Video: 10-year-old refuses to pledge allegiance until gays can marry
posted at 5:51 pm on November 17, 2009 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Via Greg Hengler, a palate cleanser you’ll never forget. Normally I’d suspect the parent of having put the kid up to this, but nope — not in this case. It’s actually a cute interview, but as an added incentive to watch, I’ll tell you now that the quote of the day is buried somewhere within. You’ll know it when you hear it.
I hope dad’s teaching him how to fight because this poor kid is probably in for a rough eight years until college. Exit question: You know who would be a sweet debating partner for him? Dude.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 5 6 7
The bible is a standard…now don’t worry I am not trying to convert you, you are more then likely hopeless, but I want to be sure others understand (you won’t).
That standard is a very high standard, any analogy would fall short, but I will give one of dozens.
If you enter school to get straight A’s, but you get a couple of B’s, are you a failure, or have you just not obtained your “standard”.
God understands you will fall short, he gave you the free will to make decisions, and we are not God.
Falling short doesn’t make us a failure, no more then not receiving straight A’s.
Now some one on the sideline will say, they aren’t so smart, they didn’t receive straight A’s, they aren’t a real student…that would be you on the sidelines. Cheering the fact that someone did not quite obtain their goals…others would be proud of the effort and help them achieve better, that would be other Christians.
See the difference, you are on the side hoping for failure, we are with the person hoping for success.
To you, not much difference…to most others a world of difference.
You live (and by your posts relish) for others to “fail” (that would be your definition, we would say fall short), we live for others to succeed…have a nice life.
right2bright on November 18, 2009 at 6:32 PM
Thanks for clarifying. I apologize for castigating you as a “bigot.” I do not accept your reasoning as solid refuation of what I perceive as prejudiced remarks. But I willl take your word that you harbor no ill-will.
We differ greatly in our approach. I think it is the height of arrogance to suggest that gays are disordered. Are adulterers suffering from a mental disorder? Should they be prevented from marrying again since they have an adulterous past?
Once you start down the road of judging every persons moral or mental failings you must indict a huge portion of the citizenry. What about alcoholics? Addicted gamblers? There all type of moral failings that people classify as disorders. Are you trying to limit their access to a loving marriage? Puheffinglease.
I think a belief such as yours is convenient in that it casts homosexuality as a disorder instead of a disgusting moral failure. That way you don’t sound bigoted even though what you’re suggesting is drenched in venomous bile.
Oddly enough, I do believe that some gay men and women actually choose gay-sex as a determining factor in their lifestyle. That approach is no different than mine or most of my guy friends’ as related to hetero-sex.
Furthermore, I actually believe that some people choose their gay lifestyle over a heterosexual sex-life. That does not preclude the vast majority of people being born predisposed to gender and by extension, sexuality at birth. I think the vast majority of homosexuals believe they were born that way or matured as gay because of an innate predisposition.
Ultimately, gay-marriage will not weaken or strengthen my own marriage. It won’t interfere with my relationships with God or family. Marriage is a privilege which homosexuals are equally deserving and entitled in accordance with their state laws.
The Race Card on November 18, 2009 at 6:34 PM
why? the american psychiatric association used to call homosexuality a disorder, of course until they VOTED that its not…in 1973.
what changed?
right4life on November 18, 2009 at 6:41 PM
no but it will sure end freedom of religion. and the freedom to disagree with the gay lifestyle.
right4life on November 18, 2009 at 6:42 PM
I’m pretty sure he’s talking about following everything in Leviticus, not just being a good Christian, which ultimately only means that you strive for a personal relationship with God and strive to live like God but otherwise adhere to no legalism.
I’ve honestly never liked this line, because what would? Letting men marry horses or house plants wouldn’t affect my marriage or my relationships with God or family either. I can’t think of any legalized union that possibly could, as I don’t base my marriage on anyone else but us and possibly our parents (they’re all happily married and generally good examples).
Esthier on November 18, 2009 at 6:45 PM
The gay marriage isn’t a religious one to me. The reason marriage is encouraged and rewarded, is because all things being equal, throught time, the nuclear famil (mom+dad+kids) has shown to be the best environment for children, and therefore, for society. The whole gay marriage issue is a joke to me for these reasons: it offers nothing to society. At best, Adam+Steve is a neutral behavior, at worst, depraved and dangerous. So why encourage gays to be married. There is no logical reason to do so. The benefit to society is ZERO!!! Combine that logical argument with the fact that the most vocal proponents of gay marriage are a miserable, angry, hateful, spiteful, rude, bunch of assholes, and that’s why I won’t vote for it. Ever.
moonbat monitor on November 18, 2009 at 6:47 PM
where is my comment?
moonbat monitor on November 18, 2009 at 6:48 PM
Man, the word a**hole is banned here?
moonbat monitor on November 18, 2009 at 6:48 PM
That’s a theory, but it hasn’t happened anywhere gay marriage is already legal.
Esthier on November 18, 2009 at 6:52 PM
The reasons I don’t support gay marriage are these: First, it offers nothing to society. At best, homosexuality is a neutral behavior. Adam can plow Steve in the pooper as many times as he wants, Steve ain’t gettin’ pregnant. At worst, the behavior is depraved, and even dangerous. It offers nothing to society. Zero. So why recognize, or encourage it? There is no reason to. The entire reason behind marriage isn’t a religious one. It’s because all things being equal, the best environment for children has shown to be the nuclear family. Therefore, it is a positive structure, and should be encouraged and rewarded. Plus, Perez Hilton is a jerk. And I can’t stand Rosie O’Donnell. Them two alone, on top of my logical argument ensure that I’ll never support any gay marriage initiative.
moonbat monitor on November 18, 2009 at 6:52 PM
Not necessarily, but writing in any cuss word, or l*sbian for that matter, will get your comment stuck in moderation for awhile.
Esthier on November 18, 2009 at 6:52 PM
To The Race Card:
How is homosexuality not a disorder? The primary function of sex is to reproduce, hence why males and females are born with specific body parts. If you have a penis and your attracted to another person with a penis…that’s a disorder. This is one of the reasons why I don’t look down upon them. Because, although I think a persons environment can effect your sexuality, I think a large part of it does have to do with the way they were born. (in some individuals, just depends on the person)
Narutoboy on November 18, 2009 at 6:59 PM
To The Race Card:
How is homosexuality not a disorder? The primary function of sex is to reproduce, hence why males and females are born with specific body parts. If you have male parts and you’re attracted to another person with male parts…that’s a disorder. This is one of the reasons why I don’t look down upon them. Because, although I think a persons environment can effect your sexuality, I think a large part of it does have to do with the way they were born. (in some individuals, just depends on the person) I don’t think you understand my position. I’ll explain. Personally, I’m for getting the government out of the marriage business and just have them handle the legal part. Then, if somebody wants to enter into a union under God, the Church can handle it. What I’m saying is that, if you’re going to support gay marriage, you can’t then argue against other types of sexual relationships. Homosexuals aren’t special, ok. The same case can be made about ANY type of relationship, including the one’s that I’ve mentioned. So, if you support gay marriage, fine. But why turn into a hypocrite and deny others the “right” to marriage.
Narutoboy on November 18, 2009 at 7:04 PM
Apparently not true, since your claim has been denied in 31 states now.
First, marriage is and always has been between man and woman. Even cultures tolerant of homosexuality have never considered such relationships to be marriages.
Second, homosexual men are not a separate class of being. They are simply men who are homosexual. No one has denied them any rights. If a homosexual man wants to get married, he has every bit as much right to do so as any other man.
The only problem with this is that homosexual men are most often not interested in marrying women. (There are exceptions. Some homosexual men have married women so they could have children and families. Judy Garland is an example of someone who married homosexual men at least a couple of times.)
Which brings us to the real problem. It’s not that homosexual men are somehow being denied the right to marry. It’s that marriage has always been between men and women, and most homosexual men have no interest in that relationship.
Your solution is to declare that two men can marry each other. Granted, this is not what marriage meant before, and it would require the government changing the very definition of marriage, but that’s your solution.
My answer is that marriage is not something that can be redefined to suit the latest victim class. Marriage existed before our current government, was not created by our current government, and it defies logic to understand why our current government should somehow have the power to declare that it should apply as much to two men as it does to a man and a woman.
The many attempts to describe everyone who disagrees with your opinion as a bigot say more about you than about anyone else. It’s just a classic ad hominem argument that deserves no respect.
tom on November 18, 2009 at 7:15 PM
its much more than a ‘theory’ its fact…its whats going to happen…and is happening right now..you do know that in MA for example, the catholic charities had to quit offering adoptions because they refused to give childrne to homosexuals?
a doctor in CA was sued because he refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian..he lost. same with a photographer in AZ…
right4life on November 18, 2009 at 7:23 PM
LOL, you are such a whore.
ray on November 18, 2009 at 7:24 PM
Neither would allowing someone to marry a pencil. How dare you not allow people to marry their pencils, you pencilphobe. You due have to have some standards. A lot of people draw that line at heterosexual marriage (encompassing race, religion, etc.). Since I only see you talking about gay marriage, I guess your “line” is drawn at gay marriage. “sound bigoted”, “venomous bile” Lol, If I truly hated homosexuals, believe me I’d tell you.
Narutoboy on November 18, 2009 at 7:26 PM
Must every majority be “vast?” Good grief, that’s horrid.
The Race Card on November 18, 2009 at 7:27 PM
I get it. You don’t despise homosexuals, you pity them.
The Race Card on November 18, 2009 at 7:29 PM
States have every right to vote on passage of any law that does not violate the Constitution. Why would I have a problem with that? I, unlike you, am able to separate my moral imperatives from the rest of society’s.
The Race Card on November 18, 2009 at 7:33 PM
Not really. Calling it what it is doesn’t necessarily mean I “pity” them. I’m actually pretty indifferent when it comes to this. This is the problem with gay marriage proponents. You guys always want to attach some negative connotation to our beliefs. It’s sad.
Narutoboy on November 18, 2009 at 7:43 PM
Neither of those states have legalized gay marriage.
Esthier on November 18, 2009 at 8:44 PM
I didn’t read through the thread, so it’s probably been said already, but…
Another effect of the Obama indoctrination.
galvestonian on November 18, 2009 at 9:02 PM
well by golly you win a prize there gomer!!
and uh you think with gay marriage, it’ll be liberty and justice for all…right.
right4life on November 18, 2009 at 9:20 PM
No, only you can win that prize. You’re a total winner if not with kindness and other Christian virtues at least with your insistence that you’re always right while asserting so without even pretending to respect anyone here.
Is that what I said? I mean the thread here shows something else, and I remember not mentioning what would happen if gay marriage were legal, but you must be right. You always are.
Still, all I mean to be saying is that gay marriage isn’t the cause of these laws, which appears to stand to reason as these issues aren’t limited to states with legal gay marriage. It’s clearly happening with or without gay marriage.
Esthier on November 18, 2009 at 9:35 PM
Rhetoric like yours is one reason why 31 states so far have not been impressed with the argument for same-sex “marriage.”
Your side is the one calling for government intervention into things that the government has no business in.
tom on November 19, 2009 at 2:05 AM
Nothing “cute” about it. It shows gross stupidity, a lack of life wisdom, and a Dad thrilled by the attention he’s getting.
The state of “marriage” was never a government issue until laws were put into place to require a “license”, which allowed them to require a “fee”, paid to government, in order to obtain one. Another government “cash cow”.
hopefloats on November 19, 2009 at 3:27 AM
I still maintain that getting a marriage license is NOT a right. The laws regarding marriage, and in fact all contracts, are set in each state by the people through representative government or by direct referendum elections. Federal law states that it is against the law to get married for a sole purpose of obtaining US citizenship and courts have ruled such marriage contracts null and void for years. Rights can never be ruled “null and void”.
Dollayo on November 19, 2009 at 7:06 AM
The Second Amendment is a right, but it is one people can lose, generally felons. Maybe it shouldn’t be this way, but it isn’t accurate to say that the government doesn’t take away rights.
Esthier on November 19, 2009 at 10:53 AM
CA did, by judicial fiat. Prop 8 did not declare gay marriage never had been legal–it did not address gays who got a marriage license–but it did forbid it from now on.
Chris_Balsz on November 19, 2009 at 11:12 AM
For a matter of months. Are you arguing that the doctor was sued specifically because marriage for gays had become legal during that time? The woman started legal proceedings in 2000 based on a law that was already in place stating that she couldn’t be discriminated against because she’s a l*sbian.
Esthier on November 19, 2009 at 11:19 AM
/Great home life for that boy with his twisted parents who don’t appreciate their own responsibilities to provide this child with a happy childhood, let alone love each other and share their respect for heterosexual marriage with their own child. This dad promotes not getting along in order to prove that not everyone is getting along.
maverick muse on November 19, 2009 at 11:39 AM
I wish I was 10 again so I could be the first to beat this kid up on the playground.
Someone needs to hold this little snot-nosed punk down and show him some documentaries on the various wars that have been fought and men who have died for his right to be a complete imbecile.
BlueStateBilly on November 19, 2009 at 12:40 PM
Obama…inspiring his peers the world over. how appropriate that he so inspires the children…and the child like.
The child King rules us now, with all his insane advisers eager to “help” the masses. It is their duty, as they see it to save us from our ignorance, religions and silly useless freedoms. These things stand in the way of Hope and Change. They impede progress, as does the Constitution.
Army Brat on November 19, 2009 at 9:11 PM
Allah is that you? You’re on the right, right? Where’s your Sarah button?
Fuquay Steve on November 20, 2009 at 9:26 AM
Race Card – there wasn’t any bigotry in my statement that I feel this kid is being influenced by an adult — either his feminine father or a teacher who might be inclined to molest him at that prime age. Name ONE thing that is bigoted about that statement. It’s a concern that the kid is being heavily influenced and could possibly be a victim of gay molestation. I wish they would have asked the father if he was gay…just to clear things up.
elle capitan on November 20, 2009 at 9:43 AM
Oh, and I am convinced that homosexuality is a genetic defect.
elle capitan on November 20, 2009 at 9:45 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 5 6 7