This Video Makes Me Feel So Sad !!! It is Everything But Marriage

[NatDemUK]

Next it will be polyamory marriage, incest marriage and then bestial marriage!

[voteyesonquestion1]

I leave people live as they want but when they decide to redefine marriage for the rest of society , I have to stand up. It is cause legitime defense

[lisztnut]

The problem is you DON'T leave people to live as we wish. The FACT is you want everyone to abide by YOUR version of traditional marriage. This is NOT freedom. You want to IMPOSE your beliefs on us all. My marriage has NO impact on your life- NONE! I've been married for a year now, have you seen any changes in your life due to this? It's ridiculous. Now, step aside and allow this natural progression towards freedom for gays and lesbians to marry to proceed. Otherwise, it will consume you.

[voteyesonquestion1]

If it not what you want. It is mob rule. If it is what you want, it is the law. Lisznut, your agenda and motus apparatus is obviously clear

[voteyesonquestion1]

In America, people own the constitution, not the court. We the people. In California the supreme court understood that very well. Those lawyers in black robes got the but kicked and for good reason.

[voteyesonquestion1]

Of course they can live their life the way they want. I have the right to have an opinion. What is your problem ?

[lisztnut]

It's great how that 15 year old knows more about the law and government than you do. Pathetic... Keep YOUR god out of MY government, just like Thomas Jefferson said...

[elementic101]

Thanks for the kind comments. Glad someone has a brain at least. (besides Yoshiisland1)

[elementic101]

I wish these two people forever happyness!

Gay Marriage forever <3

P.S

Marriage has been refined plenty of times before, Marriage at one point wasn't even allowed between people of different racial background or between slaves. it WILL someday include homosexual people in the legal definition everywhere.

[voteyesonquestion1]

Marriage law has evolved but marriage was neve redefined. It always involved the union of a man and a woman. Get your facts straight and stop the propaganda

[lisztnut]

Speaking of propaganda, the courts are the checks and balances for MOB RULE, which is what you advocate when it comes to civil rights. Just remember that when us Atheists outnumber the Christians. Can't wait to vote on YOUR rights....! Our country was founded on the principles of FREEDOM of religion, this means one religious group cannot dominate our laws. There ARE religious groups that condone gay marriage, therefore YOUR religion does NOT trump THEIR religion. And, this is a LEGAL issue.

[rjgeraghty]

Do not be fooled. Our country was founded on CHRISTIAN principles. God will not be mocked and WASN'T in Maine.

[lisztnut]

You should not be fooled. Our country was founded by people who wanted religion OUT of government. That's why the Puritans came here in the first place. Thomas Paine said, "The Christian bible is a fraud which insults god." Thomas Jefferson said, "I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition [Christianity] one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded upon fables and mythologies"

[voteyesonquestion1]

So far all same sex marriage laws squash religious freedom and reduce it just to a right to a religious ceremony. That is it. Like communism gloated of having beautiful church buildings, in the Soviet Union religion was totally suppressed. Same sex marriage laws are the same even if they use misleading title. Read them, it is very clear. Homosexuality is the new state religion that the founders warned us about.

[lisztnut]

We need to make religious ceremonies separate from the legal one. In France, religious weddings are NOT legal. EVERY couple goes to city hall to be legally married, and if they don't, their marriage is NULL and VOID legally. We made the mistake of recognizing religious weddings , which should be a private not public matter, as being legal. BIG mistake!

[FrostbittenWolf]

A right to religious ceremony was all that was ever guaranteed in the first place. The founders spit in the eyes of Christian fundamentalists like you so that U.S. citizens were allowed to practice their own religion.

[lisztnut]

WOW, Voteyesonquestion1, I just read through EVERY comment on this thread. Not ONE single person supported your point of view. They all say how pathetic you are to use someone's private, special, possibly ONCE IN A LIFETIME day of joy for your dirty agenda. Sad, ineed... Pathetic... Get a LIFE!

[lisztnut]

Marriage law continues to evolve, with or without your approval (who's asking for your approval anyway, since it's none of your damn business?).... Marriage now is inclusive of same sex couples. And, this worldwide phenomonen simply cannot be stopped at this point. Every year new countries join the fold, and soon the civilized, non-theocratic countries will join in this celebration of EQUALITY for all. A rainbow is coming to YOUR area, soon...

[coolthomas2011]

Americans have "redefined" marriage so many times throughout its history.

The fact that you have any negative feelings towards two people showing their commitment to each other and their dependents is shows how hate and fear blind people to things that they may not understand.

[voteyesonquestion1]

"Marriage has always been the union of a man and a woman. The word redefinition is just propaganda and deception.

In every type of marriage even polygamy is based on the union of a man and a woman. So get your head straight before you speak. These two men will never be representing what a marriage is. It is an illusion

[Yoshiisland1]

Bravo Voteyeson1. Just bravo. You just proved to us that you're using propaganda for redefining marriage. That's right, you are "redefining" marriage to one man and one women, civil marriage to be exact.

Even polygamy? First, you said marriage is between a man and a woman. And now you're saying polygamy is better than gay marriage? Wow, what a way to stand up to your beliefs. Perhaps you should take an English class.

Oh wait, that's right, one of your supporters quote mined the dictionary.

[lisztnut]

Marriage is a LEGAL contract between two persons and their government. Here is a definition of marriage: a social contract between two individuals that unites their lives legally, economically and emotionally.

That's all... And, I could really care less if you or your imaginary friend can't mentally grasp that two men can be married. You and your friend don't sign my tax refund checks do you? Therefore, you have NO say in my marriage...

[lisztnut]

And, why is it voteyesonquestion1, that not a SINGLE video that you've posted has gotten more than one and half stars, and every comment I've read here has been opposed to your views? Hum, I wonder why....??? You are doing your "agenda" a disservice because it is divisive and discriminatory, and your bigotry shines through like a beacon warning all to stay clear of you and your radical agenda to stamp out homosexuality...

[voteyesonquestion1]

Evaku, Are you going to spend your whole life to find exceptions that comfirm the rule in order to justify your life style. It is easier to change yourself that to change the whole universe. From the atom (an smaller) the plants, the animals and humans, the whole world existence is based on the give and take of + and - or masculinity and femininity.

You are like someone who is trying to rearrange the chairs on the titanic.

It is a waste of time. Do not try to be God .

[lisztnut]

Let me educate you a bit, voteyesonquestion1: Sexual orientation is NOT a lifestyle. If it were, we'd be saying that you live the "heterosexual lifestyle." We don't say that. Why? That's because the rightwing religious nuts use the word "lifestyle" to demean gay people, and place our sexual orientation in a different category from YOUR sexual orientation. Our orientation was formed the same way your's was: it is INNATE and IMMUTABLE... Therefore, we are EQUALS...

[voteyesonquestion1]

Redefining marriage based on your personal opinion is making laws that affect me and the rest of society.

My religious freedom is threatened right now. I doubt you would move a finger to fight for it

[Yoshiisland1]

Wahhhh....wah...my agnostic freedoms are being threatened by gay marriage. Wah.

Seriously voteyeson1, your religious freedoms are not being threatened in away. As a matter of fact, you are ABUSING that freedom to take away freedoms from others. Not just gay marriage, but you would start stomping on others people right to religion in the form of laws.

I'm sure YOU wouldn't lay a finger on that since it benefits you and your groups at the expense of others.

[lisztnut]

Yoshiisland1, you and elementic101 (if your profiles are correct about your age) give me GREAT hope for the future. You are bright, articulate advocates for marriage equality and gay people in general. I applaud what you are doing, and keep the faith, we WILL prevail. Of this I'm very sure. Know why? Civil rights never move backwards. We are in a fierce fight now, but this will not be decided by vote. The court will have the final word, and it WILL go OUR way! Be patient.

[Yoshiisland1]

If the one saying that I'm 15, then yes.

And while I'm not necessarily an advocate for same sex marriage, voteyeson1 and his supporters think that he force his lifestyle and shove it in on us.

Voteyes and many others think that if we make everyone is a Christian, we would be much better off. Actually, it's a route to the dark ages.

As for courts, the courts really know how to do their jobs. It's idiotic people that makes their jobs tougher.

Thanks for the comment. Made me smile.

[lisztnut]

Yes, I think you're terrific. Hats off to you. You are right on about so many things. Christianity has been a very negative influence throughout our history. Did you know that Thomas Paine said the Christian bible is a "fraud" which "offends god?" Pretty powerful words... And, you are also right about the courts doing their jobs. Their role is not to "impose" any views on anyone. They interpret the law and, most importantly, protect the minority from mob rule. You make ME smile!

[Yoshiisland1]

Just like Proposition 8 in California, Question 1 is just another way for the religious to grab more power, something completely forbidden in our US Constitution. And it's not Christianity itself that's a bad influence, it's the people.

Secularism has a much better track record in history than having Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, etc in power.

I just can't believe the US is losing its secularist after being so successful in past.

[lisztnut]

I have to tell you that I am a college professor, and private piano teacher. I've never liked teaching kids all that much, but for someone like you, I'd make an exception! You are BRILLIANT and so very thoughtful for your age. I predict a GREAT future for you.... I'm being sincere. I'm not a sycophant! Anyway, I could not agree MORE with your statements. I hope your parents are proud of you! They should be... Yes, Secularism is the way, and religious FREEDOM for EVERYONE!

[Yoshiisland1]

Thanks. My teachers, friends and parents always like to inspire me to thank outside what I'm expected to think.

If the founding fathers saw how America looks like today, they'll wonder why we haven't fought another revolution to get these kind of people out.

[Yoshiisland1]

*get these types of people out of our government.

[lisztnut]

The depressing part is that we allowed this issue to go to a vote. It is actually SHAMEFUL, and Thomas Jefferson would have been OUTRAGED by this. He made some famous comments about not allowing civil rights to be put to a vote. The problem is that this happened at the state level, not federally, and so it was difficult to stop it. It WILL stop, however, and I firmly believe it will be the US Supreme Court which puts an end to it, as they should. It's their job...

[Yoshiisland1]

it will be. It's going to be in the supreme court sooner or later. Right now in CA, there's a case that's going through the Federal Court system...you know the same one that allowed interracial marriage and that the religious people complain that they aren't doing their job but as far as the constitution is concern, they are.

[lisztnut]

Yes, indeed! But, you know what's interesting? As I understand the CA case (I also live in No CA), it has to do with the fact that there are two separate classes of gay couples here. Those that ARE married, and those that CANNOT marry. This clearly violates the 14th Amendment. It is a unique situation that exists in no other state. How could the Supremes not overthrow Prop 8 given that circumstance? Maybe I don't understand the case enough, but it seems like that's the gist of it...

[Yoshiisland1]

The question is not whether or not Prop 8 eliminated rights, which it obviously did in the second case. The question is whether or not Prop 8 is either a revision of the CA Constitution or an amendment.

The evidence that was presented that Prop 8 is a revision of the constitution wasn't evidence that it's an revision.

Now obviously, I find it to be contradictory as the exact same 14 words were taken down now stays in the constitution.

This is why this is going through federal court.

[lisztnut]

You know as much as I couldn't stand the man, GW Bush had one thing absolutely right. He wanted to put a ban on the Federal Constitution against gay marriage. He saw what is happening now coming. Because he knew that eventually any state bans would be challenged federally, and that they would probably not stand up in court because of the violation of the 14th Amend. He was smart enough to see that, although dumb about everything else! LOL...

[lisztnut]

I wonder if the people in this wedding video know that this is on youtube? The individual who posted this has nothing to do with these people. Is this a violation? Hmmm, I wonder...?

[lisztnut]

The only thing I feel sad about is that tacky pink suit of one of the grooms! Otherwise, seems like a happy occasion to me! Congratulations to the happy pair!

[kenballer00]

Prop 8 did not take away existing fundamental constitution rights and even if it did it would not be a revision because revisions take away or violate multiple procedures and rights which would require hundreds of words being written. those judges made up those rights out of nothing and prop 8 had no effect on civil unions provided there. the only thing that prop 8 took away were additional marriage rights to marry someone of the same sex and that wasn't even yes on 8's fault.

[Yoshiisland1]

@kenballer00 Your argument doesn't even hold a single atom of hydrogen.

Judges made out of rights out of nowhere? They DIDN'T grant rights. Nobody did. What the court did said that the government has to protect the rights.

Civil Unions IS NOT the way to protect rights. Protecting rights includes the label of marriage.

Additional marriage rights? No! Prop 8 re-added a requirement for a marriage to be protected if anything. Oh, but it is yeson8's fault to remove protections, now is it?

[kenballer00]

the california judges new it did not violate the equal protection clause. look at the dissenting judges opinions in the In Re Marriage cases which will confirm and prove everything i said. in fact, if you look at any state court case that attempted to legalize or legalized gay marriage none of them referenced or said that it violated the FEDERAL constitution including the California supreme court's decision which based it on Perez v. Sharp that was primarily based on the federal constitution

[Yoshiisland1]

@kenballer00 No, it just says about "the will of the people," which is unconstitutional by the US Constitution at best. No other state? Point and case Iowa. And of course state courts don't care too much about the US Constitution (Which is pretty sad.). It's a state issue because it's in the state. The US Constitution applies to all state therefore, it goes to the federal courts.

[kenballer00]

@Yoshiisland1

i agree it is a state issue, which means , Same sex couples do not have a SPECIAL right to redefine what marriage is for everybody else; the " will of the people" have a FUNDAMENTAL right under the tenth amendment to do such a task because we live in a democracy not an aristocracy. we can vote on whatever we want as long as it does not violate the federal constitution

[Yoshiisland1]

@kenballer00 Oh you have to be kidding me.

What did I say? Same sex couple do not want to redefine YOUR personal definition. If anyone, it would be you trying to redefine marriage by the government.

The tenth amendment does not state the "will of the people." All it just says that if the federal government doesn't have the power, it goes to the state. It does NOT mean "will of the people."

And we are NOT a democracy. In fact, we are a republic. Article 4 Section 4 of the constitution.

[lisztnut]

@kenballer00, we also don't live in a THEOCRACY, so if your personal religious beliefs don't agree with gay marriage, then don't marry someone of the same gender. However, if a religion DOES support gay marriage, then YOU are infringing on their reliigous freedoms when you deny them this privilege. Regardless of this, marriage is NOT a religious issue. It is a LEGAL CONTRACT!

[kenballer00]

we may not live in a theocracy, but we do live in a democracy. the first amendment does not apply to voters. Pastors, clergy, and religious leaders have every right to convey and express their moral vision onto their community and into the voting process. Prop 8 ,or any other amendment, would not did not and does not undermine the constitution because the government didn't put it into law, the people did, and whether they voted for it on religious grounds is no one's business but their own.

[lisztnut]

@kenballer00, WRONG, yet again. My motto; keep YOUR god out of MY government. The principle is really very simple. If you truly believe in reliigous FREEDOMS, that means freedom for ALL people, not just clergy and churches that disagree with same sex marriage. I assume you are unware that the CA Council of Churches (which consists of at least 4000 congregations) supports gay marriage:

calchurches org

What about THEIR freedoms to perform gay marriages?

[kenballer00]

nobody's forcing gays to deny their attractions. Nobody's criminalizing homosexuals acts or raiding gay marriages in churches. gays can freely express their feelings of love in a church and get all the benefits that come with marriage through civil unions. however, as soon as you step outside the private realm of RELIGIOUS marriage and enter into the public sphere of CIVIL marriage, you are subject to the law and public opinion or vote because civil marriage is about public policy.

[lisztnut]

@kenballer00, give it up already. Your ONLY motivation behind forbidding gays from marrying is that you don't like gays. It's painfully obvious. YOU people just grasp at straws to think of ANY reason to deny gays the SAME rights you take for granted. And, the great thing is that we WILL eventually get our equality, with or without the public's support. Sorry, but all of your excuses are LAME, LAME, LAME!

[lisztnut]

@kenballer00, and gay marriage is about protecting FAMILIES. Coretta Scott King:

Constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage are nothing short of gay bashing. Gay people have families too, and those families deserve the protection of the government!

If gay marriage offends you or your religion, don't marry someone of the same sex. Simple, isn't it?

[lisztnut]

@kenballer00, and I've already outlined for you why our founding fathers were ADAMANT that civil rights of a minority should NEVER, EVER be put to a vote of the majority. You don't get it, do you? This means NEVER vote on gay marriage.... How difficult is that to understand? Do you honestly think that five percent of the population would have the political clout to push through a vote on their rights? No way in HELL!

[lisztnut]

@kenballer00, and another thing you have WRONG is that civil unions are NOT equal in ANY way to marriage. In fact, a lawsuit in New Jersey is slated to go to their state Supreme Court as we speak, precisely because civil unions are NOT equal to marriage. In fact, employers in New Jersey are not legally bound to honor civil unions, whereas they MUST honor someone's marriage. Therefore, it is UNEQUAL.

[lisztnut]

@kenballer00, and even though I'm legally married in California, and my marriage is now recognized in eight states, the Federal governement does not recognize it. When we filed our taxes a few weeks ago we had to file as married for the state, and "single" for the Federal. We calculated that we lost $1500 in Federal refunds. Is that fair to us? NO WAY! Our next fight is to end DOMA. and we WILL....

[lisztnut]

@kenballer00. and it actually cost us EXTRA money because our tax situation is so complicated. Our tax lady has to basically prepare our taxes in three DIFFERENT ways in order to do it properly. This is blatant DISCRIMINATION.... Massachussetts (you have to LOVE them) is in a Federal lawsuit because they say DOMA interferes with their state's rights, and it is not fair to their gay citizens that they have to go through such nonsense. I hope they prevail and DOMA is eliminated.

[lisztnut]

@kenballer00, and what I love to see is the desperation of YOU people. The fact is, there are more and more gay couples that are getting married LEGALLY in the US every year. You are quickly losing ground. We TRIPLED the number of states with gay marriage in 2009. This issue will NOT retreat. We are not going backwards, so you might as well get used to having gay married neighbors, cause we're already here!

[lisztnut]

@kenballer00, and it's EVERYONE'S business if certain belief systems are IMPOSED on society. Nobody is forcing YOU into a same sex marriage. If you don't agree with it, don't do it. It's very simple, isn't it? Same with abortion. Don't like abortion, then don't have one. Also, VERY simple.... The problem is you don't REALLY believe in "freedoms." You only believe in that principle as long as YOUR beliefs are upheld. That's NOT freedom, is it?

[lisztnut]

@kenballer00, the beauty of Prop 8, and yes it will ultimately be a GOOD thing for gay marriage is that it created TWO classes of gay couples in CA: those that ARE married (such as myself), and those that CANNOT marry. Therefore, a unique situation was created when Prop 8 created this mess. If you had left the law alone, we wouldn't be in Federal court as we speak, would we? Those who voted for Prop 8 will possibly be responsible for giving gay marriage to the NATION!

[lisztnut]

Thomas Jefferson said this: our civil rights have no dependance on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right.

[lisztnut]

Thomas Jefferson was one of my great grandfathers! At any rate, his statement can be summarized nicely:

Keep YOUR god out of MY government...

[Yoshiisland1]

Definitely. More of WWJD => What would Jefferson do?

[lisztnut]

Those people who say we are a "Christian" nation seem to forget that our forefathers came here because of controlling government that wouldn't allow them to worship as they pleased. Our founders did their best to establish a government that would allow us ALL to worship as we please and bow to no particular god. They even allowed us to be non-believers! We are a FREE society. Free FROM religion, too! This is what makes our country great. We should continue to fight FOR freedom...

[voteyesonquestion1]

This video does not represent the original purpose of why we are created for. I do care for my fellow men and feel terribly sad about what I see.

[FrostbittenWolf]

Our purpose? What is our purpose, might i ask? To act like cattle? That's a fairly dismal view on your own sexual or-- oh wait...

...the most wild homophobes are often repressed homosexuals. Got to be more careful when it comes to trying to predict which way you swing.

[voteyesonquestion1]

Evaku, what planet do you live on ?

How many people have the condition you are describing ? 0.0000000000000000000000000000­000000000000000000000000000000­00001%

Yes people with a maculine sexual organ do have also a feminine aspect.

It does not mean that lesbian man , and homosexual woman is the normal way of union of + and -. It is a deviant form of union

[FrostbittenWolf]

Men who are low on the chemical weapon testosterone are deviants? I know a few women who disagree with you. Girls like sensitive guys.

[sadguyfoundout1]

evaku2... I couldnt have said it any better! thanks for saving me a comment! xD

[moor4348]

You are pathetic for using someone else's joyous occasion as a platform for your hate-filled, self-righteous, and utterly myopic rhetoric.

[voteyesonquestion1]

Hate-filled, self righteous, utterly myopic rhetoric..... hm is there anything else you want to add ?

[jasonlawmadrid]

You can see the good or the bad side of anything. If the person who put this video up can only see the bad, that is his/her choice. I see the good. I see happiness.

[voteyesonquestion1]

Really. Happiness feels quite different. Look again

[jasonlawmadrid]

Well, I guess they would look happy to you if they would live their lives the way you want them to... I am happy seeing other people fulfill their dreams.

[jasonlawmadrid]

The kids biological moms and dads probably did not want them or are in jail... It is a shame that you have to put down other people's family.

[voteyesonquestion1]

Now you know about the moms and dads. You know that they did not want them or are in jail ? Wow. Your prejudice is quite thick

[jasonlawmadrid]

My point is that their parents are not taking care of them for whatever reason and that they have found a family who will. Just because a man and a woman can make a baby doesn't make them the ideal family. Being a good parent does not depend on what sex you are or if you can spontaneously make a baby or not. These kids will probably turn out a lot better than others. If they feel bad, it because of people's prejudice like yours who put their faces up on youtube as "sad" and won't accept them.

[voteyesonquestion1]

The issue of being a guardian to a child who is orphaned and the issue of same sex marriage in need of children because it cannot procreate and is childless are two fondamentally separate issues. Gay activists want to combine them because it serves their cause.

[jasonlawmadrid]

It's the same issue: the right 2 a family. Marriage + kids = family. As 4 not being able 2 procreate: A stem cell can change into any type of cell. Scientists are experimenting w/ making an ovary out of stem cell from a male. One day it will be possible for 2 men 2 have a biological child making a stem cell from a male into an ovary and fertilizing it with another male sperm using a surrogate mother. This worked in nonhuman species already. What' ll be your argument against gay marriage then?

[voteyesonquestion1]

Dream on Jason

[lisztnut]

Actually, Jason is absolutely RIGHT about the possibility of creating life using stem cells. Research is already progressing in Britain using one woman's stem cell (DNA) and inserting into another woman's egg. This is not sci fi. It is very likely it WILL happen, making the need for male sperm meets female egg obsolete. It will be a GREAT day! First marriage, and now procreation. Wow, you people must be squirming in your pews!