Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
Civil Rights/Civil Liberties / Unfinished Business: The Atlantic LGBT Summit
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 дек 2015
- Ryan Anderson, Senior Research Fellow, Heritage Foundation
with Mary Louise Kelly
For more on this event, please visit: www.theatlantic.com/LGBTSummit
Find AtlanticLIVE online: www.TheAtlantic.com/LIVE
Facebook: / 128344747344340
Twitter: / atlantic_live "
![EST Gee - NEVER NEED (Feat. Selfpaid Savage) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/f2cRtr52HXI/mqdefault.jpg)
This was refreshing. A civilized discourse. What a concept!
+Bruce Hall I thought it was the same old boring arguments that failed against legalizing gay marriage.
Well done sir God bless
A newly begotten child creates a mother of a woman and a father of a man. Therefore a child, orphaned still needs a mother and a father and deserves a mother and a father.
There is no religious right to discriminate. This was reinforced during the Civil Rights Movement. Members of the Christian Identity sect had closely and sincerely held religious beliefs that persons of different ethnicities and skin color should not marry or share public spaces on pain of being cursed by their god. They too, could cite chapter and verse of "holy" texts that supported their views. Many white churches during these times (both in the North and South) clung to these beliefs and refused to marry couples they perceived as "mixed race" and that such marriages were not valid.
Citizens who refuse services to "mixed race" couples are rightly condemned both socially and legally in this country and I hope that those who refuse services to gender sexual diverse people will be equally condemned one day.
+Joanna Rives Have you actually watched the video because this was asked and answered. vBans on interracial marriage and Jim Crow laws, by contrast, were aspects of a much larger insidious movement that denied the fundamental equality and dignity of all human beings and forcibly segregated citizens. When these interracial marriage bans first arose in the American colonies, they were inconsistent not only with the common law inherited from England, but also with the customs of prior world history, which had not banned interracial marriage.[1] These bans were based not on reason, but on prejudiced ideas about race that emerged in the modern period and that refused to regard all human beings as equal. This led to revisionist, unreasonable conclusions about marriage policy. Thinking that marriage has anything at all to do with race is unreasonable, and as a historical matter, few great thinkers ever suggested that it did. Protecting religious liberty and the rights of conscience does not infringe on anyone’s sexual freedoms. Those who believe that marriage is a male-female relationship and want to lead their lives accordingly deny no one equal protection of the law. While Americans are free to live as they choose, no one should demand that government coerce others into celebrating their relationships. All Americans should remain free to believe and act in the public square based on their belief that marriage is the union of a man and woman without fear of government penalty. www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/04/marriage-reason-and-religious-liberty-much-ado-about-sex-nothing-to-do-with-race
You know the state that American is in right now, I wish there were more conservatives like Ryan Anderson less like Ann Coulter, Ben Shapiro, and Milo Yiannopoulos. Do I agree with everything Ryan says, no otherwise I would be a conservative, however his someone that I can at the very least have a conversation with but I can't say the same for other people that I mentioned.
ben is alright
Stutzman's age and status as a grandmother are totally irrelevant.
Its so funny how you folks aren't educated enough to understand that selling goods and services as a public accomodation isn't the same thing as being forced to attend a wedding. Its like you think being emotional and as manipulative about the facts as possibly will actually help, as opposed to proving how corrupt you are.
+Tony Cus So let's say that Jewish baker is asked to bake a cake for a Christian wedding and the baker politely declines then the Christian couple threatens them with a lawsuit. Is the Jewish baker not being forced to endorse a ceremony contrary to their beliefs?
+neosoontoretro That is for the Jewish baker to decide for themselves. If they want to think making a cake for another religion would equate to an endorsement then that is on them. You can't make people think things even if they are irrational or ignorant. If any baker decides to operate a public business then they have to operate under Federal, State and local laws or face the consequences for violating the law.
Tony Cus You just contradicted yourself, you claim that it's up for the Jewish baker to the decide (which I agree with). But at the same that you want to impose Federal, State, and Local laws that would keep Jewish baker from exercising that right.
There in reality is no such thing as the "LGBTabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz", it's just rhetoric and nonsense.
+CalvinCoolidge isGOAT LGBT is just a group of people that identify as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trangender etc. . . just as many people can identify as Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist etc. . .
LusiFr Religions and perverted actions aren't the same.
CalvinCoolidge isGOAT but "perverted actions" do exist and they're called LGBT.
LusiFr Ok.
+CalvinCoolidge isGOAT Christianity is perverted not being LGBT
This is crap. It is irrelevant if these religions are anti gay. These beliefs should not be protected. The main religions are pro slavery, genocide etc yet those are illegal. It does not matter a fig where you get your bigotted views of (be it race, gender, sexual orientation etc), you should not be allowed to disadvantage someone by having them. If you want to be homophobic behind closed doors then it is your business. If you are using the bible to justify homophobic beliefs then you are being selective. End of
+Paul Pfeiffer No, the main religions are not pro-slavery or pro-genocide. Historically it's hard to make that argument when anti-slavery movement came from religious scriptures. You're conflating homophobia with a fundamental understanding of marriage, not only is that not fair it trivializes real bigotry. If everything is homophobic then nothing is homophobic and if nothing is homophobic then homophobia is more permissible. You think you're discouraging bigotry but in reality you're doing the exact opposite.
neosoontoretro
Firstly, the bible states what you can do with your slave, how much you can beat them and which slave you can have. It was used as a justification by slave owners although many anti slavery people were also Christian. Not permitting someone of the same gender to marry is homophobic. The religious reason is not true as the bible actually encourages polygamy. Also, the bible cannot be used as an argument for marriage as not everyone is a Christian. If you are against giving a gay person the same rights as a straight one, it is bigotry. I'm not gay so two men getting married makes no difference to me at all so what right do I have to object unless it's as a bigot?
Paul Pfeiffer You haven't actually read the Bible have you?
No, the Bible does not support slavery. v
First, we must recognize that the Bible does not say God supports slavery. In fact, the slavery described in the Old Testament was quite different from the kind of slavery we think of today - in which people are captured and sold as slaves. According to Old Testament law, anyone caught selling another person into slavery was to be executed:
"He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death." (Exodus 21:16)
So, obviously, slavery during Old Testament times was not what we commonly recognize as slavery, such as that practiced in the 17th century Americas, when Africans were captured and forcibly brought to work on plantations. Unlike our modern government welfare programs, there was no safety-net for ancient Middle Easterners who could not provide a living for themselves. In ancient Israel, people who could not provide for themselves or their families sold them into slavery so they would not die of starvation or exposure. In this way, a person would receive food and housing in exchange for labor.
So, although there are rules about slavery in the Bible, those rules exist to protect the slave. Injuring or killing slaves was punishable - up to death of the offending party.1 Hebrews were commanded not to make their slave work on the Sabbath,2 slander a slave,3 have sex with another man's slave,4 or return an escaped slave.5 A Hebrew was not to enslave his fellow countryman, even if he owed him money, but was to have him work as a hired worker, and he was to be released in 7 years or in the year of jubilee (which occurred every 50 years), whichever came first.6 In fact, the slave owner was encouraged to "pamper his slave".7
What the New Testament says about slavery
Since many of the early Christians were slaves to Romans,8 they were encouraged to become free if possible, but not worry about it if not possible.9 The Roman empire practiced involuntary slavery, so rules were established for Christians who were subject to this slavery or held slaves prior to becoming Christians. The rules established for slaves were similar to those established for other Christians with regard to being subject to governing authorities.10 Slaves were told to be obedient to their master and serve them sincerely, as if serving the Lord Himself.11 Paul instructed slaves to serve with honor, so that Christianity would not be looked down upon.12
As with slaves, instructions were given to their masters as to how they were to treat their slaves. For example, they were not to be threatened,13 but treated with justice and fairness.14 The text goes on to explain that this was to be done because God is the Master of all people, and does not show partiality on the basis of social status or position.13, 14
There is an interesting letter in the New Testament (Philemon15-21) that gives some insight into the problems encountered in the early Christian church regarding the issue of slavery. Paul, the author of the letter, is writing from a Roman prison awaiting trial.15 He is writing to Philemon, who runs a local Christian church out of his house16 (since Christianity was highly persecuted at this point in time). Philemon, we find out, is the master of the slave Onesimus, who has escaped but has been converted to Christianity by Paul.18 In the letter, Paul indicates that he is sending Onesimus back to Philemon.19 However, Paul says that he has confidence that Philemon will "do what is proper"17 although Paul wants him to do it by his "own free will".20 Even so, Paul indicates that Onesimus would be a great aid in helping him spread the gospel.19 Paul ends the letter by saying that he has "confidence in your obedience" and indicates that he knows Philemon "will do even more than what I say."21 Although Paul did not directly order Philemon to release Onesimus from slavery, it would have been difficult to come away with any other conclusion from his letter.
God does not distinguish between slaves and freemen
Contrary to the claims of many skeptics, the New Testament proclaims that all people are equal in the eyes of God - even slaves:
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28)
knowing that whatever good thing each one does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether slave or free. (Ephesians 6:8)
And masters, do the same things to them, and give up threatening, knowing that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him. (Ephesians 6:9)
a renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all. (Colossians 3:11)
Conclusion
The idea that God or Christianity encourages or approves of slavery is shown to be false. In fact, anybody who was caught selling another person into slavery was to be executed. However, since voluntary slavery was widely practiced during biblical times, the Bible proscribes laws to protect the lives and health of slaves. Paul, the author of many of the New Testament writings, virtually ordered the Christian Philemon to release his Christian slave from his service to "do what is proper". In addition, numerous verses from the New Testament show that God values slaves as much as any free person and is not partial to anyone's standing before other people.
www.godandscience.org/apologetics/slavery_bible.html
And no the Bible doesn't support polygamy. v
There is no doubt that God intended marriage to consist of one man and one woman. As we have read, and as you can read in the Bible for yourself, every time a man took more than one wife there were issues that created problems and divided the home. In the New Testament, every time marriage is mentioned, it is mentioned as being between one man and one woman. Even the qualifications for a pastor, deacon, elder, or any teacher or leader in the church, the men were to be a one woman man. God never approved of nor did He ever suggest polygamy or a woman to have more than one husband (polyandry). Just because others did this in the Old Testament is no reason that we can have a license to do the same thing. The Old Testament saints were written about, warts and all, in complete transparency, in order that we might not repeat their mistakes and not to give us permission to do the same things.
www.patheos.com/blogs/christiancrier/2014/06/23/why-was-there-polygamy-in-the-old-testament-of-the-bible/
"Also, the bible cannot be used as an argument for marriage as not everyone is a Christian."
Nor can the non-religious be used as argument for same-sex marriage as everyone is not secular.
"If you are against giving a gay person the same rights as a straight one, it is bigotry."
Changing the fundamental definition of marriage is not a right.
"I'm not gay so two men getting married makes no difference to me at all so what right do I have to object unless it's as a bigot?"
So if you recognize that marriage is about the sexual complementary of men and women then you're a bigot? What about Plato, Aristotle, Gandhi, Kant, Locke, who all believe that marriage was between a man and a woman were they bigots as well?
neosoontoretro
I have read the Bible and yes it does support slavery despite your detailed answer. It isn't keen on Jewish slaves but other slaves are okay. The point is that many of us are not Christians so our laws should not reflect the views of one cult. Also, whilst there is much to admire from earlier peoples, I do not believe in an argument from authority. Just because something was uttered by Jesus or Plato doesn't make it automatically right. It's the argument that has to be viable and not the originator. There is no reason to deny people of the same gender the right to marry, i.e the same rights as straight people. Basing an argument on a bronze age book makes no sense. The bible has no more moral authority than Homer.
+Paul Pfeiffer are you stupid? after everything that man said this is what you have to say! And by the the way people like you who are so readily to throw the word bigot around so freely are the true bigots! And don't even dare try to compare the black struggle to sexual orientation. People like you make me wont to puke!
Unlike same sex marriage, (@3:20) he can't think of any plausible argument against interracial marriage. Surely he is aware that in the 60s and before, the very same arguments, e.g. unnatural, never sanctioned in law or tradition, damage to children, etc. were made vehemently by those intent on preserving civil marriage to their attitudes.
+Doug Burt Race has nothing to do with coupling and producing children, Gender does. The Argument supports this claim.
Marriage and sexuality have nothing to do with producing children. Same sex couples are not infertile and they don't need the governments civil blessing or permission should they decide to procreate. It simply requires voluntarily becoming impregnated by a source outside of marriage - something heterosexuals have already fully mapped out for gays. Whether or not the gay couple living together down the street from you have or will have and raise children is not dependent on whether they are allowed to enjoy the same civil marriage that you might enjoy, along with all the benefits and responsibilities that come with it. Your argument is a non sequitur.
+Doug Burt You have said it perfectly, same sex couples cannot procreate in a natural sense. therefore their relationship is no longer about kids. Also in same sex relationships who chose to adopt, ALWAYS deny that child a mother or a Father. In raising Children their is mothering and fathering, no mother can be a Father and no father can be a mother. that's not bigotry, that's biology.
Check again, C-Rob. I plainly said marriage and sexuality have nothing to do with procreating. And your definition of "natural sense" is purely your own, as is your opinion that the basis of marriage is procreation. These arguments are bankrupt. You might as well be arguing that the only proper purpose of sex is procreation, another opinion you are welcome to have, but it does not trump that of others.
My wife of 35 years is a school teacher. I would guess that rarely do 50% of her students live in a household with both of their biological parents. I chatted the other day with an engineer from a neighboring town whose son was valedictorian of his class and he and his wife noticed at the graduation ceremony that they were only one of two families that still had both parents intact. Straight people are not held to a standard for procreation or stability as a requirement for marriage. Holding gays to such a standard, and pretending that their equal treatment in any ways will affect your life or the community of children is a sorry-ass excuse to cover your need to have others live by your creed.
And I intend to never degrade a couple's love and commitment for each other by what kind of sex they might or might not have with each other, anymore than I might judge yours by whether your wife likes oral or not. In the big picture, sex is a very minor part of a meaningful and fulfilling marriage.
+Doug Burt it's not mine, I didn't make it up, I was not the one that made a man and woman complimentary to each other. its biology. The organ that was made to create life was not meant to go into the organ that expells death. the plumbing just doesn't work here. I agree with your statement about divorce. Back in the 60s they made it easy for married couples to break up. So marriage itself was hurt and so was the commitment between a man and a woman. We as a society did enough to screw up marriage. But you don't help marriage by redefining it. It's like it doesn't help a car with a flat tire by giving it another one. What is the purpose of sex?? it's not solely a pleasure tool, it's biological function is to create life. Therefore, redefining marriage to include same sex couples now means it's no longer about children but the romantic sexual interests of adults. Why does the gay community feel it necessary to bring what should be private, out into the open??? How many hetro couples go around defining who they are to people by stating, Hi I'm Tim and I'm heterosexual.?? nobody. our sexuality is not what defines who we are as people.