Andrew Eisen Illustrates The Day After The Defeat of DOMA and Prop. 8

The Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments in two cases right now that could change whether gay marriage is legal in the United States and if States and the Federal Governments have the power to pass laws that prohibit it. Andrew Eisen’s latest video illustrates what America might look like if the Supreme Court sides with opponents of DOMA and California’s Prop 8 law.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone


  1. 0
    Andrew Eisen says:

    "Deductions increase the tax burden on everyone else who can't apply for that deduction."

    Taxes certainly aren't my area of expertise but that doesn't sound right.  You're saying that I'm paying the difference for other people's deductions?  Isn't what they're taking the deduction for making up the difference?  As such, wouldn't allowing more people to take a deduction allow more people to lessen their tax burden?

    "(Why is this on GP?)"

    I guess 'cause James likes my stuff.


    Andrew Eisen

  2. 0
    Left4Dead says:

    The issue has little to do with Christianity or religion.  It has to do with taxes!  Legalizing gay marriage will allow for future deductions on tax forms.  Deductions increase the tax burden on everyone else who can't apply for that deduction.  So, something DOES change, it just won't happen right away because, as we know all too well, the law moves very slowly.

    (Why is this on GP?)

    -- Left4Dead --

  3. 0
    DorthLous says:

    While funny, allow me to take the role of the devil's advocate here:

    Reason to prevent incest that are not religious in nature:

    1:Possibility of grooming

    2:Possibility of abuse/rape

    3:Possibility of birthing defects in children

    4:For a stretch, possibility of isolationism


    So let's see:

    1 & 2 can actually be addressed at the same time: Other than the taboo and religious stigma covering the topic, there is no real reason to address those any differently than other crime in that nature (i.e.: position of authority, close relation to the victim, can not give consent and so on.) Grooming is grooming and a rape is a rape. Not all incest is either and neither are always incest.

    3: The risk of this being an issue falls dramatically as you had degrees of separation in-between the partners, but even then. Do we have laws to prevent two people having, say, the down syndrome from having children together? Yet they are at higher risks of issues than average people having incest. Coupled with genetic engineering, unpleasant solutions like abortions, normal contraception, discoveries in the medical field and such, this is becoming less and less of an issue every day.


    4: Well, really, I added it, but I feel silly now that I have to refute it. What's to prevent any given group from descending into an isolationist state? If everyone is consenting and receives the same education as the general public, there is little more risk here than any other small, enclosed communities.


    Now, as for bestiality, unless you can find a "partner" that can give full consent with understanding of the consequences, I think we can let this one rest. Until next time, when we visit why laws against polyamory are completely idiotic, out of synch with reality and actually encourage partners to cheat on one another…

  4. 0
    Bigman-K says:

    You do realize that there are christians who support gay marriage right. Not all christians are fundamentalist bible-thumping dipshits just like not all atheists are arrogant dicks who like to scream sheep, retard and moron to those who believe in a higher power.

  5. 0
    MechaTama31 says:

    I'm curious, to what exactly are you replying?  It's obviously not MonkeyPeaches's comment.  Do you have some reason for believing MonkeyPeaches feels this way because they take the bible literally?  I dunno, maybe you've had this argument with them before, and at that time they mentioned being religious?  Or are you just dumping your load of baggage and assumptions on anybody who disagrees with you?

    I don't disagree with you, btw.  It's just that your tirade seems grossly misdirected, given what MonkeyPeaches actually said here.

  6. 0
    Zerodash says:

    Yes, lets make that slippery slope argument.  Good for you.  I guess you will be bringing in bestiality next, right?

    Listen well:

    Your book commands you to kill disobedient children, non-believers, other religions, homosexuals, people who work on the Sabbath, and adulterers.  Unless you are doing these things, STFU.

    Your book condones rape, slavery, and genocide. Unless you also condone these things, STFU.

    Your book says that you are not to eat shellfish or wear mixed fabrics. Unless you are not doing these things, STFU.


    Since I highly doubt you observe the preceding, then you are already disobeying your holy book.  You are already more civilized than the bronze age sheep herders who wrote it.  Unless you are going to stop being a hypocrite and obey your entire book, your argument in favor of oppressing others is invalid.  

    Oh, and the universe isn't 6000 years old either- your "infallible" book is already without merit.



  7. 0
    Zerodash says:

    Really?  I thought that Christianity would be illegal and every straight couple would be forcibly divorced?  Oh, and Jeebus would send floods and earthquakes while we all vomit locusts.

     Someone is lying.

Leave a Reply