Yes, I have and idea. Find another topic that is just as big as gay marriage which politicians can easily rant and rave about with little or no thinking involved. Gay marriage is an excuse, its a tactic politicians use to deny, or steer off, other topics. "Mr. Politician our gas prices are sky rocketing what do you intend to do about it?" Politician, "Um, er... Same sex partnership is unholy and should not legally exist!"
I have a much more developed argument for why the state has a right to preserve marriage between a man and a woman and possibly an argument against redefining marriage that I don't think you can refute.
However, I displaying this in private message would be a lot smoother.
You obviously can choose to respond or not, but if you don't respond, I will assume that what you said in your video about "ripping arguments to tatters" and wanting a challenge is all talk.
@kenballer00, there IS no rational argument for why the state should restrict marriage to only people whom you personally think should have equal rights. Folks like you railed against marriage being "redefined" to allow two blacks getting married, against marriage being "redefined" to allow interracial or interfaith marriages. Against "redefining" marriage to give women equal rights. Your personal bigotry should not be woven into law.
In Murphy v. Ramsey (1885) the U.S. Supreme Court stated:
"...the coordinate state of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one MAN and one WOMAN in the holy state of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guaranty of the reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement."
"The institution of marriage as a union man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis......This historic institution manifestly is more deeply founded than the asserted contemporary concept of marriage and societal interests for which petitioners contend. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a charter for RESTRUCTURING it by judicial LEGISLATION."
The point of all the quotes is to that traditional marriage is an OBJECTIVE reality as well as a religious belief, so there is no religious encroachment in civil matters here.
It is people like you and gay activists who are using the government or the law to super impose their will and misguided arbritrary convoluted idea of equality, civil rights, and liberty that you create out of existence not the other way around.
So my argument still stands irrefuted, I dare you to try again.
@kenballer00, your non-existent 'argument" only exists, and stands unrefuted, in your...mind. In the real world, those of us who can cope with and live within the realm of reality, know otherwise. Sorry.
Well, in that case, I invite you to try to show me this supposed reality that my argument against gay so-called marriage is wrong and flawed. I dare you to disprove it in private message.
@kenballer00, life already disproves your alleged argument. If you really wanted to learn and accept the truth, you would have educated yourself by now. The fact that you haven't only confirms that you cannot cope with the reality, and prefer, instead, to hide behind the nonsense you pretend to believe.
@kenballer00, you already know. Why do you enjoy playing the fool? because it allows you to wallow in your agenda? As I say, if you wanted to be educated, you could be.
I've seen your argument. It fails on many levels. From the irrelevant data you often present to the faulty inferences you frequently derive from them. Your argument seems to hinge on the assumption that it is a proper (AND immutable) function of government to promote traditional marriage to the youth to steer them away from harm, like discouraging children from smoking. Trouble is, even assuming this to be true- to promote X and discourage Y it is not necessary to outlaw Y.
The problem with your logic is that there are no policies or laws that specifically or only say "Same sex couples are not allowed to get married". The only policy or law (at least as far as I know) that exist is the promotion of traditional marriage between a man and a woman as it always has been in America.
Then you're an idiot. A law which says "Only men may marry women and vice versa" is a law which say "Same sex couple are not allowed to get married." A tax on yarmulkes is a tax on jews. Dress it up how you like.
This is reasonably a new phenomenom. When we changed the divorce laws to no-fault and reduced all barriers, it was at least 10 years of research before they began to accumulate data that indicated the impact of that change was having. So its not realistic to find prove (or possibly even evidence) of a causal link of redefining marriage and the weakening of marriage. This is why I mainly focused on the argument.
Do you consider that reply to be entirely coherent? Nevermind, this whole thing is tangential. We are not here discussing what the law IS but rather how it ought to be. I want to hear a single reason gay marriage should be ILLEGAL. Not discouraged, not frowned upon, not kept a dirty little secret, not taught in schools, not discussed in earshot of children... none of those things. I want to know why it should be ILLEGAL. I will repeat this request until it's answered.
I would prefer it here, but will not require it. It should be fairly straightforward, Murder, theft, rape, should be illegal because it deprives people of their self-determination and violates the social compact . Driving with a movie playing exposes others to unnecessary risks with little to no benefit to no one. Allowing the sale of lemon cars could cripple commerce. See how easily and concisely I can explain why a thing should be illegal when it actually SHOULD be? Why not you?
I will try to be as concise as you want me to. You may not be able to understand it ,if its condensed, though.
However,In order to understand how same sex marriage or redefining it would interfere with this purpose, you have to understand what the purpose of marriage is first.
The purpose of marriage is as dynamic and variable as we choose to make it. Marriage is an artificial commitment, it's not like mankind discovered marriage like fire and the atom, it was something we created. Therefore its "purpose" is fluid.
And even so, you would support such a law, wouldn't you? We're not merely talking about the laws as they are written, we're talking about how they OUGHT to be written.
And marriage has undergone CONSIDERABLE changes in the last two centuries- what is this bullshit about "as it has always been in america?" What about interacial marriage, divorce, equitable property and fair custody rights? These things are NEW.
The U.S supreme court has been consistent throughout the history of marriage ranging from plural marriage ( Murphy v. Ramsey), from interracial marriage (Loving v Virginia), to even same sex marriage (Baker v. Nelson) that marriage is between one man and one woman and the purpose of it is to PROMOTE responsible procreation and rearing of children. Remember, U.S case law is the supreme law of the land, so states that had something different from one time or the next is irrelevant.
So? It's interesting that you cite these cases because in each of these cases some "traditional" aspect of marriage was overturned. You don't see any irony in citing them now to argue AGAINST overturning such a convention? You see nothing odd about this? Effectively saying, "Yes, the definition of marriage has gone through many changes. While each of these changed independently, other things were not changed. Those which were NOT changed, therefore, should not be changed now,."
The state does not require us to procreate once licenses are given mainly because there is no point in doing so. Procreation is already biologically driven and people will do it either by choice or on accident. Its what happens after procreation is what we are talking about as far as the state playing a role in the process of making sure children have a stable environment.
The meaning of marriage is used as a way to encourage those parents to provide legal and social support for their offspring after they procreate during the child development process. This is why its called "responsible" procreation and rearing of children because those adults would naturally be taking responsibility for their actions by making sure procreation (regardless whether its unintended or not) and rearing of children happens within marriage, a stable environment.
This is utter bullshit. What's to stop me saying, "The meaning of marriage is used as a way to encourage those parents to provide tater tots on tuesdays." The meaning of marriage- whether it be defined as between two adults or two adults of opposite sex- makes no explicit or implicit mention of how children are to be raised. And there are ALREADY legal consequences of failing to provide for your children.
Same sex marriage or redefining marriage to just two people would interfere with this purpose because it would make marriage ONLY be a choice between consenting adults who want to express their love a certain way. Those choices couples have a tendency to select that are considered to be detrimental and have the potential to hurt families would no longer be deemed as such because the well-being of children is no longer apart of the concept of marriage.
Therefore, heterosexuals (mainly from future generations) could be led to make choices that have the potential to harm their own family and society in general. These choices that have the potential to create instability include cohabitation or prior cohabitation before marriage, divorce, and choosing partners other than the biological father to raise children etc.
This is why we should prevent redefining marriage this way. Incoming heterosexuals could be affected by this type of promotion.
It baffles me that you think this amorphous lump of disconnected ideas is a functional argument. Do you notice how desperately long your explanation is vs. the way I was able to neatly sum up the problem with allowing murder, theft, rape, safe driver laws etc... with room to spare in a single comment?
That they "could be led" (though you never say how or what choices or what gay marriage has to do with it) is not sufficient reason to limit the choices of others.
by infusing same sex couples as apart of that meaning and word, you would not only promote motherless and fatherless environments but prioritize the needs and desires of adults over the needs of children because procreation is basically taken out of the mix.
1) You just got through saying gays can't procreate. 2) Now allowing them to marry somehow promotes motherless and fatherless environments... um, how? Bob and Sue getting a divorce has nothing to do with Jeff and Jim getting married.
3) As such it's not a question of "prioritizing" the rights of adults over children. And even if it were, how do you justify the inverse?
What a feeble argument. I hope you lead with the weak foot,
1) Children are a completely separate issue. Two people can get married and not have children. But, so long as you think they're related, I'm free to point out that a married homosexual couple can adopt a child that would otherwise spend his/her life in foster care: do you think that's an environment worth promoting?
2) So what? Is my generation somehow ethically beholden to the next? How much is it reasonable to ask a person to sacrifice in order to improve the life of someone..
...not yet born? A person who, on your view, will be subject to the same sort of compulsory self-sacrifice. TODAY we have living, breathing people with interests and desires: on what grounds do you deny them for the sake of HYPOTHETICAL people yet to come?
3) If procreation is taken out of the mix (homosexuals TEND not to have children) then of what relevance are children as anything more than an anomaly (in the sense that SOME gay couples will have children)?
You have NEVER shown how. Even if you had, not as much as divorce. Yet no one opposing gay marriage has made opposition to divorce a more central issue.
Even if you had established that doing so somehow prioritized the needs of adults over children (which you haven't, because it doesn't: which need and how does it suffer?)- so what? Why is that against the rules?
You keep repeating the same idiotic and unsupported phrases, despite my having unravelled them all before your eyes.
Rob, I know you decided against speaking to church congregations I undertand your apprehension. I am a former Christian, and was rather annoyed when a member of the congregation passed around a petition for banning same sex marriage. I simply did not sign it however, I wish I had spoken up about the issue. You could try to speak with Christians outside of church, and persuade them to speak up on the issue. Or even send a well written letter to the churches, speaking to compassion.
Why do you think the gay people suffered so much in your family???
Because people like you make them suffer with guilt and religion bullshit. YOU fucking christians really pisse me off: as always you use the "scriptures" as YOU like, when it suits you, don' you. This is so pathetic. Why don' t you just love everybody and help people and leave them the way they are. Because of YOU, young gays are killing themselves, that' s the #1 cause of suicide for teens. SHAME
I agree with you 100%....I'll have to think through any suggestions however...and I'm not quite sure an Atheist giving a talk to "believers" about gay marriage is going to have an impact. They may toss raw eggs at you so be prepared, lol
I give you alot of credit though.... and my admiration
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Gays are the most dirty and vile of sinners. marriage is between a man and a woman.You believe in evolution.When one believes were just animals we act like them.Being gay is a choice. choose sin and all one gains is everlasting fire. Come to Christ and live.Shame on you for helping gay rights and marriage in any way.
Really? Over murderers and rapists? Hmm... rather destroys your credibility when you claim that a victimless sin (homosexuals willingly participate in their sin) is the most dirty and vile... and why is "dirty" a point against it? Evidence suggests that homosexuality isn't a choice. And, if being gay is a choice; so? Parting your hair on the left is a choice: what would you say if I called it "vile and dirty?"
In short, you have NOTHING to say. If you'd like an exchange, I'm game, though. So?
let me be precise about my position on this issue. i am happen to be the opposition to your cause and i don't think you have a case in this issue. you might as well run your arguments or counter arguments for your position by me first to see whether or not they are even worth hearing in the first place
On what issue; gay marriage, incestuous marriage, or polygamy? I very much have a case for all three: an identical and successful case, it runs along the following lines- what business is it of yours?
Right; and that works for you? So you think the elderly shouldn't be permitted to marry, anyone who happens to be sterile, or anyone who overtly says that they don't want to have kids? Should vasectomy result in divorce? Should single parents be required to hand their children over to adoptive parents?
You don't see the absurd implications of taking that argument seriously?
this is the is/ought fallacy. just because there are situations like infertile couples does not prove we ought to have gay marriage. we don't allow exceptions to be the rule for almost any situation.
letting infertile couples get married does not change the definition of marriage because you are still PROMOTING the same product by principle. we are talking about the states perspective here not the couples
the state's perspective is more important because we are talking about PUBLIC POLICY. laws are not made for individuals but for the common good. the traditional family concept has been shown to be the ideal throughout history, science, and sheer common sense.
are you supposing gay marriage has shown to be just as good ? if so, what makes you think this
No, you're straw manning. I never said it was just as good; I said gays deserve it just as much as anyone else. Not eating too much sodium is a harder fact than the value of two parents; would you support a draconian law prohibiting more than your daily requirement? Thought not. Mary and Margaret getting married isn't hurting anyone- or is that what YOU'RE contending? If so, please elaborate on how.
They deserve the right on the grounds that no good reason exists to deny them that right. Or do you arbitrarily presuppose that certain activities are just NOT things people can reasonably expect to engage in without interference from others until those things have been established to be their rights? If that's the case, how do you establish your right to be on youtube? Imagine it's illegal for you and only you, and you now have to prove that you have the right to do it.
And yes you ARE misrepresenting what I said; I never said ANYTHING about a demonstration of the goodness of gay marriage; that is incidental. It should be permitted because it does no unreasonable harm.
Why is changing the definition of marriage something to be avoided? You just toss these ideas out as if I'm going to accept them simply because you did: wrong. If you are saying X is to be forbidden for party Y, then YOU have to give a good reason for it. Just offering a description ("that would change the definition!") of what is going on isn't enough, I'm afraid.
The reproductive and child rearing POTENTIAL or POSSIBILITY of opposite-sex couples is assumed at a general level and is not investigated in individual cases. To do otherwise would not only be a serious and unjustifiable breach of privacy, but it would take the unnecessary spending of manpower, money, and resources to accomplish.
if we were talking about just civil unions, then you would probably have case here but we are discussing the word and word only.
...and all of this has yet to establish the m/f family concept as an ideal that is appropriate for the government to be promoting. And since when is "promotion" a matter of exclusion, anyway? You don't promote a band by having all the other bands killed.
If we're discussing the word and the word only then why are you turning to evidence about the effects of gay marriage? If civil unions are probably OK, then why is labeling that union a marriage suddenly harmful? Your argument is, and forgive me, pathetically vacuous. It's mildly amusing that you thought I would have difficulty defending individual liberties against such a malformed, stillborn argument.
with civil unions, just about nothing changes in the mainstream world. however, if you allow gay marriage and redefine marriage for some, you redefine it for everybody else and affect everyone. it is not so much the relationship itself that is suppose to doom society but the government along with the intolerant gay activist who use that gay marriage legislation to impose their will. the government starts to rearrange businesses, media, and schools according to that definition.
What a pathetic response: you seem to be laboring under the delusion that "changing a defintion for EVERYONE" is somehow going to make the sky fall. You realize marriage used to be between two people of the same race, don't you? We had to change the definition there... oh, and would ya look at the harm it's done! The gay activist imposes their will and the heterosexual bigot doesn't? Are you fucking deranged? And no, the government doesn't rearrange anything. Even if it did- so?
If, instead of "disallowing gay marriage", you meant " legally recognizing or defining marriage between a man and a woman" , then the argument would be subject to a fallacy of equivocation ("traditional marriage" does not equal "disallowing gay marriage") in the same way that "disallowing satanism" does not equal "christianity"), and would therefore be structurally unsound."
Religion is a choice, hatred and ignorance is a choice. Did you choose to be straight? I didnt choose to be gay. In the Bible sin is sin, they are all equally bad. Also judgment is up to "God" not you. Pride is also a deadly sin, to think your way of life is better than others is sinful. Christianity claims to be a religion of love, compassion, and acceptance, yet you show none. You are homophobic, and hide behind religion to justify your hatred towards gays.
Rob pretty much covered everything. I would just like to add; You're a fucking moron. Okay got that one off my chest. Have a great life, hope you don't have any kids, ever, better for the species that way.
You are obviously focusing on the second part of that strategy. Stick with the moderates.
Another option you may take. Instead of addressing just the actual congregations, maybe target groups affiliated with the church. Boy Scout troop? By discussing a viewpoint different from their own, they will get a taste of Democracy and government in action to help them get their Citizenship badges. Of course you'd be talking mostly to the parents, but getting their kids involved is a good thing too.
Good idea to aim for the moderates as opposed to hard-core conservatives. Just like any political race, the extremes are set in their ways and will most likely not be swayed (not in substantial numbers anyway).
The keys to victory are to secure and energize your base in get-out-the-vote type events, then to go get those in the middle. The independents, moderates and those who are barely on the other side of the fence. Only have to get them to come one or two steps to get 'em in your own yard.
Your courageous, compassion and eloquent and an inspiration. The recognition and promise of love between two people is such a wonderful occurrence I believe it should be elevated, recognized and celebrated, not dismissed and treated as inconsequential or lacking simply because of ones gender. I believe when love is present and acknowledged between two adult individuals, what better reason to celebrate! They are dedicating their lives to each other, what a gift!
You should make the legal argument that no matter what they think about homosexuality morally, prevent gay marriage is just simply unconstitutional and out of their hands. Marriage is a fundamental right as determined by the Supreme Court.
The trouble with that argument is that conservatives don't like being told there is anything that can't be put to a vote. Most people, liberal and conservative, aren't very "constitutionally" principled... they invoke the constitution when it supports their position and ignore it when it doesn't. And conservatives HATE the supremacy clause... they're, in their essence, anti-federalists.
I would offer that argument to a person who was genuinely committed to justice and rationality. But I wouldn't need to, to them. The fact is, it's on the ballot... and that's all the legitimacy any of them require.
i think that you have to be careful about committing the Question Begging fallacy. YES, it has been ruled or determined that you have a fundamental right to marry that doesn't mean you have a right to marry your sister or multiple people. the right needs to be established by the supreme court first and right now that is not the case.
To which one can reply, "Which isn't an argument against man's law or for a prohibition of gay marriage. If it's above man's law then clearly the two are distinct and separate."
Hey Rob, I think you're attempt is admirable but in the end I fear it is futile. It has been tried in many European countries, without success.
Here in the Netherlands, we succeeded when the Christians were no longer in charge of the parliament. Furthermore we spend a lot of time addressing the issue of homosexuality in schools on a regular basis resulting in public debates between youth and parents. Another helpful tool was organizing the gay community.
By vigorously addressing political parties and making it very clear that they could count on our votes if they supported gay marriage. Attempts to address the churches were made during the sixties till mid seventies and never amounted to anything. Same as in Germany, France and Belgium. Belgium followed almost the same course as the Netherlands and they finally succeeded in 2003. I think this is your best chance. Oh and be relentless, do not give up and keep addressing the issue.
Right on! The question that stands before us has nothing to do with whether you are straight or whether you are gay. It has nothing to do with what my, or your, views are on the morality of homosexuality, or the morality of homosexual marriage. The question that stands before us is this: Do you truly believe in equality? .. and for every American? Like it or not these are people just like everyone else. Like it or not, these are American citizens just like you and I. Like it or not (cont)
.. these people are guaranteed the same rights as you and I. There is NO justifiable reason to deny ANY group of American citizens the same basic civil rights and freedoms you and I enjoy. .. and if you do not stand for their rights, for their freedoms, who will stand when it is your rights that need to be defended? It has nothing to do with our personal beliefs, but everything to do with the integrity of our nation. It has everything to do with what our country is (cont 2)
... supposed to stand for. If we cannot see the error of this thinking, then how dare we call this the land of the free?
Just my take on the matter, hopefully you can come at it in such a way to show that it is not a matter of their beliefs, but rather on the ideals that our country was founded upon. Use it if it helps.
Being a former Christian I can tell you that they tend to stand up stronger and with more vigilance against those who appose their world views when surrounded by like-minded people, regardless of YOUR demeanor or evidence. In fact, the more Christians they are surrounded by the more likely your words will fall on def ears. Grant it, I came from a fundamentalist Christian church, but I can't see it being all that much different.
The smaller the group the more likely they are to actually listen. I recommend groups of about 5 to 12. Big enough to give them the confidence to discuss it with you while at the same time, small enough to actually have to hear what you have to say so as to come back with a rebuttal.
What I recommend is that you find hangouts or areas in which small groups like to evangelize. This way it's on a more personal level while at the same time, you're encouraging and enlightening those around you who are witnessing this discussion.
In my area (Ca.) They'd go out in the evenings where teens could hang out, such as coffee joints, burger places and smaller strip malls and downtown areas. I won't lie, it'll take some investigating. There are two more solid ways of finding out. 1) Ask the teens in your area where they have been approached. 2) Undercover. Ask a church member, preferably late teens to early 20's (that doesn't know your stance) where you can take a friend who's on the fence and not cool with going to a church.
Religious people tend to be an emotion driven crowd. So while, of course, having rational arguments is a great, I'd also focus on emotions and empathy, in particular.
For example, you could point out that every homosexual person is someone's brother/sister, daughter/son. Invite the audience to consider, for a moment, what it would be like if one of their loved ones was in that position and, perhaps, too afraid to admit it.
Of course, you'd first have to convince them homosexuals are human.
Heh heh... go into those churches and you'll charm many hearts over to your side (and break a few ;->).
Hmm... perhaps I'll go into the extreme militant churches and ask support for a proposition asking that those who have been divorced can only have civil unions afterwards.
Considering the high divorce rates in Christian communities, I'm sure it will go over like a lead zeppelin.
i used to go and debate with large churches on the topic of the existence of god. not only did they welcome me, but they invited me back. it only worked in moderate to liberal churches though. they welcomed thought provoking debate, and said it strengthened their belief. one of those churches had a gay minister interestingly. they also prayed for george bush not to be elected. i think you'll have the best results with moderate churches, as the liberal ones are likely to support your views
the fundamentalist churches would probably play tough guy with you, you might need someone of my stature to "reason" with them. this is all in california mind you, i don't know much about washington. good luck though, but try to appeal to their emotional side as reason is not permitted in organized religion. please keep posted on your results.
I do not think that this issue can be won by an appeal to rationality. It has more to do with gay men and women coming out. As long as homosexuality remains as an abstract concept to be applied to a nebulous "they" it is easy for those who do not experience homosexual desires to dismiss those who do as, at best, inconsequential and at worst , perverts. Just by being open about being gay you cross many people's comfort zone. Too much information. This is a tough issue.
I am reevaluating the decision to pursue churches who are particularly hostile to homosexuals. Not only does it seem unlikely that I'll be permitted to speak but it seems likely that I'll only drive more of the opposition to the polls. However, the churches who sit on the fence, the more moderate congregations might be persuaded.
Good luck, this is a commendable task. I'll leave you with this quote- "You can't remove something with logic that wasn't placed there with logic in the first place"
The quote is from Jonathan Swift, and it goes, "it is futile to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into." Swift was a priest himself, of course, yet this did not prevent him from publishing the satire, "An Argument Against Abolishing Christianity", which I think has some considerable relevance to the current topic. Realistically, I wonder if the objection to gay marriage truly is on religious grounds so much as motivated by politics or lack of education?
...as I soon discovered. Called a girl I used to date who is a VERY devout Christian. She flatly, albeit apologetically, told me that she wouldn't help me one bit. She wouldn't even go so far as to tell me who I would want to speak to in her church. I didn't feel like pressing the matter and alienating her... but I was surprised at how vehemently she rejected the notion of me presenting an opposing view in her church.
Yes, it's very difficult for guys like you and me to comprehend a group that wouldn't want to discuss differences in a thoughtful, respectful manner - but that's not part of the nature of religious dogma.
Hell, if it *was*, we would have been rid of them 3 centuries ago when the Enlightenment came around.
Remember that these people agree amongst themselves that "we won't listen" to alternative points of view and that these are just tricks of Satan - as is "so-called knowledge of the world."
I think you may be able to trap them. Start off asking them if they can help you get the word out about some people who need help--start vague and make it sound like something they routinely do. Your goal could be to get a meeting with a minister to discuss your options.
Frankly, I'm surprised they pass up a chance to talk to anyone. Churches in my experience always are on the look out for a chance to try to talk to someone who is unsaven.
Say you feel the urge to help people and need advic
marriage i don't like that word and when i get a domistic union with a female i will call it a partnership not a mariage i seen what marriages are and they suck balls and they can keep there shitting word. What they need to do is take it of the federal papers and stop using it as a way to identify partnerships beetweend two humens.Then it can be cool if they call it marriage and others can call it whatever they like. Remeber try to get them to comprimise becuase they have issues with being humbl
Spend some time preparing specific arguments meant to illuminate the question within the framework of their morality. If I understand you correctly, you will be attempting to point out that opposing prop 71 will not further any of their religious goals but rather be nothing more than an act of cruelty.
You might get some people thinking with that one, as it is not really in keeping with Christian values to deny others happiness for no benefit to their soul.
Attempting to provoke thought huh? Highest human endeavor in my opinion.
If you want congregation members to actually listen and respond with real arguments and genuine debate, you'll want to be clear at the outset that you are not attacking their faith, but presenting a point of view. Avoid phrases or labels that could misrepresent your intentions as evangelizing atheism or promoting the moral acceptance of homosexuality. This will cause them to shut down and retreat to hard-line stances.
I think this is a brilliant idea! I live in WA and think that this is a great way to get gay marriage in discussion. If anyone will be able to talk to conservative churches (on at least the gay marriage front) it's you. :D Good luck and keep us posted! I'd love to come and hear you speaking!
I think this is a good idea, I support you and hope you do well. Most of these people have never heard anyone counter their ideas.
I think you should stress that in voting against this and in voting against homosexuality is in essence them forcing THEIR religious beliefs on others. This is the same as if orthodox Jews attempted to ban people from working on the Sabbath because their religion says its wrong.
I'd suggest stressing that religious dogma cannot be law in the US and that they'll always have the right to hate gay people and will never be forced to marry gays if they don't want to.
Your obstacle isn't going to be coming up with reasonable arguments, it's going to be opening the ears of those who won't hear them. I don't know how you do that.
That being said, as far as reasoning goes, all you need to do is show how separate but equal is not right, and how government marriage is not the same thing as their religion's marriage. People can't get these two easy facts through their thick skulls. So, good luck.
Your approach seems reasonable to me; I'd say more but I'm out o
You have to understand the mentality of these fundamentalist Christians. They believe that if we allow homosexuals to get married, God will punish our country. If we allow it, then we support it, and if we support it, God will become angry. I would argue that the government has no moral right to decide who is allowed to get married. How long are we going to allow strangers, who do not care about us, (politicians) make decisions concerning how we live?
Sounds like a classic story where a character who wouldn't call themselves a hero ventured into the belly of the beast to take the battle to the enemy.
I think it's a fantastic idea, if done prudently. Some chruches might single you out and attack you personally for coming onto their terf. Be prepared for it.
i just want to go to the chirch you go to lol that is going to be a good one please tape the event it will be a huge hit on youtube.
that being said i don't think it will help though Christians are in there own bubble and i think they will see voting against it as there way to stretch out gods hands on the gay people.
Be sure to take notes while they argue so you won't forget to address them. I'm sure you have all the counter arguments make flash cards and label them. (I know it's dorky but it helps remind you)
BE CAREFUL THERE ARE CRAZY CHRISTIANS OUT THERE. Dr. Tiller was killed in church and there's a pastor here on Youtube (praying) advocating to have Obama killed.
Christians need to be reminded that their scripture tells them to obey the powers that be; because. they are "ordained of God". They should stay out of politics.
Sure, you might convince a few stragglers to stop opposing gay marriage, but you won't convince any significant numbers. This is no different than if you went into a church and tried to stop them believing in creationism. They believe these things for emotional reasons and the majority of them are not going to change their minds for logical reasons alone. You would have to damage their faith to get them to stop opposing gay marriage.
Balls of steel and the heart of a lion. I wish I could offer you some advice but I feel you're infinitely better equipped than I already. Best of luck!
If I hear one more person say the words "we have to protect the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman" I am going to scream! I work with a woman that has been married 3 times since my partner and I have been together. Every time she has "marched down the isle" her hubby at the time received tax benefits, health insurance and on and on. Yet, we have nothing. We are not asking for anything special just the same benefits as everyone else. We both work-pay our share of taxes. Grr!
Excellent vid on an issue that is far more serious than it has to be. I applaud your action...I will mirror this and post to facebook. I wish you well on this endeavour and peace be with.
My partner and I (18 years) live in Ohio. We have no civil unions or marriage. It was taken away by a ballot initiative in 2004.
Last year my appendix burst and I landed in the ICU after surgery. My partner had to lie and say he was my father in order to stay in my room. He is only a year older than me but has gray hair.
Thanks Rob. I still don't understand how the majority can put minorities rights on a ballot and just "vote" them away . Where are our state and federal supreme courts? Isn't that what they are there for-to protect citizens?
Unfortunately from a moral standpoint, if you do not punish a thing, you condone it and damn near promote it. Christians see this as promoting homosexuality. They will be opposed to anything beneficial to homosexuals.
I agree with you, I think this is noble, but I doubt it will work. It is better to suggest that we shouldn't make laws against homosexuals for the same reason we don't make laws against witchcraft, or picking up sticks on sunday.
Hey Rob, you have nothing but my admiration for doing this! I do in fact have some fears that it may be counter-productive, you may cause polarization driving people to be more likely to vote in it (probably not in the way you'd hope too). But I'm no expert in Washington political demographics. Either way, if you need a sounding board for your rhetoric let me know, i'll jump on stickam.
Yes, I have and idea. Find another topic that is just as big as gay marriage which politicians can easily rant and rave about with little or no thinking involved. Gay marriage is an excuse, its a tactic politicians use to deny, or steer off, other topics. "Mr. Politician our gas prices are sky rocketing what do you intend to do about it?" Politician, "Um, er... Same sex partnership is unholy and should not legally exist!"
Steelriven 1 month ago in playlist More videos from RobTheMonk8
its me again.
I have a much more developed argument for why the state has a right to preserve marriage between a man and a woman and possibly an argument against redefining marriage that I don't think you can refute.
However, I displaying this in private message would be a lot smoother.
You obviously can choose to respond or not, but if you don't respond, I will assume that what you said in your video about "ripping arguments to tatters" and wanting a challenge is all talk.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00
I await your message.
RobTheMonk8 1 year ago
@kenballer00, there IS no rational argument for why the state should restrict marriage to only people whom you personally think should have equal rights. Folks like you railed against marriage being "redefined" to allow two blacks getting married, against marriage being "redefined" to allow interracial or interfaith marriages. Against "redefining" marriage to give women equal rights. Your personal bigotry should not be woven into law.
GodCreatesGays2 6 months ago
@Go
In Murphy v. Ramsey (1885) the U.S. Supreme Court stated:
"...the coordinate state of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one MAN and one WOMAN in the holy state of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guaranty of the reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement."
kenballer00 6 months ago
@Go
The U.S. supreme court in Baker v. Nelson:
"The institution of marriage as a union man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis......This historic institution manifestly is more deeply founded than the asserted contemporary concept of marriage and societal interests for which petitioners contend. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a charter for RESTRUCTURING it by judicial LEGISLATION."
kenballer00 6 months ago
@God
The point of all the quotes is to that traditional marriage is an OBJECTIVE reality as well as a religious belief, so there is no religious encroachment in civil matters here.
It is people like you and gay activists who are using the government or the law to super impose their will and misguided arbritrary convoluted idea of equality, civil rights, and liberty that you create out of existence not the other way around.
So my argument still stands irrefuted, I dare you to try again.
kenballer00 6 months ago
@kenballer00, your non-existent 'argument" only exists, and stands unrefuted, in your...mind. In the real world, those of us who can cope with and live within the realm of reality, know otherwise. Sorry.
GodCreatesGays2 6 months ago
@GodCreatesGays2
Well, in that case, I invite you to try to show me this supposed reality that my argument against gay so-called marriage is wrong and flawed. I dare you to disprove it in private message.
kenballer00 6 months ago
@kenballer00, life already disproves your alleged argument. If you really wanted to learn and accept the truth, you would have educated yourself by now. The fact that you haven't only confirms that you cannot cope with the reality, and prefer, instead, to hide behind the nonsense you pretend to believe.
GodCreatesGays2 6 months ago
@GodCreatesGays2
You can keep telling yourself that all you want but "Talk is Cheap".
kenballer00 6 months ago
@kenballer00, that's why I keep urging you to stop your silly talk and actually get an education.
Knowledge is NOT the enemy, I promise you.
GodCreatesGays2 6 months ago
@GodCreatesGays2
I have a bachelor's degree sociology and an associate's degree along with my highschool diploma. So thats ignorant of you to make that comment.
kenballer00 6 months ago
@kenballer00, you can claim to be "educated" all you want, but your psychological issues clearly limit you intellectually. Sorry.
GodCreatesGays2 6 months ago
@GodCreatesGays2
explain how so? enlighten me or are you just a coward?
kenballer00 6 months ago
@kenballer00, you already know. Why do you enjoy playing the fool? because it allows you to wallow in your agenda? As I say, if you wanted to be educated, you could be.
GodCreatesGays2 6 months ago
@kenballer00
I've seen your argument. It fails on many levels. From the irrelevant data you often present to the faulty inferences you frequently derive from them. Your argument seems to hinge on the assumption that it is a proper (AND immutable) function of government to promote traditional marriage to the youth to steer them away from harm, like discouraging children from smoking. Trouble is, even assuming this to be true- to promote X and discourage Y it is not necessary to outlaw Y.
RobTheMonk8 6 months ago
The problem with your logic is that there are no policies or laws that specifically or only say "Same sex couples are not allowed to get married". The only policy or law (at least as far as I know) that exist is the promotion of traditional marriage between a man and a woman as it always has been in America.
kenballer00 6 months ago
@kenballer00
Then you're an idiot. A law which says "Only men may marry women and vice versa" is a law which say "Same sex couple are not allowed to get married." A tax on yarmulkes is a tax on jews. Dress it up how you like.
RobTheMonk8 6 months ago
@RobTheMonk8
This is reasonably a new phenomenom. When we changed the divorce laws to no-fault and reduced all barriers, it was at least 10 years of research before they began to accumulate data that indicated the impact of that change was having. So its not realistic to find prove (or possibly even evidence) of a causal link of redefining marriage and the weakening of marriage. This is why I mainly focused on the argument.
kenballer00 6 months ago
@kenballer00
Do you consider that reply to be entirely coherent? Nevermind, this whole thing is tangential. We are not here discussing what the law IS but rather how it ought to be. I want to hear a single reason gay marriage should be ILLEGAL. Not discouraged, not frowned upon, not kept a dirty little secret, not taught in schools, not discussed in earshot of children... none of those things. I want to know why it should be ILLEGAL. I will repeat this request until it's answered.
RobTheMonk8 6 months ago
@RobTheMonk8
Can I give you the reason in PM or are you requiring that I do it in comment section this time?
kenballer00 6 months ago
@kenballer00
I would prefer it here, but will not require it. It should be fairly straightforward, Murder, theft, rape, should be illegal because it deprives people of their self-determination and violates the social compact . Driving with a movie playing exposes others to unnecessary risks with little to no benefit to no one. Allowing the sale of lemon cars could cripple commerce. See how easily and concisely I can explain why a thing should be illegal when it actually SHOULD be? Why not you?
RobTheMonk8 6 months ago
@RobTheMonk8
I will try to be as concise as you want me to. You may not be able to understand it ,if its condensed, though.
However,In order to understand how same sex marriage or redefining it would interfere with this purpose, you have to understand what the purpose of marriage is first.
kenballer00 6 months ago
@kenballer00
The purpose of marriage is as dynamic and variable as we choose to make it. Marriage is an artificial commitment, it's not like mankind discovered marriage like fire and the atom, it was something we created. Therefore its "purpose" is fluid.
RobTheMonk8 6 months ago
@kenballer00
And even so, you would support such a law, wouldn't you? We're not merely talking about the laws as they are written, we're talking about how they OUGHT to be written.
And marriage has undergone CONSIDERABLE changes in the last two centuries- what is this bullshit about "as it has always been in america?" What about interacial marriage, divorce, equitable property and fair custody rights? These things are NEW.
RobTheMonk8 6 months ago
@RobTheMonk
The U.S supreme court has been consistent throughout the history of marriage ranging from plural marriage ( Murphy v. Ramsey), from interracial marriage (Loving v Virginia), to even same sex marriage (Baker v. Nelson) that marriage is between one man and one woman and the purpose of it is to PROMOTE responsible procreation and rearing of children. Remember, U.S case law is the supreme law of the land, so states that had something different from one time or the next is irrelevant.
kenballer00 6 months ago
@kenballer00
So? It's interesting that you cite these cases because in each of these cases some "traditional" aspect of marriage was overturned. You don't see any irony in citing them now to argue AGAINST overturning such a convention? You see nothing odd about this? Effectively saying, "Yes, the definition of marriage has gone through many changes. While each of these changed independently, other things were not changed. Those which were NOT changed, therefore, should not be changed now,."
RobTheMonk8 6 months ago
@RobTheMonk8
The state does not require us to procreate once licenses are given mainly because there is no point in doing so. Procreation is already biologically driven and people will do it either by choice or on accident. Its what happens after procreation is what we are talking about as far as the state playing a role in the process of making sure children have a stable environment.
kenballer00 6 months ago
@RobTheMonk8
The meaning of marriage is used as a way to encourage those parents to provide legal and social support for their offspring after they procreate during the child development process. This is why its called "responsible" procreation and rearing of children because those adults would naturally be taking responsibility for their actions by making sure procreation (regardless whether its unintended or not) and rearing of children happens within marriage, a stable environment.
kenballer00 6 months ago
@kenballer00
This is utter bullshit. What's to stop me saying, "The meaning of marriage is used as a way to encourage those parents to provide tater tots on tuesdays." The meaning of marriage- whether it be defined as between two adults or two adults of opposite sex- makes no explicit or implicit mention of how children are to be raised. And there are ALREADY legal consequences of failing to provide for your children.
Fail.
RobTheMonk8 6 months ago
@RobTheMonk8
Same sex marriage or redefining marriage to just two people would interfere with this purpose because it would make marriage ONLY be a choice between consenting adults who want to express their love a certain way. Those choices couples have a tendency to select that are considered to be detrimental and have the potential to hurt families would no longer be deemed as such because the well-being of children is no longer apart of the concept of marriage.
kenballer00 6 months ago
Therefore, heterosexuals (mainly from future generations) could be led to make choices that have the potential to harm their own family and society in general. These choices that have the potential to create instability include cohabitation or prior cohabitation before marriage, divorce, and choosing partners other than the biological father to raise children etc.
This is why we should prevent redefining marriage this way. Incoming heterosexuals could be affected by this type of promotion.
kenballer00 6 months ago
@kenballer00
It baffles me that you think this amorphous lump of disconnected ideas is a functional argument. Do you notice how desperately long your explanation is vs. the way I was able to neatly sum up the problem with allowing murder, theft, rape, safe driver laws etc... with room to spare in a single comment?
That they "could be led" (though you never say how or what choices or what gay marriage has to do with it) is not sufficient reason to limit the choices of others.
RobTheMonk8 6 months ago
by infusing same sex couples as apart of that meaning and word, you would not only promote motherless and fatherless environments but prioritize the needs and desires of adults over the needs of children because procreation is basically taken out of the mix.
kenballer00 2 years ago
1) You just got through saying gays can't procreate. 2) Now allowing them to marry somehow promotes motherless and fatherless environments... um, how? Bob and Sue getting a divorce has nothing to do with Jeff and Jim getting married.
3) As such it's not a question of "prioritizing" the rights of adults over children. And even if it were, how do you justify the inverse?
What a feeble argument. I hope you lead with the weak foot,
RobTheMonk8 2 years ago
@kenballer00
1) Children are a completely separate issue. Two people can get married and not have children. But, so long as you think they're related, I'm free to point out that a married homosexual couple can adopt a child that would otherwise spend his/her life in foster care: do you think that's an environment worth promoting?
2) So what? Is my generation somehow ethically beholden to the next? How much is it reasonable to ask a person to sacrifice in order to improve the life of someone..
RobTheMonk8 1 year ago
@kenballer00 (cont)
...not yet born? A person who, on your view, will be subject to the same sort of compulsory self-sacrifice. TODAY we have living, breathing people with interests and desires: on what grounds do you deny them for the sake of HYPOTHETICAL people yet to come?
3) If procreation is taken out of the mix (homosexuals TEND not to have children) then of what relevance are children as anything more than an anomaly (in the sense that SOME gay couples will have children)?
RobTheMonk8 1 year ago
@kenballer00
You have NEVER shown how. Even if you had, not as much as divorce. Yet no one opposing gay marriage has made opposition to divorce a more central issue.
Even if you had established that doing so somehow prioritized the needs of adults over children (which you haven't, because it doesn't: which need and how does it suffer?)- so what? Why is that against the rules?
You keep repeating the same idiotic and unsupported phrases, despite my having unravelled them all before your eyes.
RobTheMonk8 6 months ago
Rob, I know you decided against speaking to church congregations I undertand your apprehension. I am a former Christian, and was rather annoyed when a member of the congregation passed around a petition for banning same sex marriage. I simply did not sign it however, I wish I had spoken up about the issue. You could try to speak with Christians outside of church, and persuade them to speak up on the issue. Or even send a well written letter to the churches, speaking to compassion.
janellc122 2 years ago
Now here is my answer to him:
Why do you think the gay people suffered so much in your family???
Because people like you make them suffer with guilt and religion bullshit. YOU fucking christians really pisse me off: as always you use the "scriptures" as YOU like, when it suits you, don' you. This is so pathetic. Why don' t you just love everybody and help people and leave them the way they are. Because of YOU, young gays are killing themselves, that' s the #1 cause of suicide for teens. SHAME
motardkool 2 years ago
I would suggest people to read what WHINDA4702 wrote on my page to answer my comment below...
motardkool 2 years ago
Comment removed
Tiffanynicolina 2 years ago
I agree with you 100%....I'll have to think through any suggestions however...and I'm not quite sure an Atheist giving a talk to "believers" about gay marriage is going to have an impact. They may toss raw eggs at you so be prepared, lol
I give you alot of credit though.... and my admiration
Tiffanynicolina 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Gays are the most dirty and vile of sinners. marriage is between a man and a woman.You believe in evolution.When one believes were just animals we act like them.Being gay is a choice. choose sin and all one gains is everlasting fire. Come to Christ and live.Shame on you for helping gay rights and marriage in any way.
whinda4702 2 years ago
Really? Over murderers and rapists? Hmm... rather destroys your credibility when you claim that a victimless sin (homosexuals willingly participate in their sin) is the most dirty and vile... and why is "dirty" a point against it? Evidence suggests that homosexuality isn't a choice. And, if being gay is a choice; so? Parting your hair on the left is a choice: what would you say if I called it "vile and dirty?"
In short, you have NOTHING to say. If you'd like an exchange, I'm game, though. So?
RobTheMonk8 2 years ago
i am waiting patiently for your video thats suppose to destroy all the arguments of the traditional marriage supporters
kenballer00 2 years ago
They'd have to present an argument, first. I'd considered doing it but I think they have mostly been addressed better than I could.
RobTheMonk8 2 years ago
let me be precise about my position on this issue. i am happen to be the opposition to your cause and i don't think you have a case in this issue. you might as well run your arguments or counter arguments for your position by me first to see whether or not they are even worth hearing in the first place
kenballer00 2 years ago
On what issue; gay marriage, incestuous marriage, or polygamy? I very much have a case for all three: an identical and successful case, it runs along the following lines- what business is it of yours?
RobTheMonk8 2 years ago
the gay marrriage issue.
kenballer00 2 years ago
So, gay marriage is an untenable position, then, eh? Just a lot of non-sense about letting fags have their way, is it? Baseless, unfounded hype?
My argument for gay marriage comes in the form of a question: on what grounds do you deny it?
THAT question has never been answered adequately by ANY opponent of gay marriage. Ever. I invite you to be the first.
RobTheMonk8 2 years ago
well the argument in the state's eyes is promoting procreation into an environment where there is two biological married parents present.
kenballer00 2 years ago
Right; and that works for you? So you think the elderly shouldn't be permitted to marry, anyone who happens to be sterile, or anyone who overtly says that they don't want to have kids? Should vasectomy result in divorce? Should single parents be required to hand their children over to adoptive parents?
You don't see the absurd implications of taking that argument seriously?
Try again.
RobTheMonk8 2 years ago
this is the is/ought fallacy. just because there are situations like infertile couples does not prove we ought to have gay marriage. we don't allow exceptions to be the rule for almost any situation.
letting infertile couples get married does not change the definition of marriage because you are still PROMOTING the same product by principle. we are talking about the states perspective here not the couples
continuing....
kenballer00 2 years ago
Uh, no, this is NOT the is ought fallacy. You offered a prescription and I gave you a list of uncomfortable implications that you reject out of hand.
Since when is the state's perspective more important than the perspective of the individual's comprising the citizenry? Since never.
RobTheMonk8 2 years ago
the state's perspective is more important because we are talking about PUBLIC POLICY. laws are not made for individuals but for the common good. the traditional family concept has been shown to be the ideal throughout history, science, and sheer common sense.
are you supposing gay marriage has shown to be just as good ? if so, what makes you think this
kenballer00 2 years ago
No, you're straw manning. I never said it was just as good; I said gays deserve it just as much as anyone else. Not eating too much sodium is a harder fact than the value of two parents; would you support a draconian law prohibiting more than your daily requirement? Thought not. Mary and Margaret getting married isn't hurting anyone- or is that what YOU'RE contending? If so, please elaborate on how.
Try. Again.
RobTheMonk8 2 years ago
i did not strawman you because i asked you a question and if gays deserve the right to call it a marriage, how so?
kenballer00 2 years ago
They deserve the right on the grounds that no good reason exists to deny them that right. Or do you arbitrarily presuppose that certain activities are just NOT things people can reasonably expect to engage in without interference from others until those things have been established to be their rights? If that's the case, how do you establish your right to be on youtube? Imagine it's illegal for you and only you, and you now have to prove that you have the right to do it.
RobTheMonk8 2 years ago
And yes you ARE misrepresenting what I said; I never said ANYTHING about a demonstration of the goodness of gay marriage; that is incidental. It should be permitted because it does no unreasonable harm.
RobTheMonk8 2 years ago
Why is changing the definition of marriage something to be avoided? You just toss these ideas out as if I'm going to accept them simply because you did: wrong. If you are saying X is to be forbidden for party Y, then YOU have to give a good reason for it. Just offering a description ("that would change the definition!") of what is going on isn't enough, I'm afraid.
RobTheMonk8 2 years ago
The reproductive and child rearing POTENTIAL or POSSIBILITY of opposite-sex couples is assumed at a general level and is not investigated in individual cases. To do otherwise would not only be a serious and unjustifiable breach of privacy, but it would take the unnecessary spending of manpower, money, and resources to accomplish.
if we were talking about just civil unions, then you would probably have case here but we are discussing the word and word only.
kenballer00 2 years ago
...and all of this has yet to establish the m/f family concept as an ideal that is appropriate for the government to be promoting. And since when is "promotion" a matter of exclusion, anyway? You don't promote a band by having all the other bands killed.
RobTheMonk8 2 years ago
If we're discussing the word and the word only then why are you turning to evidence about the effects of gay marriage? If civil unions are probably OK, then why is labeling that union a marriage suddenly harmful? Your argument is, and forgive me, pathetically vacuous. It's mildly amusing that you thought I would have difficulty defending individual liberties against such a malformed, stillborn argument.
RobTheMonk8 2 years ago
with civil unions, just about nothing changes in the mainstream world. however, if you allow gay marriage and redefine marriage for some, you redefine it for everybody else and affect everyone. it is not so much the relationship itself that is suppose to doom society but the government along with the intolerant gay activist who use that gay marriage legislation to impose their will. the government starts to rearrange businesses, media, and schools according to that definition.
kenballer00 2 years ago
What a pathetic response: you seem to be laboring under the delusion that "changing a defintion for EVERYONE" is somehow going to make the sky fall. You realize marriage used to be between two people of the same race, don't you? We had to change the definition there... oh, and would ya look at the harm it's done! The gay activist imposes their will and the heterosexual bigot doesn't? Are you fucking deranged? And no, the government doesn't rearrange anything. Even if it did- so?
RobTheMonk8 2 years ago 2
If, instead of "disallowing gay marriage", you meant " legally recognizing or defining marriage between a man and a woman" , then the argument would be subject to a fallacy of equivocation ("traditional marriage" does not equal "disallowing gay marriage") in the same way that "disallowing satanism" does not equal "christianity"), and would therefore be structurally unsound."
kenballer00 6 months ago
Religion is a choice, hatred and ignorance is a choice. Did you choose to be straight? I didnt choose to be gay. In the Bible sin is sin, they are all equally bad. Also judgment is up to "God" not you. Pride is also a deadly sin, to think your way of life is better than others is sinful. Christianity claims to be a religion of love, compassion, and acceptance, yet you show none. You are homophobic, and hide behind religion to justify your hatred towards gays.
Surfer240 2 years ago 3
@whinda4702
Rob pretty much covered everything. I would just like to add; You're a fucking moron. Okay got that one off my chest. Have a great life, hope you don't have any kids, ever, better for the species that way.
RealistAtheist 2 years ago
Comment removed
Tiffanynicolina 2 years ago
Is it wise to say, "Fool you fear Hell"?
stevepalmerssolid 2 years ago
Comment removed
objectiveagnostic 2 years ago
I suspect you have your own internal battles to deal with.
objectiveagnostic 2 years ago
Didn't you write on your profile "christians love everyone or at least they should" ?
You don' t seem to even TRY to follow your holy book... Amazing from a person like you.
Then you say you' re a scientist... Yeah right!! What kind of science do you study to pretend that creation is a fact?
You are the one that should feel ashamed for what you write. You do not not anything, obviously, about gay people.
Fuck you big time, fuck narrow minded people like you, shame for the USA!!!
motardkool 2 years ago
Just by doing anything you're doing a great job! Thanks for the support, as we are trying to do a lot here in Spokane too.
chris84wa 2 years ago
You are obviously focusing on the second part of that strategy. Stick with the moderates.
Another option you may take. Instead of addressing just the actual congregations, maybe target groups affiliated with the church. Boy Scout troop? By discussing a viewpoint different from their own, they will get a taste of Democracy and government in action to help them get their Citizenship badges. Of course you'd be talking mostly to the parents, but getting their kids involved is a good thing too.
christopherjandersen 2 years ago
Good idea to aim for the moderates as opposed to hard-core conservatives. Just like any political race, the extremes are set in their ways and will most likely not be swayed (not in substantial numbers anyway).
The keys to victory are to secure and energize your base in get-out-the-vote type events, then to go get those in the middle. The independents, moderates and those who are barely on the other side of the fence. Only have to get them to come one or two steps to get 'em in your own yard.
christopherjandersen 2 years ago
Thanks for this Vid!
Surfer240 2 years ago
Your courageous, compassion and eloquent and an inspiration. The recognition and promise of love between two people is such a wonderful occurrence I believe it should be elevated, recognized and celebrated, not dismissed and treated as inconsequential or lacking simply because of ones gender. I believe when love is present and acknowledged between two adult individuals, what better reason to celebrate! They are dedicating their lives to each other, what a gift!
rmfyi 2 years ago
I am, in fact, extremely critical of the institution of marriage. I think it's outmoded and antiquated and no longer relevant.
Relevant or not, though, permitting party X and denying party Y is repugnant to me.
RobTheMonk8 2 years ago
Another great video. Go get 'em man. Will you gay marry me Rob?
bmoody82 2 years ago
Post this in the philosophy group. I want to discuss it with you and others. I hate trying to discuss things in these (stifling) YouTube threads.
imbalancingact 2 years ago
They will just pull out their bible and claim it as the ultimate authority on morallity.
flammamancer 2 years ago
And I'll say, "I'm not trying to persuade you it's moral."
RobTheMonk8 2 years ago
to which they'll reply, God's law should be regarded higher than man's law. (just like Southern Christians used the Bible to justify slavery)
tinman652 2 years ago
by which i mean that they follow God's law not because they believe it in a genuine sense more moral, but because it IS the ultimate law.
tinman652 2 years ago
You should make the legal argument that no matter what they think about homosexuality morally, prevent gay marriage is just simply unconstitutional and out of their hands. Marriage is a fundamental right as determined by the Supreme Court.
tinman652 2 years ago
The trouble with that argument is that conservatives don't like being told there is anything that can't be put to a vote. Most people, liberal and conservative, aren't very "constitutionally" principled... they invoke the constitution when it supports their position and ignore it when it doesn't. And conservatives HATE the supremacy clause... they're, in their essence, anti-federalists.
RobTheMonk8 2 years ago
I would offer that argument to a person who was genuinely committed to justice and rationality. But I wouldn't need to, to them. The fact is, it's on the ballot... and that's all the legitimacy any of them require.
RobTheMonk8 2 years ago
i think that you have to be careful about committing the Question Begging fallacy. YES, it has been ruled or determined that you have a fundamental right to marry that doesn't mean you have a right to marry your sister or multiple people. the right needs to be established by the supreme court first and right now that is not the case.
kenballer00 2 years ago
To which one can reply, "Which isn't an argument against man's law or for a prohibition of gay marriage. If it's above man's law then clearly the two are distinct and separate."
RobTheMonk8 2 years ago
Hey Rob, I think you're attempt is admirable but in the end I fear it is futile. It has been tried in many European countries, without success.
Here in the Netherlands, we succeeded when the Christians were no longer in charge of the parliament. Furthermore we spend a lot of time addressing the issue of homosexuality in schools on a regular basis resulting in public debates between youth and parents. Another helpful tool was organizing the gay community.
tapotsnm 2 years ago
By vigorously addressing political parties and making it very clear that they could count on our votes if they supported gay marriage. Attempts to address the churches were made during the sixties till mid seventies and never amounted to anything. Same as in Germany, France and Belgium. Belgium followed almost the same course as the Netherlands and they finally succeeded in 2003. I think this is your best chance. Oh and be relentless, do not give up and keep addressing the issue.
tapotsnm 2 years ago
Of course Europe is not USA, but this is how it was done here. I hope this was helpful.
5 stars and fave.
Ps. I prefer human rights instead of gay rights.
tapotsnm 2 years ago
Thank you; that is information I didn't have and I'm off to dig up more of it.
RobTheMonk8 2 years ago
RobTheMonk8: I suggest you try to address in such a way that this is a personal issue for gays and that everyone else will not be affected by it.
Orkaney 2 years ago
Let me know if you actually get into churches.
GuerrillaAtheism 2 years ago
Right on! The question that stands before us has nothing to do with whether you are straight or whether you are gay. It has nothing to do with what my, or your, views are on the morality of homosexuality, or the morality of homosexual marriage. The question that stands before us is this: Do you truly believe in equality? .. and for every American? Like it or not these are people just like everyone else. Like it or not, these are American citizens just like you and I. Like it or not (cont)
naejimba 2 years ago
(cont)
.. these people are guaranteed the same rights as you and I. There is NO justifiable reason to deny ANY group of American citizens the same basic civil rights and freedoms you and I enjoy. .. and if you do not stand for their rights, for their freedoms, who will stand when it is your rights that need to be defended? It has nothing to do with our personal beliefs, but everything to do with the integrity of our nation. It has everything to do with what our country is (cont 2)
naejimba 2 years ago
(cont 2)
... supposed to stand for. If we cannot see the error of this thinking, then how dare we call this the land of the free?
Just my take on the matter, hopefully you can come at it in such a way to show that it is not a matter of their beliefs, but rather on the ideals that our country was founded upon. Use it if it helps.
Good luck, I hope you can change a few minds.
naejimba 2 years ago
Being a former Christian I can tell you that they tend to stand up stronger and with more vigilance against those who appose their world views when surrounded by like-minded people, regardless of YOUR demeanor or evidence. In fact, the more Christians they are surrounded by the more likely your words will fall on def ears. Grant it, I came from a fundamentalist Christian church, but I can't see it being all that much different.
willhound2 2 years ago
The smaller the group the more likely they are to actually listen. I recommend groups of about 5 to 12. Big enough to give them the confidence to discuss it with you while at the same time, small enough to actually have to hear what you have to say so as to come back with a rebuttal.
willhound2 2 years ago
What I recommend is that you find hangouts or areas in which small groups like to evangelize. This way it's on a more personal level while at the same time, you're encouraging and enlightening those around you who are witnessing this discussion.
willhound2 2 years ago
What sort of haunts would these be? How can I find them?
RobTheMonk8 2 years ago
In my area (Ca.) They'd go out in the evenings where teens could hang out, such as coffee joints, burger places and smaller strip malls and downtown areas. I won't lie, it'll take some investigating. There are two more solid ways of finding out. 1) Ask the teens in your area where they have been approached. 2) Undercover. Ask a church member, preferably late teens to early 20's (that doesn't know your stance) where you can take a friend who's on the fence and not cool with going to a church.
willhound2 2 years ago
agnus dei song, very...appropriate?? lol
annatar3 2 years ago
Religious people tend to be an emotion driven crowd. So while, of course, having rational arguments is a great, I'd also focus on emotions and empathy, in particular.
For example, you could point out that every homosexual person is someone's brother/sister, daughter/son. Invite the audience to consider, for a moment, what it would be like if one of their loved ones was in that position and, perhaps, too afraid to admit it.
Of course, you'd first have to convince them homosexuals are human.
CriticalDoubt 2 years ago
Heh heh... go into those churches and you'll charm many hearts over to your side (and break a few ;->).
Hmm... perhaps I'll go into the extreme militant churches and ask support for a proposition asking that those who have been divorced can only have civil unions afterwards.
Considering the high divorce rates in Christian communities, I'm sure it will go over like a lead zeppelin.
TheTruePooka 2 years ago
you might want to point out to churches that st paul was in all likelyhood gay himself :)
brownbigb 2 years ago
i used to go and debate with large churches on the topic of the existence of god. not only did they welcome me, but they invited me back. it only worked in moderate to liberal churches though. they welcomed thought provoking debate, and said it strengthened their belief. one of those churches had a gay minister interestingly. they also prayed for george bush not to be elected. i think you'll have the best results with moderate churches, as the liberal ones are likely to support your views
brownbigb 2 years ago
the fundamentalist churches would probably play tough guy with you, you might need someone of my stature to "reason" with them. this is all in california mind you, i don't know much about washington. good luck though, but try to appeal to their emotional side as reason is not permitted in organized religion. please keep posted on your results.
brownbigb 2 years ago
I'd considered taking someone "large." May just take bear spray with me.
RobTheMonk8 2 years ago
the bear spray only intimidates if you use it :):) lol
brownbigb 2 years ago
I do not think that this issue can be won by an appeal to rationality. It has more to do with gay men and women coming out. As long as homosexuality remains as an abstract concept to be applied to a nebulous "they" it is easy for those who do not experience homosexual desires to dismiss those who do as, at best, inconsequential and at worst , perverts. Just by being open about being gay you cross many people's comfort zone. Too much information. This is a tough issue.
strontiumcrypt 2 years ago 2
I am reevaluating the decision to pursue churches who are particularly hostile to homosexuals. Not only does it seem unlikely that I'll be permitted to speak but it seems likely that I'll only drive more of the opposition to the polls. However, the churches who sit on the fence, the more moderate congregations might be persuaded.
RobTheMonk8 2 years ago
Comment removed
OccamsRazors 2 years ago
In the end, changing the greatest number of minds in the shortest amount of time may be the best gameplan.
OccamsRazors 2 years ago
Good luck, this is a commendable task. I'll leave you with this quote- "You can't remove something with logic that wasn't placed there with logic in the first place"
1nomadic 2 years ago
Imagine what the world would look like if that were true.
RobTheMonk8 2 years ago
The quote is from Jonathan Swift, and it goes, "it is futile to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into." Swift was a priest himself, of course, yet this did not prevent him from publishing the satire, "An Argument Against Abolishing Christianity", which I think has some considerable relevance to the current topic. Realistically, I wonder if the objection to gay marriage truly is on religious grounds so much as motivated by politics or lack of education?
stcmsw102 2 years ago
I am skeptical as to how many "conservative" Christian churches are even going to let you in to speak. Open debate isn't on their agenda.
AncientAtheist 2 years ago
...as I soon discovered. Called a girl I used to date who is a VERY devout Christian. She flatly, albeit apologetically, told me that she wouldn't help me one bit. She wouldn't even go so far as to tell me who I would want to speak to in her church. I didn't feel like pressing the matter and alienating her... but I was surprised at how vehemently she rejected the notion of me presenting an opposing view in her church.
RobTheMonk8 2 years ago
Yes, it's very difficult for guys like you and me to comprehend a group that wouldn't want to discuss differences in a thoughtful, respectful manner - but that's not part of the nature of religious dogma.
Hell, if it *was*, we would have been rid of them 3 centuries ago when the Enlightenment came around.
Remember that these people agree amongst themselves that "we won't listen" to alternative points of view and that these are just tricks of Satan - as is "so-called knowledge of the world."
AncientAtheist 2 years ago
I think you may be able to trap them. Start off asking them if they can help you get the word out about some people who need help--start vague and make it sound like something they routinely do. Your goal could be to get a meeting with a minister to discuss your options.
Frankly, I'm surprised they pass up a chance to talk to anyone. Churches in my experience always are on the look out for a chance to try to talk to someone who is unsaven.
Say you feel the urge to help people and need advic
klalkity 2 years ago
marriage i don't like that word and when i get a domistic union with a female i will call it a partnership not a mariage i seen what marriages are and they suck balls and they can keep there shitting word. What they need to do is take it of the federal papers and stop using it as a way to identify partnerships beetweend two humens.Then it can be cool if they call it marriage and others can call it whatever they like. Remeber try to get them to comprimise becuase they have issues with being humbl
LORDNAG1 2 years ago
Cool! Good luck! Will you be filming?
demandar1 2 years ago
Try using lies and scare tactics. They seem to respond to that. Oh, and wear some body armor.
Sav3TheWorld 2 years ago
Spend some time preparing specific arguments meant to illuminate the question within the framework of their morality. If I understand you correctly, you will be attempting to point out that opposing prop 71 will not further any of their religious goals but rather be nothing more than an act of cruelty.
You might get some people thinking with that one, as it is not really in keeping with Christian values to deny others happiness for no benefit to their soul.
t3tsuyaguy1 2 years ago
I'm posting a video responce, that I made on this topic. Maybe someting in it will help. Good luck, and I agree with your game plan 100%.
OccamsRazors 2 years ago
Attempting to provoke thought huh? Highest human endeavor in my opinion.
If you want congregation members to actually listen and respond with real arguments and genuine debate, you'll want to be clear at the outset that you are not attacking their faith, but presenting a point of view. Avoid phrases or labels that could misrepresent your intentions as evangelizing atheism or promoting the moral acceptance of homosexuality. This will cause them to shut down and retreat to hard-line stances.
t3tsuyaguy1 2 years ago
I think this is a brilliant idea! I live in WA and think that this is a great way to get gay marriage in discussion. If anyone will be able to talk to conservative churches (on at least the gay marriage front) it's you. :D Good luck and keep us posted! I'd love to come and hear you speaking!
KaliSword 2 years ago
I hope you do well. Keep us informed!
kimberlyliles 2 years ago
I think this is a good idea, I support you and hope you do well. Most of these people have never heard anyone counter their ideas.
I think you should stress that in voting against this and in voting against homosexuality is in essence them forcing THEIR religious beliefs on others. This is the same as if orthodox Jews attempted to ban people from working on the Sabbath because their religion says its wrong.
Good luck.
Otokogoroshi 2 years ago
You must have stainless steel testicles, dude.
wingedhorses 2 years ago
Do it, Do it well and kick ass.
All the luck in the world to you.
314152654 2 years ago
Hey Rob good luck, I live in washingon too!
I'd suggest stressing that religious dogma cannot be law in the US and that they'll always have the right to hate gay people and will never be forced to marry gays if they don't want to.
Good luck!
dlandon2000 2 years ago 2
Your obstacle isn't going to be coming up with reasonable arguments, it's going to be opening the ears of those who won't hear them. I don't know how you do that.
That being said, as far as reasoning goes, all you need to do is show how separate but equal is not right, and how government marriage is not the same thing as their religion's marriage. People can't get these two easy facts through their thick skulls. So, good luck.
Your approach seems reasonable to me; I'd say more but I'm out o
klalkity 2 years ago
You have to understand the mentality of these fundamentalist Christians. They believe that if we allow homosexuals to get married, God will punish our country. If we allow it, then we support it, and if we support it, God will become angry. I would argue that the government has no moral right to decide who is allowed to get married. How long are we going to allow strangers, who do not care about us, (politicians) make decisions concerning how we live?
reason285 2 years ago
good luck to you.
campasini 2 years ago
Sounds like a classic story where a character who wouldn't call themselves a hero ventured into the belly of the beast to take the battle to the enemy.
I think it's a fantastic idea, if done prudently. Some chruches might single you out and attack you personally for coming onto their terf. Be prepared for it.
Remagoen 2 years ago
i just want to go to the chirch you go to lol that is going to be a good one please tape the event it will be a huge hit on youtube.
that being said i don't think it will help though Christians are in there own bubble and i think they will see voting against it as there way to stretch out gods hands on the gay people.
noproofforjesus 2 years ago
Godspeed my Atheist brother.
Be sure to take notes while they argue so you won't forget to address them. I'm sure you have all the counter arguments make flash cards and label them. (I know it's dorky but it helps remind you)
BE CAREFUL THERE ARE CRAZY CHRISTIANS OUT THERE. Dr. Tiller was killed in church and there's a pastor here on Youtube (praying) advocating to have Obama killed.
yo1o2eggs 2 years ago
It would be better to tape record it. I find that the iPhone recorder does a great job.
You might consider wearing a flak jacket, leather gloves, a helmet and bring along a hefty body guard...
Actually, have someone videotape it! Then you would have a record if you are attacked by the IDiots.
farvision 2 years ago
★★★★★
Katalyzt 2 years ago
Christians need to be reminded that their scripture tells them to obey the powers that be; because. they are "ordained of God". They should stay out of politics.
pirbird14 2 years ago
That's Romans 13:1.
pirbird14 2 years ago
Sure, you might convince a few stragglers to stop opposing gay marriage, but you won't convince any significant numbers. This is no different than if you went into a church and tried to stop them believing in creationism. They believe these things for emotional reasons and the majority of them are not going to change their minds for logical reasons alone. You would have to damage their faith to get them to stop opposing gay marriage.
Archaneus 2 years ago
Your ears aren't that big but, you really do!
THEREASONABLE 2 years ago
Brilliant Rob.
Have you ever noticed that you look like a young Ab Lincoln?
THEREASONABLE 2 years ago
more like a skinny forrest griffen. :D
theyre are both badasses!!!
rubixxcube 2 years ago
great video :) I'll see if I can spread the message.
tattooskin72 2 years ago
Balls of steel and the heart of a lion. I wish I could offer you some advice but I feel you're infinitely better equipped than I already. Best of luck!
TheRichDarkEarth 2 years ago
If I hear one more person say the words "we have to protect the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman" I am going to scream! I work with a woman that has been married 3 times since my partner and I have been together. Every time she has "marched down the isle" her hubby at the time received tax benefits, health insurance and on and on. Yet, we have nothing. We are not asking for anything special just the same benefits as everyone else. We both work-pay our share of taxes. Grr!
stoner829 2 years ago
Excellent vid on an issue that is far more serious than it has to be. I applaud your action...I will mirror this and post to facebook. I wish you well on this endeavour and peace be with.
MasterOhSo 2 years ago
Thanks much; I would appreciate it.
RobTheMonk8 2 years ago
My partner and I (18 years) live in Ohio. We have no civil unions or marriage. It was taken away by a ballot initiative in 2004.
Last year my appendix burst and I landed in the ICU after surgery. My partner had to lie and say he was my father in order to stay in my room. He is only a year older than me but has gray hair.
This is a shame!
stoner829 2 years ago
Dayum o_O
Borostiliont 2 years ago
Thanks Rob. I still don't understand how the majority can put minorities rights on a ballot and just "vote" them away . Where are our state and federal supreme courts? Isn't that what they are there for-to protect citizens?
stoner829 2 years ago 3
Unfortunately from a moral standpoint, if you do not punish a thing, you condone it and damn near promote it. Christians see this as promoting homosexuality. They will be opposed to anything beneficial to homosexuals.
I agree with you, I think this is noble, but I doubt it will work. It is better to suggest that we shouldn't make laws against homosexuals for the same reason we don't make laws against witchcraft, or picking up sticks on sunday.
cyphonyx 2 years ago 3
Hey Rob, you have nothing but my admiration for doing this! I do in fact have some fears that it may be counter-productive, you may cause polarization driving people to be more likely to vote in it (probably not in the way you'd hope too). But I'm no expert in Washington political demographics. Either way, if you need a sounding board for your rhetoric let me know, i'll jump on stickam.
HawkShark 2 years ago 3
So good Rob. Love your thoughts.
tricklessmagic 2 years ago 2
What immoral IDiot would mark tricklessmagic's comment as spam? Oh, a dishonest theist! Of course!
farvision 2 years ago
Comment removed
tricklessmagic 2 years ago