Beat me by 28 Minutes!

You know some marketeer, or some evil Cooperation CEO just gagged on a muffin watching this kid demonstrate independent thought and is scheming of a way to dumb kids down even further.

Quick Hal, Change the Sugar content to 200%
Burt, Tell the networks we need faster edits and brighter colors!
Woozan, Invent a new lustier Tween Popstar!
Chochak!, Implement a "Science and thinking is Laaaaaame to the Exxtreme campaign"


Get that shit out there to these kids, before I rip my comb-over out.

Hal, Burt, Woozan, Chochak: <<< YES SIR ! >>>

Oh geez just wait until he analyzes the meaning of Marriage itself and hence Religion... [insert snide media culture remark, OR super-positive 'the future has hope' comment]

Good kid. That takes guts.

The kids got his own fan page on facebook.

>> ^Trancecoach:
The kids got his own fan page on facebook.


Who doesn't?

A mandatory oath is worth nothing.

Wouldn't it be something if this kid actually managed to get something done on this matter?

I'll be rooting for him.

>> ^demon_ix:
>> ^Trancecoach:
The kids got his own fan page on facebook.

Who doesn't?


I don't.

* weeps *

bravo Will, bravo.

wow, "gaywad" is still in circulation?

Well, clearly the kid is an intelligent boy and articulate. Unfortunately it seems like some people have been filling his skull full of mush with their own agenda.

It is more than difficult to accept the details of his story. A 10 year old has 'a lot of friends' who are gay when his age group doesn't even hit puberty for 2-3 years? Is he referring to adults? What adults? Is it common for 10 year olds to have a lot of adult friends - let alone gay ones? And this kid with his many adult gay friends just out of nowhere he decides to plant a flag on gay rights as a violation of 'liberty & justice'? But he's willing to ignore thousands of other kinds of liberty & justice issues in the US legal system that take place every day?

Nope. Some other person has been shovelling an agenda into this kid's head for a while now. He seems like he agrees with it, and if he's mature/smart enough for his age to maintain the position for his own reasons then fine & dandy. But there is no way this kid just out of the clear blue sky arrived at this pass. This was the result of inculcation.

Well, clearly Winstonfield_Pennypacker is an intelligent boy and articulate. Unfortunately it seems like some people have been filling Winstonfield_Pennypacker's skull full of mush with their own agenda.

It is more than difficult to accept the details of Winstonfield_Pennypacker's story. A 30 year old has 'a lot of friends' none of which who are gay? Who is Winstonfield_Pennypacker referring to? Is it common for 30 year olds like Winstonfield_Pennypacker to have a lot of friends - let alone not even one that is gay? And this Winstonfield_Pennypacker with his "adult" friends just out of nowhere he decides to plant a flag against gay rights as a violation of the secular definition of marriage? AND he's willing to ignore thousands of other kinds of liberty & justice issues in the US legal system that take place every day!

Nope. Some other person has been shoveling an agenda into this Winstonfield_Pennypacker's head for a while now.... a long long while... Winstonfield_Pennypacker seems like he agrees with it. If Winstonfield_Pennypacker's mature/smart enough for a freakin' 30 year old in his mother's basement to maintain the position for his own reasons then fine & dandy, but he shouldn't impose his religious beliefs on a secular society. There is just no way this Winstonfield_Pennypacker out of the clear blue sky arrived at this. Winstonfield_Pennypacker is the result of inculcation.

I dont know about all that I remember in the third grade and maybe younger what gay was, although maybe not to its full extent. I also remember having a gay friend in preschool he may or may not have known it but he I knew he was different even then.

30? I'm flattered. I've been around longer than that though. And your assumption I am 'against' gay rights is incorrect. I'm all for a rational, reasonable policy for gay unions. My only requirement is that those morally opposed to homosexuality also have their rights respected & protected.

But most people do not falsely equate adherance to their chosen ideology as a prerequisite for loyalty to their nation. The PoA represents high ideals - not a laundry list of specific accomplishments. 'One nation'? 'Indivisible'? 'Liberty'? 'Justice for all'? Those are not feasible real world goals no matter what your inculcation is. They are all open to interpretation, and are largely a matter of opinion and perspective. They have never existed as absolutes in any human system. If the kid feels strongly about gay rights that's fine. But use the PoA as a vehicle to troll for awareness is not.

A 10 year old has 'a lot of friends' who are gay when his age group doesn't even hit puberty for 2-3 years?

I'm sorry but isn't this a valid question; if a 10 year old kid knows the sexual orientation of his friends, much less himself, thats probably suspect don't you think?

I was going to upvote until he said "a lot of my friends are..." not because its dubious - which it is - but because theres nothing admirable about protecting the rights of groups you agree with, or groups you belong to. Whats admirable is protecting the rights of people you don't know or even hate.

He'll sit down for gays but I'm sure theres lots of other groups he could care less about, atheists maybe?

This kid probably understands the pledge better than most adults. Kudos to him.

"A 10 year old has 'a lot of friends' who are gay when his age group doesn't even hit puberty for 2-3 years? I'm sorry but isn't this a valid question"

He is 10. A little exaggeration.

"Theres nothing admirable about protecting the rights of groups you agree with, or groups you belong to."

There is nothing admirable about Martin Luther King?

"He'll sit down for gays but I'm sure theres lots of other groups he could care less about, atheists maybe?"

That is a non sequitur...

Winstonfield_Pennypacker-

You completely missed the point... If you had said "I don't think the state should grant marriages, because it is a religious term. The state should only grant civil unions." I would agree with you.

Doing away with subtlety: The point is you have your beliefs at least in part (and my suspicion would be a large part) because of your religious up bringing or your integration into a religious/social group. What astonished me was that you berate a 10 year old for pointing out a logical fallacy, for reasons that you yourself are guilty of. You should applaud him learning how to think critical at his age, rather than rebuke him for blindly adopting his parents beliefs. More to the point, he took those beliefs and logically applied them.

If that is not worth an upvote, then I better watch only cat videos.

It would be great if his actions were copied in every school across the country.

You completely missed the point...

No - I grasped many points, and at a far deeper level than you realized.

The point is you have your beliefs at least in part (and my suspicion would be a large part) because of your religious up bringing or your integration into a religious/social group.

I already said that. Everyone's beliefs partly result from the groups they are involved in during upbringing. This kid has some 'group' somewhere that taught him to value the gay rights agenda more highly than other values & causes. That much is self evident.

What astonished me was that you berate a 10 year old for pointing out a logical fallacy

No, I'm berating him for comitting a logical fallacy. There is no equivalency with "Liberty & Justice for all" and the dogmas of special interest groups. The phrase is an absolute ideal like "Truth" or "World Peace". Some other kid could with equal justification say, "I won't say the PoA until the rights of businesses and churches are protected from prosecution." Advancing the self-defined 'liberty & justice' of one special interest group often comes at the direct expense of the definition of 'liberty & justice' for some other group. Therefore this kid's decision to refuse the PoA is arbitrary and unjustified. He's only 10, so such error can be excused to a degree. But his persistence in the effort is what moves him from 'misguided scamp' to fallacious ideologue.

More to the point, he took those beliefs and logically applied them.

No - he selectively and illogically applied them. That is no cause for praise. It is cause for rebuke & loving correction.

To: Winstonfield_Pennypacker-

lib⋅er⋅ty
  /ˈlɪbərti/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [lib-er-tee] Show IPA
–noun, plural -ties.
1. freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.
2. freedom from external or foreign rule; independence.
3. freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.
4. freedom from captivity, confinement, or physical restraint: The prisoner soon regained his liberty.
5. permission granted to a sailor, esp. in the navy, to go ashore.
6. freedom or right to frequent or use a place: The visitors were given the liberty of the city.
7. unwarranted or impertinent freedom in action or speech, or a form or instance of it: to take liberties.

Too me, not being afforded the same rights heterosexuals are given, is interference by the government. And while gays getting married might offend people with hardcore religious views, it certainly wouldn't violate their liberty.

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands: one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

There is no contradiction in saying that this country stands for "liberty and justice for all", while not giving equal civil liberties to all it's citizens?

And you did miss the point in your original retort that I was pointing out that you too are a product of your environment.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
My only requirement is that those morally opposed to homosexuality also have their rights respected & protected.


Which rights are those? The right to live in a society where everyone conforms to one's own ideals? That's not achievable unless you're willing to splinter society into much, much smaller autonomous units than we currently have. Probably units of one person.

Winstonfield

Are you arguing with this boy's opinions, or as you assumed, the opinions of others that propose equal rights for all citizens, including those not belonging to a Religious belief or doctrine? Or arguing that the fact he has these opinions or any opinion for that matter, is somehow misguided because he is ten?

Being apprehensive about dinner table values is one thing, especially when they are backed up with generalities. However, Gay rights are modern day civil rights. To deny them isn't a responsible, respectful protection of those "morally opposed to homosexuality," but instead a willful denial to respect the rights of others protected by the Constitution. Religion does not have a stranglehold on the meaning of Marriage, and the government should recognize a meaning that applies to all citizens, not just those part of an exclusive ideology. Your attacks on the validity of using the PoA as a place to express discontent are albeit right because, as you already said, the arguments for liberty and justice can be used just as easily by any opposition. But fuck semantics, those critiques don't change the validity of the boys opposition.

The hardest part of reading your posts isn't that you say things that are wrong, but snide. To have a lot of adult friends, "let alone gay ones," isn't nearly as disconcerting a thought as your clear assumption that having "gay ones" is somehow dangerous. You have an opinion just like this kid, and it seeps through. Except this kid expresses himself genuinely and makes his arguments unashamed, while you use formulated 'unbiased' criticisms to muddle the issue and confuse it with an argument about whether the chosen platform is philosophically sound.

Criticizing this kid for his refusal to stand and say the PoA as a show of his support for gay rights is comparable to criticizing Rosa Parks for boycotting public transportation, or civil rights leaders organizing sit in's in public courtrooms and offices because of the unequal rights African American's were subjected to. Don't confuse your opinions with unbiased criticisms about the nature of how someone expresses themselves.

if you still dont understand after reading the comments above, chances are youll never understand.

there is no such thing is gay rights, or black rights, or womens rights so show me any spokesperson be they martin luther king junior or a ten year old with an overactive vocabulary and ill show you a person who doesnt understand human rights

Too me, not being afforded the same rights heterosexuals are given, is interference by the government.

I agree. I'm all for equal legal, civil rights. The beef many religious groups have with the current batch of gay right efforts has been that it leaves too many holes. The movement is doomed to circle around itself because religious groups are not going along with a law that doesn't also include strong safeguards for their own rights. This isn't an issue where the gay movement can just rush through a slapdash law with the blythe promise that it'll be 'fixed later'. The law giving equal civil rights to gay couples has to at the same time clearly address the issue of the rights of people morally opposed to homosexuality. Until it does that, it's stuck. No law to date that I'm aware of has undertaken that journeyman effort.

And you did miss the point in your original retort that I was pointing out that you too are a product of your environment.

No - you missed the point where I brilliantly discussed the subjective absolute standard "liberty & justice for all" represents. Anyone who feels any degree of slight can legitimately complain about "liberty & justice" in the U.S. being an unmet standard. If the personally subjective standard of perceived slights to liberty & justice are the standard by which we recite the PoA or not, then NO ONE would be saying it. The kid has made an arbitrary, illogical choice slap a pre-requisite on his recitation of the pledge. That's his business - but it is no more 'logical' than if some kook on a right-wing compound does it for the same reason.

Are you arguing with this boy's opinions...those critiques don't change the validity of the boys opposition

No - I'm dismissing his stated conditions. If he wants to advocate gay rights then that's cool. But his chosen method is misguided, illogical, and fallacious. If he'd leave the pledge out of it then it's all good. But to piggy-back his cause on the pledge more than smacks of being a deliberate stunt egged on by whatever social group is in his background. If his argument has validity, then he doesn't NEED to be doing this crud with the pledge.

Religion does not have a stranglehold on the meaning of Marriage, and the government should recognize a meaning that applies to all citizens, not just those part of an exclusive ideology.

I agree. See my above paragraph about the real 'issue' with gay rights legislation. If they are really serious about getting this done then they NEED to stop doing a half-assed job of it. I understand the desire to obtain the rights is way overdue, and they've got legitimate gripes. But it is neither wise nor an advancement of 'justice' if legislation passes that does not protect all citizens equally. To advance 'thier' justice at the expense of harming the justice of others is no solution. All it does is set up even bigger clashes in the future. If we're going to do this, then let's do it properly and craft a law for the ages.

The hardest part of reading your posts isn't that you say things that are wrong, but snide.

I'd suggest that isn't me being 'snide'. It is your bias coloring how you choose to interpret what I say. Case in point...

To have a lot of adult friends, "let alone gay ones," isn't nearly as disconcerting a thought as your clear assumption that having "gay ones" is somehow dangerous.

At what point did I either state or imply that having gay friends is dangerous? Short answer: I never did that. That is YOU projecting your bias. In fact I don't have a beef with a 10 year old kid having an adult gay friend. Unless that adult gay friend is manipulating the kid to make a stink about the Pledge... But even then my opposition is not to the 'gayness', but to the person being a manipulative jackass.

At what point does the legislation proposed interfere with the rights of others? If it did, then obviously there would be a problem. However, being morally offended does not constitute a legitimate objection in regards to homosexuality. It does not harm others, including those opposed to it, and reports that state otherwise have countless times been shown to be done with an agenda to simply smear the issue. There will be no fair, equal human rights until subjective opinion based on faith is taken out of the public policy discussion.

This is great. I am going to convince my boys to do the same thing until in protest to a woman's right to reveal her chest in public just like a man can.

WP, you seem to be stuck on the concept that by giving segment A of the populace the same legal privileges of segment B, you are some how damaging damaging segment B. This is not the case. That segment B perceives it as damage simply does not make it so. They do not need any special dispensation to ensure that their rights are not infringed, because their rights are in no way being infringed.

Unless being a hateful bigot is a civil right and nobody told me?

This makes me want to have kids! He's brilliant.

Harry Potter is right. I'm gonna go marry a gay.

WP, you seem to be stuck on the concept that by giving segment A of the populace the same legal privileges of segment B, you are some how damaging damaging segment B. This is not the case.

There is already bumping going on. There was a photographer sued by a gay couple to force them to photograph their ceremony. A church sued so they could refuse to rent property to a lesbian couple. This is not going to go away, and will become more frequent and strident if a national law passes. Church groups are going to oppose any law that fails to spell everything out. They don't want to deal with the legal ramifications of a vauge, generic law. This does not come across as unreasonable to me.

I'm not saying this is a 'zero sum justice' game where giving gay couples the right to marriage in and of itself damages the rights of traditional marriage proponents. I'm saying that current gay legislation is fuzzy about critical issues. These are sloppy laws that leave the barn door wide open. Churches aren't opposing 'gay civil unions' or 'giving gay couples rights' per se. They are opposing the passage of legislation that leaves them extremely vulnerable to massive sue-age.

Allowing gay marriage is one thing, but I don't see how it would even be possible to pass a law requiring churches to marry gay couples and have it pass constitutional muster in the USA? Freedom of religion, separation of church and state, right?

Allowing gay marriage is one thing, but I don't see how it would even be possible to pass a law requiring churches to marry gay couples and have it pass constitutional muster in the USA? Freedom of religion, separation of church and state, right?

That's the kind of thing traditional marriage groups want very clearly and plainly ironed out before they support any gay marriage law. The bulk of gay couples couldn't care less, but there are some very strident activists who would use a gay marriage law as a prybar to try and go after other far less 'justice' oriented objective. Without clear, ironclad protections to their own rights there is just no way the 'traditional marriage' crowd is going to go along with these laws.

for posterity:

"the lesbian couple suing the church" news story I could not find in any legitimate newspaper(even fox). I found a story on a Christian anti-gay rights website about "Harriet Bernstein and Luisa Paster" but even a google search reveals nothing.

The lesbian couple didn't sue the church, at least not that I'm aware of. The church went to court so that they wouldn't have to rent out property for a lesbian uniting ceremony. This is one of those things that would need to be clarified in a law. If a church rents out private property for public events, would they be allowed to not rent out that property to couples wanting to perform gay marriages, or could they refuse and pay a fine, or would they be forced to rent the property, or what?

If you are renting a facility, or selling yours services as a photographer, you are providing a service that is subject to that laws of this country.

Civil Rights Act of 1866, paraphrased:

"That all persons born in the United States ... of every race and color, ... shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, ... as is enjoyed by white citizens"

No, you cannot discriminate in the way that you sell your service, whether for reasons of race, religion, or sexual orientation. If you don't like it, then stop renting your church out.

knives out got the cobra clutch, well put

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by jonny.

mintbbb has fixed this video's dead embed code - no Power Points awarded because mintbbb's points are already fully charged.