A reponse to the amazingatheist on gay marriage

[BlackChrisAndersen]

if you tolerate something. then you also accept that it Exist !

if you don't tolerate something you don't accept that it Exist !

can you understand that this is a hole in the head to talk about !!

accept tolerate. goes hand in hand all the way

[LokiScoutSniper]

When it comes to equal rights by what our government will legally allow then gays should have the same rights.But when it comes to same sex marriage it makes no sense. Marriage is based on a man and woman pledging loyalty basically to each other with the intent to carry on their bloodline through children. And mutually taking care of and teaching their children into their adulthood. Those are the rules and that is the ideal no changing it. Ask for civil unions and the legal benefits of marriage.

[firebirdthecody]

wow, you are agreeing that it is wrong and you are spreading hate, not the amazing athiest. This girl is a bigot. she is shocked that she calls gays perverted and then gets called a bigot. that is pure stupidity. Acceptence is part of tolerance, you cannot tolerate gays without accepting them and marriage of them. I believe she uses the phrase "bow down to their lifestyle." Oh God, she uses the same form of attempted persuasion that Glenn Beck does. Im surprised she didnt call gays Nazis

[MrTadblack]

People don't seem to quite wrap their heads around the fact that marriage is a legal term. Marriage can cross state borders, civil union not so much. Furthermore there is pile of rights and financial benefits that are associated with it. If we were hoarding these benefits for gay couples only, I'm sure we would hear from you straight folks about it. As for being accepted, that would be nice but to make it to marring age we have to be very hard-boiled already, we can't care what you think.

[Upritebass]

I'm listening to a few of your videos (not many yet, but will) and considering your views on freedom to disagree and yet be tolerant, I'm wondering if you ever read anything from John C. Rankin? "The 6 Pillars of Biblical Power - Real Theology for the Grass Roots" is an excellent book. Have you read it? You're along the same lines.

[mickeybearlove]

you say that her point only was that she didnt accept gay marriage and all that but you somehow fail to notice her calling homosexuals perverted and gay marriage a perverted marriage that basicly is a verry personal attack on all gay people this is the main reason she got all those so called hatefull comments and responces

allso why cant it be called marriage the word marriage is so old there can be no determination of its so called desighn it definately predates any christianity

[RobWyld]

@mickeybearlove I noticed that too. When she managed to stay on topic, she was being anything but tolerant. If she got shit from people, it was deserved. What goes around sometimes comes around.

[AmberGheni]

Tolerance: a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.

You do not tolerate people's opinions. You do not accept them either. All you want is to change them. If you don't believe in gay marriage then don't marry another man. Simple enough?

[fedea82]

FUCK what the church says. The church says it´s wrong to use condoms, for example. FUCK THAT SHIT. It´s causing death all over the world.

[FreeTheGhetto]

@fedea82

That's the Catholic church, you mean...

[TheKentuckyBatman]

Is there such a thing as a pro-gay marriage Christian?

[QuestionChrist]

that would be an oxymoron. The bible clearly explains that this is wrong. So there would be a problem with a Christian's understanding of God's word if they were ok with gay marriage.

[TheKentuckyBatman]

@QuestionChrist It's only an oxymoron if you forget religious pluralism and theological debate in favor of a view that is without deep thinking.

I am a Catholic and I think gay marriage is a grand idea. So the short answer to my question is 'yes'.

[fedea82]

Your church does not think the same....

[TheKentuckyBatman]

@fedea82 Galileo was also a Catholic.

[fedea82]

So?

[fedea82]

Galileo was right, despite what the church said. But that made him a "traitor".

The church won´t accept gay rights to marry each other. Neither does QuestionChrist.

But he says it´s ok to accept civil union. It doesn´t make any sense.

If gays want to marry, let them do it. End of story. Nobody is being hurt.

[fedea82]

Why would a christian would be pro civil-union then? What´s the difference? The name?

The bible advocates this?

[fedea82]

By the way, QuestionChrist, I agree that it´s not neccesary to accept something in order to tolerate it. Good point.

[huffnat]

isn't the bible man's interpretation of God's word though? i'm not trying to be rude. but i find it highly unlikely that God wrote a book chucked it at some blokes head and screamed "That's my word and I'm sticking to it" Vince Gill reference? (at least i think that was him) anywho so humans wrote the bible so technically it;s mans words and i find it almost impossible to believe that some of mankinds beliefs didn't get mixed into the whole for lack of a better word "SHEBANG"

[Upritebass]

@QuestionChrist Hmmm. But they are not supposed to go around killing and bashing them. I agree with what you're saying QC. People make their choices, I may agree or disaree, but what am I going to do? kill them? There are many verses in the Bible speaking against men of violence also. And I should add here that there is a diff between defending oneself and wanton violence. The attitude is also not the same.

[FreeTheGhetto]

@QuestionChrist

Wrong. Tons of liberals are Christians. Seeing as the Bible was not "written by God" but by different men collectively over time, you have to develop an ability to derive a true message from simple old-world human ignorance. "Women can't speak in church" "Shellfish is a sin" etc. that's all the opinions of the men who wrote it, but not a message coinciding with what Jesus taught.

[firebirdthecody]

@QuestionChrist here is a good oxymoron for you....an all-knowing and all-powerful God who hates gays. Please explain, what would be the possible purpose of this. Hate is a rather strong emotion, and one of the many faults of man. Also, to go back even further, why should anyone in the first place hate an entire group of people because a roughly 2000 years old book tells them to.

[halloweenfan92]

@QuestionChrist the pope himself says that beign gay isnt a sin

diffrent people right the bible the ones feel that its an abomniation will right it in there

[xx9933yyzz]

@QuestionChrist Depends on how you read the Bible. If you are a literalist, then yes. If not, then there's no anti-gay messages in the Bible (which there aren't).

[moviebuff3000]

@TheKentuckyBatman I am

[2nintynine]

cont... is the correct way as you wouldn't choose to follow it. My point, evry1 who has a view is right in their own way, as it is the view they choose to follow. Evry1 has the right to agree and disagree, and the only difference is we all call our view by a diff name. Same way every religeon calls GOD by a diff title, for example, I belive in the more scentific view instead of GOD, I belive is was the BIG BANG, my view, the correct one IMO, but wrong in yours. Tolerance=Peace.

[wolfman2431]

i am not trying to start anything here, but your comment was a direct contradiction of itself...

in your first comment, you state how the Nazis and KKK tought evil doctrine (which is true). but in your second comment, you state that tolerance should be the defining characteristic of society...

so in one comment you talk of evil, and in the next you want complete tolerance (which includes tolerance of said evil)? this is relativism and is the biggest fallacy known to mankind.

[wolfman2431]

so my question is this:

if you believe that tolerance equals peace, then we should have never tried to stop the Nazis (because we must be tolerant of their lifestyle). according to "tolerance equals peace," we should accept the KKK's viewpoint even though we KNOW that they are wrong.

again, this is relativism and has been the philosophy of every mass murderer in history, from Nero to Hitler to Mao. you just destroyed your own argument.

tolerance may equal peace, but at what cost?

[2nintynine]

Okay, to say at the start, I don't belive in GOD, as I'm sure this will be clear in my comment. The Bible has teached people who read it that it is wrong to be Gay (as well as other views), the same way the KKK has taught that Blacks are evil (or what ever their opinion is) the same way that Hitler and his Nazis thought Jews, and anyone who was different to be locked away, or killed. If you have been taught or choose to follow someone elses views of course you will belive what YOU belive in ..

[WiccanAlex]

you would feel differently about tolerance if people used religion and the ballot box to make sure that you werent able to visit your wife if she was in the hospital, or if you had to be afraid to be who you are in public for fear of being killed...tolerance takes on a different meaning from the back of the bus. When religion is used as a means of transmitting the values of hatred or violence against anyone, it ceases to be religion...it becomes something unholy and destructive.

[MichaelDiscusses]

I mean some Christians assume what the Bible says and it's meaning. I mean what if Christians are being wrong about what the Bible says? What if there taking it the wrong way then God intened it to mean? How do we know some things weren't added OR taken out from the Bible over the ages? I mean for exaple, say in the 1600 they added the whole, "Magick is the devil, witches are evil," to prevent it from happening. I mean if someone says God said it, it was a lost "book," who's going to argue?

[MichaelDiscusses]

The Bible, as I remember says nothing about gay marriage. I know it says it's a sin, abomination, whatever else. Does it say though, two men or two women can't get married? Marrige, to a Christian is a commitment and vow of love between two people in the name of God. Anybody can get married whom are Christian, just because it's not "legal," and on paper doesn't mean it's not legit with God. I think, politions need to stop mixing their choices with their religion.

[pungoman]

Toleration is not the opposite of intolerance but the counterfeit of it. Both are despotisms: the one assumes to itself the right of with holding liberty of conscience, the other of granting it.

-- Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man

[TheNakedAtheist]

I don't think you realize how offense most people find the term tolerance. Tolerance isn't something you grant someone as if you're doing them a favor, tolerating is something you have to do because there is no alternative, like "I guess I have to tolerate homosexuals cause stoning them isn't an option", OR "I guess we have to tolerate Christians cause feeding them to the lions is no longer legal".

(cont)

[TheNakedAtheist]

(cont)

Accepting something doesn't mean you're embracing it as a practice you want to engage in.

I don't drink alcohol, and I don't think anyone should, but when I have a party I will serve it because I know other people do like to drink, and will enjoy the party more if it's available.

[TheNakedAtheist]

What I find hypocritical about the entire debate is that it focuses exclusively on gays. I'm sure atheists, witches, and followers of other God's are even worse than homosexuals in God's eyes, but I never hear Christians condemning those marriages. Okay before you say it's about procreation then you should at least be against 70 year old Hindus marrying, isn't that the equivalent of "accepting" people who put other God's before Yahweh.

(cont)

[TheNakedAtheist]

(cont)

I think for MANY Christians it's simply the fact that they find homosexuality personally disgusting (as they will admit, christoferL for example), and they find it convenient to use the bible to bash gays.

[cpmkw]

This is a dickish video: You ADMIT that nebulous local "civil union" laws that only apply to particular localities are dodgy in terms of the protections that they provide couples. And yet you say in the next breath "that doesn't matter because it's REALLY not about those civic inequalities, but about 'being accepted'" by every religious yahoo in the country.

Huh???

That is absurdly hypocritical and intellectually dishonest. Here's a clue: No one cares about your religion. Just OUR CIVIC=

[SilentHillWren]

It is so wonderful to finally see a tolerant Christian who understands the difference between acceptance and tolerance. I always thought that banning gay marriage was the opposite of "preserving the sanctity" of marriage because it presses the idea that it's about procreation instead of love. It's amazing what people do when they feel strongly about something. And, of course, it goes both ways.

[BlueFireWitch]

Would you say you are intolerant of the idea of Gay Marriage vs Civil Unions?

[TheHonestTheist]

/watch?v=fFH0khjgA0U

[bandaidmafia]

I don't think that the government should sanction any marriage. Rather I think the only license a couple, gay or straight, should receive is for a Civil Union. Marriage is a religious institution that the government should have no part in denying. Instead it should be left up to an individual and their church what type of marriage they should have. The proper place of a government is to ensure legal rights for all individuals equally and that purpose is accomplished sufficiently by Civil Unions.

[OpusVictorium]

Hello, thank you for your perspective on the subject, and for your channel, i have subscribed to it because it is nice to hear a clear and solid response to to the heavy views that abound online.Keep up the fantastic work.

[attodaniel]

Questionchrist:

My problem with your reasoning is that you don't recognize that words matter. The reason that marriage is pursued is that it is the only word that will produce the same rights that you believe they should have.

Overall, "gay marriage" is inevitable, the only question is the semantics. Either all unions between people will be called marriage or they will be called something else. Irony abounds when marriage defenders push marriage out of the public/civic sphere.

[ShoryoTombo]

Why was there a ballot on people's rights? Why the majority get to vote whether or not the minority get their rights removed?

Gay is not a lifestyle. It is their life! They have every right to happiness and BE MARRIED! If you people can not handle gay people getting married, then don't go to their wedding! Who has the right to tell people that they do not have the rights?

[whatafart]

"you people" ...yeah very tolerant...shoryo

[romfivera]

Tolerating is no loving/accepting, not even respecting... this guy repeats the same things. Marriage is not degraded by being opened. Marriage is only a contract with rights and duties, it should not depends on moral positions. An equality is good by principle, but I am against every marriage. France have a suppler contract for civil unions (PaCS) which should be improved. It is a real lay/secular contract, with no religious references at all. USA could have the same, if B. Obama is bold enough!

[bananabread119]

I agree with somewhat on what your trying to say. But first of all you don know what barrack obama believes in. Hes a polotician. He only says thos things to get put in office. Geez...

[nicksum29]

There's no difference between the way she abused gay men and women, and the way he abused her. Tolerance is a villainy. Tolerance is pernicious: to tolerate someone is to hate them until you have the power (prop. 8) to abuse their rights. You do NOT have the right to express opinions if those opinions are illegal : like calling someone faggot, abomination, nigger... We want marriage to protect our families - do your homework. A majority is not "correct", merely because they are a majority.

[NightroadxAngel]

p.s. enough with this "marriage is sacred" bs.Marriage is NOT sacred to a country that watches garbage like "flavor/rock of love",and "the bachelor/bachelorette" and etc.Making a mockery of love and marriage,and here some hypocrites are watching it and laughing then turn around and say "marriage is sacred" and argue about gay marriage!

[QuestionChrist]

The shows you speak of are yet another example that society has degraded marriage horribly. But pointing out immoral behavior by others does not condone other's immoral behavior.

[XforeverlongingX]

@QuestionChrist I would bet my life that QuestionChrist is a self hating closeted homosexual himself. I would bet everything I own as well.

[NightroadxAngel]

Accept-to agree,affirm,believe

Tolerate-To allow without hinderance,to put up with

The whole fundamental foundation behind Christianity is Love and Acceptance?Then there really are very few deserving of the title I can honsetly say.Nobody's perfect though.The hardest people to love are the ones who need it most.That's the most challenging thing for a human being right there.

[RoseSkye]

If you do believe in god.. you're going to hell regardless. Christians don't follow anything in the bible besides what they want to follow.

The bible tells you to

A. Turn the other cheek.

B. Do unto others as you would like done to yourself.

C. Love thy neighborhood

As with modern day Christians, no, all christian historically you're unworthy of God's smile. You're inferior creatures who should beg forgiveness for ignoring him. Dare you pass judgement on others? You're not worth anyones time.

[RoseSkye]

Meaning in short tense you accept everyone.. however Christians just are hypocrites and as an ex-Christian I will tell you this with no remorse. Christians are the most disgustingly foul beings on this earth.. hiding behind god and at the same time fouling discriminate against people who's different but when THOSE DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THEM... my god I'm.. just not going to ...

The whole fundamental foundation behind Christianity? Love and Acceptance.. to be accepted in the kingdom of god.

[thatswhatshesaid324]

The majority of people in the 1960s thought that interracial marriages were disgusting and both legally and morally unacceptable. Did that make it okay?

[Blakjac22]

i am an atheist, but i was a christian for years. jesus was friendly with thieves, liars, and whores. his gospel was available to those who chose to follow him, and he was tolerant of those who chose not to. looking at this from a christian point of view, people can not judge. if there are ways for a gay couple to get married, why spout off on youtube about it under the guise of christian understanding? let it be, and let it be dealt with by god when that day comes. fyi: i dont agree with AA

[Blakjac22]

i disagree that america thinks that 'tolerance' means blind acceptance and agreement. i tend to believe that tolerance is best described and something you do when you may not accept something as part of your OWN lifestyle, but as a part of the workings of our society. i may or may not agree with gay marriage, but i am tolerant of it happening. it is no one's place to dictate what kind of commitments gay people can make to each other, whether or not we would do it ourselves.

[braindonater]

Sometimes I loathe myself for being intolerant.Often issues which I don't accept I also choose not to tolerate..because quite simply I know and believe them to be wrong.Gay marriage I know to be wrong and will not accept it as right and therefore will not tolerate those berating myself for believing that.

[sonyan1191]

hmm to be tolerant is to accept other peoples views and opinions thats how tolerance work HOWEVER you dont have to accept their opinions as your own thats totally different i have christian friends i accept their views but not as my own but at the same time im not going to bash my way of life down their throat people are comfortable with different views who are we to not accept them? plus thats how you learn from life you learn through other peoples views and opinions :)

[shockingalternative]

Amen! I totally agree with you! One he shouldn't have made it personal and two that the *Homosexual Society* want to make marriage between then accepted. We don't have to accept it but we can tolerate it. My pastor said that he wouldn't perform a gay marriage but he would attend it because he loved the ppl like family. There is a difference. I also agree that they should get most of the same rights as Heteros but they shouldn't be able to call it marriage. That is sacred. Civil Union is great.

[ronnl]

lets say that everything was totaly different and in the other way around!let say that gays were the majority in the world! how u would feel if people would treat u and your love in a different way? how u would feel if nobody would let u marry the 1 u love and give u other rights ?how u would feel if people will do what u are all doing right now and will want to ban str8 marriages in a vote or with a law? what u will do if people will hate you just becouse of who u are and who u love?

[blackmetalqueer]

I agree with your definition of the dichotomy of acceptance vs. tolerance. However, the reservation of marriage as only for heterosexuals lies not under nonacceptance, but under intolerant. Our society affords legal benefits to two adults who decide to commit to a long term relationship. Gays fit every qualification for these rights and benefits, but they are denied them. That is unequal treatment under the law, and that makes it intolerance.

[blackmetalqueer]

Now, you said that you do support gays receiving all those benefits through extending the laws regarding civil unions. Even if equivalent rights and protections are granted to civil unions, the government is still making a distinction based simply on sexual orientation, ie. discrimination. I firmly believe that the government should never make such arbitrary distinctions between citizens. How is it just for the government to determine who is good enough to get the "real thing"?

[blackmetalqueer]

Since the only reason you wish marriage to be defined as a man and a woman is your religion/tradition/opinion that homosexual marriage is evil, and you use that reasoning to refuse to allow the government to treat its citizens equally, then marriage should have not legal merit. Everyone should be required to get civil unions, and priests/ministers should never act as agents of the state and confer licenses.

[blackmetalqueer]

All couples would have to go to a courthouse to sign a civil union, and marriage should simply be a religious sacrament with no legal binding. If you want a legal agreement conferred by the state, marriage, to be defined for all people according to YOUR religion, you are violating the separation of church and state. so if you want marriage to be defined by your religion, then it cannot have any extension into civil law.

[QuestionChrist]

So are you saying that their never should be any restrictions on who gets married and why?

[blackmetalqueer]

There should be restrictions, but they should be based on what is reasonable within our current financial/legal infrastructure. The restrictions should never be based on one group's interpretation of religious texts, as you want them to be defined by.

[HUNTER831415]

hmmm, i thought marriage was a right.

"the right to marriage"

sounds like your contradicting yourself a bit.

[HergerSeamas]

What's up Pete! Great to see ya man. Yes you pronounced my name correctly..thanks for that. Fiacharrey is pronounced (Fee uh kar ee) : D As far as your video on tolerance, I believe I 5 * and favorited it. Great response.

[gt6303c]

You are using the word acceptance in a different context. I don't accept that men are attractive, yet I do accept the right of men to be homosexual. Where TJ went wrong in his argument, is that no one is tolerant of others beliefs, nor should they be. We evaluate their reasons for believing them. If homosexuality is really wrong, that girl should be intolerant towards it. If it is not, we should be intolerant of her view. Conversational intolerance is how society is influenced.

[jetsfan3161]

great idea, lets actually discuss the issue. i got alot of those comments , like just calling me a douchebag or something.

i actually agree with her about how she can have no legal problem with homosexual marrige and still not exept it. its a great revalation to people who don't think outside the box like that.

theAA maybe did step over the line on this one, but if your on youtube you got to be ready for it. ive found that out.

much love and respect.

[duubar]

What exactly is this gay "lifestyle" you speak of?

Is there a heterosexual lifestyle? Why do you feel it's superior?

Also, you speak of raising children. If you have any respect for your or others children, you would not violate their intellectual freedom at such a young and impressionable age by instilling your BELIEF and passing it as TRUTH. Do not coerce children into religion without their consent. It's criminal.

[Edella]

In all honesty, I don't care whether you tolerate or accept same-sex marriage, nor do I care care that you think the word "marriage" is reserved for heterosexual couples. Mark my words, same-sex marriage will be legal in the most of the U.S. states within 8 years regardless of whether or not the majority find it acceptable.

But I'm curious: If the majority were FOR the legalization of same-sex marriage, would you be willing to give the majority what it wants?

[QuestionChrist]

I agree. I think it is almost a matter of time. But that doesn't make it right. The whole world can be for it and will still be wrong. It is clear that as time goes on, the majoritty of people will no longer want to hear or live God's way. But again, God's way is not up for a vote or public opinion. And sure, there will be factions, as there already is, of churches that accept this lifestyle, but the bible warns of false teachers as well. If the majority wants it, I would still be against

[QuestionChrist]

it. And so would anyone who believes in God's word. I ,however, believe in the voting process. The bible is full of stories of nations who turned their backs on God. And I do believe one day that will happen in the US too. But I will stand up as long as I am allowed and tell the world that they are wrong to "accept" this lifestyle. Thanks for a great question!

[Edella]

"God's way is not up for a vote or public opinion"

Well, public opinion was discarded by the Church(es) until very recently (when the majority of church-goers became literate). Now popularity, and by extension public opinion, is very important as any Pastor with a accounting or marketing degree will tell you.

And, of course, that the Word of God has been voted upon MANY times is evident to anyone who cares to research the subject. (Cont.)

[Edella]

The First Council of Nicea might be a good place to start for research in early Church "voting" or attempts to attain a consensus on what God's Word actually means.

Like it or not, public opinion influences greatly influences Christianity.

[nataliesilva07]

Thanks for commenting, good information on the First Council of Nicea by the way. You could say that interpretation of the Word of God has been voted on many times. (what to make of certain scriptures, ya know)....I think that teachings of the Catholic church have definitely been corrupted by such councils, but I think the well accepted Bible today(and back in the day before these councils) has remained pretty accurate.

Well just letting ya know, I actually checked it out. lol

[Edella]

"Thanks for commenting..."

My pleasure. I find the history of Christianity fascinating.

"I think the well accepted Bible today(and back in the day before these councils) has remained pretty accurate."

The Biblical canon has changed and developed gradually over time. Synod of Hippo more or less "set" the 27-book New Testament canon. For Protestants, "Sola scriptura" establishes a definitive canon, or the final word on God's Word. :)

[Edella]

This is of course a GROSS oversimplification. Ask your pastor about these things. My guess is s/he would LOVE to answer questions about the First Council of Nicea or Sola scriptura or the development of the Biblical Canon. Peace!

[nataliesilva07]

You're right, I'm sure he would.  lol later

[SaintCog]

THE largest attack on the definition of a "Christian marriage" are from the Adultery and Divorce fronts. Polygamy also fits nicley into the definition of a Biblical marriage.

Marriage: Anglo-French, from marier ... see not even that old of a word.

Just reword marriage to Gamos GR. (Strongs's 1062 John 2:1) A title christians can own with pride...problem solved. Everyone else, Civil Unions or Marriages. This is a legal title issue that is getting tangled with beliefs, things get messy.

[SaintCog]

5 stars for leaving the comments open.

[Nunogomes77]

Well said brother, you put so well. God bless you

[aztecgodofdeath]

*thumbs up*