@SmartBoy224 Fool. Homosexuality is seen plenty in nature. Most of this hate spawns from religion which serves no purpose and never has. Once religon is gone the earth can start to become a normal place once more.
Say what you want. But try to be rational. Don't conflate homosexual behavior with other civil rights struggles. Homosexuals do not and should not have any inalienable right to have their perversion legitimized. And I also have same sex attraction, but I can see where legitimizing such behavior will go.
Not to go off message here too much, but there is nothing wrong with special punishments for Hate Crimes. If you don't think so, how can you justify the various statutes for the different degrees of murder? i.e. murder in the first degree, or second degree, or third degree or manslaughter?
Those distinctions have nothing to do with motivation, but with varying degrees of intention to kill and how emotional vs rational you were at the time of the crime (i.e. did you know your wife was having an affair and so you came home to catch them and kill him, or did you happen to come home, catch them, and get so angry that you hit him in the head with a lamp and killed him in the process?).
Yes, but whether a murder is premeditated or not has little to do with one's motivations for committing it (beyond showing that it was not a momentary emotional override of one's rational faculties). Whether something is a hate crime or not is judged purely by motivation - why did you target this person?
Personally, I'm not sure that I support the distinction for hate crimes. It's a step towards punishing people for thought crimes.
I disagree. Hate crimes are crimes that are not just perpetrated against an individual victim, but rather against a targeted group in order to terrorize them. An example would be lynchings in the South against blacks. It was to terrorize the black communities. Same with random attacks of gays.
I haven't mentioned hate crimes. I've merely argued that we should not allow the state to infringe on the rights of one group of people meaninglessly. We no longer have government barring of interracial marriage, it should be the same for gay marriage
As long as homosexuals fight with us against the pedo lobby taking over our school system. Young children shouldn't be exposed to the crap they're being exposed to.
Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code. (1992)
We still hold five seats on the Supreme court. "Conservatives", dissenting from Barry Goldwater's original disapproval of government, are screaming for the seat of Anthony Kennedy. The have to wait at least four years to get it... and that's if Obama isn't re-elected!
See you in Court! You know, that place where segregation was ended and where blacks were given the total freedom to marry whites...
I was molested at age 11 by a homosexual, and while I know there are many good homosexuals out there, there is a strong undercurrent of pederasty in the homosexual community that I am fighting against.
Jasper, while I empathize with your frustration, I would like to offer some constructive criticism. The use of expletives tends to make one appear less intellectual and thus, the statements fail to make the impact that they otherwise would have without them.
I subscribed to you after James gave you a shout out and I really enjoy your videos, and your insight.
I know you are better than this video and I agree that voting on civil rights is absolutely preposterous.
I think that sometimes expletives are not only proper, but might in fact be necessary.
There was no way of expressing my discontent with the circumstance without being up front and, sorry to say, inflammatory. I apologize if it had any effect on your opinion of me or my intellect, but I deemed the way in which I approached this message appropriate.
Thanks for the compliments and I appreciate you sticking around and following my videos.
Happy Thanksgiving Day to you and yours. Be well. :)
@prayforthegaycure unfortunately for you, you were born in the 20th/21st century, where homophobia is known to be the bigoted view of sexually repressed, superstitious clergymen and their victims. By the way, you know what they say about homophobes right?
that's democracy for ya, screw democracy. and what really infuriates me is many of my gay friends act like this is a legitimate process and we just gotta convince the majority we're right.
Thank you Jasper. I was very depressed over the vote in Maine, but seeing this video is encouraging. I've never seen a straight man defend marriage for gays with such passion; it was truly moving.
The only thing we can do is keep pointing out the insanity of the idea of civil rights on the ballot. It's shameful and a disgrace. It creates a monopoly on civil rights. Only the groups in favor with the majority will retain theirs if this trend continues.
Being gay myself, it's both infuriating and exciting to be alive at this time in history. Everyone has a chance to really humanity to that next level, and that chance doesn't come along all that often.
Yet another case of a SLIM majority overturning gay peoples rights, only 53% of people voted to overturn the measure, just give it some time, obviously it will happen, just have to be patient and keep trying!!!!!!!
24 hour news networks can't be taken seriously. That is where the protest needs to be. They trash and justify a system of beliefs that the population consistently disagrees with. It's the propaganda model.
You're honestly going to take the 24 hour news networks seriously? Virtually everything reported is an indirect control mechanism with those channels.
There are 1 million people in Maine. Yes, it's lame but take the 2004 elections. Dominated by gay marriage while 600,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed during the Iraq war. That is 3/5ths the population of Maine.
If you can't hear it thats the sound of the Worlds smallest violin. The voters voted loud and clear in 31 states
It's laughable how you guys read a few pro gay marriage articles, watch a few TV shows, protest a little here and there, and try to "educate" the rest of the "ignorant". You get your hopes up only to be brought back down to Earth. What it says is that a lot of regular folk don't care about the issue, but on voting day Marriage is only between a Man and Woman.
I don't know whether to continue to respond with logical argumentation or to weep/cry given your complete lack of recognition of the innate equality we have with homosexuals and they should have as it relates to civil allowances....
It's just incredibly sad.
I just hope in my time that people banishing others simply for the sake of adhering to their own bigotry becomes a thing of the past.
Mainers didn't vote on marriage equality..they voted on, per the yes on 1 campaign..not 'teaching explicit homosexual sex in schools.' This ballot measure was a petty way of postponing marriage equality in Maine by a few years. I expect it will be legalized again in 2012 (not 2010, becuase that's illegal under Maine law, and not 2011, becuase that is another off year where the same bigots could try another '09 stunt again and win...maybe.)
It's in Maine's Constitutional Amendment. So the answer is NO it will probably not be legalized. The way this country is going, it is going more conservative and anti-liberal every day.
Those good old fashioned voters ie. Grandma, Grandpa, African Americans, and those middle class workers who frequent those TEA parties, try to convince them that gays should be allowed to marry. This is still a Christian Nation, and they say loud and clear NO!
You are not a libertarian. You need a new name like a Constitutionalist. Ron Paul is not really a libertarian either (though he has his high points) but he does supports gays being able to marry personally. Libertarians don't believe states have any rights, just individuals and their autonomy preferable should be respected. You have conflated libertarianism with supporting a national Constitution. Libertarians support the idea of liberty over any state legal document.
I'll post it again... Which of your rights have been violated?
When did you have to sit in the back of a bus? When have you had to drink from a special drinking fountain for gays/straights? When have you had to play on gay/straight separate sports teams?
They put this constitutional amendment in so a farmer can't marry his horse. It is working as intended. Marriage is between a Man and a Woman... Did you not get that memo? Did your parents not teach you that?
You really don't know much about historically libertarianism and libertarian theory do you? Free association, voluntary interaction, mutual agreed to contract? All of those encompass gay marriage and any other consensual relationship between people. Whether a horse can consent to a marriage seems obvious, but even so I don't see how a horse would care or even realize that a farmer married it.
The definition of marriage and the degree of the allowed autonomy of those involved has changed throughout history. There is no set definition. Also, liberalism historically was in line with individual liberty, classical liberalism was for individual liberty during its time. However, modern day so called "liberalism" is not, and neither is conservatism or Constitutionalism.
Homosexuals, in many states in this union as you have pointed out, are being segregated from the institution of marriage at this very moment.
The arrogantly ignorant quality of your posts show that you are most likely incapable of understanding that, as they show you to undoubtedly be arrogant and ignorant.
Really, you're shooting yourself in the foot with every response you post, and are accomplishing nothing more than turning what could be a civil discussion into a sophomoric insult contest.
Lol wow you really don't pay attention. That wasn't a constitutional amendment [Q1]. LOL. You actually think our country is getting MORE conservative!? LMAO. You must be living in a church basement! Come out and smell the liberal sunshine! This never was a 'christian nation.' ALSO, the Federal Constitution overules all state constitutions...so it doens't matter what they say, including California (where there was an ACTUAL constitutional revision).
Come out of your church basement, and pay attention. Q1 was not a constitional amendment...it was simply a veto..the legislature can pass the law again in 2011. ALSO, even if Maine passed a constitutional amendment, it is overruled by the Federal Constitution...so it wouln't matter when the Supreme Court strikes down all marriage equality bans. By the way, this NEVER was a 'christian nation.' LMAO, you think this country is getting more conservative!? You're in for a rude awakening.
No, they did not 'do the right thing.' The right thing would be to uphold the Constitution, which requires marriage equality under the 14th amendment.
Well that's where you're wrong Thomas. You're don't even know what Libertarians believe.
Libertarians believe in EQUAL rights for all citizens and you don't get special rights because you are one race, one color, or because you are gay. The 14th amendment does that already.
Answer this. When did you have to sit in the back of a bus? When have you had to drink from a special drinking fountain for gays/straights? When have you had to play in gay/straight separate sports teams? Never...
I hate to be the one to have tell you this....but buddy you're conservative not libertarian....Libertarians are against government involvement. They feel governments should just do very simple things. It's not about equality.
P.S. Ron Paul supports marriage equality.
Coretta Scott King: "A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay bashing and it would do nothing at all to protect traditional marriage."
I hate to be the one to tell you this but Ron Paul supports the states right to either accept or ban gay marriage.
10th Amendment: Those powers not delegated to the Federal Government by the Constitution, nor prohibited to them by the states, are reserved for the States or to the People.
The People say NO. So Ron Paul would say it is a state issue, if the state says NO, then the State's decision must be respected. Mainers made the "right" decision in their mind.
Regardless of the vote. As a libertarian you should believe that the government should not be involved in hindering the freedoms of the people...including the freedoms of a civil marriage.
There is a lot of talk about how people don't want marriage "redefined."
What these people are really saying when they say such things is that they don't want people to have the freedom to define marriage for themselves as an individual. Rather, they want to impose a collectivist definition of marriage on society as a whole and have that definition enforced by the state.
Yep, all these Yes on 1 people are voting for is a Stepford society, where the women are locked in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant; and the men are out working and having affairs with their secretaries a la Mad Men.
It`s funny too see USA today. I live in a country where gay people have been legaly marryiage since 1992. Today we call it sexneutral marriagelows. And the funny thing is that the world has not gone to hell just because two people of the same sex have the same rights as everybody else.
Marraige is not a "civil right." Nothing is more annoying than hearing about this "civil rights" issue. Marraige is merely a subsidy the government gives to certain individuals in a relationship. Of course I'm against gaymarriage, but I'm also against straight marriage too. The Gov't has no place to grant subsidies to relationships, which in turn the rest of us have to eat. If people want to get married, go to a church, secular organization, it's not a government issue.
Whether or not the government should be involved in marriages is a separate issue.
The issue at hand is: considering that, at this point in time, our government IS involved in marriages, is it okay for some people to be able to be married while some are not? As we're all human, we all deserve the same inherent right to marry who we want to, when we want to, if we want to.
Just because you don't believe in marriage at all doesn't mean you should subject everybody else to that view. I, and other people I assume, would very much like to be married someday.
A valdid perspective, but your failing to see that your view does just that: Enforced everyone to adopt such a view. I hve no problem at all with private marriage. But if you subsidize relationships with tax breaks, the rest of us are forced to pay for it.
My view is not necessarily that government should be subsidizing marriages at all. But if they are going to be giving special privileges and subsidies to some people, everyone should be able to receive them. Homosexuals pay taxes as well. Why should they be forced to pay when only straight marriages are subsidized with tax breaks?
Here is the thing though: You say that people are "forced to pay".Hunnychild, I am forced to pay school tax when I have no children who attend school. Should I have to pay a school tax and can I bring that before the people for a vote that all single people who have no children in school should they be "forced" to pay a school tax on heterosexuals who have children in school?
You have a gift, my friend. Your argument is so fucking compelling!!!
Last I checked, by virtue of being a fucking dog or an 18 month old, they wouldn't count as a "consenting adult." Therefore, they would not be able to be married. You're comparing homosexuals, who are two consenting adults who have realized that they want to love each other, to weird perverts who have one-sided feelings of lust for animals and babies.
I believe this was addressed to my comment below, where I mentioned the will of the majority vs. the rights of the minority (and the "majority rules" thing being tyrannical).
I'm not pretending to be an expert as to the exact protocols of government. I am saying that a government concerned only with enacting what the majority believes to be right is not fair to the minority. The rights of the minority must still be protected. If you were stripped of your rights, because everyone else thought it would be a good idea, you'd complain too.
No matter what age, race, sex, sexual orientation, etc. you describe yourself as, "civil rights" are your birthright as a human being, and that has nothing to do with the government. The fundamental and most important task of the government is to protect those rights, for everyone, not just a select group who are part of a majority.
therefore, Same sex couples do not have a SPECIAL right to redefine marriage for everybody else; the " will of the people" have a FUNDAMENTAL right under the tenth amendment to do such a task because we live in a democracy not an aristocracy. In baker v. nelson, the case called citizens for equal protection will show you that citizens do have a right to vote on rights just as long as they are NEW rights , such as same sex marriage.
It's asinine to allow citizens to vote on rights, regardless of what you think Baker v. Nelson did or did not do.
That aside, are you deluded? We don't like in a democracy. We live in a representative republic. We elect officials who are then required to formulate laws on the basis of the allowances granted to them by the constitution and the bill of rights.
Welcome to your country. Stay a while, please. Just don't be so fucking uninformed while you're here.
if you want to believe that there is some kind of right to gay marriage, fine.
but there is no basis behind it. not a single amendment would confer a right to gay marriage. i Guarantee you. so you can go ahead and believe in your false premise that its a civil human equal rights issue but its just a bunch of emotional HOT AIR.
Ummm that is NOT a new right...its been an issue for 44 years and hunnychild Im not waiting another 44 for my marriage to be recognized as legal. I feel the gay community has waited long enough for that.
Go to Wikipedia and type in Baker v. Nelson. The case will show you that the same court in Loving v Virginia not only distinguished same sex marriage from interracial marriage, but established it as a right that does not exist under the constitution and never did.
so the 14 amendment does not confer a RIGHT to gay marriage anymore than it does for polygamy.
As a matter of fact, they were wrong. Horribly and inexcusably wrong. Civil rights should NOT be voted on. Civil rights are innate, evident, and ours by the simple fact that we are all human. Vilifying people and stripping them of those rights just because you disagree with their lifestyle is fundamentally wrong.
The majority simply decided to be homophobic bigots who demand to have their rights and "traditions" protected, and then go around condemning other people and taking away THEIR rights. Just because the majority has the control doesn't mean they should abuse it and force their beliefs on everybody else.
The majority spoke? Last I checked, the purpose of a democracy is not to enact the will of the majority, but to protect the rights of the minority. A society which legislates the will of the majority alone and ignores the minority is tyrannical.
Same-sex marriage has nothing to do with pedophilia. JasperAvi made it clear that as long as two people are both CONSENTING ADULTS, they should be able to marry. A child would not count as a consenting adult.
I was just using the word democracy because that is what most people associate with our government. You're right, we are in fact a republic, but that doesn't make a difference in the argument I presented. That was just a marginal error in semantics that I fully admit to. If I could, I'd edit my post; alas, I cannot.
The argument I presented was that the point of a democracy is not to enact the will of the majority, but to protect the rights of the minority. The rights of the minority (and the rights of ALL people) are fully protected under our republic. Read the Constitution.
First of all, I don't understand why you find it necessary to be so vulgar. Using such vile language just makes you sound idiotic, and makes me not even want to consider your post. How old are you, that you consider words like those to be appropriate for presenting a view? Against my better judgement, I'm going to read your post and point out its flaws.
your analogy to homosexuality and race is misguided. being gay may or may not be a choice but living the gay lifestyle is a choice and that's why we are here. the government doesn't ask you whether you are gay or straight. sexual orientation has nothing to do with the issue.you can't compare an immutable characteristic (race gender etc) to somebody's behavior. A lifestyle is not a minority. Jews, blacks and women were discriminated against for who they were not for who they were having sex with
Today's "conservatives" are actually anything but. They are big government neo-conservative collectivist fascists who want the government to dictate and impose religious beliefs on the populous as a whole.
They also refuse to recognize homosexuals as a minority group, because they believe that people "choose" to be gay and are not born that way.
This is a clear case of the majority tyrannizing the minority, as most people are heterosexuals who feel that gays and gay marriage are icky.
@jonnyrocket77 todays conservatives are really a bunch of hateful selfish rednecks who hate poor people, any minority that isn't white christian or straight,cities,anything that might be conceived as cosmopolitan or foreign. or anything that is intelligent
In the main, I agree with you. It amazes me how those who oppose gay marriage and homosexuality believe that they can disparage gays in every possible way imaginable, but it's OK as long as they say, "but I'm not a bigot" afterwards..
Ultimately, IMO, this issue will be decided by the Supreme Court. If the SCOTUS OK's gay marriage, the religious right will flip their collective lids and follow the Bible's teaching by putting our blood upon us.
Hey, it's Virginia. I just wanted to say that I find it ridiculous that I can marry some random guy I meet on the streets so that we can receive government benefits... when homosexual couples, who have been together and loved each other for decades, cannot receive the same benefits or have their relationship recognized... Why do I have more of a right to marry a stranger than a homosexual person does to marry their partner? THAT is just absurd.
The ballot for next year in Maine is even worse. There may be a citizen initiative to legally define marriage, take sexual orientation off of anti-discrimination laws, and stop funding for Civil Rights groups in public schools. Its sick.
Actually, just to wake people up, we should get 55.000 signatures to ban interfaith marriage and get the question to the ballot. It would take 55.000 people to understand that we are not really trying to stop Catholics and Protestants from marrying, but make people understand something.
I'm going to try to get a petition put together that requests a ban on interfaith marriages in New York.
I don't want people to vote on it, but I presume that what will happen is people will move to call it ludicrous that we are voting on the rights and allowances of other individuals instead of moving to our constitution to discern right from wrong as it relates to what we allow of our fellow citizens. And, as a result, my point will be proven.
And if the constitution does clearly state something about this, then you'd have a valid point. But the whole recent development is beyond what the constitution says.
Jasper, the bill of rights doesn't use vague language like that. It's generally a bit more specific, and if you want to make an argument from constitution, that's what you should've had in a video instead of just asserting that voting is wrong, when voting is in fact what made the constitution.
@JasperAvi can i suggest instead that we get together a petition that NULLIFIES the marriages of straight people, starting with politicians and members of the clergy who are married
still NOT marriage. Come up with a same-sex version of the word, your own ceremony...THAT you are free to do...it's just NOT marriage. Don't scream about civil rights...you are not in slavery, you are not getting beaten by police, you are not having to use less adequate facilities...none of that!!! You simply can't call it marriage. MOVE ON, be happy that you live in a free enough society that you can practice homosexuality...unlike the theocracies of the middle east. Get over it.
That is probably one of the most veiled displays of condescending crap I've seen in a long time.
The fact of the matter is that YOU are just fine with all the adjustments that have been made to the definition so far. The second we attempt to move this definition to include homosexuals you lose your mind over it. I sense a serious distaste for homosexuals and their right to be seen as equals.
It sucks that you don't want them included, just be honest as to why.
I see them as equal. They can be whatever they want to be in this country...doctors, students( a right that WAS denied to certain races at one time), teachers...I even think they should be able to serve openly in the military. I'm veiling NOTHING. Homosexuality is NOT a race. It is a lifestyle. Period. Truth be told, Government should NOT be involved in marriage on ANY level...I'm pretty libertarian on this issue, actually.
The problem is the old saying, "if you give a mouse a cookie...". They have obtained enough acceptance in society to live freely. Sure, there are still idiots who physically and verbally persecute them, but people do the same thing to conservatives, Muslims, Christians, Jews...All I'm saying is this, marriage IS 1 man and 1woman...welcome to the party of those who state a belief for something. Peace.
If your entire argument is semantic then it's clear you don't have a real foot to stand on.
What reason do we have to sit here and argue over whether or not we use the same word for, essentially, the same societal recognition?
Why are you so confined to maintaining the status quo for the meaning of this word? We change the meaning of words almost monthly, what about this word is so fucking sacred?
Name 5 words for which we changed the meaning in the last 5 months...
I don't want the status quo...I want government OUT of the marriage business altogether. I know plenty of folks that are against gay marriage that would get on board, in an instant, with the movement to get govern completely out of the marriage business...taxation, probate, health insurance, dower rights.All of it. If marriage is to be a private matter, then len it be private.
I'm not disagreeing that the government should get out of the marriage business.... Well, not outright.
However, while they are handing out benefits and social recognition to certain people, there is no reason, ESPECIALLY not for reasons of semantics, to disallow homosexuals to tak part.
On that, we agree. Homosexual couples should have tehEXACT same legal protections, and I think they do, for the most part. I think less government involvement would go a long way in settling this debate though. You have to get a license to get married...fee. Divorce/absolution...fee. Filinf those things...fee.
They should change the tax code, and eliminate anything to do with marriage. I find it funny that folks who are against gay marriage seem to whine about the government..yet...
Yet they still want marriage protected by the government they complain about so much. Get marriage out of the pervue of the government, and people can any wedding ceremony they desire...without having a "licensed" minister or justice of the peace. They can have whomever they want perform it, write their own vows...truly make it a private ceremony with a long, healthy life together afterward.
0 for 31. It's NOT civil liberties. It's about redefining words. I don't care who marries whom...as long as it's 1 woman and 1 man. Homosexuality is NOT a race. It is a lifestyle choice. You guys have NO intellectual foundation on this issue. You ARE FREE to be gay. You are FREE to live with whoever you want. Even with those freedoms, you cannot be married. Marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman. Go ahead, commit to the same person for the rest of your life, you ARE FREE to do that...still NOT...
When the will of the majority infringes upon the rights of the minority, should the majority's control over the situation be relinquished?
I just don't think that civil rights should be put up to a vote. Civil rights are supposed to be inherent, not something that you are only allowed to have if the rest of society deems it acceptable.
We should just vote to ban divorce. After all, it does protect the children, and "traditional family values." Can't have one parent raising those children now! Need the mother and father, right conservatives?
Great video, i understand your frustration over the media coverage in US. But how dose it look over all, do they only cover BS from your point of wiev Jasper ?
But my right to not be forced under threat of kidnap and imprisonment to give up 75% of the money I earn should be up to majority vote?
So the government is extorting a huge percentage of our earnings from us and taking on so much debt that they're turning our children into future wage slaves for China, but the real issue we should worry about is how the government doesn't allow gay people to marry?!
Majority vote doesn't decide how much money is given up.
That aside, this video isn't quite the time or place for me to have to, once again, explain why your anti-statism is essentially unsupportable and destined to failure.
@SuperGate1 you're so stupid, faggot. To hell with you!
SmartBoy224 1 year ago
gay marriage is sick and against the nature
SmartBoy224 1 year ago
@SmartBoy224 Fool. Homosexuality is seen plenty in nature. Most of this hate spawns from religion which serves no purpose and never has. Once religon is gone the earth can start to become a normal place once more.
SuperGate1 1 year ago
Love your video. I too cannot believe we're still arguing about the fact that majority CANNOT vote on the rights of a minority!
matinhanif 1 year ago
amen!
chargeit24 2 years ago
Say what you want. But try to be rational. Don't conflate homosexual behavior with other civil rights struggles. Homosexuals do not and should not have any inalienable right to have their perversion legitimized. And I also have same sex attraction, but I can see where legitimizing such behavior will go.
Xpistos2 2 years ago
Not to go off message here too much, but there is nothing wrong with special punishments for Hate Crimes. If you don't think so, how can you justify the various statutes for the different degrees of murder? i.e. murder in the first degree, or second degree, or third degree or manslaughter?
smrne 2 years ago
Those distinctions have nothing to do with motivation, but with varying degrees of intention to kill and how emotional vs rational you were at the time of the crime (i.e. did you know your wife was having an affair and so you came home to catch them and kill him, or did you happen to come home, catch them, and get so angry that you hit him in the head with a lamp and killed him in the process?).
pali1d 2 years ago
sure they do. Premeditated murder will get you more time or death than the others.
smrne 2 years ago
Yes, but whether a murder is premeditated or not has little to do with one's motivations for committing it (beyond showing that it was not a momentary emotional override of one's rational faculties). Whether something is a hate crime or not is judged purely by motivation - why did you target this person?
Personally, I'm not sure that I support the distinction for hate crimes. It's a step towards punishing people for thought crimes.
pali1d 2 years ago
I disagree. Hate crimes are crimes that are not just perpetrated against an individual victim, but rather against a targeted group in order to terrorize them. An example would be lynchings in the South against blacks. It was to terrorize the black communities. Same with random attacks of gays.
smrne 2 years ago
Then call it terrorism.
pali1d 2 years ago
you're pwned
smrne 2 years ago
...by your lack of a response? Well done sir. You have out-Youtube commented me through fiendish trickery, and I am thus intellectually slain.
pali1d 2 years ago
LOL...we can just agree to not see eye to eye on this issue. :-)
smrne 2 years ago
Fair enough. ^_^
pali1d 2 years ago
Why don't you take the time to look at what they're teaching in schools. Making an 11 year old girl draw disgusting pictures?
WTF.
prepper1987 2 years ago
I could care less if they were making 11 year old girls draw the most obscene pictures known to man....
That has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not we give equal rights to equally deserving citizens.
JasperAvi 2 years ago
@JasperAvi You already have equal rights. What you want is special rights. I.E. hate crimes.
prepper1987 2 years ago
Seriously, what the hell are you talking about?
I haven't mentioned hate crimes. I've merely argued that we should not allow the state to infringe on the rights of one group of people meaninglessly. We no longer have government barring of interracial marriage, it should be the same for gay marriage
JasperAvi 2 years ago
@JasperAvi I agree with you 100% then.
As long as homosexuals fight with us against the pedo lobby taking over our school system. Young children shouldn't be exposed to the crap they're being exposed to.
prepper1987 2 years ago
Comment removed
sucare1961 2 years ago
Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code. (1992)
We still hold five seats on the Supreme court. "Conservatives", dissenting from Barry Goldwater's original disapproval of government, are screaming for the seat of Anthony Kennedy. The have to wait at least four years to get it... and that's if Obama isn't re-elected!
See you in Court! You know, that place where segregation was ended and where blacks were given the total freedom to marry whites...
MrJSchrader 2 years ago
I am actually in therapy for my homophobia.
I was molested at age 11 by a homosexual, and while I know there are many good homosexuals out there, there is a strong undercurrent of pederasty in the homosexual community that I am fighting against.
prayforthegaycure 2 years ago
pray for the prayforthegaycure cure
unpeacefulone 2 years ago
Jasper, while I empathize with your frustration, I would like to offer some constructive criticism. The use of expletives tends to make one appear less intellectual and thus, the statements fail to make the impact that they otherwise would have without them.
I subscribed to you after James gave you a shout out and I really enjoy your videos, and your insight.
I know you are better than this video and I agree that voting on civil rights is absolutely preposterous.
rockman1969 2 years ago
I think that sometimes expletives are not only proper, but might in fact be necessary.
There was no way of expressing my discontent with the circumstance without being up front and, sorry to say, inflammatory. I apologize if it had any effect on your opinion of me or my intellect, but I deemed the way in which I approached this message appropriate.
Thanks for the compliments and I appreciate you sticking around and following my videos.
Happy Thanksgiving Day to you and yours. Be well. :)
JasperAvi 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
homosexuals and pedophiles should NOT have "rights" that normal people have.
I could just imagine what two homosexuals would do with a little boy!
prayforthegaycure 2 years ago
Welcome to my channel, troll.
Enjoy your stay.
JasperAvi 2 years ago
@prayforthegaycure If being gay means you molest little boys, does being straight make you molest little girls?
Im not gonna insult you, cos thats what you want.......
Fucking idiot
1234funsies 2 years ago 2
@prayforthegaycure unfortunately for you, you were born in the 20th/21st century, where homophobia is known to be the bigoted view of sexually repressed, superstitious clergymen and their victims. By the way, you know what they say about homophobes right?
MagicofAramis 2 years ago
that's democracy for ya, screw democracy. and what really infuriates me is many of my gay friends act like this is a legitimate process and we just gotta convince the majority we're right.
Sean2046 2 years ago
Thank you Jasper. I was very depressed over the vote in Maine, but seeing this video is encouraging. I've never seen a straight man defend marriage for gays with such passion; it was truly moving.
<3
miamlarda 2 years ago 2
Thank you.
The only thing we can do is keep pointing out the insanity of the idea of civil rights on the ballot. It's shameful and a disgrace. It creates a monopoly on civil rights. Only the groups in favor with the majority will retain theirs if this trend continues.
Being gay myself, it's both infuriating and exciting to be alive at this time in history. Everyone has a chance to really humanity to that next level, and that chance doesn't come along all that often.
AshaVahista 2 years ago
"really push humanity" rather.
AshaVahista 2 years ago
Yet another case of a SLIM majority overturning gay peoples rights, only 53% of people voted to overturn the measure, just give it some time, obviously it will happen, just have to be patient and keep trying!!!!!!!
hfxmike85 2 years ago
We're getting closer and closer!
It can get tiring though.
JasperAvi 2 years ago
as a gay male in Canada, we never had to really deal with all of this drama, but i am 100% supportive of the fight, and wish everyone luck!!
hfxmike85 2 years ago
if they want to keep the traditional family unit sacred, why not outlaw divorce. That'll rub a few buns, I'll bet.
bjcdrama 2 years ago
24 hour news networks can't be taken seriously. That is where the protest needs to be. They trash and justify a system of beliefs that the population consistently disagrees with. It's the propaganda model.
jim30333 2 years ago
You're honestly going to take the 24 hour news networks seriously? Virtually everything reported is an indirect control mechanism with those channels.
jim30333 2 years ago
There are 1 million people in Maine. Yes, it's lame but take the 2004 elections. Dominated by gay marriage while 600,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed during the Iraq war. That is 3/5ths the population of Maine.
jim30333 2 years ago
If you can't hear it thats the sound of the Worlds smallest violin. The voters voted loud and clear in 31 states
It's laughable how you guys read a few pro gay marriage articles, watch a few TV shows, protest a little here and there, and try to "educate" the rest of the "ignorant". You get your hopes up only to be brought back down to Earth. What it says is that a lot of regular folk don't care about the issue, but on voting day Marriage is only between a Man and Woman.
Maybe next time?
TheLibertariansUnite 2 years ago
So sad....
I don't know whether to continue to respond with logical argumentation or to weep/cry given your complete lack of recognition of the innate equality we have with homosexuals and they should have as it relates to civil allowances....
It's just incredibly sad.
I just hope in my time that people banishing others simply for the sake of adhering to their own bigotry becomes a thing of the past.
JasperAvi 2 years ago
Mainers didn't vote on marriage equality..they voted on, per the yes on 1 campaign..not 'teaching explicit homosexual sex in schools.' This ballot measure was a petty way of postponing marriage equality in Maine by a few years. I expect it will be legalized again in 2012 (not 2010, becuase that's illegal under Maine law, and not 2011, becuase that is another off year where the same bigots could try another '09 stunt again and win...maybe.)
Jaric55 2 years ago
It's in Maine's Constitutional Amendment. So the answer is NO it will probably not be legalized. The way this country is going, it is going more conservative and anti-liberal every day.
Those good old fashioned voters ie. Grandma, Grandpa, African Americans, and those middle class workers who frequent those TEA parties, try to convince them that gays should be allowed to marry. This is still a Christian Nation, and they say loud and clear NO!
I'll say it in Spanish also: ¡No!
TheLibertariansUnite 2 years ago
You are not a libertarian. You need a new name like a Constitutionalist. Ron Paul is not really a libertarian either (though he has his high points) but he does supports gays being able to marry personally. Libertarians don't believe states have any rights, just individuals and their autonomy preferable should be respected. You have conflated libertarianism with supporting a national Constitution. Libertarians support the idea of liberty over any state legal document.
IndividualAutonomy 2 years ago
I'll post it again... Which of your rights have been violated?
When did you have to sit in the back of a bus? When have you had to drink from a special drinking fountain for gays/straights? When have you had to play on gay/straight separate sports teams?
They put this constitutional amendment in so a farmer can't marry his horse. It is working as intended. Marriage is between a Man and a Woman... Did you not get that memo? Did your parents not teach you that?
Liberals got to you first?
TheLibertariansUnite 2 years ago
You really don't know much about historically libertarianism and libertarian theory do you? Free association, voluntary interaction, mutual agreed to contract? All of those encompass gay marriage and any other consensual relationship between people. Whether a horse can consent to a marriage seems obvious, but even so I don't see how a horse would care or even realize that a farmer married it.
IndividualAutonomy 2 years ago
The definition of marriage and the degree of the allowed autonomy of those involved has changed throughout history. There is no set definition. Also, liberalism historically was in line with individual liberty, classical liberalism was for individual liberty during its time. However, modern day so called "liberalism" is not, and neither is conservatism or Constitutionalism.
IndividualAutonomy 2 years ago
Homosexuals, in many states in this union as you have pointed out, are being segregated from the institution of marriage at this very moment.
The arrogantly ignorant quality of your posts show that you are most likely incapable of understanding that, as they show you to undoubtedly be arrogant and ignorant.
Really, you're shooting yourself in the foot with every response you post, and are accomplishing nothing more than turning what could be a civil discussion into a sophomoric insult contest.
jonnyrocket77 2 years ago
I agree. It's a shame that the Libertarian Movement in America has been hijacked by paleo-conservatives, and even a few neo-conservatives (Bob Barr).
dartaddict 2 years ago
Lol wow you really don't pay attention. That wasn't a constitutional amendment [Q1]. LOL. You actually think our country is getting MORE conservative!? LMAO. You must be living in a church basement! Come out and smell the liberal sunshine! This never was a 'christian nation.' ALSO, the Federal Constitution overules all state constitutions...so it doens't matter what they say, including California (where there was an ACTUAL constitutional revision).
Jaric55 2 years ago
Come out of your church basement, and pay attention. Q1 was not a constitional amendment...it was simply a veto..the legislature can pass the law again in 2011. ALSO, even if Maine passed a constitutional amendment, it is overruled by the Federal Constitution...so it wouln't matter when the Supreme Court strikes down all marriage equality bans. By the way, this NEVER was a 'christian nation.' LMAO, you think this country is getting more conservative!? You're in for a rude awakening.
Jaric55 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Maine fucked up?
They did the right thing. How did they fuck up if they did the right thing and voted Yes???
TheLibertariansUnite 2 years ago
No, they did not 'do the right thing.' The right thing would be to uphold the Constitution, which requires marriage equality under the 14th amendment.
Jaric55 2 years ago
As a self-proclaimed libertarian you should actually support marriage equality and not a state ban on personal liberties.
coolthomas2011 2 years ago 4
Often, "Libertarians" only love personal liberties when its THEIR personal liberties on the line.
Devin1488 2 years ago 2
Well that's where you're wrong Thomas. You're don't even know what Libertarians believe.
Libertarians believe in EQUAL rights for all citizens and you don't get special rights because you are one race, one color, or because you are gay. The 14th amendment does that already.
Answer this. When did you have to sit in the back of a bus? When have you had to drink from a special drinking fountain for gays/straights? When have you had to play in gay/straight separate sports teams? Never...
TheLibertariansUnite 2 years ago
It's terribly sad that you don't even see the ridiculousness in your own commentary.
JasperAvi 2 years ago
I hate to be the one to have tell you this....but buddy you're conservative not libertarian....Libertarians are against government involvement. They feel governments should just do very simple things. It's not about equality.
P.S. Ron Paul supports marriage equality.
Coretta Scott King: "A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay bashing and it would do nothing at all to protect traditional marriage."
coolthomas2011 2 years ago
I hate to be the one to tell you this but Ron Paul supports the states right to either accept or ban gay marriage.
10th Amendment: Those powers not delegated to the Federal Government by the Constitution, nor prohibited to them by the states, are reserved for the States or to the People.
The People say NO. So Ron Paul would say it is a state issue, if the state says NO, then the State's decision must be respected. Mainers made the "right" decision in their mind.
TheLibertariansUnite 2 years ago
Regardless of the vote. As a libertarian you should believe that the government should not be involved in hindering the freedoms of the people...including the freedoms of a civil marriage.
coolthomas2011 2 years ago
There is a lot of talk about how people don't want marriage "redefined."
What these people are really saying when they say such things is that they don't want people to have the freedom to define marriage for themselves as an individual. Rather, they want to impose a collectivist definition of marriage on society as a whole and have that definition enforced by the state.
Communism much?
jonnyrocket77 2 years ago 5
Yep, all these Yes on 1 people are voting for is a Stepford society, where the women are locked in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant; and the men are out working and having affairs with their secretaries a la Mad Men.
Devin1488 2 years ago
It`s funny too see USA today. I live in a country where gay people have been legaly marryiage since 1992. Today we call it sexneutral marriagelows. And the funny thing is that the world has not gone to hell just because two people of the same sex have the same rights as everybody else.
piksib 2 years ago 2
Marraige is not a "civil right." Nothing is more annoying than hearing about this "civil rights" issue. Marraige is merely a subsidy the government gives to certain individuals in a relationship. Of course I'm against gaymarriage, but I'm also against straight marriage too. The Gov't has no place to grant subsidies to relationships, which in turn the rest of us have to eat. If people want to get married, go to a church, secular organization, it's not a government issue.
tyrantslayer999 2 years ago
Whether or not the government should be involved in marriages is a separate issue.
The issue at hand is: considering that, at this point in time, our government IS involved in marriages, is it okay for some people to be able to be married while some are not? As we're all human, we all deserve the same inherent right to marry who we want to, when we want to, if we want to.
paradi9m 2 years ago
Just because you don't believe in marriage at all doesn't mean you should subject everybody else to that view. I, and other people I assume, would very much like to be married someday.
paradi9m 2 years ago
A valdid perspective, but your failing to see that your view does just that: Enforced everyone to adopt such a view. I hve no problem at all with private marriage. But if you subsidize relationships with tax breaks, the rest of us are forced to pay for it.
tyrantslayer999 2 years ago
My view is not necessarily that government should be subsidizing marriages at all. But if they are going to be giving special privileges and subsidies to some people, everyone should be able to receive them. Homosexuals pay taxes as well. Why should they be forced to pay when only straight marriages are subsidized with tax breaks?
paradi9m 2 years ago
Here is the thing though: You say that people are "forced to pay".Hunnychild, I am forced to pay school tax when I have no children who attend school. Should I have to pay a school tax and can I bring that before the people for a vote that all single people who have no children in school should they be "forced" to pay a school tax on heterosexuals who have children in school?
morph39 2 years ago
I never thought of the precedent-for-removing-rights thing. Very good point.
anavarre 2 years ago
Thanks :)
JasperAvi 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"Land of the free" my ass
That's the problem with you faggots. You think your ass is the land of the free.
Well it's not.
MrSTANDFORAMERICA 2 years ago
I'm not sure whether or not you thought this was witty....
So, I'll clarify for you: It isn't.
Oh, and I'm not gay, I just recognize them as equally deserving of the rights I have.
Smart ass.
JasperAvi 2 years ago
Now that's just what the nut that wants to marry his dog said. It's the samething the nut that wants to have sex with 18 month olds said.
Now days every nut thinks it's their right.
MrSTANDFORAMERICA 2 years ago
Right, congratulations. You're the first person I'm going to block.
Hooray!
JasperAvi 2 years ago
You have a gift, my friend. Your argument is so fucking compelling!!!
Last I checked, by virtue of being a fucking dog or an 18 month old, they wouldn't count as a "consenting adult." Therefore, they would not be able to be married. You're comparing homosexuals, who are two consenting adults who have realized that they want to love each other, to weird perverts who have one-sided feelings of lust for animals and babies.
Way to fucking go.
paradi9m 2 years ago
Good morning and welcome back to the hell that is people in real life.
Sleep well? lol
JasperAvi 2 years ago
I slept okay, actually woke up kind of on time! I'm about to go get breakfast. How did you sleep? :)
paradi9m 2 years ago
Like a rock. Woke up late, naturally. Aaah!
JasperAvi 2 years ago
So did I! Now I have my french quiz. Je dois etudier pour mon examen de francais!
paradi9m 2 years ago
No speaka the frencha
JasperAvi 2 years ago
Tu ne parles pas le francais. Je parle un peu le francais.
Haha. How's Russian coming along?
paradi9m 2 years ago
Haven't had the chance to do it in forever....
Been busy reading and working and other fun stuff. :)
How was class?
JasperAvi 2 years ago
MrSTANDFOR AMERICA...Go Fuck Yourself!
morph39 2 years ago
You are a moron - do some research and discover how our government works. You would take a democracy and turn it into a tyranny.
LemurFox 2 years ago
Who was this addressed to?
JasperAvi 2 years ago
I believe this was addressed to my comment below, where I mentioned the will of the majority vs. the rights of the minority (and the "majority rules" thing being tyrannical).
paradi9m 2 years ago
I'm not pretending to be an expert as to the exact protocols of government. I am saying that a government concerned only with enacting what the majority believes to be right is not fair to the minority. The rights of the minority must still be protected. If you were stripped of your rights, because everyone else thought it would be a good idea, you'd complain too.
paradi9m 2 years ago
No matter what age, race, sex, sexual orientation, etc. you describe yourself as, "civil rights" are your birthright as a human being, and that has nothing to do with the government. The fundamental and most important task of the government is to protect those rights, for everyone, not just a select group who are part of a majority.
paradi9m 2 years ago
Unfortunately people actually believe THEIR right to protect marriage is in jeopardy. People actually believe that.
There's certain things I don't think our society as a whole understands.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago 3
Yes, it saddens me.
JasperAvi 2 years ago
therefore, Same sex couples do not have a SPECIAL right to redefine marriage for everybody else; the " will of the people" have a FUNDAMENTAL right under the tenth amendment to do such a task because we live in a democracy not an aristocracy. In baker v. nelson, the case called citizens for equal protection will show you that citizens do have a right to vote on rights just as long as they are NEW rights , such as same sex marriage.
kenballer00 2 years ago
It's asinine to allow citizens to vote on rights, regardless of what you think Baker v. Nelson did or did not do.
That aside, are you deluded? We don't like in a democracy. We live in a representative republic. We elect officials who are then required to formulate laws on the basis of the allowances granted to them by the constitution and the bill of rights.
Welcome to your country. Stay a while, please. Just don't be so fucking uninformed while you're here.
JasperAvi 2 years ago
if you want to believe that there is some kind of right to gay marriage, fine.
but there is no basis behind it. not a single amendment would confer a right to gay marriage. i Guarantee you. so you can go ahead and believe in your false premise that its a civil human equal rights issue but its just a bunch of emotional HOT AIR.
kenballer00 2 years ago
I appreciate this.
You have now given me the last bit of incentive I needed to make an entire video trumping these absolutely asinine responses.
You can thank me later.
JasperAvi 2 years ago
Kenballer...GO FUCK YOURSELF!
morph39 2 years ago
Ummm that is NOT a new right...its been an issue for 44 years and hunnychild Im not waiting another 44 for my marriage to be recognized as legal. I feel the gay community has waited long enough for that.
morph39 2 years ago
Go to Wikipedia and type in Baker v. Nelson. The case will show you that the same court in Loving v Virginia not only distinguished same sex marriage from interracial marriage, but established it as a right that does not exist under the constitution and never did.
so the 14 amendment does not confer a RIGHT to gay marriage anymore than it does for polygamy.
continuing.....
kenballer00 2 years ago
Maine fucked up?
How about the other 30 states that voted before them? Were they wrong too?
NOPE the people have spoken and thats all that matters.
The voices of 31 states have been heard, It is you that is wrong.
MrSpamkiller 2 years ago
As a matter of fact, they were wrong. Horribly and inexcusably wrong. Civil rights should NOT be voted on. Civil rights are innate, evident, and ours by the simple fact that we are all human. Vilifying people and stripping them of those rights just because you disagree with their lifestyle is fundamentally wrong.
paradi9m 2 years ago
The majority simply decided to be homophobic bigots who demand to have their rights and "traditions" protected, and then go around condemning other people and taking away THEIR rights. Just because the majority has the control doesn't mean they should abuse it and force their beliefs on everybody else.
So, it is YOU that is wrong.
paradi9m 2 years ago
Majority rule does NOT mean "constitutionally or equality -based soundness".
JasperAvi 2 years ago
The majority spoke? Last I checked, the purpose of a democracy is not to enact the will of the majority, but to protect the rights of the minority. A society which legislates the will of the majority alone and ignores the minority is tyrannical.
Same-sex marriage has nothing to do with pedophilia. JasperAvi made it clear that as long as two people are both CONSENTING ADULTS, they should be able to marry. A child would not count as a consenting adult.
paradi9m 2 years ago
Last time I checked we were a republic.
spucy 2 years ago
I was just using the word democracy because that is what most people associate with our government. You're right, we are in fact a republic, but that doesn't make a difference in the argument I presented. That was just a marginal error in semantics that I fully admit to. If I could, I'd edit my post; alas, I cannot.
paradi9m 2 years ago
The argument I presented was that the point of a democracy is not to enact the will of the majority, but to protect the rights of the minority. The rights of the minority (and the rights of ALL people) are fully protected under our republic. Read the Constitution.
paradi9m 2 years ago 2
First of all, I don't understand why you find it necessary to be so vulgar. Using such vile language just makes you sound idiotic, and makes me not even want to consider your post. How old are you, that you consider words like those to be appropriate for presenting a view? Against my better judgement, I'm going to read your post and point out its flaws.
paradi9m 2 years ago
your analogy to homosexuality and race is misguided. being gay may or may not be a choice but living the gay lifestyle is a choice and that's why we are here. the government doesn't ask you whether you are gay or straight. sexual orientation has nothing to do with the issue.you can't compare an immutable characteristic (race gender etc) to somebody's behavior. A lifestyle is not a minority. Jews, blacks and women were discriminated against for who they were not for who they were having sex with
kenballer00 2 years ago
Who they love is ABSOLUTELY not a fucking choice.
JasperAvi 2 years ago
Are YOU old enough to master basic grammar and word usage? Last I checked, "gangster" wasn't a verb, e.g. you cannot "gangster" someone.
paradi9m 2 years ago
I <3 you V.
JasperAvi 2 years ago
LOL
JasperAvi 2 years ago
Every time I reread this, I'm amused all over again!
paradi9m 2 years ago
there is not a single amendment that confers a right to same sex marriage
kenballer00 2 years ago
Today's "conservatives" are actually anything but. They are big government neo-conservative collectivist fascists who want the government to dictate and impose religious beliefs on the populous as a whole.
They also refuse to recognize homosexuals as a minority group, because they believe that people "choose" to be gay and are not born that way.
This is a clear case of the majority tyrannizing the minority, as most people are heterosexuals who feel that gays and gay marriage are icky.
jonnyrocket77 2 years ago
@jonnyrocket77 todays conservatives are really a bunch of hateful selfish rednecks who hate poor people, any minority that isn't white christian or straight,cities,anything that might be conceived as cosmopolitan or foreign. or anything that is intelligent
MrRockythesquirrel 2 years ago
In the main, I agree with you. It amazes me how those who oppose gay marriage and homosexuality believe that they can disparage gays in every possible way imaginable, but it's OK as long as they say, "but I'm not a bigot" afterwards..
Ultimately, IMO, this issue will be decided by the Supreme Court. If the SCOTUS OK's gay marriage, the religious right will flip their collective lids and follow the Bible's teaching by putting our blood upon us.
jonnyrocket77 2 years ago
I know this has nothing to do with the video, but you are very cute! xD And I completely agree with you on this!
sadguyfoundout1 2 years ago
Hey, it's Virginia. I just wanted to say that I find it ridiculous that I can marry some random guy I meet on the streets so that we can receive government benefits... when homosexual couples, who have been together and loved each other for decades, cannot receive the same benefits or have their relationship recognized... Why do I have more of a right to marry a stranger than a homosexual person does to marry their partner? THAT is just absurd.
paradi9m 2 years ago
This is un-related to the video, but are you a vegatarian?
crpx14 2 years ago
The ballot for next year in Maine is even worse. There may be a citizen initiative to legally define marriage, take sexual orientation off of anti-discrimination laws, and stop funding for Civil Rights groups in public schools. Its sick.
Amilitantatheist 2 years ago
Liberty means free from government control. So If you are for liberty be against government totally. Not when you don't benefit from state extortion.
ocelot814 2 years ago
Actually, just to wake people up, we should get 55.000 signatures to ban interfaith marriage and get the question to the ballot. It would take 55.000 people to understand that we are not really trying to stop Catholics and Protestants from marrying, but make people understand something.
lianghh 2 years ago
That really isn't a bad idea at all.
I'm wondering if we can in fact make that happen.
I think we should start a campaign to get people together, groups in each state, to work to get 50,000 signatures by next year.
Maybe it will make it clear that trying to place people's rights, constitutionally granted ones, up on the populous' chocking block is asinine.
I'd be willing to work on this if you, or someone else, would like to.
In fact, this will be my next video. What a great idea!
JasperAvi 2 years ago
I am not in the US, so cannot do anything offline. Contact me via youtube messaging if you want help.
lianghh 2 years ago
I will make sure to announce this in my next video. It will certainly have a thank you made out to you.
JasperAvi 2 years ago
Comment removed
legodesi 2 years ago
I'm going to try to get a petition put together that requests a ban on interfaith marriages in New York.
I don't want people to vote on it, but I presume that what will happen is people will move to call it ludicrous that we are voting on the rights and allowances of other individuals instead of moving to our constitution to discern right from wrong as it relates to what we allow of our fellow citizens. And, as a result, my point will be proven.
JasperAvi 2 years ago
And if the constitution does clearly state something about this, then you'd have a valid point. But the whole recent development is beyond what the constitution says.
legodesi 2 years ago
Our Bill of Rights and Declaration make it very clear that are not to disenfranchise certain members because we don't like them.
JasperAvi 2 years ago
Jasper, the bill of rights doesn't use vague language like that. It's generally a bit more specific, and if you want to make an argument from constitution, that's what you should've had in a video instead of just asserting that voting is wrong, when voting is in fact what made the constitution.
legodesi 2 years ago
@JasperAvi can i suggest instead that we get together a petition that NULLIFIES the marriages of straight people, starting with politicians and members of the clergy who are married
MrRockythesquirrel 2 years ago
oops..."let it be private"
MrProgressivelib 2 years ago
still NOT marriage. Come up with a same-sex version of the word, your own ceremony...THAT you are free to do...it's just NOT marriage. Don't scream about civil rights...you are not in slavery, you are not getting beaten by police, you are not having to use less adequate facilities...none of that!!! You simply can't call it marriage. MOVE ON, be happy that you live in a free enough society that you can practice homosexuality...unlike the theocracies of the middle east. Get over it.
MrProgressivelib 2 years ago
That is probably one of the most veiled displays of condescending crap I've seen in a long time.
The fact of the matter is that YOU are just fine with all the adjustments that have been made to the definition so far. The second we attempt to move this definition to include homosexuals you lose your mind over it. I sense a serious distaste for homosexuals and their right to be seen as equals.
It sucks that you don't want them included, just be honest as to why.
JasperAvi 2 years ago
I see them as equal. They can be whatever they want to be in this country...doctors, students( a right that WAS denied to certain races at one time), teachers...I even think they should be able to serve openly in the military. I'm veiling NOTHING. Homosexuality is NOT a race. It is a lifestyle. Period. Truth be told, Government should NOT be involved in marriage on ANY level...I'm pretty libertarian on this issue, actually.
MrProgressivelib 2 years ago
The problem is the old saying, "if you give a mouse a cookie...". They have obtained enough acceptance in society to live freely. Sure, there are still idiots who physically and verbally persecute them, but people do the same thing to conservatives, Muslims, Christians, Jews...All I'm saying is this, marriage IS 1 man and 1woman...welcome to the party of those who state a belief for something. Peace.
MrProgressivelib 2 years ago
If your entire argument is semantic then it's clear you don't have a real foot to stand on.
What reason do we have to sit here and argue over whether or not we use the same word for, essentially, the same societal recognition?
Why are you so confined to maintaining the status quo for the meaning of this word? We change the meaning of words almost monthly, what about this word is so fucking sacred?
JasperAvi 2 years ago
"change the meaning of words almost monthly"
Name 5 words for which we changed the meaning in the last 5 months...
I don't want the status quo...I want government OUT of the marriage business altogether. I know plenty of folks that are against gay marriage that would get on board, in an instant, with the movement to get govern completely out of the marriage business...taxation, probate, health insurance, dower rights.All of it. If marriage is to be a private matter, then len it be private.
MrProgressivelib 2 years ago
I'm not disagreeing that the government should get out of the marriage business.... Well, not outright.
However, while they are handing out benefits and social recognition to certain people, there is no reason, ESPECIALLY not for reasons of semantics, to disallow homosexuals to tak part.
JasperAvi 2 years ago
On that, we agree. Homosexual couples should have tehEXACT same legal protections, and I think they do, for the most part. I think less government involvement would go a long way in settling this debate though. You have to get a license to get married...fee. Divorce/absolution...fee. Filinf those things...fee.
They should change the tax code, and eliminate anything to do with marriage. I find it funny that folks who are against gay marriage seem to whine about the government..yet...
MrProgressivelib 2 years ago
Yet they still want marriage protected by the government they complain about so much. Get marriage out of the pervue of the government, and people can any wedding ceremony they desire...without having a "licensed" minister or justice of the peace. They can have whomever they want perform it, write their own vows...truly make it a private ceremony with a long, healthy life together afterward.
MrProgressivelib 2 years ago
THAT is "freedom and justice for all".
MrProgressivelib 2 years ago
0 for 31. It's NOT civil liberties. It's about redefining words. I don't care who marries whom...as long as it's 1 woman and 1 man. Homosexuality is NOT a race. It is a lifestyle choice. You guys have NO intellectual foundation on this issue. You ARE FREE to be gay. You are FREE to live with whoever you want. Even with those freedoms, you cannot be married. Marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman. Go ahead, commit to the same person for the rest of your life, you ARE FREE to do that...still NOT...
MrProgressivelib 2 years ago
Great rant, and right on the money.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
You speak the truth JasperAvi ★★★★★
Katalyzt
Katalyzt 2 years ago
If you believe in democracy, you have to accept that sometimes the majority will vote against the minority.
You, however have the right to free speech and the right to petition your government for change.
Silveracity 2 years ago
When the will of the majority infringes upon the rights of the minority, should the majority's control over the situation be relinquished?
I just don't think that civil rights should be put up to a vote. Civil rights are supposed to be inherent, not something that you are only allowed to have if the rest of society deems it acceptable.
paradi9m 2 years ago
No marriage for gays!
No marriage for straits!
No tax exemptions are worth such mental instabilities!
peanarchist 2 years ago
nice to see a more emotional outburst from you there. You are totally right too.
Ch35h1r3C47 2 years ago
Bad, huh?
Domzdream 2 years ago
Glad to see that someone is speaking out against the stupidity! you have verbalized exactly what we are all feeling! haha KUDOS!
nmffaso 2 years ago
Great vid ! I'm also surprised that this isn't getting much media coverage.
TraePalmer 2 years ago
We should just vote to ban divorce. After all, it does protect the children, and "traditional family values." Can't have one parent raising those children now! Need the mother and father, right conservatives?
Dislekseyuh 2 years ago 3
Great video, i understand your frustration over the media coverage in US. But how dose it look over all, do they only cover BS from your point of wiev Jasper ?
scicoe 2 years ago
There does seem to be an abundance of bullshit.
So, yes.
JasperAvi 2 years ago
Agreed!
Gary4Gary4 2 years ago
amen!
smrne 2 years ago
But my right to not be forced under threat of kidnap and imprisonment to give up 75% of the money I earn should be up to majority vote?
So the government is extorting a huge percentage of our earnings from us and taking on so much debt that they're turning our children into future wage slaves for China, but the real issue we should worry about is how the government doesn't allow gay people to marry?!
JacobSpinney 2 years ago
Majority vote doesn't decide how much money is given up.
That aside, this video isn't quite the time or place for me to have to, once again, explain why your anti-statism is essentially unsupportable and destined to failure.
I <3 you Jacob, but later, friend. LOL
JasperAvi 2 years ago
You have the rights that the government will grant to you, if the majority that vote concur with it.
PaiSand 2 years ago
so rhien, where are your facts?
smrne 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
rhien23 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
lmgtfy d ot co m
rhien23 2 years ago
Thanks Japser. Respect is the key thing here along with equality. I can't understand why people have such a hard time with this.
smrne 2 years ago