2 Women Get HEATED as Andrew Debates Why States SHOULDN'T Be Involved in Marriage!
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 окт 2024
- Andrew debates Neeina and Lauren about if the state should be involved in marriage on a PWF Panel
►Full Vod on Rumble
Follow The Crucible
►STREAMING PLATFORM - COMFY.STREAM
►DISCORD - / discord
►REDDIT - / thecrucible
►ROCKETCHAT - thecrucible.chat
Support The Crucible
►PATREON - / the_crucible
►PAYPAL - t.co/79gmxAC811
►BECOME A MEMBER - / @the_crucible
#TheCrucible
I have found that when you argue with a woman they often don't listen to what you're saying but instead generate a fictional version of what you said in their head which fits their internal narratives about the argument. It's like some sort of auto-translation software.
They don't operate in factual reality because factual reality is difficult and they can't deal with difficulty. They only care about how they feel
Just waiting on their turn to speak
It's also called severe demented mental illness
I think its because they cannot track what is actually said so they come up with something closer to what they understood, rather then what was actually said.
The biggest difference among the sexes
It's so wild that they not only don't understand the subject they are debating, but they also don't seem embarrassed when it becomes obvious to everyone.
Some bichez gone praddle
Right? And they say religious people live in a bubble 😂
@@nupatriarch1681 That one drinks wine and has a room full of stuffed animals. I saw her the first time she was in the Crucible...😝
Do u all think our ancestors saw women being this ignorant if we let them run wild? I do, I bet they're laughing at what we have to put up with and also sad about it. That girl needs to get humbled and fast, her father failed to raise her properly. She needs to zip it when a man is talking. Because men are ranked above women hence why the feminists want to destroy the church. Women can only act this way in a powerful nation that will cosign their bs
That's because women are masters of lying to themselves.
The girls that interrupt the most complain about being interrupted most.
That was so damn annoying. I would've called them out, but I'm glad he just let them show their stupidity.
Typical projection
@@user-cq7yb1gs5q False.
@user-cq7yb1gs5q what's the projection?
Bro I was about to say the same shit
After she asked him to state his position for the 3rd time, I couldn't help but feel she might be actually stupid. After she said he never explained his position, my feelings were transmuted into facts.
she might?
she is
@@asimhussain8716no one likes you 😂
Took you that long ?
@@TheGr8-1 I was charitable to a fault
@@prism223 lol. No doubt
Arguing with women is like arguing with toddlers. Toddlers who can vote.
And that's why letting everyone vote is a bad idea.
@@edenbreckhouse based and truth. 👍
A truly worrying thought
In my opinion, the fewer people that can vote, the better. People have really no idea of what they vote for and they ignore the consequences. Then you see them complain about how unfair the elished people are towards then, vote for another person just to say the cycle repeat itself. From the moment you can't select the candidates, whoever you vote for doesn't matter. The choice is not yours at all. It's just an illusion.
@hamidousy5460 I almost feel there should be a test each year you should pass to vote like name the your local people running and basic knowledge on what the people running are pushing for. Meaning it should push people to actually know who and what they vote for
They do not know the difference between the words "recognize" and "adjudicate".
Women speak a totally different language, its called womanese.
Does Andrew have a clear and concise explanation for how he imagines these differ in his idealized union? Because if so, I didn't hear it addressed here...
He literally explained multiple times....are you joking?@@CiGiDancer
He should've changed 'adjudicate' to 'permission.'
@@justinm2697 no permission and adjudicate are not the same. Adjudicate is to enforce. He correctly used the word
Jesus fuck that was painful. Women really live life on easy mode.
Feelings over facts for woman in a debate
More like stupid mode!
Yeah. A lot of them are bad people. It is what it is.
Actually Andrew does
@@etopsch369You have an an IQ of
Andrew “The state should not have to judicate your marriage but recognize your religious marriage”
Drunk girl “What does that mean?”
LMAOOOOO
It means most women like you are stupid that's what🥴
Andrew literally explained his answer three times and you still didn't get it.Yikes if most women are these dumb and annoying I think I would rather stay single 😂
K S “you can’t make this sh!t up”
I don’t think she knows what “adjudicate” means. But that’s me being very generous. 😂She could just be stupid.
It means that I cannot dumb it down to the sub atomic level
It means that I cannot dumb it down to the sub atomic level
Neeina's drunk, alchy slurring is getting to be problematic.
She likes to hit the wine..
@@spnkysy791 a 2 box a day habit for sure... lol
Is she really? I don't know, I have met people who do not even drink and speak like she does. Every time I hear her she always sounds the same.. If it's true, I would not host her, just saying.
Revenue Act of 1913 was the first time the US federal government recognized marriage, for the purposes of income taxation.
By 1929, all states had laws regulating marriage. So from 1776 to 1913, marriage was a religious matter in the US.
Funny that that happen when the federal reserve came into existence in America😂🤔
The state, not federal government, is actually the original origin of 'marriage licenses'. In 1741, the colony of North Carolina took judicial control over marriages. At the time, the primary concern was interracial marriages. This spread to the rest of the states as they came into existence.
@@BigMoPrepper Yes, the fed recognized marriage for taxation, but states issue the license. But "Marriage licenses have been required since 1639 in Massachusetts, with their use gradually expanding to other jurisdictions." It took until the 1920s for that to expand to 38 states.
There are more legal issues at hand in marriage than just federal income tax....
@@CiGiDancer yeah like giving women incentives when they leave their man. Taking half of a man’s assets. You totally right. Marriage only benefits women
"How stupid are you?" Exactly what I was thinking.
Literally dude! So frustrating i would have called them stupid too
@@brandonreyes3379Not very Christ like.
@@PhysicsGuy1000 no one said im religious lmao you are assuming and even so who are you to tell me or anyone how christ feels? He died for our sins and he will forgive us no matter what so you’re wrong regardless sorry man
@@brandonreyes3379 Looks like my assumption was right 😂
@@PhysicsGuy1000 looks like you’re trying to speak for god lmao thats a big no no big boy
"Small Government" doesn't mean less congressman. Small government means that we limit the scope of what the government is and isn't not involved in. Deciding which small sections of our lives the government should be involved in, is another conversation.
Exactly; and less Federal employees. A huge bloated government is totally inefficient.
It does mean term limits and stock trading/ethics standards for them though
VIVEK 2024!!! FOR THIS REASON!
@@julesfalcone
Small government means nothing because it's never been a reality outside of Feudalism.
Excellent explanation. Have all the congressman you want, still limits what they have control over. Bravo.
Arguing with women. Guy "the sun rises in the morning", woman "what time did it rise this morning?", guy "I don't know exactly", woman "so you don't know exactly what time, so you can't say it rises in the morning", guy *facepalms and cries a little*
Women live in feels men live in reals
These people aren't educated enough to talk to him
Are these people the ones that have risen to the top of the social media debate masses? If that's the case, then Andrew is an extreme outlier of intelligence among the masses. Keep it up, Andrew!
People who actually can debate don’t get views. If you don’t have pairs of t!ts in the vid nobody will watch.
i mean, to be fair, his mental cognition is pretty top notch in order to remember all the facts he does. hes probably in the upper 30% of IQ
This was painful. These women should be sent back to primary school. His point could have been summed up in about three sentences, but their lack of basic logic dragged it out to be a 20min argument.
His patience is incredible. I would have taken a dirt nap rather than have this conversation.
Facts 😂
This is why women don’t even need to go to school
I used to think that women should have the right to vote but this is a good demonstration why they shouldn’t.
No I think all citizens should pass a citizen test THEN if you can vote.
@@ladybistre9596 A 15 yr old that attends private school could pass those exams without breaking a sweat. That’s a terrible competence measurement
Yep, and the last century shows why they've always been kept in check - labeledOppression by eff-in-ists.
AMEN! And I say that as a woman!
@kayceetaylor2151. DITTO!
Andrew is a total savage, I love this guy.
yeah he to smart lool i dont get how these women think they can argue with him he clearly know what hes talking about
@@mtlmenace8590 I thinks it's two parts. The first part is the women have never had their views challenged before because most guys will just agree with them so they can sleep with them. The second part is they are delusional.
He is. I just found him but his advocating for “big government” and “expanding the electorate” is a HUGE red flag.
@@tacticalsandwich9149 i agree
@@Composer19691yeah that kinda fcked me up
Didn’t see that coming
Moderator Alex doing a fine job. Just sitting there letting adhoms and personal insults fly left right and centre.
It's good content
Good debate is when people are free to say
😂😭💀
Alex who?
I swear he doesn't know where he is half the time 😂
I have been saying this for a while now, marriage is a religious institution. I dont know why people who do mot identify with religion want to get married. Go to justice of the peace to do that, not a church.
Ladies just admit it, you want it done thru the state so you can secure resources & take half his money & get alimony when you divorce your husband. Theres no other reason to argue for it 🤷🏽
Righ'd on.....
😂facts and more facts
A simple answer to the tax question is: End the income tax.
The simplest answer is: Taxation is extortion. End all of it.
You can't have any governmental system with no taxation.....and anarchy will not work.
@@toddjohnson271 correct, and yes it will.
Anarchy is it's own form of government with its own form of taxation.@@thechristianarchist662
@@toddjohnson271the USA had a functioning government before income tax was implemented in 1913. So you are objectively wrong in your claim. There are other taxes besides income tax. Income tax is theft and not necessary.
@@stevied3400 agreed....the income tax is garbage.
Explaining concepts to vapid emotional people is difficult.
I am Eastern Orthodox and when I got married last year, I specifucally asked my priest to perform the religious ceremony without the state's marriage license. He said absolutely NO because it was illegal. The law requires that in order for the solemnization to be recognized, we are mandated by law to acquire a state license within a certain timeframe. So, Andrew is 100% correct and these women have literally no idea what they're talking about. I literally tried to do what Andrew is proposing, and got told that it violates Virginia State law.
It’s not illegal to perform the ceremony without the state’s permission. It’s just that the state wouldn’t recognize the marriage so you wouldn’t be able to claim marriage status for tax or other legal purposes. The illegal part isn’t the marriage ceremony without state permission, but rather claiming to be married without state recognition.
@@stevied3400 reread his comment
She literally cant even right now with this.
Succinctly put.
“Have you heard of the term separation of church and state?” Andrew: yes, this would be separation of church and state
Such a bummer that people like this can be "lawyers"
I think in california you don't necessarily have to pass the bar exam to practice.
And to be a woman, you’re now fast tracked lmao
we're doomed bruh hahahaha@@dinguskhan9969
I'm in law school. I can confirm they let basically anyone in.
@@dinguskhan9969 Law schools are like 75% female at this point. I'm typically the only man in the elevator.
You cannot argue logic with illogical people. People that argue with their emotions will not be logical.
basically dont argue with a woman unless youre getting paid for it.
Andrew, yet again, holding the the fort.
The 2 senators per state is meant to prevent populous states from running roughshod over less populated states
The Senate also exists to ensure the state goverment has a voice in Washington, as Washinton has the power to pass laws upon citizens and state goverments.
This is why those state goverments decided Senators, not the citizens of the state. The Senators answered to the state capital - that's who they worked for.
That could easily be 10 senators per state. What does 2 have to do with anything?
@@cmdrfunkwe don’t need more bureaucrats. Andrew was wrong about that. I am now skeptical of Andrew because of this view of his. I guess he can be wrong after all.
@@cmdrfunkEasier number to manage.
The issue with Senators is that they originally were appointed by the State legislatures, NOT elected by the people. It ensured the State retained a say when people are so easily swayed by emotions.
There's multiple religions, each with their own precepts and rules.
If you don't want to deal with the church presiding your marriage and divorce, why are you even having a religious marriage?
If you want the state to preside over it, just push civil union rights and let the state preside over it, don't mess with religion, it's not supposed to change, specially to fit what you want for yourself, you go and find something that fits your views.
Religious marriage pre dates the government, the question is why should yhe government be involved at all , ? Separation of church and state, Religion is protected under the first amendment, why are secular people stealing a religious institution ? And making changes, that its not supposed to have authority over ? A secular civil union was invented for secular people.
The point is that a marriage is a holy matrimony. It's a religious sacrament.The secular version wouldn't therefore be a "marriage". It would be something else, absent the religious components which govern a holy matrimony.
@@zachman5150
No it's not. Marriage has been around since 1500 years BC and it was not until middle ages it got more common for the church to get involved but not needed. It was not until the mid 1500s the church actually had any say it in.
In short marriage has been around for 3500 years and has been a religious sacrament for the last 500 years (In Europe).
@@Marcus8958 God married Adam and Eve. Then taught his children that sexual relations are to only take place within the guidelines of husband and wife.
@@Mannwhich Nope.
"By the authority of god and the great state of (insert state), I now pronounce you man and wife." The ending statement of every wedding I've ever attended in my 40 years on this Earth.
How dare you use logic and reasoning 😂 you know these girls would tell you that's an invalid argument even though it isn't.
watching all these men willingly entering their demise... you should have said something
Not in an Orthodox Church, thank God.
They’re too state-brained to understand.
Jep....or else deyll lose dat alimony.....
Hivemind
I cant last 3 minutes in these women debates. How do you guys do it? My blood pressure rises through the roof. I start yelling at my phone. And those stupid laughs they do. I cant do it.
Prime example why you just don't debate women especially when logic and factual points are on the line.
Andrew has the patience of a saint.
This dude is great at dismantling the "hive mindset" of women so calmly & chill😂. Hes like Whatever 2.0, he deserves recognition.
Whatever podcast? That show is cringe and far below Andrew.
This channel will surpass it in due time.
Andrew shows up on Whatever pretty regularly actually
"Catholics are very weird about divorce"
Like, upholding the tradition of the Church Fathers and what Christ himself taught about it? lol
They don't. Watch ubi petrus's mini documentary video on it
He answered EVERY SINGLE THING these women asked in a straightforward manner. They simply refused to accept logic.
They were waiting to respond and interrupting before he could get through half an answer.
Marriage ended when the government implemented "no fault" divorce. Any agreement/contract that can be broken by either party without cause is meaningless.
Every time Andrew asks a question, his opponents brains are so rudimentary that they don't understand what he is actually asking and they get hung up on low IQ points that don't go deep enough into the reason behind the question... and it is exhausting.
It's very clear that a lot of the people he talks to just plain don't process basic language and information very well. It has nothing to do with their actual positions. The high level thinking necessary just isn't there.
It's crazy how many people don't understand what gish galloping is.
We as humans can only consciously focus on one stimulus at a time.
You can't just hit someone with multiple points/questions all at once and expect them to answer all of them at the end.
In a debate, if you're examining the oppositions point, you ask one question and allow them to answer.
They're not "interrupting" you; you literally solicited speech from them by asking a question that prompted direct answer by the individual
Nothing but snippy giggling and rude.
They do it because their subconscious recognises your point is leading towards a conclusion they can't refute and undoes their position...
So as a defense mechanism their subconscious interprets your words to "mean" something else...
Normally they take your words out of context or just make a silly exaggeration rhetorical question that's ludicrous on it's face ...
This is done because their subconscious knew it couldn't answer (or didn't understand) your point so it fabricates a point it can answer.
Eg: "so you're just saying destroy all women... Omg you're a bad person"
Obviously not true, but they claim it's what you mean because it's easy to argue that made up point...
It's much harder to answer your actual point...
A dead give away of someone who does this is when they feel they can refute what you're actually saying they will not only understand your point (for once) but they might even jump in early to refute it cos they're excited about understanding and being able to refute... It makes them feel smart and better...
Their self absorbed bratty deluded subconscious loves that, so it grabs it with both hands and doesn't need to reflex dodge the true meaning of your words, for once, as it feels "safe" to answer... Smug petty delivery normally ensues.
But when they can't refute, or then your point shows signs of a logical conclusion they don't like ..
Boom!!!
All of a sudden they misunderstood and take it out of context or giggle or make snippy insulting/demeaning inferences...
Cos their subconscious is scared...
So it just makes up lies that are easy to refute.
False straw man or lying insults with no merit to them just to demean you as a person and so (in their childish schoolyard mind) render your whole point redundant.
It's a subconscious reflex to fabricate something easy to answer once the subconscious becomes aware/afraid/uncertain of the real upcoming point.
It's the adult functional equivalent of a tantrum toddler with fingers in ears screaming even denying their own name in the heat of the defensive moment.
It what that cognitive processing grows into if it's allowed to grow up and be slightly more sophisticated...
But ..
Technically it's the cognitive functional equivalent.
When I married my wife my sister-in-law is the one who acted as the priests if you will and married us. She had to get a license through the state in order to do so. 12:16
Not only has this discussion solidified my belief in not getting married, But it's also given me the best reason why I wouldn't want to. Thank you.
At the end she asks him a question then accuses him of pivoting when he answers 😂
Shame, Insults, Guilt and the Need to be Right. Every woman lives by this. Prayers for KS.
Should note that 'seperation of church and state' is a Protestant belief. The Orthodox conception is represented by the Byzantine double headed eagle; church and state working together, side by side.
I'm not a Christian so you take this with a grain of salt but the Orthodox position here makes way more sense to me than the Protestant position
If one recognizes something like ultimate authority emanates from the divine, and orders all things in line with a divine purpose, then it makes sense that both Church and State should operate in alignment with the divine purpose
100%@@Zidana123
Separation also isn't a law, it's not in the Constitution, it has no actual weight.
Separation of church and state isn't even from a Christian.
It was from Thomas Jefferson, a deist.
@@Zidana123 Agreed, but remember that not all 'states' were led by christ. There were places that christians resided in during those times that were not led by the teachings, and thus needed to keep the state out of the affairs of the religion.
My brain cells .... Omg .
Back in the 50s when the vast majority of husbands worked and wives stayed at home, there was a very definite tax advantage to getting married. Say a husband was pulling in 5 grand a year putting him in the top 40 percent bracket vs a man and wife counting that total household income now between 2 people lowering the total tax burden. Now days, more and more married couples both work and thus, limiting any potential tax advantage.
This guy just rips and tears and then lights up a cig hahaha
😂
Andrew always acting surprised when people get so upset even after the debate is over.
I think he's more surprised at just how stupid some of these people actually are.
Men use logic, women use emotion. You can win against logic, as it can be proven, but you can't win against emotion, as it has no equal ground on which to stand.
Dam these chicks are slow as hell. Like he saying the Church will be the decider of divorce and marriage and the State should recognize it.
I do think marriage can be seen as a public commitment (complete with potential penalties for breaking it), and that will add value to marriage from a secular standpoint. That being said, we should deregulate pretty much everything in our economy so people would start having to make real decisions in life. Everything should be merit-based, and everyone should have a strong work ethic. We probably wouldn't give up on marriage so readily if we weren't accustomed to giving up on everything else.
well, it's just that there's incentives to intentionally fail at marriage and women are the sole beneficiaries to that incentive. No fault divorce basically guarantee's women, at any time, can check out of a relationship and take 50% of a mans earnings. We could just end that practice and make every marriage by the state have an implicit pre-nuptial agreement in place. That would stop a lot of the shenanigans right there.
@@charleshill1906 Agreed. Not a fan of "no fault" divorce, or chalking everything up to "irreconcilable differences". Throw two people on a desert island and give them no help other than each other; you'll find out irreconcilable their differences really are 😉
How are these the women picked for these debates. They argue for shit, can't go 2 sentences without a fallacy, can't keep any kind of subject in focus... How frustrating. Also, why I don't argue with women anymore.
OMG... And I finally listened all the way through - they can't even be bothered to understand history. Fucking hell.
They fail to grasp the concept of jurisdiction. 😵
Here's an olive branch secularists, lets make the legal definition of marriage and civil partnership the same, civil partnership being a secular binding of two or more people, and leave the religious tradional sacrament of marriage alone.
The dark haired girl is SO annoying.
She’s not the brightest crayon in the box..
Strong disagree.. They all were.
She NEVER shuts up and then complains when Andrew FINALLY tries to interject and complains he's "interrupting"
Ok ladies. If you give birth to a baby, the baby has a birth certificate, ok ? The government recognised the existence of the child , this new minor citizen , and your Catholic and have baptism, christening ceremony, ok ? The state has not role , the church records that child , if that child groes up to be an an atheist, the government doesn't divorce him/ her from the church or his parents, yet that child still goes to school snd enjoys all the other benefits of citizenship , this is not rocket science. A dictionary might help with eord definitions. ( just s suggestion )
Andrew says we need more government and immediately gives a reason why we need less
Exactly. I don’t understand how someone as intelligent as him would want more or big government. Government should only be as big as it needs to be to protect individual rights, enforce contracts, and defend the homeland from invaders.
@@stevied3400 People don't invade the US because we have more guns than people.
@@stevied3400Because he is not perfect at thinking things through. Just good at it.
Man.....i don't know how Andrew keeps his sanity...I always think he's going to lose his mind when he laughs
It's no wonder these people worship The State; they actually believe The State came first..!
Andrew is so smart.
Too self absorbed to understand anything.
It's like they just don't want to.
Bratty kids.
My boy Andrew resembles Ferris Bueller… winning debates on his day off!😆
Puritans were the first to allow divorce in the New World.
Also, divorces were not initially granted by the Courts, they were granted by the Legislative bodies on a case by case basis, until this was ruled unconstitutional in 1848 under Bingham v. Miller (Ohio). Soon afterwards, State Constitutions prohibited the granting of Legislative/Special Divorces, which is why we then had divorces granted by the courts. With No-Fault, that really changed things because there's not even adjudication at all now. While the courts may determine equitable distribution, the granting of divorce is self-executing
We are all doomed you have people out here that actually think like this say things like this female did and then don’t even realize what they said absolutely pitiful good job Andrew on laughing at this type of behavior it shows that you were calm cool and collective and your debates are just flawlessI almost feel like Mortal Kombat fatality🎉🎉🎉🎉
The state presides over marriage so they can get paid through every marriage certificate, divorce, and child support and alimony payment. It's all about money and control.
How are more or less senators what defines government as big or small? Wouldn’t it be the trillions of dollars they spend and the over reach they have into the daily lives of ordinary citizens?
So 500 more senators but 50% of reduction in budget is still “growing government”?
This is the only thing Andrew got wrong in this debate.
It's impressive how she can sound condescending and be an airhead at the same time. Andrew is debating with adult children
🍷 🥴 wudduzat meeen - Neeina
it is funny how the same people who want the State separated from the Church, don`t want the Church separated from the State.
The baby talk girl needs elocution lessons.
This is the best evidence for the saying "you can't argue with stupid" or women
This is so painful.
In the United States, the federal government formally recognizes marriage in law for the first time with the passage of the Revenue Act of 1913.
By 1929, all states now have laws regarding marriage licenses. Before that time, the church did not have to have the states recognize marriage.
If you don’t get a state granted marriage license you don’t need to go to the state to get a divorce. Bear in mind without the state you don’t get state rights or protections like tax breaks.
I can’t think of a single tax break for being married at the federal level. They simply double the standard deduction, which would be the same for two individual people “playing house”. Women get the child tax credit by simply giving birth; men have to prove to the government their child is theirs.
@@dontdoxmebro It's really only useful if only one person in the marriage has an income or only one person has a lot of investments. You basically get to use the other person's "bracket space" for your own money. For example, right now I have a lot of stock. If I have low earned income (easily done if you are rich or retired), then my capital gains rate is 0% for the first approximately $40k of capital gains per year.
If I got married tomorrow to a woman who won't have any capital gains this year, then suddenly my capital gains bucket of being taxed at 0% goes from $40k to about $80k, so I can realize more gains tax free, but had I been single and took $80k of capital gains, they would have been taxed at 15%. If we were just two individuals the woman would not have used her "free" capital gains that year at all, and I would have a higher tax bill.
Also the earned income brackets are wider so if you work and she doesn't your money is getting taxed more at the lower brackets than it would have been if you were single.
9:48 "You're gonna interrupt me when I'm interru..."
Woah, a bit of a slip there, Lauren 😂
I didn’t notice at first but I went back it’s hard to take these people seriously but its funny sometimes
I'm extremely fortunate to be a Catholic, because in that faith I was able to get married absent any state or even clerical involvement. The two sacraments a person can be autonomous in actualizing as a Catholic are marriage and baptism. And when a progressive pastor told me my daughter could not be baptized because in an Adult Ed class I came out against abortion, which he said is a disrespect for women’s rights, which disqualified me as a single parent raising a girl catechetically, I was devastated because he removed my daughter from Baptism preparation class where she made good friends. So I went to an elderly priest I admired for his holiness and asked him what I could do. He got seriously quiet for about 3 seconds, and then his eyes lit up, and he said, “You baptize her!”
The only thing you failed to do was to leave the Catholic Church. You still have time.
@@chrisg334 When I returned to the Catholic Church, I had the good fortune to encounter the writings of St. John Paul II, and his recommendation to every Catholic was to READ THE SAINTS. And I read nothing, for the most part, but the saints, for a decade after my return to the Church, starting with the Apostles and the Doctors of the Church, including Augustine, Aquinas, Jerome, John Chrysostom, Catherine of Siena, Teresa of Ávila, John of the Cross and Thérèse de Lisieux-my favorites, and particularly John of the Cross and his good friend, Teresa of Avila, reading everything these two mystics wrote. I also read during that time the two volumes of Vatican II documents, and I would recommend to every Catholic Lumen gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church.
The major problem in the Church today began at Vatican II when the vast majority of bishops either rejected outright or kept silent about St Pope Paul VI’s most important document (running close with Lumen gentium), Humanae Vitae, what he wrote as groundwork to begin a war against Satan’s most successful assault on all of humanity during all of Church history, his Sexual Revolution, which so many bishops still support in some measure, and how could any Catholic support anything directly from Satan?-just look to the Media’s popularized German bishops and Satan’s (unknown-to-himself in his blind ignorance) Fr. James Martin, determined to mutilate and destroy children en masse inside his decrepit allegiance to his master?
And on and on it goes. I didn’t fall victim to any of it because I took the best advice a Catholic could get, from St. Pope John Paul the Great. Why would I turn my back on the Church, what would be a declaration of Satan’s victory against the Church, when the truth is he will never prevail against the Church?
“You’re making bad arguments”
*clearly explains his argument*
“What does that mean?”
😂😂😂
I understand why you drink Andrew, 5 min in and I needed a cold one. I gave up drinking 15 yrs ago, on my third beer now, FML.
Imagine bringing up the concept of separation of church and state when the entire concept was created by a Puritan minister who wanted to keep government out of the church, not the other way around. Adhering to the separation of church and state would mean that the government would have absolutely no authority over marriage.
Shooting fish in a barrel eh Andrew? Nice clip ;)
PHEW I really appreciate the work you're doing. You have far more patience than I do.
The 19th amendment was a mistake.
HUGE MISTAKE!!!!
She has no idea what "separation of church and state" means.
There are secular reasons for wanting marriage. A ceremonial proclamation of your vows and commitment to each other is still meaningful, and you are still joining two families into one. As for enforcement/adjudication, imo there could still be a place for state involvement but I'd agree it only makes sense when you have at-fault divorce.
That sounds like traditional reasons made up from past members of the family who were religious. In my opinion secular people serve themselves and they have no obligations to any commitment. Perhaps the secularist should start a new thing that ensures the couple stays together as long as they "feel" like staying together.
@@SINQUEFIELD83 You can be non-religious and still have an obligation to your commitments. Millions of people do it all the time.
@@mrwhite2039 Thank you for your profound contribution to the conversation.
There is no meaning in secularism, just sensation and convenience
@@johnisaacfelipe6357 You guys make a lot of claims that can be instantly refuted by the fact that the very person you’re replying to is secular, and yet still values meaning, purpose, obligation, and commitments.
I've been married for 5 years and I do find it interesting how even I was shocked why he believed the church should be involved in the marriage finance. It's amazing how we see marriage more from a legal standpoint in modern society and forget that it is actually rooted in religion.
He's so annoyed and over it. Lmao. He keeps looking for some sliver of comfort in those cigarettes, but to no avail.
Andrew comes into these debates ready to rumble, and judging the level of discourse, i can see why.
2 WOMEN SMOKED LIKE A BARRIQUE
Theres a famous psychologist that stated women essentially stop maturing emotionally around the age of 15. These women sound like children.😅
I guess it’s really hard to debate people who don’t know anything about history, completely ignorant on American history when it comes to marriage
Separation of church and state. So the government can't force alimony because it is a religious practice. This should be argued in courts
These children's ignorance of the legal and governmental systems at play in this debate is downright troubling. It sounded more like a teacher trying to teach disruptive under-performing students.
Respect for Andrew for taking the time to argue with women. It shows their state of mind for men so we don´t have to argue with them in real life.
I bet you none of them women are married and by this debate, I understand why. These women are arguing like they know what they are talking about. Great job Andrew for setting them straight ✊🏽👏🏽💯
They do this every time. Kamala is the expert. When your debating point is crumbling under scrutiny, simply say 'Stop interrupting me' or 'I'm still talking', in the hope that the scrutiny will cease. The irony is that she constantly interrupted Andrew. So infuriating.
The clandestine marriages act of 1753 is when states got involved in marriage. It went into effect March 25 1754.