Please – watch the video all the way through to the end. The good Reverend makes a point about parallel questions in the history of civil rights.
Thanks, Ursarodinia
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
Preach it!
This man is a perfect example of a Talibangelist. Be afraid.
Whoops. Yeah I should have waited till the end before commenting.
There really is no need to watch the whole thing as the tape starts with: “It says in the Bible…..” //// Of course nothing but BS occurs thereafter.
It is amusing that the bible is NO SOURCE for moral/legal direction. In fact, it is our biological Darwinian DNA sourced human/homo sapien Ape Troop culture that provides our moral outlook. Apes do not support gay marriage…. it violates the Morman code of Superior Apes getting all the babes. Course, Hoomans are not Lesser Apes and differences do arise. But then, Apes don’t believe in marriage at all so maybe that whole analogy fails? …… So….. who cares what Apes or the Bible, or the Book of Morman says? What are we good people living pursuant to the Constitution going to determine for ourselves???
the “problem” with this video is that the argument as stated against interracial marriage IS accepted by too many people, and could easily be reversed to be a calling cry again. such is the recidivist appeal of the Republican Party.
Rmoney—leading in national popularity polls with women. Even monkeys would be ashamed.
You might be interested in the Bonobo chimps. Lots of gay, straight, kinky and butt sex going on with those guys.
They will be interested in them when they want to get ‘married’ the next time.
God, Yaweh, Allah, Zoroaster, Baal, Cthuulu, Moroni, TFSM, Bob, Scientology, all of the named and unnamed deities have one thing in common: They don’t fuckin’ exist.
That man was pulling your leg and without even giving you a reach-around.
I don’t care if that just tears him up inside…
I call bullshit when I step in it.
at first glance on the headline i thought this was a classic joke about three people that walk into a bar…
ok off to watch video
A preacher, Christian fundamentalism and Gay rights guy walk into a bar and all three hate each other because they believe different things.
None of the things each believes in affects the other two but each is upset that the others don’t believe the same way they do.
This is what stupid people do.
BobboNote: yes, this is a bit sketchy with the gay guy “but” he could get everything he wants by private contract==but he would rather force the issue on the others because you know at root, he’s no different from them.
A black man, a gay guy, a Muslim, and a Communist walk into a bar. The bartender says, “How are you doing Mr President!”
oh wait i was right a preacher, some council reps and voters walk into a council meeting….. i forget how the rest of the joke goes…
😛
Racial identity ≠chosen gender identity
No one is equating race and gender. What is being compared is the justifications for discrimination . . .
hate = hate
Isn’t it pretty clear what WITH all the hatred at the statistically less occuring that gender is not a free choice as might be which football team to root for?
NO DOUBT–some very small percentage of people do choose to act out sexually in some manner, or have a period of experimentation but JUST LOOK! Across time and cultures LGBT has been from 4-10% depending on the issue discussed.
Choosing to be gay has the same intentionality as my choosing to be hetero: ie==none.
But what is Freedom?===> LEAVING OTHER PEOPLE ALONE.
COYOTE.
Jack, I fucking hate you.
Who are you to say that someone hates somebody else, you don’t know their heart and I would suggest that you hate that persons individuality to say that you do.
Obviously it’s not gender identity. Go get your forehead slapped now.
If you want to go that route, then consider this:
chosen religious identity ≠chosen gender identity.
What makes one of these any more valid than the other?
I do not believe that sexual orientation is chosen…there is sufficient evidence in my mind that this is something “decided” at an early age, influenced by any number of factors – including those of a genetic origin. Religion on the other hand – is indisputably something one chooses.
the ending is…he was wearing panty hose the whole time…another republican in denial…
Two things (no matter what the video sez’ or shows):
1) Every religion has its own set of standards, mostly clearly defined. NO ONE in the free world is forced to accept said religion if he/she does not agree with the teachings. (Exemption being at the current moment of history only in Islamic states). So, if what preacher preaches stems from the roots of that theology – good for him. If you do not agree with such teaching – do not participate or claim to be of that religion, you are not. There is no democratic theological discussions possible. If latter – you have no right to complain about the religion you do not follow. End of story. (And if preacher lies to himself – it is matter for himself).
2) “parallel questions in the history of civil rights” is offensive in this context. Civil rights are there to protect basic human rights of all people regardless of any identifiers we might staple to them. I have not seen human rights denial to any of homosexual community. They are (again in all of the free modern world but in certain Islamic states) free as anyone else to live, not be incarcerated without due trial, pursue whatever life path decision they have (including sexuality), free to express themselves with speech, free to participate or not in any religion by their own choice, free to carry arms (except in certain Liberal Progressive states and cities),… Marriage is not a civil right. It is social contract. Even than, they are free to marry anyone of opposite sex they wish. And only one of it. Not a dog or a dolphin. Not a bunch of other people. Not one of the same sex. Because that is not definition of marriage. English speaking people may be further confused by existence of the term “spouse”. Some languages simply do not have it. In my native language “husband” is same word as “male” and “wife” as “female”. There are no other expressions to describe them. Because over thousands of years of language forming there was no need for other expression. I personally support idea that society needs to establish social contracts for other situations and name them appropriately, but not marriage as that term does not apply. Create rights, responsibilities and character of parties involved in that social contract as you wish. Enable uniting same sex, many people, people and animals or plants… That is OK. That is Civilized. Just give each contract its own name and give participants appropriate labels, both created by the very people who want and need these contracts. But than it would be TOLERANCE (special needs groups tolerating mainstream society AND mainstream society tolerating special need groups). And that is not acceptable by militant rightists. They want unquestionable acceptance. Sorry, there is no universal human right for unquestionable acceptance. Forced acceptance is fascism. Check that South Park episode on Tolerance and Acceptance.
> Marriage is not a civil right. It is social contract. Even than, they are free to marry anyone of opposite sex they wish.
Do you believe in religious freedom? Do you believe in the right to petition the government for redress of grievances? These *are* basic rights. However you define it, gays have the right to petition their government to change what you’re calling a social contract – especially since this contract has major legal implications.
This is also where religious freedom comes into play – there isn’t one rational argument against gay marriage that is *not* rooted in some religious context. Thus, we have a legal climate that is being created to favor one religious perspective over another. Not only does this raise constitutional issues, it clearly limits the religious freedom of the group being denied the opportunity to participate in a beneficial social status.
Finally, to suggest that gays have the same rights, as long as they choose to marry someone of the opposite sex is no different than saying Christians have the same right to be religious as long as they choose Islam. Both scenarios are equally absurd.
Nope it’s not the same. The equivalent is if Christians demanded that freedom of Islamic worship meant they get to worship at church.
Or if you prefer, the Supreme Court recently heard a case as to whether a taco shop is the same as a sandwich shop, because of the lease terms at a mall.
Redefining marriage to suit homosexuals is the agenda, as they are free to marry right now.
I’m sure those civil rights marchers love hearing that they were marching for gay marriage. If only George Wallace had thought of it.
T.E.A.D. you are the king of trolls…..
The weird thing is you are right.
Some comments are best kept to yourself these days.
Obviously Alfie and his friends want to restrict marriage and do social engineering in the name of their God given morality. Government should either get out of the marriage business or open it up to everyone.
Hey Alfie===you didn’t build those churches yourself. Our taxes all went to pay for the roads, ports, boats etc that brought the raw material to you and support the infrastructure…. you know? We grew the trees so you could print your bibles. You didn’t print those bibles yourself!
Nice meme you righties and fundies are trying and half succeeding from time to time==that sectors of society don’t have to pay for something that benefits society in general. Society does give up a lot to support your non-taxed status. Its purely Supreme Court law too–if I’m not mistaken.
So happy not to be afflicted. I’d even pay you money to keep it that way.
Ha, ha. Silly Hoomans. On your knees!!!
Let’s put a Right Wing spin on it:
See? We were right all along. This is what happens if you let interracial marriage happen. Now the f*gs and the lesbians want to get married too. What’s next? People marrying with animals?
Yes
Obviously that was too easy. I would really like to meet a consenting pig one day. Or maybe one of those super chimps that can do math, play the xylophone and vote.
Angel, I always laugh at how conservatives hide behind children and sheep, so to speak.
That is the disconnect when it comes to equating racial discrimination with gender identity choice discrimination. Even if gender identity was ingrained in a persons DNA, they don’t HAVE to act on it. However, a persons race is without a doubt ingrained in a persons DNA, and regardless of whether they want to act on it or not, the visual reality makes that unable to be chosen either way, for them.