Just because someone is gay doesn't mean they support sexually explicit parades. A person's sexuality makes up very little of who they are. Most gay people just want the same rights as everyone else.
The state shouldn't be allowed to define marriage, keep marriage as a religious institution and allow civil unions for all people of all orientations.
Also, there are no ''logical'' arguments against gay marriage.
Steven, My sister wanted the local church to perform her marriage and the pastor refused because she had been previously married and divorced. Even though she had the civil right to remarry, I seriously doubt the church would get into any trouble for not marrying them based on their specific religious beliefs. Secondly, gay pride parades, yes, SOME are lewd and vulgar. MOST are not. I'm a gay man and trust me when I tell you, most of us are not like that. If gays want to get married, let 'em.
@kittenkoder,i agree..the left & right are a bunch of idiots who can't see past their own front yard..the hypocrisy of it is that both have valid veiws but cant see some things they say and do are in error.no gay marriage,but kim kardashian,brittany spears,newt gingrich can shit on marriage...awsome hypocricy
The next time someone says that young people are dumb and don't know what they're talking about, say "you're exactly right." Then play them this video as an example of just how dumb young people are.
I've only seen the one gay pride parade in my area and they were ordinary people. Maybe I'm wrong and you've been to more parades than I have but seriously?
And in response to other comments saying homosexuality is unnatural, I can only assume you've never owned pets, or read up on the natural world.
@dibinism Natural existence for non-human species is built upon passing their genetic information to the following generation. This cannot happen when two animals of the same gender are trying to couple... so really there is nothing "natural" about homosexuality.
You'll have to define what you mean by "natural". People use this word in many ways. One way to define "natural" is "that which occurs or exists in nature". And a rational analysis of the evidence we have available to us suggests that homosexuality is a naturally-occuring configuration of psychosexual differentiation, in the way that left-handedness is a less common direction of brain lateralization.
Homosexuality simply occurs, whether it is favourable for the propagation of the human species or not. However, the effect that homsexual unions would have on the propagation of our species is negligible. If anyone has contributed to reduced rates of reproduction, it is the shift among heterosexual lifestyles towards a lower tendency to get married, a higher tendency to get divorced, and higher tendency to opt for having fewer or no children.
@dibinism furthermore if you are referring to when dogs mount each other that is only perceived as a homo-erotic act by humans. In the context of nature it is usually done to distinguish who is the alpha.
I agree with you that the "male and female body... were created for other". I don't believe that two bodies of the same sex were "designed" for reproductiv success. However, the point of allowing gay unions is not to allow for some sort of reproductive success, but to allow gay people - who by nature have anomalous sexual orientations - the same chance to enjoy the happiness and satisfaction that comes from sharing a life with a romantic partner that heterosexuals have.
Homosexuality may not "make sense" to our human minds, but our job as critically thinking human beings is to rely on an objective and rational approach to understand nature for what it is. The natural existence of homosexuality may seem strange, but it is what it is.
It's strange for a person to be born physiologically intersex, and yet it exists.
@spacekangaroo sure, and beastiality seems strange yet that exists too. However, when someone is into that gross stuff, it's easy for people to recognize that this person obviously has something "mentally worng" with them. Get the point?
Bestiality is not a biologically determined configuration of human sexuality. When I talk about homosexuality, I am talking about a sexual orientation in which a person of one sex is attracted to people of the same sex, not the actual sexual acts themselves. This orientation is a naturally occuring variation of human sexuality. Comparing homosexuality to bestiality is like comparing is like comparing left-handedness to bestiality...
As far homosexual sexual activity goes, it may come across as "gross" to you, but your subjective feelings of disgust are no basis for a valid moral argument against homosexuality. At various points and places, the majority of people in society have been subjectively disgusted by the idea of oral sex, or sex between people of different races, and yet these subjective feelings did not determine the morality of these acts.
@ugotcatfish Wow, you actually are scared of change, sad. Most people (by a small margin after factoring the the margin of error) do support gay marriage now, and no, it's not some left wing poll. I hate both the left and right equally, you're all morons who side with stupid people for stupid reasons.
@KittenKoder wow are you actually scared to show me this so called poll thats right you don't have one stupid.And don't act like everyone has to jump on the wagon with the gays.cause as soo as you show me a gay dog or bear etc then it's just not right
What is popular isn't always right, what is right isn't always popular.
As it stands, churches don't have to marry anyone they don't want to. Why should that change?
And I've never been a big fan of the gay pride parades.
But like what has probably been said, government should not regulate a religious institution, nor should a government institution be regulated by religion. Someone may have a different religion, as per their 1st amendment rights.
the state government could just stop having marriage certificates,the gay marriage issue is not about the right to get married it is about the right of the government to change religions,and to mandate faith in the "genetic cause" of choosing same gendered sex.
Well, New York legalized gay marriage and allowed congregations that don't wish to preform them to not preform them, without any revocation of their tax exempt status. So, in retrospect, I hope you realize you're a dumbfuck :)
Fail, gays have all the rights of "Married people" and protections against discrimination which most all stave have on the books.
California FAMILY.CODE SECTION 297-297.5
Only thing is gays want to twist things like "Marriage and meaning of rainbow" to their goal.
Not to forget the CDC says 2% of society being gay men or MSM (men having sex with men) accounts for 50 % of the aids cases in America. Not to mention have higher case of other STDs.
I support gay marriage. However, no church should forced to marry same-sex couples. You don't have to go to a church to be married. While I find actions by groups like Westboro Baptist Church disgusting, they should not be forced to accept gay lifestyles if they don't agree with it. But, at the same time, that doesn't mean the homosexuals should not be able to get married and live their lives the way they see best fit.
What are these logical arguments against gay marriage that you claim to have? Are you referring to a snippet in a religious text which also includes rules about how hard you can beat your slaves? Are you concerned that the children raised by gay parents grow up to be more emotionally-balanced than those raised by straight parents? Stop cherry-picking polls and misrepresenting facts and arguments you disagree with. Your use of the straw man attack in all of your videos is just irritating.
i dont agrree with the whole gay pride parade thing either i mean i understand that people are gay and if the want to have a parade to support it feel free to but keep it pg rated no one wants to walk down the street and see that really its rude my brother is gay and he has to annouce it to the world byn the way he acts and dresses and what he leaves around the house im like seriously your trying to hard we know your homo and we accept that cause thats just you but tone it down
i understand why a heterosexual does not want to see naked men coming down his road on a float and p.s if this is okay than what about a heterosexual parade
What bothers me is that the crux of the public debate on gay marriage is the word marriage. Why is the labeling aspect of legal pair bonding even a state concern? It's not; it's Big Brother keeping his thumb on our personal lives. For the purposes of establishing shared property and household, let every coupling of consenting adults--heterosexual and homosexual--be called a civil union. The actual marriage ceremony can be held on the couple's terms.
We should allow polygamy. Only an intolerant fool would oppose someone else's viewpoint.
We should allow marriage between man and animal. Only an intolerant fool would oppose this viewpoint.
We should allow marriage between man and inanimate object. You cannot prove exactly what marriage is, you intolerant hate machine bent on only supporting your own views.
Understand? Are you actually open minded? Or do you still live in a box only slightly larger than the church's?
I don't buy that whole church getting in trouble for not marrying gay people if it is legalized thing that he mentions. Catholic churches refuse to marry two people if they aren't Catholic... they don't get in trouble for that.
@Candyqueen3211 He says he isn't against gays. he states that it can cause some problems for the church which he dosen't like. He dosen't like the gay pride parade. but he dosen't state that he is against gays
Why must we obtain marriage licenses? Look that little tibit up. Personally I am in the Mill school of thought. Not harming me, let them do what they want.
It's funny how Republicans claim to be against big government and for personal freedom yet are all for the government banning gay marriage. During the GOP convention of 1992, you even had people booing William Weld for advocating for traditional conservative values like individual freedom and that the government should stay out of our bedrooms. Many of the mainstream Republicans actually voted for Clinton because they were so frightened as to what had happened to their party.
@Amblue35 ugh.. It's about blanket federal control vs states rights. Ya know, if there is individual states, you might have a place to go to experience your kinda freedom. You can even move to Cali. Individual freedom does not EVER occur if my labor is involved. Got that? You want freedom? Remove yourself from ANY gov handouts. If my dollar goes to the bedroom, then I am there too. If you don't understand that, then maybe the government tit is best for you. P.s. Marriage falls to the state.
How would it personally affect you if gay people were allowed to get married? Your proposal about gay marriage only being allowed in certain states is akin to saying to an African American in the 50s that if they don't want to be treated as a second class citizen they should move to a state that doesn't have Jim Crow laws. Along with that why should gay couples who want to get married be forced to move away from their families and friends?
@Alkindi90 Define right winger, so we can all laugh. Or at least, I can laugh, given you have no idea the accurate concept of left and right. It's very laughable when people try to brand their concept of left or right. An oligarchy is an oligarchy, whether the left or the right brought it to us. But I'm sure you will find a way to mob rule yourself out of it, because that's how it works.
generally refer to support for a hierarchical society justified on the basis of an appeal to natural law or tradition.
ok, the idiot in the video is defiantly a right winger. since his "tradition" suggest that gay marriage is wrong, and America is a christian nation..oh yeah, and he is not funny. in every form and shape
The only reason pride parades exist is because they have a message to get out. If it was all legal, do you think there would even be a reason to have the pride parades?
@Dgoodsify trust me you really don't want to take away church's tax exempt status. Right now churches generally try to avoid political involvement because they might lose tax exempt status. They don't overtly campaign for political candidates or directly contribute to them but if you take away the tax exempt status there are no more inhibitions. This may turn every chuch in America into a lobbying organazation.
Well... Marriage isn't a right, it is a state governed institution. Gay marriage doesn't contribute to society... Marriage is ultimately meant for the creation of children.
Wait he says that Liberals always look at what could be worst and then he shows gay pride and say that if gay marriage would be legal in all states he would see gay pride everywhere?
Do you americans get alot of those people? That's what conservaters are like in USA? Damn, that's sad, gay marriage is legal in Canada, and no, we don't see any people wandering the streets in sado-maso costumes. Also our country is doing better.
The only thing that I'm debating, if you want to call it that, is the fact that there has never been an example of any church being forced to marry someone against their will. That's a fact, yet many people will insist that it will happen. This notion is unwarranted.
Unless we abolish the 1st amendment, it will never happen. Period.
@A1pha2R3d so yes gay people should have the right to marry and to adopt, but getting married in a church. i sjust as stupid as a jew wishing to be blessed and recognized by a nazi. whoever god is he is not the church whatever the church is, it is not god. why would you want to be married by someone who hates you and doesnt recognize you (the church).get a civil marriage and if you want God to bless your marriage.have a party with your friends and family who truely love you.that' the true church
@A1pha2R3d that's an argument . i totally agree with you. marriage as we know it in the western world was invented by the church during the middle age in europe. in order to join to families wealth, it had absolutely nothing to do with love and the bride as much as the groom usually had no choice at all but to marry whoever they were told to. along the centuries and with the romantist it became something more personal. but gay people should remember, marriage is not about love.that's business
Hey there really aren't many logical arguments that I've ever heard, at least ones that don't stand up to much more thought. Most argumetns I've heard are ones made from a position of faith, and then a retroactive attempt to try and make a reasonable argument. Being a married lesbian myself and libtertarian leanings please don't associate my rational arguments with the ad hominum attacks of the left. Generalizations usually end up as bad arguments.
@Stevencrowder the institution of marriage is something that the government exclusively has control over.(Whether marriage is something controlled by the church or the government is a very, very old battle interestingly enough). Whether a church is willing to marry two dudes or not has no impact on whether a marriage is vald. If the church won't marry two men, then they could still get married and it'd be recognized by the government.
Also, many (historically Christian) countries around the world have legalized gay marriage, and you don't see them having any sort of trouble maintaining both their values and their church licenses.
Yeah but if a church decided to follow its own doctrine, it would also promote the beating of slaves (unless they die immediately in the process), keeping women silent in church, abstaining from eating shrimp, stoning your children to death for being disobedient, the list goes on.
Pick and choose all you want, but don't get mad when people call you (or any christian) a cherrypicking hypocrite.
@ChuckMcChip What are you talking about? What church in America promotes slavery?C hurches teach people more often than not to be law abiding citizens, and slavery is illegal. I know some don't give women a whole,whole lot if any power in the church. But that's because women often times are dramatic, and complicated, and those churches just don't want the drama. Also the shrimp, killing your kids w/ rocks, and other OLD TEST. doctrine never goes on dude. What church are you talking about?
@yoyo2121d25 Exodus 21:20-21 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money."
This as you know (presumably) comes from the old Testament, right alongside with the Leviticus verses that declare homosexuality to be an abomination. I'm not saying that churches promote slavery, that wasn't my point. Only to prove what they are: hypocrites.
@yoyo2121d25 ...So that's your response? You don't have anything to refute that, so you give up? Come on dude, I'm not trying to one-up people here, I'm trying to show you some reality here, whether you want to ignore it or not is your choice. I gave up religion a long time ago after I dropped my ignorance and started looking up the facts. I'm not being a dick, I'm trying to help.
@ChuckMcChip actually he is ytour , i checked his other videos i would never marry a racist ass, so you can have him big time. and calling someone an asshole on a gay related comment, i like the irony, since when asshole is an insult for us gay.
Yea, I had to leave him too, he would start yelling things out like "beat me like the slaves of my forefathers" during sexytime. It was a bit too much for me.
Ahahaha I love this. Liberals think that everybody should support homosexuals and the marriage of them, and if not, they are bigots, ignorant, retarded, etc. They really need to grow up and realize that not everybody is gonna believe what they believe. Homosexuality is unnatural anyway.
"They really need to grow up and realize that not everybody is gonna believe what they believe"
Yet, it's many Christians who are the ones who whine about not having prayer in public schools. They want to force non-Christians kids to engage in Christian prayers.
@bearchewtoy75 Not really, the liberals are the ones that mainly want to do it. Hell, they even want to eliminate homophobia. Do you what that entail?
The answer is killing. To kill a thought, you have to start by killing the people who think it. Liberals are the definition of intolerance.
@bearchewtoy75 No. You got it all wrong dude. Our goal is to make it so that the Christian way of life is respected in public schools, that Christian kids can pray and practice Christianity in schools. Not to force children who aren't Christian to engage in Christian activity. That's what we want. I know your going to retaliate in a rather prude way and contradict me, but it's whatever. God Bless
The "Christian way of life" has no business being in any public school. If you want your kids to pray in school, send them to a Christian school. I have no problem with that.
Once again, why should YOUR religion be at the center of a PUBLIC school? Why not also allow Islam, Scientology, Rastafarianism?
The 1st amend. gives you the right to have a religion, not to force your religious dogma on to children in a learning environment.
And, besides, I was talking about prayer in school which, until it was banned, was always a CHRISTIAN prayer.
Once again, the Christian "way of life" is already respected due to the first amendment and schools can't prevent kids from being Christian. If a Christian kid wants to pray before he eats lunch or takes a test, cool.
But when it comes to "gather around children and let's pray to our Christian God," nope. Sorry. Not appropriate or legal!
@bearchewtoy75 true, but the gays would most likely make a big deal out of it. Instead of going to the coarthouse or another church, a more liberal church. They'd whine, and bitch, and throw a hissy fit. They'd make a big fuss over one church
@bearchewtoy75 In states where same-sex marriage is illegal, churches are not allowed to marry homosexual couples. I think it should be up to the churches and other institutions and just leave the law out of it. Then people are all free to approach this situation as they see fit.
"I think it should be up to the churches and other institutions and just leave the law out of it."
That would make sense if we lived in a country where the only the church decided such things. There are no religious requirements for marriage in this country since we have CIVIL marriage that allows atheists or interfaith couples to be married.
Elton John is not even American, and probably couldn't give a shit about this issue... and it seems that the only "self loathing gay" around here is you, Steven Crowder.
Churches have full discretion to refuse any marriage, heterosexual or otherwise. This "civil rights" denial risk is a right-wing myth.
But true, gay pride parades are the equivalent of celebrating MLK day by wearing black face, eating watermelon, and calling white folks "massa". I'd describe it as a radical backlash against prohibition of homosexuality in general so they go all out. Take prohibition for example, we never drank more alcohol than during that period. Ever.
It makes me feel good to see progressives and libertarians coming together in this forum to reject this guy's selective argument. I disagree with a lot of libertarianism, but at least I understand they have a sense of rational and humanity.
Homosexual Bully Puppet BAHAAAAAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAA. also Elton John, yea he is the spokesman for every single gay person, just like you Crowder are for EVERY SINGLE CONSERVATIVE.
I am a very conservative person when it comes to economics, but I think gay marriage should be legalized. People shouldn't lable an entire political party as homophobic, because in the end that just makes them enemies. I am the very opposite of a homophobe, but when I tell someone that I'm a republican they automatically assume that I am homophobic. It is absolutely idiotic.
to not allow two people to get married, whether they are two men or a man and women is just completely ignorant. Republicans always seem to want small government unless it comes to peoples personal lives ( ie abortion)
There only the gays that make the rest of us look bad. sorry that you have that viewpoint. But that's actually why it's so hard to persuade other people why its wrong. It all strains from the vulgar practices in the parades. The only thing that is true is only SOME gays do that. The people on top of the giant floats: all fame-whores. I guarantee this is why people get the wrong idea about homosexuals. There's vulgarity in heterosexual and homosexual people, but it shouldn't define everyone.
@revjoesaves I believe there are just as many that could be used to hurt the church. I enjoyed the debate as well, but I feel I am done with this topic for a while now. I have honestly grown tired of debating and need a break lol.
@revjoesaves The difference is that women haven't been fighting for their right to be a priest....because it means little to the majority of them. However, a key goal for most gay activists seems to be to get gay marriage. Public opinion is actually more the appearance of how popular something is. While those polls show people are against gay marriage, mass media leans towards gay marriage. In the end, I honestly think this argument is more speculation on how we think laws will end up.
@druidicwyrm Anytime that you interpret the law there's speculation. The law is an art, not a science. If you hire a lawyer for whatever unfortunate reason, you'll find quickly they make no promises about how your case will wind up. However, here we have some clearly established legal doctrine that protects churches.
@revjoesaves What I mean by it is not legislative is that it shows the level at which people care about the issue. Gays and women being priests are both frowned upon by the law. However, women have been fighting for writes since the 1800s. They never brought up not being allowed to be priests until 2002. Gays have only recently begun to fight for their rights and have already brought this into their fight. It shows it means more to the gay rights movement. Law is affected by public opinion
@druidicwyrm I see. Legally legislative means the legislative branch (congress passes a bill and its signed into law). Laws also change based on courts interpretation of the law, especially the Constitution. I think that your argument actually sways the other way. If women, which have constitutional and legislative protection and have been fighting openly for their rights for so long can't get it, why could the newcomers to the seen?
Also, public opinion, which normally means how popular an idea is, is very much against gay marriage--as this video points out. I think that we would probably agree that civil unions might be a good compromise, but unfortunately, public opinion does not agree here either. What this means is that courts, interpreting the 14th Amendment, will be the ones that decide if gays get protection. Therefore, gays will have no power than the Constitution grants. The state actor doctrine will apply.
@revjoesaves The reason the year matters is not legislative. It means that society has not seen it as nearly as hot of an issue. Women have not been allowed to be priests ever. However, there was no push for it during the women's rights movement. It simply is not as important to society. Gay marriage is a much hotter debate and has more supporters...putting the church at higher risk. While the Church could try to make a self-defense case, they would prefer civil unions and avoid the risk.
@druidicwyrm The right legal word here actually is legislative--if it were judicial, they would have to follow precedent. I don't understand you're logic. Gays have never been able to marry. Feminism is still hot and alive. Getting back to the two areas of law, you may be starting to understand why churches should support civil unions. If the question is kicked to the courts instead of Congress, courts may decide gays get equal protection. That means gay marriage.
@revjoesaves But the first ever woman to sue the Roman Catholic church was only in 2002...it obviously isn't as big of an issue to society. Gay marriage is a much hotter topic. Ministerial exception would mean little in this case as it has to do with internal affairs with employees. Making marriage a right everyone has would put the church at more risk than not allowing women into high ranking positions in the church.
@druidicwyrm Year doesn't matter (although typically, the newer a case, the better law it is considered to be). Courts have to follow precedent, and, as Stephen actually points out, churches would have a First Amendment claim against a discrimination lawsuit. This wouldn't mean that gay marriage would be overruled, but it does mean that churches could discriminate. It would be like murder. It's illegal, but not if its self-defense. Churches could make a claim similar to self-defense.
This comes back to the different areas of law. It's really important to understand the distinctions. There's two types of protection gays might get: 1) constitutional; 2) "statutory" granted by Congress--this would be employment discrimination, etc, which does apply to private actors. If marriage were a right everyone has, this would probably be based on an interpretation of the 14th Amendment. As we've discussed before, the 14th Amendment does not apply to churches (they're not state actors).
@revjoesaves The argument that Congress would stop them or that the IRS most likely would not go after the churches is moot. Crowder states that they risk losing their tax exempt status....so that means if their is a legitimate possibility for them to lose their status, he is not wrong.
@druidicwyrm First, there's all kinds of laws and regulations that could be passed--almost anything really. Second, Steven seems to believe that the IRS's power would be triggered because churches have to grant people their civil rights (they clearly don't). In fact, this is already within the scope of the IRS's power. The point isn't moot because it shows how the links in the logic chain don't fit together.
@druidicwyrm One more point--any time a law is passed, there's always the chance that it will be overruled by another law. Usually, this means the an interpretation of the Constitution. Bob Jones is actually about how far outside of its congressional power the IRS can go as 501(c)(3) says nothing about public policy (the IRS's power is defined by Congress). Congress would probably limit the IRS's power (before the question reached the Sup Court) if the IRS went after churches for gay policies
@druidicwyrm Sure. Rweyemamu v. Cote, 520 F.3d 198 (2d Cir. 2008). Also, google "ministerial exception." Another case that is analogous is California Democratic Party v. Jones--essentially, saying democrats can exclude republicans as "expressive organizations." I don't have the time to look, but there is a series of cases dealing with marriage of interracial couples. The Sup Ct case on this is Loving v. Virginia.
@revjoesaves For your first point, you were the only person I have talked to about this subject besides elreyyyo so I figured he was talking about you. As for your second, the case is analogous to both as it is a form of discrimination. While the government and the IRS has chosen not to press the issue with women not being accepted as priests, there also has been little pressure from the public as most that are being 'discriminated' against are not opposed. Gay marriage would be different.
@druidicwyrm Women that want to be priests have brought claims against the Catholic Church. They failed. When it comes to discrimination statutes, the courts have carved out an exception based on the First Amendment's freedom of expression clause for "expressive organizations." Essentially, this allows an organization to discriminate based on its own doctrine via the First Amendment. Church doctrine--right or wrong, like no women priests--says gay is wrong--churches would be protected.
Respond to this video... One more point is that the IRS right now could go after churches' tax exempt status for policies they deem anti-gay. Bob Jones is based on constitutional law, which means the IRS could apply it other contexts if they chose. If the IRS did go after churches (and it's highly likely they won't), I think that Congress would stop them (the IRS's power is defined by Congress).
Behind all of this is an important question. What legitimate government purpose is served through a prohibition on the marriage of gay couples? Even though gays do not get constitutional protection as a protected class, they could overturn gay marriage if the state could not assert a legitimate government purpose. Does anyone out there have their own (not Steven's) thoughts on this? (An argument that homosexuality is immoral wouldn't work--wiki Lawrence v. Texas).
@elreyyyo I do believe the only person I argued with was revjoesaves and it was more a misunderstanding of beliefs. I am not saying that the laws WILL be passed to cause church's to marry gays. However, I am saying that it will be easier to sway public and legislative opinion to go too far. Also, there are cases where public policy HAS caused the IRS to revoke tax exempt status. Bob Jones University vs. United States. So churches do risk losing tax exempt status.
@druidicwyrm 1) My goal is not to argue with anyone but to point out some serious errors. I actually am not that interested in gay marriage. I have studied constitutional and non-profit law though, which is why I know that this is fiction. 2) I discuss Bob Jones on the video reply "gay marriage will destroy churches." The most analogous situation to all of this legally is the Catholic churches' prohibition on woman becoming, priests. The courts and IRS have made it clear that they don't care.
@elreyyyo The fact that you don't realize how to be respectful and resort to name-calling and insults proves that if anyone is 'full of it,' their name is tagged at the beginning of this message. You believe you know what is going on, but the fact of the matter is that neither of us know the full repercussions of the matter. I am looking further ahead and at previous 'feel good' laws....you are looking at the here and now.
@druidicwyrm I've tried to politely convey my thoughts to you, and from what I've read so have several others, some of whom have provided even more compeling (facts) arguements than myown, which refute S.C's. non-factual statements in this video. Yet, it seems you have not heard a word anyone has said, so I am afraid it's you who may be closed off to considering any viewpoint that is not yourown. (1 of 2)
@druidicwyrm (cont. 2 of 2) Although, I consider myself to be a reasonable person, and I don't usually form an opinion until I've heard all the facts on an issue, I do agree with you that neither of us know for sure of any future repercussions, if any at all. However, I'm not the one who stood up and made a video based on my narrow-minded opinion, and made very specific propagandistic statements trying to pass them off as facts.
@elreyyyo Although any lawyer will tell you that predicting what a court will do is an art and not a science. But what Steven suggests would happen in this video clearly contradicts well established legal principles--the state actor doctrine, non-profits having no requirement whatsoever to provide constitutional rights to keep non-profit status, and non-discrimination laws not applying to expressive organizations. Rest assured, you can say will certainty this video is fiction.
@revjoesaves Yes, thanks for your input, I'm aware of the state actor doctrine and I was raised catholic, so I well aware that the (Catholic) Church based on it's religious beliefs has always practiced what some would consider forms of discrimination, and as a result of the legal principles to which you refer above, they have done so without the threat of any legal repercussion.
One more serious error in Steven's argument that I just discovered: non-discrimination laws do not apply to "expressive organizations," including churches. This is why the Catholic Church does not have to let women be priests, why the kkk can exclude blacks, etc. So in addition to the "state actor" doctrine preventing churches from having to grant constitutional rights, Congressionally enacted laws would also not apply.
@elreyyyo And with all do respect, you need to learn that I can decide when I need to 'quit.' You see, the key is that you have already entered this conversation with a mindset set in place. You are looking at what is happening in the now. You aren't looking at prior cases or history...just what a couple people you know would do. The problem comes not with the gays but with legislation and activists. People are very quick to take any right they can away from the church...look at history.
@elreyyyo By 'they' I mean people that are pushing for the rights...not necessarily gays. You obviously don't pay close attention to activist groups. Each time an activist group gets a hold on a good cause they take it too far. PETA (fighting for the rights of animals) is now looking to fight to give animals BETTER rights than humans. NAACP is more about causing problems than actually fighting for what the black and Hispanic populace want. I mean people that will take it too far.
@druidicwyrm Again, you waste my time with your moot points? Steven Crowder is full of it on this matter and so is anyone who believes this propagandistic bull shit.
good god, I actually agree with this. Though it does lead to a question about marriage being a right at all, related to any church. If it's up to the churches, I believe that allows for liberty to exist.
Same with gay pride parades, Make them respect the same laws everyone else does. Most of them simply want equality don't they?
I think gay marrage is right.because people should have right homosexual or streight,and people who hate gays are usally very religious and thats allright but you dont have to put other people down just because of that.But thats just my oppinion,Dont hate on me
I decided to watch this video after watching an extremely unfunny video mocking keith olbermann, just to see if they were truly that clueless and the answer is yes. Maybe I don't understand the point, is it supposed to be funny? Or are we supposed to listen to this questionably straight man make idiotic remarks about people that don't give a s*** about him?
The biased arguments in this video are laughable.
NOTE:
Just because someone is gay doesn't mean they support sexually explicit parades. A person's sexuality makes up very little of who they are. Most gay people just want the same rights as everyone else.
The state shouldn't be allowed to define marriage, keep marriage as a religious institution and allow civil unions for all people of all orientations.
Also, there are no ''logical'' arguments against gay marriage.
Sorry Steven
x
ec123456789able 22 hours ago
Steven, My sister wanted the local church to perform her marriage and the pastor refused because she had been previously married and divorced. Even though she had the civil right to remarry, I seriously doubt the church would get into any trouble for not marrying them based on their specific religious beliefs. Secondly, gay pride parades, yes, SOME are lewd and vulgar. MOST are not. I'm a gay man and trust me when I tell you, most of us are not like that. If gays want to get married, let 'em.
pungo8 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kittenkoder,i agree..the left & right are a bunch of idiots who can't see past their own front yard..the hypocrisy of it is that both have valid veiws but cant see some things they say and do are in error.no gay marriage,but kim kardashian,brittany spears,newt gingrich can shit on marriage...awsome hypocricy
wes19er 1 week ago
The next time someone says that young people are dumb and don't know what they're talking about, say "you're exactly right." Then play them this video as an example of just how dumb young people are.
revjoesaves 1 week ago
I'm against homosexuality! Faggots need to come down.
afg96 1 week ago
2:10 What... the... fuck?
I've only seen the one gay pride parade in my area and they were ordinary people. Maybe I'm wrong and you've been to more parades than I have but seriously?
And in response to other comments saying homosexuality is unnatural, I can only assume you've never owned pets, or read up on the natural world.
dibinism 1 week ago
@dibinism Natural existence for non-human species is built upon passing their genetic information to the following generation. This cannot happen when two animals of the same gender are trying to couple... so really there is nothing "natural" about homosexuality.
zchsmith93 1 week ago
@zchsmith93:
You'll have to define what you mean by "natural". People use this word in many ways. One way to define "natural" is "that which occurs or exists in nature". And a rational analysis of the evidence we have available to us suggests that homosexuality is a naturally-occuring configuration of psychosexual differentiation, in the way that left-handedness is a less common direction of brain lateralization.
spacekangaroo 1 week ago
@zchsmith93:
Homosexuality simply occurs, whether it is favourable for the propagation of the human species or not. However, the effect that homsexual unions would have on the propagation of our species is negligible. If anyone has contributed to reduced rates of reproduction, it is the shift among heterosexual lifestyles towards a lower tendency to get married, a higher tendency to get divorced, and higher tendency to opt for having fewer or no children.
spacekangaroo 1 week ago
@dibinism furthermore if you are referring to when dogs mount each other that is only perceived as a homo-erotic act by humans. In the context of nature it is usually done to distinguish who is the alpha.
zchsmith93 1 week ago
Nothing better than education with humor!
mrsc2one 2 weeks ago
I just look at it logically. Just by observing the male and female body, it's obvious that the two were created for eachother.
drummer703 2 weeks ago
@drummer703:
I agree with you that the "male and female body... were created for other". I don't believe that two bodies of the same sex were "designed" for reproductiv success. However, the point of allowing gay unions is not to allow for some sort of reproductive success, but to allow gay people - who by nature have anomalous sexual orientations - the same chance to enjoy the happiness and satisfaction that comes from sharing a life with a romantic partner that heterosexuals have.
spacekangaroo 1 week ago
@spacekangaroo I'm not here to say what anyone can or can't do. I'm simply saying that homosexuality makes no sense.
drummer703 1 week ago
@drummer703:
Homosexuality may not "make sense" to our human minds, but our job as critically thinking human beings is to rely on an objective and rational approach to understand nature for what it is. The natural existence of homosexuality may seem strange, but it is what it is.
It's strange for a person to be born physiologically intersex, and yet it exists.
spacekangaroo 6 days ago
@spacekangaroo sure, and beastiality seems strange yet that exists too. However, when someone is into that gross stuff, it's easy for people to recognize that this person obviously has something "mentally worng" with them. Get the point?
drummer703 6 days ago
@drummer703:
Bestiality is not a biologically determined configuration of human sexuality. When I talk about homosexuality, I am talking about a sexual orientation in which a person of one sex is attracted to people of the same sex, not the actual sexual acts themselves. This orientation is a naturally occuring variation of human sexuality. Comparing homosexuality to bestiality is like comparing is like comparing left-handedness to bestiality...
spacekangaroo 6 days ago
@drummer703:
As far homosexual sexual activity goes, it may come across as "gross" to you, but your subjective feelings of disgust are no basis for a valid moral argument against homosexuality. At various points and places, the majority of people in society have been subjectively disgusted by the idea of oral sex, or sex between people of different races, and yet these subjective feelings did not determine the morality of these acts.
spacekangaroo 6 days ago
@spacekangaroo im done, goodbye
drummer703 6 days ago
@drummer703:
I could tell from the content of your last argument that you were done. Goodbye.
spacekangaroo 6 days ago
Interesting fact, the latest polls show that the majority is now for gay marriage.
KittenKoder 2 weeks ago
@KittenKoder your full of shit what poll are you talking about and don't give me some left wing poll
ugotcatfish 2 weeks ago
@ugotcatfish Wow, you actually are scared of change, sad. Most people (by a small margin after factoring the the margin of error) do support gay marriage now, and no, it's not some left wing poll. I hate both the left and right equally, you're all morons who side with stupid people for stupid reasons.
KittenKoder 2 weeks ago
@KittenKoder wow are you actually scared to show me this so called poll thats right you don't have one stupid.And don't act like everyone has to jump on the wagon with the gays.cause as soo as you show me a gay dog or bear etc then it's just not right
ugotcatfish 2 weeks ago
What is popular isn't always right, what is right isn't always popular.
As it stands, churches don't have to marry anyone they don't want to. Why should that change?
And I've never been a big fan of the gay pride parades.
But like what has probably been said, government should not regulate a religious institution, nor should a government institution be regulated by religion. Someone may have a different religion, as per their 1st amendment rights.
AreThereNoMoreNames 2 weeks ago
the state government could just stop having marriage certificates,the gay marriage issue is not about the right to get married it is about the right of the government to change religions,and to mandate faith in the "genetic cause" of choosing same gendered sex.
halloranedward 2 weeks ago
Well, New York legalized gay marriage and allowed congregations that don't wish to preform them to not preform them, without any revocation of their tax exempt status. So, in retrospect, I hope you realize you're a dumbfuck :)
TiradeFaction 2 weeks ago
Who is this dumb cunt?
grimblebrumble17889 2 weeks ago
i hate peter puffers
samdunaway0496 2 weeks ago
While I think you are making a fuss about nothing on most of this, I have to agree with you about the gay pride parades!
DRDFOX 2 weeks ago
Fail, gays have all the rights of "Married people" and protections against discrimination which most all stave have on the books.
California FAMILY.CODE SECTION 297-297.5
Only thing is gays want to twist things like "Marriage and meaning of rainbow" to their goal.
Not to forget the CDC says 2% of society being gay men or MSM (men having sex with men) accounts for 50 % of the aids cases in America. Not to mention have higher case of other STDs.
Choke on those facts!!!
mrbunnylamakins 3 weeks ago
Or better still, keep marriage as a religious ceremony and only recognize civil unions.
You may say you are not homophobic, but your arguments against gay marriage seem that way.
Also, what are these ''logical'' arguments against gay marriage.
No doubt they involve religious dogma that you have the ''fweeeedumb'' to believe in.
You also seem like a moron who thinks he is always right.
ec123456789able 3 weeks ago
I support gay marriage. However, no church should forced to marry same-sex couples. You don't have to go to a church to be married. While I find actions by groups like Westboro Baptist Church disgusting, they should not be forced to accept gay lifestyles if they don't agree with it. But, at the same time, that doesn't mean the homosexuals should not be able to get married and live their lives the way they see best fit.
TheNotStanley 3 weeks ago
What are these logical arguments against gay marriage that you claim to have? Are you referring to a snippet in a religious text which also includes rules about how hard you can beat your slaves? Are you concerned that the children raised by gay parents grow up to be more emotionally-balanced than those raised by straight parents? Stop cherry-picking polls and misrepresenting facts and arguments you disagree with. Your use of the straw man attack in all of your videos is just irritating.
CarnegieFelon 3 weeks ago
i dont agrree with the whole gay pride parade thing either i mean i understand that people are gay and if the want to have a parade to support it feel free to but keep it pg rated no one wants to walk down the street and see that really its rude my brother is gay and he has to annouce it to the world byn the way he acts and dresses and what he leaves around the house im like seriously your trying to hard we know your homo and we accept that cause thats just you but tone it down
Jinglzthebunnyeater 3 weeks ago 4
No church should have tax exempt status.
Burns12009 3 weeks ago
@Burns12009
Sure. Same with every single other person and/or establishment. Including poor people.
karozans 2 weeks ago
@karozans
butthurt?
Burns12009 2 weeks ago
@Burns12009
No. I'm not gay.
karozans 2 weeks ago
Yeah actually you are correct in your opening statement. Then you say logical arguments? What ones?
Burns12009 3 weeks ago
i understand why a heterosexual does not want to see naked men coming down his road on a float and p.s if this is okay than what about a heterosexual parade
VastStoolPigeon 3 weeks ago
How about removing all marriage laws?
We've got the first amendment. That covers everything needed for both heterosexual and homosexual marriage.
blackshade9 4 weeks ago
What bothers me is that the crux of the public debate on gay marriage is the word marriage. Why is the labeling aspect of legal pair bonding even a state concern? It's not; it's Big Brother keeping his thumb on our personal lives. For the purposes of establishing shared property and household, let every coupling of consenting adults--heterosexual and homosexual--be called a civil union. The actual marriage ceremony can be held on the couple's terms.
angerturnedsideways 4 weeks ago
We should allow polygamy. Only an intolerant fool would oppose someone else's viewpoint.
We should allow marriage between man and animal. Only an intolerant fool would oppose this viewpoint.
We should allow marriage between man and inanimate object. You cannot prove exactly what marriage is, you intolerant hate machine bent on only supporting your own views.
Understand? Are you actually open minded? Or do you still live in a box only slightly larger than the church's?
cdmcowcam 4 weeks ago
Actually, I did see that sort of thing in a Scotts Pride Parade, when the wind kicked up and the kilts flew high.
MrLotharofhillpeople 4 weeks ago
love u Crowder.
dawgie102 1 month ago
You're a fucking cunt. That's...that's just about all I have to say. Fucks sake.
AnthropomorphicHorse 1 month ago
hurrah for demagogy!
DefPrince 1 month ago
I don't buy that whole church getting in trouble for not marrying gay people if it is legalized thing that he mentions. Catholic churches refuse to marry two people if they aren't Catholic... they don't get in trouble for that.
Lym0re 1 month ago 8
@Lym0re your a fool he is right
ugotcatfish 2 weeks ago
@Lym0re typically a couple will not ask a Catholic priest to marry them if they are not of the Catholic religion.
zchsmith93 1 week ago
Common decency eh? So, uh, if you're not homophobic, why not let gays and lesbians get married?
Candyqueen3211 1 month ago
@Candyqueen3211 Don't try and use logic when you're dealing with Steven Crowder. It just wont work.
AnthropomorphicHorse 1 month ago
@Candyqueen3211 He says he isn't against gays. he states that it can cause some problems for the church which he dosen't like. He dosen't like the gay pride parade. but he dosen't state that he is against gays
eques101 3 weeks ago
Why must we obtain marriage licenses? Look that little tibit up. Personally I am in the Mill school of thought. Not harming me, let them do what they want.
123322321 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I would be in favor of gay marriage but this damn book that prevents me from thinking for myself won't let me.
bojanks15 1 month ago
It's funny how Republicans claim to be against big government and for personal freedom yet are all for the government banning gay marriage. During the GOP convention of 1992, you even had people booing William Weld for advocating for traditional conservative values like individual freedom and that the government should stay out of our bedrooms. Many of the mainstream Republicans actually voted for Clinton because they were so frightened as to what had happened to their party.
Amblue35 1 month ago
@Amblue35 ugh.. It's about blanket federal control vs states rights. Ya know, if there is individual states, you might have a place to go to experience your kinda freedom. You can even move to Cali. Individual freedom does not EVER occur if my labor is involved. Got that? You want freedom? Remove yourself from ANY gov handouts. If my dollar goes to the bedroom, then I am there too. If you don't understand that, then maybe the government tit is best for you. P.s. Marriage falls to the state.
TheSpaceanus 1 month ago
@TheSpaceanus
How would it personally affect you if gay people were allowed to get married? Your proposal about gay marriage only being allowed in certain states is akin to saying to an African American in the 50s that if they don't want to be treated as a second class citizen they should move to a state that doesn't have Jim Crow laws. Along with that why should gay couples who want to get married be forced to move away from their families and friends?
Amblue35 1 month ago
@Amblue35 and then clinton started don't ask don't tell
MrBKainX 1 month ago
@MrBKainX
Ok, and what's your point?
Amblue35 1 month ago
@Amblue35 i was just explaining to that guy that taking away tax exempt status is the opposite of what he wants to do
MrBKainX 1 month ago
a right winger can't be funny... period.
watching their "humor" is as painful as sticking a needle up your eye..
Alkindi90 1 month ago
@Alkindi90 Define right winger, so we can all laugh. Or at least, I can laugh, given you have no idea the accurate concept of left and right. It's very laughable when people try to brand their concept of left or right. An oligarchy is an oligarchy, whether the left or the right brought it to us. But I'm sure you will find a way to mob rule yourself out of it, because that's how it works.
TheSpaceanus 1 month ago
@TheSpaceanus "define a right winger"...
generally refer to support for a hierarchical society justified on the basis of an appeal to natural law or tradition.
ok, the idiot in the video is defiantly a right winger. since his "tradition" suggest that gay marriage is wrong, and America is a christian nation..oh yeah, and he is not funny. in every form and shape
Alkindi90 1 month ago
The only reason pride parades exist is because they have a message to get out. If it was all legal, do you think there would even be a reason to have the pride parades?
yoshifan3000 1 month ago
churches shouldn't be forced to marry anyone, but they should also not be exempt from taxes it is a clear violation of separation of church and state
Dgoodsify 1 month ago
@Dgoodsify trust me you really don't want to take away church's tax exempt status. Right now churches generally try to avoid political involvement because they might lose tax exempt status. They don't overtly campaign for political candidates or directly contribute to them but if you take away the tax exempt status there are no more inhibitions. This may turn every chuch in America into a lobbying organazation.
MrBKainX 1 month ago
@MrBKainX thats depressing
Dgoodsify 1 month ago
Well... Marriage isn't a right, it is a state governed institution. Gay marriage doesn't contribute to society... Marriage is ultimately meant for the creation of children.
RustedString 1 month ago
sure gays can get married, as long as you don't try to stick your dick in my ear, i'm good!
MrRyanDemon6 1 month ago
Wait he says that Liberals always look at what could be worst and then he shows gay pride and say that if gay marriage would be legal in all states he would see gay pride everywhere?
Do you americans get alot of those people? That's what conservaters are like in USA? Damn, that's sad, gay marriage is legal in Canada, and no, we don't see any people wandering the streets in sado-maso costumes. Also our country is doing better.
bengacris 2 months ago
@bengacris That makes sense. There wouldn't be a need for such pride parades if all of this stuff was just legal.
yoshifan3000 1 month ago
Just support people's rights crowder. common.
wb5704 2 months ago
@A1pha2R3d
The only thing that I'm debating, if you want to call it that, is the fact that there has never been an example of any church being forced to marry someone against their will. That's a fact, yet many people will insist that it will happen. This notion is unwarranted.
Unless we abolish the 1st amendment, it will never happen. Period.
bearchewtoy75 2 months ago
@A1pha2R3d so yes gay people should have the right to marry and to adopt, but getting married in a church. i sjust as stupid as a jew wishing to be blessed and recognized by a nazi. whoever god is he is not the church whatever the church is, it is not god. why would you want to be married by someone who hates you and doesnt recognize you (the church).get a civil marriage and if you want God to bless your marriage.have a party with your friends and family who truely love you.that' the true church
lukkha1 2 months ago
@A1pha2R3d that's an argument . i totally agree with you. marriage as we know it in the western world was invented by the church during the middle age in europe. in order to join to families wealth, it had absolutely nothing to do with love and the bride as much as the groom usually had no choice at all but to marry whoever they were told to. along the centuries and with the romantist it became something more personal. but gay people should remember, marriage is not about love.that's business
lukkha1 2 months ago
@A1pha2R3d you detest Christians? Why? What did Christians do?
yoyo2121d25 2 months ago
@yoyo2121d25 I dunno, apart from the crusades, the witch hunts, the inquisitions, the genocides, I don't know what Christianity had done wrong :(
bengacris 2 months ago
Hey there really aren't many logical arguments that I've ever heard, at least ones that don't stand up to much more thought. Most argumetns I've heard are ones made from a position of faith, and then a retroactive attempt to try and make a reasonable argument. Being a married lesbian myself and libtertarian leanings please don't associate my rational arguments with the ad hominum attacks of the left. Generalizations usually end up as bad arguments.
th3dark3rsh33p 2 months ago
@Stevencrowder the institution of marriage is something that the government exclusively has control over.(Whether marriage is something controlled by the church or the government is a very, very old battle interestingly enough). Whether a church is willing to marry two dudes or not has no impact on whether a marriage is vald. If the church won't marry two men, then they could still get married and it'd be recognized by the government.
danielg1818 2 months ago
in my opinion i think everyone is taking other peoples live too personal.. let everyone just be.. you people get so upset haha :)
kingjay22411 2 months ago
Also, many (historically Christian) countries around the world have legalized gay marriage, and you don't see them having any sort of trouble maintaining both their values and their church licenses.
ChuckMcChip 2 months ago
Yeah but if a church decided to follow its own doctrine, it would also promote the beating of slaves (unless they die immediately in the process), keeping women silent in church, abstaining from eating shrimp, stoning your children to death for being disobedient, the list goes on.
Pick and choose all you want, but don't get mad when people call you (or any christian) a cherrypicking hypocrite.
ChuckMcChip 2 months ago
@ChuckMcChip What are you talking about? What church in America promotes slavery?C hurches teach people more often than not to be law abiding citizens, and slavery is illegal. I know some don't give women a whole,whole lot if any power in the church. But that's because women often times are dramatic, and complicated, and those churches just don't want the drama. Also the shrimp, killing your kids w/ rocks, and other OLD TEST. doctrine never goes on dude. What church are you talking about?
yoyo2121d25 2 months ago
@yoyo2121d25 Exodus 21:20-21 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money."
This as you know (presumably) comes from the old Testament, right alongside with the Leviticus verses that declare homosexuality to be an abomination. I'm not saying that churches promote slavery, that wasn't my point. Only to prove what they are: hypocrites.
ChuckMcChip 2 months ago
@ChuckMcChip We're going to have to agree to disagree. Obviously I can't convince you. It's whtaever bro. God Bless
yoyo2121d25 1 month ago
@yoyo2121d25 ...So that's your response? You don't have anything to refute that, so you give up? Come on dude, I'm not trying to one-up people here, I'm trying to show you some reality here, whether you want to ignore it or not is your choice. I gave up religion a long time ago after I dropped my ignorance and started looking up the facts. I'm not being a dick, I'm trying to help.
ChuckMcChip 1 month ago
if it with you steven i am so fucking supporting it
lukkha1 2 months ago
@lukkha1 He's mine, you asshole!
ChuckMcChip 2 months ago
@ChuckMcChip actually he is ytour , i checked his other videos i would never marry a racist ass, so you can have him big time. and calling someone an asshole on a gay related comment, i like the irony, since when asshole is an insult for us gay.
lukkha1 2 months ago
@lukkha1 The irony was implied ;)
Yea, I had to leave him too, he would start yelling things out like "beat me like the slaves of my forefathers" during sexytime. It was a bit too much for me.
ChuckMcChip 1 month ago
@ChuckMcChip if only he used a whip i might have liked it !
lukkha1 1 month ago
Ahahaha I love this. Liberals think that everybody should support homosexuals and the marriage of them, and if not, they are bigots, ignorant, retarded, etc. They really need to grow up and realize that not everybody is gonna believe what they believe. Homosexuality is unnatural anyway.
videogamerselite270 2 months ago
@videogamerselite270
"They really need to grow up and realize that not everybody is gonna believe what they believe"
Yet, it's many Christians who are the ones who whine about not having prayer in public schools. They want to force non-Christians kids to engage in Christian prayers.
bearchewtoy75 2 months ago
@bearchewtoy75 They need to grow up too. I understand that liberals aren't the ONLY ones force their beliefs on others LOL.
videogamerselite270 2 months ago
@videogamerselite270
So, isn't it more accurate to say that anyone with a strong opinion on something wants to force those beliefs on to others, including conservatives.
bearchewtoy75 2 months ago
@bearchewtoy75 Not really, the liberals are the ones that mainly want to do it. Hell, they even want to eliminate homophobia. Do you what that entail?
The answer is killing. To kill a thought, you have to start by killing the people who think it. Liberals are the definition of intolerance.
videogamerselite270 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@videogamerselite270
"To kill a thought, you have to start by killing the people who think it."
So, when does this homophobe massacre begin? I hate being late for things.
What method will be used? Poison? Gas chamber? Crucifixion?
bearchewtoy75 2 months ago
@bearchewtoy75 No. You got it all wrong dude. Our goal is to make it so that the Christian way of life is respected in public schools, that Christian kids can pray and practice Christianity in schools. Not to force children who aren't Christian to engage in Christian activity. That's what we want. I know your going to retaliate in a rather prude way and contradict me, but it's whatever. God Bless
yoyo2121d25 1 month ago
@yoyo2121d25
The "Christian way of life" has no business being in any public school. If you want your kids to pray in school, send them to a Christian school. I have no problem with that.
Once again, why should YOUR religion be at the center of a PUBLIC school? Why not also allow Islam, Scientology, Rastafarianism?
The 1st amend. gives you the right to have a religion, not to force your religious dogma on to children in a learning environment.
bearchewtoy75 1 month ago
@yoyo2121d25
And, besides, I was talking about prayer in school which, until it was banned, was always a CHRISTIAN prayer.
Once again, the Christian "way of life" is already respected due to the first amendment and schools can't prevent kids from being Christian. If a Christian kid wants to pray before he eats lunch or takes a test, cool.
But when it comes to "gather around children and let's pray to our Christian God," nope. Sorry. Not appropriate or legal!
bearchewtoy75 1 month ago
finally someone has some common sense on this issue.
Keep it up Steve!
NickoliLion 2 months ago
@NickoliLion " Yeah Steve, keep spreading made-up propaganda about issues you know nothing about!" Way to go, whoooooooooooooooooo!!
(Common yes; sense No!)
elreyyyo 2 months ago
the funny thing is steven sends my gaydar off the charts
bojanks15 2 months ago 10
@bojanks15 Mine too!
elreyyyo 2 months ago
@bojanks15 Your "gaydar"? Wow, you seriously gotta grow up
yoyo2121d25 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@yoyo2121d25 whatever you say god of the internet
bojanks15 2 months ago
@bojanks15 Yeah seriously. He's either hiding something or just metro
lapopofighting 1 month ago
Churches can refuse to marry anyone for any reason. Period.
bearchewtoy75 2 months ago 17
@bearchewtoy75 true, but the gays would most likely make a big deal out of it. Instead of going to the coarthouse or another church, a more liberal church. They'd whine, and bitch, and throw a hissy fit. They'd make a big fuss over one church
yoyo2121d25 2 months ago
@yoyo2121d25
Once again, churches can refuse to marry anyone for any reason, including race, opposing religion, etc.
There has never been one example of a church being forced by the government to marry someone against their will. Gay hissy fit or not.
This is about CIVIL marriage which already exists just fine without any church.
bearchewtoy75 2 months ago
@bearchewtoy75 But churches should have the right to marry who the want as well including same-sex couples.
lapopofighting 1 month ago
@lapopofighting
They have that right. No one is saying otherwise.
bearchewtoy75 1 month ago
@bearchewtoy75 In states where same-sex marriage is illegal, churches are not allowed to marry homosexual couples. I think it should be up to the churches and other institutions and just leave the law out of it. Then people are all free to approach this situation as they see fit.
lapopofighting 1 month ago
@lapopofighting
"In states where same-sex marriage is illegal, churches are not allowed to marry homosexual couples."
No, that's not true. A church can marry anyone they choose.
As to whether or not it's a legally binding civil marriage is another story altogether.
The state cannot legally prevent such unions from taking place, but they can refuse to recognize them in the legal sense.
bearchewtoy75 1 month ago
@lapopofighting
"I think it should be up to the churches and other institutions and just leave the law out of it."
That would make sense if we lived in a country where the only the church decided such things. There are no religious requirements for marriage in this country since we have CIVIL marriage that allows atheists or interfaith couples to be married.
bearchewtoy75 1 month ago
Elton John is not even American, and probably couldn't give a shit about this issue... and it seems that the only "self loathing gay" around here is you, Steven Crowder.
elreyyyo 2 months ago 3
@elreyyyo Again, a person who claims that a person against homosexuality is in denial of being a homosexual. Grow up, asswipe.
videogamerselite270 2 months ago
@videogamerselite270 lol... His views on homosexually have very little to do with the reasons why I made that comment...silly!
elreyyyo 2 months ago
Churches have full discretion to refuse any marriage, heterosexual or otherwise. This "civil rights" denial risk is a right-wing myth.
But true, gay pride parades are the equivalent of celebrating MLK day by wearing black face, eating watermelon, and calling white folks "massa". I'd describe it as a radical backlash against prohibition of homosexuality in general so they go all out. Take prohibition for example, we never drank more alcohol than during that period. Ever.
MachShot1337 2 months ago
This guy is a tool just like that Acorn kid. He sucks so much I've already forgotten his name and he doesn't deserve a google search.
DennisfromDC 2 months ago
It makes me feel good to see progressives and libertarians coming together in this forum to reject this guy's selective argument. I disagree with a lot of libertarianism, but at least I understand they have a sense of rational and humanity.
DennisfromDC 2 months ago
Comment removed
DennisfromDC 2 months ago
Comment removed
DennisfromDC 2 months ago
Homosexual Bully Puppet BAHAAAAAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAA. also Elton John, yea he is the spokesman for every single gay person, just like you Crowder are for EVERY SINGLE CONSERVATIVE.
Ringowasprettygood 3 months ago 2
I am a very conservative person when it comes to economics, but I think gay marriage should be legalized. People shouldn't lable an entire political party as homophobic, because in the end that just makes them enemies. I am the very opposite of a homophobe, but when I tell someone that I'm a republican they automatically assume that I am homophobic. It is absolutely idiotic.
BonnieTheMute 3 months ago 2
to not allow two people to get married, whether they are two men or a man and women is just completely ignorant. Republicans always seem to want small government unless it comes to peoples personal lives ( ie abortion)
TheBasedWonder 3 months ago
30 seconds of this bouncing self hating gay boy is all I could take.
grimblebrumble17889 3 months ago
watch this video without sound and tell me this guy isn't taking it up the behind
SUPPORTGOODMUSIC1003 3 months ago
Decades from now, kids are going to see stuff like this and laugh at how stupid we all were.
aquagrl63 3 months ago
@aquagrl63 when they are trying to legalize bestiality
DeJay17Revolution 3 months ago
There only the gays that make the rest of us look bad. sorry that you have that viewpoint. But that's actually why it's so hard to persuade other people why its wrong. It all strains from the vulgar practices in the parades. The only thing that is true is only SOME gays do that. The people on top of the giant floats: all fame-whores. I guarantee this is why people get the wrong idea about homosexuals. There's vulgarity in heterosexual and homosexual people, but it shouldn't define everyone.
GeminiSecret 3 months ago
@revjoesaves I believe there are just as many that could be used to hurt the church. I enjoyed the debate as well, but I feel I am done with this topic for a while now. I have honestly grown tired of debating and need a break lol.
druidicwyrm 3 months ago
@revjoesaves The difference is that women haven't been fighting for their right to be a priest....because it means little to the majority of them. However, a key goal for most gay activists seems to be to get gay marriage. Public opinion is actually more the appearance of how popular something is. While those polls show people are against gay marriage, mass media leans towards gay marriage. In the end, I honestly think this argument is more speculation on how we think laws will end up.
druidicwyrm 3 months ago
@druidicwyrm Anytime that you interpret the law there's speculation. The law is an art, not a science. If you hire a lawyer for whatever unfortunate reason, you'll find quickly they make no promises about how your case will wind up. However, here we have some clearly established legal doctrine that protects churches.
revjoesaves 3 months ago
I've enjoyed are debate once again--but here is where I have to end things. I have a lot to do and need to get to work.
revjoesaves 3 months ago
@revjoesaves What I mean by it is not legislative is that it shows the level at which people care about the issue. Gays and women being priests are both frowned upon by the law. However, women have been fighting for writes since the 1800s. They never brought up not being allowed to be priests until 2002. Gays have only recently begun to fight for their rights and have already brought this into their fight. It shows it means more to the gay rights movement. Law is affected by public opinion
druidicwyrm 3 months ago
@druidicwyrm I see. Legally legislative means the legislative branch (congress passes a bill and its signed into law). Laws also change based on courts interpretation of the law, especially the Constitution. I think that your argument actually sways the other way. If women, which have constitutional and legislative protection and have been fighting openly for their rights for so long can't get it, why could the newcomers to the seen?
revjoesaves 3 months ago
Also, public opinion, which normally means how popular an idea is, is very much against gay marriage--as this video points out. I think that we would probably agree that civil unions might be a good compromise, but unfortunately, public opinion does not agree here either. What this means is that courts, interpreting the 14th Amendment, will be the ones that decide if gays get protection. Therefore, gays will have no power than the Constitution grants. The state actor doctrine will apply.
revjoesaves 3 months ago
@revjoesaves The reason the year matters is not legislative. It means that society has not seen it as nearly as hot of an issue. Women have not been allowed to be priests ever. However, there was no push for it during the women's rights movement. It simply is not as important to society. Gay marriage is a much hotter debate and has more supporters...putting the church at higher risk. While the Church could try to make a self-defense case, they would prefer civil unions and avoid the risk.
druidicwyrm 3 months ago
@druidicwyrm The right legal word here actually is legislative--if it were judicial, they would have to follow precedent. I don't understand you're logic. Gays have never been able to marry. Feminism is still hot and alive. Getting back to the two areas of law, you may be starting to understand why churches should support civil unions. If the question is kicked to the courts instead of Congress, courts may decide gays get equal protection. That means gay marriage.
revjoesaves 3 months ago
@revjoesaves But the first ever woman to sue the Roman Catholic church was only in 2002...it obviously isn't as big of an issue to society. Gay marriage is a much hotter topic. Ministerial exception would mean little in this case as it has to do with internal affairs with employees. Making marriage a right everyone has would put the church at more risk than not allowing women into high ranking positions in the church.
druidicwyrm 3 months ago
@druidicwyrm Year doesn't matter (although typically, the newer a case, the better law it is considered to be). Courts have to follow precedent, and, as Stephen actually points out, churches would have a First Amendment claim against a discrimination lawsuit. This wouldn't mean that gay marriage would be overruled, but it does mean that churches could discriminate. It would be like murder. It's illegal, but not if its self-defense. Churches could make a claim similar to self-defense.
revjoesaves 3 months ago
This comes back to the different areas of law. It's really important to understand the distinctions. There's two types of protection gays might get: 1) constitutional; 2) "statutory" granted by Congress--this would be employment discrimination, etc, which does apply to private actors. If marriage were a right everyone has, this would probably be based on an interpretation of the 14th Amendment. As we've discussed before, the 14th Amendment does not apply to churches (they're not state actors).
revjoesaves 3 months ago
@revjoesaves The argument that Congress would stop them or that the IRS most likely would not go after the churches is moot. Crowder states that they risk losing their tax exempt status....so that means if their is a legitimate possibility for them to lose their status, he is not wrong.
druidicwyrm 3 months ago
@druidicwyrm First, there's all kinds of laws and regulations that could be passed--almost anything really. Second, Steven seems to believe that the IRS's power would be triggered because churches have to grant people their civil rights (they clearly don't). In fact, this is already within the scope of the IRS's power. The point isn't moot because it shows how the links in the logic chain don't fit together.
revjoesaves 3 months ago
@druidicwyrm One more point--any time a law is passed, there's always the chance that it will be overruled by another law. Usually, this means the an interpretation of the Constitution. Bob Jones is actually about how far outside of its congressional power the IRS can go as 501(c)(3) says nothing about public policy (the IRS's power is defined by Congress). Congress would probably limit the IRS's power (before the question reached the Sup Court) if the IRS went after churches for gay policies
revjoesaves 3 months ago
@revjoesaves Do you mind sharing some of these cases? I can't seem to find them quickly, and I figure it is easier to just ask.
druidicwyrm 3 months ago
@druidicwyrm Sure. Rweyemamu v. Cote, 520 F.3d 198 (2d Cir. 2008). Also, google "ministerial exception." Another case that is analogous is California Democratic Party v. Jones--essentially, saying democrats can exclude republicans as "expressive organizations." I don't have the time to look, but there is a series of cases dealing with marriage of interracial couples. The Sup Ct case on this is Loving v. Virginia.
revjoesaves 3 months ago
@revjoesaves For your first point, you were the only person I have talked to about this subject besides elreyyyo so I figured he was talking about you. As for your second, the case is analogous to both as it is a form of discrimination. While the government and the IRS has chosen not to press the issue with women not being accepted as priests, there also has been little pressure from the public as most that are being 'discriminated' against are not opposed. Gay marriage would be different.
druidicwyrm 3 months ago
@druidicwyrm Women that want to be priests have brought claims against the Catholic Church. They failed. When it comes to discrimination statutes, the courts have carved out an exception based on the First Amendment's freedom of expression clause for "expressive organizations." Essentially, this allows an organization to discriminate based on its own doctrine via the First Amendment. Church doctrine--right or wrong, like no women priests--says gay is wrong--churches would be protected.
revjoesaves 3 months ago
Respond to this video... One more point is that the IRS right now could go after churches' tax exempt status for policies they deem anti-gay. Bob Jones is based on constitutional law, which means the IRS could apply it other contexts if they chose. If the IRS did go after churches (and it's highly likely they won't), I think that Congress would stop them (the IRS's power is defined by Congress).
revjoesaves 3 months ago
Behind all of this is an important question. What legitimate government purpose is served through a prohibition on the marriage of gay couples? Even though gays do not get constitutional protection as a protected class, they could overturn gay marriage if the state could not assert a legitimate government purpose. Does anyone out there have their own (not Steven's) thoughts on this? (An argument that homosexuality is immoral wouldn't work--wiki Lawrence v. Texas).
revjoesaves 3 months ago
@elreyyyo I do believe the only person I argued with was revjoesaves and it was more a misunderstanding of beliefs. I am not saying that the laws WILL be passed to cause church's to marry gays. However, I am saying that it will be easier to sway public and legislative opinion to go too far. Also, there are cases where public policy HAS caused the IRS to revoke tax exempt status. Bob Jones University vs. United States. So churches do risk losing tax exempt status.
druidicwyrm 3 months ago
@druidicwyrm 1) My goal is not to argue with anyone but to point out some serious errors. I actually am not that interested in gay marriage. I have studied constitutional and non-profit law though, which is why I know that this is fiction. 2) I discuss Bob Jones on the video reply "gay marriage will destroy churches." The most analogous situation to all of this legally is the Catholic churches' prohibition on woman becoming, priests. The courts and IRS have made it clear that they don't care.
revjoesaves 3 months ago
@elreyyyo The fact that you don't realize how to be respectful and resort to name-calling and insults proves that if anyone is 'full of it,' their name is tagged at the beginning of this message. You believe you know what is going on, but the fact of the matter is that neither of us know the full repercussions of the matter. I am looking further ahead and at previous 'feel good' laws....you are looking at the here and now.
druidicwyrm 3 months ago
@druidicwyrm I've tried to politely convey my thoughts to you, and from what I've read so have several others, some of whom have provided even more compeling (facts) arguements than myown, which refute S.C's. non-factual statements in this video. Yet, it seems you have not heard a word anyone has said, so I am afraid it's you who may be closed off to considering any viewpoint that is not yourown. (1 of 2)
elreyyyo 3 months ago
@druidicwyrm (cont. 2 of 2) Although, I consider myself to be a reasonable person, and I don't usually form an opinion until I've heard all the facts on an issue, I do agree with you that neither of us know for sure of any future repercussions, if any at all. However, I'm not the one who stood up and made a video based on my narrow-minded opinion, and made very specific propagandistic statements trying to pass them off as facts.
elreyyyo 3 months ago
@elreyyyo Although any lawyer will tell you that predicting what a court will do is an art and not a science. But what Steven suggests would happen in this video clearly contradicts well established legal principles--the state actor doctrine, non-profits having no requirement whatsoever to provide constitutional rights to keep non-profit status, and non-discrimination laws not applying to expressive organizations. Rest assured, you can say will certainty this video is fiction.
revjoesaves 3 months ago
@revjoesaves Yes, thanks for your input, I'm aware of the state actor doctrine and I was raised catholic, so I well aware that the (Catholic) Church based on it's religious beliefs has always practiced what some would consider forms of discrimination, and as a result of the legal principles to which you refer above, they have done so without the threat of any legal repercussion.
elreyyyo 3 months ago
One more serious error in Steven's argument that I just discovered: non-discrimination laws do not apply to "expressive organizations," including churches. This is why the Catholic Church does not have to let women be priests, why the kkk can exclude blacks, etc. So in addition to the "state actor" doctrine preventing churches from having to grant constitutional rights, Congressionally enacted laws would also not apply.
revjoesaves 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@elreyyyo And with all do respect, you need to learn that I can decide when I need to 'quit.' You see, the key is that you have already entered this conversation with a mindset set in place. You are looking at what is happening in the now. You aren't looking at prior cases or history...just what a couple people you know would do. The problem comes not with the gays but with legislation and activists. People are very quick to take any right they can away from the church...look at history.
druidicwyrm 3 months ago
Comment removed
druidicwyrm 3 months ago
@elreyyyo By 'they' I mean people that are pushing for the rights...not necessarily gays. You obviously don't pay close attention to activist groups. Each time an activist group gets a hold on a good cause they take it too far. PETA (fighting for the rights of animals) is now looking to fight to give animals BETTER rights than humans. NAACP is more about causing problems than actually fighting for what the black and Hispanic populace want. I mean people that will take it too far.
druidicwyrm 3 months ago
@druidicwyrm Again, you waste my time with your moot points? Steven Crowder is full of it on this matter and so is anyone who believes this propagandistic bull shit.
elreyyyo 3 months ago
good god, I actually agree with this. Though it does lead to a question about marriage being a right at all, related to any church. If it's up to the churches, I believe that allows for liberty to exist.
Same with gay pride parades, Make them respect the same laws everyone else does. Most of them simply want equality don't they?
MurrdurrDerpDerp 3 months ago
I think gay marrage is right.because people should have right homosexual or streight,and people who hate gays are usally very religious and thats allright but you dont have to put other people down just because of that.But thats just my oppinion,Dont hate on me
airsoftgunner93 3 months ago
I decided to watch this video after watching an extremely unfunny video mocking keith olbermann, just to see if they were truly that clueless and the answer is yes. Maybe I don't understand the point, is it supposed to be funny? Or are we supposed to listen to this questionably straight man make idiotic remarks about people that don't give a s*** about him?
jilliansworld12 4 months ago
I agree lol. I had fun as well. It's always nice meeting someone who knows how to be respectful rather than throwing insults.
druidicwyrm 4 months ago