@jasperwhale1, you're buying propaganda. "Equal rights" is always used to describe rights as defined by the government. However, rights - true rights - cannot be given to people by other people. Rights are given through man's nature. Thus, the only true right is that of man's right to live as himself without interference from another man. The government's only role is to protect that man from the other man. Not to make social security benefits. This is why SS must be destroyed. Good day.
You people are going about it wrong.. don't use religion to support you dislike in gays. Religion never wins because its fake, lol. Use science because it never fails because its real. Try saying homosexuals can't help that humans same as other animals are submittable to chemical fuckups and genetic mutations (homos, trannys, and hermaphrodites) ... but the thing is they ARE different and not normal.. its just normal for humans due to our social structure.
@Supernova310 The reality is that homosexuality, while supported in nature by other animals performing in these acts (very rarely), is anti-Darwin. The idea of two same-sex couples getting it on would be anti-evolutionary. Therefore, regardless of how much it happens in nature, its obviously not normal or natural. Its behavior that is counter-productive (literally) and, through time, should be eradicated. I believe there aren't more gay ppl today, but that its culturally relevant and popular.
@tehawes0mesauce: There are many counter-productive things that humans do, whether to individuals or the species as a whole. Would you have the rights of the people who do such things revoked? Everyone is treated as equal at birth, assuming that they'll grow up, get an education, jobs, social security numbers, pay taxes, take out insurance, buy cars, fall in love - when it's found that they happen to fall in love with someone of the same gender, why do their rights get taken away?
@Vanderdecken91 no i wouldn't have the rights of someone taken away. However, I don't see how you can say that you have the right to change church doctrine. You're completely overlooking the fact that while it may squash on your make-believe right to marry someone of the same gender (which is a right I don't even have), you're squashing someone else's freedom of religion. Also, First Amendment.
@tehawes0mesauce: I don't want to change Church doctrine, but I don't want Church doctrine to be applied to those who are not part of the Church. Various religions can do what they want with regards to gay marriage. If you are of a religion that doesn't believe gay marriage is right, fine, then don't get married to someone of the same sex - but why does that stop someone not of your religion being married by the state? The First Amendment supports my argument - separation of church and state.
@Vanderdecken91 there is no separation of church and state. It is a court precedent set up by a supreme court judge, just like the court precedent that black people don't count as people. It was mentioned in a letter by Thomas Jefferson that he wished he HAD included a separation of church and state, but the fact of the matter is that the founders did NOT. There is no separation of church and state. Go back and read the constitution again, word for word, and interpret it as its written.
@tehawes0mesauce Jefferson's letter doesn't mention /wishing/ it was in there, but describes it as "building a wall of separation between Church & State". I've never read the Constitution (I'm not a US citizen) and don't claim to know the much of US law and history - but citizens not of a religion are not bound to live by the rules of that religion, so my point stands. Do you have a response to anything in my post other than the last sentence, the least important bit?
@Vanderdecken91 Sure. Here's the solution: marriage is a religious ceremony. It has been for a very long time. If you want to know what we do to take care of this problem is to take away the government's power to marry people, but give domestic partnerships and marriage the same benefits. This way, we don't impose upon the religious and we have equal benefits for basically the same thing (just not union in the eyes of a religion). Hell you could still call each other husbands if you wanted.
@tehawes0mesauce: Sounds fair to me. As long as marriage by a religious body (e.g. the Catholic Church) and marriage by the state are kept separate and not subject to each others' rules, that's what is wanted.
Im only 16 and i agree everyone should be happy with the person they are with no matter the sex if you truly love the person then nothing should stop you from showing your love:)) I WANT EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL!!!
9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
I don't encourage gay marriage but if you love each other I'm all for that...Its a persons life and they can do what they want...And I would like to believe The United States of America wouldn't take Social Security from 2 people of the same sex
So the FUCK WHAT whether or not the "founding fathers" believed in gay marriage? This country was founded by MILLIONS more people & non-humans than just the "founding fathers" - whoever you define THEM to be. They were just ONE small part of this country. Bottom line: if you pay into SS taxes, you earned that money back.
@RichColours And all I am saying is that a man may marry a man and a woman may marry a woman if they so choose and it's none of your business and it doesn't effect you, and you are not mentally capable of logically consistently computing the consequences of actions. That's why pouring bleach down your throat & setting you on fire has no negative effect whatsoever, because you are too mentally inferior to compute the consequences.
@RichColours I doubt you know anything about the founding fathers... Having been mainly rational and secular people, if they were alive today, they would be all for gay marriage.
@RichColours the founding fathers would also not believe in cars, airplanes, modern medicine and many other things that I am sure you use and take for granted that are also "unnatural".
@RichColours I think it's more about equal rights for all-not about the actual same sex marriage, but about being denied of SS based on who you love, what you believe in.
@RichColours Yeah, and lots of them believed slavery was right and that women shouldn't be allowed to vote, that means we should go back to slavery and repeal the 19th amendemtn. DUMBASS.
@pakko57 No that is not true. The 19 ammendment only lets women vote. Its called sufferege. I think that gays should not be discriminated and allowed social security. They are people too. I just think that marrige should be between a man and a woman and if you are a christian you should believe that too.
I didn't even wach it so wut happend I fell asleep sry
900under 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
bitte NICHT weiterlesen!! ab hier die zeilen überspringen!!!!
wenn du das hier liest bist du verflucht und wirst in 5 jahren sterben schreibe das unter 9 andere videos und du wirst überleben
oKRONEo 1 year ago
@jasperwhale1, you're buying propaganda. "Equal rights" is always used to describe rights as defined by the government. However, rights - true rights - cannot be given to people by other people. Rights are given through man's nature. Thus, the only true right is that of man's right to live as himself without interference from another man. The government's only role is to protect that man from the other man. Not to make social security benefits. This is why SS must be destroyed. Good day.
tehawes0mesauce 1 year ago
I just got back. It was great! Our constitution says equality for ALL not just for the bigoted Christians.
billyboylb 1 year ago
You people are going about it wrong.. don't use religion to support you dislike in gays. Religion never wins because its fake, lol. Use science because it never fails because its real. Try saying homosexuals can't help that humans same as other animals are submittable to chemical fuckups and genetic mutations (homos, trannys, and hermaphrodites) ... but the thing is they ARE different and not normal.. its just normal for humans due to our social structure.
Supernova310 1 year ago
@Supernova310 The reality is that homosexuality, while supported in nature by other animals performing in these acts (very rarely), is anti-Darwin. The idea of two same-sex couples getting it on would be anti-evolutionary. Therefore, regardless of how much it happens in nature, its obviously not normal or natural. Its behavior that is counter-productive (literally) and, through time, should be eradicated. I believe there aren't more gay ppl today, but that its culturally relevant and popular.
tehawes0mesauce 1 year ago
@tehawes0mesauce: There are many counter-productive things that humans do, whether to individuals or the species as a whole. Would you have the rights of the people who do such things revoked? Everyone is treated as equal at birth, assuming that they'll grow up, get an education, jobs, social security numbers, pay taxes, take out insurance, buy cars, fall in love - when it's found that they happen to fall in love with someone of the same gender, why do their rights get taken away?
Vanderdecken91 1 year ago
@Vanderdecken91 no i wouldn't have the rights of someone taken away. However, I don't see how you can say that you have the right to change church doctrine. You're completely overlooking the fact that while it may squash on your make-believe right to marry someone of the same gender (which is a right I don't even have), you're squashing someone else's freedom of religion. Also, First Amendment.
tehawes0mesauce 1 year ago
@tehawes0mesauce: I don't want to change Church doctrine, but I don't want Church doctrine to be applied to those who are not part of the Church. Various religions can do what they want with regards to gay marriage. If you are of a religion that doesn't believe gay marriage is right, fine, then don't get married to someone of the same sex - but why does that stop someone not of your religion being married by the state? The First Amendment supports my argument - separation of church and state.
Vanderdecken91 1 year ago
@Vanderdecken91 there is no separation of church and state. It is a court precedent set up by a supreme court judge, just like the court precedent that black people don't count as people. It was mentioned in a letter by Thomas Jefferson that he wished he HAD included a separation of church and state, but the fact of the matter is that the founders did NOT. There is no separation of church and state. Go back and read the constitution again, word for word, and interpret it as its written.
tehawes0mesauce 1 year ago
@tehawes0mesauce Jefferson's letter doesn't mention /wishing/ it was in there, but describes it as "building a wall of separation between Church & State". I've never read the Constitution (I'm not a US citizen) and don't claim to know the much of US law and history - but citizens not of a religion are not bound to live by the rules of that religion, so my point stands. Do you have a response to anything in my post other than the last sentence, the least important bit?
Vanderdecken91 1 year ago
@Vanderdecken91 Sure. Here's the solution: marriage is a religious ceremony. It has been for a very long time. If you want to know what we do to take care of this problem is to take away the government's power to marry people, but give domestic partnerships and marriage the same benefits. This way, we don't impose upon the religious and we have equal benefits for basically the same thing (just not union in the eyes of a religion). Hell you could still call each other husbands if you wanted.
tehawes0mesauce 1 year ago
@tehawes0mesauce: Sounds fair to me. As long as marriage by a religious body (e.g. the Catholic Church) and marriage by the state are kept separate and not subject to each others' rules, that's what is wanted.
Vanderdecken91 1 year ago
These people should be banned from the U.S.
plazma50 1 year ago
Im only 16 and i agree everyone should be happy with the person they are with no matter the sex if you truly love the person then nothing should stop you from showing your love:)) I WANT EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL!!!
jasperwhale1 1 year ago 7
take a deep breath
2 think of someone you like
3 press f10 five times
4 send this to five youtube videos
5 look at your background
Charizard227 1 year ago
1 Corinthians 6:9 (NIV)
9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
RichColours 1 year ago
fake and gay lol
SneakyTweaky 1 year ago
@SneakyTweaky i'm with the gays but fuck that made me laugh :)
onecentnickel 1 year ago
ITS WRONG!!!!!!
i mean really
biggin203441 1 year ago
@biggin203441: Convincing argument you've got there.
Vanderdecken91 1 year ago
I'd go....but....i dont live anywhere near there. My best wishes for you anyway!!!
Roxas131413 1 year ago 3
I don't encourage gay marriage but if you love each other I'm all for that...Its a persons life and they can do what they want...And I would like to believe The United States of America wouldn't take Social Security from 2 people of the same sex
LawlLaggSwitch90 1 year ago
So the FUCK WHAT whether or not the "founding fathers" believed in gay marriage? This country was founded by MILLIONS more people & non-humans than just the "founding fathers" - whoever you define THEM to be. They were just ONE small part of this country. Bottom line: if you pay into SS taxes, you earned that money back.
duck24x 1 year ago
@duck24x Right. All's Im saying is marry a man if you are a woman, marry a woman if you are a man. Its that simple. That how our bodies are made.
RichColours 1 year ago
@RichColours And all I am saying is that a man may marry a man and a woman may marry a woman if they so choose and it's none of your business and it doesn't effect you, and you are not mentally capable of logically consistently computing the consequences of actions. That's why pouring bleach down your throat & setting you on fire has no negative effect whatsoever, because you are too mentally inferior to compute the consequences.
duck24x 1 year ago
This is not un american. The founding fathers would have not believed in gay marrige.
RichColours 1 year ago
@RichColours I doubt you know anything about the founding fathers... Having been mainly rational and secular people, if they were alive today, they would be all for gay marriage.
TianSan 1 year ago
@RichColours the founding fathers would also not believe in cars, airplanes, modern medicine and many other things that I am sure you use and take for granted that are also "unnatural".
lost2darkness 1 year ago
@RichColours I think it's more about equal rights for all-not about the actual same sex marriage, but about being denied of SS based on who you love, what you believe in.
myheartsonthestage 1 year ago 2
@RichColours Have you spoken to ouw Founding Fathers in person? hm, that's interesting...
silentsnowandwater 1 year ago
@RichColours Yeah, and lots of them believed slavery was right and that women shouldn't be allowed to vote, that means we should go back to slavery and repeal the 19th amendemtn. DUMBASS.
pakko57 1 year ago
@pakko57 No that is not true. The 19 ammendment only lets women vote. Its called sufferege. I think that gays should not be discriminated and allowed social security. They are people too. I just think that marrige should be between a man and a woman and if you are a christian you should believe that too.
RichColours 1 year ago
@RichColours Yes it is true. AH, and HELL NO!!!, i'm not christian.
pakko57 1 year ago
@RichColours you're a nigger hatin' jesus lovin' faggot queer ass nigga. what is marriage to you anyway?
wiislotmaker 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Good luck guys!
Eurrsk 1 year ago
Gus Gus Gus
ChasRG 1 year ago
Great Video I hope you guys make a big impact
depfox 1 year ago