Video Rating: / 5
Australians are voting in a plebiscite on same sex marriage. This is a MUST WATCH / MUST SHARE video that gives viewers a different angle on the SSM debate. Since this is a legal question, why hasn’t any politician mentioned the 7 legal standards for introducing new laws by Sir William Blackstone, the foremost authority on common law and legal interpretation? Pastor Steve Cioccolanti contributes a fresh perspective on this conversation about the foundation of our society: the family.
Share the article cited with your friends: https://newswars.com.au/7-tests-making-new-law-sex-marriage-ssm/
This glimmer of truth in a dark world, FREE UPLOAD is made possible by your generous support of and purchases at Discover Ministries.
“We are creating a clean social media alternative where there will be no profanity and traditional viewpoints will not be censored. The kickstart budget for this project is US0,000 + 00 monthly server fees. Consider this our CROWDFUNDED project.
Please pray about sending your best financial gift to support this endeavour to bless and connect Christians around the world. We are preparing for the Lord a Christian social media He would be proud and would use, if He so choose.” ~ Pastor Steve
MUSIC CREDIT: Original music made exclusively for Discover Ministries by world-class composer Tom Hanke. Check him out!
4 STEPS TO JOIN OUR ONLINE CHURCH:
1) SUBSCRIBE to our friends’ list. This ensures you don’t miss communication from us even if our videos or other social media become censored. http://www.discover.org.au/subscribe
2) TITHE and OFFER. Some Christians have been mistaught that tithing is not found in the New Testament, which is a false doctrine according to Luke 11:42 and Hebrews 7:8. God says tithes (10% of our income) are His and must be returned to our local church. If you reside in a geographical location without a Bible-teaching church, you may treat Discover Church as your virtual online church.
Beyond the tithe, you can sow offerings to any ministry that feeds you according to Galatians 6:6. Offerings can be any amount. Pastor Steve believes the seed is prophetic. He has announced a clean social media project for protecting conservative and Christian voices; the kick-start fund for this is US0,000. Contribute via: http://www.discover.org.au/give
3) PRAY with and for Discover Ministries (Colossians 4:3, 2 Corinthians 1:11). We can do impossible things by the power of prayer. Pastor Steve composed some model prayers you can download and use each day: http://www.discover.org.au/pray
4) SHARE JESUS to your family and friends. YouTube links are an easy way. Books and DVDs are also effective, as you have found out by watching. Keep sharing them. Before giving Christian books or videos, Pastor Steve recommends you first pray in faith for the person you want to be saved. If you are not sure how, please refer to the prayer called “6 Steps” at link above.
Would you like to connect by social media?
Find freedom in Christ’s Life & Teachings.
Share this message & VOTE FOR AUSTRALIA’S CHILDREN!
Time to get stoned.
Video Rating: / 5
You might’ve heard “there’s no right to gay marriage in the Constitution,” or that marriage equality is something brand new that’s only just been invented. And it’s true that I don’t see the words “gay marriage” in the Constitution. But I also don’t see “straight marriage,” either — or any marriage at all. So, does the Constitution protect marriage or not?
Video Rating: / 5
A majority of religious Americans say they support marriage equality according to new numbers by the Public Religion Research Institute — a sign that more people of faith are reconciling their beliefs and improving their understanding of LGBT people and families…
Read More At:
Clip from the Friday, April 24th 2015 edition of The Kyle Kulinski Show, which airs live on Blog Talk Radio and Secular Talk Radio monday – friday 4-6pm Eastern.
Check out our website – and become a member – at:
Listen to the Live Show or On Demand archive at:
Follow on Twitter:
Tweets by KyleKulinski
Like on Facebook:
Friends Of SecularTalk:
AMAZON LINK: (Bookmark this link to support the show for free!!!)
Gay marriage is one of the most polarizing topics, yet who with any decent level of compassion and understanding would reject a law allowing gays to have the same legal rights as straight people? It comes down to tolerance.
Alas, marriage is a terrible idea for gays, particularly when gay people try to imitate the traditional marriage model. Why copy something that has a 50% + failure rate, and thatâs not including those who stay unhappily married?
Here are 7 reasons gay couples should think twice about attempting to imitate the traditional marriage model.
1) Money: The concept of marriage was originally mostly about property rights, not love. Now, with over half of all marriages ending in divorce, and many of those couples fighting it out in court over money, have things really changed very much? You donât know how your partner will react in 10 or 20 years if they donât feel their needs are being met. Why complicate things by combining all your finances?
2) Monogamy: Before Stephen became a matchmaker, he was quite idealistic about romantic relationships. By the time he sold the company in 1997, he had a much more thorough understanding of human nature and love relationships after interviewing people about their love lives, and observing 1000s of relationships. One of the things he learned is that a sizable percentage (larger than you think) of people who assume they are the long-term, strictly monogamous type really are not. Some donât know themselves well enough, some conform to keep the peace or get what they want, and some pretend they want strict monogamy for the rest of their lives for other reasons.
For a short period of time they can easily remain faithful, but eventually they will be miserable. Traditional marriage doesnât take this into consideration. In addition, gay men and men in general tend to be comfortable separating sex and love, allowing them physical contact without a deep emotional connection, and they have an innate drive for multiple partners. Therefore, strict long-term monogamy may not be the best path for all gay couples. Considering the high rate of cheating among heterosexual couples, apparently itâs not the best idea for them either! Perhaps all couples would instead be better off focusing on complete honesty and safe-sex 100% of the time.
3) Religion: If you were hoping we would champion the religious themes often used against gay marriage, sorry, weâre not going to do that. Since religion originally had nothing to do with marriage, that argument is about as phony as an outspoken, anti-gay yet closeted preacher.
Our findings tell us that anti-gay sentiment will incur negative karma and result in future lives where the culprit will experience a similar circumstance, but as the victim, even for those who claim to be anti-gay in the name of religion.
4) One size does not fit all: The traditional marriage model encourages couples to conform to certain rules and customs which may not be compatible with one or both partners, gay or straight. You donât need a certificate from the government to prove your love for each other or to anyone else.
5) Kids: Marriage used to be perceived as necessary before having children. Is it really? In reality, parents trying to fit into the traditional marriage mold too often results in disharmony, which is toxic for kids. If you want children, opt for what we call a âchild contractâ instead of a marriage contract. This will, unlike marriage, put the child first, rather than the demands and expectations of a traditional, and potentially draining marriage. It also financially protects the main caretaker of the child before having the child.
6) The marriage agenda: After witnessing so many agenda-minded women that straight male friends (including Scott) have dated being overly focused, in our opinion, on getting a ring on their finger, gays should be grateful (Stephen is!) they donât have to deal with that (though Stephen has known straight women who had him in their viewfinder- yikes!).
We can certainly understand why some women (and men) seek financial security through marriage, as itâs easier to be a good parent when you donât need to worry about money. But it takes the fun out of dating and itâs annoying when every other person is too focused on their goal of getting married instead of simply getting to know someone and allowing the connection to be what it is naturally. Dating for gay men is challenging enough and marriage would add yet another reason to stay single.
7) Marriage wonât lock in happiness or guarantee you wonât grow old alone: On the surface, marriage seems like a great idea, and of course it can be wonderful when two people are truly compatible. But when you delve into the reasons why so many people become unhappy in their relationships, and you see these same reasons over and over with a majority of couples as we have with our work, the harmful effects of traditional marriage become obvious. Getting married will never lock in or guarantee security, stability, or happiness. Because of this, it seems reasonable that people should wait until after age 40 to marry so at least they will know themselves better when they make this life-long commitment.
It sure would be nice to see gay couples have the same legal rights as straight couples, and more people, no matter what their orientation, question whether getting married is really their best option.
Prediction: In 50 years people will look back and see the obsession with traditional marriage and the blocking of gay marriage as archaic and discriminatory
Free report: 13 Spiritual and New Age Myths and 11 Questions to Ask Before Hiring a Psychic, plus Numerology Decoder Software and more.
Copyright Â© Scott Petullo, Stephen Petullo
Something I Said – Gay Marriage Dwight Hobbes Insight News archives Gay marriage is wrong? For whom? As long as it’s between adults, the only people a marriage concerns are the one the proposing and the one answering. Regarding gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, transgender and, for that matter, heterosexual unions, unless someone is popping the question to you or me, it’s none of our business. Joseph Phillips, as his Nov. 20 Insight commentary demonstrates, doesn’t understand that. Added to which, he compares apples to oranges, equating non-hetero marriage with, of all things, slavery: obviously he doesn’t comprehend much about the history, much the less the reality, of being Black in America. All he shows any understanding and knowledge of is how to bend over backward minding somebody else’s business. Phillips doesn’t offer a reasoned premise. Instead, he postures on a bully pulpit of whining, self-righteous rhetoric that holds less water than a leaking sieve. His stilted rationale: “[The majority decision by] the Supreme Court of New Jerseyâ¦effectively found that homosexual unions were morally equivalent to heterosexual unionsâ¦basedâ¦in part on societies’ changing opinions and attitudes.Â Changing opinions, though, no matter how heartfelt, are not a valid standard by which to measure the morality of behavior.Â It was not changing attitudes that ended slavery, for instance; it was the ascendance of the principle of equality.” Phillips blithely glosses over, in deciding what is and isn’t “a valid standard”, the fact that he has no right to measure someone else’s morality in the first place — especially since no in question is asking to marry him. His circular musing over semantics about attitudes versus a principle’s ascendance is moot. In addition, this has nothing to do with slavery. The matter at hand is discrimination, denying a basic civil right. Anyone who has had even a nodding acquaintance with African American history or learned anything on the wrong end of prejudice realizes the difference. “Societies have uniformly seen marriage as a positive good because marriages produce, protect and educate children”, Phillips proclaims. Â “The state supports marriage because it has rightly recognized that families are the primary source of moral education in our society, and a free society has a vested interest in strong, healthy, stable heterosexual families.” Let’s take that pat propaganda point by point and have an unvarnished look at straight marriages. They may be the heart and soul of Norman Rockwell paintings, but in life they are a crapshoot. Barbara Whitehead and David Popenoe’s 2004 report “The State of Our Unions”, prepared at Rutgers University for the National Marriage Project, acknowledges what for ages has been common knowledge: about as often as not, marriages go to hell in a hand basket. It’s also common knowledge that marriages that remain under the same roof don’t necessarily stay intact, that they can wind up some pretty miserable affairs that are more about appearances than substance. One of the hardest things to do is fit two individuals into one relationship. And, clearly, being straight doesn’t guarantee any lock on marital strength, health or stability. As for traditional marriages being a rightly recognized source of moral education, then where are all the rapists, murderers, domestic abusers, embezzlers and politicians coming from? The stork? Even if you happen to be a by-the-good-book Christian who goes by the tenet that it was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, you do not have the right to, as it were, cast the first stone. The most devout Christians adhere to the First Commandment, yet don’t lose a wink of sleep counting Hindus deities. But, when it comes to their next door neighbors, busy-bodies like Phillips just have to stick their nose into another’s bedroom. “For millennia”, he claims, “societies have rejected homosexual marriage not because they are all a bunch of bigots, but because human reason has judged that homosexual behavior is wrong.” Hello? They have judged homosexual behavior is wrong, because they are a bunch of bigots. And, no matter how Joseph Phillips tries to dress his up narrow-minded stumping as legitimate comment, he reveals himself to be a knee-jerk homophobe. As well, the cloying sentimental ploy of dragging slavery into things lays bare his feeble logic. In short, he talks like a fool.
Dwight Hobbes has written for ESSENCE, Reader’s Digest, Washington Post, Minneapolis Star Tribune, St. Paul Pioneer Press, City Pages, Mpls/St. Paul, MN Law & Politics, Pulse of the Twin Cities, Twin Cities Daily Planet, Women & Word, San Diego Union-Tribune and Minnesota Spokesman-Recorder (where he contributes the commentary column Something I Said). Â He’s spoken his mind over National Public Radio, Minnesota Public Radio, Blog Talk Radio’s UNOBSTRUCTED and KMOJ in Minneapolis and St. Paul. Was regularly featured as guest commentator on NewsNight Minnesota (KTCA-Minneapolis/St. Paul) and Spectator (Minneapolis Television Network). His monthly column “Hobbes In The House” in MN Spokesman Recorder speaks to domestic abuse and rape. His plays are Shelter – produced at Mixed Blood Theatre by Pangea World Theater, Dues – produced by Mixed Blood Theatre, University of Southern Illinois in Point of Revue, selected for Bedlam Theatre’s 10-Minute Play Festival and published by Playscripts, Inc. You Can’t Always Sometimes Never Tell – produced by Theater Center Philadelphia, Long Island University, reading at The Kennedy Center and published in the anthology CENTER STAGE, In the Midst – produced by Long Island University, starring Samuel E. Wright. Â Hobbes spoke on the panel “Farewell To August Wilson” at the Guthrie Theater, broadcast on Conversations With Al McFarlane (KFAI, KMOJ). Singer-songwriter Dwight Hobbes recorded the single “Atlanta Children” (BeatBad Records) and gigged 10 years in the Long Island/NYC area, including The Other End, Kenny’s Castaways and My Fathers Place. Â He fronted the Boston blues band Midlight. Â In Minneapolis, Hobbes opened for David Daniels at First Street Entry, James Curry at Terminal Bar, sat in with Yohannes Tona, Alicia Wiley at Sol Testimony’s Soul Jam, The New Congress at Babalu, Willie Murphy at the Viking Bar and Wain McFarlane & Jahz at Lucille’s Kitchen. Dwight Hobbes still drops in at the occasional open mic around town. www.myspace.com/dwighthobbesmusic
Transcript of this video:
Video Rating: / 5
Is It Legal To Discriminate Against LGBT? http://testu.be/1JDjK1e
Gay rights, including marriage, have become increasingly relevant with countries stepping up to legalize same-sex marriage. So where is same-sex marriage legal?
37 States with Legal Gay Marriage and 13 States with Same-Sex Marriage Bans
Gay Marriage Around the World
“A growing number of governments around the world are considering whether to grant legal recognition to same-sex marriages.”
Frequently Asked Questions: Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)
“Section 3 of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” has been declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court.”
Iceland Picks the World’s First Openly Gay PM
“When Barack Obama was sworn in as the new U.S. President last week, Americans made much of the fact that he was the country’s first black Commander in Chief. ”
Is It Legal To Discriminate Against LGBT?
Subscribe to TestTube Daily!
TestTube’s new daily show is committed to answering the smart, inquisitive questions we have about life, society, politics and anything else happening in the news. It’s a place where curiosity rules and together we’ll get a clearer understanding of this crazy world we live in.
Watch more TestTube: http://testtube.com/testtubedailyshow/
Subscribe now! http://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=testtubenetwork
TestTube on Twitter https://twitter.com/TestTube
Trace Dominguez on Twitter https://twitter.com/TraceDominguez
TestTube on Facebook https://facebook.com/testtubenetwork
TestTube on Google+ http://gplus.to/TestTube
Download the New TestTube iOS app! http://testu.be/1ndmmMq
A Chinese court ruled against a gay couple in the country’s first same-sex marriage lawsuit, dealing a blow to the campaign for LGBT equality. CNN’s Matt Rivers reports.
Video Rating: / 5
Jake Tapper examines how accurate the claims made by Ted Cruz calling out other GOP candidates on the Supreme Court’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage really are.
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: http://bit.ly/1SWwvwL ***Subscribe: http://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=RubinReport
Watch more on Ora TV: http://www.ora.tv/rubinreport
What are your thoughts? Comment below or tweet to Dave: https://twitter.com/RubinReport
Sign up for our newsletter with the best of Rubin Report each week: http://www.ora.tv/rubinreport/article…
Editor-in-Chief of The Daily Wire, and Editor-at-Large of Breitbart
Ben Shapiro on Twitter: https://twitter.com/BenShapiro
Follow Dave on Twitter: https://twitter.com/RubinReport
Follow The Rubin Report on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/rubinreport
Follow Dave on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/daverubin
About Dave Rubin: http://daverubin.tv/
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
GOD HAD A DIARY? http://bit.ly/Q66kDk
LIKE us on: http://www.facebook.com/collegehumor
We support gay marriage. Here’s why you should too.
See more http://www.collegehumor.com
FOLLOW us on: http://www.twitter.com/collegehumor
FOLLOW us on: http://www.collegehumor.tumblr.com
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