powerful sentiment.

Adding video to channels (Equality) - requested by Sagemind.

*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Wednesday, May 30th, 2012 12:16pm PDT - promote requested by jonny.

For some reason I thought this was going to be a comedy skit. Didn't read the description before I watched.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

For some reason I thought this was going to be a comedy skit. Didn't read the description before I watched.


It's a good video, but you're not the only one.

And I read the description! It said:

"Comedian Todd Glass, who came out as gay in January, appeass fmmm mbla bommffff mrfl ssmsflpllaa.a..."

Alright a comedy skit! Let's watch!

Why is that guy yelling at Daniel Tosh? This wasn't funny at all.

Im afraid not enough people are going to get it. Just too many people willing to stick their head in the sand over gay suicide. The point they're trying to make is just a tad too subtle IMO.

Never underestimate the natural urge to shift blame/responsibility away from oneself.

Wow, Todd Glass is certainly better at drama than comedy.

*dark *humanitarian *teens

Adding video to channels (Dark, Humanitarian, Teens) - requested by jonny.

there is a big difference~snot like they gave him the rope he was already smoking..maybe he hung himself because his parents needed the insurance money!?-This PSA is supposed to convey WHAT message?

BOOOOOOOOOO! Retarded way to school dumb motherfuckers and an insult it should be to what intellect you perceive that you command.

Wow.

Perhaps this should be titled: Witness The Willfully Ignorant
>> ^chingalera:

there is a big difference~snot like they gave him the rope he was already smoking..maybe he hung himself because his parents needed the insurance money!?-This PSA is supposed to convey WHAT message?
>> ^chingalera:

BOOOOOOOOOO! Retarded way to school dumb motherfuckers and an insult it should be to what intellect you perceive that you command.

>> ^jonny:

Perhaps this should be titled: Witness The Willfully Ignorant
>> ^chingalera:
there is a big difference~snot like they gave him the rope he was already smoking..maybe he hung himself because his parents needed the insurance money!?-This PSA is supposed to convey WHAT message?
>> ^chingalera:
BOOOOOOOOOO! Retarded way to school dumb motherfuckers and an insult it should be to what intellect you perceive that you command.



Look man, HELLO!!?? I'm fine with homosexuality,not gay but have had sexual encounters with men-FUCKING HATE RETARDED PSA'S!!

Who's and what is willfully ignorant, please-Enlighten me. I don't really understand the quotation, OR your comment? Or are you simply smugly assuming that "WE'VE GOT A FAG-HATER HERE??!" jEESUS! You sensitive types!!

PSA's serve one purpose. THEY PROVE THAT THE REICH IS STILL ALIVE AND WELL IN MEDIA.

Then why are you so upset by it?

My comment was a riff off of yours, not an attack on them.

But this spot does serve a purpose beyond inflating the egos of those that produced it or the institutionalization of a shallow code of ethics. There are folks who, in spite of their own perceived tolerance, may not be aware that dismissive, condescending, and abusive attitudes can have devastating effects on the tumultuous minds of teens, especially those struggling with a discovered sexuality which they have been taught is an abomination.>> ^chingalera:
I don't really understand the quotation, OR your comment?

[edited] fuck it

@chingalera, I don't understand any of your three comments. Are you trying to say you agree with the sentiments of this PSA but don't like how it was presented?

Having gone to public school, I can make two comments..one, children are cruel. two, there is an anti-gay sentiment that is pervasive there. It is really an anti-difference sentiment. People get bullied and humiliated just for things like having a speech impediment. I just read about a suicide of a boy who was driven over the edge because children were taunting him about his Dad being killed when he was 4 years old. So, you can't throw gay teen suicides into the lap of Christians, because while a few may be caused by anti-gay Christian bigotry, this isn't the main factor. It is tertiary the underlying issues of societal conditions, and risk factors inherent in the gay lifestyle. According to a study in the Netherlands, where homosexuality is generally accepted and tolerated, gay men are 8 times more likely to commit suicide than heterosexual men. If gay suicide is based on anti-gay Christian bigotry, why are the rates higher than the norm in one of the least Christian countries in Europe?

Christians should not be anti-gay, that's number one. That isn't what Jesus taught us about sin, and how we should treat people. Homosexuality isn't a sin apart from other sins. We're all sinners, and none of us are worthy of salvation. A christian deserves death and hell just as much as anyone else. It is only by Gods grace, which is unmerited favor, that we are saved. Jesus came to save sinners; that's why He died on the cross. He told us to love our neighbor as ourselves, and gays are our neighbors. So, this is how Christians should approach gays and homosexuality in general.

That doesn't mean we should not say it is a sin. It would not be loving to pretend it is not, or to even tacitly approve of that behavior. Love is being honest, and truthful with someone, so that they have the correct information to make a decision. If we were to lie and say God approves of sin, Christians would be guilty of the greater sin in Gods eyes. So, there is a certain way to approach this issue, which is love, tempered by the truth. Any Christian not doing so is not doing what Christ commanded us to.

^It's like Shiny wants to be entirely rational about this subject...

But can't, cause all his thought and opinions are coated in a layer of bible nonsense.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

^It's like Shiny wants to be entirely rational about this subject...
But can't, cause all his thought and opinions are coated in a layer of bible nonsense.


I know exactly how the mind of a secular liberal works, GenjiKilpatrick, because I used to have one. It's not a mystery to me why you believe what you believe, or how you came to those conclusions. I used to think along the same lines and I used to buy the same things which the world is selling you.

The difference between us is, revealed truth versus autonomous reasoning. God has revealed Himself to me in such a way that His existence is undeniably true. I could no more deny God than I could my own reflection in the mirror. You, on the other hand, suppress the truth God has given you because you prefer your autonomous reasoning. Do you relate to this quotation?:

I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantegous to themselves...

For myself as, no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom; we objected to the political and economic system because it was unjust. The supporters of these systems claimed that in some way they embodied the meaning (a Christian meaning, they insisted) of the world. There was an admirably simple method of confuting these people and at the same time justifying ourselves in our political and erotic revolt: we could deny that the world had any meaning whatsoever.

-Aldous Huxley

God put you here for a reason but you would rather deny it and dream up your own reasoning, regardless of the truth. And you believe that your reasoning is superior, yet what is the basis of its validity? How do you justify it?

Oh, good.

>> ^shinyblurry:
dream up your own reasoning, regardless of the truth.


You, sir, have great big brass balls, I will give you that.

The burden of proof is on you, or rather, on the god or gods of whatever religion. Given that God could prove his existence beyond any doubt with a click of his godly fingers, I'm going to keep believing in things which do have proof.

Yeah I got no problem with the idea of a creator. There are plenty of science fiction stories that assert the premise that humanity is a created species. But you do have to prove that it exists if you want public policy to be based on a creator, and not only that, you have to prove that this creator agrees with your viewpoint/religion. None of which has been done. God is not an American, nor is he a Republican.

Till then, I'll throw my lot in with things that actually can be demonstrated and repeated.

It's fun to theorize and speculate on what a creator wants, but it really needs to be left out of civilized, adult matters of importance where lives and liberty depend on the outcome.

Homosexuality is not a sin. Nothing human is alien.

Apparently poor child rearing is not his only fault. His grammar also needs work. It's "hanged" in this context, not "hung."

What a party pooper. Who the f--k invited the Saddersons?

>> ^Quboid:

>> ^shinyblurry:
dream up your own reasoning, regardless of the truth.

You, sir, have great big brass balls, I will give you that.
The burden of proof is on you, or rather, on the god or gods of whatever religion. Given that God could prove his existence beyond any doubt with a click of his godly fingers, I'm going to keep believing in things which do have proof.


Romans 1:18-21

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

God says that you're without excuse, that He has already provided sufficient evidence to you to know that He exists. What you're doing is suppressing the truth you already have because of sin. Although I used to profess agnosticism, deep down I knew there was a God, because I had prayed to him when I was younger. My prayers were even answered, but I still wouldn't make the logical connection.

Are you willing to pray to a non-existent God to help your unbelief? If you want to know if Jesus Christ is the living God, that is a prayer I guarantee you God will answer. God isn't going to kick down your door. If you want to hunker down and pretend that He isn't there, that's your choice. He is standing at the door and knocking, patiently waiting for you to answer.

Revelation 3:20

Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.

>> ^VoodooV:

Yeah I got no problem with the idea of a creator. There are plenty of science fiction stories that assert the premise that humanity is a created species. But you do have to prove that it exists if you want public policy to be based on a creator, and not only that, you have to prove that this creator agrees with your viewpoint/religion. None of which has been done. God is not an American, nor is he a Republican.
Till then, I'll throw my lot in with things that actually can be demonstrated and repeated.
It's fun to theorize and speculate on what a creator wants, but it really needs to be left out of civilized, adult matters of importance where lives and liberty depend on the outcome.


I wouldn't expect you to believe we should follow biblical morality unless you already believed in the God of the bible. This is what is written:

1 Corinthians 2:14

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned

I understand that this country is going in a secular direction, but I think any student of history would have to acknowledge that it has a Christian background, and was founded on those principles. If you want to disagree with that, that's fine, and I am not going to argue the point. It's not really about what our public policy should be, to me. Humanity has been in constant rebellion since the Creation began, and this isn't going to change while we are still allowed to govern ourselves. The nation of Israel, after seeing Moses part the red sea, and countless other miracles, fell into apostasy and worshipped idols during the short time it was waiting for Moses to return from Mt Sinai. It's not about evidence, because He has given it to us. It is that there is no limitation to the wickedness of the human heart. I'll direct you to my previous post for further illumination of this point.

>> ^oOPonyOo:

Homosexuality is not a sin. Nothing human is alien.


Sin isn't alien to mans nature, it is intrinsic to it. God created sex as sacred between a man and woman on the marriage bed. Man has endlessly perverted that, which is what sin is; disobedience to the will of God

Edit: Never mind.

>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^VoodooV:
Yeah I got no problem with the idea of a creator. There are plenty of science fiction stories that assert the premise that humanity is a created species. But you do have to prove that it exists if you want public policy to be based on a creator, and not only that, you have to prove that this creator agrees with your viewpoint/religion. None of which has been done. God is not an American, nor is he a Republican.
Till then, I'll throw my lot in with things that actually can be demonstrated and repeated.
It's fun to theorize and speculate on what a creator wants, but it really needs to be left out of civilized, adult matters of importance where lives and liberty depend on the outcome.

I wouldn't expect you to believe we should follow biblical morality unless you already believed in the God of the bible. This is what is written:
1 Corinthians 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned
I understand that this country is going in a secular direction, but I think any student of history would have to acknowledge that it has a Christian background, and was founded on those principles. If you want to disagree with that, that's fine, and I am not going to argue the point. It's not really about what our public policy should be, to me. Humanity has been in constant rebellion since the Creation began, and this isn't going to change while we are still allowed to govern ourselves. The nation of Israel, after seeing Moses part the red sea, and countless other miracles, fell into apostasy and worshipped idols during the short time it was waiting for Moses to return from Mt Sinai. It's not about evidence, because He has given it to us. It is that there is no limitation to the wickedness of the human heart. I'll direct you to my previous post for further illumination of this point.


And what you need to acknowledge, sir, as a self-proclaimed student of History is that is that Christianity meant something profoundly different to the Founders than what Christianity is associated with today. So claiming that the founders were Christian and thus America is founded on Christianity is pretty disingenuous. There might be a slight grain of truth to it, but you're willfully disregarding the larger evidence that they knew the dangers of Religion. It's obvious that a human being is going to attempt to govern according to their morals and back then, most people's morals did come from religion and the founders had a wide variety of different religions, so to claim that the nation was founded on Christianity willfully ignores everything else the founders drew upon and is deceitful at best, a sad attempt at a coup at it's worst.

There is a reason why only two commandments are actually laws.

The Constitution is a secular document. The establishment clause is pretty clear on how religion should be treated in regards to our gov't. There's a reason we don't tax church. Gov't doesn't involve itself in Church, therefore the opposite must be true, Church doesn't involve itself in gov't. No taxation...no representation. You can vote your beliefs at the ballot box all you want. More power to you, but you have to do it as an individual. And the Constitution is also pretty clear on what it thinks about the majority taking away minority rights.

With that separation in mind, and getting back to the original topic since you like to tangent. I have zero problem with marriage being a religious institution. You want to be recognized by gov't? Get a civil union. Want to be recognized by god? Get the head of your church to marry you. Since church is a private organization, that's up to them. But there are plenty of churches that do marry gays, so it really is a matter of time before the acceptance of gays becomes universal (we're already at 50 percent and those numbers aren't going to go back down) and there will be enough pressure for even the Vatican to change their stance. They've changed stances before. If not, they'll be left by the wayside like we leave other old and outdated things.

Just because you claim that there is evidence, doesn't make it so. I don't recall ever hearing about any published papers about evidence of a creator in any scientific journals. I would think it would be big news.

Therefore, we're back to square one sir, the burden of proof is on your God. If it wants a Christian gov't, it's going to have to do a lot better than an ancient book that's been translated countless times and has had its meaning changed countless times and portions of it's "morality" are flat out wrong. Not to mention the phenomenon by which people reject the faith when they actually read the bible. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that even you don't agree with stoning and slavery. If you do, then I don't think you and I can continue having a civilized discussion.

You are welcome to your faith, sir, but when you govern a nation of many people of many different faiths and non-faith, you have to have a better standard by which to govern by. The burden is on you to prove that homosexuality infringes on your freedoms and you simply haven't made your case...and you probably never will.