Archive for the ‘Articles On Gay Marriage’ Category

Transcript of this video:

Taiwan Joins Same-Sex Marriage Nations

Source References:
Video Rating: / 5

10 Celebrities who have spoken out against gay rights and the LGBT community. Subscribe:
Other Videos you might like:
10 Famous Gay Men Who Married Women

10 Most Influential Transgender People In The World #ProudToBe

10 Hot Guys Who Were Born Female

10 Celebrities You Didn’t Know Were Gay

10 Famous Couples With The BIGGEST Age Gap

Now that the Supreme Court has legalized same-sex marriage, the LGBT community and their supporters are celebrating the huge step forward the United States has taken. It has been a long time coming, and those in the LGBT community now have the right to walk down the aisle with the one they love. The ruling was celebrated nationwide, and many celebrities spoke out and gave their support to those in the LGBT community. Miley Cyrus was one of these very vocal supporters. She even has an equal sign tattooed on her ring finger in support of same-sex marriage.

But despite the many celebs who celebrated the ruling, there are a few who won’t be waving around a LGBT flag any time soon. Many of these celebrities’ opinions on gay rights stem from their deep religious viewpoints, while others come across as just being homophobic.

Actor Kirk Cameron is one Hollywood celeb who basis his opinion on gay rights on the teachings of the bible. The born-again Christian has gone on the record to condemn gays, and he even thinks homosexuality is detrimental and destructive to civilization as we know it. Despite receiving backlash from LGBT advocate groups, Kirk stands by his opinion, and we doubt he will be changing his mind anytime soon.

Filipino boxer Manny Pacquiao is another devout Christian who stands behind his religion and his thoughts on homosexuality. Manny didn’t care about being PC when he said homosexuals were “worse than animals.” Even after receiving backlash for his statements, Manny stood firm on his opinion. He apologized for his comments, but he still feels that homosexuality and same-sex marriage is something that is “against the law of God.”

Other celebrities can’t hide behind their religion when it comes to their disapproval of gays. Singer Chris Brown, for example, seems to have a negative opinion on homosexuals that is deeply rooted in homophobia. The singer has used gay slurs on social media more times than we can count, and he was also accused of telling a male fan “I’’m not into this gay s—t,” before punching him in the face.

Despite this list of celebrities who don’t support gay rights, there are millions of other people in the world who are all for equal rights of everyone regardless of their sexual preference.

Our Social Media:

For more videos and articles visit:
Video Rating: / 5

News Articles:

That was FAST: Yesterday it was gay marriage; Now look who wants “equal rights”

Gay Marriage Ruling Opens Door to Widespread Anti-Christian Bigotry

Religious Conservatives Will Be Vilified and Marginalized, Lose Their Religious Freedom, Justices Warn in Gay Marriage Dissenting Opinions

Alito Warns: Defenders of Traditional Marriage Now Risk Being Treated as Bigots by Governments, Employers, Schools

Alito Warns: Defenders of Traditional Marriage Now Risk Being Treated as Bigots by Governments, Employers, Schools

500+ gay pride youth engulfed in flames in Taiwan as Biblical-scale firestorm spontaneously ignites, raining down fire from above

Justice Alito: Christians Will Now Be Labeled As Bigots By Governments, Employers, Schools

Justice Alito: Christians Will Now Be Labeled As Bigots By Governments, Employers, Schools

Marco Rubio: USA at ‘Water’s Edge’ of Declaring Christianity ‘Hate Speech’

Top 10 Quotes from the Dissenting Justices on Same-Sex Marriage

Benjamin Watson Just Smacked The Supreme Court With The One Thing About Marriage They Don’t Realize

Benjamin Watson Just Smacked The Supreme Court With The One Thing About Marriage They Don’t Realize

FAIR USE NOTICE: This video may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes only. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 106A-117 of the U.S. Copyright Law.

Ben Shapiro (Editor-in-Chief, The Daily Wire) joins Dave Rubin to discuss his views on gay marriage, gun control, and his debate with Piers Morgan on CNN. Watch the full interview about conservatism vs leftism, free speech, gay marriage, and more: ***Subscribe:

Watch more on Ora TV:

What are your thoughts? Comment below or tweet to Dave:

Sign up for our newsletter with the best of Rubin Report each week:…

Ben Shapiro
Editor-in-Chief of The Daily Wire, and Editor-at-Large of Breitbart
Ben Shapiro on Twitter:

Follow Dave on Twitter:
Follow The Rubin Report on Facebook:
Follow Dave on Facebook:
About Dave Rubin:

Care about free speech? Tired of political correctness? Like discussions about big ideas? Watch Dave Rubin on The Rubin Report. Real conversations, unfiltered rants, and one on one interviews with some of the most interesting names in news and entertainment. Comedians, authors, and influencers join Dave each week to break down the latest in politics and current events. Real people, real issues, real talk.
Video Rating: / 5

Gay Men Will Marry Your Girlfriends

LIKE us on:

We support gay marriage. Here’s why you should too.

See more
FOLLOW us on:
FOLLOW us on:
Video Rating: / 5

Over the last several weeks gay-rights proponents have been staging protests and rallies in opposition to the outcome of Prop. 8, the California constitutional amendment banning gay-marriage; these protests, from my standpoint, border on incomprehensible. Rather than protesting the outcome of the Proposition 8 vote, gay-rights activists should be dancing in the streets, and so called traditional married couples should be petitioning for their emancipation.


On the surface Prop. 8 appears to simply limit the rights of gay couples to marry; however, from another perspective the Prop. 8 vote in California actually limits the government’s power of licensure, hindering its ability to extend marriage licenses. Keep in mind that the legal definition of a license is:


“The permission granted by competent authority to exercise a certain privilege that, without such authority, would constitute an illegal act.”


In other words, marriage in all fifty states is illegal unless the State grants its permission. The truth is that the State and Federal government have gone mad with the power of requisite licensing. Without a license citizens of the US cannot fish, hunt, marry, drive, provide health services (even non-medical), or practice law; they cannot manufacture products, build structures, provide retail or wholesale goods, start a business, trade, or be a travel or real-estate agent; in some states even selling flowers, selling your services as an interior designer, or running a public pinball machine are strictly prohibited without a State issued license. The ugly truth is that in many cases licensure is a hidden tax on consumers and a boon to government at the citizens’ expense; indeed, marriage licensure alone is a $ 100,000,000 a year industry–with 2.2+ million marriages per year at an average cost of $ 44 per license.


And what does the government provide in return? Two things: firstly, it provides the chaos which naturally arises as the state attempts to define the nature of a legally binding contract that it did not initiate but requires by law. And second, it provides subsidies in the form of tax breaks and benefits to married couples. The latter might sound good, but the details are troubling. These tax breaks and benefits are a form of wealth redistribution doled out according to the policy objectives of the State and Federal government and is paid for by everyone while directly benefiting only those who are married.


Further, a state marriage license embroils citizens in undue contractual relationships with the State and sometimes the Federal government. One of the best anti-licensure arguments that I’ve read comes from a rather unlikely source; Pastor Matt Trewhella writes in a thorough and well-thought-out article addressed specifically to Christians:


“When you marry with a marriage license, you grant the State jurisdiction over your marriage. When you marry with a marriage license, your marriage is a creature of the State. It is a corporation of the State! Therefore, they have jurisdiction over your marriage including the fruit of your marriage. What is the fruit of marriage? Your children and every piece of property you own. There is plenty of case law in American jurisprudence which declares this to be true.” [source]


Truly, nothing gives the State the right to make illegal the consensual contract of marriage, except for that which the citizens of the states allow. For this reason Prop. 8 was an overwhelming success. It rightfully limited the government’s too-often-abused power of licensure.


If there was any problem with Prop. 8, it was that it did not go far enough. Certainly, another amendment is needed in California, and all states for that matter, that would deprive the State of the power to prohibit marriage without its consent. The right of contract is one that ought to belong to the free citizens and to no other. To the gay-rights activists I say, take to the streets, though not in protest, but in celebration; and thank the “traditional” married couples and religious organizations that funded the Vote Yes campaign, for there in lies your protection from overreaching State power.


Chris Waner is a writer, artist, and musician in New York City. You can read more of Chris’ articles at The Free Exchange

What is the definition of marriage and where did it come from? When I think about the laws that the United States created regarding marriage its amazing that many people are not talking about the separation between church and state. I personally believe religion should have no input on the laws that govern men because there are so many different religions with conflicting laws that it is not fair to impose ones beliefs over another. But, to those of you who can’t make the distinction, here is my argument.

The bible has a lot of laws that we no longer deem relevant to society today. The Old Testament says that women, after childbirth, need to be separated from the population for a specified period of time, 33 days if she had a boy, 66 days if she had a girl. It also states that women need to separate from men during the time of their menstrual cycle. How many people still follow this biblical law? Western society has made enough medical advancements that it knows there is no medical reason to continue this law. Its no longer relevant, and therefore we do not follow it anymore.

With respect to marriage, in the Old Testament, men could have multiple wives. Jacob not only had multiple wives, but he also had multiple concubines as well that gave him children. These children were never deemed illegitimate just because Jacob was not married to these women. Today, we’ve outlaw polygamy. This argument is not one for whether monogamy or polygamy are natural, but only to show that the law of marriage has evolved and changed not because the bible says its wrong, but because society evolved and deemed it illegal. This was a societal decision.

What many fail to acknowledge is that society has already moved away from biblical laws. Many of them unknown to the general population. What is interesting to note, even the laws of the bible evolved. The laws of Noah, to the laws of Moses, changed because “God” deemed it necessary to make specific laws of greater value than others. The 10 commandments, the basic laws that we are governed by, does not say anything about homosexuality. The fact of the matter is, the concept of marriage has evolved, like many concepts from the bible. We know that women are not unclean, although the bible tells us women are dirty. The bible tells us not to eat shell fish, or pig, but today we have found proper ways of cooking these items, and many religious institutions do not keep the law of Kashrut.

Societies job is evolve and grow, to get better and more educated. But many fall back on biblical arguments when, in fact, many of those people have determined some laws unimportant and others of higher importance, but based on what? Their own self imposed idea of what is right and wrong. I would argue that it is time for people to evolve on the concept of marriage. I do not care if you believe it is unnatural or not, the fact of the matter is, people have the right to be people, and our constitution gives the right to privacy. Society has formulated the evolution of laws, why can’t we evolve on the concept of homosexuals having the right to marry? The law should be all people have the right to marriage.

Amy Lisa Rebeiro