Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam only believe in traditional marrage.
If a religious exemption is placed in a law creating gay marrage, the first thing the radicals will do is challenge the exemption in court. The exemption could be eliminated by one gay judge. Then any Church that even preach the benefits of traditional marrage would be charged with discrimination.
It would be best to return to the Constitution and get out of the marriage and descrimination rackets. Please thumbs up.
Homosexual activists understand the power of words.
Please visit my channel to watch a one-minute video clip in which famous atheist Richard Dawkins admits that homosexual activists "hijacked the word 'gay'".
The word "homosexual" is more appropriate and accurate because it, unlike the word "gay", actually describes the behavior/attraction/relationship being discussed.
The word "gay" helps homosexual activists push their agenda.
Libertarian propaganda sounds reasonable and rational. However they never explain all the details, and when you take Libertarianism to it's logical conclusion, you have the wild wild west with no laws, no Gov no leadership. IT'S JUST BS!
Up till now EVERYONE was happy with marriage, laws that controlled inheritance, tax, children welfare. None of it perfect or always good, but it's better than NOTHING, which is what you propose? JUST SAY NO TO GAYS. THEY REALLY DON'T WANT TO BE MARRIED.
There's no Gay DNA/Brain, it's a preference, an urge. If gays want to live together, fine! If they want legal contracts, living wills, power of attorney, fine. The only issue is TAX. Fix the tax code, no marriage/kid deductions. Pvt business can make "partner benefits" their choice. The Libertarian abandoned Gov is DUMB! Marriage=Man+Woman+kids, worked for 1000's of yrs. Gays can't have kids, therefore inferior to heterosexuality, less important to society. They can have unions now in 5 states!
Typical illogical Libertarian, no Gov, dissolve marriage, Gay or Christian, no legal Gov recognition? Lets not worry about inheritance, land, children welfare. Everyone live together. If you want to get a lawyer, draw up legal contracts, wills, power of attorney OK. Have kids name them as you will; heck why even get a birth certificate? More Gov? Gays can do what they want? IDIOTIC. Gov is in our life. You don't abandoned it you make it work for the people. Just say NO to the gays, it's an urge!
You were doing great til Min 2 and you said I PERSONALLY THINK. Well you're clearly a minority. People say they are OK with SS marriage, but in the ballot box they vote YUCK, NO, to gay marriage. I do not want to explain to my kids why their male teacher has a husband they saw making out in the parking lot. IF IT IS JUST THE RIGHTS GAYS WANT, THEN STOP ASKING FOR "MARRIAGE", how about SS CIVIL UNIONS? RIGHT? No? Because the agenda is attack Judeo-Christian traditional values and make GAY NORMAL.
Now I do agree with some of the things you've said, BUT marriage is not and never was a religious institution, so you blow the kneecaps off your own argument when you say it is.
I agree to no legal benefits for marriage or I will even take that to having children. I actually feel there would be less divorce if there weren't so many legal benefits to marriage. Just my thoughts.
This is mostly true but the part where you speak of forcing people to obey the law ie. marry gay people when you are personally opposed to gay marriage, .. hmm, think about the bus driver's back in the 60's who didn't want to allow people of color the right to ride in the front of the bus.. should he be fired because he doesn't agree with the law (and keep racism alive)? Hell yes!! Same thing here. Just because everyone thinks it's ok to treat people unfairly doesn't make it right!
You're taking my comments out of context. With a constitutional amendment, its entirely possible to create a situation where churches could be mandated to recognize and perform such marriages. It is a hypothetical used as an example.
Churches cannot be mandated to recognize any gay marriage. They currently enjoy the freedom to refuse to hold ceremonies for ANY couple they see fit, for any reasons, such as infidelity, age disparity, interdenominational or interreligious couples, couples who have been divorced several times before, and interracial couples.
Therefore, gay marriage can happen without church involvement.
Remember, atheists get marriage without churches, and can't force churches to hold atheist weddings.
I think you fail to recognize that, in the eyes of the law, marriage IS already a civil contract. It has nothing to do with religion. You can be married in church without getting a marriage certificate. Or you can get a marriage certificate without involving any church. They're completely separate entities. It would NOT be tyranny to simply legalize gay marriage because all the protections granted by the first amendment to religion would still hold.
You stated near the end of the video that state-sanctioned marriage is an establishment of religion, and should be abolished altogether in favor of a civil contract. My point is that marriage already is that civil contract. An important one at that, because it defines family. It gives families certain rights and responsibilities towards one another. It would not be a solution to eliminate it completely, and there's no reason to just change the word.
I want you to think about something deep here. If government was to afford tax breaks to people who are baptized, would that be tyranny? Who has to pick up the slack?
I would agree with you that the tax breaks, ss survivor benefits, etc. are not a necessity. But there are many many rights and benefits to marriage that are important, and eliminating marriage altogether is not the right way to go.
Baptism is a complete red herring, since what we are really dealing with is a civil contract to begin with. It has nothing to do with religion, despite the word being the same.
If the government has a legitimate reason for giving tax breaks to people who want to be sprinkled with water, and call it baptism with no tie to religion whatsoever, then sign me up! I'll be the first one in line.
the government has no legitimate reason for giving tax breaks to married people. It is a form of social control. It is the majority pilaging the minority, which is tyranny.
That I may agree with. As I understand it, most of the time married couples don't actually get a tax break. Sometimes they are actually taxed more. If you're married and both partners are receiving SS benefits, you're taxed on every dollar you receive. A single person is only taxed on SS money over a certain amount. It is often the case that filing separately actually ends up better for the couple. I think filing together could warrant a break, because it's less info to process for the gov't.
But I wouldn't be opposed to removing tax benefits to married couples. I just wanted to say I think it's an impossible goal to attempt to eliminate marriage entirely, nor is it necessarily a good goal. Most of the benefits are good and necessary. And I think it would be silly to vote against including gay couples in marriage as long as it exists.
yes, its entirely possible to eliminate government "licensed" marriage.
Government has no business issuing a license to people in order to get married, which is a religious function.
Government has a responsiblity to up hold contract law, of which they could clearly create without the need of calling it marriage or associating government benefits.
Of course it's possible. I would just argue it's completely unnecessary. At its heart, marriage is really a contract that combines many of the rights, responsibilities, and benefits that two people committing to one another for life might like to receive into one cheap, easy contract.
Having such a contract available is important because it is highly-desired. Why not combine all the hundreds of expensive contracts into one cheap, easy contract?
If you wanted to argue that we should remove some of the benefits not otherwise available in general contract law, then I might agree with you. Eliminating the contract of marriage altogether though is not the right way to go about it, especially considering the millions of people who already have marriage licenses.
I like your video and you make some REALLY great points, but I just wanted to clear one thing up. Every law passed including gay marriage has also included language for religious freedom. No church has to marry any two people they don't want to. In California, it was already in the law before gay marriage was legal. Iowa, Vermont, Mass and Connecticut rulings all have "religious freedom" rights in them!
My point is hypothetical. That it is entirely possible to create a constitutional amendment that could force churches to conduct gay marriages, just as it is entirely possible to ban through an amendment.
As far as I am aware, California is the only state that has actually attempted a constitutional amendment over the issue.
Yes, we must get back to our Christian roots! While we're at it, let's get back to our other roots as well!
We should start legislation immediately to reestablish slavery and revoke women's rights to vote. After, all the founding fathers were wise enough not to grant these people those rights to begin with!
Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam only believe in traditional marrage.
If a religious exemption is placed in a law creating gay marrage, the first thing the radicals will do is challenge the exemption in court. The exemption could be eliminated by one gay judge. Then any Church that even preach the benefits of traditional marrage would be charged with discrimination.
It would be best to return to the Constitution and get out of the marriage and descrimination rackets. Please thumbs up.
sallybaker1950 4 weeks ago in playlist More videos from mnemeth1
Homosexual activists understand the power of words.
Please visit my channel to watch a one-minute video clip in which famous atheist Richard Dawkins admits that homosexual activists "hijacked the word 'gay'".
The word "homosexual" is more appropriate and accurate because it, unlike the word "gay", actually describes the behavior/attraction/relationship being discussed.
The word "gay" helps homosexual activists push their agenda.
lightandbeautiful 1 month ago
God does not show favoritism, There's srt8t marriage so there got to be gay marriage.
kdc43 3 months ago
Libertarian propaganda sounds reasonable and rational. However they never explain all the details, and when you take Libertarianism to it's logical conclusion, you have the wild wild west with no laws, no Gov no leadership. IT'S JUST BS!
Up till now EVERYONE was happy with marriage, laws that controlled inheritance, tax, children welfare. None of it perfect or always good, but it's better than NOTHING, which is what you propose? JUST SAY NO TO GAYS. THEY REALLY DON'T WANT TO BE MARRIED.
geeflyboy 1 year ago
There's no Gay DNA/Brain, it's a preference, an urge. If gays want to live together, fine! If they want legal contracts, living wills, power of attorney, fine. The only issue is TAX. Fix the tax code, no marriage/kid deductions. Pvt business can make "partner benefits" their choice. The Libertarian abandoned Gov is DUMB! Marriage=Man+Woman+kids, worked for 1000's of yrs. Gays can't have kids, therefore inferior to heterosexuality, less important to society. They can have unions now in 5 states!
geeflyboy 1 year ago
Typical illogical Libertarian, no Gov, dissolve marriage, Gay or Christian, no legal Gov recognition? Lets not worry about inheritance, land, children welfare. Everyone live together. If you want to get a lawyer, draw up legal contracts, wills, power of attorney OK. Have kids name them as you will; heck why even get a birth certificate? More Gov? Gays can do what they want? IDIOTIC. Gov is in our life. You don't abandoned it you make it work for the people. Just say NO to the gays, it's an urge!
geeflyboy 1 year ago
You were doing great til Min 2 and you said I PERSONALLY THINK. Well you're clearly a minority. People say they are OK with SS marriage, but in the ballot box they vote YUCK, NO, to gay marriage. I do not want to explain to my kids why their male teacher has a husband they saw making out in the parking lot. IF IT IS JUST THE RIGHTS GAYS WANT, THEN STOP ASKING FOR "MARRIAGE", how about SS CIVIL UNIONS? RIGHT? No? Because the agenda is attack Judeo-Christian traditional values and make GAY NORMAL.
geeflyboy 1 year ago
Ask yourself. Who prevails? Should it be God's law, or the law created by the people? The answer is clear to me.
donovanrules123123 1 year ago
Now I do agree with some of the things you've said, BUT marriage is not and never was a religious institution, so you blow the kneecaps off your own argument when you say it is.
supermanlypunch 1 year ago
I think gays should just keep to themselves I mean I don't think anyone wants to know that they are gay and proud. That's just my opinion.
StephenNguyen 1 year ago
@StephenNguyen Why should they hide it if they don't want to?
alx64uzumaki 1 year ago
No one has EVER suggested amending the constitution to ADD gay marriage. That isn't necessary.
msbuch72 1 year ago
1st amendment is not intended as separation of church and state, but protection of church from state.
keith1y 2 years ago
I agree to no legal benefits for marriage or I will even take that to having children. I actually feel there would be less divorce if there weren't so many legal benefits to marriage. Just my thoughts.
HeraWynn1 2 years ago
Prop 8 = Triumph of the Fascists
Womanizer2985 2 years ago
This is mostly true but the part where you speak of forcing people to obey the law ie. marry gay people when you are personally opposed to gay marriage, .. hmm, think about the bus driver's back in the 60's who didn't want to allow people of color the right to ride in the front of the bus.. should he be fired because he doesn't agree with the law (and keep racism alive)? Hell yes!! Same thing here. Just because everyone thinks it's ok to treat people unfairly doesn't make it right!
CrisVangel 2 years ago
You're taking my comments out of context. With a constitutional amendment, its entirely possible to create a situation where churches could be mandated to recognize and perform such marriages. It is a hypothetical used as an example.
mnemeth1 2 years ago
Churches cannot be mandated to recognize any gay marriage. They currently enjoy the freedom to refuse to hold ceremonies for ANY couple they see fit, for any reasons, such as infidelity, age disparity, interdenominational or interreligious couples, couples who have been divorced several times before, and interracial couples.
Therefore, gay marriage can happen without church involvement.
Remember, atheists get marriage without churches, and can't force churches to hold atheist weddings.
Darkbison7 2 years ago
I think you fail to recognize that, in the eyes of the law, marriage IS already a civil contract. It has nothing to do with religion. You can be married in church without getting a marriage certificate. Or you can get a marriage certificate without involving any church. They're completely separate entities. It would NOT be tyranny to simply legalize gay marriage because all the protections granted by the first amendment to religion would still hold.
pkiverson 2 years ago 4
I think you failed to watch the video.
mnemeth1 2 years ago
You stated near the end of the video that state-sanctioned marriage is an establishment of religion, and should be abolished altogether in favor of a civil contract. My point is that marriage already is that civil contract. An important one at that, because it defines family. It gives families certain rights and responsibilities towards one another. It would not be a solution to eliminate it completely, and there's no reason to just change the word.
pkiverson 2 years ago
I want you to think about something deep here. If government was to afford tax breaks to people who are baptized, would that be tyranny? Who has to pick up the slack?
mnemeth1 2 years ago
I would agree with you that the tax breaks, ss survivor benefits, etc. are not a necessity. But there are many many rights and benefits to marriage that are important, and eliminating marriage altogether is not the right way to go.
Baptism is a complete red herring, since what we are really dealing with is a civil contract to begin with. It has nothing to do with religion, despite the word being the same.
pkiverson 2 years ago 4
If the government has a legitimate reason for giving tax breaks to people who want to be sprinkled with water, and call it baptism with no tie to religion whatsoever, then sign me up! I'll be the first one in line.
pkiverson 2 years ago
the government has no legitimate reason for giving tax breaks to married people. It is a form of social control. It is the majority pilaging the minority, which is tyranny.
mnemeth1 2 years ago
That I may agree with. As I understand it, most of the time married couples don't actually get a tax break. Sometimes they are actually taxed more. If you're married and both partners are receiving SS benefits, you're taxed on every dollar you receive. A single person is only taxed on SS money over a certain amount. It is often the case that filing separately actually ends up better for the couple. I think filing together could warrant a break, because it's less info to process for the gov't.
pkiverson 2 years ago
But I wouldn't be opposed to removing tax benefits to married couples. I just wanted to say I think it's an impossible goal to attempt to eliminate marriage entirely, nor is it necessarily a good goal. Most of the benefits are good and necessary. And I think it would be silly to vote against including gay couples in marriage as long as it exists.
pkiverson 2 years ago
yes, its entirely possible to eliminate government "licensed" marriage.
Government has no business issuing a license to people in order to get married, which is a religious function.
Government has a responsiblity to up hold contract law, of which they could clearly create without the need of calling it marriage or associating government benefits.
mnemeth1 2 years ago
Of course it's possible. I would just argue it's completely unnecessary. At its heart, marriage is really a contract that combines many of the rights, responsibilities, and benefits that two people committing to one another for life might like to receive into one cheap, easy contract.
Having such a contract available is important because it is highly-desired. Why not combine all the hundreds of expensive contracts into one cheap, easy contract?
pkiverson 2 years ago
If you wanted to argue that we should remove some of the benefits not otherwise available in general contract law, then I might agree with you. Eliminating the contract of marriage altogether though is not the right way to go about it, especially considering the millions of people who already have marriage licenses.
pkiverson 2 years ago
I like your video and you make some REALLY great points, but I just wanted to clear one thing up. Every law passed including gay marriage has also included language for religious freedom. No church has to marry any two people they don't want to. In California, it was already in the law before gay marriage was legal. Iowa, Vermont, Mass and Connecticut rulings all have "religious freedom" rights in them!
southernhottie 2 years ago
My point is hypothetical. That it is entirely possible to create a constitutional amendment that could force churches to conduct gay marriages, just as it is entirely possible to ban through an amendment.
As far as I am aware, California is the only state that has actually attempted a constitutional amendment over the issue.
mnemeth1 2 years ago
edit troll spam
mnemeth1 2 years ago
Actually, I thought my sarcasm explained my answer.
bearchewtoy75 2 years ago
Yes, we must get back to our Christian roots! While we're at it, let's get back to our other roots as well!
We should start legislation immediately to reestablish slavery and revoke women's rights to vote. After, all the founding fathers were wise enough not to grant these people those rights to begin with!
bearchewtoy75 2 years ago