LOL LOL MY GOD I CAN'T BELEIVE HIS LAUGHING, I HOPE THEY'LL THROW SOME TYPE OF DIRTY WATER ON HIM NEXT TIME. HE MUST EXPECT THINGS LIKE THAT. IF YOU ARE PUTTING YOURSELF OUT THERE LIKE THIS BIG HOMOPHOB, AND THROWING HATE ETC, THERE WILL BE REACTIONS AGAINST YOU.
PEOPLE WHO DON'T SHARE YOUR HATEFUL VIEWS ARE EVERY WHERE AND SOME WILL REACT.
when you say you dont think gays should have special rights, I think your view that the people should not be allowed to vote on the issue and the fed should be able to violate property laws and mandate that all churches must practice gay marriage is certainly a special right
@CityLoch My reference to the bill of rights was more of a general one to demonstrate the governments role in protecting the rights of the people. I also realize that marriage is an implicit right. "your view that the people should not be allowed to vote on the issue" I would uphold that view for any consensual couple regardless of sexuality, so that is not a special right. continued.
@CityLoch "the fed should be able to violate property laws and mandate that all churches must practice gay marriage"
When did I ever advocate that? All I'm advocating is that gays shouldn't be denied a marriage by the government were they to find a church that would marry them.
I would oppose any legislation that would mandate that churches must marry gay couples, but that isn't really the issue.
@BeekersSqueakers your statement was"It's deplorable to think that people should just be able to vote on who gets treated like a second class citizen" which makes me think, maybe Im wrong, that you think the feds should have control over this issue, but then again immediatly you said the fed should have no role in marriage, I guess im confused as to what your proposing instead of gay marriage being voted on by a state by state basis....eitherway i enjoy the conversation thanks 4 keeping it civil
@CityLoch I can see where the confusion might of come from. For me there are two options I find acceptable on this issue both of which I've been advocating throughout this little discussion. 1) the US gov both state and federal acknowledges that marriage is a religious institution and stops legally recognizing marriage all together or 2) The fed gov recognizes all unions equally regardless of the sexual nature of the relationship.
My apologies for not being a bit clearer on that. cont.
@CityLoch I place a high value in the federal method of government, at least when it comes to rights and protecting minorities and I really disagree with the confederate mentality that seems to be circulating around the GOP. To me it seems like a way of sneaking around the rules to get away with things that would otherwise not be allowed like oppressing minorities on religious or racial grounds. So that's why I feel like the fed should protect gays on this issue.
@BeekersSqueakers Im a Ron Paul conservative, surprise surprise I know, so I see the role of government very different from you which will more than likely keep us in stalemate, let me draw an example. The Civil Rights Act was primarily directed at the South because of how rampant segregation/discrimination was even in the mid 20th century, conversely places like Boston had desegregated through state laws in the mid.late 19th century!! cont....
@BeekersSqueakers the point being that states are laboratories of democracy and some states r more religious or secular than others and I really value that about America because its boils down to freedom, liberty, n democracy, people vote on the laws of the land (state) n if they don't like it they take their human capital and leave, forced integration, racially or sexuall buildys tension ex the KKK booming in membership after Civil Rights Act, fed should protect u from invasion n create jobs.
@CityLoch I can get behind the idea of the states being laboratories for democracy when it comes to most issues like drug legalization, immigration, and etc. because at least those have solid, secular arguments to support them. However, when it comes to discriminatory and religious issues such as gay marriage, I have to draw the line. You may be fine to say "like it or leave" but I think that does a great injustice to those who aren't in a position to just up and leave their state.
@CityLoch I'd also like to extend the same appreciate for keeping this an enlightened conversation. I'm glad we were able to come to some sort of understanding.
I also wanted to ask about the point you had made about churches being mandated to perform gay ceremonies. I had never heard this before and was curious if there were some groups advocating such policies that I needed to be concerned about, or if it was more or less conjecture.
@CityLoch I don't think that's a fair comparison. For one, the bigots in your analogy are throwing flour because of a hatred/ sense of superiority over homosexuals. The "glitterbomber" is expressing a disdain for Santorum, an individual, and his bigoted policies, not because he thinks homosexuals are superior to heterosexuals. The bigots want to be treated special. This guy just wants gays to be treated equally.
Would have been a lot nicer if they had orchestrated a large group of people to throw buckets of glitter on him all at the same time. That would have been more deserving of the term "glitterbomb".
@willminkorea2010 What would discussing it do? Santorum isn't going to change his campaign just because one person says "Hey man, I'd really appreciate it if you stopped endorsing anti-gay policies." Besides, he barely had time to throw the glitter on him, let alone engage in any kind of meaningful discussion.
I hate glitter! Beautiful, it's messy and can get in your eyes. I'm not a Santorum supporter, but I have to say that the law ought to deal with this glitter nut.
The extremist views of Santorum really bring out strong reactions and that is why he will never be elected. There are NO GOP candidates who connect with independents. It is true that Ron Paul followers are rabid but Paul has learned to cover up his extremist, unpopular views...for now.
@CityLoch No, he's just telling people who can and can't get married, whose religious dribble should be taught in public schools, and telling them who doesn't have rights to their own bodies.
@BeekersSqueakers well one person is conducting speeches and town hall meetings to get his point of view across the other is throwing glitter at people and yelling...I would agree with you on the religious "dribble" in church and Im not a Santorum fan by anymeans but I think this should be a state issue and if the people of a state voted by majority against gay marriage,shut up or move, this guy would try to find everyone that voted agaisnt gay marriage and throw glitter at them, very immature
@CityLoch Denying people equal rights should be a state issue? That's the whole reason we have the bill of rights and the supremacy clause. So that the minority isn't subject to the tyranny of the majority.
@BeekersSqueakers I think you misunderstand the bill of rights in the sense that you think you have rights because you belong to a group and that the government should protect your group, the bill of rights secures your rights as only an individual, the right to life and pursue happiness and this should be a state issue the federal government has no hand in marriage and if a states population wants gay marriage they should have it if not you get to shut up about all this inequality NONSENSE
@CityLoch What are you talking about "groups"? I honestly have no idea what you're referring to.
What good is the government if not to protect the people, especially minorities who would otherwise be oppressed by the majority? It's deplorable to think that people should just be able to vote on who gets treated like a second class citizen. The government should have nothing to say about something as personal as marriage both on the federal and state level.
@BeekersSqueakers "What groups I don't know what your talking about?"...."Government's job is to protect minorities ...which are GROUPS OF PEOPLE, putting that aside the fact you think that the people should not be allowed to vote on social issues at regional or national issues is more than shocking and your use of the term of second class citizen would be more laughable if it wasn't a conditioned response, America may not be for you
@CityLoch I never said they shouldn't be allowed to vote on all social issues, merely ones that would discriminate unjustly against the equal rights of minorities. It might also help if there was at least some kind of secular argument against gay rights.
And how is denying someone the right to wed another consenting adult based purely on sexuality anything but second class treatment? Would you be making the same argument if it were based on ethnicity rather than sexuality?
@BeekersSqueakers Last sentence in the first paragraph...not sure if you meant if there was a secular argument or wasn't....Im born n raised in SF, CA and I can tell you firsthand there is a secular argument goin strong, the Castro in SF used to be a Irish Catholic neighborhood called Eureka Valley for example....I'll address the second paragraph of this post and the entirety of the other one up top
@BeekersSqueakers The City of SF NOW is a secular argument for gay marriage, there are multiple advocacy groups besides the ACLU with offices across the nation there are gay TV shows, tv hosts, reporters, politicans, I mean to say there is no voice for the gay community..I would have to disagree with that..
@CityLoch I think you may have misunderstood what I had posted earlier. What I meant was that it would be easier to get behind making gay marriage a voter issue if those opposing gay marriage had a good, non-religious, argument for opposing gay marriage/rights, of which they do not seem to have. All I hear from them is "God this" and "Bible that", which is not good for making policies.
@BeekersSqueakers Ok yea but what are you really arguing here? this is a hypothetical argument and begs the question is the church really seperated from the state? This is much more complex than no or yes, to argue the former check out this guy called David Barton, he was on the daily show with jon stewart you can find his interview on the daily show website, click guests in the top right corner and then check the mark clergy, really interesting conversation between the two.......
@CityLoch "Government's job is to protect minorities ...which are GROUPS OF PEOPLE"
I understand that but that doesn't make much sense in context to what you said before. When you said "you think you have rights because you belong to a group and that the government should protect your group" you seem to imply that I think gays should have special rights, which I do not. You also seem to imply that minorities aren't or shouldn't be protected. Maybe it's just the way it was worded.
@BeekersSqueakers The bill of rights never mentions marriage, that is not a right promised to you by the government, you could go into the argument here of is there really a separation of church and state which is very complex, but I think we can agree that marriage is a institution of the church, its a sacrament like communion or baptism. Lastly you seem to think that the govs role is protect "minorities" when I think the judicial system alone shows you it does more to hinder them....
@CityLoch I will agree that marriage is a religious institution, which is why I think the government, state or federal, should have no say in it. If a church wants to refuse gay marriage ceremonies, that's fine. I'm not going to tell them that they have to.
However, if a church is willing to marry a homosexual couple, then who is the government to tell them "no"?
@BeekersSqueakers I mean cmon its not like gays dont have activist social groups to promote their cause, I think many liberals forget that forcing your doctrine on others because you think its right is fascism
@CityLoch "I think many liberals forget that forcing your doctrine on others because you think its right is fascism"
That is exactly what Santorum is trying to do. That's why the man in this clip threw the glitter at him. And how is throwing glitter on someone in anyway forcing a "doctrine" onto them or anyone else?
@BeekersSqueakers Thats fair, but only to a certain extent, Santorum is running for political office, America willl test and challenge his views and either elect him or not, thats democracy, throwing stuff on somebody and calling them a hate monger is the total opposite
@BeekersSqueakers and instead of us going back n forth being calling glitter guy a bigot and you callin santorum a bigot, why not let the people vote by states and agree to disagree?
Judging by Santorum's reaction of smiling and laughing and them comparing it to the bitter look of self-loathing on the gay guy's face, I'd suggest the gay guy is the hateful one.
LOL LOL MY GOD I CAN'T BELEIVE HIS LAUGHING, I HOPE THEY'LL THROW SOME TYPE OF DIRTY WATER ON HIM NEXT TIME. HE MUST EXPECT THINGS LIKE THAT. IF YOU ARE PUTTING YOURSELF OUT THERE LIKE THIS BIG HOMOPHOB, AND THROWING HATE ETC, THERE WILL BE REACTIONS AGAINST YOU.
PEOPLE WHO DON'T SHARE YOUR HATEFUL VIEWS ARE EVERY WHERE AND SOME WILL REACT.
ciel222 1 month ago
lol i hate rick but he took that rainbow pretty humorously
theSicilianToe 1 month ago
Stop the hate! Taste the rainbow! Fuck yes! Good glitter bombing there!
Tatsuyoujo 1 month ago
when you say you dont think gays should have special rights, I think your view that the people should not be allowed to vote on the issue and the fed should be able to violate property laws and mandate that all churches must practice gay marriage is certainly a special right
CityLoch 1 month ago
@CityLoch My reference to the bill of rights was more of a general one to demonstrate the governments role in protecting the rights of the people. I also realize that marriage is an implicit right. "your view that the people should not be allowed to vote on the issue" I would uphold that view for any consensual couple regardless of sexuality, so that is not a special right. continued.
BeekersSqueakers 1 month ago
@CityLoch "the fed should be able to violate property laws and mandate that all churches must practice gay marriage"
When did I ever advocate that? All I'm advocating is that gays shouldn't be denied a marriage by the government were they to find a church that would marry them.
I would oppose any legislation that would mandate that churches must marry gay couples, but that isn't really the issue.
BeekersSqueakers 1 month ago
@BeekersSqueakers your statement was"It's deplorable to think that people should just be able to vote on who gets treated like a second class citizen" which makes me think, maybe Im wrong, that you think the feds should have control over this issue, but then again immediatly you said the fed should have no role in marriage, I guess im confused as to what your proposing instead of gay marriage being voted on by a state by state basis....eitherway i enjoy the conversation thanks 4 keeping it civil
CityLoch 1 month ago
@CityLoch I can see where the confusion might of come from. For me there are two options I find acceptable on this issue both of which I've been advocating throughout this little discussion. 1) the US gov both state and federal acknowledges that marriage is a religious institution and stops legally recognizing marriage all together or 2) The fed gov recognizes all unions equally regardless of the sexual nature of the relationship.
My apologies for not being a bit clearer on that. cont.
BeekersSqueakers 1 month ago
@CityLoch I place a high value in the federal method of government, at least when it comes to rights and protecting minorities and I really disagree with the confederate mentality that seems to be circulating around the GOP. To me it seems like a way of sneaking around the rules to get away with things that would otherwise not be allowed like oppressing minorities on religious or racial grounds. So that's why I feel like the fed should protect gays on this issue.
BeekersSqueakers 1 month ago
@BeekersSqueakers Im a Ron Paul conservative, surprise surprise I know, so I see the role of government very different from you which will more than likely keep us in stalemate, let me draw an example. The Civil Rights Act was primarily directed at the South because of how rampant segregation/discrimination was even in the mid 20th century, conversely places like Boston had desegregated through state laws in the mid.late 19th century!! cont....
CityLoch 1 month ago
@BeekersSqueakers the point being that states are laboratories of democracy and some states r more religious or secular than others and I really value that about America because its boils down to freedom, liberty, n democracy, people vote on the laws of the land (state) n if they don't like it they take their human capital and leave, forced integration, racially or sexuall buildys tension ex the KKK booming in membership after Civil Rights Act, fed should protect u from invasion n create jobs.
CityLoch 1 month ago
@CityLoch I can get behind the idea of the states being laboratories for democracy when it comes to most issues like drug legalization, immigration, and etc. because at least those have solid, secular arguments to support them. However, when it comes to discriminatory and religious issues such as gay marriage, I have to draw the line. You may be fine to say "like it or leave" but I think that does a great injustice to those who aren't in a position to just up and leave their state.
BeekersSqueakers 1 month ago
@CityLoch I'd also like to extend the same appreciate for keeping this an enlightened conversation. I'm glad we were able to come to some sort of understanding.
I also wanted to ask about the point you had made about churches being mandated to perform gay ceremonies. I had never heard this before and was curious if there were some groups advocating such policies that I needed to be concerned about, or if it was more or less conjecture.
BeekersSqueakers 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CityLoch I don't think that's a fair comparison. For one, the bigots in your analogy are throwing flour because of a hatred/ sense of superiority over homosexuals. The "glitterbomber" is expressing a disdain for Santorum, an individual, and his bigoted policies, not because he thinks homosexuals are superior to heterosexuals. The bigots want to be treated special. This guy just wants gays to be treated equally.
BeekersSqueakers 1 month ago
Comment removed
BeekersSqueakers 1 month ago
Would have been a lot nicer if they had orchestrated a large group of people to throw buckets of glitter on him all at the same time. That would have been more deserving of the term "glitterbomb".
BeekersSqueakers 1 month ago
Ron Paul 2012!!!!!
MrCookiedMilk 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If Ron Paul does not become president I will lose all faith in humanity!
1991BodyBuild 1 month ago
If you are standing that close to a candidate why not discuss the issue with him? What a waste of time to throw glitter.
willminkorea2010 1 month ago
Comment removed
BeekersSqueakers 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@willminkorea2010 What would discussing it do? Santorum isn't going to change his campaign just because one person says "Hey man, I'd really appreciate it if you stopped endorsing anti-gay policies." Besides, he barely had time to throw the glitter on him, let alone engage in any kind of meaningful discussion.
BeekersSqueakers 1 month ago
Comment removed
willminkorea2010 1 month ago
LOLO! But the guy should have Not wasted his glitter on someone that wants More Blood for Americans!
Oceanno69 1 month ago
I hate glitter! Beautiful, it's messy and can get in your eyes. I'm not a Santorum supporter, but I have to say that the law ought to deal with this glitter nut.
walk4trot2canter3 1 month ago
that was weird......
theycallmelizzy1 1 month ago
The extremist views of Santorum really bring out strong reactions and that is why he will never be elected. There are NO GOP candidates who connect with independents. It is true that Ron Paul followers are rabid but Paul has learned to cover up his extremist, unpopular views...for now.
exenrontexas 1 month ago
wow well that guy has a mental problem
CityLoch 1 month ago
Comment removed
BeekersSqueakers 1 month ago
@CityLoch I know right? Can you believe he's actually running for president?
BeekersSqueakers 1 month ago
@BeekersSqueakers hey atleast hes not throwing glitter at men telling me how to think
CityLoch 1 month ago
@CityLoch No, he's just telling people who can and can't get married, whose religious dribble should be taught in public schools, and telling them who doesn't have rights to their own bodies.
BeekersSqueakers 1 month ago
@BeekersSqueakers well one person is conducting speeches and town hall meetings to get his point of view across the other is throwing glitter at people and yelling...I would agree with you on the religious "dribble" in church and Im not a Santorum fan by anymeans but I think this should be a state issue and if the people of a state voted by majority against gay marriage,shut up or move, this guy would try to find everyone that voted agaisnt gay marriage and throw glitter at them, very immature
CityLoch 1 month ago
@CityLoch Denying people equal rights should be a state issue? That's the whole reason we have the bill of rights and the supremacy clause. So that the minority isn't subject to the tyranny of the majority.
BeekersSqueakers 1 month ago
@BeekersSqueakers I think you misunderstand the bill of rights in the sense that you think you have rights because you belong to a group and that the government should protect your group, the bill of rights secures your rights as only an individual, the right to life and pursue happiness and this should be a state issue the federal government has no hand in marriage and if a states population wants gay marriage they should have it if not you get to shut up about all this inequality NONSENSE
CityLoch 1 month ago
@CityLoch What are you talking about "groups"? I honestly have no idea what you're referring to.
What good is the government if not to protect the people, especially minorities who would otherwise be oppressed by the majority? It's deplorable to think that people should just be able to vote on who gets treated like a second class citizen. The government should have nothing to say about something as personal as marriage both on the federal and state level.
BeekersSqueakers 1 month ago
@BeekersSqueakers "What groups I don't know what your talking about?"...."Government's job is to protect minorities ...which are GROUPS OF PEOPLE, putting that aside the fact you think that the people should not be allowed to vote on social issues at regional or national issues is more than shocking and your use of the term of second class citizen would be more laughable if it wasn't a conditioned response, America may not be for you
CityLoch 1 month ago
@CityLoch I never said they shouldn't be allowed to vote on all social issues, merely ones that would discriminate unjustly against the equal rights of minorities. It might also help if there was at least some kind of secular argument against gay rights.
And how is denying someone the right to wed another consenting adult based purely on sexuality anything but second class treatment? Would you be making the same argument if it were based on ethnicity rather than sexuality?
BeekersSqueakers 1 month ago
@BeekersSqueakers Last sentence in the first paragraph...not sure if you meant if there was a secular argument or wasn't....Im born n raised in SF, CA and I can tell you firsthand there is a secular argument goin strong, the Castro in SF used to be a Irish Catholic neighborhood called Eureka Valley for example....I'll address the second paragraph of this post and the entirety of the other one up top
CityLoch 1 month ago
@CityLoch "there is a secular argument goin strong, the Castro in SF used to be a Irish Catholic neighborhood called Eureka Valley for example"
How is that statement an argument?
BeekersSqueakers 1 month ago
@BeekersSqueakers The City of SF NOW is a secular argument for gay marriage, there are multiple advocacy groups besides the ACLU with offices across the nation there are gay TV shows, tv hosts, reporters, politicans, I mean to say there is no voice for the gay community..I would have to disagree with that..
CityLoch 1 month ago
@CityLoch I think you may have misunderstood what I had posted earlier. What I meant was that it would be easier to get behind making gay marriage a voter issue if those opposing gay marriage had a good, non-religious, argument for opposing gay marriage/rights, of which they do not seem to have. All I hear from them is "God this" and "Bible that", which is not good for making policies.
BeekersSqueakers 1 month ago
@BeekersSqueakers Ok yea but what are you really arguing here? this is a hypothetical argument and begs the question is the church really seperated from the state? This is much more complex than no or yes, to argue the former check out this guy called David Barton, he was on the daily show with jon stewart you can find his interview on the daily show website, click guests in the top right corner and then check the mark clergy, really interesting conversation between the two.......
CityLoch 1 month ago
@CityLoch I've been meaning to catch up on my Daily Show, so I'll be sure to look into Mr. Barton. Thank you.
BeekersSqueakers 1 month ago
@CityLoch "Government's job is to protect minorities ...which are GROUPS OF PEOPLE"
I understand that but that doesn't make much sense in context to what you said before. When you said "you think you have rights because you belong to a group and that the government should protect your group" you seem to imply that I think gays should have special rights, which I do not. You also seem to imply that minorities aren't or shouldn't be protected. Maybe it's just the way it was worded.
BeekersSqueakers 1 month ago
@BeekersSqueakers The bill of rights never mentions marriage, that is not a right promised to you by the government, you could go into the argument here of is there really a separation of church and state which is very complex, but I think we can agree that marriage is a institution of the church, its a sacrament like communion or baptism. Lastly you seem to think that the govs role is protect "minorities" when I think the judicial system alone shows you it does more to hinder them....
CityLoch 1 month ago
@CityLoch I will agree that marriage is a religious institution, which is why I think the government, state or federal, should have no say in it. If a church wants to refuse gay marriage ceremonies, that's fine. I'm not going to tell them that they have to.
However, if a church is willing to marry a homosexual couple, then who is the government to tell them "no"?
BeekersSqueakers 1 month ago
@BeekersSqueakers excuse me, at regional or national levels*
CityLoch 1 month ago
@BeekersSqueakers I mean cmon its not like gays dont have activist social groups to promote their cause, I think many liberals forget that forcing your doctrine on others because you think its right is fascism
CityLoch 1 month ago
@CityLoch "I think many liberals forget that forcing your doctrine on others because you think its right is fascism"
That is exactly what Santorum is trying to do. That's why the man in this clip threw the glitter at him. And how is throwing glitter on someone in anyway forcing a "doctrine" onto them or anyone else?
BeekersSqueakers 1 month ago
@BeekersSqueakers Thats fair, but only to a certain extent, Santorum is running for political office, America willl test and challenge his views and either elect him or not, thats democracy, throwing stuff on somebody and calling them a hate monger is the total opposite
CityLoch 1 month ago
@BeekersSqueakers and instead of us going back n forth being calling glitter guy a bigot and you callin santorum a bigot, why not let the people vote by states and agree to disagree?
CityLoch 1 month ago
loser
brasiliennr1 1 month ago in playlist Weitere Videos von CBS
Good stuff to gay & muslim hater !!
msurgihalli 1 month ago
@msurgihalli gay and muslims, oh ya those two groups just love each other.
jamesappleridge 1 month ago 2
Judging by Santorum's reaction of smiling and laughing and them comparing it to the bitter look of self-loathing on the gay guy's face, I'd suggest the gay guy is the hateful one.
DustyAndPistolPete 1 month ago
@DustyAndPistolPete Self-loating? You can barely see his face lol.
skatarest77 1 month ago
@skatarest77
You can see it for a moment a couple times you dumbass
azurescens420 1 month ago
@azurescens420 Right which is why I said you can barely see. Maybe you need to look up the word "moment" before you get onto youtube.
skatarest77 1 month ago
@DustyAndPistolPete Looks more like disgust towards the man who openly compares his sexuality to pedophilia and bestiality.
BeekersSqueakers 1 month ago
22 second advertisement for a 11 second video clip.....
537885 1 month ago 19
This has been flagged as spam show
Google ➨ MURDERED by the MONARCHS
nwo+freemason+illuminati+scientology+secretsociety+religion+ bohemiangrove+occult+government+constitution+zionist+slavery+
elitecriminals+politicians+war+etc = CAPITALIST REALM LANDLORD GRABBER PIG ROYAL LAZY FAMILY.
fight for LAST DROP BLOOD for MONEY & POWER = LAZY ROYAL PIG FAMILY
CAPITALISM = ROYAL SLAVE LORD MASTERS LAZY FAMILY.!!!
"GOD BURN the REALM LANDGRABBER PIG ROYAL LAZY FAMILY"
"GOD BURN ROYAL LAZY FAMILY"
►► copy& paste WE ARE THE 99% FREEMAN ◄◄
kopellhinex 1 month ago
THIRD
sammyworldwide 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hands down, The best Rick Santorum supporter.
richradtylr4 1 month ago
Comment removed
richradtylr4 1 month ago
FIRST
pidding557 1 month ago
haha, that was funny.
CJCA915 1 month ago