 years ago
I've certainly heard of civil unions and domestic partnerships being dissolved, which is like divorce. I'm not sure if any same-sex couples who married in Massachusetts have divorced yet. It's bound to happen at some point though. Too soon for California, I suppose.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Im sure if Gay people were allowed to marry their divorce rate would be much lower than that of mainstream society.
Its not really fair that they have to travel all the way to places like Canada for the ceremony and when they get back, it isn't even legally recognised.
I don't know why they keep toteing the "sanctity of marriage" line, the divorce rate is at least 50% these days.
Marriage is cheap nowadays, yet they would still like us to think of it as a sacred right...
Hmmm...
universalJok3r 3 years ago
The same idiocy is applied same sex couples and kids.
Considering the work they have to go through just to have a kid (artificial insemination, adoption, surrogate), it's a tad ridiculous that their parenting comes into question so much.
How about the trailer trash that got knocked up AGAIN? The government seems to have no problem with her, but if a gay couple is willing to go through years of trials and discrimination for a child... naw, they're just doing it so they have a kid to abuse! -_-
CrumblyButGood 3 years ago
I always love the "If two gay's raise a kid, they'll end up messed up from it" arguement:
The irony is, the reason the kids end up messed up is they spend their entire lives being picked on by the kids of the conservative christian families for having two mums/dads...
Gods will, my arse...
universalJok3r 3 years ago
Great video!
xenophile1956 3 years ago
Thanks very much.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
This video is quite hypocritical. Basically, it says that Christians can believe whatever they want as long as they don't try to shape public policy or influence their society. Meanwhile, it's ok for others to come along and exercise their own ideologies and redefine marriage, kill babies, teach evolution to our kids, yada yada yada. Is that your definition of a democracy? Where you guys call the shots and Christians are to be confined to their living rooms? What nonsense.
INTJ22 3 years ago
"This video is quite hypocritical. Basically, it says that Christians can believe whatever they want as long as they don't try to shape public policy or influence their society."
It doesn't say that at all, INTJ22. What it *does* say is that tolerance of Christian viewpoints doesn't give Christians the right to call the shots for everyone else. Quite different. As I said very clearly in the video, Christians may preach their beliefs to whoever is willing to listen, including policymakers.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
I do not see the distinction you are trying to make between "calling the shots" and policy making. You said:
"i will not countenance interference with the exercise of my rights"
What do you think policy making does? It changes people's rights. So if Christians are able to get a law passed forbidden gay marriage, you'd be ok with that? If no, then that is not democracy and my original point stands. If yes, then your "right" was interfered with and your argument is contradictory.
INTJ22 3 years ago
"I do not see the distinction you are trying to make between 'calling the shots' and policy making."
Once again, tolerance of Christian views does not equate to Christians getting to control how the rest of us live. They have as much right to participate in the marketplace of ideas -- in which I'm including appealing to policymakers -- as anyone else. If their viewpoints don't carry the day, then that's it. Tolerance =/= control.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
"So if Christians are able to get a law passed forbidden gay marriage, you'd be ok with that?"
OK with it, no. I'd work to get the law repealed. But Christians may certainly work to get such laws passed. If Christians who oppose same-sex marriage prevail in the marketplace of ideas and policymaking circles, then those of us who support same-sex marriage need to double our efforts to defeat their ideas. Again, the point is that tolerance =/= control. Quite simple really.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Your entire video suggests that Christians are stepping their bounds and are being controlling. You even used the limitation of marriage as an example of exercising such control. However, you are now saying it's legitimate if done through democratic means. So what Christian practices are you objecting to as falling under the "=/= control" part of your argument? Seems to me your argument has become moot.
INTJ22 3 years ago
"Your entire video suggests that Christians are stepping their bounds and are being controlling."
When they equate tolerance of their views with getting to control things for everyone else, they are overstepping their bounds. That's why I asked TheEdge what he meant by 'tolerance'.
"...you are now saying..."
Your feeble attempt to create a contradiction where there is none is, well, feeble. It's hard to believe that you actually don't understand what I've said.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
"When they equate tolerance of their views with getting to control things for everyone else, they are overstepping their bounds."
As you agreed, tolerance includes free expression of ideas and shaping of public policy. Since shaping of public policy DOES "control things for everyone else" then control IS included in the concept of tolerance. The only control that would NOT be part of tolerance is undemocratic forced control, which is obviously not the case with Christians. Thus moot argument.
INTJ22 3 years ago
To put it another way. When Christians pass laws that restricts your rights then that is a form of control, and yet you have conceded that you would be tolerant of such scenarios.
So tolerance is not only tolerance of conceptual ideas but of democratic control. Control is inherent in the concept of tolerance in a democratic society.
INTJ22 3 years ago
"...control IS included in the concept of tolerance."
No, it isn't. I said before that it was hard to believe that you actually don't understand what I've said. I take that back. It's either that or you're merely being a contrarian. I'll go with the former since it's the charitable explanation.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
"No, it isn't"
I explained to you how it is and you have offered nothing in return except an ad hominem. If you are being tolerant of policy making then you are being tolerant of control. It's a basic principle of democracy.
INTJ22 3 years ago
"I explained to you how it is..."
You may believe you did, but you failed to make the case. I believe each of us has made himself clear. If you have nothing additional of substance to add, it would be best to leave the matter where it is. If you can't bring yourself to do that, I shall be compelled to assist you.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
INTJ22, I think the point you're making is that if Christians are able to pass a policy by influencing the majority opinion, then it's legitimate "control" that is within the bounds of tolerance.
I think ProfMTH's point is that policy that is passed democratically is indeed within the bounds of tolerance, but control that is opposed to the majority will is not.
So he seems to actually agree with your point, but you aren't understanding him.
I think that is the gist of the confusion.
mavaddat 3 years ago
mavaddat, you are precisely correct, and I pointed that out in one of my messages, and then pointed out that since "control that is opposed to the majority will" is not an issue with Christians his video seems to make a moot point. If Christians were going around forcing control upon people then he'd have a point. And he seemed to have gotten upset when I pointed this distinction out, so he tells me to shut up and threatens to block me. Oh well.
INTJ22 3 years ago
"And he seemed to have gotten upset when I pointed this distinction out...."
Even this you fail to get correct. What upset me was your apparent need to keep repeating yourself in comment after comment. Now stop complaining, learn to pay attention to what someone other than yourself is saying -- in short, grow up already.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
You've stated, probably much better than I, exactly what I have tried to explain concerning tolerance to evangelicals who often use that very same scapegoat. To me they are making a very different argument about the word tolerance when they feel that the mere act of two men holding hands is somehow forcing homosexuality on them, while somehow, a heterosexual couple's act of holding hands is not the same. go figure? LOL
xephyr1000 3 years ago
The inability -- or refusal -- of some Christians to see more than their preferred vision of things is often astonishing.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Excellent video! one of my favorite sayings "Live!and let live" I like to say it like "Live!" that means me to the most positive I can be and for the others "live" which means my attitude of tolerance and humility with a pinch of mercy. For me who is barely a christian anymore(which might actually make me a christian) I think the test of my spirituality with gay civils rights is one of tolerance and acceptance/support. I hope I pass that test. imho
Aslanspal 3 years ago
"Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. It's no different. It is the same thing. It is happening all over again. It is the Democratic Congress, the liberal-based media and the homosexuals who want to destroy the Christians. Wholesale abuse and discrimination and the worst bigotry directed toward any group in America today. More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history." --Pat Robertson
carloz1 3 years ago
Carloz1 quoting Pat Robertson: "Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians."
With that statement Pat Robertson does vile dishonor to those who were murdered, tortured, and persecuted by the Nazi regime. But he is one of those Christians who will say absolutely anything, no matter how false or disgusting, to prop up his mythological view of the world. If there were a hell, he'd be a prime candidate to roast in it.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
It is hard to believe that these guys really believe themselves. There is so much money flowing around and they are so ridiculous. I don't know which is worse, if they believe in what they say or if they are just ripping people off.
carloz1 3 years ago
carloz1
When I first started to read this I thought it was witty sarcasm on your part only to be horrified at the end to see it was an actual quote from Pat Robertson. Can you imagine if his bid for the presidency had been successful?
dunwrkn4 3 years ago
It does seem that a lot of Christians have a persecution complex. It is ironic when so many civil rights issues have had to, and continue to, fight with the religious right for basic freedoms. I feel sorry for Christians and all the discrimination that they have to go through in this Christian hating nation.
On a side note, I knew a guy who had the word intolerance tattooed across his belly in big letters. He thought it meant that he didn't take any shit from anyone.
carloz1 3 years ago
I fucking hate christians who act like they're so oppressed in the US. "oh, the government oppresses my belief that homosexuality is wrong, blah blah blah" Give me a fucking break. American government is in a christian stranglehold. It's xianity that makes laws that are unfair to non-religious people and gays. If the US gov didn't pander so much to the deluded xians, gay people would have the rights they deserve. 80% of americans are xian, they have no reason to think they're oppressed.
atheismislogic65 3 years ago
"They have no reason to think they're oppressed."
Exactly right.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Fundamentalist Christians have a hard time accessing dictionaries apparently.
Tolerance means, in this sense:
the act of allowing something
It does not place their dogma above criticism. It means we don't round them all up and execute them, which is probably what they would do with witches, homosexuals, women who have had abortions and adulterers if they had their way.
We have freedom of and from religion BECAUSE of Europe's religious wars during the Reformation. That and Anglicanism in England.
CadicusTheDamned 3 years ago
"Tolerance means, in this sense:
the act of allowing something
It does not place their dogma above criticism."
Quite right.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
A-fricking-men.
ashweirdo 3 years ago
lol Thanks, Ashweirdo.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Simple and to the point, nice job.
elvis32z 3 years ago
Thanks, Elvis.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
gawds, where did you get the crappy music ;-)
AgiHammerthief 3 years ago
As you say, religious individuals can be as wilfully ignorant as they like. It is the wealthy, powerful religious ORGANISATIONS which must be terminated, because they have gained the power to dictate and indoctrinate this delusional, insane nonsense at societal level.
As soon as the churches are forced to give up their power and wealth (and it *will* happen in the future), personal religious beliefs will become completely insignificant; the remaining proponents will simply be ridiculed.
ByeCruelWorld 3 years ago
good job promth, and congrats on the marriage
gokuhawks14 3 years ago
Thanks, Gokuhawks14. No marriage yet though. It's still not legal in my state.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
I'm not gay but I support your message.
Drazha 3 years ago
Thanks, Drazha.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
"If someone believes that marrying someone of the same sex is sinful, then he or she should not enter into such a marriage."
Word.
kylesmith425 3 years ago
Exactly. ;-)
ProfMTH 3 years ago
You can't really tolerate intolerance can you?
Oh ProMTH you certainly do travel. You seem to have pictures of yourself all over the place.
Any plans on getting married?
BayerLexan 3 years ago
"You can't really tolerate intolerance can you?"
Sure. That doesn't mean I agree with it or that I'm compelled to refrain from showing the intolerant that they're wrong.
"Oh ProMTH you certainly do travel. You seem to have pictures of yourself all over the place."
In this video, it's just me on a beach in the Hamptons out on Long Island.
"Any plans on getting married?"
When it's legal here.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
in the US "tolerance" towards gays is like freedom for immigrants, blacks, women, non-christains/jews.....you get the picture. Nice vid BTW.......sorry but never rely on your rights, only a gun. remember japanese americans 1942. keep a glock nine always.
nooblook 3 years ago
Well, I'm not the shootin' type, Nooblock. Nor do I think having a gun handy would have kept the U.S. government from collecting up Japanese-Americans and relocating them during WWII.
In any case, thanks for the nice words about the video. :-)
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Another straw man argument that the religious and social conservatives launch forth is the idea that tolerance=approval. Tolerance is approval only is as far as approving of the RIGHT to believe/act freely. It does NOT imply approval of those acts or beliefs. So I can believe that people are entitled to consider homosexuality an abomination, or that the war in Iraq is justified, but I don't have to share or approve of those beliefs. The fundies don't seem to get that concept.
thatgaybloke 3 years ago
"So I can believe that people are entitled to consider homosexuality an abomination, or that the war in Iraq is justified, but I don't have to share or approve of those beliefs."
Exactly.
This is why I want to get to the bottom of what the person to whose video I replied means by 'tolerance'. It seems to me he means much more than what the word actually means.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Yeah, that's exactly what I think !
Good job !
solidrock94 3 years ago
Thanks, Solidrock. :-)
ProfMTH 3 years ago
When you say 'classically liberal', are you sure about that? Because the closest approximation to 'classically liberal' you'll find these days is probably libertarianism. For which I'm all for, but modern liberals, while against the government controlling your body (although not as against as I'd like,) they're fine with government controlling your money and property. I noticed the big "Obama" logos on your home. Definitely NOT a 'classically liberal' candidate.
lordshell 3 years ago
Classical and contemporary liberalism agree with respect to things like freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, personal autonomy vis-a-vis intimate personal choices such as whether one procreates and whom, if anyone, one marries. It was to those things that I referred in the video.
Thanks for your comment, Lordshell.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Okay, just clarifying. I was hoping to draw you over to the 'dark side' of libertarianism. (cackles evilly). Although if Obama would push a platform of drug decriminalization, and consensual crime decriminalization, he'd probably get my vote.
lordshell 3 years ago
You're not the first libertarian to seek my soul, Lordshell. Nor, I suspect, will you be the last. ;-)
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Be thankful I'm not one of the Ron Paul, tinfoil-hat-wearing types. (rolls eyes)
lordshell 3 years ago
lol
<