I really hope you watch this one…especially if you disagree!
This week on Rants without Pants, it’s our Special Valentine’s Day Episode where we discuss one topic: Gay Marriage
I interview Madison rocker, Mad Rollin Doll and Battlesta…r Galactica nerd (I am too, so I can call her that) Victoria Echeverria on her recent engagement to her fiancé Natalie. We discuss the gay rights, gay marriage and love.
I then rant (with the help of Tom Petty and The Beach Boys) to those who oppose gay marriage.
This one is special. It’s about true love and the fight for equality.
00:00 — 13:32 Interview with Victoria Echeverria includes –
Vic’s Dog running in circles
How Vic and Natalie met and how she proposed to her
Vic’s response to Senator Ron Johnson and Lt. Governor Rebecca Kleifisch’s ridiculous comments
Where the future is going
Wisconsin Domestic Partnership registry being challenged and much, much more.
13:32 — End Adam’s Rant includes Kirk Cameron’s silly comments, redefining gay marriage, christian denomination internal debates about homosexuality, Gomer Pyle’s marriage and the coolest kid in the world kicking Gov. Michelle Bachman’s ass.
Next Week: An interview with postal worker Perry Frank about many of the changes arising with the post office, including cutting down to 5 days delivery.
And then this happened today in IL…
http://www.gaypolitics.com/2013/02/14/breaking-illinois-senate-passes-marriage-equality-bill/
Adam, I disagree even after watching your well made video. There is much I disagree with you about and we can hash that out if you like, but I think your video doesn’t explore my primary objections to gay marriage. With government becoming increasingly, and in my view unfortunately, involved in what should be private matters, gay marriage represents a threat to religious liberty. For example, suppose an employer sees homosexuality as sinful. You and I might find that view objectionable, but I at least think he ought to be able to hold it and act accordingly in his business. So gay marriage laws would force a man to violate his conscience by requiring him to recognize and reward (bene’s etc…) a relationship that he sees as sinful. So that is a major problem. Also, re the slippery slope, forget about marriage between a man and his coffee cup or sports car or whatever, that is rightly dismissed as ridiculous. However, I noticed your redefinition of marriage limited the concept to two adults. Isn’t that a discriminatory position in and of itself? Is it fair to bisexuals? What about men with two wives or vice versa? As I see it, once you have changed the definition of marriage, you undermine much of the logic that would prevent further changes to the definition. This could lead to a host of legal challenges and while I am not a lawyer, I suspect a person could make a strong case that she should be able to marry both her boyfriend and her girlfriend. Chaos could ensue. Anyway, I look forward to a thoughtful and respectful exchange on the subject.
Denis, it’s about treating human beings like human beings, no matter their orientation or private lives. It’s time to grow up and join the 21st century and treat your fellow human beings as the so called bible proscribes; with love and without judgement.
Who is advocating treating as gays as non-human Rich? Why not respond to or rebut the argument I presented?
First of all Dennis, thanks for watching and posting your comment. I always enjoy reading opinions from those that disagree. I truly think it takes a lot of effort to send a comment that has a nice tone while at the same time disagreeing…so trust me, I appreciate that.
Here is where you and I differ. I believe government shouldn’t be telling people who they can and can’t marry. Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that you are more interested in the business side of things and being afraid gay marriage is a “slippery slope”.
Let’s take your example. You write – “suppose an employer sees homosexuality as sinful. You and I might find that view objectionable, but I at least think he ought to be able to hold it and act accordingly in his business. So gay marriage laws would force a man to violate his conscience by requiring him to recognize and reward (bene’s etc…) a relationship that he sees as sinful.”
Here is my point – Atheism is a sin right? The biggest of them all! Does an employer have a right to discriminate if someone is openly an atheist? The employer would HAVE to find that sinful. But right now, there are laws that protect that employer from discriminating against that employee based on his religious or in this case, non-religious views.
The fact of the matter is, employers are already hiring people that they disagree with religiously or that they find immoral or as you put it “sinful”. They’re gonna have to suck it up because the laws are there already. The only difference is, they just think this “sin” is icky.
Look, the US of A is a place where people from other countries fled to because of religious persecution. This is the reason for separation between Church and State.
To your second point, yes, both me and my guest Vic, redefined marriage as “The love and commitment between two consenting adults”. I think that’s fair.
I truly don’t think there needs to be a slippery slope as Rebecca Kleifisch put it. I don’t think chaos will ensue where people will want to marry a dog or a table or a clock.
I think there does need to be a line in the sand, but that doesn’t mean we should discriminate all homosexuals. However, my personal opinion, I could care less if someone wanted to marry 2 people. I don’t understand it as I can barely handle one, but it’s really, it’s none of my business.
Anyway, like I said, thanks for your comment. I hope you continue watching.
Adam
“Look, the US of A is a place where people from other countries fled to because of religious persecution. This is the reason for separation between Church and State.”
But you are not advocating a separation between Church and State Adam. You want the government to force Christians and others to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs. One might even suggest that the government is creating a religion -secular progressivism. This may well be what you want, I don’t know, but it would be a bit much to expect deeply religious people to just “suck it up.”
First of all, many Christian denominations do not even believe homosexuality is a sin…so there is that. But you state above “You want the government to force Christians and others to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs.” How exactly would gay marriage violate their religious beliefs? There are laws already in place stating an employer can’t fire someone for being gay. Isn’t that already going against Christians “sincerely held belief”? What about a coworker having an affair? Doesn’t that go against a Christians “sincerely held belief”?
I can’t argue definitively on Christian doctrine, but I think there is a difference between working alongside a homosexual or atheist or a philanderer and being forced to, in essence, endorse the behavior. When the government forces a person to not only work alongside said sinners, but to recognize and reward them, via bene’s etc, then our government is no longer behaving in the manner you say that you want – a separation of church and state. Instead, they are becoming enforcers in what I contend is a religion – secular progressivism. I don’t suppose we will agree on this subject, but I hope you at least realize their is legitimate, as in not bigoted, reason to oppose the gay marriage push.
As I stated in the video, I don’t think those that oppose gay marriage are bigots or bad people, however, I do think they are being unfair.