Really??? All the same rights?? What about the right to marry? The leagel benefit that come with that? They dont have it now, thanks to all those who voted yes... Why would you do that?
homosexuals can have the same rights and benefits through a civil unions. their is no need to alter the traditional definition of marriage! simply call all unions between partners of the same sex civil unions and unions between partners of the opposite sex marriages. Why is it so important to alter the traditional definition of marriage? if their is no more benefit than calling a union a marriage? speaking strictly from a contractual stand point.
@ABGAN100 Sam Crow laws should have taught America that spearate will never be equal, speaking strictly from a historical standpoint. Attempting to set up a new identical institution on the basis that one group shouldn't be allowed into the first has the psychological underpinning that one type of pairing isn't as worth as much as the other, which is why it's doomed to failure. Religious fervor and mob-rule will not trump civil rights, no matter how icky you find anal-sex and scissoring.
@Sh0nin in this case it really isn't a matter of separate but equal because to give one group a right to define marriage you have no choice but to take away the others right to define marriage. in the case of blacks civil rights it was never a matter of definition! their was never one word in which they were trying to redefine. and no matter how icky your find religious beliefs mob rule will not trump civil rights,and should not trump the democratic process.
@ABGAN100 You're arguing semantics, in either case you're fighting to keep your monopoly on marriage. Stop prattling on as if you were delivering a mandate from Merriam-Webster, it's practically incoherent.
True, but Civil Rights should trump the democratic process, for that is the very nature of a Republic.
The main issue here seems to stem from which texts we as individuals respect more. You, I trust, hold much more respect for the Bible than the Constitution, while the opposite is true of me.
@Sh0nin it not semantics, until the definition of marriage changes it is not a matter of civil rights! if the accepted definition of marriage were a union between two people than and only then it would be a mater of civil rights! because you could then prove discrimination. but that is not the the most widely accepted definition of marriage. it therefore falls is upon a democratic process to determine whether the definition of marriage should change.
@Sh0nin one other thing the constitution protects religion. the first amendment expressly guarantees those rights. my argument has always been a constitutional one. and their are no constitutional amendments that define marriage.
@ABGAN100 That's the first excellent point you made. There is indeed no Consitutional definition of marriage yet, which is why you eagerly fall back on your Biblical definition of marriage. However, this position is faulty, because the constitution doesn't protect religion specifically, it protects freedom of religion; that means for 'and' from.
Can you honestly tell me that your opposition of homosexuality isn't entrenched in dogma? I believe we'd be better served looking at motivations.
@Sh0nin actually the constitution dose not us the words freedom "from" religion but "of" religion. this confusion unfortunately has brought about the faulty idea of separation of church and state. not mentioned in the constitution. it was in the federalists papers a letter to the Danburry baptist concerning the formation of a nation religion to assure them no national religion would be formed. tho often quoted by liberals to justify removing all religious beliefs and ideas from government.
@ABGAN100 "...the faulty idea of separation of church and state..tho often quoted by liberals..."
I suppose Thomas Jefferson and the Supreme Court Justices are just a few of those misguided liberals? This argument is absolutely nauseating, not so much as how blatantly insincere and disingenuous it is (although that doesn't help), but because of how lazy and feeble it is.
@Sh0nin one thing you keep saying "your" biblical definition as if i were the only one who believes that definition of marriage, when in fact the majority of Americans still believe in that definition and not just Christians, but Jews and Muslims. and I have no opposition to homosexuality, I believe that people should be able to choose what ever life stile that make them happy, as long as it's not illegal like human sacrifice. the only thing I oppose is changing the definition of marriage.
Don't you realize that this is the entire point? The only definition of marriage you have is religious, not legal! You are perfectly welcome to keep the same definition of marriage within your religion, but you are not allowed to force that same religious standard onto the government, becuase then your personal religious beliefs begin to dictate people's lives.
If I'm wrong, please tell me where you get this marital objectivity from, if not from your Bible?
@Sh0nin the only reason governments involved themselves in the institute of marriage was to regulate it. so they could treat it just like any other business arrangement, so they could create work for the lawyers,thy could charge licensing fees, give work to government employees creating a vast bureaucracy of filing clerks lawyers and legal documents including divorce agreements and paperwork. and to create separate tax codes for married couples. and again it not just my definition!
@ABGAN100 "the only reason governments [blah blah blah]..."
Any excuses or pleadings you offer are irrelevant once you recognize that marriage is firmly in the grasp of government and therefore primarily legal, not religious.
@Sh0nin now that was childish i.e (blah blah blah) are your arguments so weak you have no choice but to resort to mocking! and name calling i.e "pleadings you offer are irrelevant" and just because the government regulates marriage contracts dose not mean it is in the "grasp of government"! which sounds eerily like socialism, or communism. Maybe I'm mistaken but I thought america was still a democratic republic.
@ABGAN100 Just beacuse I don't indulge every superfluous statement you make does not make me childish, you self-important twat.
Law by definition is the regulation of actions and contracts.There are indeed legal repercussions to breaking a marital contract, such as increased alimony due to infidelity. There's a reason lawyers are brought in when marriages get messy instead of priests.
Your responses have become increasingly dumb, for lack of a better word and therefore tiresome.
@Sh0nin those legal actions are mediation not criminal proceeding, religious groups make building contracts all the time and those contracts are mediated by the government but is doesn't but that doesn't mean that the government is making a law respecting the establishment of a religion. and marriage is not a religion it is a contract! originally established by a religion but that dose not make it a religion and it is a contract shared by several religions.Christians Jew's Muslims to name a few.
@ABGAN100 Your balking of the issue and general lack of understanding are vexxing me greatly. I could give a fuck whether you want to label it mediation, criminal or festival, whatever asinine twist you wish to put on it, it does not enter into the legality of the matter. Don't waste my time.
I never said it was a religion, you miserable straw-man-making cunt. This conversation isn't going anywhere because you insist on going around in circles. I'm done with you.
@Sh0nin you said it was establishing a law respecting a religion! sense marriage is not a religion any laws that govern marriage would not fall government shall make not law respecting a religion.it is you who has a general lack of understanding! and hear ((((in the US we have freedom of speech you don't have to respond,if your do not want to and their for it is you who is wasting your time! not me!"))) of course if you had even half a brain you would have realized that.
@ABGAN100 Excuse me, but word your comment in clear, grammatically sound and legible language, because I won't be bothered deciphering it as I would the rantings of downs syndrome d-student with an attitude problem. Your ironic insult was duly noted, though. Bravo.
@Sh0nin Ok so you have half a brain,tho you should consider taking your own advice. and if I were writing for a national publication, and not on some random blog on YouTube, I would take more care in my writing, but given the lack of general education displayed by persons like your self on this blog, I did not feel the need to watch my grammar, or spelling. especially with some one who would use the phrase "you miserable straw-man-making cunt".
@Sh0nin you said it was establishing a law respecting a religion! sense marriage is not a religion any laws that govern marriage would not fall government shall make not law respecting a religion.it is you who has a general lack of understanding! and hear ((((in the US we have freedom of speech you don't have to respond,if your do not want to and their for it is you who is wasting your time! not me!"))) of course if you had even half a brain you would have realized that.
@Sh0nin "Profanity in a debate—especially in an ad hominem attack on the other person—is a poor substitute for intellect. It denotes a paucity of intelligence, of reasoning power, of wit" Alan Weiss in simpler terms those who can not debate intelligently curse use profanity's, colorful metaphors..bad language. the crutch of the idiots.
@ABGAN100 Your dear Alan Weiss apparently used the word substitute, whereas I clearly used it punctuate. Also, nothing I said could even come close to being misconstrued as an ad hominem, so I suggest you actually take the time to study fallacies before you try to invoke them in an argument, you misguided pseudo-intellectual fuckwit.
Attempting to gainsay the moral or intellectual highground because of blue language is pathetic and the sign of a truly weak, self-righteous mind.
@Sh0nin the reason no legal definition was created is that up to this point in time the people in the US accepted the traditional definition of marriage, even "marriage licenses" included the gender description's i.e bride and groom. their was no need to have a definition stated, because it was "implied", and it wasn't challenged until recently no one felt no need to make that definition a constitutional amendment. the institute of marriage has always been a religious one.
@ABGAN100 That's very true and that implication was heavily reenforced by violence and fear. You're sadly mistaken about the second part, though. Marriage is a legal contract, recgonized by government. Any religious or emotional importance you put on it is personal matter, not a matter of law.
@Sh0nin what violence and fear? and I never said that marriage is not a legal contract. I clearly stated in another post the governments reasons for involvement in the institute of marriage. and long before governments managed marriage it was and institute created via religion not government. declaring that those who believe that marriage should not change do so out of violence and fear, is a mob tactic used to persuade simple minded people. it lacks intelligence and objectivity.
@ABGAN100 You said it was a religious institution, as opposed to a legal contract. I'm not aware of how the to can be anything but mutually exclusive with regards to the First Ammendment, although I'd be happy to hear your explanation.
You misread my argument. I said that in the past any possible thoughts of reforming traditional views on marriage by homsexuals have been mitigated by the severe violence and ostracization they were likely to face. Obviously things are better now.
@Sh0nin i was referring to how it originated not how it ended up & today it is both a religious institution and a legal contract. their is no law stating that the government can't provide & manage contracts for religious groups or institutes. or groups of any kind religious or otherwise. The constitution dose not give the government the power to regulate or control religions or their beliefs, the only thing the constitution says concerning religion is the government can not establish one.
@ABGAN100 "...their is no law stating that the government can't provide & manage contracts for religious groups..."-You
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."-US Constitution
Either you are sadly ignorant, or you're a very bad liar. Before you begin the predictable tirade, please look up the definitions of the word "respecting".
You make it seem as though your arguments are becoming less and less heartfelt. They sound practiced and parrotted more than anything.
@Sh0nin managing a contract for a religious group is not establishing a religion. that's like saying that managing a contract for a business would be an act of establishing a business. you are sadly ignorant and Thomas Jefferson used the phrase separation of church and state to dissuade the Bradbury baptists than no national religion would be established. and the 1st amendment has not been amended to add the phrase separation of church and state.
@ABGAN100 I specifically told you to look up the word respecting, but apparently that was too difficult for you. Let me apologize by intellectually wiping your ass.
Respecting - 1. In view of: CONSIDERING 2. With respect to: CONCERNING
If government were to manage the contract of a religious group, they would be enforcing a law in view of religion, which is expressly disallowed by the 1st ammendment. The language of the law is more important than the inetent behind it.
@Sh0nin enforcing a marriage contract is not the same as enforcing a law, their are no prisons sentences for braking a marriage contract, it is not a criminal offense to break a marriage contract. the police are not sent to you house if you break a marriage contract,so your argument carries no weight, good try tho.
@Sh0nin a marriage contract is not a law their for dose not apply to the first amendments declaration, that the congress shall make no "law" respecting an establishment of religion.
@GodCreatesGays2 i am not trying to convince anybody. i dont care if you or anybody else believes me. you would probably be all over me if you met me. and i dont live in my parents' basement, my room is upstairs ok! anyway?
It is so sad, this video is full of lies and half truths. Whats even more sad it a lot of the funding for commercials like these came from church groups. Church groups that have no business dictating laws. I believe there is something called seperation of church and state...simply put government can't tell churches how to run. and churches get a tax free ride. If the churches want to tell the government what to do. perhaps they should start paying taxes
Can you spell P-r-o-p-a-g-a-n-d-a? Well, you guys lost again. Bigotry will not be tolerated in the USA. We discriminated against Native Americans and committed genocide against them, we enslaved Africans, we had Yellow laws against Asians, but we don't learn. Well, even with all your propraganda and all the money you wasted, gays will be able to marry in California. God bless America.
Ridiculous ad! There is so much on the law that is left out regarding the rights one has in a marriage as opposed to the domestic partnership laws. Typical "fear" mongering rhetoric. Bottom line is that we live in a world where everyone is different, has different ideals, beliefs, and sexual orientation. What prop 8 supporters are saying is "we don't value you as a human and if you don't think like "me" than you don't deserve to be treated fairly." Faulty arguments always fail in the end
Adoption agencies as an issue that had to shut down. I wonder where all the kids who were in the system are now? I bet they're still in the system rather than loving homes of parents -.-
This is so offensive, because you can tell its targeted for a younger audience, to paint Prop 8 as 'harmless'. Domestic partnership is NOT the same as marriage, churches will NOT be forced to perform religious ceremonies, and no child has to be taught gay marriages in school since their parent has every right to pull them out for such lessons. I don't even know why the 'teaching marriage' thing is such a big deal, I don't remember being taught about marriages at all.
Domestic Partners already have the same rights as married couples? FUNNY. Because last I checked, there are over 1000 rights (Spousal benefits of social security, inheritance rights, medical decisions, and joint mortgage opportunities) that aren't given to partners. And perhaps Jan and Tom had forgotten that gay marriage was already legal in their state for months and their lives hadn't been ruined...
HA! not biased. You are just so funny. Oh lord and the end we hope you vote yes on prop 8. tickled me pink. Good one Tuxmask tell me who burning in hell with pedophiles is alright?
if u respect the relationship of dan and michael, why r u voting on something that will limit their rights and destroy their family? prop 8 intrudes into other ppls businesses. btw children learning is not harmful since they will end up being either gay or straight naturally and randomly during their adolescence
1: will your church be forced to have same sex wed? No! I knew a man who wed a jewish girl. They couldn't wed at her temple b/c he was Xian. The church can choose who they wed
2: wht will kids be taught? They will be taught about diff fams. Same sex, biracial+ trad fam.
3:compromising ppls beliefs? There are still racist in the USA. The civil rights mvmnt ddn't compr. them.
4: is gay marriage right for CA? I bet it will help the economy with all the weddings.
this video is crap. prop 8= govt controlling social lives. controlling your children. control your life. if you want so much control from the govt..go fuck OBAMA!!
NO ON PROP 8!
humans of quality are not threatened by marriage equality!
You know i hate how pepole say "there choice" No it's not there choice how can you be attracted to the same sex and that be a choice? attraction is a feeling I think most pepole think gay pepole are just raised to be gay or that having sex with a man makes yu gay which is wrong.
You're right, I don't like what you said, nor do I agree with it. I don't know what Religious order you claim to be from, but if you are Christian, I urge you to remember that God made a new covenant through Christ and vowed to never again destroy civilizations like it is written in the old testament. This is not necessarily a dogma I believe in, but a part of the dogma that the Christian community often forgets about when they blame gays for bringing about the apocalypse.
In addition, asking God to condemn the US? That is clearly using Gods name in vain ( or making wrongful use of the name of your God, depending on which text you use), a clear violation of the ten commandments....perhaps you should pick your words more carefully before lecturing others on their sinful behavior.
@tuxmask WOW realy... i dont know what to say to this....... I think you pegged it with "after a few minutes on the internet" that code is not entirly correct there are SEVERAL exclutions in other codes and disitions. then you go on to say that a kid being taught that gay is ok is bad. i would like to know why. finanly you use the fear tactic of churches will be forced to marry. you dont know that and why in the hell would a gay person want that. i would go to a court house. please enlighton me.
@ragmondead....Hi there. Sorry, I think you have the wrong idea here. Read the video desription I wrote for an explanation. I'm a gay man myself and all I ask for are the same right afforded to straight men, including the right to marry the person I love. (And hey, maybe some gay people would like to get married in a church. If the church is ok with it, and they want it...good for them. Me, I want something outdoors. ;0)
remmber! sodum and gomora?!!!!!! my god condem the usa, this place is going down as of now! how far down, it's up to us. if we dont put a stop to his crap it will go up sodum and gomora....... keep pissing him of you will see? we all have limits what is his limit... god.
I say the same thing tuxmask. NO ON 8! The sad thing is that people made it passed. I live in Illinois and I am not gay but the gay people should deserve equal rights.
Thanks for the words of support, and for seeing that this is not a matter of sexuality, but a matter of rights and equality. It's always great to hear from supporters outside of the LGBT community! Sometimes, I think people forget that they don't have to be gay to support gay rights. It certainly doesn't make someone gay to support us, it just makes them a caring human being....and the world can always use more of those! Thanks again!
Whell, it is not a diffrance. They do the same thing like hetrosexuall people. The only thing is that they love people of their same sex. Like Ellen Degeneres. Only the people like religous take all of this as a crime. Thay are rong. I live Illinois and think that same-sex marage should happend here.
Well, I think Dan and Michael being next door, and getting soup from Jan, is more corrupting to Jan and Tom's kids than them learning about it in school. I can't believe we still need to protest this shit.
Tom and Jan will no longer be invited over for BBQ's I'm willing to bet. Seems like such a shame that calling, two people, living together, who are in love, and who want to support each other, a marriage is wrong to do just because of their gender.
The Courts shot down the first ban because it was unconstitutional. The constitution trumps the individual vote, and they will likely overturn it again when they get the chance.
The constitution is there so that people cannot vote away their own rights, or vote away/restrict the rights of others.
The constitution matters a hell of a lot, and people seem to freak out whenever the courts enforce it to do something they disagree with.
Prop 8 is basically the same as Jim Crowe laws. Conservatives used to bitch about how "traditional marriage" was a white man and a white woman, and how interracial marriage was an "abomination," and now they have a new target.
even if the ban is dropped, the churches CANNOT be forced to marry a same sex couple if they don't want to. there is NO THREAT of harmful consequenses
I wonder why peope are so personally offended by two people being happy.
"protecting our kids" isn't even a proper argument. You know that there are kids out there that are gay too? What our kids really should be protected against are these kind of racist video's that will make them think they are less worthy then straight people, or that will make them think they are better then gay people. Either way this is just wrong.
Here in Canada, same-sex marriage is legal. It hasn't had much social effect at all, really. I am a Catholic and I believe that God loves me for me. I want to be able to marry in the house of God because I am one of His children too.
I was born gay. I tried to change it, and couldn't. I can't CHOOSE to love a man because it would be lying both to myself and to him. Furthermore, I don't really appreciate being compared to a negative addiction. Being gay isn't bad, it's just different.
check out "proposition 8 made simple-full version". It shows how flawed this video's "facts" are. All the "harmful consequences" are only harmful if you think gays are an abomination. See the circular reasoning? They say that the only reason the gays want marriage is to validate their relationships' worth. Well, couldn'd one logically say that the only reason they support proposition 8 is to ATTACK the worth of gay relationships?
Clearly the people who made this video don't understand that the role of judges is not to echo popular opinion but to rule on whether laws fit with the fundamentals of our Constitution. They will probably vehamently disagree when Prop 8 is invalidated because it goes against the fundamentals of our Constitution.
Prop 8 was driven by ignorance and fear as this video clearly illustrates. Let us pray that its blemish is forever removed from CA's Constitution.
also this video says "strong families are fundamental to society and legalizing same sex marriage could have harmful consequences"... yet the video couldn't even find any haha. oh, apart from some church refusing to some catholic charities refusing adoption charity work? that seems very sensible.
Prop 8 is fucking stupid and the arguments for voting yes on it are severely flawed
the whole argument on voting yes relies on either (1) you hate gay people, or (2) you "want to keep marriage sacred"
sacred? marriage now days is sacred? haha! bullshit. marriage is a joke. It's okay for some stupid slut to go get a marriage in vegas only to get a divorce a day later, but not ok for 2 gay people who are in love to marry?
gotta keep marriage as the oh so sacred thing it is today people!
yeh, marriage is a joke...but lets vote to change its definition even thought it means nothing to me
lets vote to change it just to piss off the people who hold it sacred.
sacred, what a joke. im an athiest, but im gonna vote to have an ordinance founded in theology to be changed...lol...that will piss them off.
my gay friends will never have the opportunity to pass on family traditions, so lets make it unconstutional for anyone else to pass on age old family traditions and taboos.
That has very little to do with anything today. One could spout off a million and one different things from Mein Kampf that happens to be moral and right. Those that were for prop 8 were saying "we like our marriage the way it is" and had nothing to do with "kill the gays." So comparing christians today to nazi's is kind of a long stretch.
I just don't understand. Prop 8 is, very simply, stopping people from loving each other. I didn't choose to be gay so how is it that I am able to be denied certain civil rights? Would anyone dare to vote yes if the same situation was applied to race?
I agree that's it's not technically stopping us from loving anyone. But what it is doing is telling us that our love isn't as good...that it's wrong...that we aren't worth the same as everyone else.
And it is very much stopping us from expressing, and showing a commitment to love in the same way that all other people are allowed.
I think it's interesting that people don't think gays made a choice. Sure you might've been "born gay." I was born to be an alcoholic and addicted to nicotine, it's in bloodline, my genetics and heritage dictate that i should be drinking and smoking, yet i've never smoked or drink. Only you can chose who you are, whoever says differend doesn't believe in choice.
When I was younger I tried to be 'un-gay'. I hated homosexuality and the fact that I liked girls killed me. The fact of the matter is, I'd never be happy with a man. Do you expect me to marry a man because that's 'traditional'? Should I lie and pretend to love a man? That's not fair to either of us. You know what else is 'traditional'? African-Americans working for white people. You don't see people advocating for slave trade because it's WRONG. Just like preventing people from marriage.
Fact: If "ALL of the civil rights that come with marriage are same in domestic partnerships" then no discrimination. But golly whiz, it does NOT say that, even in your little posted version. But then we wouldn't have to use different words would we!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
i hang out with gays and I voted yes on this prop 8. Makes sense to me. Did I tell them? Of course not. It's none of their business how I vote. And they know better than to ask me. What makes me sick is that gays believe you're either with them or against them. There's not compromise with them. You can't think differently from them. You're not allowed. I pointed this out and they shut the f up. They know I'm right.
You are wrong. I say all that time that I understand why people do not want gays to have marriage. My family loves me and supports me but they do NOT want to see me able to marry. Why, because they have been taught so wrong. They have been taught that being gay is against nature and laws of the bible. I will tell you the same thing I tell them. Get educated. Most highly educated people do not see same sex marriage as a problem.
right so I'm sure if there was a vote that would compromise your right to marry, then they would still be your friends if they voted for it. Oh and I'm sure that in the 1967 it would have been better if they just kept interracial marriage out because the majority of the population thought that it was wrong. What is wrong with a respectful disagreement. Tell me that. Any educated person can understand the need for one.
I personally would never ask you to have the same beliefs, EVER; just don't let them infinge on other people's business. What makes you think it's yours?
I'm gay and I think that is pretty shitty you say that. You have to realize that people have their beliefs. It comes from what they were taught. Rather it right or wrong. It's still their beliefs. Their your friend becasue they care about you as a person but they also have to care about themselves also. I am FOR gay marriage, don't get me wrong, but I am also understanding since I grew up a christian and was taught so wrong, but some people can't get past it.
You got your way. Gays cannot marry now. Some who are already married might have their married annulled by the state. How do you feel depriving people of equality? You know what you are doing is wrong. You're bigots plain and simple. I hope your conscience bothers you and keeps your up at night just like those who voted for slavery and anti-integration did. Keeping people separate will never make this country heal.
p.s.s. thanks for posting this video again and allowing FREE SPEECH. I was looking for the comment part on the original page, but like you said, they deleted all the arguing issues and kept the pro-8 ones.
Ff domestic partnerships already have the same exact rights as marriages do then WHY NOT let them be called married? straight people are not better than gay people, we're all equal. SO WHY NOT.
give them the label of "marriage"! By not giving them that label, its obviously saying that they are not EQUALS and allowed what straight people can have. But they are human beings who just want to marry who they love, shouldnt they be able to? Isnt marriage supposed to be about LOVE? Give em the chance
Yes-on-8 people may have gay friends and say they are tolerant, but they are saying that another human being is not allowed to marry the human being they love, just like they have their right. its simply unfair and blatantly showing they are not equals with them.
Prop 8 had nothing to do with teaching kids in school. which is a lie a lot of people got misinformed by. and even if it is mentioned in school then so what, gay people exist! and little 2nd graders wont turn gay once they hear about it unless they are born that way.
I can't believe some of the ridiculous things they try to justify this proposition with.
And then at the end, they have the nerve to say "Tom and Jan are still friends with Dan and Michael. In fact, they're having a barbecue together right now!"
D.P.s are Not recognized outside of the state they were issued (so if you have a D.P. in CA and your partner falls ill in Nevada, you won't be let into the hospital room)...can be contested in court upon the event of death...do not grant any Federal benefits...do not allow sponsorship of a partner for immigration...do not provide SS survivor benefits...and the list goes on.
I would also argue that the label is important...and if you claim it's not...why don't straight couples just get D.P.s?
Equal Rights... Gay people have the same right to marry as straights; they just have to marry someone of the opposite sex (they CHOOSE not to and want another choice).
It is not an equal rights issue, its an equal acceptance issue. Gays expect that homosexuality should be socially affirmed and this would be symbolized by redefining marriage to include same sex couples. Others believe it should be tolerated not affirmed. Gays are tolerated, DON'T PUSH IT! (thats why we pushed back... TWICE!)
Dave, your argument is that of a schoolyard bullies...don't push or we'll push you back?!
Imagine if the US still just "tolerated" black Americans. They still wouldn't be able to vote, go to the same schools, or use the same drinking fountain...but that's okay..cause they'd be "tolerated"... right? who needs equal acceptance?
Also, please don't presume to tell our community when we're "tolerated", you're not the one being called derogatory names and being told that your life is wrong...
Prop 8 is about marriage as a civil union. This is not a religious issue. Churches are not required to marry anyone. Schools have to teach tolerance however there is no requirement to teach about marriage.People are using scare tactics because they have little else."God- Fearing" people are resorting to lies. Heterosexuals have been marrying for years and we have a 50% divorce rate, domestic abuse, infidelity. How is voting yes on 8 going to protect marriage?
By your logic, if you're pulling this from the bible, Eating shellfish is also an abomination to God. Have you ever had shrimp? Shaving and cutting your hair...that's sinful. do you support those things in any way? Make sure your clothes are not of two fabrics or you're a sinner...according to the book of Leviticus.
Why do you feel you can pick and choose which parts of the bible to listen to and discard the other words of God if they don't suit you?
umm...old testament? After Jesus Christ was sacrificed, we were given a more open connection with God and He told Peter in Acts 10:15, "...do not call anything I have made impure..."
That's fine, we can talk New Testament... 1 Cor 11:14 "Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him"
Soooo....every man with long hair is disgraceful and unnatural? According to our man St. Paul it is...and as I see it, that was after Christ.
Plus, am I not still a child of God even if I am gay....so isn't it wrong for people to call me "impure"??
Just more bigotry!
macrent2 5 months ago
Really??? All the same rights?? What about the right to marry? The leagel benefit that come with that? They dont have it now, thanks to all those who voted yes... Why would you do that?
hersheykiss1001 6 months ago
This video made more sense then any argument i ever heard on this subject. Great job!
Hidframe 6 months ago
homosexuals can have the same rights and benefits through a civil unions. their is no need to alter the traditional definition of marriage! simply call all unions between partners of the same sex civil unions and unions between partners of the opposite sex marriages. Why is it so important to alter the traditional definition of marriage? if their is no more benefit than calling a union a marriage? speaking strictly from a contractual stand point.
ABGAN100 7 months ago
@ABGAN100 Sam Crow laws should have taught America that spearate will never be equal, speaking strictly from a historical standpoint. Attempting to set up a new identical institution on the basis that one group shouldn't be allowed into the first has the psychological underpinning that one type of pairing isn't as worth as much as the other, which is why it's doomed to failure. Religious fervor and mob-rule will not trump civil rights, no matter how icky you find anal-sex and scissoring.
Sh0nin 7 months ago
@Sh0nin in this case it really isn't a matter of separate but equal because to give one group a right to define marriage you have no choice but to take away the others right to define marriage. in the case of blacks civil rights it was never a matter of definition! their was never one word in which they were trying to redefine. and no matter how icky your find religious beliefs mob rule will not trump civil rights,and should not trump the democratic process.
ABGAN100 7 months ago
@ABGAN100 You're arguing semantics, in either case you're fighting to keep your monopoly on marriage. Stop prattling on as if you were delivering a mandate from Merriam-Webster, it's practically incoherent.
True, but Civil Rights should trump the democratic process, for that is the very nature of a Republic.
The main issue here seems to stem from which texts we as individuals respect more. You, I trust, hold much more respect for the Bible than the Constitution, while the opposite is true of me.
Sh0nin 7 months ago
@Sh0nin it not semantics, until the definition of marriage changes it is not a matter of civil rights! if the accepted definition of marriage were a union between two people than and only then it would be a mater of civil rights! because you could then prove discrimination. but that is not the the most widely accepted definition of marriage. it therefore falls is upon a democratic process to determine whether the definition of marriage should change.
ABGAN100 7 months ago
@Sh0nin one other thing the constitution protects religion. the first amendment expressly guarantees those rights. my argument has always been a constitutional one. and their are no constitutional amendments that define marriage.
ABGAN100 7 months ago
@ABGAN100 That's the first excellent point you made. There is indeed no Consitutional definition of marriage yet, which is why you eagerly fall back on your Biblical definition of marriage. However, this position is faulty, because the constitution doesn't protect religion specifically, it protects freedom of religion; that means for 'and' from.
Can you honestly tell me that your opposition of homosexuality isn't entrenched in dogma? I believe we'd be better served looking at motivations.
Sh0nin 7 months ago
@Sh0nin actually the constitution dose not us the words freedom "from" religion but "of" religion. this confusion unfortunately has brought about the faulty idea of separation of church and state. not mentioned in the constitution. it was in the federalists papers a letter to the Danburry baptist concerning the formation of a nation religion to assure them no national religion would be formed. tho often quoted by liberals to justify removing all religious beliefs and ideas from government.
ABGAN100 7 months ago
@ABGAN100 "...the faulty idea of separation of church and state..tho often quoted by liberals..."
I suppose Thomas Jefferson and the Supreme Court Justices are just a few of those misguided liberals? This argument is absolutely nauseating, not so much as how blatantly insincere and disingenuous it is (although that doesn't help), but because of how lazy and feeble it is.
Sh0nin 7 months ago
@Sh0nin one thing you keep saying "your" biblical definition as if i were the only one who believes that definition of marriage, when in fact the majority of Americans still believe in that definition and not just Christians, but Jews and Muslims. and I have no opposition to homosexuality, I believe that people should be able to choose what ever life stile that make them happy, as long as it's not illegal like human sacrifice. the only thing I oppose is changing the definition of marriage.
ABGAN100 7 months ago
@ABGAN100
Don't you realize that this is the entire point? The only definition of marriage you have is religious, not legal! You are perfectly welcome to keep the same definition of marriage within your religion, but you are not allowed to force that same religious standard onto the government, becuase then your personal religious beliefs begin to dictate people's lives.
If I'm wrong, please tell me where you get this marital objectivity from, if not from your Bible?
Sh0nin 7 months ago
Comment removed
ABGAN100 7 months ago
@Sh0nin the only reason governments involved themselves in the institute of marriage was to regulate it. so they could treat it just like any other business arrangement, so they could create work for the lawyers,thy could charge licensing fees, give work to government employees creating a vast bureaucracy of filing clerks lawyers and legal documents including divorce agreements and paperwork. and to create separate tax codes for married couples. and again it not just my definition!
ABGAN100 7 months ago
@ABGAN100 "the only reason governments [blah blah blah]..."
Any excuses or pleadings you offer are irrelevant once you recognize that marriage is firmly in the grasp of government and therefore primarily legal, not religious.
Sh0nin 7 months ago
@Sh0nin now that was childish i.e (blah blah blah) are your arguments so weak you have no choice but to resort to mocking! and name calling i.e "pleadings you offer are irrelevant" and just because the government regulates marriage contracts dose not mean it is in the "grasp of government"! which sounds eerily like socialism, or communism. Maybe I'm mistaken but I thought america was still a democratic republic.
ABGAN100 7 months ago
@ABGAN100 Just beacuse I don't indulge every superfluous statement you make does not make me childish, you self-important twat.
Law by definition is the regulation of actions and contracts.There are indeed legal repercussions to breaking a marital contract, such as increased alimony due to infidelity. There's a reason lawyers are brought in when marriages get messy instead of priests.
Your responses have become increasingly dumb, for lack of a better word and therefore tiresome.
Sh0nin 7 months ago
@Sh0nin those legal actions are mediation not criminal proceeding, religious groups make building contracts all the time and those contracts are mediated by the government but is doesn't but that doesn't mean that the government is making a law respecting the establishment of a religion. and marriage is not a religion it is a contract! originally established by a religion but that dose not make it a religion and it is a contract shared by several religions.Christians Jew's Muslims to name a few.
ABGAN100 7 months ago
@ABGAN100 Your balking of the issue and general lack of understanding are vexxing me greatly. I could give a fuck whether you want to label it mediation, criminal or festival, whatever asinine twist you wish to put on it, it does not enter into the legality of the matter. Don't waste my time.
I never said it was a religion, you miserable straw-man-making cunt. This conversation isn't going anywhere because you insist on going around in circles. I'm done with you.
Sh0nin 7 months ago
@Sh0nin you said it was establishing a law respecting a religion! sense marriage is not a religion any laws that govern marriage would not fall government shall make not law respecting a religion.it is you who has a general lack of understanding! and hear ((((in the US we have freedom of speech you don't have to respond,if your do not want to and their for it is you who is wasting your time! not me!"))) of course if you had even half a brain you would have realized that.
ABGAN100 7 months ago
@ABGAN100 Excuse me, but word your comment in clear, grammatically sound and legible language, because I won't be bothered deciphering it as I would the rantings of downs syndrome d-student with an attitude problem. Your ironic insult was duly noted, though. Bravo.
Sh0nin 7 months ago
@Sh0nin Ok so you have half a brain,tho you should consider taking your own advice. and if I were writing for a national publication, and not on some random blog on YouTube, I would take more care in my writing, but given the lack of general education displayed by persons like your self on this blog, I did not feel the need to watch my grammar, or spelling. especially with some one who would use the phrase "you miserable straw-man-making cunt".
ABGAN100 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Sh0nin you said it was establishing a law respecting a religion! sense marriage is not a religion any laws that govern marriage would not fall government shall make not law respecting a religion.it is you who has a general lack of understanding! and hear ((((in the US we have freedom of speech you don't have to respond,if your do not want to and their for it is you who is wasting your time! not me!"))) of course if you had even half a brain you would have realized that.
ABGAN100 7 months ago
@Sh0nin "Profanity in a debate—especially in an ad hominem attack on the other person—is a poor substitute for intellect. It denotes a paucity of intelligence, of reasoning power, of wit" Alan Weiss in simpler terms those who can not debate intelligently curse use profanity's, colorful metaphors..bad language. the crutch of the idiots.
ABGAN100 7 months ago
@ABGAN100 Your dear Alan Weiss apparently used the word substitute, whereas I clearly used it punctuate. Also, nothing I said could even come close to being misconstrued as an ad hominem, so I suggest you actually take the time to study fallacies before you try to invoke them in an argument, you misguided pseudo-intellectual fuckwit.
Attempting to gainsay the moral or intellectual highground because of blue language is pathetic and the sign of a truly weak, self-righteous mind.
Sh0nin 7 months ago
@Sh0nin the reason no legal definition was created is that up to this point in time the people in the US accepted the traditional definition of marriage, even "marriage licenses" included the gender description's i.e bride and groom. their was no need to have a definition stated, because it was "implied", and it wasn't challenged until recently no one felt no need to make that definition a constitutional amendment. the institute of marriage has always been a religious one.
ABGAN100 7 months ago
@ABGAN100 That's very true and that implication was heavily reenforced by violence and fear. You're sadly mistaken about the second part, though. Marriage is a legal contract, recgonized by government. Any religious or emotional importance you put on it is personal matter, not a matter of law.
Sh0nin 7 months ago
@Sh0nin what violence and fear? and I never said that marriage is not a legal contract. I clearly stated in another post the governments reasons for involvement in the institute of marriage. and long before governments managed marriage it was and institute created via religion not government. declaring that those who believe that marriage should not change do so out of violence and fear, is a mob tactic used to persuade simple minded people. it lacks intelligence and objectivity.
ABGAN100 7 months ago
@ABGAN100 You said it was a religious institution, as opposed to a legal contract. I'm not aware of how the to can be anything but mutually exclusive with regards to the First Ammendment, although I'd be happy to hear your explanation.
You misread my argument. I said that in the past any possible thoughts of reforming traditional views on marriage by homsexuals have been mitigated by the severe violence and ostracization they were likely to face. Obviously things are better now.
Sh0nin 7 months ago
@Sh0nin i was referring to how it originated not how it ended up & today it is both a religious institution and a legal contract. their is no law stating that the government can't provide & manage contracts for religious groups or institutes. or groups of any kind religious or otherwise. The constitution dose not give the government the power to regulate or control religions or their beliefs, the only thing the constitution says concerning religion is the government can not establish one.
ABGAN100 7 months ago
@ABGAN100 "...their is no law stating that the government can't provide & manage contracts for religious groups..."-You
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."-US Constitution
Either you are sadly ignorant, or you're a very bad liar. Before you begin the predictable tirade, please look up the definitions of the word "respecting".
You make it seem as though your arguments are becoming less and less heartfelt. They sound practiced and parrotted more than anything.
Sh0nin 7 months ago
@Sh0nin managing a contract for a religious group is not establishing a religion. that's like saying that managing a contract for a business would be an act of establishing a business. you are sadly ignorant and Thomas Jefferson used the phrase separation of church and state to dissuade the Bradbury baptists than no national religion would be established. and the 1st amendment has not been amended to add the phrase separation of church and state.
ABGAN100 7 months ago
@ABGAN100 I specifically told you to look up the word respecting, but apparently that was too difficult for you. Let me apologize by intellectually wiping your ass.
Respecting - 1. In view of: CONSIDERING 2. With respect to: CONCERNING
If government were to manage the contract of a religious group, they would be enforcing a law in view of religion, which is expressly disallowed by the 1st ammendment. The language of the law is more important than the inetent behind it.
Sh0nin 7 months ago
@Sh0nin enforcing a marriage contract is not the same as enforcing a law, their are no prisons sentences for braking a marriage contract, it is not a criminal offense to break a marriage contract. the police are not sent to you house if you break a marriage contract,so your argument carries no weight, good try tho.
ABGAN100 7 months ago
@Sh0nin a marriage contract is not a law their for dose not apply to the first amendments declaration, that the congress shall make no "law" respecting an establishment of religion.
ABGAN100 7 months ago
like this if Dan and Michael should kill their dog for voting yes.
kristinaoleta 8 months ago
so if i love my do should i have the legal right to marry him? get real people
MrTroll652 10 months ago
@MrTroll652, yep, if you love your hair "do", go ahead and marry it. You may have no other offers!
GodCreatesGays2 10 months ago
@GodCreatesGays2 i meant dog. you know what i meant dont be stupid! and for your information i have plenty of options and plenty of offers
MrTroll652 10 months ago
@MrTroll652, yeah, right.
Whom are you trying to convince?
How many offers could you possibly get, down there in your parents' basement, anyway?
GodCreatesGays2 10 months ago
@GodCreatesGays2 i am not trying to convince anybody. i dont care if you or anybody else believes me. you would probably be all over me if you met me. and i dont live in my parents' basement, my room is upstairs ok! anyway?
MrTroll652 10 months ago
@MrTroll652, well, it's true I would be "all over you" with educational pamphlets, anyway.
GodCreatesGays2 10 months ago
@GodCreatesGays2 i am very well educated for your information. i have 30 units of community college. what do you have? anyway!
MrTroll652 10 months ago
@MrTroll652, your comments here prove conclusively how much in need of education you really are. Sorry.
GodCreatesGays2 10 months ago
@GodCreatesGays2 give me an example of what i have said to make you come to that conclusion.
MrTroll652 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrTroll652, since you even have to ask:
"so if i love my do should i have the legal right to marry him? get real people"
That's enough evidence for an accurate assessment and diagnosis, I'm afraid.
GodCreatesGays2 10 months ago
It is so sad, this video is full of lies and half truths. Whats even more sad it a lot of the funding for commercials like these came from church groups. Church groups that have no business dictating laws. I believe there is something called seperation of church and state...simply put government can't tell churches how to run. and churches get a tax free ride. If the churches want to tell the government what to do. perhaps they should start paying taxes
BlueShreveport 1 year ago
biased. and not just biased, bigoted.
b28e 1 year ago
this video is biased lol that fact is its not a choice
RuralBrett 1 year ago
59 people are gay.
freakylocz14 1 year ago
Can you spell P-r-o-p-a-g-a-n-d-a? Well, you guys lost again. Bigotry will not be tolerated in the USA. We discriminated against Native Americans and committed genocide against them, we enslaved Africans, we had Yellow laws against Asians, but we don't learn. Well, even with all your propraganda and all the money you wasted, gays will be able to marry in California. God bless America.
philip0460 1 year ago
Ridiculous ad! There is so much on the law that is left out regarding the rights one has in a marriage as opposed to the domestic partnership laws. Typical "fear" mongering rhetoric. Bottom line is that we live in a world where everyone is different, has different ideals, beliefs, and sexual orientation. What prop 8 supporters are saying is "we don't value you as a human and if you don't think like "me" than you don't deserve to be treated fairly." Faulty arguments always fail in the end
marinagarza 1 year ago
lol, not at all biased. That would require that you don't outrightly say yes or no on the subject at hand.
ohBTW 1 year ago
Adoption agencies as an issue that had to shut down. I wonder where all the kids who were in the system are now? I bet they're still in the system rather than loving homes of parents -.-
kmelfina 1 year ago
This is so offensive, because you can tell its targeted for a younger audience, to paint Prop 8 as 'harmless'. Domestic partnership is NOT the same as marriage, churches will NOT be forced to perform religious ceremonies, and no child has to be taught gay marriages in school since their parent has every right to pull them out for such lessons. I don't even know why the 'teaching marriage' thing is such a big deal, I don't remember being taught about marriages at all.
yuumeko 1 year ago
not biased????????? b***h please!
friedmanrc 1 year ago
This is totally biased, I dont care what you say.
hagi171 1 year ago 6
@hagi171
..and the ANTI-prop 8 ads are NOT biased???
ma7799 1 year ago
Domestic Partners already have the same rights as married couples? FUNNY. Because last I checked, there are over 1000 rights (Spousal benefits of social security, inheritance rights, medical decisions, and joint mortgage opportunities) that aren't given to partners. And perhaps Jan and Tom had forgotten that gay marriage was already legal in their state for months and their lives hadn't been ruined...
Thewaiter525600 1 year ago
HA! not biased. You are just so funny. Oh lord and the end we hope you vote yes on prop 8. tickled me pink. Good one Tuxmask tell me who burning in hell with pedophiles is alright?
Love and kisses
Johnny Stardust
ijustjackedyourdog 1 year ago 2
This video is gay, and the person who made it likes to have sex with men.
omegajester 2 years ago
Prejudice is not the same as Miscreant ...!
Who do You Want Guard Your Little "Lambs" a Wolf or the Shepard...?
chachapc007 2 years ago
if u respect the relationship of dan and michael, why r u voting on something that will limit their rights and destroy their family? prop 8 intrudes into other ppls businesses. btw children learning is not harmful since they will end up being either gay or straight naturally and randomly during their adolescence
TiranaMeKismet 2 years ago
lol
laurelbakescakes 2 years ago
yawn. almost fell asleep watching this rubbish.
republicans really suck at making videos. I guess the Bible doesn't teach you much about advertisement.
etherfreeze 2 years ago 6
Ok let me A the ?Q for "tom&Jan"
1: will your church be forced to have same sex wed? No! I knew a man who wed a jewish girl. They couldn't wed at her temple b/c he was Xian. The church can choose who they wed
2: wht will kids be taught? They will be taught about diff fams. Same sex, biracial+ trad fam.
3:compromising ppls beliefs? There are still racist in the USA. The civil rights mvmnt ddn't compr. them.
4: is gay marriage right for CA? I bet it will help the economy with all the weddings.
Boudiga 2 years ago
this video is crap. prop 8= govt controlling social lives. controlling your children. control your life. if you want so much control from the govt..go fuck OBAMA!!
NO ON PROP 8!
humans of quality are not threatened by marriage equality!
ska0tahirany 2 years ago
yeah, at first I was glad to see a non-biased video on prop 8, but near the end, I realized that it was biased.
aznandprd 2 years ago
how horrible churches might have to acept everyone, and be forced to give up to a couple that will love them.
marcoscrocker 2 years ago
great video for putting forth an argument in a respectful manner and explaining their reasoning. now the fight is on to uphold the vote for prop 8
acerusso 2 years ago
it may sounds respectful. but so can a video by the KKK supporting the ban of interracial marriage. it doesnt make it any more right.
TiranaMeKismet 2 years ago
that comparison holds no water. you are just trying to compare them to something evil and give it bad mental association.
acerusso 2 years ago
You know i hate how pepole say "there choice" No it's not there choice how can you be attracted to the same sex and that be a choice? attraction is a feeling I think most pepole think gay pepole are just raised to be gay or that having sex with a man makes yu gay which is wrong.
KD5651 2 years ago
This is actually biased. subtle, but still biased and wrong.
BrightRaven0 2 years ago
everyone has equal rights, we voted.
ElHermono 2 years ago
prop 8 does not give equal rights it takes away
idaman12345 2 years ago 2
well if it didn't passed it would have taken the rights away of the people who voted yes on prop 8, it was a lose lose situation for both
ElHermono 2 years ago
their right to wat? their right to intrude into other ppl's business?
TiranaMeKismet 2 years ago
I voted yes. It passed. That is what californians want.
orcamistress101 2 years ago
you my not like what i said, but you will see soon,,,, san francisco might be first? he have his plan.
magnito4363 2 years ago
Magnito,
You're right, I don't like what you said, nor do I agree with it. I don't know what Religious order you claim to be from, but if you are Christian, I urge you to remember that God made a new covenant through Christ and vowed to never again destroy civilizations like it is written in the old testament. This is not necessarily a dogma I believe in, but a part of the dogma that the Christian community often forgets about when they blame gays for bringing about the apocalypse.
tuxmask 2 years ago
In addition, asking God to condemn the US? That is clearly using Gods name in vain ( or making wrongful use of the name of your God, depending on which text you use), a clear violation of the ten commandments....perhaps you should pick your words more carefully before lecturing others on their sinful behavior.
tuxmask 2 years ago
@tuxmask WOW realy... i dont know what to say to this....... I think you pegged it with "after a few minutes on the internet" that code is not entirly correct there are SEVERAL exclutions in other codes and disitions. then you go on to say that a kid being taught that gay is ok is bad. i would like to know why. finanly you use the fear tactic of churches will be forced to marry. you dont know that and why in the hell would a gay person want that. i would go to a court house. please enlighton me.
ragmondead 11 months ago
@ragmondead....Hi there. Sorry, I think you have the wrong idea here. Read the video desription I wrote for an explanation. I'm a gay man myself and all I ask for are the same right afforded to straight men, including the right to marry the person I love. (And hey, maybe some gay people would like to get married in a church. If the church is ok with it, and they want it...good for them. Me, I want something outdoors. ;0)
tuxmask 11 months ago
@tuxmask o sorry i though you were another bible thumper sorry.
ragmondead 11 months ago
what the blank is going on?
god said man and woman as couple,
remmber! sodum and gomora?!!!!!! my god condem the usa, this place is going down as of now! how far down, it's up to us. if we dont put a stop to his crap it will go up sodum and gomora....... keep pissing him of you will see? we all have limits what is his limit... god.
magnito4363 2 years ago
are you 4 years old or just completely inept at forming sentences and spelling words.
etherfreeze 2 years ago
I say the same thing tuxmask. NO ON 8! The sad thing is that people made it passed. I live in Illinois and I am not gay but the gay people should deserve equal rights.
ORD6543 2 years ago
Ord,
Thanks for the words of support, and for seeing that this is not a matter of sexuality, but a matter of rights and equality. It's always great to hear from supporters outside of the LGBT community! Sometimes, I think people forget that they don't have to be gay to support gay rights. It certainly doesn't make someone gay to support us, it just makes them a caring human being....and the world can always use more of those! Thanks again!
tuxmask 2 years ago
I really would like someone to explain to me what the 'gay lifestyle' is.
People keep bringing it up and not defining it.
How is it different from the heterosexual lifestyle? I mean, besides for the genders involved?
everythingisyou 2 years ago
Whell, it is not a diffrance. They do the same thing like hetrosexuall people. The only thing is that they love people of their same sex. Like Ellen Degeneres. Only the people like religous take all of this as a crime. Thay are rong. I live Illinois and think that same-sex marage should happend here.
ORD6543 2 years ago
Well, I think Dan and Michael being next door, and getting soup from Jan, is more corrupting to Jan and Tom's kids than them learning about it in school. I can't believe we still need to protest this shit.
omochigirl92 2 years ago
Tom and Jan will no longer be invited over for BBQ's I'm willing to bet. Seems like such a shame that calling, two people, living together, who are in love, and who want to support each other, a marriage is wrong to do just because of their gender.
sarakai 2 years ago
The Courts shot down the first ban because it was unconstitutional. The constitution trumps the individual vote, and they will likely overturn it again when they get the chance.
The constitution is there so that people cannot vote away their own rights, or vote away/restrict the rights of others.
The constitution matters a hell of a lot, and people seem to freak out whenever the courts enforce it to do something they disagree with.
BrianTotse 2 years ago
Not only is this video one-sided, but the creators didn't even have the creativity to think of better names than Jan and Tom...
FamGuyGuy123 2 years ago
Prop 8 is basically the same as Jim Crowe laws. Conservatives used to bitch about how "traditional marriage" was a white man and a white woman, and how interracial marriage was an "abomination," and now they have a new target.
AmishMarine1 2 years ago 18
no on 8 is bullshit fucking white people whith there god
CheapyX55 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Prop 8=Greatest thing ever...
TheMusic2007 3 years ago
if you think hatred and bigotry is great
idaman12345 2 years ago
plus how can Jan ans Tom vote for prop8 while still respecting their friends??
FoxMarcello 3 years ago
even if the ban is dropped, the churches CANNOT be forced to marry a same sex couple if they don't want to. there is NO THREAT of harmful consequenses
FoxMarcello 3 years ago
This is very much biased.
I wonder why peope are so personally offended by two people being happy.
"protecting our kids" isn't even a proper argument. You know that there are kids out there that are gay too? What our kids really should be protected against are these kind of racist video's that will make them think they are less worthy then straight people, or that will make them think they are better then gay people. Either way this is just wrong.
lalalaliesaa 3 years ago
Con't:
Here in Canada, same-sex marriage is legal. It hasn't had much social effect at all, really. I am a Catholic and I believe that God loves me for me. I want to be able to marry in the house of God because I am one of His children too.
I was born gay. I tried to change it, and couldn't. I can't CHOOSE to love a man because it would be lying both to myself and to him. Furthermore, I don't really appreciate being compared to a negative addiction. Being gay isn't bad, it's just different.
courtc8891 3 years ago
Religion isnt even supposed to be taught in public schools.
DancetotheMusicxxx 3 years ago
Prop 8 is discriminatory bull shit
DancetotheMusicxxx 3 years ago
check out "proposition 8 made simple-full version". It shows how flawed this video's "facts" are. All the "harmful consequences" are only harmful if you think gays are an abomination. See the circular reasoning? They say that the only reason the gays want marriage is to validate their relationships' worth. Well, couldn'd one logically say that the only reason they support proposition 8 is to ATTACK the worth of gay relationships?
chrisehogan 3 years ago
let freedom ring...
im sure martin luther was referring to my personal freedom to do whatever the hell i want...however the hell i want...regardless of all and any.
if they want to sit in church and look up the sky, i should be free to stick my finger in the same general direction.
lets desecrate what they hold sacred, and call them intolerant if they take offence...
because its my god given right to point any finger i want in any direction i want.
AncientofAncients 3 years ago
Clearly the people who made this video don't understand that the role of judges is not to echo popular opinion but to rule on whether laws fit with the fundamentals of our Constitution. They will probably vehamently disagree when Prop 8 is invalidated because it goes against the fundamentals of our Constitution.
Prop 8 was driven by ignorance and fear as this video clearly illustrates. Let us pray that its blemish is forever removed from CA's Constitution.
Permaglo 3 years ago
Undercovered Tooootally biased!
astoria30001 3 years ago
It all rests on whether or not one thinks that gay people are born that way. And that, my friend, is totally opinion.
pwe5000 3 years ago
also this video says "strong families are fundamental to society and legalizing same sex marriage could have harmful consequences"... yet the video couldn't even find any haha. oh, apart from some church refusing to some catholic charities refusing adoption charity work? that seems very sensible.
foolish humons!
AndyLeTerrible 3 years ago
Prop 8 is fucking stupid and the arguments for voting yes on it are severely flawed
the whole argument on voting yes relies on either (1) you hate gay people, or (2) you "want to keep marriage sacred"
sacred? marriage now days is sacred? haha! bullshit. marriage is a joke. It's okay for some stupid slut to go get a marriage in vegas only to get a divorce a day later, but not ok for 2 gay people who are in love to marry?
gotta keep marriage as the oh so sacred thing it is today people!
AndyLeTerrible 3 years ago 2
yeh, marriage is a joke...but lets vote to change its definition even thought it means nothing to me
lets vote to change it just to piss off the people who hold it sacred.
sacred, what a joke. im an athiest, but im gonna vote to have an ordinance founded in theology to be changed...lol...that will piss them off.
my gay friends will never have the opportunity to pass on family traditions, so lets make it unconstutional for anyone else to pass on age old family traditions and taboos.
AncientofAncients 3 years ago
I recall another controversial 14 words. They're out of Mein Kampf!
"We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children."
1Jedthered 3 years ago
That has very little to do with anything today. One could spout off a million and one different things from Mein Kampf that happens to be moral and right. Those that were for prop 8 were saying "we like our marriage the way it is" and had nothing to do with "kill the gays." So comparing christians today to nazi's is kind of a long stretch.
rockinloud14 2 years ago
The holocaust didn't start with "kill all Jews".
1Jedthered 2 years ago
scratch that
I meant to say that the holocaust was not a plan from the start.
1Jedthered 2 years ago
For Hitler it was.
Germany as a whole, however, was slowly moved towards it until it was too late.
BrianTotse 2 years ago
I just don't understand. Prop 8 is, very simply, stopping people from loving each other. I didn't choose to be gay so how is it that I am able to be denied certain civil rights? Would anyone dare to vote yes if the same situation was applied to race?
NinjaBunny 3 years ago
I don't understand how it's stopping you from loving anyone.
Kimmmmmy 3 years ago
I agree that's it's not technically stopping us from loving anyone. But what it is doing is telling us that our love isn't as good...that it's wrong...that we aren't worth the same as everyone else.
And it is very much stopping us from expressing, and showing a commitment to love in the same way that all other people are allowed.
tuxmask 3 years ago
I think it's interesting that people don't think gays made a choice. Sure you might've been "born gay." I was born to be an alcoholic and addicted to nicotine, it's in bloodline, my genetics and heritage dictate that i should be drinking and smoking, yet i've never smoked or drink. Only you can chose who you are, whoever says differend doesn't believe in choice.
rockinloud14 3 years ago
When I was younger I tried to be 'un-gay'. I hated homosexuality and the fact that I liked girls killed me. The fact of the matter is, I'd never be happy with a man. Do you expect me to marry a man because that's 'traditional'? Should I lie and pretend to love a man? That's not fair to either of us. You know what else is 'traditional'? African-Americans working for white people. You don't see people advocating for slave trade because it's WRONG. Just like preventing people from marriage.
courtc8891 3 years ago 2
good post!!
lunchboxboy 2 years ago
lets not just shift the line of morality, lets get rid of it all together.
lets make it wrong to close our childrens eyes off from all forms of sexual expression.
lets make it unconstitutional to cover our kids eyes and ears from the grown up world of human sexuality.
lets make it illegal to instill cultural taboos in the next generation.
lets not discriminate against anyone, lets legalize and embrace all forms of sexuality peda-zoo-mecha-objecto-philes. let be, let be, let be...
AncientofAncients 3 years ago
This video made me throw up all over the place.
lovelovedie 3 years ago
Fact: If "ALL of the civil rights that come with marriage are same in domestic partnerships" then no discrimination. But golly whiz, it does NOT say that, even in your little posted version. But then we wouldn't have to use different words would we!
jrh323 3 years ago
this video is perverse. it seems so calm and nice, oh wait - all propaganda is like that.
mollypsca 3 years ago 3
Wow separate but equal is a great idea
aropeofsand 3 years ago 2
gays: good enough to watch your dog, not good enough to marry.
shokteenik 3 years ago 13
This comment has received too many negative votes show
i hang out with gays and I voted yes on this prop 8. Makes sense to me. Did I tell them? Of course not. It's none of their business how I vote. And they know better than to ask me. What makes me sick is that gays believe you're either with them or against them. There's not compromise with them. You can't think differently from them. You're not allowed. I pointed this out and they shut the f up. They know I'm right.
clearlyanonymous 3 years ago
You are wrong. I say all that time that I understand why people do not want gays to have marriage. My family loves me and supports me but they do NOT want to see me able to marry. Why, because they have been taught so wrong. They have been taught that being gay is against nature and laws of the bible. I will tell you the same thing I tell them. Get educated. Most highly educated people do not see same sex marriage as a problem.
mattinks 3 years ago
right so I'm sure if there was a vote that would compromise your right to marry, then they would still be your friends if they voted for it. Oh and I'm sure that in the 1967 it would have been better if they just kept interracial marriage out because the majority of the population thought that it was wrong. What is wrong with a respectful disagreement. Tell me that. Any educated person can understand the need for one.
LLEBNAX 3 years ago
I mean you joking us right... you're clearly anonymous
jrh323 3 years ago
I personally would never ask you to have the same beliefs, EVER; just don't let them infinge on other people's business. What makes you think it's yours?
Sebastianswain 3 years ago
If I knew of anyone who was "supposedly" my friend..that voted for this....they would NO longer be my friend...Friends DON'T stab you in the back.
rextrek 3 years ago
I'm gay and I think that is pretty shitty you say that. You have to realize that people have their beliefs. It comes from what they were taught. Rather it right or wrong. It's still their beliefs. Their your friend becasue they care about you as a person but they also have to care about themselves also. I am FOR gay marriage, don't get me wrong, but I am also understanding since I grew up a christian and was taught so wrong, but some people can't get past it.
mattinks 3 years ago
You got your way. Gays cannot marry now. Some who are already married might have their married annulled by the state. How do you feel depriving people of equality? You know what you are doing is wrong. You're bigots plain and simple. I hope your conscience bothers you and keeps your up at night just like those who voted for slavery and anti-integration did. Keeping people separate will never make this country heal.
philip0460 3 years ago
p.s.s. thanks for posting this video again and allowing FREE SPEECH. I was looking for the comment part on the original page, but like you said, they deleted all the arguing issues and kept the pro-8 ones.
yay for commenting :D
lovesten 3 years ago
: D Thanks for taking the time comment! Everything you said is so very true...love it! :0)
tuxmask 3 years ago
p.s. he said at the end that "they can respect dan and michael's lifestyle choice..."
It's not a choice, idiot. Gay people are biologically born that way. Try turning a straight person gay and a gay person straight. Good luck.
Gay people don't have a choice of being gay OR not. Their choice is whether they show it OR hide it. BOOYAH! No on Prop 8!
lovesten 3 years ago
Ff domestic partnerships already have the same exact rights as marriages do then WHY NOT let them be called married? straight people are not better than gay people, we're all equal. SO WHY NOT.
give them the label of "marriage"! By not giving them that label, its obviously saying that they are not EQUALS and allowed what straight people can have. But they are human beings who just want to marry who they love, shouldnt they be able to? Isnt marriage supposed to be about LOVE? Give em the chance
lovesten 3 years ago
theres actually not all the same right as well...short a few thousand according to law...
LLEBNAX 3 years ago
Yes-on-8 people may have gay friends and say they are tolerant, but they are saying that another human being is not allowed to marry the human being they love, just like they have their right. its simply unfair and blatantly showing they are not equals with them.
lovesten 3 years ago
First of all, this video is so messed up.
i feel bad for Dan and Michael!
Prop 8 had nothing to do with teaching kids in school. which is a lie a lot of people got misinformed by. and even if it is mentioned in school then so what, gay people exist! and little 2nd graders wont turn gay once they hear about it unless they are born that way.
lovesten 3 years ago
yeah, not at all biased... *big fucking heaps of impossibly large amounts of sarcasm*
GodOfShinyThings 3 years ago
I can't believe some of the ridiculous things they try to justify this proposition with.
And then at the end, they have the nerve to say "Tom and Jan are still friends with Dan and Michael. In fact, they're having a barbecue together right now!"
Talk about blatant propaganda
xxkuchinawa 3 years ago
talk about a totally probable hypothetical situation
pwe5000 3 years ago
Hah, "not all biased." right.
barlormar 3 years ago
Legal issues in a country as diverse as the USA should be dealt with completely neutrally in terms of religious involvement.
zorbs7248 3 years ago
Dear Jan & Tom,
Dan and Michael hate you.
BraninT 3 years ago 4
Other than the label (Domestic partnership vs marriage) what is the difference between the two as far as rights are concerned?
Someone enlighten me (even though its too late)
BIGPOTDAVE 3 years ago
D.P.s are Not recognized outside of the state they were issued (so if you have a D.P. in CA and your partner falls ill in Nevada, you won't be let into the hospital room)...can be contested in court upon the event of death...do not grant any Federal benefits...do not allow sponsorship of a partner for immigration...do not provide SS survivor benefits...and the list goes on.
I would also argue that the label is important...and if you claim it's not...why don't straight couples just get D.P.s?
tuxmask 3 years ago
Equal Rights... Gay people have the same right to marry as straights; they just have to marry someone of the opposite sex (they CHOOSE not to and want another choice).
It is not an equal rights issue, its an equal acceptance issue. Gays expect that homosexuality should be socially affirmed and this would be symbolized by redefining marriage to include same sex couples. Others believe it should be tolerated not affirmed. Gays are tolerated, DON'T PUSH IT! (thats why we pushed back... TWICE!)
BIGPOTDAVE 3 years ago
Dave, your argument is that of a schoolyard bullies...don't push or we'll push you back?!
Imagine if the US still just "tolerated" black Americans. They still wouldn't be able to vote, go to the same schools, or use the same drinking fountain...but that's okay..cause they'd be "tolerated"... right? who needs equal acceptance?
Also, please don't presume to tell our community when we're "tolerated", you're not the one being called derogatory names and being told that your life is wrong...
tuxmask 3 years ago
this is a very condescending, biased video.
Aquaholica004 3 years ago
totally biased.
abcsouptastegood 3 years ago
Prop 8 is about marriage as a civil union. This is not a religious issue. Churches are not required to marry anyone. Schools have to teach tolerance however there is no requirement to teach about marriage.People are using scare tactics because they have little else."God- Fearing" people are resorting to lies. Heterosexuals have been marrying for years and we have a 50% divorce rate, domestic abuse, infidelity. How is voting yes on 8 going to protect marriage?
moongirl0404 3 years ago
more importantly, why is protecting marriage more important that protecting people's rights?
JigsawMaster 3 years ago
"God-fearing ppl resorting to lies?" how exactly?
Homosexualtiy is a sin and an abomination to God and I will not support it in any way..
mucholuv2u 3 years ago
By your logic, if you're pulling this from the bible, Eating shellfish is also an abomination to God. Have you ever had shrimp? Shaving and cutting your hair...that's sinful. do you support those things in any way? Make sure your clothes are not of two fabrics or you're a sinner...according to the book of Leviticus.
Why do you feel you can pick and choose which parts of the bible to listen to and discard the other words of God if they don't suit you?
tuxmask 3 years ago
umm...old testament? After Jesus Christ was sacrificed, we were given a more open connection with God and He told Peter in Acts 10:15, "...do not call anything I have made impure..."
rokkandroll 3 years ago
That's fine, we can talk New Testament... 1 Cor 11:14 "Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him"
Soooo....every man with long hair is disgraceful and unnatural? According to our man St. Paul it is...and as I see it, that was after Christ.
Plus, am I not still a child of God even if I am gay....so isn't it wrong for people to call me "impure"??
tuxmask 3 years ago