It is a lie to argue that all Christians are anti-gay bigots. Amongst established Christian churches that have both gay members and clergy are the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the United Church of Canada, the Presbyterian Church, the Church of Scotland, the Episcopal Church, the Universalist Unitarian Church, the Metropolitan Community Church and the United Church of Christ.
Like many people, Sir Elton John's thoughts on gay marriage have evolved. Fatherhood, in particular, compelled him to re-examine his beliefs. He has now become a full supporter of gay marriage and he performed at a fund raiser in January 2011 that raised $3,000,000 dollars to support legal challenges to bans on marriage equality. He remarked, ""It seems so ridiculous I could be with my partner for 17 years and we have a son, and my partner and I can't get married."
Do you not realize how rediculous it is to quote a gay Englishman about civil rights here in the US? In the UK, civil unions are the equivalent to marriage in all aspects and are recognized at the national level so that obligations and benefits are not an issue. I have not see you or any one else suggest a Federal Civil Union that would provide all of the obligations and benefits of marriage under Federal Law. You argument about Elton John is a red herring.
It is fair to protest Mormon Temples, since the Mormon Church bankrolled Prop 8. It was not right to damage them, if in fact that was done, or to enter and interupt services. But you have to remember in a Democracy, you strike at someone's fundamental rights and they will probably strike back. No one should be expected to not react. Finally, I hope your "gay" family and friends no who you are and have seen these aweful videos you have produced.
Marriage is a fundamental civil right, it is not equivalent to Baptism which is a religious rite. The state does not define marriage nor does it have religious requirements for marriage. Most places only requires the couple, the authorized agent of the state, witnesses, and the license. You wasted a lot of time talking about something that has NO bearing on most people and is no more relevant than a Catholic Baptism.
You have friends who are gay? (I say "who" are gay, not "that" are gay, because they are people, not things.) No you don't. You know people who are gay. Calling them your friends and opposing their right to something so simple is the definition of a hypocrite. The only thing being "cheapened" or "devalued" here is your integrity (what little you have left after all of these videos). You aren't a good person. I can't think of a worse insult, especially to a Christian.
Sacred ordinance of Christianity? Oh I almost forgot.. America imposes the same religion on everybody because we live in a country of one religion..right?
If you were a real American, you would just shut the fuck up.
If marriage was a sacred institution, marriage license's would be issued by churchs, but they're not, they're issued by the state. Religious views and opinions have no importance in this argument, if you want to get married in a church, then do so. But you'll still have to apply for a license through the state.
The courts will have more to say about this in the near future, I have no doubt.
it's not the same thing as a baptism or communion because that's specific to christianity, and people in almost every religion get married. There's no such thing as a "legal communion," but there is a such thing as legal marriage. Prop 8 doesn't change you're religious definition of marraige.
there's a separation of church and state, so religion isn't even an argument when it comes to law. If same sex marraige is against your religion, then don't marry a man. Don't interfere with other people's lives
You can have the marriage that honors God as much as you want. But why do you care what others do. Are you gonna deny atheists the right to marry as well because they don't believe in your definition and won't practice it? You speak of religious freedom but still want your religious views and definitions imposed on others as if that's a part of your freedom. What about their freedom from your religion?
I understood you until you got upset that kids sighned a card to stop bullying lgbt people. Why would you be upset that a kid pledged to not harrass someone for any reason?
Separation of Church and State. Look it up. If you don't want to marry a man, then don't. That's not infringing upon anyone else's rights or your own. However, when you say others can't marry because of your religion, then thats infringing upon their rights. By your logic, I could join a church that says only gay marriage is holy, and that straight marriage should be outlawed and that your marriage is infringing upon my rights. its the exact same thing. You have no valid argument.
Your a fuckin bigot! Why is this all wrong to you. It says something about your marriage if gays getting that term attached to the unions would lessen it. go read your bible you ignorant fuckin sheep!
B. You understand and you still made a horrible choice.
C. No religion owns marriage. If it is a religious idea (which it is) be pissed at the government for taking it and making it an institution. I am not religious and I still am "married." I got married without making any commitment to "God."
Do me a favor and watch the acclaimed documentary called For The Bible Tells Me So and also Tying the Knot. I think you will find that the institution of marriage over time is not what you think it is. I don't think you are a mean person for voting for Prop 8...just misinformed. Because of people's ignorance, unfortunately, my relatives have to pay the price.
How much do you weigh? It's gotta be over 300 right? Easily. Did you ever think about donating that pig blubber to someone who actually needs it or are you trying to pack on more lbs so you can donate enough for 15 families? That would be so generous of your lard ass!
Wow, that's a pretty rude thing to say. Didn't your parents teach you how to talk to people when you were growing up buddy? Did you just come from a broken home or something? I admit I'm being facetious, but seriously, why don't you put the time and effort into making a YouTube video and then people can make fun of you for being who you are. You just prove that No on Prop 8 people were always about hate and getting their way no matter what. Elton John's right...and amazing!!! xP
It wasn't meant to be nice. I have lots of youtube videos. Lol! Anyone is open to make fun of me. I won't cry. Of course you would ask me if I came from a house that includes people that get abused or have parents disturbing there children with there drug problems. That's nice of you. Downing people for not living as well as you do. So what do you think about children with down syndrome or do I want to know?
Everyone has the right to make a vote based on their own personal morals. One has the right to declare their beliefs (moral or constitutional) as much as the other who opposes them. My warning to all involved is beware the name calling and the statements like 'how are you teaching your kids'. Both sides run the risk of harsh retaliation from the other when you use words or phrases in the context of singling out an individual or group. Debate, but do so out of respect for the other.
.......a problem with this. have your kids been tought it yet??? probably not. so get off the kid trip and come up with something else to argue about. narrow minded double standard ignorant piece of crap!! get a life and research before you speak. and as far as "christianity" goes, I'm pretty sure god says not to judge!!
as far as the field trip goes it is a wedding regardless of Gender. there teacher obviously cares enough about her students to invite them to a big part of there life. there were permission slips involved in this, parents with your ignorance didn't have to sign it. ALLY week is voluntary and there is no teaching involved. it simply agrees to know slanderous words said. such as "Fag". Once again if there parents disagree they can speak to the school, but as far as i know no parents have had.....
The perception that religion will in any way be affected by Prop 8 is just not true. The California Supreme Court ruled "no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regards to same sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention with his or her religious beliefs."
Please, what impact does it have on you and your wife's marriage, relationships and lives if a guy decides he wants to marry the person he loves. What was that? NOTHING. It has NO impact on the MEANING of your marriage either, if you believe marriage is defined as a partnership between a man and a woman, then fine, stay with your WOMAN lol.
I dont see why people like you should vote on homosexual's rights, we didn't vote on yours.
So if I have a religious belief that your children must be sacrificed to my God and passed that law it would be ok because I have a religious belief that my God demands the death of your children.
No. The United States wasn't founded with that particular pagan god in mind. It was however founded with the Jewish/Christian God in mind, and that's something you're going to have to accept if you're an American, unless you want to ignore hundreds of years of written history. But hey, you can always move to a country that lets you sacrifice other peoples' children to your god if you want. I don't know of any country like that, but if that's what you want...
You my friend are ignorant. This country isn't founded on anything religious. Theres a quote from ben franklin saying hes an atheist. Plus im a pagan. We don't sacrifice children. You fallow a religion that brought on the crusades when your religious leaders said you had to recapture a peice of land and thousands died for it.
Marriage isn't only a religious institution. Stop forcing your religion on others! You don't deny atheists the right to be married, but you deny gays! Fuck you!
@ghostofxmaspast The first sentence of the bill of rights says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. These people have no right to keep the definition of marriage the way that it is for religious reasons! Not even if the majority wanted it that way they couldn't do it! But the government just can't get it through their thick skulls
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Don't let these critics get you down. You did the right thing by making this video and voting yes on prop. 8. Marriage should only be between a man and a woman-plain and simple. I don't understand the confusion on that! I know what it could be. I could be satan. He is the art of all confusion. And I have an idea at least most of the people who made comments on here agree with you. They are just ashamed to admitt the truth!
Back in the Bible times there were multi-racial couples. And a wife was never a property! It says in the Bible, "whomever finds a woman, findeth a good thing." So get your facts straight. I don't care what you say. Marriage is betwee a man and a woman only. Gay couples may say, "I'm married." But God doesn't saction it. BOTTOM LINE!!!!
This country was founded on religious freedom. So we have a right to speak and protest against the gay agenda. There are even some athiest and non-church goers who believe in only traditional marriage. So it's not just christians. I don't care what you say. Marriage is between a man and a woman and that's all there is to it!
That is you DO NOT have to allow them to get married in your church.
The 2010 proposition that will repeal Prop 8 will also contain provisions that will make it clear that clergy will not have to perform weddings against their will and it will not force a "gay curriculum" to be taught.
This country was founded on religious freedom. So we have a right to speak and protest against the gay agenda.
You do have that right. I fully agree, you, like the white southerners after the civil war, have every right to be upset and argue against equality. But it doesn't mean you're right, and it doesn't mean the rest of us must listen.
Doesn't that mean that non-Christians, or even rational-thinking Christians, have the right not to have their laws based in the principles of the Christian extremists? (Who all, by the way, ignore the fact that Jesus would not have voted Yes on 8, but that's neither here nor there.)
Oh, and it looks like a man and a woman ISN'T all there is to it. Or have you missed what's been happening in DC?
You know full well that historically women have been considered as the property of her father until he gives her away along with a dowery. It's only been in the last few hundred years that people got married because they loved each other.
Why do you think a bride is usually "given away" by her father at a wedding?
Hatred comes in all forms, buddy. The difference between your hatred and that of, say, a skinhead or any member of another hate group is at least they're honest in their bigotry. A gay marriage is just as "sacred" as a straight marriage. And just in case you're wondering, civil unions DON'T provide all the same rights as hetero marriage supplies. Google civil unions vs. marriage and find out the truth. It's truly frightening how blind some people can be.
You know what...if 5 year olds can learn about STRAIGHT people, they can SURE AS HELL learn about gay people as well. I am SO GLAD that some children were handed this card that promotes LOVE instead of HATE. But good TRY...again!
"A sacred ordinance of Christianity" is something that happens in a church.
"Change the definition of baptism"? No one has tried to change religious marriage.
Elton John has a civil partnership in Great Britain. So does Prince Charles. Their civil partnerships ARE marriages not performed in the church. You are comparing CA domestic parnerships to what amounts to "civil marriage" in GB.
You claim you do not hate, but you spread lies like the worst, and continue to be sadly self-righteous.
The legislatures of two-thirds of the states vote to call for a convention at which constitutional amendments can be proposed. Amendments proposed by the convention would again require ratification by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states.
Or ......694,354 signatures on a petition can put an initiative on a ballot. Reference The California Secretary of State web page "How to qualify an initiative"
As is the case with the flag burning amendment, both houses of Congress approve by two-thirds votes a resolution calling for the amendment. The resolution does not require the president's signature. To become effective, the proposed amendment must then be "ratified" or approved by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states. Congress typically places a time limit of seven years for ratification by the states.
Oh holy people of the prop 8, teach me how to be ruthless hate mongers and teach me how to discriminate and lie about a people I don't even know, please. *cough*
How blind are you to believe that those who disagree with you on this issue actually hate you.
You really should go watch CNN for a while and see that people can respectfully disagree with others, sometimes quite vocally, and yet there is not "HATE" involved. I disagree with you and the no on prop 8 crowd, this does not denote "hate".
I disagree with President Obama too, but guess what, he is now MY president and I will support him because the majority of people have spoken.
Interesting that your definition of Homophobia differs from the root words of Homosexual and Phobia....
I have never attempted to make my cause look righteous as you claim, nor have I used my religion at all.
I find it interesting that you still think that you have been denied a "right". You have the same right to get married to a member of the opposite sex as I do. You have the same rights of life, liberty, and happiness that I do. You play the martyr very well.
You are using your religion as the true root of your cause, you only manipulate politics to make your cause look more "Just" than our cause, which by the way you aren't doing so well at that.
Maybe you don't realize, it's not about being able to "marry the opposite gender" it's about being able to marry the ones we love!!! Why can't you understand that? You have the free liberty to marry the one you love, I DO NOT, BECAUSE I AM NOT CAPABLE OF MARRYING THE OPPOSITE SEX!!!
Marriage has NEVER been about marrying the one you love. It is the recognition of a union of a man and a woman. Love is an independent factor. Many many people live together in love without ever getting married, gay or straight. You are as capable of buying a marriage license and getting married to a member of the oppisite sex as I am. You are capable.
I don't recognize with that definition, your definition is flawed, hateful and ignorant, get it out of my face. Marriage is between two consenting adults, get out of here with your bigotry.
Eat your shellfish, it's an abomination, the bible is nothing more than a "pick and choose" book, you get to choose what you want to believe. Leviticus hmph, what a joke.
Hypocrisy is all you preach and it's all I'll ever see.
Who is quoting the Bible?? I have left religion out of this argument until someone else brings it up. I don't quote any scripture, I don't reference the bible or religion in my support of 8.
I'll quote the bible for you, 2 Samuel 1:26 "To Jonathan: More precious have I held love for you than love for women"
Not saying religious statements while defending religious belief is one in the same. You are defending your Christianity and I'm guessing that is Mormonism so...
Your defense is weak, religion does NOT belong in the constitution, only the freedom to practice religion, not to force that religion on others.
The law has been proven unconstitutional with The Californian Supreme court IT WAS PROVEN! That isn't in dispute, it was proven in Massachusetts it was proven in Connecticut, should I really have to argue that my rights are being suppressed?
The voice of the people place the judges, and the voice of the people overturned their ruling. You have the same rights that you have always had, and your rights to life liberty and pursuit of happiness are the same as they have always been. Quit trying to play the martyr.
Oh, so only your definition is acceptable to you. Now it is me, the brainwashed californians, the religious fanatics, the bible, and now finally.....the dictionary. And all of us are against you????? Give me a break!
Pedophilia/Bestiality/Incest/Polygamy are illegal for their own reasons, saying that it will change because two consenting adults of the same gender want to get married... is extremely twisted, untrue, misleading and asinine.
Children Cannot Consent
Animals Cannot Consent
Incest is not illegal everywhere but has birth defects in their children which is why it is illegal.
Polygamy is illegal... because of extreme legal complications?
not every incestual relationship involves a child.
I never use beastiality as an argument for the reasons that you stated above, however, polygamy and incestual relationships have their proporters that believe in the existence of their love just as much as you do in your relationship. These are not just small matters that we can sluff off.
So if you want true equality and want to keep your "marriage" definition in churches, then I suggest you start amending the constitution to change the definition of marriage for EVERYONE to "Civil Unions" but imagine how costly that would be mmmhmm and it would not help the economy at all either mmhmmm
Nevertheless, churches do not own marriage, they did not invent marriage, they post no claim to marriage because they can't, although they are clearly trying.
I could care less if the definition never existed in the first place. My relationship with my wife and my children is just as real with or without the definition of marriage. The fact is, the definition is in place and it applies to a man and a woman.
The real question is why should I have to move my position that has existed for decades, to accomodate you??
Just because there is financial benefit does not make something right. Selling crack has financial benefits too.
HIV positive? Are you spreading that stereotype that homosexuals are the majority of HIV carriers? Because its a lie, a scare tactic used by religious fanatics.
You are using all these negative things that have NOTHING to do with same sex marriage, please do not get off topic.
Definitions are meant to be changed, they are changed ALL THE TIME, a race that does not change eventually dies out.
no one is spreading a stereotype. I was tested for HIV before I got married because it is a real "what if". Your the one who said we can't base decisions on "what if's" so it's not off the topic.
You just can't go around changing definitions willy nilly without thinking of the consequences. The "what if's" are very relevant.
We aren't changing definitions 'willy nilly' technically it is the people who are religious trying to change other people into their belief system... it's hypocritical!
No one is trying to change your "belief system". Marriage has always been, throughout history, between a man and a woman. It is the Gay community that is trying to change definitions.
Pfft, your ramifications have no basis in reality, you make up consequences recklessly without thinking if it is possible or not.
Theories and lies, DO NOT SUPPORT A REASON TO SUPPRESS SOMEONE FROM THEIR RIGHTS!!!
I happen to be 24, and I am far from blind, infact, I have never been more clear in my life. It is you who are blind, arguing "What if" theories to me, to keep me from marrying the one I love.
And YES those studies were created by religious fanatics. I'd know, since I am a lesbian and it effects me, you wouldn't since you believe everything you are told.
Jack Dresher is a classic example of a professor who is not a religious fanatic who found out through no intent to do so that change is not only possible, but happens vountarily. Yet I am sure that you have some excuse as to why the 200 individuals in his report were all tainted somehow.
If we were not a protected minority there wouldn't be anti discrimination laws for*** us, so your claims that we are not a minority are far from truthful.
Did you know prop 8 was illegally placed on the ballot? Paragraph 18 clearly states that in order to place a something on the ballot that would take the rights away from a minority, you MUST gain the approval of 2/3rd's legislation from 2 houses. Something which never happened. Prop 8 is illegal in so many ways, it disgusts me.
If that's the case they should have a pagan ceremony then. why would you want to choose a christian ceremony, when you know full well that homosexuality is an abomination as far as the bible is concerned? You would only want to do it to prove a point, which is wrong.
There are many different forms of marriage ceremonies it doesn't matter which one you take, plenty of people who are not part of religion take on those ceremonies for the aesthetics of it all.
Besides what you define as a "Christian Ceremony" is nothing more than a slowly changing thing that is constantly changing, it's not due to religion, it's due to people's personal likes and dislikes.
and another fact, and it is undeniable. marriage has existed far beyond all known organized religion of today, there is mountains of evidence to support this fact so don't try to dismiss it so easily.
That's not my point, my point is why would would anyone want a Christian ceremony when Christianity is so against homosexuality? If marriage has been around so long in other faiths, People should go and have a ceremony there, and leave Christianity out of it. If you look at my comment again you will see that I didn't call you an abomination, I said the bible did. you can call it Christianity all you like but if it doesn't adhere to biblical principles, it's not true Christianity.
Precedence is the danger. You can laugh it off if you like, but altering definitions creates a precedence for anyone with an agenda to argue precedence.
I'm disappointed in all this. Nathow, I posted two video responses to this and you have failed to approve them or even comment on them. I have been civil and have not resorted to calling you names and have actually stood up to my fellow gays and lesbian on your behalf.
Marriage comes with over 1000 benefits and none of those have to do with the church, so the argument that it is a religion institution is no longer true.
I remember a time when Christian Churches didn't even consider marriage as "holy" so your claims that marriage is a sacred "Tradition" is far fetched and filled with hypocritical unfounded lies.
Really? This case has WHAT to do with sex? Did the teacher teach the children how lesbians/gays have sex? NO!!! Did she even say they had sex?NO!This is really growing tiresome, should I have to explain every little obvious fact to you?
Telling someone that for example "a lesbian is a girl who wants to be in a relationship with another girl" IS NOT TEACHING SEX, it's teaching diversity >.>
I am naive? Ha, you are brainwashed you can't think outside your prop 8 ads and religious teachings.
wow what? Thanks for more foolishness, there has been NO case of teaching of homosexual "Sex" to 5 year olds.
You give the impression that being homosexual only implies sex? Wow, how misinformed you are, I am attracted to women, I feel love, a bond between me and that girl, you are saying my love is only about sex?
Saying to accept someone for dating someone of the same gender is HARDLY teaching "5 year olds about sex"
It astounds me how much yes on 8 fanboys twist the truth.
Really... let's see, the kindergarden teacher I mentioned handed out the ally cards to 5 year olds and then asked them to sign it. Did all the children just sign it without knowing anything about what the card said, or did the teacher have to explain it...? I am guessing it was explained. How do you think she explained what a transgender person was...? Are you really so naive you don't see this as inappropriate...? or are you so gay, it blinds you to decency and morality...?
I'm an atheist and marriage is not sacred to me, its a civil partnership. It is entitled to me as a civil right. For you to try to deny the rights of a group of people is disgusting.
first communion has nothing to do with government, marriage is a government institution so keep your religion out of it.
Its fine to have your beliefs, but a gay man or womans marriage has nothing to do with you and your beliefs.
Marriage is not a government institution. For centuries before the government got involved, marriage was only a religious ceremony and right, as dictated by the Church. Pushing now to redefine marriage, is an attempt to redefine religious doctrine that has been held and taught by organized religions for thousands of years. It is the gay and lesbian community who is trying to infringe into an area that belongs to religious heterosexuals. Props 22 and 8 have been in response to gay activism.
well then if you want it to be a religious ceremony, then you shouldnt have any rights allowed to you by the government for married couples....
Homosexuals deserve to be married for those rights. Not everything has to do with your christain lifestyle. Its funny how you say gays are infringing on christain rights - you have that backwards - christains are infringing on gays CONSTITUTIONAL rights. They are suppose to be protected from the majority, and free from your religious zealotry
I'm sorry but this argument doesn't work. Marriage is a secular thing. Atheists get married. Murderers and rapists get married. People go to vegas and get married on a whim. Civil unions do not have the same rights as marriage. Elton John is really rich and can afford to pay lawyers to protect his rights.
If you love the word marriage so much, lets remove it from the state. ONLY allow civil unions between two unrealated, consenting adults and have marriage ONLY for religion.
I think we have some agreement. Considering what marriage was intended to be from the beginning, it should only be a religious thing. Everyone with no religious affiliation should not be trying to have a religious ceremony. They should have civil partnerships. It is called something different because it is something different. As long as the same legal protections are in place for every couple, why not keep the different legal definitions ... different...?
Ok.. I understand. The problem is that there are significant differences between marriage and domestic partnerships or civil unions. That's why pushing for marriage is what we're doing. THere is no separation of civil unions and spiritual unions in this country.
I say we make marriage similar to France's process. Everyone goes to their local mayor or city hall and fills out the required paper work. They are then married by a civil authority....
Once they get everything settled with the federal government, they can then go to a church and have a priest bless that union. This way, everyone gets the protection and benefits of marriage and there is no chance of having a church or clergy member sued for refusing to marry someone.
Again, you keep deleting my comments with links to my video. I can't help but wonder if you don't want people to actually hear a logical response that completely disproves your point.
I'm not a big supporter of marriage to begin with, so I do agree, if there was no government involved, things would be much simpler. Let the couple declare their dedication to one another in front of family and friends and leave it at that. Being in religion and laws, the whole thing takes on ugly.
More hypocrisy in your video, HOW DARE THOSE TEACHERS TEACH TOLERANCE, we should just like, you know, hide the truth of life from our children, make it harder on them and others in the future!
Funny, you are saying sexuality isn't taught in schools? Yet I recall like 10 childrens stories that I was taught in very early grades that involve princes and princess' getting married and blah blah blah?
HOW DARE WE TEACH UNDERSTANDING AND OPEN MINDEDNESS TO OUR CHILDREN, HOW DARE WE
So in your view teaching 5 year olds about gay sex, lesbian sex and bisexuality, is okay? At 5, they have spent half there lives in diapers and your okay with teaching them about a variety of sexual expressions? This seems appropriate to you? They usually start health education classes around the time children begin puberty, but at the Faith Ringgold School they start teaching about homosexuality in kindergarden. There is something seriously wrong with any adult who would approve of this.
Did you know the yes on 8 campaign used footage of those parent's children at the wedding in an ad illegally? Why? To promote their beliefs and gain yes votes WITHOUT parental ?
There is a thing I'd like to call that, exploitation.
"Marriage is a bond between 3 people" oh really? How about all those people who get married and do not believe in God? Why don't you stop them!? Hypocrisy much?
I do not believe in any God, but you are saying that homosexuals are souless godless.
As for your teaching not being "Homophobic" it very well is, because it was devised by homophobes and you are sorry to say part of that brainwashed zombified crowd.
In the original ancient texts of the Bible, there was no mention of homosexuality, which means someone at a later date, added it.
So, saying we will burn in hell/rot in hell, etc, for loving someone of the same sex, this doesn't sound like hate? Sounds exactly like hate to me and fear of something different. Hence, Homphobia
Who are you to tell me anything about how I feel? I know my feelings better than anyone on the planet. Without knowing me beyond my videos, you have decided I'm a brainwashed homophobe zombie. I never said anything about gays burning in hell, you did. As quickly as you jump to prejudicial conclusions, it sounds to me like your more paranoid than anything else. How about dealing with some reality... comment on what I said, not on the fantasy that I hate gays. Watch the video, learn something.
I don't jump to conclusions, but you follow the teachings of fools. Firstly, I'll make an example, does one speak racist jokes and not help spread the hate and racism themselves? Does saying racist joke one racist?
It does, because you are spreading helping stereotypes and the hate in which the racism originated from the begin with.
This case is no different, you spread the words of homophobes, thus are homophobic yourself. Whether you wish to acknowledge that fact is not my concern.
brainwashed homophobe zombie... your words... is this hate speech...? You cry NO on HATE, yet your mouth is full of it... who's the hypocrite...? And the last thing i would joke about is another persons feelings governing his own identity. I am not that cruel, but apparently you don't subscribe to that restraint. I haven't resorted to name calling... when you have... so who is the one reacting like a fool...?
Really, you havn't been "name calling"? You spread the same lies the Yes on 8 Campaign has been spreading.
You make us look evil, as if children aren't going to know about homosexuals at one point in their life, and you make it seem like them going to a lesbian wedding is somehow going to make them gay?
Homophobia, THATS WHAT IT IS, did you know all those children had signed permission slips to go to that wedding?
Sorry that my words offend you, but you are clearly brainwashed, *continues*
That "I have friends that are gay" statement again. Well you don't anymore when they see this.
Marriage isn't sacred, nor did religion post claim to it, marriage has existed far longer than Christianity, far longer than the Jewish/Muslim religions.
Your marriage becomes less "sacred" because two people of the same sex wish to get married? It has nothing to do with you
Well what about those fly by night marriages? That last 2 weeks? Why not fight that, instead of taking away my rights?
Gay family members have no problem with me. Marriage originated as a religious ceremony, the state shouldn't be trying to redefine it. It is out of their jurisdiction. You are right, your gay marriage doesn't affect mine, but the State legally redefining it for everyone does have an impact on society in general which includes me. Let's get it straight, it is gays who are trying to change it. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman until gays started trying to change it.
You have no evidence that marriage started as a "Religious Ceremony" NONE AT ALL, Birds mate for life. Marriage is a binding contract not a holy "Union"
Your "legality" has no basis in law, you are forcing your religious intentions on everyone else. Our marriages have NOTHING to do with you, we want nothing to do with you, only your egos and urge to control other people prevent us from gaining freedom.
Marriage is not a religious value but a human right all humans should have the free right to marry the consenting adult they please.
Yes Us "Gays" want the right to marry the ones we love, SHAME ON US, how DARE WE. Well we dare, and no amount of your opposition will stop us from gaining equality.
My previous post was oddly worded, I must of been distracted heavily.
Last I checked marriage was legalized in California and a certain religious group changed that.
WOW, you just leap to conclusions so easily. I said nothing about annulling marriages. I simply choose to stand up and defend Church doctrine and our belief structure, which includes marriage. Other Churches out there can practice their religion as they please... I just don't want to see any political or legal pressure brought down on the Church because of angry gay lawsuits coming before the State Supreme Court. We should be left alone to practice our faith as we see fit.
Like you said it is a convenant between 3: the man, the woman, and god. That is the RELIGIOUS definition of marriage, not a CIVIL one. There's a separation of church and state. Churches can discriminate. Courts should not.
Right as in it's the traditional view of mormons to believe marriage is between ONE man and ONE woman. Which is why Joseph Smith (founder of Mormonism) had 27 wives (some of whom were married to other men and some of whom were underage) and Brigham Young (founder of Utah) personally fathered over 70 children through his many wives. That is the tradition of Mormon marriage.
BTW I like your videos Karmatic. You're an awesome person.
It holds a valid point because it means the definition of marriage CAN change and that it's "tradition" can change and that the hypocrisies, lies, extortion and exploiting children really are reflective of the churches involved in prop 8 campaign.
I find it ironic, there are laws stating that churches may have tax exempt status if they do not heavily involve themselves in politics yet... look what they did? They threatened their own status and contributed to many law violations.
Read the first amendmendment carefully and you will see that regarding both the establishment clause and the free exercise clause, no laws were broken, and they weren't even bent. You really should study the law a little bit before you make such statements.
The law was broken lol.... You can't force something into a ballot, it has to go through official channels according to Californian state law, if it is indeed to take the rights away from a minority.
If we were not a protected minority there wouldn't be anti discrimination laws against us, so your claims that we are not a minority are far from truthful.
Minority: the smaller part or number; a number, part, or amount forming less than half of the whole.
You are advocating revoking the civil rights of a minority simply based on a ballot vote. The precedent is set and now nothing is safe. Just because one agrees or disagrees with gay marriage for ANY REASON doesn't give that person the right to tell two consenting adults what they can or cannot do.
gays are not a registered minority anymore than polygamists or star trek fans. How has prop 8 revoked your life, your liberty, or your pursuit of happiness. baloney. two consenting adults cannot participate legally in sexual relationships if they are brother and sister, right? So that argument does not fly.
Your argument is BS. Stating that "Star Trek fans" and homosexuals are somehow the same is garbage. Prop 8 is preventing people from getting married. A civil partnership is NOT the same as if it were marriage it would be called such. Appeasement is not equal.
Just like your stating that black civil rights and gays rights are somehow the same is crap.
Prop 8 is maintaining a legal definition, nothing more, nothing less. You want all the same rights and privileges, you have them. You can get married anytime you want, but if you choose a same sex coupling, it is not marriage.
Civil rights are civil rights regardless of what defines a group. If prop 8 is maintaining a legal definition then why does is it unconstitutional based on the state constitution? The legal definition was NEVER THERE in the first place. Prop 8 REVOKED rights.
That is silliness. Define civil rights! What your saying is that anything you want to do is a right. First, nowhere is there any guarantee in the constitution that marriage is an inalienable right. Second, nowhere is there a guarantee that anyone can marry anyone or thing that they want. I just find it hard to believe that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are denied gays because they can't call their relationship marriage by law. It is a smokescreen.
you failed to mention that the right you claim you already had was an end run on prop 22 through the court system because the voice of the people had already spoken once.
But you bringing lawsuits before the State Supreme Court in an effort to change existing law without any concern for the citizenry of the State is okay to do...? I suppose you have no problem teaching different forms of sexuality to 5 year olds... The gay and lesbian community only cares about what they want... and yet they scream for equality... none of them see heterosexuals as equals... we are viewed as bigots, and hypocritical... who's the hypocrite...?
LOL what? Your making quite a few blatant and untrue generalizations that you cannot substantiate based on the actions or viewpoint of the few. Your just as bad the people your condemning. The law never specified man and woman. They allowed marriage and the right was granted. That right was TAKEN AWAY. Your advocating repression. Furthermore who said it was okay to teach anything like that to a 5 year old. That institution is nothing more that propoganda.
And your point is what. The people spoke...twice, but because it is in opposition to the gay voice, you claim it is a rights violation. The general public disagree that state sanctioned acceptance of sexual preference and union is necessary. That is the bottom line. No rights are taken away, and nobody has to live any differently.
THe PUBLIC does not have the right to tell some NO and others YES. It is at that point it IS a right's violation. Universalist churches are not free to marry gay couples even though it is their belief that it is justified. Furthermore it should be left up to the individual churches. If black rights were voted on years ago they would have NEVER gotten them. It was only through the court system that they are now allowed to marry.
Your argument is a slippery slope. The public has simply defined marriage. If a gay wants to marry a member of the opposite sex, he or she is fully sanctioned under the law. Sexual orientation is not, and should not be considered a "special minority group" under the law anymore than "masturbation" should recieve protection under the law. Black rights and gay rights are not even in the same ballpark. Blacks have no choice in skin color.
And people have no choice in being gay. Regardless I have a long drive ahead of me to visit my family for Thanksgiving. I wish you a safe and happy one of you do celebrate it. I will be thanful that we can each express out opinion in a civilized and productive manner. Take care :)
Actually, the "right to marry" doesn't even exist. Please show it to me in the Constitution... so how can we take away something that doesn't even exist...? The reality is marriage has always been defined as between a man and a woman. Gays have been trying to change it for years, and in response to you trying to push your agenda on us, Prop 22 hit the ballot and passed, then Prop 8 hit the ballot and passed. Why is there no respect for the majority vote of the people of California...?
Right, the right to marry isn't in the constitution yet it's a major topic regarding human rights? Wow that makes a lot of sense. Prop 8 changed the Californian state law to prevent lesbians and gays from marrying, sounds like marriage IS involved in the constitution...
You seem to not understand the law, a majority cannot vote against a Minority's rights, that is wrong, especially when the majority highly outweighs the minority.
But your little prop 8 is only a minor set back for us.
I would tend to agree that the attraction may exist, but to act upon feeling without restraint is a choice. To say that an individual has no choice but to have sex is to say that we are governed by the same base instincts of animals.
Have a wonderful thanksgiving, I appreciate your civil debate. I am always looking to more clearly define my beliefs, and often find that I am altering them to some degree from discussions with good people like yourself. Talk to you on the flip side.
It is a lie to argue that all Christians are anti-gay bigots. Amongst established Christian churches that have both gay members and clergy are the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the United Church of Canada, the Presbyterian Church, the Church of Scotland, the Episcopal Church, the Universalist Unitarian Church, the Metropolitan Community Church and the United Church of Christ.
RCSVirginia 1 month ago
Like many people, Sir Elton John's thoughts on gay marriage have evolved. Fatherhood, in particular, compelled him to re-examine his beliefs. He has now become a full supporter of gay marriage and he performed at a fund raiser in January 2011 that raised $3,000,000 dollars to support legal challenges to bans on marriage equality. He remarked, ""It seems so ridiculous I could be with my partner for 17 years and we have a son, and my partner and I can't get married."
RCSVirginia 1 month ago
Do you not realize how rediculous it is to quote a gay Englishman about civil rights here in the US? In the UK, civil unions are the equivalent to marriage in all aspects and are recognized at the national level so that obligations and benefits are not an issue. I have not see you or any one else suggest a Federal Civil Union that would provide all of the obligations and benefits of marriage under Federal Law. You argument about Elton John is a red herring.
edgwaterprog 10 months ago
Of course you think you are right....
It is fair to protest Mormon Temples, since the Mormon Church bankrolled Prop 8. It was not right to damage them, if in fact that was done, or to enter and interupt services. But you have to remember in a Democracy, you strike at someone's fundamental rights and they will probably strike back. No one should be expected to not react. Finally, I hope your "gay" family and friends no who you are and have seen these aweful videos you have produced.
edgwaterprog 10 months ago
Marriage is a fundamental civil right, it is not equivalent to Baptism which is a religious rite. The state does not define marriage nor does it have religious requirements for marriage. Most places only requires the couple, the authorized agent of the state, witnesses, and the license. You wasted a lot of time talking about something that has NO bearing on most people and is no more relevant than a Catholic Baptism.
edgwaterprog 10 months ago
See you in court, buddy. The U.S. Supreme Court.
Pilgrim812 11 months ago
You have friends who are gay? (I say "who" are gay, not "that" are gay, because they are people, not things.) No you don't. You know people who are gay. Calling them your friends and opposing their right to something so simple is the definition of a hypocrite. The only thing being "cheapened" or "devalued" here is your integrity (what little you have left after all of these videos). You aren't a good person. I can't think of a worse insult, especially to a Christian.
RGgirl32 11 months ago 7
Sacred ordinance of Christianity? Oh I almost forgot.. America imposes the same religion on everybody because we live in a country of one religion..right?
If you were a real American, you would just shut the fuck up.
OmgItzDannyV 1 year ago 2
If marriage was a sacred institution, marriage license's would be issued by churchs, but they're not, they're issued by the state. Religious views and opinions have no importance in this argument, if you want to get married in a church, then do so. But you'll still have to apply for a license through the state.
The courts will have more to say about this in the near future, I have no doubt.
cunard61 1 year ago
You say you have a "certain emphathy". Well this is war. And my position is I am
seeking an unconditional surrender. And that is being achieved through the
courts.
Pilgrim812 1 year ago
it's not the same thing as a baptism or communion because that's specific to christianity, and people in almost every religion get married. There's no such thing as a "legal communion," but there is a such thing as legal marriage. Prop 8 doesn't change you're religious definition of marraige.
4sistasss 1 year ago
there's a separation of church and state, so religion isn't even an argument when it comes to law. If same sex marraige is against your religion, then don't marry a man. Don't interfere with other people's lives
4sistasss 1 year ago
No representation without taxation. If you don`t pay tax, you shouldn`t have a say in how your country is run.
Move to Afghanistan. They`ll let to murder gays in the name of `justice.`
JPWMT 1 year ago
You can have the marriage that honors God as much as you want. But why do you care what others do. Are you gonna deny atheists the right to marry as well because they don't believe in your definition and won't practice it? You speak of religious freedom but still want your religious views and definitions imposed on others as if that's a part of your freedom. What about their freedom from your religion?
InSaneTK 1 year ago
scumbag!
Pilgrim812 1 year ago
I understood you until you got upset that kids sighned a card to stop bullying lgbt people. Why would you be upset that a kid pledged to not harrass someone for any reason?
pinkpillsofficial 1 year ago
Civil partnerships and marriage
There is no such thing as separate but equal
dudeboobs15 1 year ago
if marriage is such a "sacred ordinance of christianity," i don't understand why gay marriage is a bigger threat to marriage than divorce. ugh.
ninjapancakeflip 1 year ago
Separation of Church and State. Look it up. If you don't want to marry a man, then don't. That's not infringing upon anyone else's rights or your own. However, when you say others can't marry because of your religion, then thats infringing upon their rights. By your logic, I could join a church that says only gay marriage is holy, and that straight marriage should be outlawed and that your marriage is infringing upon my rights. its the exact same thing. You have no valid argument.
canthavethefish 1 year ago 2
Why exactly do you care so much about Prop 8 if you're straight...
bookwormsrcool 1 year ago
this video truly depresses me : (
grannysmith10391 2 years ago
Yes on 8 !! We won. Get over it.
iPickMyNose10 2 years ago
Your a fuckin bigot! Why is this all wrong to you. It says something about your marriage if gays getting that term attached to the unions would lessen it. go read your bible you ignorant fuckin sheep!
doomaroni 2 years ago
Dude,
A. CREEPY.
B. You understand and you still made a horrible choice.
C. No religion owns marriage. If it is a religious idea (which it is) be pissed at the government for taking it and making it an institution. I am not religious and I still am "married." I got married without making any commitment to "God."
tufflittledude 2 years ago
Do me a favor and watch the acclaimed documentary called For The Bible Tells Me So and also Tying the Knot. I think you will find that the institution of marriage over time is not what you think it is. I don't think you are a mean person for voting for Prop 8...just misinformed. Because of people's ignorance, unfortunately, my relatives have to pay the price.
talentguynyc 2 years ago
How much do you weigh? It's gotta be over 300 right? Easily. Did you ever think about donating that pig blubber to someone who actually needs it or are you trying to pack on more lbs so you can donate enough for 15 families? That would be so generous of your lard ass!
StabbedInTheKunt616 2 years ago
Wow, that's a pretty rude thing to say. Didn't your parents teach you how to talk to people when you were growing up buddy? Did you just come from a broken home or something? I admit I'm being facetious, but seriously, why don't you put the time and effort into making a YouTube video and then people can make fun of you for being who you are. You just prove that No on Prop 8 people were always about hate and getting their way no matter what. Elton John's right...and amazing!!! xP
houhoutai 2 years ago
It wasn't meant to be nice. I have lots of youtube videos. Lol! Anyone is open to make fun of me. I won't cry. Of course you would ask me if I came from a house that includes people that get abused or have parents disturbing there children with there drug problems. That's nice of you. Downing people for not living as well as you do. So what do you think about children with down syndrome or do I want to know?
StabbedInTheKunt616 2 years ago
The government should never be involved the the personal lifes of individuals. Vote no on marriage.
GnosticAtheist 2 years ago
I'm so glad that I don't have to live in California/America - USia should sign up to the Human Rights Act.
Hope your God loves you when you die nathow
:]
SteelYaoi 2 years ago
Everyone has the right to make a vote based on their own personal morals. One has the right to declare their beliefs (moral or constitutional) as much as the other who opposes them. My warning to all involved is beware the name calling and the statements like 'how are you teaching your kids'. Both sides run the risk of harsh retaliation from the other when you use words or phrases in the context of singling out an individual or group. Debate, but do so out of respect for the other.
thundrwagn 2 years ago
.......a problem with this. have your kids been tought it yet??? probably not. so get off the kid trip and come up with something else to argue about. narrow minded double standard ignorant piece of crap!! get a life and research before you speak. and as far as "christianity" goes, I'm pretty sure god says not to judge!!
squeezepop1991 2 years ago
as far as the field trip goes it is a wedding regardless of Gender. there teacher obviously cares enough about her students to invite them to a big part of there life. there were permission slips involved in this, parents with your ignorance didn't have to sign it. ALLY week is voluntary and there is no teaching involved. it simply agrees to know slanderous words said. such as "Fag". Once again if there parents disagree they can speak to the school, but as far as i know no parents have had.....
squeezepop1991 2 years ago
The perception that religion will in any way be affected by Prop 8 is just not true. The California Supreme Court ruled "no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regards to same sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention with his or her religious beliefs."
moviemania8797 2 years ago
Take something that YOU hold sacred?
Please, what impact does it have on you and your wife's marriage, relationships and lives if a guy decides he wants to marry the person he loves. What was that? NOTHING. It has NO impact on the MEANING of your marriage either, if you believe marriage is defined as a partnership between a man and a woman, then fine, stay with your WOMAN lol.
I dont see why people like you should vote on homosexual's rights, we didn't vote on yours.
Kizillia 2 years ago
So if I have a religious belief that your children must be sacrificed to my God and passed that law it would be ok because I have a religious belief that my God demands the death of your children.
matthewsmc 2 years ago
No. The United States wasn't founded with that particular pagan god in mind. It was however founded with the Jewish/Christian God in mind, and that's something you're going to have to accept if you're an American, unless you want to ignore hundreds of years of written history. But hey, you can always move to a country that lets you sacrifice other peoples' children to your god if you want. I don't know of any country like that, but if that's what you want...
houhoutai 2 years ago
You my friend are ignorant. This country isn't founded on anything religious. Theres a quote from ben franklin saying hes an atheist. Plus im a pagan. We don't sacrifice children. You fallow a religion that brought on the crusades when your religious leaders said you had to recapture a peice of land and thousands died for it.
doomaroni 2 years ago
Why can't you stop other religions from doing gay weddings.
matthewsmc 2 years ago
newsflash, marriage isn't just for christians.
soraoftheevilgrin 2 years ago
Marriage isn't only a religious institution. Stop forcing your religion on others! You don't deny atheists the right to be married, but you deny gays! Fuck you!
ghostofxmaspast 2 years ago 16
@ghostofxmaspast The first sentence of the bill of rights says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. These people have no right to keep the definition of marriage the way that it is for religious reasons! Not even if the majority wanted it that way they couldn't do it! But the government just can't get it through their thick skulls
MacabreManifesto 1 year ago 2
stop trying to force your nastiness on me. Even California doesnt want that shit.
tatomuck18 3 months ago
nathow, excellent presentation..
robinxyz101 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Don't let these critics get you down. You did the right thing by making this video and voting yes on prop. 8. Marriage should only be between a man and a woman-plain and simple. I don't understand the confusion on that! I know what it could be. I could be satan. He is the art of all confusion. And I have an idea at least most of the people who made comments on here agree with you. They are just ashamed to admitt the truth!
GOD BLESS YOU NATHOW!!! KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!!!
healthnbeauty1 3 years ago
well lets go back to what marriage was 200 years ago
white man and white woman
marriage is a contract
divorice is illegal
and wife is considered property
idaman12345 2 years ago
Back in the Bible times there were multi-racial couples. And a wife was never a property! It says in the Bible, "whomever finds a woman, findeth a good thing." So get your facts straight. I don't care what you say. Marriage is betwee a man and a woman only. Gay couples may say, "I'm married." But God doesn't saction it. BOTTOM LINE!!!!
healthnbeauty1 2 years ago
Some of us don't want our laws based on what your imaginary friend says.
missvonkarma 2 years ago
This country was founded on religious freedom. So we have a right to speak and protest against the gay agenda. There are even some athiest and non-church goers who believe in only traditional marriage. So it's not just christians. I don't care what you say. Marriage is between a man and a woman and that's all there is to it!
healthnbeauty1 2 years ago
That would be a VERY small minority.
Marriage is between two people who love each other and that's all there is to it! You can whine about how God hates it all you want.
In the end, we WILL have the right to marry. You can pray all you want. An overwhelming majority of people under 30 support it.
And as I've said it before, if you're against gay marriage, fine. You have to let them get married in your church. This is about CIVIL marriage.
bearchewtoy75 2 years ago
That is you DO NOT have to allow them to get married in your church.
The 2010 proposition that will repeal Prop 8 will also contain provisions that will make it clear that clergy will not have to perform weddings against their will and it will not force a "gay curriculum" to be taught.
bearchewtoy75 2 years ago
Not where I live, where I live everyone has the right to get married. And it's only a matter of time before that is true everywhere.
missvonkarma 2 years ago
This country was founded on religious freedom. So we have a right to speak and protest against the gay agenda.
You do have that right. I fully agree, you, like the white southerners after the civil war, have every right to be upset and argue against equality. But it doesn't mean you're right, and it doesn't mean the rest of us must listen.
jfp1399 2 years ago
"This country was founded on religious freedom."
Doesn't that mean that non-Christians, or even rational-thinking Christians, have the right not to have their laws based in the principles of the Christian extremists? (Who all, by the way, ignore the fact that Jesus would not have voted Yes on 8, but that's neither here nor there.)
Oh, and it looks like a man and a woman ISN'T all there is to it. Or have you missed what's been happening in DC?
nekkidandrew 2 years ago
You know full well that historically women have been considered as the property of her father until he gives her away along with a dowery. It's only been in the last few hundred years that people got married because they loved each other.
Why do you think a bride is usually "given away" by her father at a wedding?
bearchewtoy75 2 years ago
Hatred comes in all forms, buddy. The difference between your hatred and that of, say, a skinhead or any member of another hate group is at least they're honest in their bigotry. A gay marriage is just as "sacred" as a straight marriage. And just in case you're wondering, civil unions DON'T provide all the same rights as hetero marriage supplies. Google civil unions vs. marriage and find out the truth. It's truly frightening how blind some people can be.
JayOleck 3 years ago
Bigot.
SplodinCupcake 3 years ago 11
@SplodinCupcake faggott
mikeyrobins022585 1 year ago
@SplodinCupcake Faggott.
mikeyrobins022585 1 year ago
You know what...if 5 year olds can learn about STRAIGHT people, they can SURE AS HELL learn about gay people as well. I am SO GLAD that some children were handed this card that promotes LOVE instead of HATE. But good TRY...again!
HollaceJ 3 years ago
"A sacred ordinance of Christianity" is something that happens in a church.
"Change the definition of baptism"? No one has tried to change religious marriage.
Elton John has a civil partnership in Great Britain. So does Prince Charles. Their civil partnerships ARE marriages not performed in the church. You are comparing CA domestic parnerships to what amounts to "civil marriage" in GB.
You claim you do not hate, but you spread lies like the worst, and continue to be sadly self-righteous.
rodgierad 3 years ago 2
The states propose amendments.
The legislatures of two-thirds of the states vote to call for a convention at which constitutional amendments can be proposed. Amendments proposed by the convention would again require ratification by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states.
mewimi 3 years ago
Or ......694,354 signatures on a petition can put an initiative on a ballot. Reference The California Secretary of State web page "How to qualify an initiative"
It was done legally like I said before.
antlion71 3 years ago
Congress proposes amendments.
As is the case with the flag burning amendment, both houses of Congress approve by two-thirds votes a resolution calling for the amendment. The resolution does not require the president's signature. To become effective, the proposed amendment must then be "ratified" or approved by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states. Congress typically places a time limit of seven years for ratification by the states.
mewimi 3 years ago
Oh holy people of the prop 8, teach me how to be ruthless hate mongers and teach me how to discriminate and lie about a people I don't even know, please. *cough*
mewimi 3 years ago
How blind are you to believe that those who disagree with you on this issue actually hate you.
You really should go watch CNN for a while and see that people can respectfully disagree with others, sometimes quite vocally, and yet there is not "HATE" involved. I disagree with you and the no on prop 8 crowd, this does not denote "hate".
I disagree with President Obama too, but guess what, he is now MY president and I will support him because the majority of people have spoken.
antlion71 3 years ago
There are four kinds of homophobes
The ones who deny people their rights and try to make their cause look righteous ( you )
( yes denying someone their rights, is a hateful act )
The ones who scream "FAG FAG FAG" and beat on those who like the same gender.
Then there are those who use their religion as an excuse to discriminate and segregate people they do not even know ( you again )
Then there are those who take part in all 3.
mewimi 3 years ago
Interesting that your definition of Homophobia differs from the root words of Homosexual and Phobia....
I have never attempted to make my cause look righteous as you claim, nor have I used my religion at all.
I find it interesting that you still think that you have been denied a "right". You have the same right to get married to a member of the opposite sex as I do. You have the same rights of life, liberty, and happiness that I do. You play the martyr very well.
antlion71 3 years ago
You are using your religion as the true root of your cause, you only manipulate politics to make your cause look more "Just" than our cause, which by the way you aren't doing so well at that.
Maybe you don't realize, it's not about being able to "marry the opposite gender" it's about being able to marry the ones we love!!! Why can't you understand that? You have the free liberty to marry the one you love, I DO NOT, BECAUSE I AM NOT CAPABLE OF MARRYING THE OPPOSITE SEX!!!
mewimi 3 years ago
Marriage has NEVER been about marrying the one you love. It is the recognition of a union of a man and a woman. Love is an independent factor. Many many people live together in love without ever getting married, gay or straight. You are as capable of buying a marriage license and getting married to a member of the oppisite sex as I am. You are capable.
antlion71 3 years ago
I don't recognize with that definition, your definition is flawed, hateful and ignorant, get it out of my face. Marriage is between two consenting adults, get out of here with your bigotry.
mewimi 3 years ago
it always comes down to name calling doesn't it. Because I disagree with you I am now a bigot????
My definitions are law, or socially accepted documents, like the dictionary... Oh, I forgot the dictionary is out to get you too.
antlion71 3 years ago
Eat your shellfish, it's an abomination, the bible is nothing more than a "pick and choose" book, you get to choose what you want to believe. Leviticus hmph, what a joke.
Hypocrisy is all you preach and it's all I'll ever see.
mewimi 3 years ago
Who is quoting the Bible?? I have left religion out of this argument until someone else brings it up. I don't quote any scripture, I don't reference the bible or religion in my support of 8.
antlion71 3 years ago
I'll quote the bible for you, 2 Samuel 1:26 "To Jonathan: More precious have I held love for you than love for women"
Not saying religious statements while defending religious belief is one in the same. You are defending your Christianity and I'm guessing that is Mormonism so...
Your defense is weak, religion does NOT belong in the constitution, only the freedom to practice religion, not to force that religion on others.
mewimi 3 years ago
Now who is using religion and the bible to try to support their views???
Not me, and I won't because there is no common ground there.
The laws of the state of california and the constitution of the state of California are common ground, so lets keep the debate there.
You keep trying to somehow associate my arguments with religion and that is not the case.
antlion71 3 years ago
The law has been proven unconstitutional with The Californian Supreme court IT WAS PROVEN! That isn't in dispute, it was proven in Massachusetts it was proven in Connecticut, should I really have to argue that my rights are being suppressed?
mewimi 3 years ago
The voice of the people place the judges, and the voice of the people overturned their ruling. You have the same rights that you have always had, and your rights to life liberty and pursuit of happiness are the same as they have always been. Quit trying to play the martyr.
antlion71 3 years ago
You are a definition picker, just like others are a passage picker, marriage has MANY definitions , you can't pick and choose which to follow.
Marriage, Marry, Married, all have definitions that do not apply to "man and woman"
Sorry I don't recognize dictionary terms taken from the "holy" bible.
mewimi 3 years ago
Oh, so only your definition is acceptable to you. Now it is me, the brainwashed californians, the religious fanatics, the bible, and now finally.....the dictionary. And all of us are against you????? Give me a break!
antlion71 3 years ago
WRONG, I accept ALL DEFINITIONS OF MARRIAGE
mewimi 3 years ago
If you accept all definitions of marriage, then you accept the California definition of marriage, which is "one man and one woman".
antlion71 3 years ago
Pedophilia/Bestiality/Incest/Polygamy are illegal for their own reasons, saying that it will change because two consenting adults of the same gender want to get married... is extremely twisted, untrue, misleading and asinine.
Children Cannot Consent
Animals Cannot Consent
Incest is not illegal everywhere but has birth defects in their children which is why it is illegal.
Polygamy is illegal... because of extreme legal complications?
mewimi 3 years ago
not every incestual relationship involves a child.
I never use beastiality as an argument for the reasons that you stated above, however, polygamy and incestual relationships have their proporters that believe in the existence of their love just as much as you do in your relationship. These are not just small matters that we can sluff off.
antlion71 3 years ago
So if you want true equality and want to keep your "marriage" definition in churches, then I suggest you start amending the constitution to change the definition of marriage for EVERYONE to "Civil Unions" but imagine how costly that would be mmmhmm and it would not help the economy at all either mmhmmm
Nevertheless, churches do not own marriage, they did not invent marriage, they post no claim to marriage because they can't, although they are clearly trying.
mewimi 3 years ago
I could care less if the definition never existed in the first place. My relationship with my wife and my children is just as real with or without the definition of marriage. The fact is, the definition is in place and it applies to a man and a woman.
The real question is why should I have to move my position that has existed for decades, to accomodate you??
Just because there is financial benefit does not make something right. Selling crack has financial benefits too.
antlion71 3 years ago
HIV positive? Are you spreading that stereotype that homosexuals are the majority of HIV carriers? Because its a lie, a scare tactic used by religious fanatics.
You are using all these negative things that have NOTHING to do with same sex marriage, please do not get off topic.
Definitions are meant to be changed, they are changed ALL THE TIME, a race that does not change eventually dies out.
mewimi 3 years ago
no one is spreading a stereotype. I was tested for HIV before I got married because it is a real "what if". Your the one who said we can't base decisions on "what if's" so it's not off the topic.
You just can't go around changing definitions willy nilly without thinking of the consequences. The "what if's" are very relevant.
antlion71 3 years ago
We aren't changing definitions 'willy nilly' technically it is the people who are religious trying to change other people into their belief system... it's hypocritical!
mewimi 3 years ago
No one is trying to change your "belief system". Marriage has always been, throughout history, between a man and a woman. It is the Gay community that is trying to change definitions.
antlion71 3 years ago
CHANGE HAPPENS, GET USED TO IT. Are you so close minded that you cannot accept a little modification of a dictionary word?
mewimi 3 years ago
Change has happened, the definition of marriage is man and woman, are you getting used to it??
A little change has big ramifications and as I said before, if you can't see that in every aspect of life, your either blind or still a teenager.
antlion71 3 years ago
Pfft, your ramifications have no basis in reality, you make up consequences recklessly without thinking if it is possible or not.
Theories and lies, DO NOT SUPPORT A REASON TO SUPPRESS SOMEONE FROM THEIR RIGHTS!!!
I happen to be 24, and I am far from blind, infact, I have never been more clear in my life. It is you who are blind, arguing "What if" theories to me, to keep me from marrying the one I love.
mewimi 3 years ago
And YES those studies were created by religious fanatics. I'd know, since I am a lesbian and it effects me, you wouldn't since you believe everything you are told.
mewimi 3 years ago
Jack Dresher is a classic example of a professor who is not a religious fanatic who found out through no intent to do so that change is not only possible, but happens vountarily. Yet I am sure that you have some excuse as to why the 200 individuals in his report were all tainted somehow.
antlion71 3 years ago
Really? watch?v=Kh6v9aysfQI he states quite clearly that you probably wont change if you try to change.
mewimi 3 years ago
If we were not a protected minority there wouldn't be anti discrimination laws for*** us, so your claims that we are not a minority are far from truthful.
mewimi 3 years ago
Did you know prop 8 was illegally placed on the ballot? Paragraph 18 clearly states that in order to place a something on the ballot that would take the rights away from a minority, you MUST gain the approval of 2/3rd's legislation from 2 houses. Something which never happened. Prop 8 is illegal in so many ways, it disgusts me.
mewimi 3 years ago
Marriage has been here longer than Christianity. Don't connect the two together.
DemonWolfBlood 3 years ago
If that's the case they should have a pagan ceremony then. why would you want to choose a christian ceremony, when you know full well that homosexuality is an abomination as far as the bible is concerned? You would only want to do it to prove a point, which is wrong.
savedbyYeshua 3 years ago
There are many different forms of marriage ceremonies it doesn't matter which one you take, plenty of people who are not part of religion take on those ceremonies for the aesthetics of it all.
Besides what you define as a "Christian Ceremony" is nothing more than a slowly changing thing that is constantly changing, it's not due to religion, it's due to people's personal likes and dislikes.
and the fact is we are NOT an abomination.
mewimi 3 years ago
and another fact, and it is undeniable. marriage has existed far beyond all known organized religion of today, there is mountains of evidence to support this fact so don't try to dismiss it so easily.
mewimi 3 years ago
That's not my point, my point is why would would anyone want a Christian ceremony when Christianity is so against homosexuality? If marriage has been around so long in other faiths, People should go and have a ceremony there, and leave Christianity out of it. If you look at my comment again you will see that I didn't call you an abomination, I said the bible did. you can call it Christianity all you like but if it doesn't adhere to biblical principles, it's not true Christianity.
savedbyYeshua 3 years ago
I don't see the point of your argument, we do not want "Christian Marriage" we want marriage period...
If someone who believes in Christianity and is gay and wants to get married... then that's their choice, but they'd have to find a church willing.
Again, we are not forcing churches to perform homosexual weddings, and if anyone tells you otherwise, it's a bald faced lie.
mewimi 3 years ago
Precedence is the danger. You can laugh it off if you like, but altering definitions creates a precedence for anyone with an agenda to argue precedence.
antlion71 3 years ago
Sorry I should have said, the bible doesn't personally call people an abomination, it calls the homosexual act an abomination.
savedbyYeshua 3 years ago
I'm disappointed in all this. Nathow, I posted two video responses to this and you have failed to approve them or even comment on them. I have been civil and have not resorted to calling you names and have actually stood up to my fellow gays and lesbian on your behalf.
Marriage comes with over 1000 benefits and none of those have to do with the church, so the argument that it is a religion institution is no longer true.
SouthernSunset84 3 years ago
I remember a time when Christian Churches didn't even consider marriage as "holy" so your claims that marriage is a sacred "Tradition" is far fetched and filled with hypocritical unfounded lies.
mewimi 3 years ago
Really? This case has WHAT to do with sex? Did the teacher teach the children how lesbians/gays have sex? NO!!! Did she even say they had sex?NO!This is really growing tiresome, should I have to explain every little obvious fact to you?
Telling someone that for example "a lesbian is a girl who wants to be in a relationship with another girl" IS NOT TEACHING SEX, it's teaching diversity >.>
I am naive? Ha, you are brainwashed you can't think outside your prop 8 ads and religious teachings.
mewimi 3 years ago
wow what? Thanks for more foolishness, there has been NO case of teaching of homosexual "Sex" to 5 year olds.
You give the impression that being homosexual only implies sex? Wow, how misinformed you are, I am attracted to women, I feel love, a bond between me and that girl, you are saying my love is only about sex?
Saying to accept someone for dating someone of the same gender is HARDLY teaching "5 year olds about sex"
It astounds me how much yes on 8 fanboys twist the truth.
mewimi 3 years ago
Really... let's see, the kindergarden teacher I mentioned handed out the ally cards to 5 year olds and then asked them to sign it. Did all the children just sign it without knowing anything about what the card said, or did the teacher have to explain it...? I am guessing it was explained. How do you think she explained what a transgender person was...? Are you really so naive you don't see this as inappropriate...? or are you so gay, it blinds you to decency and morality...?
nathow 3 years ago
I'm an atheist and marriage is not sacred to me, its a civil partnership. It is entitled to me as a civil right. For you to try to deny the rights of a group of people is disgusting.
first communion has nothing to do with government, marriage is a government institution so keep your religion out of it.
Its fine to have your beliefs, but a gay man or womans marriage has nothing to do with you and your beliefs.
GayBot6900 3 years ago
Marriage is not a government institution. For centuries before the government got involved, marriage was only a religious ceremony and right, as dictated by the Church. Pushing now to redefine marriage, is an attempt to redefine religious doctrine that has been held and taught by organized religions for thousands of years. It is the gay and lesbian community who is trying to infringe into an area that belongs to religious heterosexuals. Props 22 and 8 have been in response to gay activism.
nathow 3 years ago
well then if you want it to be a religious ceremony, then you shouldnt have any rights allowed to you by the government for married couples....
Homosexuals deserve to be married for those rights. Not everything has to do with your christain lifestyle. Its funny how you say gays are infringing on christain rights - you have that backwards - christains are infringing on gays CONSTITUTIONAL rights. They are suppose to be protected from the majority, and free from your religious zealotry
GayBot6900 3 years ago
I'm sorry but this argument doesn't work. Marriage is a secular thing. Atheists get married. Murderers and rapists get married. People go to vegas and get married on a whim. Civil unions do not have the same rights as marriage. Elton John is really rich and can afford to pay lawyers to protect his rights.
If you love the word marriage so much, lets remove it from the state. ONLY allow civil unions between two unrealated, consenting adults and have marriage ONLY for religion.
enigmatically 3 years ago
I think we have some agreement. Considering what marriage was intended to be from the beginning, it should only be a religious thing. Everyone with no religious affiliation should not be trying to have a religious ceremony. They should have civil partnerships. It is called something different because it is something different. As long as the same legal protections are in place for every couple, why not keep the different legal definitions ... different...?
nathow 3 years ago
Ok.. I understand. The problem is that there are significant differences between marriage and domestic partnerships or civil unions. That's why pushing for marriage is what we're doing. THere is no separation of civil unions and spiritual unions in this country.
I say we make marriage similar to France's process. Everyone goes to their local mayor or city hall and fills out the required paper work. They are then married by a civil authority....
SouthernSunset84 3 years ago
Once they get everything settled with the federal government, they can then go to a church and have a priest bless that union. This way, everyone gets the protection and benefits of marriage and there is no chance of having a church or clergy member sued for refusing to marry someone.
Again, you keep deleting my comments with links to my video. I can't help but wonder if you don't want people to actually hear a logical response that completely disproves your point.
SouthernSunset84 3 years ago
I'm not a big supporter of marriage to begin with, so I do agree, if there was no government involved, things would be much simpler. Let the couple declare their dedication to one another in front of family and friends and leave it at that. Being in religion and laws, the whole thing takes on ugly.
Boomer1949 3 years ago
More hypocrisy in your video, HOW DARE THOSE TEACHERS TEACH TOLERANCE, we should just like, you know, hide the truth of life from our children, make it harder on them and others in the future!
Funny, you are saying sexuality isn't taught in schools? Yet I recall like 10 childrens stories that I was taught in very early grades that involve princes and princess' getting married and blah blah blah?
HOW DARE WE TEACH UNDERSTANDING AND OPEN MINDEDNESS TO OUR CHILDREN, HOW DARE WE
mewimi 3 years ago
So in your view teaching 5 year olds about gay sex, lesbian sex and bisexuality, is okay? At 5, they have spent half there lives in diapers and your okay with teaching them about a variety of sexual expressions? This seems appropriate to you? They usually start health education classes around the time children begin puberty, but at the Faith Ringgold School they start teaching about homosexuality in kindergarden. There is something seriously wrong with any adult who would approve of this.
nathow 3 years ago
Did you know the yes on 8 campaign used footage of those parent's children at the wedding in an ad illegally? Why? To promote their beliefs and gain yes votes WITHOUT parental ?
There is a thing I'd like to call that, exploitation.
"Marriage is a bond between 3 people" oh really? How about all those people who get married and do not believe in God? Why don't you stop them!? Hypocrisy much?
I do not believe in any God, but you are saying that homosexuals are souless godless.
mewimi 3 years ago
As for your teaching not being "Homophobic" it very well is, because it was devised by homophobes and you are sorry to say part of that brainwashed zombified crowd.
In the original ancient texts of the Bible, there was no mention of homosexuality, which means someone at a later date, added it.
So, saying we will burn in hell/rot in hell, etc, for loving someone of the same sex, this doesn't sound like hate? Sounds exactly like hate to me and fear of something different. Hence, Homphobia
mewimi 3 years ago
Who are you to tell me anything about how I feel? I know my feelings better than anyone on the planet. Without knowing me beyond my videos, you have decided I'm a brainwashed homophobe zombie. I never said anything about gays burning in hell, you did. As quickly as you jump to prejudicial conclusions, it sounds to me like your more paranoid than anything else. How about dealing with some reality... comment on what I said, not on the fantasy that I hate gays. Watch the video, learn something.
nathow 3 years ago
I don't jump to conclusions, but you follow the teachings of fools. Firstly, I'll make an example, does one speak racist jokes and not help spread the hate and racism themselves? Does saying racist joke one racist?
It does, because you are spreading helping stereotypes and the hate in which the racism originated from the begin with.
This case is no different, you spread the words of homophobes, thus are homophobic yourself. Whether you wish to acknowledge that fact is not my concern.
mewimi 3 years ago
brainwashed homophobe zombie... your words... is this hate speech...? You cry NO on HATE, yet your mouth is full of it... who's the hypocrite...? And the last thing i would joke about is another persons feelings governing his own identity. I am not that cruel, but apparently you don't subscribe to that restraint. I haven't resorted to name calling... when you have... so who is the one reacting like a fool...?
nathow 3 years ago
Really, you havn't been "name calling"? You spread the same lies the Yes on 8 Campaign has been spreading.
You make us look evil, as if children aren't going to know about homosexuals at one point in their life, and you make it seem like them going to a lesbian wedding is somehow going to make them gay?
Homophobia, THATS WHAT IT IS, did you know all those children had signed permission slips to go to that wedding?
Sorry that my words offend you, but you are clearly brainwashed, *continues*
mewimi 3 years ago
That "I have friends that are gay" statement again. Well you don't anymore when they see this.
Marriage isn't sacred, nor did religion post claim to it, marriage has existed far longer than Christianity, far longer than the Jewish/Muslim religions.
Your marriage becomes less "sacred" because two people of the same sex wish to get married? It has nothing to do with you
Well what about those fly by night marriages? That last 2 weeks? Why not fight that, instead of taking away my rights?
mewimi 3 years ago
Gay family members have no problem with me. Marriage originated as a religious ceremony, the state shouldn't be trying to redefine it. It is out of their jurisdiction. You are right, your gay marriage doesn't affect mine, but the State legally redefining it for everyone does have an impact on society in general which includes me. Let's get it straight, it is gays who are trying to change it. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman until gays started trying to change it.
nathow 3 years ago
You have no evidence that marriage started as a "Religious Ceremony" NONE AT ALL, Birds mate for life. Marriage is a binding contract not a holy "Union"
Your "legality" has no basis in law, you are forcing your religious intentions on everyone else. Our marriages have NOTHING to do with you, we want nothing to do with you, only your egos and urge to control other people prevent us from gaining freedom.
mewimi 3 years ago
Marriage is not a religious value but a human right all humans should have the free right to marry the consenting adult they please.
Yes Us "Gays" want the right to marry the ones we love, SHAME ON US, how DARE WE. Well we dare, and no amount of your opposition will stop us from gaining equality.
My previous post was oddly worded, I must of been distracted heavily.
Last I checked marriage was legalized in California and a certain religious group changed that.
mewimi 3 years ago
I think you have every right to practice you religion.I just think you misunderstand Homosexuals and there wish to be treated as equals.
Marriage or even Unions should be aloud between concenting adults.
I would never want to change you or your church.....Just don't try to change me (O:
tiemannorm 3 years ago
Take a close look at yourself.
Christian morality at it's best.
You voted yes, I hope your gay family and friends never speak to you again.
If your argument hold's then anybody not Married in a church should have it annuld as well. Grow up will you.
tiemannorm 3 years ago
WOW, you just leap to conclusions so easily. I said nothing about annulling marriages. I simply choose to stand up and defend Church doctrine and our belief structure, which includes marriage. Other Churches out there can practice their religion as they please... I just don't want to see any political or legal pressure brought down on the Church because of angry gay lawsuits coming before the State Supreme Court. We should be left alone to practice our faith as we see fit.
nathow 3 years ago
Left alone and yet people should be disallowed from getting married because it aligns with your beliefs. That is a load of garbage.
karmatic1110 3 years ago
Like you said it is a convenant between 3: the man, the woman, and god. That is the RELIGIOUS definition of marriage, not a CIVIL one. There's a separation of church and state. Churches can discriminate. Courts should not.
drewj1969 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
nathow, your right on again. love your videos, keep up the good work.
antlion71 3 years ago
Right as in he defines marriage as stemming from religion? That is totally false information.
karmatic1110 3 years ago 2
Right as in "You align with my point of view" not "What you said is based on facts." That's a pretty big difference.
karmatic1110 3 years ago
Right as in it's the traditional view of mormons to believe marriage is between ONE man and ONE woman. Which is why Joseph Smith (founder of Mormonism) had 27 wives (some of whom were married to other men and some of whom were underage) and Brigham Young (founder of Utah) personally fathered over 70 children through his many wives. That is the tradition of Mormon marriage.
BTW I like your videos Karmatic. You're an awesome person.
enigmatically 3 years ago
When that became unlawful, mormons stopped practicing it. Bringing up 100 year old history makes no valid point.
antlion71 3 years ago
It holds a valid point because it means the definition of marriage CAN change and that it's "tradition" can change and that the hypocrisies, lies, extortion and exploiting children really are reflective of the churches involved in prop 8 campaign.
I find it ironic, there are laws stating that churches may have tax exempt status if they do not heavily involve themselves in politics yet... look what they did? They threatened their own status and contributed to many law violations.
mewimi 3 years ago
Read the first amendmendment carefully and you will see that regarding both the establishment clause and the free exercise clause, no laws were broken, and they weren't even bent. You really should study the law a little bit before you make such statements.
antlion71 3 years ago
The law was broken lol.... You can't force something into a ballot, it has to go through official channels according to Californian state law, if it is indeed to take the rights away from a minority.
If we were not a protected minority there wouldn't be anti discrimination laws against us, so your claims that we are not a minority are far from truthful.
Minority: the smaller part or number; a number, part, or amount forming less than half of the whole.
mewimi 3 years ago
You are advocating revoking the civil rights of a minority simply based on a ballot vote. The precedent is set and now nothing is safe. Just because one agrees or disagrees with gay marriage for ANY REASON doesn't give that person the right to tell two consenting adults what they can or cannot do.
karmatic1110 3 years ago
gays are not a registered minority anymore than polygamists or star trek fans. How has prop 8 revoked your life, your liberty, or your pursuit of happiness. baloney. two consenting adults cannot participate legally in sexual relationships if they are brother and sister, right? So that argument does not fly.
antlion71 3 years ago
Your argument is BS. Stating that "Star Trek fans" and homosexuals are somehow the same is garbage. Prop 8 is preventing people from getting married. A civil partnership is NOT the same as if it were marriage it would be called such. Appeasement is not equal.
karmatic1110 3 years ago
Just like your stating that black civil rights and gays rights are somehow the same is crap.
Prop 8 is maintaining a legal definition, nothing more, nothing less. You want all the same rights and privileges, you have them. You can get married anytime you want, but if you choose a same sex coupling, it is not marriage.
antlion71 3 years ago
Civil rights are civil rights regardless of what defines a group. If prop 8 is maintaining a legal definition then why does is it unconstitutional based on the state constitution? The legal definition was NEVER THERE in the first place. Prop 8 REVOKED rights.
karmatic1110 3 years ago
That is silliness. Define civil rights! What your saying is that anything you want to do is a right. First, nowhere is there any guarantee in the constitution that marriage is an inalienable right. Second, nowhere is there a guarantee that anyone can marry anyone or thing that they want. I just find it hard to believe that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are denied gays because they can't call their relationship marriage by law. It is a smokescreen.
antlion71 3 years ago
So Prop 8 didn't seek to repeal a right people already had? Civil Right lol. Pretty simple.
karmatic1110 3 years ago
you failed to mention that the right you claim you already had was an end run on prop 22 through the court system because the voice of the people had already spoken once.
antlion71 3 years ago
I am glad you up for putting a minorities rights on a ballot for a vote. Your a hypocrite.
karmatic1110 3 years ago
But you bringing lawsuits before the State Supreme Court in an effort to change existing law without any concern for the citizenry of the State is okay to do...? I suppose you have no problem teaching different forms of sexuality to 5 year olds... The gay and lesbian community only cares about what they want... and yet they scream for equality... none of them see heterosexuals as equals... we are viewed as bigots, and hypocritical... who's the hypocrite...?
nathow 3 years ago
LOL what? Your making quite a few blatant and untrue generalizations that you cannot substantiate based on the actions or viewpoint of the few. Your just as bad the people your condemning. The law never specified man and woman. They allowed marriage and the right was granted. That right was TAKEN AWAY. Your advocating repression. Furthermore who said it was okay to teach anything like that to a 5 year old. That institution is nothing more that propoganda.
karmatic1110 3 years ago
Actually prop 22 specified man and woman.
antlion71 3 years ago
And the original state constitution did not.
karmatic1110 3 years ago
And your point is what. The people spoke...twice, but because it is in opposition to the gay voice, you claim it is a rights violation. The general public disagree that state sanctioned acceptance of sexual preference and union is necessary. That is the bottom line. No rights are taken away, and nobody has to live any differently.
antlion71 3 years ago
THe PUBLIC does not have the right to tell some NO and others YES. It is at that point it IS a right's violation. Universalist churches are not free to marry gay couples even though it is their belief that it is justified. Furthermore it should be left up to the individual churches. If black rights were voted on years ago they would have NEVER gotten them. It was only through the court system that they are now allowed to marry.
karmatic1110 3 years ago
Your argument is a slippery slope. The public has simply defined marriage. If a gay wants to marry a member of the opposite sex, he or she is fully sanctioned under the law. Sexual orientation is not, and should not be considered a "special minority group" under the law anymore than "masturbation" should recieve protection under the law. Black rights and gay rights are not even in the same ballpark. Blacks have no choice in skin color.
antlion71 3 years ago
And people have no choice in being gay. Regardless I have a long drive ahead of me to visit my family for Thanksgiving. I wish you a safe and happy one of you do celebrate it. I will be thanful that we can each express out opinion in a civilized and productive manner. Take care :)
karmatic1110 3 years ago
Actually, the "right to marry" doesn't even exist. Please show it to me in the Constitution... so how can we take away something that doesn't even exist...? The reality is marriage has always been defined as between a man and a woman. Gays have been trying to change it for years, and in response to you trying to push your agenda on us, Prop 22 hit the ballot and passed, then Prop 8 hit the ballot and passed. Why is there no respect for the majority vote of the people of California...?
nathow 3 years ago
Right, the right to marry isn't in the constitution yet it's a major topic regarding human rights? Wow that makes a lot of sense. Prop 8 changed the Californian state law to prevent lesbians and gays from marrying, sounds like marriage IS involved in the constitution...
You seem to not understand the law, a majority cannot vote against a Minority's rights, that is wrong, especially when the majority highly outweighs the minority.
But your little prop 8 is only a minor set back for us.
mewimi 3 years ago
I would tend to agree that the attraction may exist, but to act upon feeling without restraint is a choice. To say that an individual has no choice but to have sex is to say that we are governed by the same base instincts of animals.
Have a wonderful thanksgiving, I appreciate your civil debate. I am always looking to more clearly define my beliefs, and often find that I am altering them to some degree from discussions with good people like yourself. Talk to you on the flip side.
antlion71 3 years ago