Re: FAKE AD FOR FAKE PROBLEMS! ANTI HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN!!!

[Deathbladewarrior]

Look call it a civil union and get on with helping our starving kids. This issue is nowere near as important as you make it out to be. You can't legislate or outlaw same sex attraction but you can make them crims if you like ! Or better yet lets make all people who wear purple criminals by that logic ! Gays n lesbos can stay away from marriage in favor of civil union and the marriage buffs can stay away from the gays and lesbos ? Sound fair ..

[Katalyzt]

Hello Deathbladewarrior,

How about we address both problems simultaneously: this current civil rights issue and feeding starving children.

P.S.

6 U.S. states allow/recognize same sex marriage; only 44 more to go. ;O)

Katalyzt



[lakelful]

marriage is a institution of control... control the gays too!

[TheWickedLoki]

protect marriage ... thats such a load of crap!

[xXTheProMeisterXx]

The title of this video is specious, spurious and downright false. There's no such thing as a 'human right to getting married'. Please don't misinform people.

[Katalyzt]

Please take your concerns to the originator of this video, and its title. ;O)

Katalyzt

[Katalyzt]

5 U.S. states allow/recognize same sex marriage; only 45 more to go. ;O)

Katalyzt

[BlasphemyBroadcast]

Yeah, their freedom to hate.

We can't stand these primitive, pathetic apes that give our family (apes) a bad name.

We'll probably do our next episode on gay marriage and the biblical definition of marriage, which is, the exchange of "property" between two men. The woman's consent is not requested or required.

In truth, as I'm sure you know, the Bible has historically been a huge factor in oppressing of peoples.

Thank you for your efforts to resist the religious war machine. :]

[eyeopenerQ2]

im 4 gay marriage even if they do marry that dose not afecked fcking religious people look in the past black people did not rights at the time till some stud up to that now they have right and woman did not have rights ether now they do time 4 fcking change stop fcking forseing religious stuff on every who wants to be diffrent than the pack

[ccoraxfan]

I support human rights, of course. I don't hate anybody, I'm not a bigot or [whatever]phobe. But I do not support the redefinition of marriage. If homosexuals want to partner with each other, that's their business. But don't try to co-opt a social and religious tradition which has never been anything but heterosexual. Homosexuals can gain nothing from this, but those of us who believe in marriage stand to lose much.

[Katalyzt]

Once homosexuals are given the basic human right to marry who they love, like the rest of us have; explain to me what will you personally lose?

Katalyzt

[ccoraxfan]

What I will personally lose is the official recognition of my marriage by society and the state. If marriage can be anything, then it can be nothing, meaningless. If two men can marry, or two women, or 3 men or women, or any number of each, or any combination of men or women, what then does marriage really mean? This is a major social experiment without precedent, which could blow up in our faces, and what purpose does it serve?

[Katalyzt]

How will you lose the "official recognition of my marriage by society and the state"? And how does allowing homosexuals the basic human right to marry, mean that marriage can be anything? Marriage is currently between 2 consenting human, so where and why are you adding 3?

P.S.

The purpose it serves, is equal rights for everyone. Do you have a problem with everyone having equal rights?

Katalyzt

[ccoraxfan]

There is plenty of precedent for marriage being between one man and n women, where n is the number of women the man can support. There is no precedent for marriage of the same sex, even in societies where homosexuality was common and accepted.

Equal rights for everyone? You don't believe that, or you would advocate allowing marriage for multiple partners and children too. You just want special rights for homosexuals.

[Katalyzt]

Yes there were examples of a single man married to many women. There was also a president for men to own other men as slaves, and for one race and/or gender to not have the same rights as others But we as a society have realized from our past experiences/mistakes; that curtailing ones basic human rights is to destroy liberty for everyone involved. It appears that some still have not learned.

Katalyzt

[ccoraxfan]

Why are you bringing up slavery and racism when I was talking about marriage? Yes, polygamy was common in the past, and is prohibited today, but polygamy is not slavery. In the past children could legally marry as well, and today are prohibited. Many freedoms of the past have been taken away in recent years as Big Brother asserts himself over the world.

[Katalyzt]

I brought up slavery, race, and gender to demonstrate how a different set of people rights was not equal to others. In an attempt to show you that this is the same type of situation. Peoples basic human rights are being curtailed. You do see that; do you not? "Many freedoms of the past have been taken away in recent years as Big Brother asserts himself over the world." Then do not be "Big Brother", and allow others to have the same rights and privileges that you have. ;O)

Katalyzt

[ccoraxfan]

I leave homosexuals to practice what they will, even though I disagree with what they do. However, I don't want to see the institution of marriage coopted and changed for their benefit. I foresee marriage being reduced to a meaningless agreement rather than a basis of our society, and that concerns me. Since homosexuals have never had same-sex marriage, how is the effort to prevent it a Big Brother-like reduction in rights? And why is a contractual partnership not enough?

[Katalyzt]

"However, I don't want to see the institution of marriage coopted and changed for their benefit." That is/was a bigoted statement. :O(

"Since homosexuals have never had same-sex marriage, how is the effort to prevent it a Big Brother-like reduction in rights?" Interesting... Just because someone does not exercise their basic human rights because they never had them(like blacks, and women who once could not vote) does not mean that they should not have them. Do you understand?

Katalyzt

[ccoraxfan]

If being opposed to homosexual behavior or its legitimization makes me a bigot, then I guess there's nothing I can do about it, because I certainly cannot change my position.

Since when was marriage a basic human right? Having a marriage recognized by the state is nice, but if it were removed, people would still marry. Marriage is a social construct created according to rules of society, and if society says no to same-sex marriage, what good is it to try to force the issue?

[Katalyzt]

"Marriage is a social construct created according to rules of society, and if society says no to same-sex marriage, what good is it to try to force the issue?" You mean just like it was a rule of society to not allow blacks, and/or women to vote? Or do you mean just like it was a rule of society to own another men as property? Surly you realize that just because it is a rule of society, does not make it right(think about it).

Katalyzt

[ccoraxfan]

Please stop comparing homosexual rights with civil rights. Your sex or color of skin is beyond your control, but it is entirely your choice whether or not to engage in sodomy.

[Katalyzt]

I cannot stop comparing homosexual rights with civil rights, as they are closely related. Just like blacks and women in the [past]; a specific minority is being singled out and not given the same rights and privileges as everyone else.

1) No one chooses who they fall in love(you should know that)

2) No one chooses whether they are heterosexual or homosexuals as a child.

3) Sodomy? What both heterosexuals and homosexuals do in the privacy of their own homes is none of your business.

Katalyzt

[ccoraxfan]

I have no qualms with who people fall in love with. I don't care whether they are attracted to one sex or another. But I am opposed to sodomy on moral grounds, and this will not change. What you call none of my business, the physical acts which are practiced by homosexuals, that is what I have a problem with, and that is why I cannot support the homosexual cause in any way. Call me a bigot if you will, but this is not negotiable.

[Katalyzt]

Sod-om-y

noun

1. anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex

2. copulation with a member of the same sex.

The physical act is what I am referring to. Whether it is between two consenting adult(homosexual or heterosexual) it is none of your business what is done in their bedrooms. I only call you a bigot because your actions/speech fit the definition.

Katalyzt

[Katalyzt]

"If being opposed to homosexual behavior or its legitimization makes me a bigot, then I guess there's nothing I can do about it, because I certainly cannot change my position." Yes, it actually does make you a bigot, like [eeocsfdo370] correctly pointed out. And yes you can change your position; it is just that you do not want to change your position. Or is someone threatening you if you were to change your position?

Katalyzt

[ccoraxfan]

I cannot change my position contrary to what I know to be the truth, nor can I go against the Word of God. I care little for the threats of other people.

[Katalyzt]

Aaaah, I was wondering when you were going to compare the basic rights/privileges of real people to the wants of an imaginary god.

Katalyzt

[ccoraxfan]

Because you do not want to admit there is a God does not mean I made him up. I'm not a child anymore. But of course one cannot argue successfully with an ignorant person.

[Katalyzt]

You [not making up] the fictional god that you are referring also does not mean that it does exist. Unless you are implying that you made up leprechauns, unicorns, ferries, and/or Spiderman; as they are all imaginary as well. Think about it.

P.S.

"But of course one cannot argue successfully with an ignorant person." <--- I totally agree with you on this point. ;O)

Katalyzt

[Katalyzt]

(Continued)

"And why is a contractual partnership not enough?" - The reason a contractual partnership is not enough is because they are not recognized on the state and federal level like a marriage is. Plus homosexuals and bisexuals currently do have the same type of benefits that is automatically given to a [married] couple. That is one of reasons why they want "Equal Rights".

Katalyzt

[Katalyzt]

(Continued)

So now you are telling people what they actually believe. Interesting. Yes, I think that everyone should have equal rights.(You do not?) And for your clarification: I will add this one caveat; that ones rights end where another persons rights begins. So, no I do not call for special right for homosexuals; I support and called for the same rights for homosexuals that you have as far as marriage(and everything that come with it) is concerned. Think about it.

Katalyzt

[ccoraxfan]

Everybody (well, almost everybody) has the right to marry, even homosexuals. But homosexuals do not want to marry, as marriage involves a man and a woman. They want to have same-sex partnerships and have it called marriage, given the same rights and privileges as marriage. They want to redefine marriage in their own way - is this not an issue of special rights for one group?

[Katalyzt]

"Everybody (well, almost everybody) has the right to marry, even homosexuals." Actually that is not entirely accurate, as they do not have the right to marry who they love except in four US States. Do you see how homosexuals rights are being curtailed?

"But homosexuals do not want to marry, as marriage involves a man and a woman."

So then you are just hung up the current definition? If that is all; then the definition can be changed.

Katalyzt

[Katalyzt]

"They want to have same-sex partnerships and have it called marriage, given the same rights and privileges as marriage." - Yes, they want the same human rights as you have.

"They want to redefine marriage in their own way - is this not an issue of special rights for one group?" - Actually no, as SSM will cover bisexuals as well; which is another unique demographic. The redefinition will give the rights and privileges that you currently have to everyone. Hence the term: Equal Rights.

Katalyzt

[ccoraxfan]

I am opposed to the redefinition or takeover of marriage by the homosexual crowd, because marriage is instituted and maintained by those who believe in procreation and the traditional family. If «domestic partnerships» were available, which would allow for same-sex couples to have all the same rights and privileges as married couples, but without the name, would you be happy with that? I expect you would not.

[Katalyzt]

[If domestic partnerships were available, which would allow for same-sex couples to have all the same rights and privileges as married couples, but without the name, would you be happy with that? I expect you would not.] Then you would be wrong again, as I would be happy with that, because what is in a name if everyone has equal rights?

Katalyzt

[ccoraxfan]

Why then are homosexuals not content with "civil unions"? Why insist on it being a "marriage"?

[Katalyzt]

Because in/with "civil unions homosexuals are not afforded the same rights, and privileges that married couples are. Again they want the same/equal rights that you, and I have.

Katalyzt

[Katalyzt]

(Continued)

But since that is not the case; bigoted people and Ads like this will be met, and fought against until they see that they are wrong(just like they were with slavery and the subordinate position of women).

Katalyzt

[eeocsfdo370]

If you have to start a sentence with "I'm not a (fill in the the blank), BUT... Guess what? Yes, you ARE.

[Katalyzt]

Indeed

[ccoraxfan]

The only reason why I start with "I'm not...but" is because people like you insist on calling other people names, whether they deserve them or not. I already said my piece.

[truth4U2C]

Hate? what a spin job, I love Homosexuals...

[TABULOUS1]

The actors can't be penalized for...well...simply acting (except that they did so poorly, rofl).

They don't even have 2believe the idea they're selling (although it'd be nice if they stood exclusively 4what they believe). I think the only mandatory qualification 2be considered 4an infomercial-ish commercial, is that u suck. lmAo

HOWEVER,

the powerf*kks who greenlighted the commercial with the conscious & deliberate intent of sending a homophobic bigoted message SHOULD be held accountable.

[KingHeathen]

hmm....

I support gay rights...support allowing them to marry...support the idea that this "ad" is utterly ridiculous and makes horrible arguments against allowing it...

I have a huge problem calling it "hate speech"...by definition it isn't.  By claiming it is lessens the value of the phrase when we need to invoke it.

Holy shit, am I really going to say this?

Calling this "hate speech" weakens the sanctity of calling something "hate speech"

I think I'll address this a different way.

[Katalyzt]

Ok, cool...

Katalyzt

[shalomyahweh911]

"26disgraceful sexual appetites, for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; 27 and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full recompense, which was due for their error." ROMANS 1:1-32

It is the clerics of all faiths that do not present the word of God accuratetly !selfish needs come first???

[Katalyzt]

Hello shalomyahweh911,

This is about the human rights of real people, and not the pleasing of an imaginary god.

Katalyzt

[lazyperfectionist1]

Normally, I can download with Realplayer. Why isn't it giving me that option this time?

[Katalyzt]

Hmmmmmm... Not sure... I uploaded the video as a .FLV file, but that should not make a difference.

Katalyzt

[GabrielGrewal]

i am afraid

[eyeopenerQ2]

so is this vid realy saying they dont like gay marriage and aborion cart spell it . religious people should not have rights religious people are just full of hate 4 other people religion should be taken out of school 4 good u may not like what should happen to all religions of the world

[ccoraxfan]

For those of you who oppose us: It is because religion has been removed from school that religious parents are more and more removing their children from public schools and sending them to private religious schools or homeschooling them. The children of religious parents are thus immune to your atheistic teaching, and are more thoroughly educated in their parents' belief. Over time, that means you will deal with stronger enemies. I hope you enjoy the fruits of your labor.

[Katalyzt]

Actually religion has not been removed from schools. Only mandatory school player has been removed, as not every child is of a christian faith. Each child can pray to whatever god they believe in(or do not believe in), but privately. Children are even allowed to start in school faith study/groups(hinduism, buddhism, judaism, christian, islamic, etc.)

P.S.

immune to your atheistic teaching so are you saying that these children are immuned to reason? ;O)

Katalyzt

[ccoraxfan]

Not only mandatory prayer, but also voluntary public prayer has been removed from schools, at least for teachers and others in the school. Some schools go so far as to forbid even private prayer, even by students. There are constantly legal battles being fought by Christian students and parents just to maintain the religious rights they still have.

It seems a stretch to suggest that atheism has a monopoly on reason, or that it is entirely reasonable.

[Katalyzt]

Please cite your sources as to: "Some schools go so far as to forbid even private prayer, even by students."

Katalyzt

[ccoraxfan]

Cite my sources? This is such a common problem that the US Congress has addressed withholding funding from schools that prohibit student prayer.

Two recent examples:

East Valley High School, Spokane, Wash. was sued by ADF for prohibiting students from meeting for prayer. The school district settled. (May 2008)

Kandy Kyriacou and Ojoma Omaga are suing the Peralta Community College District after being threatened with suspension for praying on campus. (April 2009)

[Katalyzt]

Thank you. Those are clearly two open and shut cases. In both instances the schools and/or faculty were/are wrong to forbid prayer and/or meeting for prayer. Do you have anymore? :O)

Katalyzt

[ccoraxfan]

There are plenty of examples, very much like those two. The Christian Law Ass'n has a radio program where they give legal advice, and I hear of such cases very often. Most of the time there is no lawsuit involved, because there is plenty of legal precedent. A student is reprimanded for praying or reading their Bible at school. Student complains to parents, parents call for legal advice, lawyer calls school, officials relent and/or change policy. No public record, but this happens a lot.

[Katalyzt]

So other then to first two that you provided, you have no more examples that are verifiable?

Katalyzt

[ccoraxfan]

There are other examples of legal cases, I'm sure. But why should I spend the time looking them up for you? If 2 aren't enough, what difference will 3 or 4 or 10 make? As I said, most of the time it doesn't go to court because the legal precedent is clear, but my point is that students are having to put up with this mess all because of the anti-religious atmosphere in the public schools.

[Katalyzt]

The reason why I asked for more is to show you that incidences like this are far and very few. So until you have evidence of your claim that [most] of the time it doesn't go to court because the legal precedent is clear it is baseless.

Katalyzt

[ccoraxfan]

It's obvious to me that it will make no difference to you if I show even more evidence. I didn't have to search long to find those two. As I said, the legislature has even weighed in on this issue. And why only court cases? As I said, most of the time when a student is told they cannot practice their religion in school, they call a lawyer who calls the school and the problem is solved. You won't find legal records of that, but I hear of them from some of the legal organizations.

[Katalyzt]

If you say so...

Katalyzt

[lb10128]

Flagging is not the answer. If you disagree with the message labeling it hate speech equals censorship.

Muslims are now using this tactic against atheists videos calling them Hate speech. In a free society we don't have the right to never be offended, but we do have the right to free speech. Despite YT TOS I say let the bigots speak freely then voice your decent. We should make there sad videos more available not less.

[Katalyzt]

Indeed... That is why I only asked that people mirror this video in the description section...

Katalyzt

[adamabra8]

What the hell? I love how nobody ever answers exactly what will be compromised about their own marriage by letting somebody else marry.

[DefaultPosition]

Dishonesty and deception are meat and potatoes to the religious. they re more than happy to deceive their flock if it looks lkie their world view is under threat. They also know they will be forgiven by the same people they seek to deceive if they are found out,

[RandyLayhea]

Great work people (Youtubers), for posting this. If it gets deleted I will definetly re-post it.

[Dhood74200]

What if someone is religious but ok with gay marraige?

And how did you get those actor tapes? thats awsome lol

[eyeopenerQ2]

the one thing and the only thing to Bann is all religions they are the haters of the world they hate everything thats not the same as them selfs

[silversobe]

Mother FUCKERS!

wow

Absolute certainty is a privilege of uneducated minds and fanatics

C.J. Keyser

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-Thomas Jefferson

[LatumWay]

Oh my god. I am simultaniously amused and horrified at how people think they have the right to pass judgement and deny rights from others, simply because it makes them uncomfortable.

Bastards.

[Deadman3913]

Thank you Katalyzt for bringing this to YouTube. I saw this on other smaller sites, but this really needed to reach a broader audience. Broader so it can be criticized & exposed as the fraudulent propaganda that it is. The sad thing is that it doesn't take that much of a stretch for the imagination to substitute 'gay marriage' with 'civil rights', 'women's suffrage', or 'abolition of slavery', all of which were considered 'coming storms' of their times.

Again, thank you.

[Katalyzt]

Actually no; I am not "asking people to spread the word, that these people are actors", as I have mention the very same point to the author(ItalianStallionette) of this video.

I am asking asking people to spread the word about this video because I think that the lies, hate, and anti human rights speech that are in the NOMs original video should be brought to light.

Katalyzt

[ItalianStallionette]

EXCELLENT!

thank you!!!

[Katalyzt]

No problem...

Katalyzt

[nailo1]

no rapidshare?

[CousinoMacul]

People are still mirroring the audition tapes.

watch?v=gDaIQTWowL0

watch?v=6-owFysc0gs

[Katalyzt]

Thank you CousinoMacul. :O) I looked for them earlier but could not find them...

Katalyzt

[anangel13]

Cool. I will have to do the same.

~Angel XIII~