Comments by "Yesica1993" (@Yesica1993) on "My Worst Moment: The Time I Got My Facts Wrong | Andrew Klavan | POLITICS | Rubin Report" video.
-
27
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It was the racist, race baiting Obama who roiled up all this racism nonsense! It's like the memory of life before his presidency has been erased from all our minds. Before he came along, there was not this constant, "WHITE SUPREMACY!" "EVERYTHING IS RACIST!" garbage going on everywhere.
Even in Chicago, people would generally get along. Sure, there are horrible areas of the city. But not all of it is that way. 12 years ago I worked at a company that had all manner of "diversity." I worked reception. There were times I had to ask how to pronounce names, because we had people from many ethnic backgrounds. As far as I could see, everyone got along just fine in that regard. There wasn't this constant tension and people on eggshells, terrified to talk to others for fear of "offending" them. I'm telling you, people, it just was not there.
1
-
1
-
1
-
I was always confused on Andrew's support for same-sex "marriage". He's a follower of Christ. He knows the Bible's position on this issue. He knows the Bible model for marriage is 1 man/1 woman. Then I learned he has a homosexual son. Family does tend to create blind spots. I hope he will soon start obeying God's Word on this issue. There's no reason he can't still have a loving relationship with his son, while still disagreeing on this issue. That's something being demonstrated on this program - that we don't have to agree with someone one every point in life, and yet we can still have a good relationship with them.
As to Dave's take on it, the issue of equality isn't the point. If you want to use the word "equal", then marriage was never fully equal. There were already limits on marriage: You can marry one person, of the opposite sex, who is not already married, who is not a close relative, and who is of legal age & standing to do so. The limits were the same for me as a straight woman as for everyone else. On any one of those qualifications, you can find people who disagree with them and want "marriage" for their particular relationship. If I wanted to marry more than one man, I could not. If I wanted to marry someone who was already married to someone else, I could not. Etc.
The reason the gov't has a vested interest in regulating marriage is because, as a group and by nature, M/F relationships create the next generation. The point is not that every M/F marriage does or should produce children. It's just saying that in general, by a huge margin, they do. And any stats you look at demonstrate that children thrive best in a home with a married mother & father. Therefore, it's to any government's interest to stabilize those relationships by giving tax breaks or whatever. Stable families producing a stable next generation is vital to any society's survival.
Marriage was, is, always has been a particular thing. It's not just anything we like. Now that we've opened up the definition to include same sex, upon what basis can we deny the (supposed) right to marriage to any other combination of persons that demands it, simply on the basis of "equality"? That's the question that needs to be dealt with here. I never see it raised, much less answered. Even here, they barely touched on the issue of SSM, and then went on.
1