OFFICIAL Preacher Phil Snider gives interesting gay rights speech

The first failing in any religious argument is granting that religion is worth arguing about.

Marriage is not a religious institution. No church can legally sanction a marriage. Without a marriage license from the state, a church marriage is legally invalid. There are many people, including atheists, who do not have church weddings. There are also many Christian denominations which perform same sex marriages in their churches, e.g. Quakers. To deny those churches the right to perform those marriages is a violation of freedom of religion.

A number of Christian preachers/ministers/pastors/wh­atever have repurposed arguments about the Bible supporting racial discrimination into arguments about the Bible supporting the continued discrimination of gender and sexual minorities.

Can someone dumb this down for me please?

This guy = awesome

this wil be the shortest comment on this video :)

Well... I have to admit that I'm kind'a stubborn, although I do eventually change my view on things... sometimes :-P

Now... lets try and make MORE people see things differently! :-D

No, he's pointing out that this has happened before, and it will happen again. Each time, the 'religious right' lost, and each time the next generation agreed that what had been done was a 'Bad Thing'. Preachers made biblical arguments about keeping slaves, keeping segregation, keeping them from interracial relationships.

And yet nowadays you'd be pretty hard pressed to find a Christian who espouses such things.

Except when it comes to Gays, of course. Gotta have something to oppress I guess.

He is not comparing black civil rights with gay civil rights. He is pointing out in a very effective way that religious arguments are irrational. You need to take another course in logic.

He is associating two unrelated issues as the same using a strawman. It is great way to present propaganda as truth. A straw man argument, is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position."

Well i'm not a completely stubborn fool, I am open to reason; after consideration and heavy thought i draw conclusions on what seems to be more logical and overall better. Thanks for the enlightenment.

Now I understand why this video continues to receive so many likes: its righteous conclusion.