This is all kinds of awesome! Vote AGAINST NC Amendment One on May 8! A similiar bill passed in Ohio and men charged with felony domestic assault against a female were reduced to misdemenour assault after the amendment passed because they were not married.
...uh, I'm Christian and I'm for gay rights, so y'know \(O_O)/ religion really shouldn't be brought up at all because not all Christians oppose gay rights, just as not all non-religious individuals support them. The question doesn't come down to "is it acceptable to religion". The question is "is it okay to suppress another human being's rights as a human being." It wasn't okay to suppress a person just because they were black, so of course it got changed. What's so different about this case?
(Post8) San Francisco dropped its $3.5 million in social service contracts with the Salvation Army because it refused to recognize same-sex “domestic partnerships” in its employee benefits policies. Similarly, Portland, Maine, required Catholic Charities to extend spousal employee benefits to same-sex “domestic partners” as a condition of receiving city housing and community development funds."
@SafiaSiora You can back it up with religion or biased studies, but not recognizing same-sex couples is discrimination, and the government be supporting any organizations who discriminate.
@SafiaSiora While your concerns are deeply alarming in that they show that we really have not moved on from racism or sexism; we have just broadened our range of targets. As long as these mentalities persist, we have made little progress from the slave-owning woman-suppressing nation we once were. That said, I will address your argument. Absolutely everything you fear that you attribute to gay marriage-- is a possible repercussion, not the act itself. These possible repercussions
@SafiaSiora should be addressed separately and independently. The way to go about addressing your fears is to protect your freedom of religion and speech; not to attack a civil right that may through a domino effect threaten yours, which, by the way, I have trouble believing in the first place.
(Post7) This is not idle speculation, as these sorts of situations have already come to pass. Even where religious people and groups succeed in avoiding civil liability in cases like these, they would face other government sanctions—the targeted withdrawal of government co-operation, grants, or other benefits. For example, in New Jersey, the state cancelled the tax-exempt status of a Methodist...pavilion used for religious services because [it] would not host a same-sex “wedding” there.
(Post6) Religious marriage counselors would be denied their professional accreditation for refusing to provide counseling in support of same-sex “married” relationships. Religious employers who provide special health benefits to married employees would be required by law to extend those benefits to same-sex “spouses.” Religious employers would...face lawsuits for taking any adverse employment action ... against an employee for ... obtaining a civil “marriage” with a member of the same sex.
(Post5) There is no doubt that the many people and groups whose moral and religious convictions forbid same-sex sexual conduct will resist the compulsion of the law, and church-state conflicts will result. So, for example, religious adoption services that place children exclusively with married couples would be required by law to place children with persons of the same sex who are civilly “married.”
(Post 4) While we cannot rule out this possibility entirely, we believe that the First Amendment creates a very high bar to such attempts. Instead, we believe the most urgent peril is this: forcing or pressuring both individuals and religious organizations—throughout their operations, well beyond religious ceremonies—to treat same-sex sexual conduct as the moral equivalent of marital sexual conduct.
(Post3) Insofar as "marriage" under the state includes those with homosexual tendencies, my rights as a religious person within the U.S. are infringed upon, period: "Some posit that the principal threat to religious freedom posed by same-sex “marriage” is the possibility of government’s forcing religious ministers to preside over such “weddings,” on pain of civil or criminal liability.
(Post2) I won't go into the secular and religious arguments against same-sex marriage here, nor will I explain why you haven't proven the latter half of the argument. What I want to touch on is the second half of your argument: the separation of church and state. There are a few problems with the validity of this argument, and you should re-conceptualize that separation.
(Post1) You all seem to be very concerned about your rights -- and your argument hinges on the concept that religious definitions of same-sex marriage ought not infringe on the separation of the church and the state. There are two levels to the argument, as far as I can see, the first being that those with same-sex tendencies have a right to marriage because marriage demands equality.
This rocks... I immediately ran out to vote against this terrible amendment. I found out there weren't any polling places open yet. But then I went to the link above to find out how to vote, where to vote and when to vote.
Needs Jack Black for that little extra kick. Other than that, great job. I am sure you are fully prepared for the 'coming (shit)storm', so remeber, you really have to keep your heads up against the impending influx of stock footage of clouds.
3:29 - 3:53. Whoops, just defeated every argument that people who argue against gay rights have for their cause.
Great job everyone. I won't be able to vote against Amendment One (even though I can vote in the primaries on May 8th, how stupid is that). But I'm compensating by spreading the word to others.
The women in this video are hot...
1101millie97 3 weeks ago
This is all kinds of awesome! Vote AGAINST NC Amendment One on May 8! A similiar bill passed in Ohio and men charged with felony domestic assault against a female were reduced to misdemenour assault after the amendment passed because they were not married.
wbpc92 4 weeks ago
...uh, I'm Christian and I'm for gay rights, so y'know \(O_O)/ religion really shouldn't be brought up at all because not all Christians oppose gay rights, just as not all non-religious individuals support them. The question doesn't come down to "is it acceptable to religion". The question is "is it okay to suppress another human being's rights as a human being." It wasn't okay to suppress a person just because they were black, so of course it got changed. What's so different about this case?
mortic0n 1 month ago 3
I like how SafiaSiora tried to justify supporting Amendment One...but clearly failed hahaha. HAAAAHHHHHHH.
nomordoughnuts4u 1 month ago 3
(Post8) San Francisco dropped its $3.5 million in social service contracts with the Salvation Army because it refused to recognize same-sex “domestic partnerships” in its employee benefits policies. Similarly, Portland, Maine, required Catholic Charities to extend spousal employee benefits to same-sex “domestic partners” as a condition of receiving city housing and community development funds."
SafiaSiora 1 month ago
@SafiaSiora You can back it up with religion or biased studies, but not recognizing same-sex couples is discrimination, and the government be supporting any organizations who discriminate.
roodle06 1 month ago 2
@SafiaSiora remember when blacks were considered a morally inferior race and we used religion as a way of justifying it? #justsayin'
nomordoughnuts4u 1 month ago 5
@SafiaSiora While your concerns are deeply alarming in that they show that we really have not moved on from racism or sexism; we have just broadened our range of targets. As long as these mentalities persist, we have made little progress from the slave-owning woman-suppressing nation we once were. That said, I will address your argument. Absolutely everything you fear that you attribute to gay marriage-- is a possible repercussion, not the act itself. These possible repercussions
tykool123 1 month ago
@SafiaSiora should be addressed separately and independently. The way to go about addressing your fears is to protect your freedom of religion and speech; not to attack a civil right that may through a domino effect threaten yours, which, by the way, I have trouble believing in the first place.
tykool123 1 month ago
(Post7) This is not idle speculation, as these sorts of situations have already come to pass. Even where religious people and groups succeed in avoiding civil liability in cases like these, they would face other government sanctions—the targeted withdrawal of government co-operation, grants, or other benefits. For example, in New Jersey, the state cancelled the tax-exempt status of a Methodist...pavilion used for religious services because [it] would not host a same-sex “wedding” there.
SafiaSiora 1 month ago
(Post6) Religious marriage counselors would be denied their professional accreditation for refusing to provide counseling in support of same-sex “married” relationships. Religious employers who provide special health benefits to married employees would be required by law to extend those benefits to same-sex “spouses.” Religious employers would...face lawsuits for taking any adverse employment action ... against an employee for ... obtaining a civil “marriage” with a member of the same sex.
SafiaSiora 1 month ago
(Post5) There is no doubt that the many people and groups whose moral and religious convictions forbid same-sex sexual conduct will resist the compulsion of the law, and church-state conflicts will result. So, for example, religious adoption services that place children exclusively with married couples would be required by law to place children with persons of the same sex who are civilly “married.”
SafiaSiora 1 month ago
(Post 4) While we cannot rule out this possibility entirely, we believe that the First Amendment creates a very high bar to such attempts. Instead, we believe the most urgent peril is this: forcing or pressuring both individuals and religious organizations—throughout their operations, well beyond religious ceremonies—to treat same-sex sexual conduct as the moral equivalent of marital sexual conduct.
SafiaSiora 1 month ago
(Post3) Insofar as "marriage" under the state includes those with homosexual tendencies, my rights as a religious person within the U.S. are infringed upon, period: "Some posit that the principal threat to religious freedom posed by same-sex “marriage” is the possibility of government’s forcing religious ministers to preside over such “weddings,” on pain of civil or criminal liability.
SafiaSiora 1 month ago
(Post2) I won't go into the secular and religious arguments against same-sex marriage here, nor will I explain why you haven't proven the latter half of the argument. What I want to touch on is the second half of your argument: the separation of church and state. There are a few problems with the validity of this argument, and you should re-conceptualize that separation.
SafiaSiora 1 month ago
(Post1) You all seem to be very concerned about your rights -- and your argument hinges on the concept that religious definitions of same-sex marriage ought not infringe on the separation of the church and the state. There are two levels to the argument, as far as I can see, the first being that those with same-sex tendencies have a right to marriage because marriage demands equality.
SafiaSiora 1 month ago
the other side is too incompetent, too talentless to make a musical about this.
BrianPratpick 1 month ago 3
Two dislikes? Must be Rick Santorum and Bryan Fischer.
NobodysOffTheHook 1 month ago in playlist Watch Later 9
This rocks... I immediately ran out to vote against this terrible amendment. I found out there weren't any polling places open yet. But then I went to the link above to find out how to vote, where to vote and when to vote.
dbretz68 1 month ago 10
Comment removed
vickhily 1 month ago
Yay!
caterrachel 1 month ago
Needs Jack Black for that little extra kick. Other than that, great job. I am sure you are fully prepared for the 'coming (shit)storm', so remeber, you really have to keep your heads up against the impending influx of stock footage of clouds.
RantingAndJunk 1 month ago
I have such talented friends. :) Good work y'all!
cadillachan 1 month ago
This is amazing! I'm so proud! :D its nice to know kids are getting involved in politics and social movements.
reallyimeanreally0 1 month ago
Fantastic work, well done! So happy to see you all speaking out for this cause
MusicIsMyReligion15 1 month ago
Can't love it anymore than I already do!
Dragonflyboy80 1 month ago
Did anyone else notice they are cheering for themselves? I'm gonna thumbs up my own comment! :D
ViralPrototype 1 month ago 3
This is awesome! Great way to use the power of musicals to spread a good cause! Great work y'all.
WeAreFalconArts 1 month ago
Awesome! Well done, guys and gals! xo
68katjett 1 month ago
I think the message of this video is that if you wear tie-dye and toms then you'll end up with a smoking wife - props to that guy
d0cta 1 month ago 4
wow, great job! :) i will definitely vote no on amendment one.
Tremari0 1 month ago
3:29 - 3:53. Whoops, just defeated every argument that people who argue against gay rights have for their cause.
Great job everyone. I won't be able to vote against Amendment One (even though I can vote in the primaries on May 8th, how stupid is that). But I'm compensating by spreading the word to others.
DavidSSabb 1 month ago 5
magnificent!!!! bravo bravo!!!! you guys are awesome! thank you to everyone who made this possible and thank you Rachel Kaplan!!!!
segovia4ever 1 month ago 3
You guys did such a great job, I wish I could've helped but clearly you didn't need it!
ursuperkthx 1 month ago
awesome job. there are many of us who will be voting NO.
jedidad72 1 month ago
Primary on May 8th! Early voting starts well before then, on April 19th. Look up your early voting voting locations and dates!
Islander255 1 month ago
This is AMAZING!!!!!
MedalForMerit 1 month ago
This is awesome. I'll be at the polls on May 8th! First thing I'm old enough to vote in! Great job, guys :)
HunkeyDorey101 1 month ago
To my former students--you made me so proud! Awesome job. Let's make NC the only southern state to reject one of these hateful amendments.
timheel 2 months ago
Join me on voting against NC Amendment One!
Jessi4JC 2 months ago
LOVE IT!!!!
marynash100 2 months ago
VOTE AGAINST NC AMENDMENT ONE!
marynash100 2 months ago
Kudos to the writer, Rachel Kaplan, and to all those involved. Vote against NC Amendment One!
Pierrelourens1 2 months ago
AWESOME
MontagueFilms 2 months ago
Fantastic vid.... Voting absentee on May 8th!
mikeg593 2 months ago
This is fantastic. Strong work!
heelunderwater 2 months ago
This is a wonderful video! It really shows a lot of commitment from a group of young people. Plus it is catchy! Everyone should share it!
joevlad2 2 months ago