You want tradition? Traditionally they jailed people for homosexuality it was on the books until recently in some states. In the middle ages they had horrible punishments for "sodomy". Tolerance is a huge step forward. Don't push it.
Why do you support a lifestyle that is neither healthy for the human body nor natural? If an act is not healthy you cannot argue it is a civil right. Humans are in every way shape & form biologically, chemically, & physiologically wired for opposite sexual interactions. There is no comparison to same sex sodomy.
Love & procreation together is preferable, it is not necessary. You can have love without procreation & you can have procreation without love. To say we are built that way to procreate, thus it must be true for love. We are physical beings, we express love through the most physically way possible. We are, as you say, biochemical beings & are driven by chemistry. So how does being bio-chem driven to respond to the same sex any different then being bio-chem driven to respond to the opposite sex?
There is a reason people are born with penises & vaginas & there is a reason why same sex acts have the highest rate of HIV. They are not supposed to do that! Include your answer without the schoolyard name calling bigot & homophobe when someone disagrees with you.
Your statement about the health or lack there of with homosexual sex is both propaganda and provably false by scientific data. Look up the research, real research, not the anit-gay blogs.
One problem with your 5 examples is that none of them have ever been lawful examples of a "traditional family" in America since the founding in 1776.
So Prop 8 is about legislating religious and cultural intolerance and bigotry? Hmmm, what about YOUR intolerance and bigotry towards my religious and cultural values?
You need to go back to school to learn what the words Intolerant and bigot mean. To force people to adhere to your beliefs, by force or by legal means, is the very definition of intolerance. I am not advocating the forcing of you to do anything, BUT you are advocating the forcing of and dictating to, via legal means, others to adhere to your beliefs only, and only yours.
Your statement "works both ways", is a fallacy. It makes no sense, it is a lopsided argument.
I found my first reference to this in a book I got over 25 years ago called:
Sex in History
by Reay Tannahill'
I have seen some references of it since, but that was my first. It would be good for you to research other sources as well, but this book is a wonderful cultural anthropology book on human and cultural sexuality. I highly recommend it.
Just found some more ot Wikipedia that jives with what I have found in my many years of research. It is in the Marriage article there:
From the early Christian era (30 to 325 CE), marriage was thought of as primarily a private matter, with no religious or other ceremony being required. Until 1545, Christian marriages in Europe were by mutual consent, declaration of intention to marry and upon the subsequent physical union of the parties.The couple would promise verbally to each other: {next}
that they would be married to each other; the presence of a priest or witnesses was not required. This promise was known as the "verbum." If freely given and made in the present tense (e.g., "I marry you"), it was unquestionably binding; if made in the future tense ("I will marry you"), it would constitute a betrothal. One of the functions of churches from the Middle Ages was to register marriages, which was not obligatory. There was no state involvement in marriage and personal status, {next}
with these issues being adjudicated in ecclesiastical courts.
As part of the Counter-Reformation, in 1545 the Council of Trent decreed that a Roman Catholic marriage would be recognized only if the marriage ceremony was officiated by a priest with two witnesses. The Council also authorized a Catechism, issued in 1566, which defined marriage as, "The conjugal union of man and woman, contracted between two qualified persons, which obliges them to live together throughout life."
At first I thought this video was pro prop 8 and tried to show the many forms of how a marriage, according to a conservative christian attitude, should not be - and then I was surprised by what point it actually was making (pleasantly surprised)!
Yes, it was meant to provoke a new look at old assumptions, and to widen the knowledge of what is factual and what is nothing more than hyperboil and propaganda. I am glad you like it. I am always surprised that people are still watching it and sending me comments. It does the heart good :-)
the people have spokens yes on 8 americans let's stop them and keep it that way and cut that bullshit out saying it's a human rights things and civil rights wow gays not a right it's a choose.....
1 The fool has said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt,they have done abominable works,there is none who does good. 2 The LORD looks down from heaven upon the children of men,to see if there are any who understand, who seek God. 3 They have all turned aside, They have together become corrupt; There is none who does good, No, not one. -Psalms 14
God has been patient. We all should repent, turn to Him for mercy and undeserved grace.
I am sorry, but "Your Book", is not "The Book", it is just simply "Your Book". That is why we have the Constitution and Bill of Rights that we have. The founders recognized that simple fact. Do we really want to go back to state imposed religion like the one in England back in 1776? I think not, and that really is the point.
We do not want to dictate how you worship and what your church can believe and teach, please give the rest of us the same courtesy, at the least.
OMG! I hate Prop 8 too! You know how Obama was elected as president and America mostly became less racist for blacks? Me and my friends were discussing homophobia in America and I suggsted we should have a gay or even better, a lesbian president to make America less homophobic AND sexist! I know that America's not THAT sexist, but having a woman pres. would make it better!
America would become more sexist and homophobic if that happened. if U think about it if she screwed up just a little ppl would be like"why send a woman to do a man's job" or "dumb homo's messing up America" sexism and homophobia would be much worse. Also Obama won the election in a very bullshit way!!!>:(
@LetterbombRadios12 ALL HE WOULD DO IS REDECORTE THE WHITE HOUSE AND DISBAN THE MILITARY. I AM IN FAVOR OF PUTTING THEM ON THE FRONT LINES OF THE WAR WITHOUT GUNS. AT LEAST UNTIL THEY WERE ALL ELEMINATED
@chaddavis333 the cap locks werre intentional, and yes, i do know the LORD, I have a personal relationship with Him. in fact anyone can have a personal relationship with the only one true God. Do you want to know how?
@chaddavis333 the Jesus I know about would disagree with you, and tell you that your heart is filled with poisonous hatred. He would never advocate the kind of things you have done here. I think you need to re-read and UNDERSTAND your Bible.
1) Gay marriage involves fully informed, consenting adults, both of whom are legally able to make their own decisions about binding contracts in other aspects of life. Marriage under the law, which is what we're talking about here, is a legal contract.
2) Gay couples often raise children, too. If the children of straight couples can have married parents, why should the children of gay couples be disallowed that added stability? Argument for that stability was part of the CA court's decision.
Marriage was created and sanctified because it answered social issues involving the care and protection of children. And in the cases of these pictured in the video, marriage was expanded to include widows and the in balance of the female/male populations because of war and the naturalyl higher longevity of woman.
Should we change marriage to include pedophile's right because past or present barbaric societies married little girls to old men???
because it's not the point? it's not saying that other societies accept gay marriage (which they do smart one), it's saying that when someone is saying traditional marriage, they don't know what they are talking about. there is no such thing as traditional marriage since it varies from culture to culture. originally, marriage was not meant to be interracial. should we go back to THAT traditional marriage?
Here you go. This is just the tip of the ice berg of info on this subject:
Study St. Serge and St. Bacchus union ceremony for life. "More bluntly, in the definitive 10th century Greek account of their lives, St. Serge is openly described as the "sweet companion and lover" of St. Bacchus."
How about "Basil I (867-886), the fonder of the Macedonian dynasty" and his two union ceremonies with men. This was during Roman Catholic rule in that area.
"Gerald of Wales gives a vivid firsthand description of [a same sex union performed in a Catholic Church in Ireland] in his "topography of Ireland" circa late 12th or early 13th century.
Or better yet go to the library and start with the 1994 book "Same-sex Unions in Premodern Europe" by Boswell and go from there.
Go to amazon to read the reviews: Same-Sex-Unions-Premodern-Europe-Boswell/dp/0679432280
The tradition of marriage is not to enforce what one group wants for marriage on everyone else. Even in Muslim countries, you aren't forced to have 4 wives, it's an OPTION. Just like it should be an OPTION to marry either sex.
As a member of the Society for Creative Anachronism, I absolutely *loved* the music in this! (Oh, and my girlfriend and I have been in the SCA for over 7 years, now. We're very out, and our friends are very much in favor of gay marriage.)
I'm adding this video to my Prop 8 playlist. It's one of the more charming ones I've seen. It just makes me feel good. :-)
From a scientific viewpoint? Considering the context in which your argument is presented, this is hardly within the realm of science. For as you said "love eternally" and "wish" to stay with them. Love and aspirations are amongst the least of things to which science can be applied. "Cooky Creationist"? The cooky postulation of amoeba to human is one unsupported by scientific data. Though all are presumed to have evolved from bacteria, still, bacteria being the least evolved, possess the greatest
Aren't there liberal religions that allow and even accept the word marriages to also be recognized for gay couples? If so doesn't this conflict with the argument the religious always wanted the word marriage for themselves?
Isn't this also against freedom of expression?
*Sigh* these idiots do not really get secular marriages/unions. Atheists can call their union a "marriage" too what ever they like.
Are they trying to get married in Saudi Arabia? No! Well, then I guess that tradition is irrelevant.
Are they trying to get married in America? Yes!
Oh, well in that case, the tradition there has always been 1 man and 1 woman and no fractional children. Only whole children and as many as they want. Since gays dont raise them. Shouldnt indoctrinate
Those abandoned and neglected "mistakes" that your talking about, are not from "traditional" couples. But rather, most often are the result of the modern, supposedly "progressive", liberal philosophy. We know that statistically, child negligence and abandonment occurs mostly in the inner-cities. The inner-cities are by far, mostly comprised of those from the Democrat party that support gay politics. Liberals accounting for both things, you can't justify one with a problem caused by the same.
I just annotated the video to clarify why I show the families I do.
Native Americans sanctioned gay marriages for 10,000 years or so, hows that for an American Tradition!
But as to gay marriages; they have been sanctioned through out history and all over the world. With the western societies propensity to destroy, hide or denounce anything that does not agree with their world view, finding the "documents" on gay marriage has been difficult, but progress is being made.
(Native Americans sanctioned gay marriages for 10,000 years) Even if true, your video is in response to when people speak of the definition of "traditional marriage", meaning that of our western world, American culture. Therefor, once again, my reply stands by asking; "Are gays trying to get married within Native American culture and within their reservations"? No!
(hows that for an American Tradition!) Quite irrelevant!
So to call it someting sacred is fine - But to call a civil partnership sacred is not. It is purely a LEGAL declaration of our natural instincts.
Love is not specific to male-female relationships. Homosexual people can be in love just as much as the rest of us, and I don't see why their being a different type of preference be any reason against their marriage...
(gay marriages; they have been sanctioned through out history and all over the world)
To be realistic, in the societies, and at all times when marriage has existed as an institution. It has existed only because of the man and woman union. If it were not for the man and woman union, marriage as an institution would have never existed. Consider it a "Breeders" (Heterosexual) thing. Otherwise, you tell me of a time and place where the sole reason for its existence was Homosexuality?
Just to jump in here, the core principle of not marriage, but civil partnerships, from a scientific viewpoint, is to declare pairbonding - Humans pairbond. They find another that they will love eternally, and wish only to stay with them. Whether you believe in evolution or are some cooky creationist, the core principal remains the same.
Marriage happened to be a religious declaration of this, which has now seeped into a cultural idea as well...
degree of survivability. Thats cooky "Marriage seeped into a cultural idea"? I think you meant to say civil legislative idea. Because religion "is" part of culture. However, all legislation is someones morality. Simply "who's" morality it may be, is the variable. Gays seeing marriage as a right, see it as immoral to be denied their rights. Therefor, legalizing gay marriage is their morality. But this is a matter of self governing rights. The people have expressed their will, it being their right
Admittedly, as a religious idea, gays should not necessarily be entitled to a christian wedding in YOUR church - If it conflicts with your beliefs, then invading your religious area is, by social convention, wrong in any situation. But otherwise, there is no reason for you to stop them being partered.
There is no consistent "traditional" marriage in America. First traditional marriage meant one man and his property (women), then traditional marriage was only between to white people and then it goes on...
And with LiluBob's facts about the Native Americans...that should tell you that we've had no traditional marriage.
Certainly I have. Only I've never heard of gay marriage Mormonism. The constant mentioning of Mormon polygamy by gays, as if that somehow validates the gay argument for marriage, is ridiculous. Firstly, gays want to make it look as if one can merely walk into Utah and witness polygamy everywhere. The truth is, you'd be hard pressed to find them. Unless you know of the remote, little, two horse town in which to find the exception to the rule.
simply because the Americans are MORE social! and it is somethin to be proud of! not somethin bad! i am glad that CA brought up such a controversial issue..it is really heart warming to see that even though u people say yes to prop 8,u agree that homosexuals exist! BUT in other countries or areas, homosexuals are just some forgotten being.. so pls let homosexuals live.WE ARE ALL HUMANS. pls.. no on prop 8 .. PEACE. =)
With only one day left, I am still trying to convince my Catholic father to vote NO on PROP 8.
It's really ironic because he is a strong, and I mean STRONG Democrat yet he is against this law.
He's really ignorant about the issue. He's saying he doesn't support just because of his religion (when this country is not run by religion) yet he never goes to church or anything.
Again, great video.
Out of all the propositions, this is the most ridiculous one I've encountered!
Try educating your father on the history of marriage and the Catholic church. They forbid couples from adopting an heir when they had none. If they had none, then all their assets went to the church. Also mention the first 1600 when marriage was not only not sanctioned, but you could not even hold a wedding a church till about 450 or so years ago. To the church, marriage was diametrically opposed to their beliefs.
Ummm.... did anyone besides me and my wife notice that all of those examples were between heterosexuals? For example, we didn't see five men and 3.5 adopted children in any of the photos. Nor did we see 5 women and 3.5 adopted children in the photos. Based upon this video it seems EXTREMELY OBVIOUS that, globally, TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE is between a man and a woman or a variable number of each. Please pay attention.
It is unreasonable to expect anyone to read all the above posts, so I will reiterate what I have stated above in response to this observation:
The "point" being that "Traditional Marriage" always depends on Whose, Where, When! Through out history gay marriage has been accepted in many cultures all over the world. What I am showing is that the "One Man & One Woman" concept is false.
I picked cultures that are known by the western world to show that to say that the Traditional Marriage "Has always been and still is, around the world, confined to One man and One woman" is a bold face fallacy and a known lie.
Biologically we are driven to stay together to procreate and raise children, or at least that is what we use to believe. Studies show that even in the animal world there are gay couplings.
We may procreate via man and woman, but many of use find that we can fall in love with a person regardless of their gender. Marriage is more than just for the procreation for humanity. Marriage always follows the changes in human society, not the other way around. History proves that over and over again.
One thing that has been observed historically and cross culturally is that marriage has always been a reflection of society.
As societies, and the cultures with-in, have changed, so has our perception and practice of marriage changed. Marriage, like all cultural constructs, changes with the needs of those who practice it.
It is not a constant that resides outside the ebb and flow of society, but is an ever changing practice based on the needs, pressures, knowledge and understanding of the times and environment throughout human history.
AND AGAIN (ROLLING EYES AT MY VERBOSE RESPONSE) ON TO THE NEXT ...
Through out history it is always been about rights to sexual access, inheritance, and if there are children, the right to raise offspring (procreated or adopted). It seems that the real function of marriage throughout the ages was & is to legalize & sanction rights of property & status, rather than the present romantic version of marriage. Marriage has & still is a legal contract, the rest is personal. This is why it is important for gays to obtain the same "legal" rights as hetro couples. MORE
Anthropologically speaking, [a] non-ethnocentric definition of marriage is a relationship between one or more men (male or female) and one or more women (female or male) who are recognized by society as having a continuing claim to the right of sexual access to one another. Because gender is culturally defined, the man may be a female, or the woman a male.
A vote for no on 8 is a vote for an American tradition- Freedom, it's been around longer than any other institution here. Freedom shouldn't end because your parents branded prejudice beliefs into you.
great video! people really need to realize that their idea of "traditional marriage" has not been around for centuries, they are just close minded. good points in the video
GREAT!!! Lets make the US a place where, gay marriage, polygamy, polyandry, concubines, and any other thing we can dig up from world history are ALL "fundamental rights". Fantastic idea.
"GREAT!!! Lets make the US a place where, gay marriage, polygamy, polyandry, concubines, and any other thing we can dig up from world history are ALL "fundamental rights". Fantastic idea."
That's supposed to be a sarcastic remark showing leading us directly to the conclusion that our argumentation is ridiculous because it supports those clearly "bad" things.
What you failed to notice that, if we don't assume those are "bad" things, like you do, then the necessary result of our arguments is ok.
One thing that has been observed historically and cross culturally is that marriage has always been a reflection of society. As societies, and the cultures with-in, have changed, so has our perception and practice of marriage changed. Marriage, like all cultural constructs, changes with the needs of those who practice it.
It is not a constant that resides outside the ebb and flow of society, but is an ever changing practice based on the needs, pressures, knowledge and understanding of the times and environment throughout human history.
Marriage has and still is foremost a legal contract, the rest is personal. This is why it is important for gays to obtain the same "legal" rights as hetro couples.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and ideas. If we never discussed our differing points of view, the world would be in worse shape and there would be more suffering because of it. I greatly appreciate that you have taken the time to not only post, but to continue to respond as well. Although we differ in our views and opinions, your point of view and concerns are of as much of value as the rest of us.
This is fantastic work! I love it. Like all your work it is superb!!!!You rock.
It is not the right of a Christian Majority to choose the marriage practices of minority religions. That is why we have a separation of church and state. We need to protect our civil rights. It is time for same sex couples to have the same rights as all other couples in our country.
The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity,and for securing the maintenance and education of children.
Ha :-) I find it interesting that you had to go back so far to find a biased definition. Here is a 2002 definition:
Anthropologically speaking, [a] non-ethnocentric definition of marriage is a relationship between one or more men (male or female) and one or more women (female or male) who are recognized by society as having a continuing claim to the right of sexual access to one another. Because gender is culturally defined, the man may be a female, or the woman a male.
"I could care less about "modern" definitions. I went to the ORIGINAL and first American dictionary."
So, rwunderlich13... in your world, are blacks still considered property and not people?
You can't ignore progress or scientific and cultural advances because you disagree with it. That's the literal definition of "ignorance" (willing stupidity).
The point is that traditional marriage has always been dependent on time, place and circumstances. Procreation is not the only reason to marry:
Through out history it is always been about rights to sexual access, inheritance, and if there are children, the right to raise offspring (procreated or adopted). It seems that the real function of marriage throughout the ages was and is to legalize and sanction rights of property and status, rather than the present romantic version of marriage.
That was a very well done video. The Romans even allowed gay marriage for a time, so there is a precedent that it could also be considered "traditional".
Marriage is to strengthen the family. Every example used here has a very important element. They are all established to bring about children, and to raise them. I actually think this is a good proponent for prop 8. Thanks. Yes on 8.
Biologically we are driven to stay together to procreate and raise children, or at least that is what we use to believe. Studies show that even in the animal world there are gay couplings. We may procreate via man and woman, but many of use find that we can fall in love with a person regardless of their gender. Marriage is more than just for the procreation for humanity. Marriage always follows the changes in human society, not the other way around. History proves that over and over again.
I agree that marriage IS more than just for children. It does require love as well. Marriage has a way of refining both individuals involved. But that doesn't remove the fact that children only come out of a union of a man and woman. Marriage combines a man and a woman in a way nothing else can. It can not combine a man and a man or a woman and a woman in the same way. It is impossible.
...yet here in the Netherlands gay couples have been raising children for years and those kids are just as well off - if not better - than in the average heterosexual marriage.
The thing I see here in mahOnri's line of thinking, is that they FEAR same sex couples will bring about the death of humanity. Same sex marriage has been around for as long as there has been humanity, and yet we are still here. Marriage is a "legal" contract that gives married people rights not otherwise obtained. It is not about procreation, never has been.
Through out history it is always been about rights to sexual access, inheritance, and if there are children, the right to raise offspring (procreated or adopted). It seems that the real function of marriage throughout the ages was and is to legalize and sanction rights of property and status, rather than the present romantic version of marriage.
Very nicely done. I had wanted to show more details of each religious group's definition of marriage in my video (tidsL9gzpVw). You did an outstanding job!
The "point" being that "Traditional Marriage" always depends on Whose, Where, When! Through out history gay marriage has been accepted in many cultures all over the world. What I am showing is that the "One Man & One Woman" concept is false. I picked cultures that are known by the western world to show that to say that the Traditional Marriage "Has always been and still is, around the world, confined to One man and One woman" is a bold face fallacy and a known lie.
Where are the genealogies chronicling that gay marriage has been a pillar of humanity?
Throughout history prostitution has been accepted in many cultures all over the world, that doesn't mean I want what they do classified as a marriage.
"Where are the genealogies chronicling that gay marriage has been a pillar of humanity?"
Where are the genealogies chronicling that straight marriage has been a pillar of humanity? As the video makes clear, humanity (including the Catholic church) did just fine without marriage until several centuries ago. More importantly, there are still areas and cultures today that STILL do just fine without it.
So what, exactly, does straight, "normal" marriage offer again that other forms do not?
Thank you! I wish you had thought to do this months ago too but it's never too late to make a difference. [5/5]
Remember to GET OUT THERE and VOTE NO! Words don't vote and yard signs don't vote; people do! The race is so tight right now that your vote WILL make a difference! :o)
Thank you for posting this clip! Your statement couldn't be more true. I hope some of these "YES on traditional marriage / YES on 8" see this and THINK about their own silly and uneducated words.
You want tradition? Traditionally they jailed people for homosexuality it was on the books until recently in some states. In the middle ages they had horrible punishments for "sodomy". Tolerance is a huge step forward. Don't push it.
jeffmonc2 1 year ago
@jeffmonc2 Who are you speaking to?
LiluBob 1 year ago
traditional marriage is when man and man woman and woman
TheWarriorchamp 1 year ago
Why do you support a lifestyle that is neither healthy for the human body nor natural? If an act is not healthy you cannot argue it is a civil right. Humans are in every way shape & form biologically, chemically, & physiologically wired for opposite sexual interactions. There is no comparison to same sex sodomy.
danmol78 2 years ago
Love & procreation together is preferable, it is not necessary. You can have love without procreation & you can have procreation without love. To say we are built that way to procreate, thus it must be true for love. We are physical beings, we express love through the most physically way possible. We are, as you say, biochemical beings & are driven by chemistry. So how does being bio-chem driven to respond to the same sex any different then being bio-chem driven to respond to the opposite sex?
LiluBob 1 year ago
There is a reason people are born with penises & vaginas & there is a reason why same sex acts have the highest rate of HIV. They are not supposed to do that! Include your answer without the schoolyard name calling bigot & homophobe when someone disagrees with you.
danmol78 2 years ago
Your statement about the health or lack there of with homosexual sex is both propaganda and provably false by scientific data. Look up the research, real research, not the anit-gay blogs.
LiluBob 1 year ago
One problem with your 5 examples is that none of them have ever been lawful examples of a "traditional family" in America since the founding in 1776.
So Prop 8 is about legislating religious and cultural intolerance and bigotry? Hmmm, what about YOUR intolerance and bigotry towards my religious and cultural values?
Works both ways .... YOU INTOLERANT BIGOT
MaryWaterton 2 years ago 2
You need to go back to school to learn what the words Intolerant and bigot mean. To force people to adhere to your beliefs, by force or by legal means, is the very definition of intolerance. I am not advocating the forcing of you to do anything, BUT you are advocating the forcing of and dictating to, via legal means, others to adhere to your beliefs only, and only yours.
Your statement "works both ways", is a fallacy. It makes no sense, it is a lopsided argument.
LiluBob 2 years ago
This video is well presented. Great job!
rodgierad 2 years ago
Thank you :-)
LiluBob 2 years ago
Can you give me a source for your information at :33? I would like to use that in future arguments.
P.S. It's amazing how many people failed to see the point of your video.
j2jpop 2 years ago
I found my first reference to this in a book I got over 25 years ago called:
Sex in History
by Reay Tannahill'
I have seen some references of it since, but that was my first. It would be good for you to research other sources as well, but this book is a wonderful cultural anthropology book on human and cultural sexuality. I highly recommend it.
LiluBob 2 years ago
Just found some more ot Wikipedia that jives with what I have found in my many years of research. It is in the Marriage article there:
From the early Christian era (30 to 325 CE), marriage was thought of as primarily a private matter, with no religious or other ceremony being required. Until 1545, Christian marriages in Europe were by mutual consent, declaration of intention to marry and upon the subsequent physical union of the parties.The couple would promise verbally to each other: {next}
LiluBob 2 years ago
that they would be married to each other; the presence of a priest or witnesses was not required. This promise was known as the "verbum." If freely given and made in the present tense (e.g., "I marry you"), it was unquestionably binding; if made in the future tense ("I will marry you"), it would constitute a betrothal. One of the functions of churches from the Middle Ages was to register marriages, which was not obligatory. There was no state involvement in marriage and personal status, {next}
LiluBob 2 years ago
with these issues being adjudicated in ecclesiastical courts.
As part of the Counter-Reformation, in 1545 the Council of Trent decreed that a Roman Catholic marriage would be recognized only if the marriage ceremony was officiated by a priest with two witnesses. The Council also authorized a Catechism, issued in 1566, which defined marriage as, "The conjugal union of man and woman, contracted between two qualified persons, which obliges them to live together throughout life."
LiluBob 2 years ago
At first I thought this video was pro prop 8 and tried to show the many forms of how a marriage, according to a conservative christian attitude, should not be - and then I was surprised by what point it actually was making (pleasantly surprised)!
fuhrerschein2008 2 years ago
Yes, it was meant to provoke a new look at old assumptions, and to widen the knowledge of what is factual and what is nothing more than hyperboil and propaganda. I am glad you like it. I am always surprised that people are still watching it and sending me comments. It does the heart good :-)
LiluBob 2 years ago
I agree with this vid.
Lovely music, btw. :)
foreveritsyou 2 years ago
Thank you! I play it periodically because it is so beautiful.
LiluBob 2 years ago
the video from 0:34 to 1:00 is a bunch of crap, dont believe it
peltiersupporter 3 years ago
ah, EXACTLY WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR
MomntrySilence 3 years ago
This is a great video
Crazkid 3 years ago
I hadn't thought of this argument. Good one.
j2jpop 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
the people have spokens yes on 8 americans let's stop them and keep it that way and cut that bullshit out saying it's a human rights things and civil rights wow gays not a right it's a choose.....
MACCAPONE60 3 years ago
1 The fool has said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt,they have done abominable works,there is none who does good. 2 The LORD looks down from heaven upon the children of men,to see if there are any who understand, who seek God. 3 They have all turned aside, They have together become corrupt; There is none who does good, No, not one. -Psalms 14
God has been patient. We all should repent, turn to Him for mercy and undeserved grace.
check12345285 3 years ago
I am sorry, but "Your Book", is not "The Book", it is just simply "Your Book". That is why we have the Constitution and Bill of Rights that we have. The founders recognized that simple fact. Do we really want to go back to state imposed religion like the one in England back in 1776? I think not, and that really is the point.
We do not want to dictate how you worship and what your church can believe and teach, please give the rest of us the same courtesy, at the least.
LiluBob 3 years ago
god does not exist, your quotes are from a fictional book written by man
idaman12345 2 years ago
@idaman12345 SO SAD YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT IS GOING ON. REPENT BEFORE THE FIRES OF HELL CONSUME YOU.
chaddavis333 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@chaddavis333 its sad that you are being brainwashed by religion
idaman12345 1 year ago
i hate prop. 8
these closed minded idiots running our country.
we need a gay guy as a presedent. then maybe things would make sence.
LetterbombRadios12 3 years ago 5
OMG! I hate Prop 8 too! You know how Obama was elected as president and America mostly became less racist for blacks? Me and my friends were discussing homophobia in America and I suggsted we should have a gay or even better, a lesbian president to make America less homophobic AND sexist! I know that America's not THAT sexist, but having a woman pres. would make it better!
4489144 3 years ago
America would become more sexist and homophobic if that happened. if U think about it if she screwed up just a little ppl would be like"why send a woman to do a man's job" or "dumb homo's messing up America" sexism and homophobia would be much worse. Also Obama won the election in a very bullshit way!!!>:(
KHAOSSHUFFA 2 years ago
@LetterbombRadios12 ALL HE WOULD DO IS REDECORTE THE WHITE HOUSE AND DISBAN THE MILITARY. I AM IN FAVOR OF PUTTING THEM ON THE FRONT LINES OF THE WAR WITHOUT GUNS. AT LEAST UNTIL THEY WERE ALL ELEMINATED
chaddavis333 1 year ago
@chaddavis333
You left your caps lock on, dude.
Lmfao, You talk about god like you know him personally.
LetterbombRadios12 1 year ago
@chaddavis333 the cap locks werre intentional, and yes, i do know the LORD, I have a personal relationship with Him. in fact anyone can have a personal relationship with the only one true God. Do you want to know how?
chaddavis333 1 year ago
@chaddavis333 the Jesus I know about would disagree with you, and tell you that your heart is filled with poisonous hatred. He would never advocate the kind of things you have done here. I think you need to re-read and UNDERSTAND your Bible.
LiluBob 1 year ago
1) Gay marriage involves fully informed, consenting adults, both of whom are legally able to make their own decisions about binding contracts in other aspects of life. Marriage under the law, which is what we're talking about here, is a legal contract.
2) Gay couples often raise children, too. If the children of straight couples can have married parents, why should the children of gay couples be disallowed that added stability? Argument for that stability was part of the CA court's decision.
HikingSneakers 3 years ago 4
Amen to that!!!!!!
LiluBob 3 years ago
Marriage was created and sanctified because it answered social issues involving the care and protection of children. And in the cases of these pictured in the video, marriage was expanded to include widows and the in balance of the female/male populations because of war and the naturalyl higher longevity of woman.
Should we change marriage to include pedophile's right because past or present barbaric societies married little girls to old men???
I think not.
lees20022 3 years ago
See above for the answer.
LiluBob 3 years ago
Gosh the gays are grasping at straws now?
None of these societies did embraced homosexual marriage at all and still don't ..gee I wonder why that that's not pointed out int this video
lees20022 3 years ago
because it's not the point? it's not saying that other societies accept gay marriage (which they do smart one), it's saying that when someone is saying traditional marriage, they don't know what they are talking about. there is no such thing as traditional marriage since it varies from culture to culture. originally, marriage was not meant to be interracial. should we go back to THAT traditional marriage?
JigsawMaster 3 years ago 2
Here you go. This is just the tip of the ice berg of info on this subject:
Study St. Serge and St. Bacchus union ceremony for life. "More bluntly, in the definitive 10th century Greek account of their lives, St. Serge is openly described as the "sweet companion and lover" of St. Bacchus."
How about "Basil I (867-886), the fonder of the Macedonian dynasty" and his two union ceremonies with men. This was during Roman Catholic rule in that area.
(Continued)
LiluBob 3 years ago
"Gerald of Wales gives a vivid firsthand description of [a same sex union performed in a Catholic Church in Ireland] in his "topography of Ireland" circa late 12th or early 13th century.
Or better yet go to the library and start with the 1994 book "Same-sex Unions in Premodern Europe" by Boswell and go from there.
Go to amazon to read the reviews: Same-Sex-Unions-Premodern-Europe-Boswell/dp/0679432280
LiluBob 3 years ago
The tradition of marriage is not to enforce what one group wants for marriage on everyone else. Even in Muslim countries, you aren't forced to have 4 wives, it's an OPTION. Just like it should be an OPTION to marry either sex.
theknightswhosay 3 years ago
As a member of the Society for Creative Anachronism, I absolutely *loved* the music in this! (Oh, and my girlfriend and I have been in the SCA for over 7 years, now. We're very out, and our friends are very much in favor of gay marriage.)
I'm adding this video to my Prop 8 playlist. It's one of the more charming ones I've seen. It just makes me feel good. :-)
HikingSneakers 3 years ago
Thank you! Yes I love Celtic and medieval music of all kinds. I am also a Ren Faire wannabe (can't because of health issues), so it just fit.
LiluBob 3 years ago
Thank you! This is a must-watch.
viciousmeow 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Thank you. I greatly appreciate your comments. :-)
LiluBob 3 years ago
From a scientific viewpoint? Considering the context in which your argument is presented, this is hardly within the realm of science. For as you said "love eternally" and "wish" to stay with them. Love and aspirations are amongst the least of things to which science can be applied. "Cooky Creationist"? The cooky postulation of amoeba to human is one unsupported by scientific data. Though all are presumed to have evolved from bacteria, still, bacteria being the least evolved, possess the greatest
Chuichupachichi 3 years ago
Aren't there liberal religions that allow and even accept the word marriages to also be recognized for gay couples? If so doesn't this conflict with the argument the religious always wanted the word marriage for themselves?
Isn't this also against freedom of expression?
*Sigh* these idiots do not really get secular marriages/unions. Atheists can call their union a "marriage" too what ever they like.
silvereclipse 3 years ago 3
Yap, that is so true!
LiluBob 3 years ago
Good for you for posting this video
poetrywave 3 years ago
Thank you!
LiluBob 3 years ago
"Traditional Marriage"
"Who's? When? and Where?"
Answer:
Are gays trying to get married in Tibet? No
Well, then I guess that tradition is irrelevant
Are they trying to get married in Saudi Arabia? No! Well, then I guess that tradition is irrelevant.
Are they trying to get married in America? Yes!
Oh, well in that case, the tradition there has always been 1 man and 1 woman and no fractional children. Only whole children and as many as they want. Since gays dont raise them. Shouldnt indoctrinate
Chuichupachichi 3 years ago
Gays raise the abandoned and neglected "Mistakes" that many "Traditional" couples put up for adoption.
insaneclown2103 3 years ago 2
Those abandoned and neglected "mistakes" that your talking about, are not from "traditional" couples. But rather, most often are the result of the modern, supposedly "progressive", liberal philosophy. We know that statistically, child negligence and abandonment occurs mostly in the inner-cities. The inner-cities are by far, mostly comprised of those from the Democrat party that support gay politics. Liberals accounting for both things, you can't justify one with a problem caused by the same.
Chuichupachichi 3 years ago
I just annotated the video to clarify why I show the families I do.
Native Americans sanctioned gay marriages for 10,000 years or so, hows that for an American Tradition!
But as to gay marriages; they have been sanctioned through out history and all over the world. With the western societies propensity to destroy, hide or denounce anything that does not agree with their world view, finding the "documents" on gay marriage has been difficult, but progress is being made.
LiluBob 3 years ago
(Native Americans sanctioned gay marriages for 10,000 years) Even if true, your video is in response to when people speak of the definition of "traditional marriage", meaning that of our western world, American culture. Therefor, once again, my reply stands by asking; "Are gays trying to get married within Native American culture and within their reservations"? No!
(hows that for an American Tradition!) Quite irrelevant!
Chuichupachichi 3 years ago
So to call it someting sacred is fine - But to call a civil partnership sacred is not. It is purely a LEGAL declaration of our natural instincts.
Love is not specific to male-female relationships. Homosexual people can be in love just as much as the rest of us, and I don't see why their being a different type of preference be any reason against their marriage...
(cont)
molewizard 3 years ago 3
(gay marriages; they have been sanctioned through out history and all over the world)
To be realistic, in the societies, and at all times when marriage has existed as an institution. It has existed only because of the man and woman union. If it were not for the man and woman union, marriage as an institution would have never existed. Consider it a "Breeders" (Heterosexual) thing. Otherwise, you tell me of a time and place where the sole reason for its existence was Homosexuality?
Chuichupachichi 3 years ago
Just to jump in here, the core principle of not marriage, but civil partnerships, from a scientific viewpoint, is to declare pairbonding - Humans pairbond. They find another that they will love eternally, and wish only to stay with them. Whether you believe in evolution or are some cooky creationist, the core principal remains the same.
Marriage happened to be a religious declaration of this, which has now seeped into a cultural idea as well...
(cont)
molewizard 3 years ago 2
degree of survivability. Thats cooky "Marriage seeped into a cultural idea"? I think you meant to say civil legislative idea. Because religion "is" part of culture. However, all legislation is someones morality. Simply "who's" morality it may be, is the variable. Gays seeing marriage as a right, see it as immoral to be denied their rights. Therefor, legalizing gay marriage is their morality. But this is a matter of self governing rights. The people have expressed their will, it being their right
Chuichupachichi 3 years ago
Admittedly, as a religious idea, gays should not necessarily be entitled to a christian wedding in YOUR church - If it conflicts with your beliefs, then invading your religious area is, by social convention, wrong in any situation. But otherwise, there is no reason for you to stop them being partered.
molewizard 3 years ago 6
There is no consistent "traditional" marriage in America. First traditional marriage meant one man and his property (women), then traditional marriage was only between to white people and then it goes on...
And with LiluBob's facts about the Native Americans...that should tell you that we've had no traditional marriage.
fishnsticks 3 years ago
Never the less, it was always between man and woman. Even if segregated by race.
Chuichupachichi 3 years ago
So there is no traditional marriage you have to protect, because it has changed and not stayed consistent over the years.
And now you guys segregated the gays!
fishnsticks 3 years ago 2
Sounds like we are more traditional having been sanctioned by the indians over 10,000 years ago, and I guess you have never heard of the Mormons?
MyITRcom 3 years ago
( I guess you have never heard of the Mormons?)
Certainly I have. Only I've never heard of gay marriage Mormonism. The constant mentioning of Mormon polygamy by gays, as if that somehow validates the gay argument for marriage, is ridiculous. Firstly, gays want to make it look as if one can merely walk into Utah and witness polygamy everywhere. The truth is, you'd be hard pressed to find them. Unless you know of the remote, little, two horse town in which to find the exception to the rule.
Chuichupachichi 3 years ago
simply because the Americans are MORE social! and it is somethin to be proud of! not somethin bad! i am glad that CA brought up such a controversial issue..it is really heart warming to see that even though u people say yes to prop 8,u agree that homosexuals exist! BUT in other countries or areas, homosexuals are just some forgotten being.. so pls let homosexuals live.WE ARE ALL HUMANS. pls.. no on prop 8 .. PEACE. =)
harendhrenra 3 years ago 3
Great Great Video!
With only one day left, I am still trying to convince my Catholic father to vote NO on PROP 8.
It's really ironic because he is a strong, and I mean STRONG Democrat yet he is against this law.
He's really ignorant about the issue. He's saying he doesn't support just because of his religion (when this country is not run by religion) yet he never goes to church or anything.
Again, great video.
Out of all the propositions, this is the most ridiculous one I've encountered!
fishnsticks 3 years ago
I agree, the most ridiculous.
Try educating your father on the history of marriage and the Catholic church. They forbid couples from adopting an heir when they had none. If they had none, then all their assets went to the church. Also mention the first 1600 when marriage was not only not sanctioned, but you could not even hold a wedding a church till about 450 or so years ago. To the church, marriage was diametrically opposed to their beliefs.
LiluBob 3 years ago
Believe me I will, he's just really hard to convince. Even when I give and show him the FACTS in his face.
It won't be easy, but this is something to important to just ignore, so I will continue sending my message out there. Thanks for the facts again.
fishnsticks 3 years ago
Ummm.... did anyone besides me and my wife notice that all of those examples were between heterosexuals? For example, we didn't see five men and 3.5 adopted children in any of the photos. Nor did we see 5 women and 3.5 adopted children in the photos. Based upon this video it seems EXTREMELY OBVIOUS that, globally, TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE is between a man and a woman or a variable number of each. Please pay attention.
1alpinetundra1 3 years ago
"We do not see the world as it is. We see the world as we are."
- Talmud
ApoliticAnalysis 3 years ago
It is unreasonable to expect anyone to read all the above posts, so I will reiterate what I have stated above in response to this observation:
The "point" being that "Traditional Marriage" always depends on Whose, Where, When! Through out history gay marriage has been accepted in many cultures all over the world. What I am showing is that the "One Man & One Woman" concept is false.
CONTINUED IN NEXT POST ...
LiluBob 3 years ago
I picked cultures that are known by the western world to show that to say that the Traditional Marriage "Has always been and still is, around the world, confined to One man and One woman" is a bold face fallacy and a known lie.
Biologically we are driven to stay together to procreate and raise children, or at least that is what we use to believe. Studies show that even in the animal world there are gay couplings.
ON TO NEXT POST ...
LiluBob 3 years ago
We may procreate via man and woman, but many of use find that we can fall in love with a person regardless of their gender. Marriage is more than just for the procreation for humanity. Marriage always follows the changes in human society, not the other way around. History proves that over and over again.
One thing that has been observed historically and cross culturally is that marriage has always been a reflection of society.
ON TO THE NEXT ... SORRY THIS IS SO LONG ....
LiluBob 3 years ago
As societies, and the cultures with-in, have changed, so has our perception and practice of marriage changed. Marriage, like all cultural constructs, changes with the needs of those who practice it.
It is not a constant that resides outside the ebb and flow of society, but is an ever changing practice based on the needs, pressures, knowledge and understanding of the times and environment throughout human history.
AND AGAIN (ROLLING EYES AT MY VERBOSE RESPONSE) ON TO THE NEXT ...
LiluBob 3 years ago
Through out history it is always been about rights to sexual access, inheritance, and if there are children, the right to raise offspring (procreated or adopted). It seems that the real function of marriage throughout the ages was & is to legalize & sanction rights of property & status, rather than the present romantic version of marriage. Marriage has & still is a legal contract, the rest is personal. This is why it is important for gays to obtain the same "legal" rights as hetro couples. MORE
LiluBob 3 years ago
Anthropologically speaking, [a] non-ethnocentric definition of marriage is a relationship between one or more men (male or female) and one or more women (female or male) who are recognized by society as having a continuing claim to the right of sexual access to one another. Because gender is culturally defined, the man may be a female, or the woman a male.
AND NOW FOR THE LAST BIT ....
LiluBob 3 years ago
"Some" forms of marriage today:
MonogamyOne mate for life. Catholic marriage is conceived as being exclusive and permanent
Serial Monogamymarries or lives with a series of partners in succession
Polygynya man having several wives at once
Polyandrya woman has several husbands at one once
Groupin which several men and women have sexual access to one another.
To A Deity Marriage of a human to a deity: nuns as the Brides of Christ
Same Sexboth or all partners are of the same sex.
LiluBob 3 years ago
Sorry about that, it erased all my "-" separators.
LiluBob 3 years ago
Was it an authentic Christian family when Jesus was born to an unmarried woman, who then married a man who wasn't Jesus's father?
theknightswhosay 3 years ago
More to the point, the biological father wasn't even a man, but a deity. Hence the reason that Catholic Nuns are the brides of Christ.
LiluBob 3 years ago
Great video! Everyone VOTE NO ON PROP 8!!!!! Vote for freedom, equality, and love.
iloveellendegeneres 3 years ago
Great video - Let's hope things go well at the polls tomorrow - I won't be getting much sleep tonight.
kenrg 3 years ago
Me neither :-)
LiluBob 3 years ago
Great vid haha.
Amazing really.
A vote for no on 8 is a vote for an American tradition- Freedom, it's been around longer than any other institution here. Freedom shouldn't end because your parents branded prejudice beliefs into you.
contactmatt132 3 years ago
beautiful beautiful video
lilaznballaz1022 3 years ago
Wonderfully done! Sums up perfectly what I'm been saying for a long, long time.
Fellowshipofthedice 3 years ago
great video! people really need to realize that their idea of "traditional marriage" has not been around for centuries, they are just close minded. good points in the video
karamel062001 3 years ago 2
LiluBob,
Great video; it's point needs to be driven home much more, I think.
Can I ask what music you used in the background? It was lovely.
CharBroiled04 3 years ago
GREAT!!! Lets make the US a place where, gay marriage, polygamy, polyandry, concubines, and any other thing we can dig up from world history are ALL "fundamental rights". Fantastic idea.
jeffreymharmon 3 years ago
"GREAT!!! Lets make the US a place where, gay marriage, polygamy, polyandry, concubines, and any other thing we can dig up from world history are ALL "fundamental rights". Fantastic idea."
That's supposed to be a sarcastic remark showing leading us directly to the conclusion that our argumentation is ridiculous because it supports those clearly "bad" things.
What you failed to notice that, if we don't assume those are "bad" things, like you do, then the necessary result of our arguments is ok.
CharBroiled04 3 years ago
Nope, just "traditional".
One thing that has been observed historically and cross culturally is that marriage has always been a reflection of society. As societies, and the cultures with-in, have changed, so has our perception and practice of marriage changed. Marriage, like all cultural constructs, changes with the needs of those who practice it.
CONTINUED IN NEXT POST ...
LiluBob 3 years ago
It is not a constant that resides outside the ebb and flow of society, but is an ever changing practice based on the needs, pressures, knowledge and understanding of the times and environment throughout human history.
Marriage has and still is foremost a legal contract, the rest is personal. This is why it is important for gays to obtain the same "legal" rights as hetro couples.
LiluBob 3 years ago
Doesn't ease any of my concerns. But thanks for your opinion on the matter.
jeffreymharmon 3 years ago
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and ideas. If we never discussed our differing points of view, the world would be in worse shape and there would be more suffering because of it. I greatly appreciate that you have taken the time to not only post, but to continue to respond as well. Although we differ in our views and opinions, your point of view and concerns are of as much of value as the rest of us.
Again, thank you.
LiluBob 3 years ago
This is fantastic work! I love it. Like all your work it is superb!!!!You rock.
It is not the right of a Christian Majority to choose the marriage practices of minority religions. That is why we have a separation of church and state. We need to protect our civil rights. It is time for same sex couples to have the same rights as all other couples in our country.
MaikaMSC 3 years ago
Traditional marriage - Websters 1828
The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity,and for securing the maintenance and education of children.
rwunderlich13 3 years ago
Ha :-) I find it interesting that you had to go back so far to find a biased definition. Here is a 2002 definition:
Anthropologically speaking, [a] non-ethnocentric definition of marriage is a relationship between one or more men (male or female) and one or more women (female or male) who are recognized by society as having a continuing claim to the right of sexual access to one another. Because gender is culturally defined, the man may be a female, or the woman a male.
LiluBob 3 years ago
I believe you can find the above quote here:
Cultural Anthropology, by William A. Haviland, 2002 edition: Page 213
LiluBob 3 years ago
I could care less about "modern" definitions. I went to the ORIGINAL and first American dictionary.
rwunderlich13 3 years ago
"I could care less about "modern" definitions. I went to the ORIGINAL and first American dictionary."
So, rwunderlich13... in your world, are blacks still considered property and not people?
You can't ignore progress or scientific and cultural advances because you disagree with it. That's the literal definition of "ignorance" (willing stupidity).
What makes YOUR dictionary so damn special?
CharBroiled04 3 years ago 3
a contract till death?...i guess that part went to shit as well...last time i checked promiscuous intercourse was still happening....A LOT.haha
iphonecowboy 3 years ago
EVERY example marriage in this video contains a man and a woman. Sometimes not just one, but at LEAST one of each sex.
Are you arguing for polygamy?
intelliot 3 years ago
Sigh!!
The point is that traditional marriage has always been dependent on time, place and circumstances. Procreation is not the only reason to marry:
Through out history it is always been about rights to sexual access, inheritance, and if there are children, the right to raise offspring (procreated or adopted). It seems that the real function of marriage throughout the ages was and is to legalize and sanction rights of property and status, rather than the present romantic version of marriage.
LiluBob 3 years ago
That was a very well done video. The Romans even allowed gay marriage for a time, so there is a precedent that it could also be considered "traditional".
lisauben 3 years ago
Marriage is to strengthen the family. Every example used here has a very important element. They are all established to bring about children, and to raise them. I actually think this is a good proponent for prop 8. Thanks. Yes on 8.
mah0nri 3 years ago
Biologically we are driven to stay together to procreate and raise children, or at least that is what we use to believe. Studies show that even in the animal world there are gay couplings. We may procreate via man and woman, but many of use find that we can fall in love with a person regardless of their gender. Marriage is more than just for the procreation for humanity. Marriage always follows the changes in human society, not the other way around. History proves that over and over again.
LiluBob 3 years ago
I agree that marriage IS more than just for children. It does require love as well. Marriage has a way of refining both individuals involved. But that doesn't remove the fact that children only come out of a union of a man and woman. Marriage combines a man and a woman in a way nothing else can. It can not combine a man and a man or a woman and a woman in the same way. It is impossible.
mah0nri 3 years ago
...yet here in the Netherlands gay couples have been raising children for years and those kids are just as well off - if not better - than in the average heterosexual marriage.
ApeironTanagra 3 years ago
As if a homosexual couple couldn't raise kids. You are bigoted.
Bluedragon094 3 years ago
that comment was in response to mah0nri
Bluedragon094 3 years ago
I said bring about AND raise. The and is important.
mah0nri 3 years ago
The thing I see here in mahOnri's line of thinking, is that they FEAR same sex couples will bring about the death of humanity. Same sex marriage has been around for as long as there has been humanity, and yet we are still here. Marriage is a "legal" contract that gives married people rights not otherwise obtained. It is not about procreation, never has been.
CONTINUED IN NEXT POST ...
LiluBob 3 years ago
Through out history it is always been about rights to sexual access, inheritance, and if there are children, the right to raise offspring (procreated or adopted). It seems that the real function of marriage throughout the ages was and is to legalize and sanction rights of property and status, rather than the present romantic version of marriage.
LiluBob 3 years ago
Very nicely done. I had wanted to show more details of each religious group's definition of marriage in my video (tidsL9gzpVw). You did an outstanding job!
polbaldwin 3 years ago
Thank you. Just watched your video and I think that you made the point very clear and concise. Very good work on your part as well.
LiluBob 3 years ago
I love this video! <3 Wonderful work!
DeviSama 3 years ago
Thank you so much!
LiluBob 3 years ago
"traditional" is with reference to common elements. All those you presented had both genders as a common element.
HiveRadical 3 years ago
The "point" being that "Traditional Marriage" always depends on Whose, Where, When! Through out history gay marriage has been accepted in many cultures all over the world. What I am showing is that the "One Man & One Woman" concept is false. I picked cultures that are known by the western world to show that to say that the Traditional Marriage "Has always been and still is, around the world, confined to One man and One woman" is a bold face fallacy and a known lie.
LiluBob 3 years ago
Where are the genealogies chronicling that gay marriage has been a pillar of humanity?
Throughout history prostitution has been accepted in many cultures all over the world, that doesn't mean I want what they do classified as a marriage.
HiveRadical 3 years ago
"Where are the genealogies chronicling that gay marriage has been a pillar of humanity?"
Where are the genealogies chronicling that straight marriage has been a pillar of humanity? As the video makes clear, humanity (including the Catholic church) did just fine without marriage until several centuries ago. More importantly, there are still areas and cultures today that STILL do just fine without it.
So what, exactly, does straight, "normal" marriage offer again that other forms do not?
CharBroiled04 3 years ago 2
Wonderful, a good addition to my vid! I'd reply to your comment on my vid, but I want the YES side to give it a shot, nice work!
Pointingtothemoon 3 years ago
Excellent work! You totally smashed down an amazing wall right there. I love this video.
moose2llama 3 years ago
I dig. Thanks for linking from my video too. :)
dammitdexter 3 years ago
very nice.
thanks for posting a link on my Prop. 8 video.
:]
bananas7989 3 years ago
Thank you! I wish you had thought to do this months ago too but it's never too late to make a difference. [5/5]
Remember to GET OUT THERE and VOTE NO! Words don't vote and yard signs don't vote; people do! The race is so tight right now that your vote WILL make a difference! :o)
danimo17 3 years ago
Thank you for the link you posted on my Prop 8 videos. Very well done :).
sacscan 3 years ago
You go girl!
jazzykats 3 years ago
THIS takes away rights.....
Plain and simple.
STOP DISCRIMINATION ---------
Domestic Partnership does not grant the same RIGHT AS MARRIAGE! STOP LYING!!!!!!
TheEqualityCampaign 3 years ago 3
that was really good, awesome job. :]
alwaysSHOUTalways 3 years ago 2
Great work dude
VOTE EARLY AND VOTE OFTEN
kcg5000 3 years ago 2
Thank you for posting this clip! Your statement couldn't be more true. I hope some of these "YES on traditional marriage / YES on 8" see this and THINK about their own silly and uneducated words.
VanityCircus 3 years ago 7
=*=*=*= VOTE NO on PROP 8 =*=*=*=
NOtoPROP8 3 years ago 4
Well done! Thank you.
SoCalClockDoc 3 years ago 2
Haha. Cool.
BecauseTheTruthHurts 3 years ago
I'm glad you decided to advertise on my channel. The title almost suggested that you were for proposition 8.
Your video is another blow against the smokescreens perpetrated by the Mormon church, thank you for posting it.
greataff 3 years ago 7
Thank you. I just wish I had thought to do this months ago.
LiluBob 3 years ago