This is some very sad reasoning on the part of Mr Ted. This of course only works with a redefinition of the word marriage. Furthermore, nationwide ssm can only be achieved with the help of activist judges. But the GLBT crowd will eventually achieve all this and more I suspect. Truly in the end they have gained nothing because they must answer to and stand before the Creator. Absolutes do exist. It is appointed for man once to day and then the judgment. Hebrews 11:28
You only worry about the "gays" because you're too lazy to actually do any real "God's work" like help those 900 million people who starved last year. That number isn't made up, by the way.
a man can marry another man is ok now a muslim marrying 5 wife is a crime ??? what is next a man marrying a dog may god forgive this hypocrites lol,,civilisation at its best the truth color of the system is coming out when god wanna expose something he does in a way that knock the hell out your conscious
@chokobe111 Sorry to prove you stupid but...there is a difference between monogamous two person marriage which includes everyone and polygamy which does not include everyone. There is a difference in depriving one person of one spouse and one person of multiple spouses. There's a difference between marrying a human being of conscience and consent and marrying an inanimate object with no consent or human rights. Polygamy & Bestiality have nothing to do with 2 humans.
Marriage is a fundamental right... but it is not a right to marry anyone you want. The ban on interracial marriage is not the same as the ban on gay marriage. Banning this man&woman from marrying but that that man&woman is inequality. Yet we still do it with bigamy and age requirements... All man and woman have the same exact right to marry under the law (the interracial ban was the only law that denied that right).
@Sk8er408 1. you're a bigot 2. who are you to say two people can't get married because why you're not comfortable with it? every other advanced nation has made it legal or it is in the legislation process, but don't worry America will be last on human rights like women's rights, african american rights , and finally gay rights.
1. so are you... but you can't admit that can you?
2. It's not a matter of comfortable. Or i would outlaw all PDA's... gay or not. Every other advanced nation??? Here in America we set the trends not follow them.
Be with whoever you want... don't ask me to accept it. You have the same exact right as everyone else to marry.
@Sk8er408 1. that's like a racist calling someone racist lol 2. I respect your right to hate me as a person for who I am but you don't have a right to impose your version of ''morality'' on me via the government.
1. you did the same thing buddy. pot calling kettle black... i just called you on it. You are late to the party. But you are the biggest bigot.
2. See, i told you... why do you assume that i hate you? That is you bigotry shining though. I don't hate you or anyone for that matter gay or straight. Marriage does not impose morality... not sure why you would think that. I guess ignorance is bliss.
"what society has said .. for thousands of years" Not at all. Lakota chief Crazy Horse had one or two male spouse(s) and many other Native American nations also had same-sex marriages. Ethnographers have documented these and more: Omahas, Zapotecs, Mohaves, Crow, Hidatsa, Ojibwa, Winnebago, Yuma and Timucua. Other cultures too: In 17th century Fukian Province China, same-sex marriages between gay men seem to have been common. And in West Africa, "woman marriage[s]" practiced by many nations.
@californiaconor78 Why would I go back to the camps where my ancestors were tortured and butchered? Are you a Nazi of some sort? If you believe that people are created equal, at least read my post - notice I"m QUOTING what CHRIS SAID and REFUTING IT... it seems like you're all for equal rights and marriage equality, but just can't read?
I hope it's this and not that you're actually wishing more holocost on someone who's immediate family was butchered in the camps you want me to go back.
Chris asks him to actually define judicial activism; he dances.
When asked to justify his position that Roe V Wade ought to be handed over to the states in light of arguing that this matter should not be handed over to the states he asks Chris "Do you want your rights to be handed over to the states?"
@Ladiesman1447 The best recipe for becoming unintelligent is assuming that possessing a certain set of beliefs is what defines intelligence, rather than arriving at one's beliefs by proper rational means.
Olsen's logic is incompetent. if you want to hear a capable discussion of this issue, listen to/read Hadley Arkes on this subject.
@Aphoresis The same could be said about you. Courts have a duty to uphold constitutional rights whether you or Everyone except one person likes it or not. Rights are inherent and not Given by courts. Courts only protect them from laws that would infringe upon those rights that already exist.
@eugenerichard The ability to asses the competence of someone's logic depends upon the capacity to actually follow a line of argument, a capacity that you apparently lack. Before you attempt to refute the arguments I have made below, make a better attempt at comprehending them first.
Well I suppose since Marriage isn't mentioned at ALL in the constitution, I guess you don't really have the right to marriage at all. Is this correct in your view? The supreme court since 1967 has included marriage in our right to "Liberty, Privacy, Association and Spirituality". Why would you deprive certain people of this right? Seems like something that the Supreme Court was made to protect against. Don't you?
Wow. Chris totally got slapped down by Olson. I'll give him credit for being cordial, though, and letting Olson say his piece. He at least allowed it to be a two way conversation, unlike a certain other Fox News opinion anchor.
@nordy2010 Uhh, no he didn't. How does Olsen ask Chris "What about he right to interracial marriage" in response to Chris reading him his own quote? What does that have to do rectifying this position he now holds with what he has said in the past. Telling us what the Supreme Court has said doesn't help us either. He thinks that that the Court isn't supposed to be finding new rights but he is cites substantive due process ?
"society has said marriage is man/woman for thousands of years?" Not at all: Lakota chief Crazy Horse had one or two male spouse(s) and many other Native American nations also had same-sex marriages. Ethnographers documented these. Some examples: Omahas, Zapotecs, Mohaves, Crow, Winnebago, Yuma Timucua, .... Other cultures too. In 17th century Fukian Province China, same-sex marriages between gay men seem to have been common. And in West Africa, "woman marriage[s]"-a practice by many tribes.
LOL Olsen! "Where's the right to interracial marriage, Chris?" he says in a way which made me laugh. Wallace should have seen that coming if he asks "where is the right to same-sex marriage in the Constitution?".
It's quite obvious that the US Constitution must be interpreted broadly because it's fairly short. Equal Protection under the law & Due Process of law results in the right to same-sex marriage; marriage equality.
Gotta love how the Fox robot uses classic Foxian nonsense. Typical Fox talking points are wrapped up in a pretty bow to sound reasonable for a second or two - just enough time to confuse your typical short attention span viewer or person who is simply channel surfing and not paying close enough attention. Olson of course knocked every one out of the park.
Ted Olson is awesomeness personified! I would not have been able to keep my cool with that a hole from Fox news talking smack the way he was! I just wanted to smack that jerk from Fox news!
I've never heard anyone put it quite the way he did. I'll add his position to my arsenal for the next time I get in an argument with a homophobe. Kudos, Ted Olson.
Anybody can believe what they want. Indeed no law can prevent that. Christians can believe that Jews should be shipped off to gas chambers, but they do not have the right to carry out their beliefs. They may not believe that the love between 2 men or 2 women is as sacred as the love between a man and a woman, but they do not have the right to prevent them from marrying.
The love between 2 men or 2 women is as sacred as the love between a man and a woman. All human love is sacred.
Gay marriage may not reach the SC this time because of the standing issue, but we'll see in the long run who is right and who is wrong. Debating with people like you is just plain silly. Later dude. I'm so bad at resisting the urge to reply because this is too funny, but I'll harder this time.
Wait I get your confusion now. Maybe you're interpreting "rights of all people" to mean innate qualities. But here's what everyone else in the world thinks when they see that: "All people means all people." (WOW what a proposition) Since gay people are people, they are included in that statement. Simple reading comprehension, pal. I'd love to meet someone like you in real life. It would be funny.
Wrong again! Have you ever heard of context? Or more appropriately, since this is a legal issue, "relevancy"? The fact is that those cases of the past were specifically "civil rights" issues regarding "race" in particular. "Racial Minority Civil Rights" was the context, or the "relevancy" within which all words in those cases were spoken
Look, theres nothing to argue. All persons of understanding know the fact that Walker's ruling may reach the Supreme Court because it never has
@Chuichupachichi Haha there really is no point in arguing. This is why it sucks to talk about law to people who've never gone to law school but think they know how to think like lawyers. You think the law means whatever you want it to say? You think the Court cares about how YOU would interpret the law? You're wrong. Look at how these opinions have been applied in other cases. Look at how the fundamental right to marriage was treated in Perry. Just read the opinion.
Loving was about civil rights, yes. But please just read the case before you argue about it. J. Warren writes "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man." As to your second argument, I've already said that it doesn't matter whether or not being gay is a choice or if it's innate. Though clearly we disagree about whether or not being gay is a choice, the most important thing is that the courts have decided that it doesn't matter. Get the picture?
Briefly, to address your status comment, in Lawrence v. Texas, the court explicitly said that "our decisions have declined to distinguish between status and conduct in the context of sexual orientation" Why? Because it doesn't matter legally. I'm not concerned about anyone's opinion. This is the law. I'm sure you have your opinion, but it's irrelevant. You saying "the court is stupid" is kind of silly. If you disagree, then change the law. But dont talk as if you know it. Bye
It's irrelevant whether it's innate or not. US citizens deserve the full protection of the constitution regardless of their "choices," as you call it. So even if it is a choice, the constitution still protects it. Do you understand that? Maybe you want to argue that Loving v. Virginia is wrong, and you could. But the fact is: it's still good law today and the courts will apply it as such.
(continued) whites are responsible for most white-collared crimes, asians are responsible for most bamboo-related crimes, so what? What's your point? 5. I don't even see how you can possibly relate the restrained father situation to homosexuality at all. I'm guessing you're about 15, based on your logic. Stay in school, kid, and leave the important stuff to the grown-ups, ok?
I'm glad the Prop 8 defense is as incompetent as it is. Its arguments have either been scientifically inaccurate or laughably unconstitutional (i.e. not standing up to scrutiny on the basis of individual rights and protections). The only question now is whether same-sex marriage will be deemed legal in California, or the entirety of the Western states covered by the 9th circuit, or if the case will proceed to the national level.
Don't forget that fundamental rights can never be submitted for a vote. Also, conjecture, speculation, and fears are not enough to violate the individual and constitutional rights of citizens.
Olson - "since 1888, the US Supreme Court has 14 times ruled that the right to marriage is a fundamental right". - All of those 14 times the rulings were regarding interracial marriage or something other than gay marriage. Olson knows he can make this argument to the general population & it sounds good. But he'd never present it in court because he'd be required to give reference to the specific case in which the "precedence" was set. Its merely a fallacious, invalid attempt to cite "precedence"
@Chuichupachichi haha what does this even mean? this is the most convoluted reasoning I've ever seen. Have you ever taken a basic constitutional law course? This reasoning WAS made in court, and it's a good one. In US jurisprudence, when the Supreme Court finds a fundamental right to marry, they don't have to specifically decide "yes, catholics can marry. yes, poor people can marry. Yes, people who like basketball can marry" If it's a fundamental right, it's a fundamental right for everyone.
{this is the most convoluted reasoning I've ever seen}
Its due to your inability to reason correctly, that you have that opinion of my reasoning. But thats common these days, the government has for decades, intentionally destroyed society's cognitive functions. The only reason why the Supreme Court has ever ruled on marriage is because of interracial marriage. But its ridiculous that it even required the courts to hold such a hearing. Did they consider it to be reasonable that
2) there be a prerequisite of determining through the courts if African Americans are human beings? Of course not, its why there existed no such prerequisite hearing. So with African Americans obviously being human beings, "all men were created equal", obviously includes African Americans. Thus, it was due to complete stupidity that they even required the Supreme Court to rule on interracial marriage. Questioning whether or not Blacks can marry whites, is essentially questioning whether or not
3) Blacks are human beings. Since they're obviously amongst man that was created equal, is why the entire Bill of Rights applies to them. Thus, it should have been unnecessary to cite any one particular amendment in justifying interracial marriage. Marriage within a race has never been defended by one particular amendment. Supreme Court Justices with a greater understanding of the truly relevant matter, would have simply told the states that they had deemed racial minorities to not be amongst
4) mankind. But this is true because the basis for "inalienable rights" & at the core of "all men were created equal" is mankind's "innateness" from birth. Its revealed by the word "created". Thats from where the word "procreate" is derived. Its saying that from birth we automatically possess value & inalienable rights. Homosexuality is not equivalent to Black & its not innate. The sexually physical, anatomical & reproductive incompatibility reveals that its unnatural as well as being a disorder
@Chuichupachichi Ok. I think this is where you're getting confused: the Supreme Court had to decide Loving v. Virginia because of prejudicial laws. It was responding to society's discrimination. When laws unfairly prejudice a particular group of humans (I think even you would agree that gay people are human), the SC has to look at the constitution and think "hmm is this constitutional?" In Loving, they decided that marriage was a fundamental right for ALL people.
@Chuichupachichi - So you know the law better than Ted Olson, now? HA!
Sexual orientation is not a choice and it isn't a "behavior." Just like being left-handed isn't a "behavior." Sexual orientation is a characteristic, just like skin, hair, or eye color.
SCOTUS has ruled that marriage is a fundamental right. The only question is whether sexual orientation should be a prerequisite to that right. It isn't and anyone who says otherwise does so out of prejudice and animus. Plain and simple.
Well, he's got a choice between the only 2 options that can reasonably explain his situation. 1- He's corrupt & playing stupid. Or 2 - He's stupid & I do know the Constitution better than he. What is there to question, I posted my words that correctly refute his arguments? You simply don't wish to recognize it because you have already predetermined the issue with prejudice, on the basis of everything & anything but the law. You
@Chuichupachichi - Oh I see, so you think you are smarter than Ted Olson now? I seriously doubt that you, some anti-gay douche on YouTube, can be smarter than anyone, let alone one the greatest constitutional lawyers in the country.
All major medical organizations in the nation all conclude that sexual orientation is NOT a choice. So you have no evidence to the contrary, therefore you are wrong.
Prop 8 will be stuck down and your prejudice can't do anything to stop that.
{I seriously doubt that you can be smarter than one of the greatest constitutional lawyers in the country}
I'm smart enough to know to not be criminally corrupt because then a regular, everyday nobody, who happens to know the truth, can come along & go with the option that can validly make you appear to be a completely Cretinous, Ivy League Moron. You ought to check out my videos on Obama, R. Dawkins, Hitchens, Professor Meat-Head aka ProfMTH,
@Chuichupachichi - I have no idea what you are trying to say in your comment. I have no desire to "check out" your smear videos on great thinkers and humanists.
I'm sure they are just edited sound bites along with photoshopped pictures. After all, people like you have NO facts or evidence to support ANY of your ideas or opinions...all you have is faith, prejudice, nonsense, lies, and basically just the rhetoric you invent.
The Perfunctory Professor Profusely Propagating aka Professor Anti-Whiteness & his Marxist Meat-head Comrades, the PhD Scientist - Dr. Four Legged Whales & the Mammiferous Crocodilians, Blunderf00l, SeeDecay007 getting Dubl-0h-86'd, Rabid Apetard & a few more of the world's most barbarically brilliant, cavernously configured, cretinous, cranial cavities. But I still haven't gotten around to "Dum-X-Oh-Duh"
But don't worry, you dont have anything to worry about. You do a good job on your own!
@Chuichupachichi - Your immature rants just show that your opinions on this very important civil rights struggle are meaningless and should not be taken seriously.
Act like a grown up, and maybe you might learn some facts that will allow you know the truth, and not some false prejudice nonsense that anti-gay, anti-science, anti-reason, pseudo-intellectuals have been preaching to you.
I make certain to make appropriate applications. You're refering to my post about my videos of your heroes. I will apply that sort of talk whenever someone as yourself has shown that no matter how many well explained arguments which demonstrate that there's a reasoned basis for one's position & that have been presented to you, still, you respond with the unreasonably mindless, childishly typical, Leftist's attributions of automatic labels
@Chuichupachichi While it was a massive waste of time, I read your entire tirade, the responses, and your responses to the responses. Out of all of your comments on this video, I deem this one to be the most inane. You are truly delusional.
"Hater", "Bigot", "Homophobe", "Anti-Gay Douche-bag", "Prejudiced", "pseudo-scientific". I have posted so much information on this page & you have yet to address any of my points with anything more than unexplained, mere assertions & ad hominem... aka the sure signs of an arguing loser. There's only 1 thing left to do with people such as yourself... & thats to inform you about the "Perfunctory Professor Profusely Propagating" because you're hopelessly stuck to your prejudicial predeterminations
@Chuichupachichi - I find it amusing that all the people you seem to hate have all accomplished great things and yet you think your "opinions" of them somehow cancels that fact out.
For example: Richard Dawkins taught at Oxford and is one of the greatest evolutionary biologists in the world.
Christopher Hitchens is a great and famous author whose case against faith is unrivaled and has yet to disproven or even challenged by the religious. He shows faith to be what it is: wicked nonsense.
I never said that I hate them. Nor did I say anything that implies such a thing. The humorous names that I apply to those people of whom I've made videos, are applied while I present a real, legitimate, logical, reasoned, winning argument. I do it so that they & their countless fans on YouTube, such as yourself, can get a taste of their own medicine. However, you guys apply names that aren't even clever or funny & while presenting a loser argument
{yet you think your "opinions" of them somehow cancels that fact out}
No... its simply your opinion that they're my opinions because you made it clear that you have no interest in "checking out my videos" which in fact, demonstrate that those people aren't what you prefer to think of them, simply because they peddle your ludicrous subscriptions. But notice your "prejudice"... without having viewed my videos you have predetermined that they're merely incorrect opinions
{Hitchens is a great and famous author whose case against faith is unrivaled and has yet to be disproven or even challenged by the religious}
Ha, even I have refuted many of his arguments. Not to mention that Dr. William Lane Craig made him look silly.
But I respect Hitchens, despite his many offensive statements of Christianity. I see in him a innate, high intelligence. Its too bad he compromises it by directly pitting himself against his own Creator... an act that causes silly
At Hitchen's level of intelligence, if he did not pit himself against his Creator, he would never have made comments such as - "I know of no claim that says atheism is correct... I wish theists would get that correct". However, we never get it incorrect. We also know of no claim that says atheism is correct & have never said otherwise.
But these days, many atheists are demonstrating the effects of pitting oneself against his Creator. Never more than when they, as atheists, teach "the correct Christian theology"... even to the Christian Theologians
NFL owners are following atheist's lead & have discovered that the most effective Head Coaches to hire, are people whom have always hated football... they know the game better than anyone
Learn of your Creator, learn logic, learn reasoning & stop looking silly (dumb)
@Chuichupachichi - Fourth, you "god" doesn't exist. It just doesn’t.
Little kids believe in Santa Clause - Adults believe in "god" in the exact same way.
Not only is there absolutely no evidence of a “god,” but any scripture that religious people try to put forward as evidence defies the established laws of nature and science and therefore is false.
If there was evidence, then there would no longer be a need for “faith.”
FACT: there is no such thing as a supernatural dimension.
sarcastically & mockingly say that I know the law better than Olson. But you reveal that you're certainly not capable of discerning such matters. Never mind the law, you think that you've posted a legitimate argument but you don't even know what constitutes correct debate. Notice that I actually presented explanations as the basis for my assertions. Now, notice that you presented only mere assertions. Since you have yet to figure it out, thats equivalent to claiming you're correct, just because!
3) But claiming that homosexuality isn't a behavior doesn't automatically make it true simply because you claimed it. Also, claiming that its a trait, inherent from birth, such as skin, hair & eye color, isn't a legitimate argument because its ridiculous. Only genes determine the composition of offspring & the human genome has been completely mapped. There exists no gay gene. In fact, there exists no gene for any behavior. Genes are material that are physically existent & they determine physical
4) traits. You can see skin, hair & eye color. You can't see homosexuality unless someone exhibits the behavior. SCOTUS has never ruled on marriage, regarding homosexuality. Their rulings on marriage were regarding race. Those were correct rulings because we know that Black, Hispanic & Asian are not due to behaving in a particular manner. Homosexuality is a behavior whether you like it or not... why do you think it was listed within the APA's DSM? The fact is that the real problem is that
5) government has meddled where it doesn't belong. Government never should have even thought about mandating that persons require licensed permission to marry, lest it not be legally recognized. Incorrectness should be corrected, not perpetuated further by actions such as this trial regarding marriage. The government's excuse for licensing was that they would provide a health safety service for would be married persons. The ridiculously ironic thing is that if they want to legalize gay marriage
6) then considering that gays account for a disproportionate % of crimes of passion, compared to their % within the US population & the fact that on average, they die much sooner than do heteros, is why homosexuality in itself is reasonable grounds for discouraging each party from entering such a marriage. But even more ridiculous is the fact that government has done everything but provide a service that protects the welfare of engaged persons. They having assumed authority over marriage from
7) licensing, is what lead to "family court" which is perhaps, the greatest injustice that's being regularly & systematically executed within US courts. They've literally been punishing Americans for being married & having children, with fathers being completely destroyed & forcefully kept separate from their children with no reasonable legal justification. Yet, now they're rewarding marriage to homosexuals??? What they do in family court cuts right to the heart of what America & the US
8) Constitution were designed to guard against. Regarding "inalienable rights", the most basic, fundamental rights are one's family & personal welfare. Thus, I can't believe that Americans are so idiotically asleep in not recognizing that the government is daily waging war & destroying families & their welfare by being completely authoritative in the most ridiculously unconstitutional ways. They know the statistically proved, terrible things that result from children not having fathers & its why
9) they're restraining fathers, often without justification, from seeing their children & intentionally financially destroying fathers to ensure that they won't receive their family back again. You won't believe the things they do outside the courts, to achieve those ends
@Chuichupachichi Let me refute all your arguments easily 1. No, you don't know better than Ted Olson. Sorry, man. You just don't. 2. The courts have addressed homosexuality as a status, rather than a learned behavior. So it doesn't matter what you think. It's what the law is. 3. Actually, scientists have identified a gay gene. Also, homosexuality is present in more than 300 animals in nature. 4. What's your point about the crimes of passion?
You've heard this video. There it is, hear it again. Olson speaks as though the US Supreme Court has ruled on homosexual marriage. Only a cretin would deny that he clearly conveys the understanding that such a ruling has occured. Listen to his first statement & also especially to his words at 1:37 - 1:42. Apparently Olson believes that the SCOTUS has ruled on gay marriage. Thus, I do know more than he because the fact is, they never have
B) {The courts have addressed homosexuality as a status, rather than a learned behavior. So it doesn't matter what you think. It's what the law is}
From its wording, that statement implies that such a ruling was made within some hearing not relevant to marriage because the Supreme Court has never ruled on gay marriage. But even if at some time, some other issue resulted in the ruling you're claiming, still, your statement is unintelligent because you said that homo being a status, was made law
@Chuichupachichi Sigh. Ok. This is my last response because you really don't get it. At the segment you pointed out, Olson is saying that ALL US CITIZENS HAVE A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO MARRIAGE as found in Loving v. VIrginia. LIke I mentioned before, they dont have to find a separate right to marry for basketball players, pokemon-lovers, or doctors. They already said EVERYONE. They DON"T NEED TO rule separately on a fundamental right to marry for gay people. They are US citizens too. Do you get it?
{This is my last response because you really don't get it}
You're the one that doesnt "get it". In the past, the basis of their rulings was that the law must not discriminate based upon the innateness or naturalness of humans, i.e. "race". Understand this, when the issue was people segragated by seperate drinking fountains, the issue wasn't drinking fountains. It was "civil rights". Thus, when in the past they ruled on interracial marriage, the issue wasnt truly marriage, it was
simply the continued advancement of "civil rights" as they pertain to "racial minorities" in particular. Race related civil rights issues regarding legislation & public policy, have been a consistent occurence in America since the Civil War. Interracial marriage was simply 1 more item amongst many others. Thus, when the courst said "rights of all people", it went without saying that they meant, people of whatever color. All people as they are from birth. Black & Hispanic are not behaviors!
@Chuichupachichi Ok. I'm breaking my promise. This is too entertaining. I'll address your two arguments 1.True, innateness is a quality that the Court looks for deciding what is a suspect classification. (i.e. in Loving, it was strict scrutiny). However, the fundamental rights accorded to a US citizen does not relate to innateness at all. Besides inside your own head, what case can you cite for that proposition?
{the fundamental rights accorded to a US citizen does not relate to innateness at all. What case can you cite for that proposition?}
I've explained it already. I have better than a precedential ruling from a past case. Within Constitutional Law, the Declaration is considered a legally authoritative document. It is essentially, the explanation of why the Constitution exists. Or, the Const. is the Declaration's ideals legislated. The basis for, or the roots of "Unalienable Rights"
is "all men were created equal". They could have said, "all men we have deemed equal" & it would have implied an arbitrary determination. But understand that they were declaring that these things are not arbitrary. Thats why they said, "self evident"... meaning not negotiable... indisputable. Why? Because they're not the determinations of man. Thus, "all men were "CREATED" equal... equality not determined by those declaring independence, but recognized & held as absolute truth. This has further
@Chuichupachichi - SCOTUS ruled in two very important cases involving LGBT Americans and when you connect the two with the marriage cases, it becomes obvious that banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. Romer and Lawrence struck down discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and I doubt discrimination in marriage would be any different. Plus, considering that your side has NO evidence at all.
All you anti-gay people have is prejudice and faith - not facts, evidence, or reason.
implications. Its not mans arbitrary determination because rights are not attributed, or "endowed" by man. They are "innate" from birth. The first man & woman were created & the rest of us were "procreated" as a result of that original creation. Hence, "endowed by their "CREATOR". Therefor, "naturalness" or "innateness" is completely relevant to Constitutional Rights. I've already explained why sexual behaviors, other than heterosexuality, are not innate. These are the reasons why the founders
so often expressed to the people that religious morality is absolutely essential to the effective preservation & correct application of the constituted defense of man's rights. That defense is nothing more than the disallowance of the authoritativeness that can potentially be employed to the detriment of " we the people", by those whom possess the means with which to obtain it
If you can't see how much of the constitutionally disallowed authority has already been foolishly granted to government
by a slumbering "we the people" & how much more they continue to accumulate, then you've been disabled of your discernment & understanding. For decades, they've been intentionally causing that disability within "we the people". This Prop. 8 trial is simply 1 more of their schemes employed to serve those ends
Understand this, one can possess the technically legal understanding of every individual Constitutional amendment and still be completely oblivious to "The Vision"... of sacred liberty that is contained therein. Those who possess it, have inherited the true "Spirit of 76"
The war has been raging & the foreign invaders have nearly captured "Old Glory". Open your eyes & see!
C) If the courts have determined that homo isnt a behavior, but rather, a status, then its because they're stupid. Also, anyone whom would give "final determiner" credibility to lawyers regarding matters that aren't law, is also stupid. It doesnt require genius to figure it out. Gays claim that gay is from nature. But 100% of "same sex" matings/pairings involve sex organs that are incompatibly dysfunctional for copulation & cannot reproduce. Nowhere within nature do we see that nature.
D) produces dysfunctions as a rule or in 100% of the happenstances. But rather, nature will occasionally produce dysfunctions as an exception to the rule... as a defect...a mutation. Genes influence behavior only indirectly, through the amatomical form. For example, genes determine legs & they in turn, dictate the behavior of walking. Genes determine the penis & the vagina... the only human sex organs. Thus, heterosexuality is the innate human, sexual behavior. Homosexuality is not innate.
E) Psychotherapy is never effective unless something external of the DSM is applied, i.e. the therapist recommends the application of absent principles, reasonableness etc. Psychiatry is good for population reduction. Thats because matters of the mind don't belong within the "Medical" field, but rather, the spiritual. I do believe that gay is not "chosen" by gays. But we are spiritual beings within a material body. Non human, malevolent spiritual beings exist & they launch external attacks upon
F) humans that can transform them into gays. This is why many gays once lived as heteros & even desired & enjoyed sex with the opposite sex but then suddenly, their desires & enjoyment changed. This is also why the malevolent act of child sexual abuse often results in the abused growing up to be gay. In all the world, never has marriage been instituted due to homosexuality. The fact is, if it were not for heterosexuality, marriage wouldn't even exist. Its a hetero "gig". I feel that heteros
G) dont possess the right to enter pro-heterosexuality & pro-family floats in a gay pride parade because its always been an exclusively "gay" gig. If it were not for homosexuality, they wouldn't exist. I believe in fairness. When he was a lawyer, Judge Walker represented the Olympic committee & won the case that disallowed gays from using the name "Olympics" in their organized "Gay Olympics". How stupid is that? Ancient Grecian gays invented the Olympics. Gays should be able to simply call them
H) "Olympics" & gay be automatically implicit. But they cant compete in G-Strings because kids are watching...dammit. I believe that gays have the right to do as they wish within the privacy of their 4 walls. However, I don't see the reason why so many antagonistically wear their sexuality on their sleeve. When in public, all sexuality, including heterosexuality, should be left in the bedroom... or the kitchen, the stairs, the laundry room, the backyard moonlit lawn etc.
@defaultonline7 - You are 100% correct. This "Chuichupachichi" character has no real evidence or facts: just anti-gay bumper stickers, talking points, pseudo-science and false information - basically just prejudice and faith.
It's sad that there are people like that in our society who willingly ignores facts and evidence just so they can continue with their immoral and un-American discrimination of LGBT Americans.
Fortunately, there are decent people like us that are better than that.
@TheAnthony8650 Thanks! It's good to know there are other sane people out there. It's saddening that so many people often 1. forget that the constitution is the binding authority on the US, not the bible and 2. try to mask their discrimination by invoking ridiculous "legal" arguments that a judge would throw out of court in a heartbeat.
@defaultonline7 - You’re so right. Some people will do or say anything, no matter what the cost or how immoral or indecent or destructive it is, just so that they can continue with symbolic discrimination of gays and lesbians.
I've had debates with people that even when presented with facts, they will resort to baseless attacks. For example; I cite that the American Academy of Pediatrics says sexual orientation isn't a choice, then suddenly they are branded as a "liberal elitist group." ?!
@defaultonline7 - It's unfortunate, but there is still a portion of the population that just refuses to be tolerant of others or will listen to facts or reason.
Of course, that most likely will always be, just like there is still hate groups against racial minorities, but one would think that they would eventually give up and move on.
But at least we're in the ever-growing majority of smart, decent, and sane Americans. Soon, full equality will become a reality for LGBT Americans.
Olson - "Where's the right to interracial marriage in the US Constitution"? -
The Declaration of Independence is the explained reason for the creation of the Constitution. "all men were created equal" is the central basis for constituting rights which no man can rightfully deny a person. However, "created" implies innateness from birth... or "naturalness". Black is innately natural from the procreation of offspring. No behavior, including sexual behavior is determined by genetics.
Except, indirectly through the anatomical form. Scientifically, Biologically, there exist only two human sex organs that make heterosexuality the naturally innate, human sexual behavior
Olson - "so you call it interracial marriage & then you could prohibit it... no, the Supreme Court has said no".
Olson speaks as though, & makes it sound as though the Supreme Court has made rulings regarding gay marriage. The US Supreme Court has never ruled on gay marriage
We are obviously being suckered out of our Constitutional protection from authoritarianism. They're doing it by compromising the Constitution with rulings that set a precedence of obscuring the meanings, intents & applicability of amendments. The 14th never has been relevant to marriage & such misapplications are what eventually render amendments meaningless without clearly defined standardization. Its yet 1 more step towards the destruction of the entire US Constitution. The founders warned
that the people should always suspect the instituted government... always assuming that they're up to no good because the entire history of mankind is what warrants such an attitude. There's never been a shortage of elitists that wish to tyrannize the masses & a correctly expected attempt to destroy the Constitution shouldn't be expected to be easily recognized. Its stupid to complacently assume that no attempt to tyrannize would be made & its stupid to assume that it would be obviously visible
Gay marriage has always been illegal in Ca. If it is a violation of the US Constitution, then why wasn't that ever identified throughout all the years prior to Prop 8? They've applied a mind trick by creating the impression that disallowing gay marriage is something being implemented in these last few years & that this ruling is the reaction to it. Gay marriage was illegal prior to Prop 22 & never claimed to be a Constitutional violation. Prop 22 merely indicated that
Californians determined to not change its status. But if gays would have won, it would have been celebrated as democracy correctly prevailing. Instead, the judiciary (which wearied the founders most) claimed it a violation. Due to 8 being proposed, its obvious that their ruling was defeated in the legal arena. But instead of the law reverting to 22, gay marriage would get another chance in the booths. Patriots assessed the risk as acceptable because this time another same outcome would amend the
state constitution & would finalize the issue for all time. Again, if gays would have won, they would have celebrated the "American way" of democratic fairness & justice prevailing. But they lost again & again determined to not accept it. Does nobody see their willingness to play the valid voting game only if they're guaranteed to win? Prop 8's outcome being constituted, causing no more future chances is what prompted this desperate, conspiratory, fraudulent trial
If you're gay, don't forget to register as a Republican... the new home party for America's gays. Since gays have obviously opposed democracy (Democrat) in favor of the Republic (Republican) which is governed by the rule of law (US Constitution) Now it makes sense that Olson was their man. Also making sense because since 1975 gay marriage has been voted down many times by the overwhelmingly Democratic state of California. Recognizing their party's neglect, gays have defected to Republicanism.
You know this how? Early marriage didnt even have religious ceremonies.
Also you mention "male and male" you seem to have more of a "problem" with this than two women.
If you are arguing Christianity, I have to ask...did you wait to have sex till you got married? If the answer is no...why should I take anything you say about marriage and religion seriously?
@NewTeutonicOrder1 During the First Council of Nicea, convened in 325 AD, Constantine promised the Christian bishops that he would make Christianity the dominant religion of Rome in return for a favor. The bishops delivered and so did Constantine. Christianity as a result, grew became the dominant religion of Rome. But as early as 313 AD, with the Edict of Milan, Christianity was declared to be recognized as a religion in Rome.
@BillSalem and by this religion became a political tool, which goes against what Jesus taught, as we now see religion dictating what happens in the wider society. It's like mixing good with evil. Many Christians think the church we have today, was the same church in Paul's time.
@Kumtekmeon I went to several fine art museums in Rome, recently. It became clear that the great families of Rome, those who now have important land in Rome, depended on having a cardinal in the family, if not a pope. This was reflected in the ancestral portraits of the cardinals and popes, and who painted them. The Church was the multi-national corporation of its day. The popes and cardinals, the CEO's. It was about wealth and power. Capitalism is antithetical to Christ's teachings.
@BillSalem Thanks for the information.The emperor did buy out the Church making it into some political institution whereby it's members think it's their duty to dictate what goes on in the wider society. Jesus never described the churches role to be like this. It's a pity most Christians are not aware of what they hold as the church today, which is why I put value on the REAL church, and that is the one in my heart..
{"Where is the right to interracial marriage in the constitution, Chris?" OWNED}
Not exactly! That simply sounds good to people who have no clue of U.S. Constitutional Correctness 101. "unalienable rights" are based upon the "innateness" of humanity. It is from birth that you possess unalienable rights. Thats precisely why they're unalienable & "self evident". Otherwise, they would, by default, be arbitrary. That understanding is central & absolutely imperative to the correct
@Chuichupachichi - Third, I wish you had the brain power to know the difference between the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
The Constitution is used to determine rights and law. The 14th Amendment guarantees due process equal protection and that includes LGBT Americans, not matter if you like it or not.
Both documents were written by deists and were not "christian" in any way. The U.S. is in no way a "christian" nation. All religion is false.
understanding of Constitutional Law. Without that understanding, one can correctly understand everything else about Constitutional Law & it will be worthless. Thats because "innateness" is the very root of the whole concept. Its revealed within the Declaration of Independence... "CREATED" equal" & "endowed by their "CREATOR". That word, "created" alludes to "procreation" or the "naturalness" of humanity. Few behaviors are innate & homosexuality isn't one of them
Everything you state is just nonsense. Get this fact through your tiny brain: SEXUAL ORIENTATION IS NOT A CHOICE. It is innate.
Don't take my word for it, this fact has been proven by the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics.
You have NO facts to dispute that. NONE!
Also, don't even bother to quote junk science that hoax conservative groups pump out.
@Chuichupachichi Which makes it odd that quite a few animals show homosexuality as their sexual behaviours. There are penguins, for example. It's odd that birds without anything that any responsible anthropologist would call "culture" would showcase homosexual behaviour. Sure, this was observed in Zoo Penguins, but suggesting that their environment had to do with this bahaviour is as ludicrous as expecting them to learn to play piano by taking them to a concert.
I dont know if it is, because I haven't been there, but the understanding of that "innateness" is central to Constitutional rights, should be taught in Constitutional Law 101... thats where everything begins & first day of class should begin there also. From listening to Olson, it would seem as though the exorbitant tuition fees can be more well spent
@Chuichupachichi lol sorry I just happened to wander back to this video and this just made me laugh. Who made you grand interpreter of the constitution? Look, man, nobody cares about how you interpret the constitution. Even conservative lawyers know that. Any lawyer does. All that matters is how the Courts have interpreted it thus far in history. So even if you are correct about whatever mumbojumbo you see in the Const. (which you are not), it doesn't matter. Do you understand that?
@Chuichupachichi - Second, the discussion of sexual orientation is irrelevant.
Religion is a choice. Yet religion, unfortunately, is protected by law in the U.S.
The word "creator" in the Declaration of Independence, (which isn't a document used to determine law by the way) is used since it is a DEIST term, not a theist one.
Many of the founding fathers were deists, not christians. chrisitanity is very immoral and primitive and is also very dangerous as all other religions are.
@Chuichupachichi - Fifth, and finally, Christopher Hitchens defeated William Craig in their debate. Craig acted like a slime ball and kept repeating himself saying that "atheism needed to be "proven," when in fact, the exact opposite is true.
Not to mention that Craig, like all other theists, simply use scripture as “evidence”- which means nothing. Words on paper don’t prove anything.
All forms of religion are false, this is supported by reason and evidence and verified by science.
@TheAnthony8650 I agree with you. The world is full of idiots. I don't know why we waste time arguing with them on youtube. Well, maybe it's because they're so funny :)
@NewTeutonicOrder1 Wow, lemme bet you're religious and have no knowledge of history. Romans have married men before, shocker right? Those crazy Romans who spread Christianity hooked up and married other dudes. Marriage was meant from the beginning of it to be a union between two people. People have bastardized it from time to time, for awhile women were property and nothing. For awhile you could only marry someone of your religion, or color, or creed. Grow the fuck up and join the modern era.
And that's why Americans ...
DON'T VOTE REPUBLICAN !!
NuLaifMusic 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EVERYONE WHO PAYS TAXES SHOULD BE ALOUD THE SAME BENEFITS - OTHER WISE IS DESCRIMINATION (IS THIS HAPPENING IN THE USA?)
IF YOU DONT WANT TO GIVE SAME SEX COUPLES THE SAME BENEFITS WELL THEN THEY SHOUDN'T PAY TAXES AT ALL FAIR IS FAIR.
OR ARE YOU TELLING ME THAT SAME SEX COUPLES ARE GOING TO BE PAYING TAXES TO TAKE CARE OR OPPOSITE SEX COUPLES?
THAT SOUNDS RIDICULOUS, STUPID & NOT FAIR AT ALL!!!!
NuLaifMusic 3 weeks ago
This is some very sad reasoning on the part of Mr Ted. This of course only works with a redefinition of the word marriage. Furthermore, nationwide ssm can only be achieved with the help of activist judges. But the GLBT crowd will eventually achieve all this and more I suspect. Truly in the end they have gained nothing because they must answer to and stand before the Creator. Absolutes do exist. It is appointed for man once to day and then the judgment. Hebrews 11:28
miketelz 3 weeks ago
@miketelz
You only worry about the "gays" because you're too lazy to actually do any real "God's work" like help those 900 million people who starved last year. That number isn't made up, by the way.
MegaSensimilla 1 week ago
a man can marry another man is ok now a muslim marrying 5 wife is a crime ??? what is next a man marrying a dog may god forgive this hypocrites lol,,civilisation at its best the truth color of the system is coming out when god wanna expose something he does in a way that knock the hell out your conscious
chokobe111 1 month ago
@chokobe111 Sorry to prove you stupid but...there is a difference between monogamous two person marriage which includes everyone and polygamy which does not include everyone. There is a difference in depriving one person of one spouse and one person of multiple spouses. There's a difference between marrying a human being of conscience and consent and marrying an inanimate object with no consent or human rights. Polygamy & Bestiality have nothing to do with 2 humans.
tytheeman20 4 weeks ago
Marriage is a fundamental right... but it is not a right to marry anyone you want. The ban on interracial marriage is not the same as the ban on gay marriage. Banning this man&woman from marrying but that that man&woman is inequality. Yet we still do it with bigamy and age requirements... All man and woman have the same exact right to marry under the law (the interracial ban was the only law that denied that right).
Sk8er408 3 months ago
@Sk8er408 1. you're a bigot 2. who are you to say two people can't get married because why you're not comfortable with it? every other advanced nation has made it legal or it is in the legislation process, but don't worry America will be last on human rights like women's rights, african american rights , and finally gay rights.
SC1337 2 months ago
@SC1337
1. so are you... but you can't admit that can you?
2. It's not a matter of comfortable. Or i would outlaw all PDA's... gay or not. Every other advanced nation??? Here in America we set the trends not follow them.
Be with whoever you want... don't ask me to accept it. You have the same exact right as everyone else to marry.
Sk8er408 2 months ago
@Sk8er408 1. that's like a racist calling someone racist lol 2. I respect your right to hate me as a person for who I am but you don't have a right to impose your version of ''morality'' on me via the government.
SC1337 2 months ago
@SC1337
1. you did the same thing buddy. pot calling kettle black... i just called you on it. You are late to the party. But you are the biggest bigot.
2. See, i told you... why do you assume that i hate you? That is you bigotry shining though. I don't hate you or anyone for that matter gay or straight. Marriage does not impose morality... not sure why you would think that. I guess ignorance is bliss.
Sk8er408 2 months ago
this guy is so on. conservatives are not so bad!!!
AlexMnoble 3 months ago
"what society has said .. for thousands of years" Not at all. Lakota chief Crazy Horse had one or two male spouse(s) and many other Native American nations also had same-sex marriages. Ethnographers have documented these and more: Omahas, Zapotecs, Mohaves, Crow, Hidatsa, Ojibwa, Winnebago, Yuma and Timucua. Other cultures too: In 17th century Fukian Province China, same-sex marriages between gay men seem to have been common. And in West Africa, "woman marriage[s]" practiced by many nations.
seahorse05 3 months ago
@californiaconor78 Why would I go back to the camps where my ancestors were tortured and butchered? Are you a Nazi of some sort? If you believe that people are created equal, at least read my post - notice I"m QUOTING what CHRIS SAID and REFUTING IT... it seems like you're all for equal rights and marriage equality, but just can't read?
I hope it's this and not that you're actually wishing more holocost on someone who's immediate family was butchered in the camps you want me to go back.
xt5h7l 5 months ago
Chris asks him to actually define judicial activism; he dances.
When asked to justify his position that Roe V Wade ought to be handed over to the states in light of arguing that this matter should not be handed over to the states he asks Chris "Do you want your rights to be handed over to the states?"
How does this guy win cases?
Aphoresis 5 months ago
Ted Olsen is so full of crap. I just want to slap him.
mikeyrobins022585 7 months ago
@mikeyrobins022585 Yes... logic is crap.
eugenerichard 6 months ago
@eugenerichard There is no logic here.
Aphoresis 5 months ago
@Aphoresis Actually there is. That people like you don't see it is the problem.
eugenerichard 5 months ago
Ted Olsen is a breath of fresh air, but he's also part of a dying bread, republicans just aren't this intelligent or practical anymore.
Ladiesman1447 7 months ago
@Ladiesman1447 The best recipe for becoming unintelligent is assuming that possessing a certain set of beliefs is what defines intelligence, rather than arriving at one's beliefs by proper rational means.
Olsen's logic is incompetent. if you want to hear a capable discussion of this issue, listen to/read Hadley Arkes on this subject.
he is opposed to same sex marriage by the way.
Aphoresis 5 months ago
@Aphoresis The same could be said about you. Courts have a duty to uphold constitutional rights whether you or Everyone except one person likes it or not. Rights are inherent and not Given by courts. Courts only protect them from laws that would infringe upon those rights that already exist.
eugenerichard 5 months ago
@eugenerichard The ability to asses the competence of someone's logic depends upon the capacity to actually follow a line of argument, a capacity that you apparently lack. Before you attempt to refute the arguments I have made below, make a better attempt at comprehending them first.
Aphoresis 5 months ago
Comment removed
eugenerichard 5 months ago
Well I suppose since Marriage isn't mentioned at ALL in the constitution, I guess you don't really have the right to marriage at all. Is this correct in your view? The supreme court since 1967 has included marriage in our right to "Liberty, Privacy, Association and Spirituality". Why would you deprive certain people of this right? Seems like something that the Supreme Court was made to protect against. Don't you?
eugenerichard 5 months ago
"Separate but equal is inherently unequal"
Where have I heard that before?
MisterDyslexo 7 months ago
@TylerNull it's not so tiny now, is it asshole?
iceboy219 8 months ago
Wow. Chris totally got slapped down by Olson. I'll give him credit for being cordial, though, and letting Olson say his piece. He at least allowed it to be a two way conversation, unlike a certain other Fox News opinion anchor.
nordy2010 8 months ago
@nordy2010 Uhh, no he didn't. How does Olsen ask Chris "What about he right to interracial marriage" in response to Chris reading him his own quote? What does that have to do rectifying this position he now holds with what he has said in the past. Telling us what the Supreme Court has said doesn't help us either. He thinks that that the Court isn't supposed to be finding new rights but he is cites substantive due process ?
Aphoresis 5 months ago
"society has said marriage is man/woman for thousands of years?" Not at all: Lakota chief Crazy Horse had one or two male spouse(s) and many other Native American nations also had same-sex marriages. Ethnographers documented these. Some examples: Omahas, Zapotecs, Mohaves, Crow, Winnebago, Yuma Timucua, .... Other cultures too. In 17th century Fukian Province China, same-sex marriages between gay men seem to have been common. And in West Africa, "woman marriage[s]"-a practice by many tribes.
seahorse05 8 months ago 2
LOL Olsen! "Where's the right to interracial marriage, Chris?" he says in a way which made me laugh. Wallace should have seen that coming if he asks "where is the right to same-sex marriage in the Constitution?".
It's quite obvious that the US Constitution must be interpreted broadly because it's fairly short. Equal Protection under the law & Due Process of law results in the right to same-sex marriage; marriage equality.
Knowzilla13 8 months ago
Gotta love how the Fox robot uses classic Foxian nonsense. Typical Fox talking points are wrapped up in a pretty bow to sound reasonable for a second or two - just enough time to confuse your typical short attention span viewer or person who is simply channel surfing and not paying close enough attention. Olson of course knocked every one out of the park.
drawnhere 8 months ago
"Most people use the term judicial activism to explain decisions that they don't like."
"Exactly!"
...Wait, what? Love the way Olson is momentarily stunned by Wallace's bizarre own goal there.
MidniteBliss 8 months ago
Ted Olson is awesomeness personified! I would not have been able to keep my cool with that a hole from Fox news talking smack the way he was! I just wanted to smack that jerk from Fox news!
BubbaZanetti89 9 months ago
Theodore Olson is like Atticus Finch to me :P
wullz16 10 months ago
Tim Heidecker will be there of course.
hotman537 10 months ago
25 sheeple are prudes and hate that gay married couples are having better sex then they are. LOL
the1tigglet 11 months ago
I've never heard anyone put it quite the way he did. I'll add his position to my arsenal for the next time I get in an argument with a homophobe. Kudos, Ted Olson.
BuenaventuraAvenue 11 months ago
OMG! I like a republican. Did hell just freeze. Much love Ted Olson.
1988kneedeep 11 months ago 4
"It is love that makes a family, but it is marriage that protects it.”
YouTube Title
Ask a Gay Family Ep. 1 Is Daniel Disabled
shenadoa 11 months ago
Californians were blasted by a string of lies regarding prop 8. If this came to a vote again prop 8 would never stand a chance.
deandake 11 months ago
Ted Olson will fuck your shit up with logical rhetoric and class.
Aquasiel 1 year ago 3
"I have to say I guess you never lost a case in the supreme court..."
"ha ha, your too kind (thats right fox news, I totally whipped you white trash fascist)"
that was my favorite part >:)
Joey3264 1 year ago 3
Ted Olson rocks here!!! This is GREAT!
Whitelitr 1 year ago
Chris Wallace, i do believe you have been schooled.
crazyrebelliouschick 1 year ago
Ted Olson - YOU CLASSY MOTHERFUCKER!!!
nickisrad1 1 year ago 10
Religion does not get to say who is allowed to marry.
doomrot 1 year ago 4
I'm totally in love with Ted Olsen's words right now
ikutsu2001 1 year ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
Gay rights are civil rights are human rights.
shenadoa 1 year ago
Chris wallace is a total fucking asshole..... what the fuck don't you understand Chris?
richstpete 1 year ago 2
Anybody can believe what they want. Indeed no law can prevent that. Christians can believe that Jews should be shipped off to gas chambers, but they do not have the right to carry out their beliefs. They may not believe that the love between 2 men or 2 women is as sacred as the love between a man and a woman, but they do not have the right to prevent them from marrying.
The love between 2 men or 2 women is as sacred as the love between a man and a woman. All human love is sacred.
Rumake 1 year ago 4
Ted Olsen: Class Act!
rjholling 1 year ago 2
Chris Wallace - what a disgrace to his dads legacy
rextrek 1 year ago
Gay marriage may not reach the SC this time because of the standing issue, but we'll see in the long run who is right and who is wrong. Debating with people like you is just plain silly. Later dude. I'm so bad at resisting the urge to reply because this is too funny, but I'll harder this time.
defaultonline7 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Elizabeth Edwards, you will be missed
"I don't know why anybody else's marriage has anything to do with me...I'm completely comfortable with gay marriage."
shenadoa 1 year ago
Wait I get your confusion now. Maybe you're interpreting "rights of all people" to mean innate qualities. But here's what everyone else in the world thinks when they see that: "All people means all people." (WOW what a proposition) Since gay people are people, they are included in that statement. Simple reading comprehension, pal. I'd love to meet someone like you in real life. It would be funny.
defaultonline7 1 year ago
@defaultonline7
Wrong again! Have you ever heard of context? Or more appropriately, since this is a legal issue, "relevancy"? The fact is that those cases of the past were specifically "civil rights" issues regarding "race" in particular. "Racial Minority Civil Rights" was the context, or the "relevancy" within which all words in those cases were spoken
Look, theres nothing to argue. All persons of understanding know the fact that Walker's ruling may reach the Supreme Court because it never has
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
@Chuichupachichi Haha there really is no point in arguing. This is why it sucks to talk about law to people who've never gone to law school but think they know how to think like lawyers. You think the law means whatever you want it to say? You think the Court cares about how YOU would interpret the law? You're wrong. Look at how these opinions have been applied in other cases. Look at how the fundamental right to marriage was treated in Perry. Just read the opinion.
defaultonline7 1 year ago
Loving was about civil rights, yes. But please just read the case before you argue about it. J. Warren writes "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man." As to your second argument, I've already said that it doesn't matter whether or not being gay is a choice or if it's innate. Though clearly we disagree about whether or not being gay is a choice, the most important thing is that the courts have decided that it doesn't matter. Get the picture?
defaultonline7 1 year ago
Briefly, to address your status comment, in Lawrence v. Texas, the court explicitly said that "our decisions have declined to distinguish between status and conduct in the context of sexual orientation" Why? Because it doesn't matter legally. I'm not concerned about anyone's opinion. This is the law. I'm sure you have your opinion, but it's irrelevant. You saying "the court is stupid" is kind of silly. If you disagree, then change the law. But dont talk as if you know it. Bye
defaultonline7 1 year ago
It's irrelevant whether it's innate or not. US citizens deserve the full protection of the constitution regardless of their "choices," as you call it. So even if it is a choice, the constitution still protects it. Do you understand that? Maybe you want to argue that Loving v. Virginia is wrong, and you could. But the fact is: it's still good law today and the courts will apply it as such.
defaultonline7 1 year ago
(continued) whites are responsible for most white-collared crimes, asians are responsible for most bamboo-related crimes, so what? What's your point? 5. I don't even see how you can possibly relate the restrained father situation to homosexuality at all. I'm guessing you're about 15, based on your logic. Stay in school, kid, and leave the important stuff to the grown-ups, ok?
defaultonline7 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I'm glad the Prop 8 defense is as incompetent as it is. Its arguments have either been scientifically inaccurate or laughably unconstitutional (i.e. not standing up to scrutiny on the basis of individual rights and protections). The only question now is whether same-sex marriage will be deemed legal in California, or the entirety of the Western states covered by the 9th circuit, or if the case will proceed to the national level.
johneldewey 1 year ago
Chrolli love story
You Tube clip with the title:
Christian & Oliver 04.04.08 English Subtitles Part 45
shenadoa 1 year ago
Don't forget that fundamental rights can never be submitted for a vote. Also, conjecture, speculation, and fears are not enough to violate the individual and constitutional rights of citizens.
mikearuba 1 year ago
Olson - "since 1888, the US Supreme Court has 14 times ruled that the right to marriage is a fundamental right". - All of those 14 times the rulings were regarding interracial marriage or something other than gay marriage. Olson knows he can make this argument to the general population & it sounds good. But he'd never present it in court because he'd be required to give reference to the specific case in which the "precedence" was set. Its merely a fallacious, invalid attempt to cite "precedence"
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
@Chuichupachichi haha what does this even mean? this is the most convoluted reasoning I've ever seen. Have you ever taken a basic constitutional law course? This reasoning WAS made in court, and it's a good one. In US jurisprudence, when the Supreme Court finds a fundamental right to marry, they don't have to specifically decide "yes, catholics can marry. yes, poor people can marry. Yes, people who like basketball can marry" If it's a fundamental right, it's a fundamental right for everyone.
defaultonline7 1 year ago
@defaultonline7
{this is the most convoluted reasoning I've ever seen}
Its due to your inability to reason correctly, that you have that opinion of my reasoning. But thats common these days, the government has for decades, intentionally destroyed society's cognitive functions. The only reason why the Supreme Court has ever ruled on marriage is because of interracial marriage. But its ridiculous that it even required the courts to hold such a hearing. Did they consider it to be reasonable that
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
2) there be a prerequisite of determining through the courts if African Americans are human beings? Of course not, its why there existed no such prerequisite hearing. So with African Americans obviously being human beings, "all men were created equal", obviously includes African Americans. Thus, it was due to complete stupidity that they even required the Supreme Court to rule on interracial marriage. Questioning whether or not Blacks can marry whites, is essentially questioning whether or not
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
3) Blacks are human beings. Since they're obviously amongst man that was created equal, is why the entire Bill of Rights applies to them. Thus, it should have been unnecessary to cite any one particular amendment in justifying interracial marriage. Marriage within a race has never been defended by one particular amendment. Supreme Court Justices with a greater understanding of the truly relevant matter, would have simply told the states that they had deemed racial minorities to not be amongst
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
4) mankind. But this is true because the basis for "inalienable rights" & at the core of "all men were created equal" is mankind's "innateness" from birth. Its revealed by the word "created". Thats from where the word "procreate" is derived. Its saying that from birth we automatically possess value & inalienable rights. Homosexuality is not equivalent to Black & its not innate. The sexually physical, anatomical & reproductive incompatibility reveals that its unnatural as well as being a disorder
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
@Chuichupachichi Ok. I think this is where you're getting confused: the Supreme Court had to decide Loving v. Virginia because of prejudicial laws. It was responding to society's discrimination. When laws unfairly prejudice a particular group of humans (I think even you would agree that gay people are human), the SC has to look at the constitution and think "hmm is this constitutional?" In Loving, they decided that marriage was a fundamental right for ALL people.
defaultonline7 1 year ago
@Chuichupachichi - So you know the law better than Ted Olson, now? HA!
Sexual orientation is not a choice and it isn't a "behavior." Just like being left-handed isn't a "behavior." Sexual orientation is a characteristic, just like skin, hair, or eye color.
SCOTUS has ruled that marriage is a fundamental right. The only question is whether sexual orientation should be a prerequisite to that right. It isn't and anyone who says otherwise does so out of prejudice and animus. Plain and simple.
TheAnthony8650 1 year ago
@TheAnthony8650
{So you know the law better than Ted Olson, now?}
Well, he's got a choice between the only 2 options that can reasonably explain his situation. 1- He's corrupt & playing stupid. Or 2 - He's stupid & I do know the Constitution better than he. What is there to question, I posted my words that correctly refute his arguments? You simply don't wish to recognize it because you have already predetermined the issue with prejudice, on the basis of everything & anything but the law. You
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
@Chuichupachichi - Oh I see, so you think you are smarter than Ted Olson now? I seriously doubt that you, some anti-gay douche on YouTube, can be smarter than anyone, let alone one the greatest constitutional lawyers in the country.
All major medical organizations in the nation all conclude that sexual orientation is NOT a choice. So you have no evidence to the contrary, therefore you are wrong.
Prop 8 will be stuck down and your prejudice can't do anything to stop that.
TheAnthony8650 1 year ago 3
@TheAnthony8650
{I seriously doubt that you can be smarter than one of the greatest constitutional lawyers in the country}
I'm smart enough to know to not be criminally corrupt because then a regular, everyday nobody, who happens to know the truth, can come along & go with the option that can validly make you appear to be a completely Cretinous, Ivy League Moron. You ought to check out my videos on Obama, R. Dawkins, Hitchens, Professor Meat-Head aka ProfMTH,
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
@Chuichupachichi - I have no idea what you are trying to say in your comment. I have no desire to "check out" your smear videos on great thinkers and humanists.
I'm sure they are just edited sound bites along with photoshopped pictures. After all, people like you have NO facts or evidence to support ANY of your ideas or opinions...all you have is faith, prejudice, nonsense, lies, and basically just the rhetoric you invent.
TheAnthony8650 1 year ago
The Perfunctory Professor Profusely Propagating aka Professor Anti-Whiteness & his Marxist Meat-head Comrades, the PhD Scientist - Dr. Four Legged Whales & the Mammiferous Crocodilians, Blunderf00l, SeeDecay007 getting Dubl-0h-86'd, Rabid Apetard & a few more of the world's most barbarically brilliant, cavernously configured, cretinous, cranial cavities. But I still haven't gotten around to "Dum-X-Oh-Duh"
But don't worry, you dont have anything to worry about. You do a good job on your own!
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
@Chuichupachichi - Your immature rants just show that your opinions on this very important civil rights struggle are meaningless and should not be taken seriously.
Act like a grown up, and maybe you might learn some facts that will allow you know the truth, and not some false prejudice nonsense that anti-gay, anti-science, anti-reason, pseudo-intellectuals have been preaching to you.
TheAnthony8650 1 year ago
@TheAnthony86
{Your immature rants - Act like a grown up}
I make certain to make appropriate applications. You're refering to my post about my videos of your heroes. I will apply that sort of talk whenever someone as yourself has shown that no matter how many well explained arguments which demonstrate that there's a reasoned basis for one's position & that have been presented to you, still, you respond with the unreasonably mindless, childishly typical, Leftist's attributions of automatic labels
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
@Chuichupachichi While it was a massive waste of time, I read your entire tirade, the responses, and your responses to the responses. Out of all of your comments on this video, I deem this one to be the most inane. You are truly delusional.
BuenaventuraAvenue 11 months ago
"Hater", "Bigot", "Homophobe", "Anti-Gay Douche-bag", "Prejudiced", "pseudo-scientific". I have posted so much information on this page & you have yet to address any of my points with anything more than unexplained, mere assertions & ad hominem... aka the sure signs of an arguing loser. There's only 1 thing left to do with people such as yourself... & thats to inform you about the "Perfunctory Professor Profusely Propagating" because you're hopelessly stuck to your prejudicial predeterminations
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
@Chuichupachichi - I find it amusing that all the people you seem to hate have all accomplished great things and yet you think your "opinions" of them somehow cancels that fact out.
For example: Richard Dawkins taught at Oxford and is one of the greatest evolutionary biologists in the world.
Christopher Hitchens is a great and famous author whose case against faith is unrivaled and has yet to disproven or even challenged by the religious. He shows faith to be what it is: wicked nonsense.
TheAnthony8650 1 year ago
@TheAnthony865
{all the people you seem to hate}
I never said that I hate them. Nor did I say anything that implies such a thing. The humorous names that I apply to those people of whom I've made videos, are applied while I present a real, legitimate, logical, reasoned, winning argument. I do it so that they & their countless fans on YouTube, such as yourself, can get a taste of their own medicine. However, you guys apply names that aren't even clever or funny & while presenting a loser argument
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
@TheAnthony8650
{yet you think your "opinions" of them somehow cancels that fact out}
No... its simply your opinion that they're my opinions because you made it clear that you have no interest in "checking out my videos" which in fact, demonstrate that those people aren't what you prefer to think of them, simply because they peddle your ludicrous subscriptions. But notice your "prejudice"... without having viewed my videos you have predetermined that they're merely incorrect opinions
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
@TheAnthony8650
{Hitchens is a great and famous author whose case against faith is unrivaled and has yet to be disproven or even challenged by the religious}
Ha, even I have refuted many of his arguments. Not to mention that Dr. William Lane Craig made him look silly.
But I respect Hitchens, despite his many offensive statements of Christianity. I see in him a innate, high intelligence. Its too bad he compromises it by directly pitting himself against his own Creator... an act that causes silly
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
At Hitchen's level of intelligence, if he did not pit himself against his Creator, he would never have made comments such as - "I know of no claim that says atheism is correct... I wish theists would get that correct". However, we never get it incorrect. We also know of no claim that says atheism is correct & have never said otherwise.
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
But these days, many atheists are demonstrating the effects of pitting oneself against his Creator. Never more than when they, as atheists, teach "the correct Christian theology"... even to the Christian Theologians
NFL owners are following atheist's lead & have discovered that the most effective Head Coaches to hire, are people whom have always hated football... they know the game better than anyone
Learn of your Creator, learn logic, learn reasoning & stop looking silly (dumb)
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
@Chuichupachichi - Fourth, you "god" doesn't exist. It just doesn’t.
Little kids believe in Santa Clause - Adults believe in "god" in the exact same way.
Not only is there absolutely no evidence of a “god,” but any scripture that religious people try to put forward as evidence defies the established laws of nature and science and therefore is false.
If there was evidence, then there would no longer be a need for “faith.”
FACT: there is no such thing as a supernatural dimension.
TheAnthony8650 1 year ago 23
sarcastically & mockingly say that I know the law better than Olson. But you reveal that you're certainly not capable of discerning such matters. Never mind the law, you think that you've posted a legitimate argument but you don't even know what constitutes correct debate. Notice that I actually presented explanations as the basis for my assertions. Now, notice that you presented only mere assertions. Since you have yet to figure it out, thats equivalent to claiming you're correct, just because!
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
3) But claiming that homosexuality isn't a behavior doesn't automatically make it true simply because you claimed it. Also, claiming that its a trait, inherent from birth, such as skin, hair & eye color, isn't a legitimate argument because its ridiculous. Only genes determine the composition of offspring & the human genome has been completely mapped. There exists no gay gene. In fact, there exists no gene for any behavior. Genes are material that are physically existent & they determine physical
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
4) traits. You can see skin, hair & eye color. You can't see homosexuality unless someone exhibits the behavior. SCOTUS has never ruled on marriage, regarding homosexuality. Their rulings on marriage were regarding race. Those were correct rulings because we know that Black, Hispanic & Asian are not due to behaving in a particular manner. Homosexuality is a behavior whether you like it or not... why do you think it was listed within the APA's DSM? The fact is that the real problem is that
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheAnthony8650 1 year ago
5) government has meddled where it doesn't belong. Government never should have even thought about mandating that persons require licensed permission to marry, lest it not be legally recognized. Incorrectness should be corrected, not perpetuated further by actions such as this trial regarding marriage. The government's excuse for licensing was that they would provide a health safety service for would be married persons. The ridiculously ironic thing is that if they want to legalize gay marriage
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
6) then considering that gays account for a disproportionate % of crimes of passion, compared to their % within the US population & the fact that on average, they die much sooner than do heteros, is why homosexuality in itself is reasonable grounds for discouraging each party from entering such a marriage. But even more ridiculous is the fact that government has done everything but provide a service that protects the welfare of engaged persons. They having assumed authority over marriage from
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
7) licensing, is what lead to "family court" which is perhaps, the greatest injustice that's being regularly & systematically executed within US courts. They've literally been punishing Americans for being married & having children, with fathers being completely destroyed & forcefully kept separate from their children with no reasonable legal justification. Yet, now they're rewarding marriage to homosexuals??? What they do in family court cuts right to the heart of what America & the US
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
8) Constitution were designed to guard against. Regarding "inalienable rights", the most basic, fundamental rights are one's family & personal welfare. Thus, I can't believe that Americans are so idiotically asleep in not recognizing that the government is daily waging war & destroying families & their welfare by being completely authoritative in the most ridiculously unconstitutional ways. They know the statistically proved, terrible things that result from children not having fathers & its why
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
9) they're restraining fathers, often without justification, from seeing their children & intentionally financially destroying fathers to ensure that they won't receive their family back again. You won't believe the things they do outside the courts, to achieve those ends
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
@Chuichupachichi Let me refute all your arguments easily 1. No, you don't know better than Ted Olson. Sorry, man. You just don't. 2. The courts have addressed homosexuality as a status, rather than a learned behavior. So it doesn't matter what you think. It's what the law is. 3. Actually, scientists have identified a gay gene. Also, homosexuality is present in more than 300 animals in nature. 4. What's your point about the crimes of passion?
defaultonline7 1 year ago
A) @defaultonline7
{No, you don't know better than Olson}
You've heard this video. There it is, hear it again. Olson speaks as though the US Supreme Court has ruled on homosexual marriage. Only a cretin would deny that he clearly conveys the understanding that such a ruling has occured. Listen to his first statement & also especially to his words at 1:37 - 1:42. Apparently Olson believes that the SCOTUS has ruled on gay marriage. Thus, I do know more than he because the fact is, they never have
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
B) {The courts have addressed homosexuality as a status, rather than a learned behavior. So it doesn't matter what you think. It's what the law is}
From its wording, that statement implies that such a ruling was made within some hearing not relevant to marriage because the Supreme Court has never ruled on gay marriage. But even if at some time, some other issue resulted in the ruling you're claiming, still, your statement is unintelligent because you said that homo being a status, was made law
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
@Chuichupachichi Sigh. Ok. This is my last response because you really don't get it. At the segment you pointed out, Olson is saying that ALL US CITIZENS HAVE A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO MARRIAGE as found in Loving v. VIrginia. LIke I mentioned before, they dont have to find a separate right to marry for basketball players, pokemon-lovers, or doctors. They already said EVERYONE. They DON"T NEED TO rule separately on a fundamental right to marry for gay people. They are US citizens too. Do you get it?
defaultonline7 1 year ago
@defaultonline7
{This is my last response because you really don't get it}
You're the one that doesnt "get it". In the past, the basis of their rulings was that the law must not discriminate based upon the innateness or naturalness of humans, i.e. "race". Understand this, when the issue was people segragated by seperate drinking fountains, the issue wasn't drinking fountains. It was "civil rights". Thus, when in the past they ruled on interracial marriage, the issue wasnt truly marriage, it was
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
simply the continued advancement of "civil rights" as they pertain to "racial minorities" in particular. Race related civil rights issues regarding legislation & public policy, have been a consistent occurence in America since the Civil War. Interracial marriage was simply 1 more item amongst many others. Thus, when the courst said "rights of all people", it went without saying that they meant, people of whatever color. All people as they are from birth. Black & Hispanic are not behaviors!
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
@Chuichupachichi Ok. I'm breaking my promise. This is too entertaining. I'll address your two arguments 1.True, innateness is a quality that the Court looks for deciding what is a suspect classification. (i.e. in Loving, it was strict scrutiny). However, the fundamental rights accorded to a US citizen does not relate to innateness at all. Besides inside your own head, what case can you cite for that proposition?
defaultonline7 1 year ago
@defaultonline7
{the fundamental rights accorded to a US citizen does not relate to innateness at all. What case can you cite for that proposition?}
I've explained it already. I have better than a precedential ruling from a past case. Within Constitutional Law, the Declaration is considered a legally authoritative document. It is essentially, the explanation of why the Constitution exists. Or, the Const. is the Declaration's ideals legislated. The basis for, or the roots of "Unalienable Rights"
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
is "all men were created equal". They could have said, "all men we have deemed equal" & it would have implied an arbitrary determination. But understand that they were declaring that these things are not arbitrary. Thats why they said, "self evident"... meaning not negotiable... indisputable. Why? Because they're not the determinations of man. Thus, "all men were "CREATED" equal... equality not determined by those declaring independence, but recognized & held as absolute truth. This has further
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
@Chuichupachichi - SCOTUS ruled in two very important cases involving LGBT Americans and when you connect the two with the marriage cases, it becomes obvious that banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. Romer and Lawrence struck down discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and I doubt discrimination in marriage would be any different. Plus, considering that your side has NO evidence at all.
All you anti-gay people have is prejudice and faith - not facts, evidence, or reason.
TheAnthony8650 1 year ago 38
implications. Its not mans arbitrary determination because rights are not attributed, or "endowed" by man. They are "innate" from birth. The first man & woman were created & the rest of us were "procreated" as a result of that original creation. Hence, "endowed by their "CREATOR". Therefor, "naturalness" or "innateness" is completely relevant to Constitutional Rights. I've already explained why sexual behaviors, other than heterosexuality, are not innate. These are the reasons why the founders
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
so often expressed to the people that religious morality is absolutely essential to the effective preservation & correct application of the constituted defense of man's rights. That defense is nothing more than the disallowance of the authoritativeness that can potentially be employed to the detriment of " we the people", by those whom possess the means with which to obtain it
If you can't see how much of the constitutionally disallowed authority has already been foolishly granted to government
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
by a slumbering "we the people" & how much more they continue to accumulate, then you've been disabled of your discernment & understanding. For decades, they've been intentionally causing that disability within "we the people". This Prop. 8 trial is simply 1 more of their schemes employed to serve those ends
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
Understand this, one can possess the technically legal understanding of every individual Constitutional amendment and still be completely oblivious to "The Vision"... of sacred liberty that is contained therein. Those who possess it, have inherited the true "Spirit of 76"
The war has been raging & the foreign invaders have nearly captured "Old Glory". Open your eyes & see!
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
C) If the courts have determined that homo isnt a behavior, but rather, a status, then its because they're stupid. Also, anyone whom would give "final determiner" credibility to lawyers regarding matters that aren't law, is also stupid. It doesnt require genius to figure it out. Gays claim that gay is from nature. But 100% of "same sex" matings/pairings involve sex organs that are incompatibly dysfunctional for copulation & cannot reproduce. Nowhere within nature do we see that nature.
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
D) produces dysfunctions as a rule or in 100% of the happenstances. But rather, nature will occasionally produce dysfunctions as an exception to the rule... as a defect...a mutation. Genes influence behavior only indirectly, through the amatomical form. For example, genes determine legs & they in turn, dictate the behavior of walking. Genes determine the penis & the vagina... the only human sex organs. Thus, heterosexuality is the innate human, sexual behavior. Homosexuality is not innate.
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
E) Psychotherapy is never effective unless something external of the DSM is applied, i.e. the therapist recommends the application of absent principles, reasonableness etc. Psychiatry is good for population reduction. Thats because matters of the mind don't belong within the "Medical" field, but rather, the spiritual. I do believe that gay is not "chosen" by gays. But we are spiritual beings within a material body. Non human, malevolent spiritual beings exist & they launch external attacks upon
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
F) humans that can transform them into gays. This is why many gays once lived as heteros & even desired & enjoyed sex with the opposite sex but then suddenly, their desires & enjoyment changed. This is also why the malevolent act of child sexual abuse often results in the abused growing up to be gay. In all the world, never has marriage been instituted due to homosexuality. The fact is, if it were not for heterosexuality, marriage wouldn't even exist. Its a hetero "gig". I feel that heteros
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
G) dont possess the right to enter pro-heterosexuality & pro-family floats in a gay pride parade because its always been an exclusively "gay" gig. If it were not for homosexuality, they wouldn't exist. I believe in fairness. When he was a lawyer, Judge Walker represented the Olympic committee & won the case that disallowed gays from using the name "Olympics" in their organized "Gay Olympics". How stupid is that? Ancient Grecian gays invented the Olympics. Gays should be able to simply call them
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
H) "Olympics" & gay be automatically implicit. But they cant compete in G-Strings because kids are watching...dammit. I believe that gays have the right to do as they wish within the privacy of their 4 walls. However, I don't see the reason why so many antagonistically wear their sexuality on their sleeve. When in public, all sexuality, including heterosexuality, should be left in the bedroom... or the kitchen, the stairs, the laundry room, the backyard moonlit lawn etc.
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
@defaultonline7 - You are 100% correct. This "Chuichupachichi" character has no real evidence or facts: just anti-gay bumper stickers, talking points, pseudo-science and false information - basically just prejudice and faith.
It's sad that there are people like that in our society who willingly ignores facts and evidence just so they can continue with their immoral and un-American discrimination of LGBT Americans.
Fortunately, there are decent people like us that are better than that.
TheAnthony8650 1 year ago 4
@TheAnthony8650 Thanks! It's good to know there are other sane people out there. It's saddening that so many people often 1. forget that the constitution is the binding authority on the US, not the bible and 2. try to mask their discrimination by invoking ridiculous "legal" arguments that a judge would throw out of court in a heartbeat.
defaultonline7 1 year ago
@defaultonline7 - You’re so right. Some people will do or say anything, no matter what the cost or how immoral or indecent or destructive it is, just so that they can continue with symbolic discrimination of gays and lesbians.
I've had debates with people that even when presented with facts, they will resort to baseless attacks. For example; I cite that the American Academy of Pediatrics says sexual orientation isn't a choice, then suddenly they are branded as a "liberal elitist group." ?!
TheAnthony8650 1 year ago
@defaultonline7 - It's unfortunate, but there is still a portion of the population that just refuses to be tolerant of others or will listen to facts or reason.
Of course, that most likely will always be, just like there is still hate groups against racial minorities, but one would think that they would eventually give up and move on.
But at least we're in the ever-growing majority of smart, decent, and sane Americans. Soon, full equality will become a reality for LGBT Americans.
TheAnthony8650 1 year ago
Olson - "Where's the right to interracial marriage in the US Constitution"? -
The Declaration of Independence is the explained reason for the creation of the Constitution. "all men were created equal" is the central basis for constituting rights which no man can rightfully deny a person. However, "created" implies innateness from birth... or "naturalness". Black is innately natural from the procreation of offspring. No behavior, including sexual behavior is determined by genetics.
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
Except, indirectly through the anatomical form. Scientifically, Biologically, there exist only two human sex organs that make heterosexuality the naturally innate, human sexual behavior
Olson - "so you call it interracial marriage & then you could prohibit it... no, the Supreme Court has said no".
Olson speaks as though, & makes it sound as though the Supreme Court has made rulings regarding gay marriage. The US Supreme Court has never ruled on gay marriage
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
We are obviously being suckered out of our Constitutional protection from authoritarianism. They're doing it by compromising the Constitution with rulings that set a precedence of obscuring the meanings, intents & applicability of amendments. The 14th never has been relevant to marriage & such misapplications are what eventually render amendments meaningless without clearly defined standardization. Its yet 1 more step towards the destruction of the entire US Constitution. The founders warned
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
that the people should always suspect the instituted government... always assuming that they're up to no good because the entire history of mankind is what warrants such an attitude. There's never been a shortage of elitists that wish to tyrannize the masses & a correctly expected attempt to destroy the Constitution shouldn't be expected to be easily recognized. Its stupid to complacently assume that no attempt to tyrannize would be made & its stupid to assume that it would be obviously visible
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
Gay marriage has always been illegal in Ca. If it is a violation of the US Constitution, then why wasn't that ever identified throughout all the years prior to Prop 8? They've applied a mind trick by creating the impression that disallowing gay marriage is something being implemented in these last few years & that this ruling is the reaction to it. Gay marriage was illegal prior to Prop 22 & never claimed to be a Constitutional violation. Prop 22 merely indicated that
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
Californians determined to not change its status. But if gays would have won, it would have been celebrated as democracy correctly prevailing. Instead, the judiciary (which wearied the founders most) claimed it a violation. Due to 8 being proposed, its obvious that their ruling was defeated in the legal arena. But instead of the law reverting to 22, gay marriage would get another chance in the booths. Patriots assessed the risk as acceptable because this time another same outcome would amend the
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
state constitution & would finalize the issue for all time. Again, if gays would have won, they would have celebrated the "American way" of democratic fairness & justice prevailing. But they lost again & again determined to not accept it. Does nobody see their willingness to play the valid voting game only if they're guaranteed to win? Prop 8's outcome being constituted, causing no more future chances is what prompted this desperate, conspiratory, fraudulent trial
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
If you're gay, don't forget to register as a Republican... the new home party for America's gays. Since gays have obviously opposed democracy (Democrat) in favor of the Republic (Republican) which is governed by the rule of law (US Constitution) Now it makes sense that Olson was their man. Also making sense because since 1975 gay marriage has been voted down many times by the overwhelmingly Democratic state of California. Recognizing their party's neglect, gays have defected to Republicanism.
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
@NewTeutonicOrder1
"Marriage NEVER was meant between male & male"
You know this how? Early marriage didnt even have religious ceremonies.
Also you mention "male and male" you seem to have more of a "problem" with this than two women.
If you are arguing Christianity, I have to ask...did you wait to have sex till you got married? If the answer is no...why should I take anything you say about marriage and religion seriously?
hipstermi 1 year ago
So if Chris Wallace is a "journalist" why does his interview seem to contain a lot of editorial on his part? Typical Fox one sided bullshit.
hipstermi 1 year ago
To those who vote down this video: You are hopeless!
Mtl4us2 1 year ago
That was the most beautiful systematic destruction of an argument that I've ever had the pleasure of observing. Thank you Mr. Olsen.
MunfyKun 1 year ago 3
@NewTeutonicOrder1 During the First Council of Nicea, convened in 325 AD, Constantine promised the Christian bishops that he would make Christianity the dominant religion of Rome in return for a favor. The bishops delivered and so did Constantine. Christianity as a result, grew became the dominant religion of Rome. But as early as 313 AD, with the Edict of Milan, Christianity was declared to be recognized as a religion in Rome.
BillSalem 1 year ago
@BillSalem and by this religion became a political tool, which goes against what Jesus taught, as we now see religion dictating what happens in the wider society. It's like mixing good with evil. Many Christians think the church we have today, was the same church in Paul's time.
Kumtekmeon 1 year ago
@Kumtekmeon I went to several fine art museums in Rome, recently. It became clear that the great families of Rome, those who now have important land in Rome, depended on having a cardinal in the family, if not a pope. This was reflected in the ancestral portraits of the cardinals and popes, and who painted them. The Church was the multi-national corporation of its day. The popes and cardinals, the CEO's. It was about wealth and power. Capitalism is antithetical to Christ's teachings.
BillSalem 1 year ago
@BillSalem Thanks for the information.The emperor did buy out the Church making it into some political institution whereby it's members think it's their duty to dictate what goes on in the wider society. Jesus never described the churches role to be like this. It's a pity most Christians are not aware of what they hold as the church today, which is why I put value on the REAL church, and that is the one in my heart..
Kumtekmeon 1 year ago
This just shows how stupid Fox news is. hah!
puck44 1 year ago
"Where is the right to same sex marriage in the constitution?"
"Where is the right to interracial marriage in the constitution, Chris?"
OWNED.
bananas1and2 1 year ago 13
@bananas1and2
{"Where is the right to interracial marriage in the constitution, Chris?" OWNED}
Not exactly! That simply sounds good to people who have no clue of U.S. Constitutional Correctness 101. "unalienable rights" are based upon the "innateness" of humanity. It is from birth that you possess unalienable rights. Thats precisely why they're unalienable & "self evident". Otherwise, they would, by default, be arbitrary. That understanding is central & absolutely imperative to the correct
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
@Chuichupachichi - Third, I wish you had the brain power to know the difference between the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
The Constitution is used to determine rights and law. The 14th Amendment guarantees due process equal protection and that includes LGBT Americans, not matter if you like it or not.
Both documents were written by deists and were not "christian" in any way. The U.S. is in no way a "christian" nation. All religion is false.
TheAnthony8650 1 year ago 3
understanding of Constitutional Law. Without that understanding, one can correctly understand everything else about Constitutional Law & it will be worthless. Thats because "innateness" is the very root of the whole concept. Its revealed within the Declaration of Independence... "CREATED" equal" & "endowed by their "CREATOR". That word, "created" alludes to "procreation" or the "naturalness" of humanity. Few behaviors are innate & homosexuality isn't one of them
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
@Chuichupachichi - First, you have no arguments. None.
Everything you state is just nonsense. Get this fact through your tiny brain: SEXUAL ORIENTATION IS NOT A CHOICE. It is innate.
Don't take my word for it, this fact has been proven by the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics.
You have NO facts to dispute that. NONE!
Also, don't even bother to quote junk science that hoax conservative groups pump out.
TheAnthony8650 1 year ago 5
@Chuichupachichi Which makes it odd that quite a few animals show homosexuality as their sexual behaviours. There are penguins, for example. It's odd that birds without anything that any responsible anthropologist would call "culture" would showcase homosexual behaviour. Sure, this was observed in Zoo Penguins, but suggesting that their environment had to do with this bahaviour is as ludicrous as expecting them to learn to play piano by taking them to a concert.
Jerehk 1 year ago 3
I dont know if it is, because I haven't been there, but the understanding of that "innateness" is central to Constitutional rights, should be taught in Constitutional Law 101... thats where everything begins & first day of class should begin there also. From listening to Olson, it would seem as though the exorbitant tuition fees can be more well spent
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
@Chuichupachichi lol sorry I just happened to wander back to this video and this just made me laugh. Who made you grand interpreter of the constitution? Look, man, nobody cares about how you interpret the constitution. Even conservative lawyers know that. Any lawyer does. All that matters is how the Courts have interpreted it thus far in history. So even if you are correct about whatever mumbojumbo you see in the Const. (which you are not), it doesn't matter. Do you understand that?
defaultonline7 1 year ago 2
@Chuichupachichi - Second, the discussion of sexual orientation is irrelevant.
Religion is a choice. Yet religion, unfortunately, is protected by law in the U.S.
The word "creator" in the Declaration of Independence, (which isn't a document used to determine law by the way) is used since it is a DEIST term, not a theist one.
Many of the founding fathers were deists, not christians. chrisitanity is very immoral and primitive and is also very dangerous as all other religions are.
TheAnthony8650 1 year ago 4
@Chuichupachichi - Fifth, and finally, Christopher Hitchens defeated William Craig in their debate. Craig acted like a slime ball and kept repeating himself saying that "atheism needed to be "proven," when in fact, the exact opposite is true.
Not to mention that Craig, like all other theists, simply use scripture as “evidence”- which means nothing. Words on paper don’t prove anything.
All forms of religion are false, this is supported by reason and evidence and verified by science.
TheAnthony8650 1 year ago 5
@Chuichupachichi - "Innateness" means nothing.
You are a moron for even suggesting such a thing: that the characteristics of a person determine rights in this country.
Justice is blind and so is the constitution, you idiot.
You are not only foolish, but also extremely immoral to state such a wicked, moronic, and Un-American thing.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
TheAnthony8650 1 year ago 4
@TheAnthony8650 I agree with you. The world is full of idiots. I don't know why we waste time arguing with them on youtube. Well, maybe it's because they're so funny :)
defaultonline7 1 year ago 5
Not conservative myself, but Ted Olson is an awesome conservative.
ZackPaslay 1 year ago
@NewTeutonicOrder1 Wow, lemme bet you're religious and have no knowledge of history. Romans have married men before, shocker right? Those crazy Romans who spread Christianity hooked up and married other dudes. Marriage was meant from the beginning of it to be a union between two people. People have bastardized it from time to time, for awhile women were property and nothing. For awhile you could only marry someone of your religion, or color, or creed. Grow the fuck up and join the modern era.
xsmooochesx 1 year ago
PWN <3
MeggChan 1 year ago
It's nice to see a real conservative on TV.
DoctorCataclysm 1 year ago
PWNGE by Ted Olsen
joyrider137 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
911 was a mossad operation.
holocaustexpert 1 year ago
Ted Olson is made of win. All listen to the wisdom that flows from him.
Seriously, if it came out that he was actually Jesus I wouldn't be surprised.
Shiruvi 1 year ago 2