Tags for this video have been changed from 'atm, bank of america, receipt, smily face' to 'atm, bank of america, receipt, smiley face' - edited by lucky760

I'd be nervous that even if you got the right light to appear after pressing around randomly, that it hadn't tallied your vote correctly in the final vote. If there's a paper receipt, great, if the person bothers to check. This is frustrating to watch.

I know the restaurant statistic was right I worked as a cook for the last 10 years until I shattered my ankle recently in a car accident. And in virtually every restaurant I've worked for (some very large chains too) I've had to deal with at least one of the following: no overtime pay, no overtime pay for working holidays(xmas/thanksgiving), no breaks, no lunches, missing hours, being hired at a certain pay rate only to find out I was getting less when I actually got paid, delayed checks(up to 2 weeks once), and at one place I got a paycheck advance and was forced to payback the sum I owed twice because the manager didn't write it down the first time and I was stupid enough not to get a receipt.(Granted the last one was sorta my fault but still they took me for $400 that time). And that doesn't even cover the horrid conditions at most of these so called high class restaurants many of which I won't eat at anymore.

>> ^messenger:
So could you please watch the whole thing and then comment? You've spent more time doing research and replying to comments than it would have taken to just watch the thing through. And please do so with an open heart. In a nutshell, Matthew makes the argument that scripture actually does not forbid gay Christians to have gay sex. After watching it, you'll see that your comments about homosexual activity being a sin might not be scriptural, which is why nobody in this thread thinks you've actually watched it through. To claim scripture says it's a sin after watching this means you haven't watched it. That's why I invited you.

Well, I've finished watching and I have a really hard time believing that he has spent "thousands of hours" researching this, because you could copy and paste everything he has said from gay apologist websites, almost verbatim. So, there is nothing new here; just the usual twisting of scripture and dishonesty that is to be expected from people trying to justify what the bible clearly condemns as sinful. I'll give you an example of the dishonesty.

One of his arguments was to say that the destruction of Sodom and Gemmorah actually had nothing to do with homosexuality. He says that the attempted gang rape of the angels was actually just a condemnation against rape and not "committed, loving consensual homosexual relationships". He then points out that out of all the mentions of Sodom, sexual sin is only mentioned a couple of times. Which is true, but what he fails to mention is that most of the mentions aren't talking about Sodoms sins at all, but rather are spoken in a prophetic context. He then cites Ezekiel 16:49 which says

Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

Matthew then says that this proves that the sin of sodom was not homosexuality but arrogance and not helping the poor. It might prove that, except that this idea is contradicted by the very next verse:

Ezekiel 16:50

And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.

As we know from Leviticus 20:13, God considers homosexuality to be an abomination, which then cements the connection to Sodom. To leave verse 50 out in his exegesis shows his total dishonesty and MO.

The crux of his argument is in trying to overcome Romans 1:26-27, which is the strongest NT passage in condemning homosexual relations. He first tries to weaken it by putting it in the broader context of idolatry, which is actually a correct interpretation. Paul did intend to contrast it to idolatry. With idolatry, man exchanges the natural worship of God to the unnatural worship of false idols. In the same way, man exchanges the natural relations with women to unnatural relationships with men. Yet, what Matthew tries to interject here, is that this only applies to heterosexual men who abandoned their natural predispositions. He then asserts that, based on his opinion and nothing more, that because homosexuals naturally desire other men, it doesn't apply to them. Not only is this position not based in scripture, but it directly contradicts Pauls intended meaning. When Paul is speaking of natural, he doesn't mean someones psychological predispositions. He means what God intended when He created men and women. This is further evidenced by his usage of the words arsen and thelys for male and female, words that are relatively unusual in scripture but are used in Genesis 1:27, which is suggesting that same-sex relationships are a violation of the created order. We also have the fact of biology itself. It is unnatural by definition.

I could go on, but the main point is, every reference in scripture to homosexuality is negative. There is nothing there to affirm any kind of homosexual relationship, but plenty to condemn it. Matthews presupposition that homosexuality is a natural and unalterable orientation for some is clearly refuted by scripture. He acknowledges that God at least once considered it to be abomination which alone refutes this idea.

I am open to solid biblical interpretation, and if someone could present an argument that doesn't have to twist scripture into a pretzel to make it even remotely plausible, I would embrace it. That was not to be found in this presentation. Secular people of course will embrace any interpretation that agrees with their liberal ideals. As a Christian who takes the word of God seriously, I cannot.

>> ^messengerPaul states it is better to be single.Better to be single than what? Can you give me the scriptural reference?

That it's better to be single than be married, because you have more of your life to devote to the Lord.

1 Corinthians 7:27-28

Are you married? Do not seek a divorce. Are you unmarried? Do not look for a wife

But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this


>> ^messenger:
True they have higher disease rates, but I'll jump the gun and say all the other things are most likely the result of discrimination.

The Netherlands legally accepts homosexuality, but not because it's socially popular. The Netherlands is historically a conservative Christian nation at heart, but in terms of governance, they're extremely libertarian. So no matter how vile, sinful or immoral the population at large thinks something is, the higher cause is that government not interfere in people's personal choices as much as possible. Homosexuality is in fact not socially accepted in the Netherlands. It's more like the famous quote, "I may hate what you're saying, but I'll fight with my life for your right to say it," but applied to sexual freedom rather than freedom of speech.

You should have looked before you leaped:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Netherlands

The Netherlands was historically characterized by multitude of religions. Since the mid of the Middle Ages, the Netherlands was a predominantly Christian country until late into the 20th century. Although religious diversity remains to the present day, there is a major decline of religious adherence. Nowadays, the Netherlands is one of the most secular countries in Western Europe, with only 39% being religiously affiliated (31% for those aged under 35), and fewer than 20% visiting church regularly

If homosexuality were going to be accepted anywhere, it would be the most secular country in Europe. You cannot simply write off these statistics as discrimination.


>> ^messenger:
Why is it a "breakdown?" Why not just "discarding"? What families are breaking down because of men having sex? Remember that (at least by my understanding) a man's being attracted to other men isn't a sin on its own. So, what effect can gay sex have on the country? This is the part of the common argument that I have zero understanding of other than the disease angle, which alone isn't enough to label it "a behaviour harmful to society".

It's not just the disease angle, it is also the issue of domestic violence (many times more than normal), drug use, mental health, etc. This is a major drain on society, as well as a danger to children raised in homosexual households. When I say breakdown, I mean of traditional values. To redefine marriage in a society built upon the traditional (and biblical) values of marriage and family is to fundamentally transform it. The same goes with allowing gays to adopt children. This effects our entire concept of human relations and institutions. It erodes monogamy in that gays don't traditionally have monogamous relationships..in the Netherlands for instance, research shows that even in stable relationships, men have an average of 8 partners per year outside the marriage.

It also erodes the boundaries of marriage, and it's a slippery slope to polygamy. Many legal experts have predicted that laws establishing same-sex marriage will open the flood gates to polygamous relationships:

David Chambers wrote in a Michigan Law review piece that he expects gay marriage will lead government to be "more receptive to [marital] units of three or more" (1996 Michigan Law Review).

I think this article does a good job articulating this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/16/AR2006031601312.html

I agree with Krauthammer, that the homosexuality angle is only tertiary to the real problem with marriage, which I see as the abandonment of biblical morality back in the early 60s.

It's bad for children in that the family structure of two biological parents in a low conflict marriage is the ideal for raising children, and the farther you get away from that, the more problems you encounter. Consider these statistics from a federal study "Family Structure and Children’s Health in the United States"

Children in nuclear families were generally less likely than children in nonnuclear families
• to be in good, fair, or poor health [Note: these three categories are considered “less than optimal”];
• to have a basic action disability;
• to have learning disabilities or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder;
• to lack health insurance coverage;
• to have had two or more emergency room visits in the past 12 months;
• to have receipt of needed prescription medication delayed during the past 12 months due to lack of affordability;
• to have gone without needed dental care due to cost in the past 12 months;
• to be poorly behaved;
• and to have definite or severe emotional or behavioral difficulties during the past 6 months.

Children living in single-parent families had higher prevalence rates than children in nuclear families for the various health conditions and indicators examined in this report. However, when compared with children living in other nonnuclear families, children in single-parent families generally exhibited similar rates with respect to child health, access to care, and emotional or behavioral difficulties.


http://www.christianpost.com/news/federal-report-confirms-nuclear-family-best-for-childrens-hea lth-48997/
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_10/sr10_246.pdf

>> ^messenger:

@GenjiKilpatrick

I went over these comments, and I don't see where chilaxe said anything racist. You appear to be the one who associated commentary on "societal decay" with Blacks or Hispanics.

Blacks and Hispanics didn't kill California, endless socialism celebrating victimhood, class warfare and anti-assimilation did. It's about time taxocrats take the receipt for killing California.

>> ^quantumushroom:

When are the taxocrats going to take receipt of their fookups, aka 'sh1t that doesn't work and never will'? Do we have to end up like Europe before anyone wakes up?

>> ^MaxWilder:
It has been overly clear that since the impeachment of Clinton the Republicans have increasingly become hypocrites in every conceivable fashion. They prosecute others for laws they have broken themselves, they demand respect that they do not give, they cannot open their mouths without lies spewing forth then accuse the opposition of misleading the public.
And they do it because the idiots in their camp eat it all up and ask for more.



What the hell do you have against Europe? No question that a few of the countries have screwed up their economies (because the bankers drove the global economy into the ground), but aside from that, what is it? They talk funny? They smell bad? They don't make good cheeseburgers?

You keep talking about Europe like it's some hellhole, but it's actually beautiful, and many of the countries over there provide a vastly better standard of living for their citizens.

I love the US, no doubt about it. But I'm not gonna stick my head up my ass and pretend we're the best at everything, because that is nowhere near the truth.

You want to talk about shit that doesn't work and never will? Let's talk about supply side economics.

When are the taxocrats going to take receipt of their fookups, aka 'sh1t that doesn't work and never will'? Do we have to end up like Europe before anyone wakes up?


>> ^MaxWilder:

It has been overly clear that since the impeachment of Clinton the Republicans have increasingly become hypocrites in every conceivable fashion. They prosecute others for laws they have broken themselves, they demand respect that they do not give, they cannot open their mouths without lies spewing forth then accuse the opposition of misleading the public.
And they do it because the idiots in their camp eat it all up and ask for more.

Speaking for myself, Paul could change my mind if he a) admitted fault, and b) gave some sort of speech about why racism is morally wrong.

>>> For the long speech you'll have to wait. As for the apology,

"When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name."

--Ron Paul, Business Wire

A poster on the site "The Daily Paul" summed it up nicely:

What if you rent your home out, and the people use the house. to molest children. Should you be required to accept responsibility? Your name is still on the mortgage, so are you accountable for every action of the renters?

All you could tell people is that you had no knowledge, but admit you should have kept a better watch on your property, and accept 'moral responsibility' (versus actual responsibility, since you did not molest anyone and don't advocate that action).

Instead he's denying any fault, and castigating people for asking him to say anything at all about it, as if he thinks that kind of racist rhetoric isn't something people should be upset about.

>>> Due to the above statement I disagree that Dr. Paul is denying any fault. Based on what I've read, he has taken receipt of this newsletter flap. That he hasn't worded an apology precisely that is satisfactory to you is out of his (or my) control. I could be 100% wrong, but I do not believe you harbor a change of heart that will be triggered by a Paul apology. You are no under no obligation to support or believe him. Can we agree you're not a libertarian frustrated only by the doubt created by the Ron Paul newsletters?

Ultimately that's what you yourself said with your response -- that all charges of racism are bogus. Why you think that, I can't fathom.

>>> Please allow me to clarify my original statement: the problem with LIBERALS labeling anyone a racist is that in 2012 it's crying wolf. It's so overused as to be meaningless.

Ad hominem tu quoque -- which I like to think of as the "I know you are but what am I?" fallacy.

My point about "all of us" being racist is, if we're all covered in poop, no one can accuse anyone else of stinking.

Easy, (Paul) says people have an inalienable right to refuse to serve or hire minorities if they like, but that minorities have no inalienable right to be treated as free and equal citizens when they participate in our society and economy.

>>> I have no easy answer for you, not because Dr. Paul is wrong but because the details of how a libertarian society deals with racism are complex (yet probably less complex than the maze of government coercion now).

A private citizen has a right to refuse to associate with others s/he dislikes, but does the government have the power to create an underclass of citizens? The answer is NO.

Some good comments here on this topic. Not gospel, just snacks for thought.

>> ^quantumushroom:

>> ^dannym3141:
That's why cats are SHIT.

ftfy.


ftfy.

I disagree, not to say that they don't have their own issues. Most people who hate dogs are usually afraid of them. You don't hear people go on and on about what a dog doesn't do for them the same way as many cat haters do.>> ^Payback:

>> ^Grimm:
Why Cat Haters are Insecure
http://www.hark.com/clips/ccxyvfsxpp-adam-carolla-why-cat-haters-
are-insecure
>> ^dannym3141:
That's why cats are shit.


Dog haters are just as insecure, they're just in denial.

>> ^Grimm:

Why Cat Haters are Insecure
http://www.hark.com/clips/ccxyvfsxpp-adam-carolla-why-cat-haters-are-insecure
>> ^dannym3141:
That's why cats are shit.



Dog haters are just as insecure, they're just in denial.

>> ^dannym3141:

That's why cats are THE SHIT.


ftfy.

Why Cat Haters are Insecure

http://www.hark.com/clips/ccxyvfsxpp-adam-carolla-why-cat-haters-are-insecure
>> ^dannym3141:

That's why cats are shit.

EEEWWWW!!!! I thought it was bad enough when the receptionist slobbered all over the receipt.