@Rand0miz3erXXX Sure, and I bet you pledge 'In God we trust' instead of 'E Pluribus Unum'
This nation was founded in the spirit of Christianity, BUT the Constitution says NOTHING of a certain religion to be strictly followed, it says the opposite and states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
Way to Go Guy ....Your the best, No Truth in the US Constitution Until it is lived up to ! Gay, Disabled DO NOT Live In West Berkshire. UK ! Thames Valley Police Deliberate Indifference, Brutal Retaliations against any who dare complain about their unprofessional behaviors , Webcas A sorrowful Joke!
They're treating his views as odd and faulty although this kid is smarter than any mainstream news reporter will ever be; of COURSE there shouldn't be liberty and justice for all - that's just an idea we wish to print into young people's minds so that they'll live in an illusion of freedom. Tax paying freedom. Tax money that can be spend on weapons, wars, surveillance and prisons for the sheep that refuse to obey the laws of the leaders who are out to take your liberty away.
@vv901vv901 they are not treating his views as odd or faulty. If they were, they wouldn't give this kid the time of day. The fact that what he is doing resounds with millions of other Americans is precisely why he is being given this platform.
They're presenting the kid's opposition to injustice as out of the ordinary (i.e. strange) by making a news story about it, and the only suggestions as to why there is very little liberty and justice left today is racism and sexism, and the suggested entailment of sexism is only homosexuals not being able to marry. There are 7 billion other reasons not to accept educational indoctrinations such as false suggestions of anyone on the planet living in a free and just society.
@vv901vv901 I was not refering to his views. I was referring to HIM. His mannerisms and quirks and all. Odd. My kid is his age and also quite intelligent, mature and quirky. Weird, but in a good way!
Do they seriously still force people to stand up and blindly pledge allegiance to this corrupt global tyranny? How evolved we have become... 2010 - an age when people gladly attribute to fascism. Hurray, humanity.
@balikpapan6 I don't think it's regional. The dad sounds a bit Southern, but I think Will just over-enunciates a bit. I've seen (well, heard) it before in exceptionally bright kids who are very deliberate when they speak.
wow talk about mind control of this kid. He repeats what he doesnt understand nor should be taught in school. How much of this did he get from his dad and mom? He doesnt understand this, he talks about it.
Well ok then if he wont Pledge to his Country to fight for it or be honest or have integrity. Then he cant go to school. His citizenship will be revoked after 90 days, and he must relocate to another country. His agenda is not more important than keeping this country intact.
@ighforever we are not in Iran dude, as an American you have the DUTY to question your government and laws, and you have the right to protest in any way as long as it does not involve subversive behaviour, Benjamin Franklin clearly stated that, and if you have this type of mindset, you should be the one to be vanished from the country for not even knowing what FREEDOM stands for.
@ighforever and why are you so arrogant and ignorant about age and intelligence?
your age does not dictate how smart or how aware you are about your surroundings, we can agree that the kid's thoughts had to be somehow influenced by his parents, but, don't your parents choose what religion you are?if your parents are Christian they will be almost absolutely going to make you be a Christian...
i truly agree with the boy's stance on gay/lesbian struggles in america. he made it loud and clear that sexual apartheid and homophobic segregation is a huge issue in the country.
homosexuals are always used as a scapegoat. they were often accused of ALL national problems such as gang violence and terrorist attacks.
why shouldnt kids learn about them? they should learn that u should accept people for who they are,there a different types of families everywhere in the country
quoting harvey milk how do u teach gays? is it like french?
He probably shouldnt say it. Why wouldnt he want to pledge allegiance to this flag which he claims stands for liberty and justice for all, then go out and fight for liberty and justice? Rather, he (and others) would denounce the pledge and still insist on citizenship privileges.
There is hope after all!! You need to campaign for Ron Paul!!! Young people like you will hopefully help us lead this country away from tyranny, and back to our Constitutional roots!! The news guy is spewing out crap as well referring to the "democratic" process shooting down the gay rights issues in all the states. Most of that is the right wing whackos getting their way because they bought it.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
gays already have civil unions, but they want more for one reason only, if marriage is giving to gays, next they will wanted it taught to school children.
books about two moms two dads\
to promote homosexuality to small childre, thats not exceptable
Let me ask you something, dumbass? Are there kids out there that have 2 moms or 2 dads? Of course there are, so, how is REALITY in schools a bad thing?
You can't make a person WANT to be gay.
When did you choose to be straight?
When did you decide between being gay or straight?
Please do not have kids, cause either you have a bad gene or are just too dumb to reproduce.
Who gives ashit if the world opposes gay marriage? This is america, land of the free, NOT land of the ALMOST free.
And which other countries would gays be killed in? The world has come a long way on the gay issue.
Respect for a flag? The flag is a symbol, nothing more. It scares the shit out of me to think there are people out there that find it easier to respect a piece of cloth before a human being.
spoken like a true idiot, again idiot, gays have the same rights as anyone...but they cannot marry, because marraige is for man and women to each other.
2 gays would be killed in many countries
like Iran suadi arabi pakistan and many other places, the pireace of cloth as u call the flag people died so you can be free idiot , just because we dont believe in gay marriage doesnt mean we not free.
God bless America,
by the way your liberal god OBAMA OPPOSES GAY MARRIAGE.
Every country you named is still living in the 7th century. You don't compare the greatest, most free country on earth to a group of the most backward ass countries on earth.
The flag is just a symbol, nothing more. I've served in the Army, asshole, have you?
A free country doesn't just say TOO bad to it's citizens. You said it yourself, gays have every right EXCEPT the right to marry.
They don't have the same rights to marraige only, all other rights gays have same as you and me, as for marriage thats because its always been between a man and women, and this kid seems to think only in American gays aren't allowed to marry, little does he know, brainwashed by his father.
if gays not marrying means they are opppressed, its like saying brothers or sister are oppressed becus they not allowed to marry, its pretty stupid.
excuse me... gays/lesbians do not have same rights in united states as straights. sexual apartheid is a real epidemic in united states. ALL americans still hate gay people, and refuse to acknowledge that they are real, living beings in this country. straights deny gay people equal access to many facilities/establishments straight people take for granted.
right-wing idiots claim that homosexuals are wholly responsible for terrorism in america.
I MUST say this.. although I'm sure that several have said it before. Marriage is ordained by God and made specifically for a man and woman. I cant go all into details (so people PLEASE don't start saying all these different things to me k) since I don't know all the exact information off the top of my head and don't have time to look it up.
A church are business, and a business should pay taxes. Also, churches have now begun to enter into open politics. If a church preaches who to vote for, they should lose their tax-free status. If they can't keep themselves out of politics then they lose their benifits.
So, what do we do about the first amendment then? The constitution ensures everyone the right to engage in politics and free speech. Now we should limit the rights of those who attend church, or work for the Church? I'm not understanding your position. Also, those who work for the church pay income tax. It is the church as an organization that is tax exempt, and always has been.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion......."
This is a perfect example of someone talking before learning. Churches were only added to 501C3 in 1954, the same year that "under god" was added to the pleadge.
You also most likely do not know that a church can lose it's 501C3 status if it engages in partisan politics.
It seems as though you are living your life based on mis-information.
The constitution does NOT protect a church's free speach.
Please do some research as it seems that you're wrong on many issues.
Actually, I did read a bit on 501c3 before I posted, and I found that according to the IRS Churches are not required to file 501c3 to be tax exempt, they already are because of the constitution. Furthermore, before 501c3 was introduced under LBJ, Churches did not have to pay taxes, again because of the constitution.
Why is marriage different? Marriage is a religious invention, prior to churches people just had sex to reproduce, and there were gays back then. There are gay animals.
When did you choose to be straight?
Seriously, when did you make the choice to be straight?
If you never did, why the hell do you think gays did?
"convert our children"???
What a fucking dumbass. People like you are why christians and rednecks are portrayed as dipshits. LOL
What if congress wrote a law that said that douchebags that wear there hats backwards can't drive cars? Then you'd be pissed. LOL
When guys do that, they're really trying to fit in. It's a follower thing, not a leader thing.
No offense dude, but followers don't make it in life. Try thinking for yourself for a change. Wear your hat the way YOU want to wear it. Don't follow the TRENDS, MAKE them.
The kid should stand and say the pledge, its American which allows him to make this comments, if he did this in any Muslim country, his father would be killled, they don't support any gays rights whatsoever, he doesn't know how lucky he is to live in America....
@ Albanianwarrior23 i agree that we all are lucky to live in a free nation that allows us to voice our opinoins.but you say he shouldnt voice his opinoin because he would be punished if he was in a muslim country?your basically saying that because he has freedom, he shouldnt use that freedom.and he has every right to not say the pledge, because he believes that there isnt liberty and justice for all
Lucky for you, you're too big a coward to actually stand next to your neighbors and say bullshit like that. Most would slit your throat where you stand.
But hey, thank your redneck parents for that. I'll bet your daddy beat the living shit out of your mom/sister? LOL
Tell me, which is worse for you, mountain dew or CRACK?
BTW, when's the next KLAN rally? I've always wondered what that many pussies in one place looked like.
anotherfoolonthehill: If you feel its such an issue, and you wish to partake in incest, by all means put it on the ballot. Make your argument convincing enough. Making incest legal would not make anyone else have to marry their own siblings, but there is a medical issue with it called genetic depression. You may have heard of it. Ask your Uncle-brother. He'll know all about it.
I did read your post and you specifically state "being around long enough".. And now I'm only providing a disagreement, a challenge, to your extremely silly assessment. If you're so adamant about being right yourself, I only demand you to provide proof.
Have you asked him his views? His definitions and experiences with liberty and justice? Is it only because its something you don't agree with that you're "forced" to make such knee-jerk reactions?
My stance is simple and it is this: My definition of marriage is mine, and it is not for the government to define to me what a marriage is. Nor is it the governments role to provide benefits for it. My stance is more along the lines of a Libertarian one. My definition of what a marriage is not important for you to agree with or disagree with. Marriage should be more of a "common-law" engagement than one the government is forced to recognize on behalf of all the people.
Good, the we agree. The choice of who a person marries should be left up to THAT person. It's called "live and let live" You stay the hell out of my business, and I'll... Wait, I never cared about your personal business, so yeah, stay the hell out of other people's business.
Yes, we do agree that marriage should be left to the people as a private matter, but wait.... you didn't agree because you felt the Gov't should be involved in defining marriage to the masses and overturning elected statutes in some states. Make up your mind please.
The govt. should not play favorites in what it defines. The church is where Marriage dwells, and civil unions would end this debate. The problem is that religious groups want to controlEVERYONE with their morals.
The Govt. should NOT be in the business of legislating morals.
When law is concerned the ONLY place to go is the congress. PERIOD!
The difference here, is we as a nation decided that we didn't want redneck GOP sleestaks born to incest. It is denied for medical reasons and since gays CANNOT reproduce, it doen't qualify as a medical issue.
anotherfoolonthehill: I'll have to decline your advice of fucking off.
Has this child really brought anything to my attention? Of course not. A simple search through this videos' responses may clue you in. But you stated that a length of time is required, yet how many other children are of a similar awareness and strength to do such a thing?
Again I ask, how long is long enough? Perhaps its not a length of time, but a display of awareness and maturity. Something you apparently lack.
I've gone up against the Iraqi army, so some pissant redneck from bumfuck West VA. doesn't scare me.
History has seen your kind throw rocks and dart back into the shadow and that's what your kind does. Your sheets are stained with the blood of innocents and your cowardess is legendary.
Your kind forms a "militia" because real fighting scares you. You beat your women because you know the chances are, that they won't fight back.
jews, paul was acting like his old character in reverse. remember he was hateful towards christians as saul, now he seems to be hateful of rome as paul.
I wish folks in the military would have the equal COURAGE to stand up and refuse to serve until gays and lesbians are treated equally, too. Wouldn't that be something? Unfortunately, none of them have the balls to do this...
The boy's father put him up to it--some people crave their 15 minutes of LAME & don't care how they get it. The poor child probably doesn't even understand what's going on & is being scripted by his dumb-ass dad.
Just cause your kids are dipshits, doesn't mean that all kids are. Children are honest, for the most part. Ask the balloon boys father how easy it is to get kids to lie. He's gonna do time cause his kid went off script.
Funny how quick people are to assume that children are just dumb idiots.
@JewsAlwaysLie: Yes, it is a different issue. Polygamy is polygamy. Homosexuality is homosexuality. They're associated with marriage, but not the same issues.
And by voting, I was speaking in terms of polygamy since its a concern of yours, and then I let you know its good to stick to the subject at hand. Please try to pay attention to the comments, read them and understand them.
JewsAlwaysLie: Its two different issues. If you wish for it to come up on a ballot, do exercise your rights as a citizen and please vote. For now, its homosexuality.
I would like to ask that all dissenters to please abstain from allowing their A.D.D. to take over. Its quite annoying.
i LOVE this kid!!..finally SOMEONE is standing up for equality and TRUE liberty & justice for ALL..leave it to a 10-yr-old kid to show us all the light
I stopped standing for the pledge (as did several friends of mine) in 7th grade. Even then, I knew all that freedom-and-justice talk was pure nonsense, and this government (regardless of the puppet that sits in the Oval Office) is completely illegitimate and criminal.
daddy is in the closet and put his kid up to it is probably the true story.. our Owners agenda.. they control our airwaves now and they WANT you to see this and divide even more.. keep it in the bedroom guys, not on teeshirts and the sidewalk.. don't make me have to explain to my 4 yo why that man is holdin' hands with that other man, walkin' down the sidewalk.. it shames me that my countrymen are so cautious when it comes to a blatent violation of our decentcy laws, if there are any left..
Soooo you're ok with a man and woman holding hands I assume yet it becomes "indecent" when 2 men do the same?? What is the threat?? Why can't you look past what people do "in the bedroom"?? Why so scared?
Wait, so you're argument is saying, "this is how it was in the past, so this is how it should be now"?? Do you have a problem with things changing? Holding hands is not indecent.
don't tell me what my arguement is saying, listen to what I am saying, you are indecent and an abomination.. you have no status which I need give attention, just seek the help of a doctor, or a man of God, not legislators, judges and lawyers.. you have an illness.. end of story.. get a plane ticket and go to Beging and see how you're accepted..
Dewdaahman: Why don't you wish to explain reality to your 4 year old? Why do you have to be made to teach your offspring, and not simply do it? If you don't wish to do so, then avoid it and let them find out on their own when they're older. Its comparable to abstinence only sex, ignorance isn't an option.
Now that I've gotten your attention. I would like to know the source of your decency. What you call indecent and an abomination must have a bearing on something as comparison.
you know well my source, it is The Holy Bible.. "man shall not lay with man as he lays with a woman.." it was wrong then, it was wrong 50yrs ago and it's still wrong.. try talkin' to a potential convert, my mind is already made up.. good day sir..
@Dewdaahman No, I don't well know your source. Its why I asked. Please don't make such assumptions, it shows a lack of ability to weigh in on such an issue.
Potential converts? Of?
Nonetheless, you're speaking from Leviticus, an old way thats been nullified by Jesus Christ. Your mind has been made up on something that's no longer in application to any society since Jesus' time all the way to today. Thats very juvenile of you.
I Corinthians 6:9-10 does not speak on homosexuality, nor to our own culture today. Though interesting enough, it speaks on inheriting the Kingdom of God. Not everyone believes in God. It only applies to those that take on the mantle of Christianity.
In Romans, read on to 29-32. Think about it a bit, and then read Romans 3: 9-10. I would like to see how homosexuality is so singled out when nobody is innocent.
not to mention the fact that pauls letter to the romans reads more like a personal diary of a converted jewish mans journey through NEROS ROME. it is more a critique, a personal opinion of roman society through the eyes of a jewish christian not accustomed to roman society,not some letter to a small roman church
You know good ans well that if Christ did today what he did then, HE would be called GAY Today, people like you call guys that hang around with only menand haven't had sex with a woman, GAY.
If Jesus was so against gays, why didn't he throw a little meat around and act like a man? Hell, even GOD didn't have sex, to get Mary Prego.
BTW, Nazis had laws defining what decency was also, is that what you prefer?
Not nearly the laws that the religious right would like to have. If left up to them, women would have to cover all of their skin and NOT speak their minds. If you remember, we used to make women cover their legs, and were not allowed to read. There are laws on the books in the south that prohibit certain sex acts. What business is it of the Govt. what 2 adults do in their bed?
Decency laws are for backward countryies, america is beyond such bullshit.
Decency laws are outdated and require a reform of their own. There is a line, such as nudity in public, or even sex in public.
But when such "laws" dictate the sexual position of people within the privacy of their own abodes, it becomes too much. Who is regulating the laws anyway?
There is a line, and it must be drawn in favour of common sense and not for ancient religious texts written by people that thought that having sex during a woman's period gave reason to ostracize couples.
No, becase his views are stupid and anti-American. I live under the exact laws gay people live under. They have exactly the same protections under the law I have. They want New Laws to make Special Exceptions for them. I have restrictions on whom I can marry. So do they. The difference is that they don't like the restrictions.
What happens when other groups want more Special Exceptions?
So, A man, a horse and three Latvian Midgets can get "married"?
*sigh* Are you comparing people to humans, really? Really?! Gay people just want to marry the person they love. Why is that so terrible?
Why are you okay with a woman marrying a man and not a man marrying a man? It hurts no one. Gay people are here whether you like it or not. They are people just like everyone and there are a lot of them. It's not immoral. Why can everyone else marry the one they love except gays? Seems discriminatory and anti-american.
Question: Are you for civil unions or domestic partnerships with full equal right? If not, there's nothing to argue here...some people just get caught up in the word "marriage."
Why do you consider millions of gays fools? I've never heard of someone fighting to marry an animal. Surely you can see the fundamental problem with this...
You're right, it's not really about love. It's about equal rights. Love is different to everyone.
We have redefined marriage to mean what we want for a while.
I'm Libertarian. The Feds have no business even knowing my marital status.
I'm also against calling a birth defect a "Lifestyle Choice". I'm for finding a cure to prevent it.
The whole discussion is a waste of time anyway. Once the uslims have their way the gays will just be lind up and stoned to death. Perhaps that's a more productive issue to work on...
There are certain facts you need to realize before continuing with this..heh.. "argument" you are trying to uphold.
Homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice. Its not a lifestyle. By your own "logic" you say its a birth defect. So it isn't a choice, nor is it a lifestyle. Since you're too simple to extend some effort to realize this, lets play in your yard.
Why would you want to find a cure? A simple question, it requires only a simple answer.
Verboten: You ignore my question, along with not even grasping the idea of a metaphor for "yard". Maybe I should say "ball court"? Or "field"? Gutter?
Perhaps my question was too complicated even with a simple yes or no answer as the possibilities.
I can only conclude that you have no viable response, possibly because you're a homophobe, and in turn a closet homosexual.. Hence the name calling and pissing contest to try to shut me or anyone else up.
Verboten: Oh but I do wish for a discussion. Its why I asked a question instead of resorted to juvenile namecalling. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and ask one more time:
I called you no names. Unless "Verboten" is an insult to you.
Is Yin Yang the answer to why you would want to find a "cure" for homosexuality? If no, then I'll conclude that you don't have a viable answer and consider you a lost, rhetoric spewing cause. If yes, then I would like to discuss further and possibly educate you.
Well yes. Unless you're against being educated. You display a need for it.
Homophobe, closet homosexual..Those aren't insults. They're observations. One's you've yet to defend yourself towards. Your made up mind of rejecting what you try to counter with calling "rhetoric" is evidence of it alone.
But okay, I'll take this as a no. You have no viable answer for your proposed reason for a cure, and due to the failure to defend your point, this also leads to reason to call you a homophobe.
"Then tell me that next week some *other* fool won't declare his love for a Monkey or a Goat, or three Latvian Midgets.
Ignore the logic,."
There is no logic in your statement to ignore. It's a fallacious argument, specifically a straw man.
It does not follow if gay couples get to marry (as straight couples are already allowed to do) that bestiality is the next step. Those two things are not the same.
No you don't live under the same rules as gays and yes Dissent is very American.
Of course, you won't be "buying" because I've realized what I'm arguing with.
First of all, being gay is no more a "lifestyle choice" than being straight. You're gonna have to work on that there.
Second, EVEN IF you could prove being gay is a "birth defect" (It is not a psychological disorder anymore as we have learned more about it), how does it then follow you can't marry someone with the same birth defect?! I believe we allow the mentally ill to marry in this country...
Everyone else has to marry some one of the opposite sex, so it is no different. By the way, gay people can still marry some one of the opposite sex as well. Another point, If homosexual marriage is ok why is not ok to marry more than one person? This marriage thing is full of contradictions.
You have to look at it from a gay person's point of view. Flip it for just one second. Would you marry a person of the same sex? You could still love them very closely as a friend but you know it's just not the same. It's not the "same" kind of love. A gay person by nature cannot marry a person of the opposite sex.
No one is fighting for marrying more than one person at the same time. If that time comes (which I really doubt it will), there will be different arguments and it won't work.
iSAW7: Homosexuality and polygamy are two different subjects. Though they concern the institution of marriage they are not the same thing, they are not comparable.
This is the same for those that think that animals will somehow be involved, which is very silly. Must one describe to you and others the core basics of marriage, what it is and what its for?
The only contradictions are the mislead members of an ironfisted majority that selfishly hoards over marriage.
I agree with you that animal marriage is silly, but polygamy and homosexuality are indeed comparable because of marriage among other things. What is also silly is for you to assume you can describe to me what marriage is. Societies establish their own definitions of marriage, and it differs among cultures. There is no absolute definition of marriage and it is silly to think so. Marriage is only what we say it is, and in a democratic country it seems we have decided to put it to a vote. Sorry.
One question I would like to pose is why is it that when homosexual marriage is illegal that is seen as and infringement on their civil rights, but polygamous marriage is not an infringement? There are a range of cultures that have defined polygamous marriage to be within the norm for their societies, but somehow in America it does not fit our definition. Another example of how marriage has long been defined to restrict alternative lifestyles in our country.
It would be an infringment if we allowed a man to marry as many women as he wants, but not allow a woman to marry as many as she wants. They are NOT the same. You're comparing murder to a traffic ticket. It is not fair to ONLY allow heteros to marry, while blocking Homos.
Polygamy is a different issue.
Can you imagine if Sarah Palin could skeak as well as this kid? LOL
What if we allowed both Men and Women to mary as many as they see fit? That was my point. Also, homo's are not "blocked" from marrying, they are allowed to marry the opposite sex as everyone else. Polygamy and Homosexuality are part of the same issue, which is our definition of marriage. We as a society have defined marriage to exclude polygamous and homosexual relationships. If you feel we should broaden the definition why should polygamy continue to be excluded? Polygamy is legal elsewhere.
We already do, Liz Taylor has been married 9 times.
Nice, that's like saying that it's ok to speed as long as it's on a race track.
Wrong, marriage is legal between 2 ADULTS, keeping 2 other adults from marrying simply because they are the same gender is DENYING them rights that others have.
You are applying biblical morals to legal cases and confusing yourself. God and our courts are separate.
Polygamy is not allowed in the U.S. We are discussing U.S. law.
You seem to be confused. I don't mean married and divorced 8 times like Liz taylor. I mean marry 9 people at once. Is that really hard to understand from one post to the next? We were talking polygamy being included in to the definition of marriage.
I understand exactly what you meant, I was just pointing out how well us hetero's treat the sanctity of marriage.
Nobody but opponents of gay marriage are talking about polygamy.
Marriage is a legal contract between 2 adults. Some states allow a man and a woman, and some allow both. The U.S. does not allow polygamy in any form.
"I was just pointing out how well us hetero's treat the sanctity of marriage."
Once again your comment points out how ignorant you are towards the variety of views people have of marriage. You can believe that having more than 1 spouse is unsanctified, but that is YOUR definition of marriage. There are many cultures who have no problem with more than 1 spouse like some muslim countries currently practice. Just like there are many people who have no problem with homosexual marriage.
I agree, tell the Gov't to keep its nose out of our bedrooms. I dont know how to make my position any more clear than to say the government should not be involved in defining marriage. Also, it seems it is not only the religious groups who want to control everyone it is also people like yourself who want everyone to view marriage as you do. If the congress is the ONLY place to go as far as the law, what does that say of the most speeding laws you brought up that are enforced by the state?
I don't want you to view marriage in any way what's so ever, I simply want equal freedom for all our citizens. I can't make you think of marriage MY way. I can't control your thoughts.
One thing I do know is that if the law was fair, I wouldn't be here butching about an unjust law.
Do you feel that churches should pay taxes exactly like the rest of us without any tax benifits?
Now that they want to affect laws, maybe it's time to revoke their tax-free status.
We used to bar blacks and whites from getting married, should we go back to that? Funny, how stupid your stance is when viewed through the eyes of history.
You are no different than Wallace when he stood in the school door, and years from now people will laugh and wonder how idiots like that even existed.
We as a society have decided that fairness and justice will trump religious dogma any day. The church and it's people cannot be allowed to choose based on what god wants.
I don't recall stating blacks should not be married. but you can pretend I did if you wish. I agree with your point about the church deciding things for us, but I would go a step further. It is not the governments job to define marriage to us in the first place, or provide benefits for it.
Once again, just pointing out what the definition of marriage USED to be.
Why not? If that's your case, then why is it the Govt's job to define speeding, or torture? It IS the govt's job to define legal terms. To say otherwise is crazy at best.
What benifits are we talking about? Visitation, or tax?
You said it earlier, what marriage is, is up to you. It's a personal decision.
Marrige is not the same as it was 100 years ago, and will change again.
The government defines speeding and torture as a matter of public safety, which is understandable to me. Although some us still can not drive 55. You state marriage is not the same as 100 years ago, however I will go a step further and state marriage is not the same today from person to person. And for some people the definition is the same as it was 100 years ago.
"What benifits are we talking about?" There are around 1138 federal benefits for marriage.
Civil unions or domestic partnerships already exist in California. But, the problem is the Federal Government or, THE CONGRESS, has chosen to define marriage to their ideals, which was 1 man and 1 woman. But for that, those unions in California would enjoy full federal benefits, yet the federal government chose to intervene to impose their definition of marriage. My point: Government should not define marriage. Whether state or federal ("congress PERIOD!"). No federal benefits, No definition.
iSAW7: You disagreed with me, only to agree. It IS two different issues, with the connecting factor being that of marriage. Right now the subject is same sex marriage. Just as heterosexual marriage is seen as so different than homosexual marriage, thus its a different vote. Polygamy is a different subject, and would be a different vote. Would it not?
Just the same as if someone wanted it okay to "marry animals", it still concerns marriage, but would be a different issue. (cont)
I think we have a disagreement as to what the issue is. It is my opinion that the issue it not homosexuality or polygamy, but rather Marriage and what the definition should be broad enough to include. In that context all of the above are relevant. As far as marriage with animals goes I think that is disgusting, but as you said it is "a fact of life." I don't know if they are born that way or not, but I do see it as an aberration and an abnormal behavior, the same view I hold towards homosexualit
iSAW7: Societies do establish these things, but the question as to "why" its established as such. Voting or not, the question of "Why" its banned is what the matter is. Like you say.. "somehow it doesn't fit the definition". Right now the somehow, the mainstay to the bans are a religious reason. I ask, is ignorance so vital?
Also, your term "alternative lifestyle" is highly misleading. Homosexuality isn't a lifestyle, nor is it an alternative. Its a part of nature. (cont)
And what exactly is not part of nature? Or the natural world for that matter. Nature to me would seem to be all encompassing. So, I see no point to that statement as I already understand that it is part of out natural world. Also, I am not religious.
iSAW7: I'm fascinated at your lack of religious convictions, with your take on the natural world being as it is, yet also hold your views to homosexuality and same sex marriage as you do.
Care to explain your stance or is it just an irrational reaction?
iSAW7: We do both agree that there are contradictions. But I only present that its not marriage itself, but again only the people that rule over it. Marriage is for everyone. Its an evolved insitution based on love and companionship these days, at least the more perfect world ones. But if homosexuals are a fact of life, (which they are) and they aren't allowed to marry each other, then does that mean that love is NOT a requirement for marriage? (cont)
iSAW7: And finally.. polygamy. It has been voted down, yes. And so far, as our culture is concerned, the difference between homosexuality and polygamy is that in one instance its a simple fix on a single word, the other could require the restructuring of the whole system to include multiple people. Polygamy would require a bit more work, but I wouldn't say was impossible. Does that satisfy your inquiry? (final continue)
"the other could require the restructuring of the whole system to include multiple people."
Sorry, I do not buy that argument. Polygamy is legal in many countries and understood in other cultures. Yet, it is too complicated to figure out for us? LoL.
iSAW7: I see where you're going with the nature thing. Unfortunately not everyone thinks like that. In addition to this, I'm not against the complications or lack thereof for polygamy to be legalized. But you have to understand, you really must grasp that this is not an issue on polygamy. Its an issue on same sex marriage.
Again, I said if someone wants to put together something that shows polygamy to be a civil rights issue, by all means do so.
verboten dipshit, since when is telling other folks both who and when and why to marry. is it any of your damn business?! does it interfere with YOUR marriage. or do you think that you be greatly rewarded in the afterlife for thinking you were doing god a big favor. just another self-appointed,self-righteous, 21st. century pharisee
"They want New Laws to make Special Exceptions for them. I have restrictions on whom I can marry. So do they. The difference is that they don't like the restrictions."
They don't want new laws and exceptions, they want the same opportunity that you and I have
Is Daddy a homosexual? Someone in his life is; someone who is very influential over him, and who put him up to this silliness. How exactly does one encounter "many people who are gay" in Arkansas?
So, in your mind, the only way someone would stand for the rights of someone else is if they know them or have a vested interest? So people cant stand for something because it's the right thing to do?
Maybe he's just a really smart kid? Haven't you seen other news stories with very articulate, bright children? Even if you don't know 1 gay person, it's still possible to see why marriage equality is important. If we don't allow gays to marriage, what's next? Stopping fertile people from marrying? Stopping people from low incomes marrying? Sure, unlikely but look what we're doing to gays now...why shouldn't they marry?
troyeck: Your powers of observation are not even mediocre. People who are gay (closet or not) will the be same percent anywhere.
In case you missed out on the whole "making friends" thing long ago, one makes friends with anyone they wish. After some time, really good friends can be trusted, usually with something such as the admittance to being gay. That young boy seems like such a trustworthy individual, a good friend to many. Not something every adult can say they have earned. Can you?
I think that they honestly should spearate church and state and think wether the pledge of allegence is right or not. With all the different people in this world that make up different Race, Religion, Culture and Sexual Orientations. Why should we be vendicted to follow what the pledge says. It's not only "Liberty and Justice for all" but also "one nation under god" why should that be in there if some people don't believe in god?
Well the "under God" part was added in the 50's. If that offends someone they can just stay silent for those two words. I don't think there is anything else in there that should offend anyone.
great kid. If this were about inter racial marriage, everyone on here would agree with him. He is right, until GLBT citizens can legally marry, there isnt liberty and justice for all.
@Rand0miz3erXXX Sure, and I bet you pledge 'In God we trust' instead of 'E Pluribus Unum'
This nation was founded in the spirit of Christianity, BUT the Constitution says NOTHING of a certain religion to be strictly followed, it says the opposite and states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
The Constitution is Law, NOT the Bible.
Reynard13Fuchs 5 months ago
Way to Go Guy ....Your the best, No Truth in the US Constitution Until it is lived up to ! Gay, Disabled DO NOT Live In West Berkshire. UK ! Thames Valley Police Deliberate Indifference, Brutal Retaliations against any who dare complain about their unprofessional behaviors , Webcas A sorrowful Joke!
Hamzalove1 1 year ago
This kid is fucking weird. But in a good way.
MissyZilla 1 year ago
They're treating his views as odd and faulty although this kid is smarter than any mainstream news reporter will ever be; of COURSE there shouldn't be liberty and justice for all - that's just an idea we wish to print into young people's minds so that they'll live in an illusion of freedom. Tax paying freedom. Tax money that can be spend on weapons, wars, surveillance and prisons for the sheep that refuse to obey the laws of the leaders who are out to take your liberty away.
vv901vv901 1 year ago
@vv901vv901 they are not treating his views as odd or faulty. If they were, they wouldn't give this kid the time of day. The fact that what he is doing resounds with millions of other Americans is precisely why he is being given this platform.
MissyZilla 1 year ago
@MissyZilla
They're presenting the kid's opposition to injustice as out of the ordinary (i.e. strange) by making a news story about it, and the only suggestions as to why there is very little liberty and justice left today is racism and sexism, and the suggested entailment of sexism is only homosexuals not being able to marry. There are 7 billion other reasons not to accept educational indoctrinations such as false suggestions of anyone on the planet living in a free and just society.
vv901vv901 1 year ago
@vv901vv901 I was not refering to his views. I was referring to HIM. His mannerisms and quirks and all. Odd. My kid is his age and also quite intelligent, mature and quirky. Weird, but in a good way!
MissyZilla 1 year ago
@MissyZilla
Ah, then this is a moment well-suited for the Captain Beefheart quote "you don't have to be weird to be weird" ;)
Or my own: if every person is unique, how can anyone be considered 'normal?'
...too few people allow themselves to be themselves. Too many robots out there.
vv901vv901 1 year ago
Do they seriously still force people to stand up and blindly pledge allegiance to this corrupt global tyranny? How evolved we have become... 2010 - an age when people gladly attribute to fascism. Hurray, humanity.
vv901vv901 1 year ago
what accent is that?
balikpapan6 1 year ago
@balikpapan6 I don't think it's regional. The dad sounds a bit Southern, but I think Will just over-enunciates a bit. I've seen (well, heard) it before in exceptionally bright kids who are very deliberate when they speak.
MySubmarineIsYellow 1 year ago
wow talk about mind control of this kid. He repeats what he doesnt understand nor should be taught in school. How much of this did he get from his dad and mom? He doesnt understand this, he talks about it.
Well ok then if he wont Pledge to his Country to fight for it or be honest or have integrity. Then he cant go to school. His citizenship will be revoked after 90 days, and he must relocate to another country. His agenda is not more important than keeping this country intact.
ighforever 1 year ago
@ighforever we are not in Iran dude, as an American you have the DUTY to question your government and laws, and you have the right to protest in any way as long as it does not involve subversive behaviour, Benjamin Franklin clearly stated that, and if you have this type of mindset, you should be the one to be vanished from the country for not even knowing what FREEDOM stands for.
luciferiexcelsil 1 year ago
@ighforever and why are you so arrogant and ignorant about age and intelligence?
your age does not dictate how smart or how aware you are about your surroundings, we can agree that the kid's thoughts had to be somehow influenced by his parents, but, don't your parents choose what religion you are?if your parents are Christian they will be almost absolutely going to make you be a Christian...
luciferiexcelsil 1 year ago
haha this kid is awesome!!!!
2cool0 1 year ago
i truly agree with the boy's stance on gay/lesbian struggles in america. he made it loud and clear that sexual apartheid and homophobic segregation is a huge issue in the country.
homosexuals are always used as a scapegoat. they were often accused of ALL national problems such as gang violence and terrorist attacks.
collegeguy2009 1 year ago
why shouldnt kids learn about them? they should learn that u should accept people for who they are,there a different types of families everywhere in the country
quoting harvey milk how do u teach gays? is it like french?
offspringfan456 2 years ago
@offspringfan456 yes 100% agree
2cool0 1 year ago
He probably shouldnt say it. Why wouldnt he want to pledge allegiance to this flag which he claims stands for liberty and justice for all, then go out and fight for liberty and justice? Rather, he (and others) would denounce the pledge and still insist on citizenship privileges.
f8fulencounterICN2U 2 years ago
YOU GO WILL!!!
There is hope after all!! You need to campaign for Ron Paul!!! Young people like you will hopefully help us lead this country away from tyranny, and back to our Constitutional roots!! The news guy is spewing out crap as well referring to the "democratic" process shooting down the gay rights issues in all the states. Most of that is the right wing whackos getting their way because they bought it.
fuzzflxrs 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
gays already have civil unions, but they want more for one reason only, if marriage is giving to gays, next they will wanted it taught to school children.
books about two moms two dads\
to promote homosexuality to small childre, thats not exceptable
Albanianwarrior23 2 years ago
Gays only have civil unions in SOME states.
How do you TEACH gays in schools?
Let me ask you something, dumbass? Are there kids out there that have 2 moms or 2 dads? Of course there are, so, how is REALITY in schools a bad thing?
You can't make a person WANT to be gay.
When did you choose to be straight?
When did you decide between being gay or straight?
Please do not have kids, cause either you have a bad gene or are just too dumb to reproduce.
Rushtrdamus 2 years ago 4
He could have his opinion no probe, but lets not pretend he is oppresses in this country, the world opposes gay marrige
and unlike america, in most other countries they would be killed.
so he should respect his country
his father has brainwashed the kid
shame on the dirty father.
Albanianwarrior23 2 years ago
@Albanianwarrior23
Spoken like a true douchebag.
Who gives ashit if the world opposes gay marriage? This is america, land of the free, NOT land of the ALMOST free.
And which other countries would gays be killed in? The world has come a long way on the gay issue.
Respect for a flag? The flag is a symbol, nothing more. It scares the shit out of me to think there are people out there that find it easier to respect a piece of cloth before a human being.
Holy shit that's scary.
Rushtrdamus 2 years ago
@Rushtrdamus
spoken like a true idiot, again idiot, gays have the same rights as anyone...but they cannot marry, because marraige is for man and women to each other.
2 gays would be killed in many countries
like Iran suadi arabi pakistan and many other places, the pireace of cloth as u call the flag people died so you can be free idiot , just because we dont believe in gay marriage doesnt mean we not free.
God bless America,
by the way your liberal god OBAMA OPPOSES GAY MARRIAGE.
Albanianwarrior23 2 years ago
@Albanianwarrior23
Then they DON'T have the same rights, dipshit.
Every country you named is still living in the 7th century. You don't compare the greatest, most free country on earth to a group of the most backward ass countries on earth.
The flag is just a symbol, nothing more. I've served in the Army, asshole, have you?
A free country doesn't just say TOO bad to it's citizens. You said it yourself, gays have every right EXCEPT the right to marry.
Give gays civil unions, then
Rushtrdamus 2 years ago
@Rushtrdamus
They don't have the same rights to marraige only, all other rights gays have same as you and me, as for marriage thats because its always been between a man and women, and this kid seems to think only in American gays aren't allowed to marry, little does he know, brainwashed by his father.
if gays not marrying means they are opppressed, its like saying brothers or sister are oppressed becus they not allowed to marry, its pretty stupid.
Albanianwarrior23 2 years ago
@Albanianwarrior23
excuse me... gays/lesbians do not have same rights in united states as straights. sexual apartheid is a real epidemic in united states. ALL americans still hate gay people, and refuse to acknowledge that they are real, living beings in this country. straights deny gay people equal access to many facilities/establishments straight people take for granted.
right-wing idiots claim that homosexuals are wholly responsible for terrorism in america.
collegeguy2009 1 year ago
I MUST say this.. although I'm sure that several have said it before. Marriage is ordained by God and made specifically for a man and woman. I cant go all into details (so people PLEASE don't start saying all these different things to me k) since I don't know all the exact information off the top of my head and don't have time to look it up.
maryberry107 2 years ago
@maryberry107
Fine, the church can have marriage and our Govt. can issue civil unions. With exactly the same benifits that come with marriage.
Do you have problem with that?
Rushtrdamus 2 years ago
Churches do not pay taxes because the of first amendment"
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
iSAW7 2 years ago
@iSAW7
A church are business, and a business should pay taxes. Also, churches have now begun to enter into open politics. If a church preaches who to vote for, they should lose their tax-free status. If they can't keep themselves out of politics then they lose their benifits.
Rushtrdamus 2 years ago
Rushtrdamus.
So, what do we do about the first amendment then? The constitution ensures everyone the right to engage in politics and free speech. Now we should limit the rights of those who attend church, or work for the Church? I'm not understanding your position. Also, those who work for the church pay income tax. It is the church as an organization that is tax exempt, and always has been.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion......."
iSAW7 2 years ago
@iSAW7
This is a perfect example of someone talking before learning. Churches were only added to 501C3 in 1954, the same year that "under god" was added to the pleadge.
You also most likely do not know that a church can lose it's 501C3 status if it engages in partisan politics.
It seems as though you are living your life based on mis-information.
The constitution does NOT protect a church's free speach.
Please do some research as it seems that you're wrong on many issues.
Rushtrdamus 2 years ago
Actually, I did read a bit on 501c3 before I posted, and I found that according to the IRS Churches are not required to file 501c3 to be tax exempt, they already are because of the constitution. Furthermore, before 501c3 was introduced under LBJ, Churches did not have to pay taxes, again because of the constitution.
iSAW7 2 years ago
gays already have rights, marrige is different, its always been for men and women, you gays want marrige for political reasons only,
like teach it to children in schools open books about gays and lesbians to try and convert children into gay life...
we know the media has been playing up homosexuality,
Albanianwarrior23 2 years ago
@Albanianwarrior23
Why is marriage different? Marriage is a religious invention, prior to churches people just had sex to reproduce, and there were gays back then. There are gay animals.
When did you choose to be straight?
Seriously, when did you make the choice to be straight?
If you never did, why the hell do you think gays did?
"convert our children"???
What a fucking dumbass. People like you are why christians and rednecks are portrayed as dipshits. LOL
Rushtrdamus 2 years ago
@Albanianwarrior23
What if congress wrote a law that said that douchebags that wear there hats backwards can't drive cars? Then you'd be pissed. LOL
When guys do that, they're really trying to fit in. It's a follower thing, not a leader thing.
No offense dude, but followers don't make it in life. Try thinking for yourself for a change. Wear your hat the way YOU want to wear it. Don't follow the TRENDS, MAKE them.
Right now, you're just sheep.
Rushtrdamus 2 years ago
The kid should stand and say the pledge, its American which allows him to make this comments, if he did this in any Muslim country, his father would be killled, they don't support any gays rights whatsoever, he doesn't know how lucky he is to live in America....
Albanianwarrior23 2 years ago
@Albanianwarrior23
I think you have it backwards. People like the kid are what make this country great.
America is a country, and without people to defend america's freedom the country wouldn't exist.
Freedom didn't just happen, brave people had to stand up against those that would force their will on the weakest amoung us.
You on the other hand would do as the tyrants say simply because they said to do it.
Imagine if Rosa Parks had just gone to the back of the bus.
He knows.
Rushtrdamus 2 years ago
@ Albanianwarrior23 i agree that we all are lucky to live in a free nation that allows us to voice our opinoins.but you say he shouldnt voice his opinoin because he would be punished if he was in a muslim country?your basically saying that because he has freedom, he shouldnt use that freedom.and he has every right to not say the pledge, because he believes that there isnt liberty and justice for all
kagome4life456 2 years ago
Will, you're a hero. I had the same opportunity a few years ago, but i stayed quiet. I'll always regret it.
MATTisAkoala 2 years ago
@anotherfoolonthehill
And you are a waste of skin.
Lucky for you, you're too big a coward to actually stand next to your neighbors and say bullshit like that. Most would slit your throat where you stand.
But hey, thank your redneck parents for that. I'll bet your daddy beat the living shit out of your mom/sister? LOL
Tell me, which is worse for you, mountain dew or CRACK?
BTW, when's the next KLAN rally? I've always wondered what that many pussies in one place looked like.
Rushtrdamus 2 years ago
anotherfoolonthehill: If you feel its such an issue, and you wish to partake in incest, by all means put it on the ballot. Make your argument convincing enough. Making incest legal would not make anyone else have to marry their own siblings, but there is a medical issue with it called genetic depression. You may have heard of it. Ask your Uncle-brother. He'll know all about it.
Krissagrim 2 years ago
I did read your post and you specifically state "being around long enough".. And now I'm only providing a disagreement, a challenge, to your extremely silly assessment. If you're so adamant about being right yourself, I only demand you to provide proof.
Have you asked him his views? His definitions and experiences with liberty and justice? Is it only because its something you don't agree with that you're "forced" to make such knee-jerk reactions?
Krissagrim 2 years ago
My stance is simple and it is this: My definition of marriage is mine, and it is not for the government to define to me what a marriage is. Nor is it the governments role to provide benefits for it. My stance is more along the lines of a Libertarian one. My definition of what a marriage is not important for you to agree with or disagree with. Marriage should be more of a "common-law" engagement than one the government is forced to recognize on behalf of all the people.
iSAW7 2 years ago
@iSAW7
Good, the we agree. The choice of who a person marries should be left up to THAT person. It's called "live and let live" You stay the hell out of my business, and I'll... Wait, I never cared about your personal business, so yeah, stay the hell out of other people's business.
See how easy that was?
Rushtrdamus 2 years ago
Rushtrdamus.
Yes, we do agree that marriage should be left to the people as a private matter, but wait.... you didn't agree because you felt the Gov't should be involved in defining marriage to the masses and overturning elected statutes in some states. Make up your mind please.
iSAW7 2 years ago
@iSAW7
The govt. should not play favorites in what it defines. The church is where Marriage dwells, and civil unions would end this debate. The problem is that religious groups want to controlEVERYONE with their morals.
The Govt. should NOT be in the business of legislating morals.
When law is concerned the ONLY place to go is the congress. PERIOD!
Rushtrdamus 2 years ago
@anotherfoolonthehill
He knows that a twisted majority must be beaten back. Adults are a result of what they have learned or been forced to learn.
If parents don't force children to go to church, the children will not be religious.
Children will do what is right, 9 out of 10 times, but if a parent has issues, the child will follow the parent.
White people in the south were the majority in the 60's, should they have been allowed to vote to block blacks from voting?
Exactly.
Rushtrdamus 2 years ago
@anotherfoolonthehill
The difference here, is we as a nation decided that we didn't want redneck GOP sleestaks born to incest. It is denied for medical reasons and since gays CANNOT reproduce, it doen't qualify as a medical issue.
NEXT!
Rushtrdamus 2 years ago
anotherfoolonthehill: I'll have to decline your advice of fucking off.
Has this child really brought anything to my attention? Of course not. A simple search through this videos' responses may clue you in. But you stated that a length of time is required, yet how many other children are of a similar awareness and strength to do such a thing?
Again I ask, how long is long enough? Perhaps its not a length of time, but a display of awareness and maturity. Something you apparently lack.
Krissagrim 2 years ago
@anotherfoolonthehill
I accept your unconditional surender. LOL
Rushtrdamus 2 years ago
@anotherfoolonthehill
I've gone up against the Iraqi army, so some pissant redneck from bumfuck West VA. doesn't scare me.
History has seen your kind throw rocks and dart back into the shadow and that's what your kind does. Your sheets are stained with the blood of innocents and your cowardess is legendary.
Your kind forms a "militia" because real fighting scares you. You beat your women because you know the chances are, that they won't fight back.
Sto breathing my air.
Rushtrdamus 2 years ago
@anotherfoolonthehill
What flag has skidmarks on it?
And it's a good thing your hiding behind a monitor, cause I'd stomp a mudhole in you big enough to park your trailer in, ZEEK.
Rushtrdamus 2 years ago
pardon me but your white sheet is showing
obamadidit2008 2 years ago
jews, paul was acting like his old character in reverse. remember he was hateful towards christians as saul, now he seems to be hateful of rome as paul.
obamadidit2008 2 years ago
just what the world needs, another dime a dozen bigot Blonde
obamadidit2008 2 years ago
I wish folks in the military would have the equal COURAGE to stand up and refuse to serve until gays and lesbians are treated equally, too. Wouldn't that be something? Unfortunately, none of them have the balls to do this...
lisztnut 2 years ago
it actually has been voted down in smaller numbers than you say
obamadidit2008 2 years ago
The boy's father put him up to it--some people crave their 15 minutes of LAME & don't care how they get it. The poor child probably doesn't even understand what's going on & is being scripted by his dumb-ass dad.
NotsoNutso 2 years ago
VeryNutso, did it ever occur to you that not all 10 year olds think like the kids who live in your trailerpark
obamadidit2008 2 years ago 2
@NotsoNutso
Just cause your kids are dipshits, doesn't mean that all kids are. Children are honest, for the most part. Ask the balloon boys father how easy it is to get kids to lie. He's gonna do time cause his kid went off script.
Funny how quick people are to assume that children are just dumb idiots.
Rushtrdamus 2 years ago
Whether you agree with him or not you have to admire his tenacity.
Traveler2112 2 years ago 2
@JewsAlwaysLie: Yes, it is a different issue. Polygamy is polygamy. Homosexuality is homosexuality. They're associated with marriage, but not the same issues.
And by voting, I was speaking in terms of polygamy since its a concern of yours, and then I let you know its good to stick to the subject at hand. Please try to pay attention to the comments, read them and understand them.
Krissagrim 2 years ago
@JewsAlwaysLie
Not in Iowa : )
anurre5 2 years ago
JewsAlwaysLie: Its two different issues. If you wish for it to come up on a ballot, do exercise your rights as a citizen and please vote. For now, its homosexuality.
I would like to ask that all dissenters to please abstain from allowing their A.D.D. to take over. Its quite annoying.
Krissagrim 2 years ago
anotherfoolonthehill: How long is long enough?
Children may not know better than WE do, but from the looks of your comment, they would know better than YOU do.
Krissagrim 2 years ago
i LOVE this kid!!..finally SOMEONE is standing up for equality and TRUE liberty & justice for ALL..leave it to a 10-yr-old kid to show us all the light
chriss405 2 years ago 5
I stopped standing for the pledge (as did several friends of mine) in 7th grade. Even then, I knew all that freedom-and-justice talk was pure nonsense, and this government (regardless of the puppet that sits in the Oval Office) is completely illegitimate and criminal.
sonofaglitch2 2 years ago
You go boy!
It's young people like you who give me hope for the future!
Dad...you should be proud!
brandx01 2 years ago 2
Hahaha...kids.
hyperseauton 2 years ago
It's equal for a gay man to lie and marry a woman?! That is not an equal marriage.
I don't see why everyone makes being gay such a big deal. We don't want to be "special", we don't want to be seen differently. It's ok to be gay!
stlvideo08 2 years ago
This articulate 10 year old is smarter than most adults. Seriously. Listen to this kid. He speaks at a higher level than some college graduates.
getplaning 2 years ago
daddy is in the closet and put his kid up to it is probably the true story.. our Owners agenda.. they control our airwaves now and they WANT you to see this and divide even more.. keep it in the bedroom guys, not on teeshirts and the sidewalk.. don't make me have to explain to my 4 yo why that man is holdin' hands with that other man, walkin' down the sidewalk.. it shames me that my countrymen are so cautious when it comes to a blatent violation of our decentcy laws, if there are any left..
Dewdaahman 2 years ago
Soooo you're ok with a man and woman holding hands I assume yet it becomes "indecent" when 2 men do the same?? What is the threat?? Why can't you look past what people do "in the bedroom"?? Why so scared?
stlvideo08 2 years ago 2
we have had a decentcy standard here in my country long before homosexuality was made legal.. you wanna start a new club, start it in China..
Dewdaahman 2 years ago
Wait, so you're argument is saying, "this is how it was in the past, so this is how it should be now"?? Do you have a problem with things changing? Holding hands is not indecent.
stlvideo08 2 years ago
don't tell me what my arguement is saying, listen to what I am saying, you are indecent and an abomination.. you have no status which I need give attention, just seek the help of a doctor, or a man of God, not legislators, judges and lawyers.. you have an illness.. end of story.. get a plane ticket and go to Beging and see how you're accepted..
Dewdaahman 2 years ago
Uhhhh ok, wow. Right, sure. Didn't realize what I was dealing with here. Of course, I think you're the one who has the mental illness...
stlvideo08 2 years ago
Dewdaahman: Why don't you wish to explain reality to your 4 year old? Why do you have to be made to teach your offspring, and not simply do it? If you don't wish to do so, then avoid it and let them find out on their own when they're older. Its comparable to abstinence only sex, ignorance isn't an option.
Now that I've gotten your attention. I would like to know the source of your decency. What you call indecent and an abomination must have a bearing on something as comparison.
What is it?
Krissagrim 2 years ago
you know well my source, it is The Holy Bible.. "man shall not lay with man as he lays with a woman.." it was wrong then, it was wrong 50yrs ago and it's still wrong.. try talkin' to a potential convert, my mind is already made up.. good day sir..
Dewdaahman 2 years ago
@Dewdaahman No, I don't well know your source. Its why I asked. Please don't make such assumptions, it shows a lack of ability to weigh in on such an issue.
Potential converts? Of?
Nonetheless, you're speaking from Leviticus, an old way thats been nullified by Jesus Christ. Your mind has been made up on something that's no longer in application to any society since Jesus' time all the way to today. Thats very juvenile of you.
I ask you this: What makes it wrong?
Krissagrim 2 years ago
I speak of I Corinthians 6:9-10
I speak of Romans 1:26-28
and lest we forget "love the sinner not the sin.."
Dewdaahman 2 years ago
All Paul and no Jesus makes for sad Christians...
I Corinthians 6:9-10 does not speak on homosexuality, nor to our own culture today. Though interesting enough, it speaks on inheriting the Kingdom of God. Not everyone believes in God. It only applies to those that take on the mantle of Christianity.
In Romans, read on to 29-32. Think about it a bit, and then read Romans 3: 9-10. I would like to see how homosexuality is so singled out when nobody is innocent.
Krissagrim 2 years ago 2
not to mention the fact that pauls letter to the romans reads more like a personal diary of a converted jewish mans journey through NEROS ROME. it is more a critique, a personal opinion of roman society through the eyes of a jewish christian not accustomed to roman society,not some letter to a small roman church
obamadidit2008 2 years ago 2
@obamadidit2008 : Thank you, I appreciate the added info. I hope Dewdaahman and others do as well.
Krissagrim 2 years ago
try re-educating a bible-thumper with the facts.
obamadidit2008 2 years ago
You know good ans well that if Christ did today what he did then, HE would be called GAY Today, people like you call guys that hang around with only menand haven't had sex with a woman, GAY.
If Jesus was so against gays, why didn't he throw a little meat around and act like a man? Hell, even GOD didn't have sex, to get Mary Prego.
BTW, Nazis had laws defining what decency was also, is that what you prefer?
Rushtrdamus 2 years ago
We already have decency laws.
Martial024 2 years ago
@Martial024
Not nearly the laws that the religious right would like to have. If left up to them, women would have to cover all of their skin and NOT speak their minds. If you remember, we used to make women cover their legs, and were not allowed to read. There are laws on the books in the south that prohibit certain sex acts. What business is it of the Govt. what 2 adults do in their bed?
Decency laws are for backward countryies, america is beyond such bullshit.
Rushtrdamus 2 years ago
Decency laws are outdated and require a reform of their own. There is a line, such as nudity in public, or even sex in public.
But when such "laws" dictate the sexual position of people within the privacy of their own abodes, it becomes too much. Who is regulating the laws anyway?
There is a line, and it must be drawn in favour of common sense and not for ancient religious texts written by people that thought that having sex during a woman's period gave reason to ostracize couples.
Krissagrim 2 years ago
This is why 10 year old children should never be allowed to vote...
VerbotenDingleberry 2 years ago
Why? Because his views are different from yours? Here I thought 10 year olds couldn't vote because they aren't adults.
P.s. we shouldn't be voting on marriage anyway.
stlvideo08 2 years ago 4
No, becase his views are stupid and anti-American. I live under the exact laws gay people live under. They have exactly the same protections under the law I have. They want New Laws to make Special Exceptions for them. I have restrictions on whom I can marry. So do they. The difference is that they don't like the restrictions.
What happens when other groups want more Special Exceptions?
So, A man, a horse and three Latvian Midgets can get "married"?
Whatever.
VerbotenDingleberry 2 years ago
*sigh* Are you comparing people to humans, really? Really?! Gay people just want to marry the person they love. Why is that so terrible?
Why are you okay with a woman marrying a man and not a man marrying a man? It hurts no one. Gay people are here whether you like it or not. They are people just like everyone and there are a lot of them. It's not immoral. Why can everyone else marry the one they love except gays? Seems discriminatory and anti-american.
stlvideo08 2 years ago
*Sigh* yourself.
Define Love. Go ahead. Define it.
Then tell me that next week some *other* fool won't declare his love for a Monkey or a Goat, or three Latvian Midgets.
Ignore the logic, like all good Leftist fools, if you like. Once Marriage means whatever you want it means nothing.
None of this matters anyway.
VerbotenDingleberry 2 years ago
Question: Are you for civil unions or domestic partnerships with full equal right? If not, there's nothing to argue here...some people just get caught up in the word "marriage."
Why do you consider millions of gays fools? I've never heard of someone fighting to marry an animal. Surely you can see the fundamental problem with this...
You're right, it's not really about love. It's about equal rights. Love is different to everyone.
We have redefined marriage to mean what we want for a while.
stlvideo08 2 years ago
I'm Libertarian. The Feds have no business even knowing my marital status.
I'm also against calling a birth defect a "Lifestyle Choice". I'm for finding a cure to prevent it.
The whole discussion is a waste of time anyway. Once the uslims have their way the gays will just be lind up and stoned to death. Perhaps that's a more productive issue to work on...
VerbotenDingleberry 2 years ago
Verboten: "I'm for finding a cure to prevent it."
There are certain facts you need to realize before continuing with this..heh.. "argument" you are trying to uphold.
Homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice. Its not a lifestyle. By your own "logic" you say its a birth defect. So it isn't a choice, nor is it a lifestyle. Since you're too simple to extend some effort to realize this, lets play in your yard.
Why would you want to find a cure? A simple question, it requires only a simple answer.
Krissagrim 2 years ago
ROFLMAO.
My Yard?
Bubba, you couldn't *find* my yard much less play in it, you smarmy little twit.
VerbotenDingleberry 2 years ago
Verboten: You ignore my question, along with not even grasping the idea of a metaphor for "yard". Maybe I should say "ball court"? Or "field"? Gutter?
Perhaps my question was too complicated even with a simple yes or no answer as the possibilities.
I can only conclude that you have no viable response, possibly because you're a homophobe, and in turn a closet homosexual.. Hence the name calling and pissing contest to try to shut me or anyone else up.
Krissagrim 2 years ago
Bring attitude, get attitude.
You don't want a discussion.
GFY.
VerbotenDingleberry 2 years ago
Verboten: Oh but I do wish for a discussion. Its why I asked a question instead of resorted to juvenile namecalling. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and ask one more time:
Why would you want to find a cure?
Krissagrim 2 years ago
"juvenile namecalling."?
That was you, bubba, not me.
Google "Yin Yang" and Think Harder.
VerbotenDingleberry 2 years ago
I called you no names. Unless "Verboten" is an insult to you.
Is Yin Yang the answer to why you would want to find a "cure" for homosexuality? If no, then I'll conclude that you don't have a viable answer and consider you a lost, rhetoric spewing cause. If yes, then I would like to discuss further and possibly educate you.
Krissagrim 2 years ago
"homophobe", "closet homosexual"
Whatever.
"Educate" me?
ROFLMAO.
I've already heard your "rhetoric", rejected it and moved on.
VerbotenDingleberry 2 years ago
Well yes. Unless you're against being educated. You display a need for it.
Homophobe, closet homosexual..Those aren't insults. They're observations. One's you've yet to defend yourself towards. Your made up mind of rejecting what you try to counter with calling "rhetoric" is evidence of it alone.
But okay, I'll take this as a no. You have no viable answer for your proposed reason for a cure, and due to the failure to defend your point, this also leads to reason to call you a homophobe.
Krissagrim 2 years ago
This is exactly why I don't take you people seriously; it's all about you making yourselves feel superior.
Whatever it takes to get you through your day...
VerbotenDingleberry 2 years ago
Superior over what? Without an answer or a point to defend, you are in fact standing for nothing.
Krissagrim 2 years ago
I pointed at the moon. You failed to see it.
I have no more time to waste. Work to get the laws you disagree with changed, if you can, and move on.
VerbotenDingleberry 2 years ago
"Then tell me that next week some *other* fool won't declare his love for a Monkey or a Goat, or three Latvian Midgets.
Ignore the logic,."
There is no logic in your statement to ignore. It's a fallacious argument, specifically a straw man.
It does not follow if gay couples get to marry (as straight couples are already allowed to do) that bestiality is the next step. Those two things are not the same.
No you don't live under the same rules as gays and yes Dissent is very American.
booley 2 years ago
You keep ignoring polygamy issue.
Step by step is how you people work.
Go sell this line of crap elsewhere. I'm not buying.
VerbotenDingleberry 2 years ago
Of course, you won't be "buying" because I've realized what I'm arguing with.
First of all, being gay is no more a "lifestyle choice" than being straight. You're gonna have to work on that there.
Second, EVEN IF you could prove being gay is a "birth defect" (It is not a psychological disorder anymore as we have learned more about it), how does it then follow you can't marry someone with the same birth defect?! I believe we allow the mentally ill to marry in this country...
stlvideo08 2 years ago
Everyone else has to marry some one of the opposite sex, so it is no different. By the way, gay people can still marry some one of the opposite sex as well. Another point, If homosexual marriage is ok why is not ok to marry more than one person? This marriage thing is full of contradictions.
iSAW7 2 years ago
You have to look at it from a gay person's point of view. Flip it for just one second. Would you marry a person of the same sex? You could still love them very closely as a friend but you know it's just not the same. It's not the "same" kind of love. A gay person by nature cannot marry a person of the opposite sex.
No one is fighting for marrying more than one person at the same time. If that time comes (which I really doubt it will), there will be different arguments and it won't work.
stlvideo08 2 years ago
iSAW7: Homosexuality and polygamy are two different subjects. Though they concern the institution of marriage they are not the same thing, they are not comparable.
This is the same for those that think that animals will somehow be involved, which is very silly. Must one describe to you and others the core basics of marriage, what it is and what its for?
The only contradictions are the mislead members of an ironfisted majority that selfishly hoards over marriage.
Krissagrim 2 years ago
I agree with you that animal marriage is silly, but polygamy and homosexuality are indeed comparable because of marriage among other things. What is also silly is for you to assume you can describe to me what marriage is. Societies establish their own definitions of marriage, and it differs among cultures. There is no absolute definition of marriage and it is silly to think so. Marriage is only what we say it is, and in a democratic country it seems we have decided to put it to a vote. Sorry.
iSAW7 2 years ago
One question I would like to pose is why is it that when homosexual marriage is illegal that is seen as and infringement on their civil rights, but polygamous marriage is not an infringement? There are a range of cultures that have defined polygamous marriage to be within the norm for their societies, but somehow in America it does not fit our definition. Another example of how marriage has long been defined to restrict alternative lifestyles in our country.
iSAW7 2 years ago
@iSAW7
It would be an infringment if we allowed a man to marry as many women as he wants, but not allow a woman to marry as many as she wants. They are NOT the same. You're comparing murder to a traffic ticket. It is not fair to ONLY allow heteros to marry, while blocking Homos.
Polygamy is a different issue.
Can you imagine if Sarah Palin could skeak as well as this kid? LOL
Rushtrdamus 2 years ago
What if we allowed both Men and Women to mary as many as they see fit? That was my point. Also, homo's are not "blocked" from marrying, they are allowed to marry the opposite sex as everyone else. Polygamy and Homosexuality are part of the same issue, which is our definition of marriage. We as a society have defined marriage to exclude polygamous and homosexual relationships. If you feel we should broaden the definition why should polygamy continue to be excluded? Polygamy is legal elsewhere.
iSAW7 2 years ago
@iSAW7
We already do, Liz Taylor has been married 9 times.
Nice, that's like saying that it's ok to speed as long as it's on a race track.
Wrong, marriage is legal between 2 ADULTS, keeping 2 other adults from marrying simply because they are the same gender is DENYING them rights that others have.
You are applying biblical morals to legal cases and confusing yourself. God and our courts are separate.
Polygamy is not allowed in the U.S. We are discussing U.S. law.
Rushtrdamus 2 years ago
You seem to be confused. I don't mean married and divorced 8 times like Liz taylor. I mean marry 9 people at once. Is that really hard to understand from one post to the next? We were talking polygamy being included in to the definition of marriage.
iSAW7 2 years ago
@iSAW7
I understand exactly what you meant, I was just pointing out how well us hetero's treat the sanctity of marriage.
Nobody but opponents of gay marriage are talking about polygamy.
Marriage is a legal contract between 2 adults. Some states allow a man and a woman, and some allow both. The U.S. does not allow polygamy in any form.
Rushtrdamus 2 years ago
Rushtrdamus.
"I was just pointing out how well us hetero's treat the sanctity of marriage."
Once again your comment points out how ignorant you are towards the variety of views people have of marriage. You can believe that having more than 1 spouse is unsanctified, but that is YOUR definition of marriage. There are many cultures who have no problem with more than 1 spouse like some muslim countries currently practice. Just like there are many people who have no problem with homosexual marriage.
iSAW7 2 years ago
@iSAW7
Dude, I know I've said this before, but you must not read very well.
WE'RE not talking about gay marriage in POLAND, only america.
How many other countries PRIDE themselves on its freedom for it's people?
Please don't compare America to Iran.
We don't kill our citizens for morality issues. Is that what YOU want?
This country is as free as any, right up until the church gets involved and then were no better than the taliban.
Keep your nose out of people's bedrooms.
Rushtrdamus 2 years ago
I agree, tell the Gov't to keep its nose out of our bedrooms. I dont know how to make my position any more clear than to say the government should not be involved in defining marriage. Also, it seems it is not only the religious groups who want to control everyone it is also people like yourself who want everyone to view marriage as you do. If the congress is the ONLY place to go as far as the law, what does that say of the most speeding laws you brought up that are enforced by the state?
iSAW7 2 years ago
@iSAW7
I don't want you to view marriage in any way what's so ever, I simply want equal freedom for all our citizens. I can't make you think of marriage MY way. I can't control your thoughts.
One thing I do know is that if the law was fair, I wouldn't be here butching about an unjust law.
Do you feel that churches should pay taxes exactly like the rest of us without any tax benifits?
Now that they want to affect laws, maybe it's time to revoke their tax-free status.
Rushtrdamus 2 years ago
@iSAW7
We used to bar blacks and whites from getting married, should we go back to that? Funny, how stupid your stance is when viewed through the eyes of history.
You are no different than Wallace when he stood in the school door, and years from now people will laugh and wonder how idiots like that even existed.
We as a society have decided that fairness and justice will trump religious dogma any day. The church and it's people cannot be allowed to choose based on what god wants.
Rushtrdamus 2 years ago
I don't recall stating blacks should not be married. but you can pretend I did if you wish. I agree with your point about the church deciding things for us, but I would go a step further. It is not the governments job to define marriage to us in the first place, or provide benefits for it.
iSAW7 2 years ago
@iSAW7
Once again, just pointing out what the definition of marriage USED to be.
Why not? If that's your case, then why is it the Govt's job to define speeding, or torture? It IS the govt's job to define legal terms. To say otherwise is crazy at best.
What benifits are we talking about? Visitation, or tax?
You said it earlier, what marriage is, is up to you. It's a personal decision.
Marrige is not the same as it was 100 years ago, and will change again.
Rushtrdamus 2 years ago
Rushtrdamus.
The government defines speeding and torture as a matter of public safety, which is understandable to me. Although some us still can not drive 55. You state marriage is not the same as 100 years ago, however I will go a step further and state marriage is not the same today from person to person. And for some people the definition is the same as it was 100 years ago.
"What benifits are we talking about?" There are around 1138 federal benefits for marriage.
iSAW7 2 years ago
@iSAW7
Funny, that's also the reason incest and homosexuality were under Govt. control.
Remember, a couple used to have to get a blood test in order to marry. Why? Public health reasons.
1138, no wonder gays are pissed.
Rushtrdamus 2 years ago
Civil unions or domestic partnerships already exist in California. But, the problem is the Federal Government or, THE CONGRESS, has chosen to define marriage to their ideals, which was 1 man and 1 woman. But for that, those unions in California would enjoy full federal benefits, yet the federal government chose to intervene to impose their definition of marriage. My point: Government should not define marriage. Whether state or federal ("congress PERIOD!"). No federal benefits, No definition.
iSAW7 2 years ago
Only as a legal contract between 2 people.
nidodson 2 years ago
iSAW7: You disagreed with me, only to agree. It IS two different issues, with the connecting factor being that of marriage. Right now the subject is same sex marriage. Just as heterosexual marriage is seen as so different than homosexual marriage, thus its a different vote. Polygamy is a different subject, and would be a different vote. Would it not?
Just the same as if someone wanted it okay to "marry animals", it still concerns marriage, but would be a different issue. (cont)
Krissagrim 2 years ago
I think we have a disagreement as to what the issue is. It is my opinion that the issue it not homosexuality or polygamy, but rather Marriage and what the definition should be broad enough to include. In that context all of the above are relevant. As far as marriage with animals goes I think that is disgusting, but as you said it is "a fact of life." I don't know if they are born that way or not, but I do see it as an aberration and an abnormal behavior, the same view I hold towards homosexualit
iSAW7 2 years ago
iSAW7: Societies do establish these things, but the question as to "why" its established as such. Voting or not, the question of "Why" its banned is what the matter is. Like you say.. "somehow it doesn't fit the definition". Right now the somehow, the mainstay to the bans are a religious reason. I ask, is ignorance so vital?
Also, your term "alternative lifestyle" is highly misleading. Homosexuality isn't a lifestyle, nor is it an alternative. Its a part of nature. (cont)
Krissagrim 2 years ago
And what exactly is not part of nature? Or the natural world for that matter. Nature to me would seem to be all encompassing. So, I see no point to that statement as I already understand that it is part of out natural world. Also, I am not religious.
iSAW7 2 years ago
iSAW7: I'm fascinated at your lack of religious convictions, with your take on the natural world being as it is, yet also hold your views to homosexuality and same sex marriage as you do.
Care to explain your stance or is it just an irrational reaction?
Krissagrim 2 years ago
iSAW7: We do both agree that there are contradictions. But I only present that its not marriage itself, but again only the people that rule over it. Marriage is for everyone. Its an evolved insitution based on love and companionship these days, at least the more perfect world ones. But if homosexuals are a fact of life, (which they are) and they aren't allowed to marry each other, then does that mean that love is NOT a requirement for marriage? (cont)
Krissagrim 2 years ago
iSAW7: And finally.. polygamy. It has been voted down, yes. And so far, as our culture is concerned, the difference between homosexuality and polygamy is that in one instance its a simple fix on a single word, the other could require the restructuring of the whole system to include multiple people. Polygamy would require a bit more work, but I wouldn't say was impossible. Does that satisfy your inquiry? (final continue)
Krissagrim 2 years ago
"the other could require the restructuring of the whole system to include multiple people."
Sorry, I do not buy that argument. Polygamy is legal in many countries and understood in other cultures. Yet, it is too complicated to figure out for us? LoL.
iSAW7 2 years ago
iSAW7: I see where you're going with the nature thing. Unfortunately not everyone thinks like that. In addition to this, I'm not against the complications or lack thereof for polygamy to be legalized. But you have to understand, you really must grasp that this is not an issue on polygamy. Its an issue on same sex marriage.
Again, I said if someone wants to put together something that shows polygamy to be a civil rights issue, by all means do so.
Krissagrim 2 years ago
As I said, the is issue is the definition of marriage, and the fact that we assume the government has the right to define it to us.
iSAW7 2 years ago
As far as civil rights of it? Thats up to the polygamists to figure out. And if there were a presentation to hear on it, I would say indeed hear it!
Krissagrim 2 years ago
verboten dipshit, since when is telling other folks both who and when and why to marry. is it any of your damn business?! does it interfere with YOUR marriage. or do you think that you be greatly rewarded in the afterlife for thinking you were doing god a big favor. just another self-appointed,self-righteous, 21st. century pharisee
obamadidit2008 2 years ago
Google "Yin Yang" and Think Harder.
VerbotenDingleberry 2 years ago
"They want New Laws to make Special Exceptions for them. I have restrictions on whom I can marry. So do they. The difference is that they don't like the restrictions."
They don't want new laws and exceptions, they want the same opportunity that you and I have
TheTechGuySGC 2 years ago
They already do. That's the point.
VerbotenDingleberry 2 years ago
If we the people don't fight for Liberty and freedom thin we are all fucked!Good job kid!!
killergames187 2 years ago 4
Is Daddy a homosexual? Someone in his life is; someone who is very influential over him, and who put him up to this silliness. How exactly does one encounter "many people who are gay" in Arkansas?
troyeckhardt 2 years ago
So, in your mind, the only way someone would stand for the rights of someone else is if they know them or have a vested interest? So people cant stand for something because it's the right thing to do?
mickeysears 2 years ago 2
Because there are an equal amount of gay people scattered everywhere... the stats are generally 1 out of 10 people.
franzjoseph88 2 years ago
Maybe he's just a really smart kid? Haven't you seen other news stories with very articulate, bright children? Even if you don't know 1 gay person, it's still possible to see why marriage equality is important. If we don't allow gays to marriage, what's next? Stopping fertile people from marrying? Stopping people from low incomes marrying? Sure, unlikely but look what we're doing to gays now...why shouldn't they marry?
stlvideo08 2 years ago
troyeck: Your powers of observation are not even mediocre. People who are gay (closet or not) will the be same percent anywhere.
In case you missed out on the whole "making friends" thing long ago, one makes friends with anyone they wish. After some time, really good friends can be trusted, usually with something such as the admittance to being gay. That young boy seems like such a trustworthy individual, a good friend to many. Not something every adult can say they have earned. Can you?
Krissagrim 2 years ago
I think that they honestly should spearate church and state and think wether the pledge of allegence is right or not. With all the different people in this world that make up different Race, Religion, Culture and Sexual Orientations. Why should we be vendicted to follow what the pledge says. It's not only "Liberty and Justice for all" but also "one nation under god" why should that be in there if some people don't believe in god?
Missa111Melissa 2 years ago 3
Well the "under God" part was added in the 50's. If that offends someone they can just stay silent for those two words. I don't think there is anything else in there that should offend anyone.
mickeysears 2 years ago
great kid. If this were about inter racial marriage, everyone on here would agree with him. He is right, until GLBT citizens can legally marry, there isnt liberty and justice for all.
mrsbrown333 2 years ago 4
i agree MrsBrown333
Enriquelio 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Hell even a 5 year can see through this B/S.
The faggot dad told his kid to do it. it's either that or the father will start butt slamming him just like he butt slams his faggot boyfriend.
MrSTANDFORAMERICA 2 years ago
You are fucked in the head.
franzjoseph88 2 years ago