When you have had this video favorited for nine years and you love going back to it. Then it takes you until now to suddenly. Realize. He. Plays. Liam. On. The bold and the beautiful. And you never realized. It was the same person.
I'm so glad I don't have a religious belief that obligates me to defend nonsense and bigotry. I feel very sorry for those intelligent people whose minds have been hijacked by such beliefs. Excellent points TBS. Glad you're back.
You know, I have watched all your videos, most of them many times by now. I find myself coming back to them because you have the ability to present yourself intellectually and without doubting the mental state of the ones you are arguing against. I have seen so much hate and insults when it comes to these subjects you bring up, and it's just so refreshing to see someone who doesn't go down that road. Thank you, and keep it up!
You see its people like Scott that would make this world a better place even if its just a fraction. Iv watched many of Scotts videos and I see him as being one of the most intelligent person who knows what he is talking about and its a shame that we don't have others like him today in our politics. Your also a great actor (with brains) I see it would be very difficult for you to decide which area of your life you DESIRE to do. Its your choice either acting or say politics I believe you would make one of the greatest presidents this nations ever had. I know you sorta hate politics but your so good at it. Thank you for standing up for us and people like me (Yes im bi-sexial) and maybe want to marry a guy or girl. it only matters because I can only marry a women and not a guy if I ever were to fall in love with him I couldn't. I wish there was something I could do to support Scott to keep him going making these videos but im extremely poor. But I am from Humboldt County and if you know what im talking about then you know of its reputation I would be glad to give you a life time supply of girl scout cookies. That's the most powerful weed iv ever came across so far and I can get plenty of that stuff whenever I want. It grows like a weed around here and that's why we call it "weed". I live in Carlotta which is 20 miles south of eureka incase your wondering, and its population if only like 400 people and its also 20 miles west of the famous town that was sold on ebay "Bridgeville" to give you an idea the places im referring to. My best wishes out to you Scott!
Thanks for linking us to ProfMTH's videos! He really does a long and thorough job and includes lots of history, and case law, too. You did a great job yourself, too! Glad I'm a subscriber to both of you now.
Thank you for bringing your considerable intelligence, compassion and eloquence to bear on this topic! Your willingness to do so is generosity. You have been gifted with a number of divine attributes. Don't forget the parable of the talents my bodhisattva friend !
Thank you so much for recording this. There's nothing like a well-reasoned argument to make my morning. I haven't seen a better breakdown of the unconstitutionality of Prop 8 without getting stuck in the religious mire until this, so much much appreciated! And thanks for being on the right side of history. Cheers, Ernie (twostepcub)
Scott's information and what he is citing is extremely important, especially because of this past week with the Supreme Court on the cases of Prop 8 and DOMA.
This is fantastic. You are so insightful and articulate. Yeah, I know that isn't adding anything to the conversation, but I just had to say it. Your videos really impress me, and I'm so glad you made this.
My goodness I almost passed out from the sight of TB getting angrier than I've ever seen him before in this video! Of course TB getting "angrier than I've ever seen him before" is still significantly more calm, polite, and collected than 99% of the people on any given side of this kind of debate.
Well put together, TB. I hope you don't mind my giving a shout out, but ProfMTH just did a similar 2 part video explaining the strikedown of Prop 8, and he went into even more detail, as impossible as that seems. How you both managed to delve into this so deeply and yet maintain such clarity in argument, I have no idea, but well done.
@TheNeognostic I don't think he removed his video because of my rebuttal. I think he removed it, if anything, because of ProfMTH's video on Prop 8, uploaded last night around the same time as this one. You should go check it out. It's amazing.
@ProfMTH Thanks so much, Prof! Highest of compliments, coming from you. I wish I hadn't so easily dismissed some of the other arguments put forth by the proponents, although I guess at the time I thought they were irrelevant. Your video showed how easily and quickly each of them are refuted. It really wasn't until I read Walker's case summary and ruling that I really understood in detail how Prop 8 wasn't just a moral failure, but SO clearly a constitutional failure as well. To me, he is heroic.
Great video. It is telling when your intellect and knowledge on the matter generates many comments that aren't relevant to the central argument, but fall back on old antiquated belief systems of blah, blah, blah. The irony is that the people AGAINST other's rights would be the first to yell, scream and piss themselves if THEIR rights were taken away. Warped perspectives indeed. The solution is LOVE for self and others in the universe which creates love, empathy & compassion for all life. :)
@AfterFauve001 I have to admit that I haven’t looked into it too much, but I believe you can have a separate ceremony if you like and the state has as much say after the ‘civil partnership’ as they do after a marriage. It's just stupid that there are any differences at all.
actually, what makes Scott so effective is, he takes the time to fully research his opinions, that of his opponent and to understand the context and evidence supporting or potentially negating either. debates are a spectator sport. but this... where both sides have time to adequately research and respond in a manner that is intelligable rather than a hasty defence thrown up on the spot is much more revealing.
I'm not gay or American, but I've been following this Prop 8 business for a long time now. I believe it was Prof who first raised my awareness of it. This is the best video I've seen on this subject, TBS. Purely amazing! I believe, and I certainly hope, that gay marriage will soon be legalised here in Aus. The overruling of Prop 8 will have an impact here, of that I'm certain. As will people such as yourself. I've just decided, I want to watch your T.V. show. I wish we got it here!
@mjh012363 I don't know about your state, but there are no such obligations in California. Wives are not required to take the name of their husbands, nor are they required to inform their husbands of financial decisions (of which their husbands would not be required to inform them).
@tiggster13 My objection was I didn't think you actually commented on the hypothetical. The question wasn't "Is there currently a legal difference between sterile and non-sterile siblings", it was whether the constitution actually protects that right of theirs, which is an opinion question, and I think it's fair to take as a given that the hypothetical is not asking about what court hearings would have to go down before the question could be answered.
Off subject... Whoa... Was channel surfing this afternoon and caught you acting your cute self off on The Bold and The Beautiful. Happy to see that you are once again on the tube. Congratulations on your new role!
*applause* I love, love, LOVE, hearing intelligent people discussing this topic. Anyone who is intelligent that is not blinded by religious biases has no reason to support prop 8. Would you mind terribly if I use this link in my arguments? I could state the same things but not as simply or as eloquently.
I'm afraid I cannot make much justice to the issue in these max.500 letter posts, but TBS pretty much does the formal work for me in his video "Treatise on Morality." I recommend you watch it. The bottom-line being: defining anything "inherently good/bad" will, of course, always face problems like the is/ought problem. Therefore: what is it in "practical" that supposedly makes it inferior to "inherent" at all, especially given that the former can be objectively observed to work?
Your elite intellectual capabilities and free mindedness is dangerous to establishments such as the religious establishments that you have been fighting against on youtube. Thank you for your time and effort in pushing the human race forward.
The bottom line to all of this is that you still defy the highest authority....if you can consider that a victory. It's not like nobody knows this. "every knee shall bow and every tongue will confess..." What we do in this life only lasts for a season, Scott. Make for darn sure the victories you celebrate aren't in vain.
3:00 - 3:20... beautiful. That was the best iron fist / velvet glove smackdown I've seen in some while. Love your stuff, dude. Always a great antidote to the other 99.9% of TH-cam... :-)
I'm glad you pointed out the gender discrimination of same-sex marriage bans. I used the same argument, almost verbatim, in an independent study I wrote nine months ago. I have a feeling this case will make its way to the Supreme Court within the next three years.
This guy's logic and intelligence make him sexy enough...throw in that he's extremely handsome with that sly sense of humor....and now I learn that he's also LGBT friendly.....SWOON! Someone get the smelling salts!
Ahhhhh, thank you. One of my Facebook friends (haha) recently posted a status saying: "Democracy has died. RIP democracy" about the outcome of the Prop 8 case. This video makes me feel better.
@AtheistTower Question mark? Tell me, in which of these two scenarios is the government more involved. Situation A: The government levels a ban on gay marriage, and is thus forced to take action in order to prevent homosexuals from marrying. Situation B: The government permits gay marriage, and therefore has no reason to take any action at all. When you remove all of the extra legislative flavor text, that is really all that is happening here.
@migkillertwo I think there are good arguments against incest. 1) genetic damage 2) sexual tension in families. So, saying its ok for sterile siblings is giving them special rights because they happen to be sterile and only addresses (1). I admit I have no evidence for (2), but I hope you would agree that sex within the family unit would be very damaging.
I can't remember the name of the guy, but you can find several of his video's on youtube where he gives speeches about this, he has studied different versions of bible for 30 years, I'll send you back asap when I find them.
@migkillertwo Jake..... where's your video, dude? Did you delete it? You seem not to be contesting the unconstitutionality of Prop 8 anymore, so that's good. As for your other questions, I'm not a constitutional scholar, but it seems to me that since liberty includes the right to marry the person of one's choosing, a sterile sibling doesn't seem off-bounds. "Siblings" are not a suspect class though, so I'm not sure whether Equal Protection even applies to them...
As a straight man living in Utah I have to say very good argument. While I've argued basically everything you've said in the past I've never put it so intelligently.
@jjgreco By "harm", I mean direct physical or financial damage inflicted by somebody against another person. There's no room there for "they did something I find morally objectionable". A person's relationship with another does not harm a 3rd party. Neither do contracts between consenting adults. And the law doesn't mandate that anybody approve of another's actions, only that people can't legally prevent it. I think a rights-based legal system solves the problem of conflicting moral tenets.
@migkillertwo Wikipedia on the topic of Barron v. Baltimore: "However, beginning in the early 20th century, the Supreme Court has used the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to apply most of the Bill of Rights to the states through the process and doctrine of selective incorporation. Therefore, as to most, but not all, provisions of the Bill of Rights, Barron and its progeny have been circumvented, if not actually overruled."
just curious, what is the difference legally between a marriage and a civil union? are there legal rights that married couples have that civil union couples do not? I guess im just trying to understand why more people are not getting civil unions instead of fighting for marriage to be changed. is it more of an emotional thing or is there an actual difference?
great video Scott. earlier i asked ProfMTH what he thought the conservatives on the SCOTUS would base any dissent, should this case make it that far he said that Scalia, et al, would most likely contend that, since this isn't mentioned in the Constitution, it should be left to the States. its hard for me to see how they could find a "compelling state interest" though, so, i'm actually more optimistic than expecting an ideological 5/4 split.
This did not answer my question. Can Atheists posit that evil and suffering are even "problems" or "bad" or "wrongs" within their world-view without committing the naturalistic fallacy or is/ought gap? If they can't, then their world-view not only fails at a remedy, it dismisses the issue completely as a non-logical question via the naturalistic fallacy or is/ought gap correct? This justifies evil and suffering as normal, natural or otherwise non-existent, correct?
@smpunditz I think migkillertwo has since deleted his video. My guess is that he watched ProfMTH's two videos on the subject, and decided he had no case anymore.
@ghuegel ; Ok, your definition is that it's accurate. So, does any country have the right to determine boundaries, whether physical or moral? i.e. LAWS (like driver's license requirements, age that a person can legally consent) "Voting to narrow the scope of liberty" Does this mean that absolutely NO liberties should be narrowed? Then we must abolish ALL laws, because who's to say what you think is bad, I think is bad? .... IF WE'RE NOT USING THE SAME "RULE BOOK".
@migkillertwo Yeah, that would be cool, mig. If you wanted, you also could post a new video explaining how your position has changed and what you think was wrong with it before. It would be a really nice peek into your thought process, which is always rewarding.
@AtheistTower 1st) No one is forced to marry. 2) I think there is to much emphasis on this definition concept. The gov't cannot define the meaning of one's relationship. That is personal. 3) There has to be legalities & processes whether it is a gov't back marrriage contract or a private contract. 4) Exactly how does the gov't providing access to a marriage contract take away your freedom?
You are so unbelievably articulate, I wish you were my lawyer! When the right time does come along, what are the reasons YOU feel you and your girlfriend need to marry rather than remain happy as you have been already? Is it a purely legal one? Romantic? I assume your motivation is yours alone, and must vary for all couples, gay and straight alike, since it seems to me you argue (and I believe this to be true) there is no particularly definite purpose attached to marriage as an institution.
The compelling state interest is that a union between one man & one woman is potentially procreative. The state has a compelling interest in promoting stable population growth, as this contributes to the economy & society. Marriage between the biological parents of that child, at least potentially (except in a statistical minority of cases negligence or other forms of abuse) provides the most stable, financial & emotional environment for the healthy development of children. There are 40 years of robust social science studies supporting that fact. Any union that does not provide the most stable environment for the children involved in that union increases single motherhood, which is #1 cause of poverty in the U.S. & a contributing factor in countless societal ills, including the cost of social safety net programs, group homes, law enforcement, prosecution, incarceration, etc. It's a compelling interest of the state & of tax payers to reward unions which best prevent societal burden.
@AtheistTower The arguments put forth by proponents of Prop 8 suggesting that legal recognition for the union of homosexual couples was in any way distinct or inadequate in comparison to legal recognition for the union of heterosexual couples collapsed under expert testimony and Equal Protection 101. Care to elaborate on how you conclude that "gay marriage is inferior to actual marriage?"
@tiggster13 I have always taken it as a given (since you keep bringing up court cases which need to go through) that hypothetical questions assume that it's a possibility, and you go from there, not argue "Well, in order for this hypothetical to be true, you would need to do X, Y, and Z.". Which, again, isn't something you responded to. You seemed to be trying to make a point to do the latter.
Great video!! The thing some people do not understand is there is a difference between religious laws and state laws. During the 2008 election, my uncle liked Prop 8, he thought California was redefining not just state marriage but religious marriage also. Some people equate the two and that's not right. They are two different things. I live in North Carolina anyway......
@DP96 That is not an easy question because it assumes some things that aren't true. The "Bible" isn't one book that has one "say". It is a collection of 66 books. The first 39, the Old Testament contains the laws for Israel. Those were very harsh on gay marriage or practicing homosexuality. Israel was a tiny nation surrounded by warring tribes & had a motive to maximize baby (future warrior) production. The 27 books of the New Testament, that is the basis for Christianity, is not as clear.
(con't) ...the legal conclusion re equal protection on the lower standard. Rock and hard place established. Quite right about the conjugal roles as explained by Judge Walker. I'm very glad you covered that. I regret that I had to take it out of my video for time concerns, but probably should have cut something else. You set forth the analysis perfectly. Alas, opponents of marriage equality have quote-mined that portion of the ruling probably more than any other.
'Props' for your videos. They're some of the most well reasoned I've seen on youtube. I am curious as to how you would outline an argument for/against the legalisation of polygamy. Would be great if you could respond. Again, great job.
@rabidsi I have no religious or moral agenda in this debate. I simply believe that it's important that a boy have a male role model when growing up and a girl have a female role model when growing up, and despite how much you stamp your feet and call me a bigot, a WOMAN cannot be a role model for masculinity, and a MAN cannot be a role model for femininity. This doesn't mean that same sex couples are horrible parents or even inadequate when it comes to giving love, affection, resources, etc.
Same case, the charged was on the stand. I asked, "Mr. X, in your opinion, would you classify yourself a dangerous man?" Opposing counsel received a sustained objection and I rephrased the question to, "Mr. X, in your opinion, would you classify yourself more prone to violence under the influence of alcohol than would be when you are not drinking?" He answered without objection. The girlfriend got her protection order and Mr. X went to county lockup to sober up for 120 days.
@migkillertwo Oh, and you slipped and said this: "Supreme court jurisprudence has ALWAYS held that the 9th amendment only applies to the states." I think you meant only to the federal governmentt. Otherwise, I am confused.
@gilgameshismist Considering the people who mounted the defense in this case were not the actual defendents, and considering the defendents named in the case had no interest in defending the law, and in fact didn't even ask for a stay of its ruling makes it unclear and even unlikely that this ruling can or will be appealed, since it doesn't see likely that the people who defended it have the right to do so, not being the actual defendents.
We do not have the original Marcus that Marcus wrote, It was written somewhere in the fifty and the earliest fragment of it comes from the yearq 250, a full copy of Marcus goes back to the year 700. When we read Marcus it's a copy of a copy of a copy and so on for awhile. Everytime you copy a book you make mistakes, so all these copies have mistakes or in some cases the text has even been altered. This is a fact.
@choffler1 To clarify, I do not take a position on whether prop 8 was the right thing to do. I was arguing against the point that prop 8 denies freedom of marriage choice for gay men but not straight men. BOTH sexualities are denied the same rights, putting them on equal grounding.
@TurboInsomniac "Equality doesn't exist for anyone who can comprehend natural selection." What are you trying to say? Are you merely saying that by some arbitrary metric we don't all measure the same? That's true, but also irrelevant and uninteresting. One could just as easily say we aren't equal because some run faster or some are heavier. Or are you saying we are morally unequal for some evolutionary reason? What connection do you propose between this metric and worth or justice?
You are more than welcome to message me any formal argument with this conclusion. I really wonder how they even deal with issues the superfluously animal suffering; like a rabbit being burnt to death in the forest due to fire caused by humans... How do they even determine what is an evil action or not for just a starting point without committing any logical fallacy. Probabilistic and subjective logic would be worthless because part of the question includes set logical fallacies being avoided.
"...all of the expert witnesses demonstrated that each and every one of (the defense claims) were false." The beautiful thing about it is that that includes the expert witnesses called by the defense :-) Great vid!
@kevinscales so it's straight out legalized discrimination. what if Gay have a ceremony either before or after the authorized location, what are the consequences? also can the state just cancel the marriage if it wants, sort of legislative annulment?
@mjh012363 My parents were married in Florida and my mother did in fact retain her surname. Maybe it has changed in the 30 some years since then, but I think it's more likely that you failed to check that claim before you made it.
A friend of mine is an Episcopalian priest and theologian; he also happens to be straight, married, and with children and currently expecting a grandchild. He offered $100 at Diocesan Convention to anyone who could offer a cogent, rational, considered, theological, sociological argument how the marriage of 2 gay men or 2 lesbians will do harm to his relationship with his wife and family. So far, no one has risen to the challenge. And he first offered that when $100 was decent money .....
@AfterFauve001 No, if you are gay you have to get married at specific authorized locations so they can make sure you don't have a religious ceremony. If you are heterosexual you can do what you like where you like as long as you register your marriage properly with the local council.
@migkillertwo I quoted Amendment IX in its entirety; you need to provide evidence that it only applies to Congress (one would think that it would be incorporated due to Amendment XIV). The goal of Amendment IX is to prevent any Body, state or national, from strictly interpreting the Constitution and eliminating an essential right because it is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. This is why I said that marriage IS a right protected by the Constitution. Precedent supports this.
@SerenityNoww I totally agree. But this is continued from a Facebook "debate" I was having with Jake, in which I told him the same thing you just told me. But he's really into the law/constitution aspect of it, so I fought him on his own turf.
@AtheistTower cont...Why are they considered common law spouses? B/C if they have lived together as if they are married then certain issues come up if one person dies or if they split up. There is also the issue of family and hospital visitation rights. Patients can only be visited by family members if the patient is incapable of consenting. So there are issues involving couples that LAW has to come into play. It is not dictating it. It is dealing with the facts of reality.
@kevinscales as an American I'm curious about that. what about the Druid and Pagan community in the UK, they have no bias against Homosexuals, so are gay Pagans not aloud a religious ceremony? how would you stop or enforce that? also does that mean all marriages have to got through the Church of England, even Jews Christians and Muslims? because that seems to me the way it would have to be to enforce those laws.
Great vid. Good, well reasoned arguments. One thing I'd like to add is that most of those arguments could also be used to argue the rights of any one person to marry any one other person, as long as they're considered able to give consent, as it should be. These arguments should also lead to the conclusion that first cousins should be allowed to marry, heck, even siblings. And since we already established that procreation is not the intent, or limiting factor, of marriage, these ought be allowd
Scott, you are so fuckin' intelligent it's scary. I want YOU on the supreme court. I'm glad you're on my side of this argument. Great video, great points.
@tiggster13 "Then I already answered your objection when I pointed out that popular morality has nothing to do this sort of thing " So discussing morality, and how it applies to politics is a moot point? That's what the hypothetical deals with.
Scott, big fan of yours, and as a law student from Australia I got great amusement out of this decimation. This is what happens when stupid people try and make themselves seem smart by citing legal precedent....they get mercilessly picked apart by people like Scott.
@AtheistTower You don't seem to understand the role of the judicial branch either. The purpose of the courts is to interpret the law, including the Constitution. The Constitution was deliberately written in vague terms to allow flexibility in legislation. The courts exist to determine whether or not any given law is permitted by the Constitution. The courts are not "meaningless" or "trying to be above the Constitution." They are performing the role they were assigned.
When you have had this video favorited for nine years and you love going back to it. Then it takes you until now to suddenly. Realize. He. Plays. Liam. On. The bold and the beautiful. And you never realized. It was the same person.
Yes, handsome, broad-minded, intelligent and a very good communicator - this guy is just so lovable!
I'm so glad I don't have a religious belief that obligates me to defend nonsense and bigotry. I feel very sorry for those intelligent people whose minds have been hijacked by such beliefs. Excellent points TBS. Glad you're back.
You know, I have watched all your videos, most of them many times by now. I find myself coming back to them because you have the ability to present yourself intellectually and without doubting the mental state of the ones you are arguing against. I have seen so much hate and insults when it comes to these subjects you bring up, and it's just so refreshing to see someone who doesn't go down that road. Thank you, and keep it up!
You see its people like Scott that would make this world a better place even if its just a fraction. Iv watched many of Scotts videos and I see him as being one of the most intelligent person who knows what he is talking about and its a shame that we don't have others like him today in our politics. Your also a great actor (with brains) I see it would be very difficult for you to decide which area of your life you DESIRE to do. Its your choice either acting or say politics I believe you would make one of the greatest presidents this nations ever had. I know you sorta hate politics but your so good at it. Thank you for standing up for us and people like me (Yes im bi-sexial) and maybe want to marry a guy or girl. it only matters because I can only marry a women and not a guy if I ever were to fall in love with him I couldn't. I wish there was something I could do to support Scott to keep him going making these videos but im extremely poor. But I am from Humboldt County and if you know what im talking about then you know of its reputation I would be glad to give you a life time supply of girl scout cookies. That's the most powerful weed iv ever came across so far and I can get plenty of that stuff whenever I want. It grows like a weed around here and that's why we call it "weed". I live in Carlotta which is 20 miles south of eureka incase your wondering, and its population if only like 400 people and its also 20 miles west of the famous town that was sold on ebay "Bridgeville" to give you an idea the places im referring to. My best wishes out to you Scott!
Thanks for linking us to ProfMTH's videos! He really does a long and thorough job and includes lots of history, and case law, too. You did a great job yourself, too! Glad I'm a subscriber to both of you now.
Thank you for bringing your considerable intelligence, compassion and eloquence to bear on this topic! Your willingness to do so is generosity. You have been gifted with a number of divine attributes. Don't forget the parable of the talents my bodhisattva friend !
Handsome, broad-minded, intelligent- what is there not to love about this guy?!
Thank you so much for recording this. There's nothing like a well-reasoned argument to make my morning. I haven't seen a better breakdown of the unconstitutionality of Prop 8 without getting stuck in the religious mire until this, so much much appreciated! And thanks for being on the right side of history. Cheers, Ernie (twostepcub)
Scott's information and what he is citing is extremely important, especially because of this past week with the Supreme Court on the cases of Prop 8 and DOMA.
This is the most articulate talk on the subject of Prop 8 that I've ever heard.
@thecaneater Yeah, I'd have no problem with that. (Is there a reason I should?)
This is fantastic. You are so insightful and articulate. Yeah, I know that isn't adding anything to the conversation, but I just had to say it. Your videos really impress me, and I'm so glad you made this.
Rarely have I seen such a wake of utter destruction as you have just made of Prop 8. Quality stuff as always.
My goodness I almost passed out from the sight of TB getting angrier than I've ever seen him before in this video!
Of course TB getting "angrier than I've ever seen him before" is still significantly more calm, polite, and collected than 99% of the people on any given side of this kind of debate.
Well put together, TB. I hope you don't mind my giving a shout out, but ProfMTH just did a similar 2 part video explaining the strikedown of Prop 8, and he went into even more detail, as impossible as that seems. How you both managed to delve into this so deeply and yet maintain such clarity in argument, I have no idea, but well done.
You don't do political videos?
Well, judging by this performance, perhaps you ought to!
Very very well presented.
@TheNeognostic I don't think he removed his video because of my rebuttal. I think he removed it, if anything, because of ProfMTH's video on Prop 8, uploaded last night around the same time as this one. You should go check it out. It's amazing.
I've only recently discovered your channel, and have devoured the videos. Beautifully executed fact. Well done.
If only there were more people like you speaking so clearly and concisely on this subject.
I'm not here to argue either side. But I just want to say that you have quite possibly become my favorite person on this planet. That is all.
it's a pleasure to listen to how articulate you are ... ( and being easy on the eyes does not hurt either )
@ProfMTH Thanks so much, Prof! Highest of compliments, coming from you. I wish I hadn't so easily dismissed some of the other arguments put forth by the proponents, although I guess at the time I thought they were irrelevant. Your video showed how easily and quickly each of them are refuted. It really wasn't until I read Walker's case summary and ruling that I really understood in detail how Prop 8 wasn't just a moral failure, but SO clearly a constitutional failure as well. To me, he is heroic.
Great video. It is telling when your intellect and knowledge on the matter generates many comments that aren't relevant to the central argument, but fall back on old antiquated belief systems of blah, blah, blah.
The irony is that the people AGAINST other's rights would be the first to yell, scream and piss themselves if THEIR rights were taken away. Warped perspectives indeed.
The solution is LOVE for self and others in the universe which creates love, empathy & compassion for all life. :)
@AfterFauve001 I have to admit that I haven’t looked into it too much, but I believe you can have a separate ceremony if you like and the state has as much say after the ‘civil partnership’ as they do after a marriage. It's just stupid that there are any differences at all.
I hope you decide to talk about politics on a regular basis. You're spot on here. Very well said.
I loved you on General Hospital and One Life To Live. I am super happy to find out that you have a youtube channel. YOU ROCK!
actually, what makes Scott so effective is, he takes the time to fully research his opinions, that of his opponent and to understand the context and evidence supporting or potentially negating either. debates are a spectator sport. but this... where both sides have time to adequately research and respond in a manner that is intelligable rather than a hasty defence thrown up on the spot is much more revealing.
I'm not gay or American, but I've been following this Prop 8 business for a long time now. I believe it was Prof who first raised my awareness of it. This is the best video I've seen on this subject, TBS. Purely amazing!
I believe, and I certainly hope, that gay marriage will soon be legalised here in Aus. The overruling of Prop 8 will have an impact here, of that I'm certain. As will people such as yourself.
I've just decided, I want to watch your T.V. show. I wish we got it here!
@mjh012363 I don't know about your state, but there are no such obligations in California. Wives are not required to take the name of their husbands, nor are they required to inform their husbands of financial decisions (of which their husbands would not be required to inform them).
@tiggster13 My objection was I didn't think you actually commented on the hypothetical. The question wasn't "Is there currently a legal difference between sterile and non-sterile siblings", it was whether the constitution actually protects that right of theirs, which is an opinion question, and I think it's fair to take as a given that the hypothetical is not asking about what court hearings would have to go down before the question could be answered.
Off subject...
Whoa...
Was channel surfing this afternoon and caught you acting your cute self off on The Bold and The Beautiful. Happy to see that you are once again on the tube. Congratulations on your new role!
*applause* I love, love, LOVE, hearing intelligent people discussing this topic. Anyone who is intelligent that is not blinded by religious biases has no reason to support prop 8. Would you mind terribly if I use this link in my arguments? I could state the same things but not as simply or as eloquently.
I'm afraid I cannot make much justice to the issue in these max.500 letter posts, but TBS pretty much does the formal work for me in his video "Treatise on Morality." I recommend you watch it.
The bottom-line being: defining anything "inherently good/bad" will, of course, always face problems like the is/ought problem. Therefore: what is it in "practical" that supposedly makes it inferior to "inherent" at all, especially given that the former can be objectively observed to work?
Your elite intellectual capabilities and free mindedness is dangerous to establishments such as the religious establishments that you have been fighting against on youtube. Thank you for your time and effort in pushing the human race forward.
The bottom line to all of this is that you still defy the highest authority....if you can consider that a victory. It's not like nobody knows this.
"every knee shall bow and every tongue will confess..."
What we do in this life only lasts for a season, Scott. Make for darn sure the victories you celebrate aren't in vain.
Way to go Scott! I already know you from B&B. Now you're standing up to bullies! Yes!
3:00 - 3:20... beautiful. That was the best iron fist / velvet glove smackdown I've seen in some while.
Love your stuff, dude. Always a great antidote to the other 99.9% of TH-cam... :-)
I'm glad you pointed out the gender discrimination of same-sex marriage bans. I used the same argument, almost verbatim, in an independent study I wrote nine months ago. I have a feeling this case will make its way to the Supreme Court within the next three years.
@CharBroiled04 I know, it's AMAZING. If you look in my description box, there's already a shout-out and a link to his videos.
This guy's logic and intelligence make him sexy enough...throw in that he's extremely handsome with that sly sense of humor....and now I learn that he's also LGBT friendly.....SWOON! Someone get the smelling salts!
Ahhhhh, thank you. One of my Facebook friends (haha) recently posted a status saying: "Democracy has died. RIP democracy" about the outcome of the Prop 8 case.
This video makes me feel better.
@AtheistTower Question mark? Tell me, in which of these two scenarios is the government more involved. Situation A: The government levels a ban on gay marriage, and is thus forced to take action in order to prevent homosexuals from marrying. Situation B: The government permits gay marriage, and therefore has no reason to take any action at all. When you remove all of the extra legislative flavor text, that is really all that is happening here.
@migkillertwo I think there are good arguments against incest. 1) genetic damage 2) sexual tension in families. So, saying its ok for sterile siblings is giving them special rights because they happen to be sterile and only addresses (1). I admit I have no evidence for (2), but I hope you would agree that sex within the family unit would be very damaging.
I can't remember the name of the guy, but you can find several of his video's on youtube where he gives speeches about this, he has studied different versions of bible for 30 years, I'll send you back asap when I find them.
@migkillertwo Jake..... where's your video, dude? Did you delete it?
You seem not to be contesting the unconstitutionality of Prop 8 anymore, so that's good. As for your other questions, I'm not a constitutional scholar, but it seems to me that since liberty includes the right to marry the person of one's choosing, a sterile sibling doesn't seem off-bounds. "Siblings" are not a suspect class though, so I'm not sure whether Equal Protection even applies to them...
As a straight man living in Utah I have to say very good argument. While I've argued basically everything you've said in the past I've never put it so intelligently.
@jjgreco By "harm", I mean direct physical or financial damage inflicted by somebody against another person. There's no room there for "they did something I find morally objectionable". A person's relationship with another does not harm a 3rd party. Neither do contracts between consenting adults.
And the law doesn't mandate that anybody approve of another's actions, only that people can't legally prevent it. I think a rights-based legal system solves the problem of conflicting moral tenets.
@migkillertwo Wikipedia on the topic of Barron v. Baltimore: "However, beginning in the early 20th century, the Supreme Court has used the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to apply most of the Bill of Rights to the states through the process and doctrine of selective incorporation. Therefore, as to most, but not all, provisions of the Bill of Rights, Barron and its progeny have been circumvented, if not actually overruled."
just curious, what is the difference legally between a marriage and a civil union? are there legal rights that married couples have that civil union couples do not? I guess im just trying to understand why more people are not getting civil unions instead of fighting for marriage to be changed. is it more of an emotional thing or is there an actual difference?
great video Scott. earlier i asked ProfMTH what he thought the conservatives on the SCOTUS would base any dissent, should this case make it that far
he said that Scalia, et al, would most likely contend that, since this isn't mentioned in the Constitution, it should be left to the States. its hard for me to see how they could find a "compelling state interest" though, so, i'm actually more optimistic than expecting an ideological 5/4 split.
This is great. You should do more politics
This did not answer my question. Can Atheists posit that evil and suffering are even "problems" or "bad" or "wrongs" within their world-view without committing the naturalistic fallacy or is/ought gap? If they can't, then their world-view not only fails at a remedy, it dismisses the issue completely as a non-logical question via the naturalistic fallacy or is/ought gap correct? This justifies evil and suffering as normal, natural or otherwise non-existent, correct?
Wow, I think this has got to be one of the best PWNAGES I have seen!!
@smpunditz I think migkillertwo has since deleted his video. My guess is that he watched ProfMTH's two videos on the subject, and decided he had no case anymore.
@ghuegel ; Ok, your definition is that it's accurate. So, does any country have the right to determine boundaries, whether physical or moral? i.e. LAWS (like driver's license requirements, age that a person can legally consent)
"Voting to narrow the scope of liberty" Does this mean that absolutely NO liberties should be narrowed? Then we must abolish ALL laws, because who's to say what you think is bad, I think is bad? .... IF WE'RE NOT USING THE SAME "RULE BOOK".
@migkillertwo Yeah, that would be cool, mig. If you wanted, you also could post a new video explaining how your position has changed and what you think was wrong with it before. It would be a really nice peek into your thought process, which is always rewarding.
@AtheistTower 1st) No one is forced to marry. 2) I think there is to much emphasis on this definition concept. The gov't cannot define the meaning of one's relationship. That is personal. 3) There has to be legalities & processes whether it is a gov't back marrriage contract or a private contract. 4) Exactly how does the gov't providing access to a marriage contract take away your freedom?
You are so unbelievably articulate, I wish you were my lawyer!
When the right time does come along, what are the reasons YOU feel you and your girlfriend need to marry rather than remain happy as you have been already? Is it a purely legal one? Romantic? I assume your motivation is yours alone, and must vary for all couples, gay and straight alike, since it seems to me you argue (and I believe this to be true) there is no particularly definite purpose attached to marriage as an institution.
The compelling state interest is that a union between one man & one woman is potentially procreative. The state has a compelling interest in promoting stable population growth, as this contributes to the economy & society.
Marriage between the biological parents of that child, at least potentially (except in a statistical minority of cases negligence or other forms of abuse) provides the most stable, financial & emotional environment for the healthy development of children. There are 40 years of robust social science studies supporting that fact.
Any union that does not provide the most stable environment for the children involved in that union increases single motherhood, which is #1 cause of poverty in the U.S. & a contributing factor in countless societal ills, including the cost of social safety net programs, group homes, law enforcement, prosecution, incarceration, etc.
It's a compelling interest of the state & of tax payers to reward unions which best prevent societal burden.
@AtheistTower The arguments put forth by proponents of Prop 8 suggesting that legal recognition for the union of homosexual couples was in any way distinct or inadequate in comparison to legal recognition for the union of heterosexual couples collapsed under expert testimony and Equal Protection 101. Care to elaborate on how you conclude that "gay marriage is inferior to actual marriage?"
is it true at steffy will come back to Bold and the Beautiful ?? Steffy and liam is my favorite from bold and the beautiful.
@tiggster13 I have always taken it as a given (since you keep bringing up court cases which need to go through) that hypothetical questions assume that it's a possibility, and you go from there, not argue "Well, in order for this hypothetical to be true, you would need to do X, Y, and Z.".
Which, again, isn't something you responded to. You seemed to be trying to make a point to do the latter.
Great video!!
The thing some people do not understand is there is a difference between religious laws and state laws. During the 2008 election, my uncle liked Prop 8, he thought California was redefining not just state marriage but religious marriage also. Some people equate the two and that's not right. They are two different things. I live in North Carolina anyway......
@DP96 That is not an easy question because it assumes some things that aren't true. The "Bible" isn't one book that has one "say". It is a collection of 66 books. The first 39, the Old Testament contains the laws for Israel. Those were very harsh on gay marriage or practicing homosexuality. Israel was a tiny nation surrounded by warring tribes & had a motive to maximize baby (future warrior) production. The 27 books of the New Testament, that is the basis for Christianity, is not as clear.
(con't) ...the legal conclusion re equal protection on the lower standard. Rock and hard place established.
Quite right about the conjugal roles as explained by Judge Walker. I'm very glad you covered that. I regret that I had to take it out of my video for time concerns, but probably should have cut something else. You set forth the analysis perfectly. Alas, opponents of marriage equality have quote-mined that portion of the ruling probably more than any other.
@AfterFauve001 Animals and furniture cannot consent to marriage. You can't marry something against it's will (for lack of better phrasing).
'Props' for your videos. They're some of the most well reasoned I've seen on youtube.
I am curious as to how you would outline an argument for/against the legalisation of polygamy. Would be great if you could respond.
Again, great job.
@rabidsi I have no religious or moral agenda in this debate. I simply believe that it's important that a boy have a male role model when growing up and a girl have a female role model when growing up, and despite how much you stamp your feet and call me a bigot, a WOMAN cannot be a role model for masculinity, and a MAN cannot be a role model for femininity. This doesn't mean that same sex couples are horrible parents or even inadequate when it comes to giving love, affection, resources, etc.
Same case, the charged was on the stand. I asked, "Mr. X, in your opinion, would you classify yourself a dangerous man?" Opposing counsel received a sustained objection and I rephrased the question to, "Mr. X, in your opinion, would you classify yourself more prone to violence under the influence of alcohol than would be when you are not drinking?" He answered without objection. The girlfriend got her protection order and Mr. X went to county lockup to sober up for 120 days.
@migkillertwo Oh, and you slipped and said this: "Supreme court jurisprudence has ALWAYS held that the 9th amendment only applies to the states." I think you meant only to the federal governmentt. Otherwise, I am confused.
@gilgameshismist Considering the people who mounted the defense in this case were not the actual defendents, and considering the defendents named in the case had no interest in defending the law, and in fact didn't even ask for a stay of its ruling makes it unclear and even unlikely that this ruling can or will be appealed, since it doesn't see likely that the people who defended it have the right to do so, not being the actual defendents.
We do not have the original Marcus that Marcus wrote, It was written somewhere in the fifty and the earliest fragment of it comes from the yearq 250, a full copy of Marcus goes back to the year 700. When we read Marcus it's a copy of a copy of a copy and so on for awhile. Everytime you copy a book you make mistakes, so all these copies have mistakes or in some cases the text has even been altered. This is a fact.
@choffler1 To clarify, I do not take a position on whether prop 8 was the right thing to do. I was arguing against the point that prop 8 denies freedom of marriage choice for gay men but not straight men. BOTH sexualities are denied the same rights, putting them on equal grounding.
OUTSTANDING VIDEO!!! I'm going to show this to everybody I come across.
@TurboInsomniac "Equality doesn't exist for anyone who can comprehend natural selection."
What are you trying to say? Are you merely saying that by some arbitrary metric we don't all measure the same? That's true, but also irrelevant and uninteresting. One could just as easily say we aren't equal because some run faster or some are heavier. Or are you saying we are morally unequal for some evolutionary reason? What connection do you propose between this metric and worth or justice?
You are more than welcome to message me any formal argument with this conclusion. I really wonder how they even deal with issues the superfluously animal suffering; like a rabbit being burnt to death in the forest due to fire caused by humans... How do they even determine what is an evil action or not for just a starting point without committing any logical fallacy. Probabilistic and subjective logic would be worthless because part of the question includes set logical fallacies being avoided.
You lay it all out so articulately. You should make regular appearances on msnbc, or at least this video should have a slot.
Who is the person this video is a response to? Can you post a link to the video to which you are responding? I would like to watch it.
"...all of the expert witnesses demonstrated that each and every one of (the defense claims) were false." The beautiful thing about it is that that includes the expert witnesses called by the defense :-)
Great vid!
@kevinscales
so it's straight out legalized discrimination.
what if Gay have a ceremony either before or after the authorized location, what are the consequences? also can the state just cancel the marriage if it wants, sort of legislative annulment?
@mjh012363 My parents were married in Florida and my mother did in fact retain her surname. Maybe it has changed in the 30 some years since then, but I think it's more likely that you failed to check that claim before you made it.
A friend of mine is an Episcopalian priest and theologian; he also happens to be straight, married, and with children and currently expecting a grandchild. He offered $100 at Diocesan Convention to anyone who could offer a cogent, rational, considered, theological, sociological argument how the marriage of 2 gay men or 2 lesbians will do harm to his relationship with his wife and family. So far, no one has risen to the challenge. And he first offered that when $100 was decent money .....
@mistercristofer "Deleterious" means "to have a harmful effect."
@AfterFauve001 No, if you are gay you have to get married at specific authorized locations so they can make sure you don't have a religious ceremony. If you are heterosexual you can do what you like where you like as long as you register your marriage properly with the local council.
@migkillertwo I quoted Amendment IX in its entirety; you need to provide evidence that it only applies to Congress (one would think that it would be incorporated due to Amendment XIV). The goal of Amendment IX is to prevent any Body, state or national, from strictly interpreting the Constitution and eliminating an essential right because it is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. This is why I said that marriage IS a right protected by the Constitution. Precedent supports this.
@SerenityNoww I totally agree. But this is continued from a Facebook "debate" I was having with Jake, in which I told him the same thing you just told me. But he's really into the law/constitution aspect of it, so I fought him on his own turf.
@AtheistTower cont...Why are they considered common law spouses? B/C if they have lived together as if they are married then certain issues come up if one person dies or if they split up. There is also the issue of family and hospital visitation rights. Patients can only be visited by family members if the patient is incapable of consenting. So there are issues involving couples that LAW has to come into play. It is not dictating it. It is dealing with the facts of reality.
@kevinscales
as an American I'm curious about that.
what about the Druid and Pagan community in the UK, they have no bias against Homosexuals, so are gay Pagans not aloud a religious ceremony? how would you stop or enforce that?
also does that mean all marriages have to got through the Church of England, even Jews Christians and Muslims?
because that seems to me the way it would have to be to enforce those laws.
@loveisallneed you're assuming that it's gonna happen on a massive scale once legalized...that sounds a bit unlikely.
@AtheistTower What makes you think I would reject the legalization of polygamy?
I could watch this over and over again. I love you. :)
Excellent arguments. However, you said a word "delitarious." I'm not sure how you spell it. But what does it mean?
would you post the link of the original discussion?
Great vid. Good, well reasoned arguments.
One thing I'd like to add is that most of those arguments could also be used to argue the rights of any one person to marry any one other person, as long as they're considered able to give consent, as it should be. These arguments should also lead to the conclusion that first cousins should be allowed to marry, heck, even siblings. And since we already established that procreation is not the intent, or limiting factor, of marriage, these ought be allowd
Scott, you are so fuckin' intelligent it's scary. I want YOU on the supreme court. I'm glad you're on my side of this argument. Great video, great points.
@tiggster13 "Then I already answered your objection when I pointed out that popular morality has nothing to do this sort of thing "
So discussing morality, and how it applies to politics is a moot point? That's what the hypothetical deals with.
Scott, big fan of yours, and as a law student from Australia I got great amusement out of this decimation. This is what happens when stupid people try and make themselves seem smart by citing legal precedent....they get mercilessly picked apart by people like Scott.
@AtheistTower You don't seem to understand the role of the judicial branch either. The purpose of the courts is to interpret the law, including the Constitution. The Constitution was deliberately written in vague terms to allow flexibility in legislation. The courts exist to determine whether or not any given law is permitted by the Constitution. The courts are not "meaningless" or "trying to be above the Constitution." They are performing the role they were assigned.
I would've liked to have heard a response to this although the way TB annihilated him I could only imagine it coming up short.