The definition of mairage has been changed before to accomidate mairage between races. What is wrong with changing it to accomidate us? It saddens me that I still have to try to prove myself to you people. I hate that I still have to plead with you for the right to marry who I love. I havn't tried to take away your right to marry a man. Why campaigne to take away my right to marry my girlfriend?
All American Girl, YOU get over it. Your opinion about my rights as an American are worth less than my cat's litter box. We will get the right to have my marriage accepted everywhere, in spite of whatever nonsense you post on You Tube. You and your ilk will be remembered much as George C. Wallace.
Bigots beware and get over it. There IS going to be equality in this country. It is not a matter of for the church, Salt Lake, Rome wherever to decide. The arrogance and absolute IGNORANCE of anyone tying to define my definition of family and marriage would make me sad, if it didn't ane. I left the LDS church because of the bias, and yes HATE. My family and faith are stronger than ever. If you are opposed to gay marriage then don't have one, and keep your hate at YOUR home.
Hun i would like to break ur neck.. u seem homophobic... yup def.. i so wana break ur neck. lolz i wana see you dead bitch... no rights taken away? are you mental?? gays wont have the rights... you see rights we wnt have our rights to marry who we want.
You can have your opinion... but, seriously, before criticizing the Vote No on Prop 8 videos, you should take a look at the Vote Yes on Prop 8 videos... using children to advertise their campaign... shame on them!
Actually there are a lot more rights and privileges than just changing your name. Like pension benefits and social security, hospital visitation, power of attorney, power of estate, etc. Those rights were given and Yes the Mormon church was politically sponsoring to take those rights away. yeah it was dramatic but just as dramatic as NOM's gay storm ad. Or Yes on Prop 8 ads with children in them, And Prop 8 ads like the College Students ad. Or the Prop 8 Teacher being punished ads and so on
Your glad that prop 8 passed? ARe you an idiot!? That is basically saying, oh, I'm glad that discrimination got writen into the constitution. That is wrong!
@Hairsprayxoxoful Where did you find that? For centuries it's always been between a man and a woman. I don't know why you gays think you can change that. You may be religious or not, but it is wrong.
@mikeyrobins022585 I am not gay nor super religious. Yes, marriage has (legally) been between a man and women for centuries, but that doesn't mean that that is okay (I'm not saying straight people can't g et married, they can). The bottom line is that marriage is about love. You can argue with me, but the fact is that there are far more accepting and sane people than homophobic people like you. So deal with it!
@Hairsprayxoxoful That's fine. You have your opinions too. I don't hate gays and lesbians at all. I just don't want them changing the definition of marriage. I'm fine with them having civil unions, but not marriage.
@idaman12345 I'm not trying to fool anyone. There's a reason why 45 states and many countries throughout the world don't allow gay marriage. Protecting an institution is not discrimination, higher courts have ruled on that in the past.
It's truly amazing how many have spoke out against God's word, Basically stating that Good is bad, and Bad is good. Isn't that one of the signs of the times? Hey, Loved your comment and it feels like we are in the minority here, but what can I say, other than thank you for your wonderful comments. Have a wonderful life!
God, I hate Mormons. Please help me not to hate them and to anger you, but I can't stand the sight of them. Help me get passed it. They are the scum of the Earth in my opinion and I can't wait until the final day when you send them to hell.
Also I find it interesting how it was mormons also fought tooth and nail to prevent interracial marriages, and they also fought hard against women equality and are credited with defeating the Equal Rights Amendment. Odd how it's the same players fighting once again force their religious bigotry onto others. If churches want to act like PAC's then I believe they should be taxed like one.
How was it not taking away rights? Gays could marry in CA, and now they can't thanks to bigoted lies like this. It is also forcing your religion onto others. Not all churches teach that marriage is only for straight folks. Why should one persons religious beliefs trump another? If you don't believe in gay marriage, don't have one.
THERE ARE TOO RIGHTS BEING TAKEN AWAY! if two people are in love, they should be able to get married. my dad is a man and he is married to a man and they love each other very much, and now people wanna take that away like we arent a real family. we dont just barge into your home and tell u how to live your life and who you can and can not marry. bigot.
@utahgirl91 Assuming you're LDS, it's ironic you should shed such a negative light on the concept of polygamy, lol. Perhaps polygamy, which is based more in religion than physiology, WILL be legal in the future. However, to be clear, sexual orientation is not a choice. Trying to change sexual orientation leads to much heatache and, more often than not, failed marriages. Allowing homosexuals to marry and adopt would help provide loving homes for the 2/3 of ignored children available for adoption.
Also, in case you are under the impression that homosexual couples are somehow not as fit to act as parents than heterosexual couples or that having gay parents would affect the sexual identities of children, keep in mind that millions of normal children in the U.S. already have homosexual parents, and studies have shown that children's sexual identity is not affected by the parents being gay (or straight for that matter).
ok... you call THAT video exageration..... have you even seen the yes on prop 8 ads?????? they make it look like gays ruin everybody's lives!!!! and yea you actually are taking rights away from us. in a civil union, if a partner is in the hospital there is a good chance we might not even get to visit them, we can't pay taxes the same way, and there are MANY more rights that we can't have! look it up on google if you can't figure it out on yourself.
I would support equal tax laws, hospital visits etc. What I cannot support is the definition of marriage changed to suit your purposes. I am not stating you should not be equal....your relationship is by its very nature different from mine and so it should be referred to differently. Different does not =inequality.
do you realize that you are saying the EXACT same thing people used to say against blacks getting married with whites? nowadays people would think it's stupid to take marriage rights away form blacks.. because we've "moved on" from that. obviously we havn't be cause you don't see that not letting someone get married to who they want to is hurting people just as much as it used to.
Well, if you want to relate the 2, that's fine. But they are completely different. They were not requesting that they redefine marriage between one man and one woman. The 2 issues are not linked....it is not the equivalent to a civil rights issue faced back in the 50s/60s.
whatever. i'm just trying to point out the fact that it's stupid I have to have people vote on who I can marry. I don't like the idea that people are telling me I am not loving someone the same way anyone else is.
I am not telling anyone who they can or cannot love, who they can or cannot sleep with....that is none of my business. What is my business however is preserving the definition of marriage and I will fight for that, as it is my right and you will fight for your position, as is your right. Should you win down the road, I won't go in front of your homes screaming for justice and being a hate-monger however as was clearly the case with the temple protesters.
so true! prop 8 is ridiculous and unnecessary. so what? a man loves a man and a woman loves a woman. that doesnt affect other peoples lives, but taking away their right to vote is changing their lives. and it is so disgusting that they use the BIBLE to back up their claims. the Bible was not created as a weapon of hate and discrimination. and if God thought it was so wrong for people to be gay, why would there be gays? like my dad says, "God made me, and God doesn't make trash"
God did not make gay people gay. Just like god does not make liars, thieves, rapists, or murderers. Neither does he make people kind, honest, gentle, humble, strong, or heroic. People make themselves whatever they choose to be.
man consider the source! The bible, ok. Tell me this, how can you let a primative book of hate and vengful god control your lif? Maybe you should turn from the psyco god of the desert and find something else to worship. Hell try a pet rock, It's all going to lead you to the same place... NO WHERE
Have you even read the Bible? Have you read any of it? AND left it in context? We are commanded to love each other, are we not? By the same god who suffered agony for us, right? And you call that a god of hate?
i agree w/ you on no rights taken away. and i'm also glad prop 8 passed. :) but as a feminist i wan't to say that married women often choose to keep their name or opt for a highthin for themselves and sometimes their children ( if they choose to reproduce) and that they should be encouraged to make there own decition and not be swayed one way or the other. p.s. home invation was hillarious. i added it to my fav.'s for a good laugh. :)
I feel if our church put up the money through tithes and offerings I would totally agree with it. But they did not. It was the members. I think it was good we were able raise all that money. Now marriage is restored in California. THANK GOD!!!
I think it's fair for the Church to recommend action. That's all the first presidency did! If the Church had used tithing funds and such to fund the effort, then I would be disapproving, but all the money came from individuals, so I find nothing wrong with it. It makes me confused that so many people are upset about that--plenty of groups make their wishes known to government officials (lobbying), so what's wrong with a group making its wishes known to its own members? Nothing :)!
The money was not all from individuals. The LDS have admitted to giving funds and, more importantly, "in-kind" donations worth nearly a million dollars. This is huge (ask anyone who writes grants about the importance of such contributions). They free up other money, provide physical facilities that cannot be built in time, provide professional leadership and skills that could not be purchased or would be very expensive. The LDS entered politics to discriminate. They must suffer the backlash.
Who threatened your personal beliefs? You're free to believe what you want. Who threatened your marriage? It's no less sacred because someone else has it. Who threatens civilization? Religions who war with one another to impose their beliefs on others, to insist everyone believe as they do or vanish, who hold beliefs saying, "My God thinks its a good idea for me to hurt you now." If being disagreed with is adversity, you have it aplenty. But you stole rights. It's wrong.
you say "it(prop 8) doesn't take anyones rights away"
You mean except: heritance, tax, insurance, hospital visitation, custody of children, rights. So in your world view, it's acceptable to take those rights away for minority groups because they're not real people anyway.
No, it does not take any rights away, and don't you dare start spouting about "real people." We know homosexuals are real people, more than you. If gay people want those government benefits, which are not the same as rights, then they are welcome to them, but marriage is between a man and a woman, and we stand up for that time-honored definition of that institution which is civilization's foundation.
You know gay people better than I do? that's not possible, I am gay.Maybe you should re read what you said "If gay people want those government benefits, which are not the same as rights, then they are welcome to them," and then "but marriage is between a man and a woman". Contradiction much? News flash marriage is by far older than christianity, so is same sex marriage. You can't force the christian defenition onto other cultures. i.e. a man buying a woman slave of the same race as himself
I feel it would be best to allow the federal benefits to everyone, the state benefits are already allowed in CA. Tying those benefits exclusively to marriage is what the problem is here. With that changed, both sides could be happy! Why do same-sex couples need the sanction of government to be together? If heterosexual marriage was for some reason banned, I'd still get married, it just wouldn't be recognized by government. Marriage is more than a certificate. What do you think?
I didn't say I know gay people better. I merely refuted your claim that we don't see gay people as people.
As Awhri says, Federal benefits are one thing, and if any of these are denied in civil unions, then go ahead and amend civil unions to have those benefits. But marriage, which has always been between a man and a woman, needs to remain that way for reasons both religious and non-religious. I'm not forcing a Christian definition, I'm defending the ancient, original definition.
marriage has not always been between a man and a woman, in pre christian Greek and Rome there were same sex marriages and marriage between more than two people. If you defend that 'ancient' definition, then you must also agree that a man buys a wife from her father, women are property, divorce should be illegal, and marriage can only be between two people of the same race. Also there are no non-religious arguements against same sex marriage
Firstly, there have been deviations from the definition of marriage, but it has never been the usual thing.
Secondly, you're not talking about marriage, you're talking about the unique customs of arranging marriage in various cultures. There's a difference.
Third, there are several non-religious arguments against same-sex marriage. Example: would you argue that the family is the foundation of our civilization, and marriage is the foundation of the family? Change marriage, good-bye civilization.
yes and interacial ,arriage never used to be the usual thing either nor was women who chose not to be bare foot and pregnant in the kitchen all day. That is a non arguement right wing scare tactics say that gay marraige will cause the world to end. Bull crap. How would it cause anythig of the sort places that already have it for many years are just fine. Yes the family is the building block of civilisation which is why families need their rights.
you are so shallow to be glad that prop 8 passed. when you vote yes on prop 8, do you have any idea how many people you hurt? people like you are so closed minded and not willing to change anything, you should be ashamed of yourself
We know very well how many people were hurt. That's the price of any conflict, no matter who wins, both sides pay the price. It is a heavy price, but sometimes it just needs to be paid for the sake of what is morally right and true.
Perhaps it is you who are closed-minded, refusing to accept any view that conflicts with your own.
Thanks for your words! I've watched plenty of videos with different opinions than my own, but I don't feel that they are close-minded for not agreeing with me :)
I'd have to disagree with your video for a couple reasons. I don't think it was very exaggerated. If you look at the contributions the LDS Church has made to support the proposition, it would be somewhat of an invasion of a person's home and their right to interpersonal private activities. They are based outside of California and to raise funds for the sake of furthering their beliefs onto a large group of people is forcing what they want on people they should not be able to control.
I find your argument very rational and cool-headed. I appreciate your input ;), and I promise not to ever use age anyone's age against them--goodness knows, it's happened to me! The only thing I can disagree with is to say that the Church itself donated nothing--all the contributions came from individuals. There were also individuals outside of CA who contributed to the No on Prop 8 campaign. I suppose that would even it all out! Thanks again for watching, Happy New Year!
how is it fair that people from utah donated for a california ballot with the encouragement of a church? dont you believe in seperation between church and state? and the "definition" of marriage doesnt even have to apply to people, its the joining of two things. your religions definition of marriage is between a man and a woman, so then again i would argue a seperation between church and state. thank you
Separation of church and state just means that the government does not lie in the hands of any religious body. It does not exclude people from acting in accordance to their religious beliefs. It is fair because the law in question was to have an effect on all of us, the entire country, our civilization. You think it's unfair for people one state over to take an interest in that?
People donate to things outside their state boundaries all the time :). I donated to Wikipedia just last month!
Lobbyists go to extraordinary measures to get their views across, while all that Thomas Monson did was vocally ask for CA members' help. Some Mormons did support prop 8, some didn't.
Mostly, I just want to say thanks for watching :), and don't feel like you have to get the government's permission to get married--marriage is more than a certificate, Ryan, it's like you said: a joining.
Not so much, my friend. Remember, gay marriages were only performed in the first place because one man, a judge, overruled the voice of the people who had already voted against gay marriage. This second time around, the price of the vote was a bit higher, people hurt on both sides, and on our side I refer to the Mormons who are now harassed in CA. But really, a proposition such as this would affect our whole nation and society. I say we had an equal stake in it as Californians did.
This is the double standard ot these pro-Gay/pro-Liberal Holywood agenda. When Gore won the popular vote (meaning by majority), they were mad and they even wanted a COnstitutional amendment to do away with the Electoral College. Now that the MAJORITY of Californians, Mormons and non-mormons voted for Prop 8, they want to repel the popular vote. Please make up your mind people.
Well I'm sorry to say this but if there is no national same sex union, not allowing gay couples to marry is taking away rights. They can't receive certain federal benifits and can't take their marriage to other states. Perhaps it would be more productive of you yes on 8ers to put your energy into making some sort of institution like that for gay couples and they might not be pushing so hard. If traditional marriage needs be different call them traditional marriage and 'blank' marriage.
With all due respect, I'm afraid you've lost me. What does "everyone say about what Morons do to their daughters"? And which remarkable story you refer to?
I would rather have consentual Gay marriage than the threating of teenage girls into polygamous marriages that the early Mormon prophets/leaders like Brigham Young were purpotrating.
Threatening HEll to young girls to obey and marry old men polygamously is not my definition of marriage. Its more like rape.
We see this early LDS tradition still being practiced amongst Warren Jeffs's Mormon church.
Firstly, that was NOT practiced by the original Mormon Church.
Second, the practice of plural marriage was ended over a century ago. But some fanatics broke off and proceeded to continuer, abuse, pervert, etc. the practice. That is the origin of Warren Jeff's church. They are a splinter group of fanatics.
Brigham Young - Journal Of Discourses VOL 17 page 159
'the revelation concerning celestial marriage, '''''' I say that if you imbibe that spirit and feeling, YOU WILL GO TO HELL, just as sure as you are living women''''YOU SISTERS MAY SAY THAT PLURAL MARRIAGE IS VERY HARD FOR YOU TO BEAR'
Then please check the quote. I had to shorten and cut it to fit in the box. Please read the whole thing for yourself.
When LDS Apostles are marrying and conceiving with 16 year olds polygamously at ages 57 like Orson Pratt did then its worth looking into. You may find the link with Warren Jeffs very appropriate.
How else can old men get teen girls to concieve with them unless they are threatened. I call it rape.
Elder Joseph. I was going to give you fact and truth about my beliefs, as I thus far have. But I have visited your channel, and have someething else to say.
You are a liar, an anti-mormon who is deliberately twisting both words and meanings from the prophets of God. What your motive is, I cannot say. But you are being very disrespectful of my friends and I, as well as our beliefs. You do not seek understanding, only the spread of hatred. You have no right to post here on my friend's video.
okamitora There are NO FACTS or truth about your beliefs.
Tell me what are my lies?
Its no good just stringing such dramatic words together without identifying what you claim are my lies.
Why should I respect the beliefs of a church which claims that its ok for old men to threaten HELL to teen girls and force them into polygamous marriages with OLD men.
Or why should I respect a church which decieved me for two years with its bogus incomplete version of historical events.
Ah-hah! And that reveals your motive. You're just blaming the church for your own weaknesses, your own failures!
Never was a woman in the original Mormon church threatened with Hell. MEN were warned that they would go to Hell if they did not fulfill their duties as a husband. And the quote you twisted, as I read it, indicates that the danger is in fighting God's revelations (including the one that ended plural marriage, which gave rise to the fanatics who DO threaten girls with Hell).
'concerning celestial marriage, and I want to say to my sisters that if you lift you heels against this revelation, ... I say that if you imbibe that spirit and feeling, YOU WILL GO TO HELL, just as sure as you are living women....BUT IT IS NOT THE PRIVILEGE OF A WOMAN TO DICTATE THE HUSBAND, AND TELL WHO OR HOW MANY HE SHALL TAKE,'
And you deliberately find clips of Mormon leaders and, with no evidence, declare them to be liars. All because you're sore about some past offense, am I right?
There is much truth, and many facts, about my beliefs. If you doubt this...well then, shall we see if we believe anything similar to each other? Tell me, what is it you believe in? Besides hatred, I mean.
I did read it, and you are twisting it even as you write.
I love you too. Just a victim of anti-mormon propaganda. But also one so hurt that you imbibe the spirit of hatred and contention and join with your enemies.
Were they really threatened with Hell for resisting plural marriage itself? That was not the feeling I gained from reading the same text. No, I see Brigham Young not threatening, but delivering a warning, the essence of which is this: do not fight the revelations of God, especially when you already know that they come from God. (tbc...)
okamitora You are trying to soften and justify such hideous behaviour.
What kind of concsience do you have?
God did not want this cruelty. Your church leaders like Brigahm Young were trying to justify Slavery as Divine as well. Its ridiculous. If they were Jesus Representatives then they would not forced Polygamy or justified slavery or even the total blunder and discrimination about blacks and priesthood.
Its not a restoration but an awful blunder where lots of people suffered.
No, I'm just addressing your accusations, that is all. (speaking of which, they did not support slavery, ever, or inequality, ever, but that's a separate discussion)
No one...not one single person in the entirety of the Mormon's church's history, was forced or intimidated or anything else into any sort of marriage whatsoever. They. All. Chose. It. Period.
Warren Jeff's group, as I have said before, was a splinter group that refused to cease the practice and THEN began to force and intimidate.
Brigham Young Journal of Discourses, Vol. 10, page 250
HAM WILL CONTINUE TO BE THE SERVANT OF SERVANTS, AS THE LORD HAS DECREED, UNTIL THE CURSE IS REMOVED. WILL THE PRESENT STRUGGLE FREE THE SLAVE? NO; ............ Treat the slaves kindly and let them live, FOR HAM MUST BE THE SERVANT OF SERVANTS UNTIL THE CURSE IS REMOVED. CAN YOU DESTROY THE DECREES OF THE ALMIGHTY? YOU CANNOT.
Considering that the Mormons were driven from Missouri partially because they were abolitionist, I am fairly certain Brigham Young was not promoting slavery. It is much more likely (and I say "likely" because I have not yet read that discourse and therefore cannot give a complete interpretation of it) that he was foretelling the continuation of slavery for the present time, until they were eventually freed. (Some reading soon to be done)
IN SPITE OF ALL HE DID IN THE PRE-EXISTENT LIFE, the Lord is willing, if the Negro accepts the gospel with real, sincere faith, and is really converted, to give him the blessings of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there AS A SERVANT, but he will get celestial glory.
Okamitora you said" Warren Jeff's group, as I have said before, was a splinter group that refused to cease the practice and THEN began to force and intimidate. "
But if you ask those members about him, they all have Testimonies that he is the real prophet and that their church is true.
They will even testify this to you 'without a shadow of a doubt' :))
This warning includes those who KNEW the revelation of plural marriage came from God, and fought against it. And those who KNEW that the revelation to cease its practice came from God, and fell away (ie: Warren Jeff's predecessors). Also, those who left the church when blacks were given the priesthood, and others who left and fought the church over similar issues.
JOD VOL 9 page 37 Brigham Young - Young girls given in marriage to Old Men-
"How will you be happy? Love the Giver more than the gift. Delight yourselves in your duties, mothers. HERE ARE THE MIDDLE-AGED AND THE YOUNG. I AM NOW ALMOST DAILY SEALING YOUNG GIRLS TO MEN OF AGE AND EXPERIENCE. Love your duties, sisters. Are you sealed to a good man?"
Alright, I ask a question: is it automatically perverse if an old man is attracted to a young woman? Or if an old woman is attracted to a young man? Or vice versa? We have that sort of thing today, of course, and I grant it baffles me some. But in my experience it isn't AUTOMATICALLY perverse. Genuine feelings can and do arise. Why not then as much as now?
(though I am still partially with you on that count...it completely confuses me)
I don't think those young teens and young girls were attracted to very old men and into polygamous arranged mariages, In fact I am 100% certain they were not,
This behaviour Of Brigham Young and others is no different from Warren Jeffs.
You keep saying "young teens and young girls" and "very old men." Have you counted how often this occurred? You seem to believe that they waited until they were old and then selected their new wives solely from a population of teenagers. Not true, not even in the case of Orson Pratt, whom you mentioned. I'm not saying I understand one thing about it (it can be very baffling), but you seem to keep confusing today's version of the practice with the practice as it stood over a century ago.
They were marrying younger girls all the time and the older they got the younger they became as well.
Its totally ridiculous to claim that Jesus of The New Testament was behind and in full approval to all this. If people knew this is what LDS missionaries came to testify of as part a restoration then more of them would get thumped.Luckily most of them don't themselves.
You cited one case and one case alone, and careful observation of that case reveals that it seems to have been exaggerated into multiple events.
I believe that, yes, Jesus of the New Testament was behind and in full approval of this FOR HIS OWN REASONS. I can't claim to fully understand it, but I have a personal testimony that both the revelation to begin and to end plural marriage came from the exact same source: God, through his prophets.
Your personal testimony is not anymore reliable or convincing than serial Killer Peter Sutcliffes Testimony that God ordered him to kill local prostite girls many years back in my area.
Its no more reliable than the testimonies of Warren Jeffs's followers.
The Law helped stop LDS polygamy thankfully and threat of not being accepted as a state did the final trick.
Society will not accept barbaric practices in the name of God. Blacks given Priesthood was society again:)
Ah, see, thing is, the law and statehood had no bearing in the matter. It was a revelation from God to end the practice. How do I know this? Because the prophet who received it declared that he would have endured all manner of persecution for it had the Lord not said, "End it."
Same with blacks and the priesthood. There WAS a black priest back in the early days of the church, but for some reason (and I am not absolving the Mormon people from guilt here) the Lord held off on his declaration until HE felt the time was right. See, God's church changes as HE wills it to change, not according to the whims of society.
Besides which, you didn't answer my question: is it innately, automatically, irreversibly, inescapably perverse for older and younger people to be attracted to another and have a relationship together?
Hypothetical situation: if a source you trusted to be divine told you that it was your responsibility to do something, would you do it? No matter what it was? However sick it made you to your stomach? Would you kill a nation? Have more than one wife? Deceive someone? (all from the Bible)
okamitora In my area many years ago we had a serial killer. He knew god told him to kill local girls. So why did we jail him then?
The way you are using the Old Testament to justify horrific injustices of the LDS past is scary and very irresponsible. I'm concerned you will go that length to justify things.
Thats exactly the excuse all cult leaders will give to their followers for blind obedience to things they know are wrong.
Again, you do not answer my question. I am not asking about me, I am asking about you. What would you do if a source that YOU trusted to be divine gave you an order you did not like?
With the after-comment, I'm showing that there are things which people do not like but had to be done, sometimes for reasons we do not fully understand.
okamitora There are many things I don't like about what Jesus orders, but he never asked me to kill, or to take another mans wife, or to take my fellow members daughters into polygamous marriages. he never asked mt to decieve anyone for his behalf either.
This is a stramnge question you are asking. You have a strange concept of Jesus Christ. The old testament records mans failings and they are not commanded of God. Abrahams polygamy was Sarahs own mistake.
By the way, no man has ever been ordered by God to take another man's wife. Unless it was to act as provider for a widow.
It's not strange at all. See, if God commanded these marriages you abhor, just as he ordered Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, and told Abraham to lie to the pharoah (sp?), and told King Saul to obliterate a kingdom, then why do you hate the people who participated in them?
Brigham Young Journal Of Discourses Vol 16 p70JUNE 28, 1873 Couldnt care, Wives and Kids ?-
"and I can say truly and honestly that the thought never came into my mind, in all my labors, what my reward will be, or whether my crown would be large or small, or any crown at all, a small possession, a large possession, or no possession. I DO NOT KNOW THAT I SHALL HAVE A WIFE OR CHILD IN THE RESURRECTION. I HAVE NEVER HAD ANY THOUGHTS OR REFLECTIONS UPON THIS, OR CARED THE FIRST THING ABOUT IT."
Was he saying "I don't care about my family" or was he saying "I don't care what reward I do or don't get, I serve the Lord and leave Him to decide that."
They weren't "expressing their beliefs" just for fun in a way I could ignore, if I chose to. They were taking away rights with a simple majority vote, deciding my future for me cuz of their hang-ups. We COULD marry someone we loved when we woke up on November 4 and by the next day, we couldn't. Gone. You did that to us, and it's time to stop calling it "moral" and being upset anyone knows via some "blacklist" that you donated to support it.
Is it civil rights, aimed at obtaining the same marital benefits as provided by the government?
Or is it the sacredness of marriage, the institution, the union of man and woman, the means of bringing children into this world, the foundation of the family, which is the foundation of human civilization?
We chose what we believe to be the higher moral, though the price was very, very high.
"...or is it the sacredness of marriage, the institution, the union of man and woman, the means of bringing children into this world..."
If marriage is "sacred," then vote to ban divorce. If marriage is and always has been between a man and a woman, explain polygamy, a practice dating back to the earliest records of our species. If marriage is a "means of bringing children into the world," then ban elderly and infertile marriages.
I never said marriage hasn't already been abused. And marriage is not meant to be imprisoning, thus the allowance for divorce, though the reasons for divorce have gotten more and more superfluous these days. As I said, abuse of marriage. And marriage means spending your life together, so obviously elderly people can marry as they wish. Plus, so-called infertile married couples can adopt. But always there is a father and a mother involved with giving birth. No gay couple can ever produce a child.
Dude, it's a nice gesture for you to wanna save everyone's soul (even mine), but screw you. I don't believe what you do, and you forced it on me anyway. Thanks for nothing.
Nobody waits to start making babies until marriage anymore, so that argument is baseless. And there are other cultures where "traditional" marriage does not denote the "holy union of one man and one woman." It only means that to you NOW cuz you needed to justify saying "you're not good enough" to gay and bisexual people.
You SHOULD've said "holy," then, cuz that's the only definition you have any right to decide: religious marriage. Let me get married downtown if I want!
The "world's" definition of marriage is not uniform, like I said. Polygamy is traditional in places and so is marrying relatives. Screw you for speaking for everyone all the time when your worldview is that tiny.
Judge me all you want, but don't you dare decide my future for me!
Just because one or two tiiiiny groups of people pervert marriage, that does not give anyone else the right to do the same.
And I am not deciding your future. If two gay people want to be together, that's not my choice to make. If they want benefits as provided by the government, also not my choice to make. But if they want to change something that I feel is both sacred and essential to society as it is...then I am sorry, but I can't let you do that.
ADL(continued): To place anyone in fear of threat to their houses of worship or their personal security because they have expressed deeply held religious views is contrary to everything this nation represents. Our Constitution's First Amendment protects freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of religion for all of us."
The ADL, founded in 1913, is the world's leading organization fighting anti-Semitism through programs and services that counteract hatred, prejudice and bigotry.
Anti-Defamation League issued the following statement:
"Although we strongly opposed Proposition 8, its passage does not justify the defacement and destruction of property. We urge Californians to channel their frustration and disappointment in productive and responsible ways to work towards full equality for all Americans.
Actually, there never has been a constitutional definition of marriage - It only says that all are equal. Marriage is set outside of the constitution, and when the laws outside of the constitution banned gay marriage, then it was determined that those laws were unconstitutional (who can disagree with that? Even prop 8 yes folks agree or they wouldn't have felt the need to change the constitution). But guess what, it will likely be rejected by the courts - it needed a 2/3 legislative majority.
There's never been a constitutional definition of marriage because the Founding Fathers never dreamed that this, which has remained the same for thousands of years, would need defining. The decision of one man to overrule the majority vote was unconstitutional.
"There's never been a const. def. of marriage because the Founding Fathers never dreamed of this."
How the hell do you know that?
The founding fathers "never dreamed" of black men running their country, either (by the SAME logic, black men had not ruled over a nation of predominately white men, this had "remained the same for thousands of years").
Now I give our founding fathers more credit than this, and believe they did the best they could with the bigoted, primitive population they had.
Actually, yes they did. They made provision for slavery to eventually end, for the "separate but equal" idea to die out, and for black men to be treated just like white men.
But they did not have the issue of gay marriage. The definition of marriage as the union between a man and a woman was universal.
You'll have to refresh my memory about 1954, and I assume 1967 was some major Civil Rights event. And what was in 1896?
I was referring to one man in San Francisco, who overruled the majority vote of California to prohibit gay marriage, and started handing out marriage licenses, and thus increased the suffering of the gay people today now that Prop 8 has passed.
"You'll have to refresh my memory about 1954, and I assume 1967 was some major Civil Rights event. And what was in 1896?"
You should be ashamed of yourself. This is my last post to you, as you're not worth talking to.
The MAJORITY WAS WRONG in 1896, and in 1954, and in 1967. If wed let the majority decide what was "moral," black people would still be going to separate schools, bullied from the voting booth, and treated as lesser human beings.
Ashamed for not knowing some obscure little thing? I asked a pointed and civilized question, if you really want to come to some sort of understanding between us, then inform me. If not, then you have no right to post anything at all.
I profoundly disagree with your view, but you seem fairly nice, so I will be as polite as possible.
First of all, yes, it was weird, but it was a metaphor; an accurate one.
Secondly, who's "definition" are you speaking of? Who "defined" marriage? You do realize the "definition" of marriage you're proposing is nothing more than a myth, right?
Have you ever examined your myths... excuse me, your beliefs? Are your beliefs worth denigrating your fellow human beings?
Your definition of polite might need examining, as you label our beliefs mythical, like the winged horse.
Across the world, in all ages, among all peoples, and all religions, marriage has been defined as one thing: the union of a man and a woman. While the institution has often been abused, this has still remained "marriage."
We are not "denigrating" our fellow humans. We are merely opposing the alteration of the institution that is the foundation of all human civilization.
What is civilization, if not the interaction of humans as a group?
What is the first group a human enters at birth, if not the family?
Is not the family the building block of society?
And how are families made, if not marriage and child-rearing?
Yes, of course, people can come together and form close, family-like bonds, but that's only if they live long enough. So, who protects the individual as they grow and mature, if not the family?
As for how mythical or factual my beliefs are, I take a page from my mother's book in this case.
She was challenged to prove that God appeared to a prophet. Her answer: sure, just as soon as you prove that He didn't.
I do not need to preach at you in order to know my own beliefs. I highly doubt that you would benefit from it either. But if you want to call my beliefs mythical, I must ask, with all due respect...have you any idea of what I believe, or do you bash something without knowing it?
Do I agree with everything she said? No, however I have chosen to engage her in discussion because she has presented herself with dignity. I'm defending her right to diplomatically express her feelings & beliefs in a public forum with out retaliation, not her support of Prop 8. It's called the "First Amendment".
I just wasted 51 seconds of my life watching a complete ignoramus who doesn't know anything about what she's trying to say. Thanks for that, Ahwri. Suggestion: Wikipedia "marriage" before doing something like that again. You might not make as much of an ass of yourself as you did this time around :)
OMG's!!! Best wording of that thesis, ever! As I've been saying through out many of my comments animals have displayed homosexual behavior, just like humans.
True. Animals do display homosexual behavior. You'll have to forgive me, however, if the thought of humans becoming like beasts does not appeal to me.
The more social animals behave much like humans. They organize into social groups, form hierarchies, work to support the society, will defend the group from intruders, etc.
Humans ARE animals or as Bill Hicks put it "viruses with shoes". LOL
Ok, getting serious again. We are as much an animal as a hyena, wolf, orangutan, kangaroo or any social mammal.
I like animals. They can do such cool things, and on occasion they display behavior that humans would call noble. (ex: a male tiger will wait for hours to feed on a kill in order to ensure that his mate and cubs have enough to eat)
But is there no difference between man and beast? Is there nothing that separates us?
Now wait a sec. I said "animal", not "beast". Define a beast.
We are a species of animal with language, tool use & critical analysis. Every social interaction we have is derived from simple & primal instincts.
Not that there is anything wrong with that but more people need to wake & realize that we have become a zit on the but of nature. At least beasts are driven by need instead of want.
I'll not dispute that, biologically-speaking, we are similar enough to animals to be classified in the same scientific kingdom. Neither will I deny that we have instincts. But beasts have ONLY their instincts. They are nothing but instinct. These instincts may direct actions that, among humans, would be considered noble and compassionate, but these are simply what beasts do. Humans, on the other hand, have so much more potential, both for good and evil.
We can control our instincts, resist our urges. Beasts cannot. The only conflict a beast has is when two instincts collide. But humans can look at what they would choose and see the consequences beforehand. We can suppress our anger, our hate, our fear. We can heal our enemies, which I've never heard of a beast doing (though I might be wrong on that count). We can speak of honor and have a hundred definitions between us. We can reason. We can overcome base instinct for the greater good.
Nice one. Anyways, if we are able to see the consequences of our action what are they in the case of Prop 8? Why should something be illegal if it doesn't harm anyone & benefits thousands of tax paying citizens? If you could make illegal something that kills thousands of people a year, would you do it?
I have already thought long and hard about this. Have you? Answer these questions:
Is the female black widow spider, who eats her own husband, less beastly than the firefighter who rescues a child from a burning building?
Are savage hyenas, and the lion who steals their meal, less beastly than a humanitarian organization?
Are wolves, renowned for "loyalty" but fully capable of turning the pack against one of their own, less beastly than soldiers who defend each other's lives even unto death?
Oh, yes, humans can be very monstrous at times. But that is the essence of bestiality, not humanity. Animals do whatever they do out of instinct, but humans make a conscious choice to do whatever it is that they do. This gives us great potential, much greater than that of animals. But this potential is not limited to "we can be as bad and worse." It includes, "we can be better, do better, act better." I don't deny, humans CAN be as beastly as animals, but don't you dare say we are all worse.
"Their way is not the best way, so obviously there is something wrong with them that we must fix."
Difference between bestiality and homosexuality is that a LARGE majority of society believes bestiality is wrong but only a SMALL majority (2% over half) believe homosexuality is wrong.
I do not approve of homosexuality, but I also do not approve of alcohol or tobacco, things that are harmful to both individuals and society. Why are they not illegal?
lol
GohModley 3 months ago
The "Home Invasion" commercial is just as overkill as the "Yes on 8" Ads!
macrent2 4 months ago
The definition of mairage has been changed before to accomidate mairage between races. What is wrong with changing it to accomidate us? It saddens me that I still have to try to prove myself to you people. I hate that I still have to plead with you for the right to marry who I love. I havn't tried to take away your right to marry a man. Why campaigne to take away my right to marry my girlfriend?
JarvisComics 5 months ago
All American Girl, YOU get over it. Your opinion about my rights as an American are worth less than my cat's litter box. We will get the right to have my marriage accepted everywhere, in spite of whatever nonsense you post on You Tube. You and your ilk will be remembered much as George C. Wallace.
RickyThePsychic 7 months ago
Bigots beware and get over it. There IS going to be equality in this country. It is not a matter of for the church, Salt Lake, Rome wherever to decide. The arrogance and absolute IGNORANCE of anyone tying to define my definition of family and marriage would make me sad, if it didn't ane. I left the LDS church because of the bias, and yes HATE. My family and faith are stronger than ever. If you are opposed to gay marriage then don't have one, and keep your hate at YOUR home.
RickyThePsychic 8 months ago
when you claim that rights arent being taken away with prop 8
you obviously dont know what your talking about
idaman12345 1 year ago
@idaman12345 umm, the right to marry.
iLikeBondage69 1 year ago
Well, I'M glad that Prop 8 was overturned. :)
KyleLovesVideos 1 year ago
@KyleLovesVideos Well I'm glad it's taking forever to appeal
mikeyrobins022585 9 months ago
Hun i would like to break ur neck.. u seem homophobic... yup def.. i so wana break ur neck. lolz i wana see you dead bitch... no rights taken away? are you mental?? gays wont have the rights... you see rights we wnt have our rights to marry who we want.
thenewkeg10609 1 year ago
Who decided the definition of marriage? Tell me where it is defined because I'd like to see it.
homestarsgurl 1 year ago
The issue of gay marriage was never a rights issue but a moral issue.
waterplo12 1 year ago
You can have your opinion... but, seriously, before criticizing the Vote No on Prop 8 videos, you should take a look at the Vote Yes on Prop 8 videos... using children to advertise their campaign... shame on them!
UBAmandaFan2 1 year ago
Actually there are a lot more rights and privileges than just changing your name. Like pension benefits and social security, hospital visitation, power of attorney, power of estate, etc. Those rights were given and Yes the Mormon church was politically sponsoring to take those rights away. yeah it was dramatic but just as dramatic as NOM's gay storm ad. Or Yes on Prop 8 ads with children in them, And Prop 8 ads like the College Students ad. Or the Prop 8 Teacher being punished ads and so on
TMBrd89 1 year ago
Your glad that prop 8 passed? ARe you an idiot!? That is basically saying, oh, I'm glad that discrimination got writen into the constitution. That is wrong!
Hairsprayxoxoful 2 years ago
@Hairsprayxoxoful You are presupposing that gay marriage is a rights issue instead of a moral issue.
waterplo12 1 year ago
@Hairsprayxoxoful It's not discrimination, it's about protecting what marriage really is.
mikeyrobins022585 9 months ago
@mikeyrobins022585 No. Marriage is when two people (regardless of gender) fall in love with each other, and get married.
Hairsprayxoxoful 9 months ago
@Hairsprayxoxoful Where did you find that? For centuries it's always been between a man and a woman. I don't know why you gays think you can change that. You may be religious or not, but it is wrong.
mikeyrobins022585 9 months ago
@mikeyrobins022585 I am not gay nor super religious. Yes, marriage has (legally) been between a man and women for centuries, but that doesn't mean that that is okay (I'm not saying straight people can't g et married, they can). The bottom line is that marriage is about love. You can argue with me, but the fact is that there are far more accepting and sane people than homophobic people like you. So deal with it!
Hairsprayxoxoful 9 months ago
@Hairsprayxoxoful That's fine. You have your opinions too. I don't hate gays and lesbians at all. I just don't want them changing the definition of marriage. I'm fine with them having civil unions, but not marriage.
mikeyrobins022585 9 months ago
@mikeyrobins022585 you just don't want them having equal rights yeah that's not hating them
idaman12345 9 months ago
@mikeyrobins022585 who are you trying to fool?
It is discrimination
idaman12345 9 months ago
@idaman12345 I'm not trying to fool anyone. There's a reason why 45 states and many countries throughout the world don't allow gay marriage. Protecting an institution is not discrimination, higher courts have ruled on that in the past.
mikeyrobins022585 9 months ago
It's truly amazing how many have spoke out against God's word, Basically stating that Good is bad, and Bad is good. Isn't that one of the signs of the times? Hey, Loved your comment and it feels like we are in the minority here, but what can I say, other than thank you for your wonderful comments. Have a wonderful life!
californiaskyhawk 2 years ago
@californiaskyhawk Well, you are clearly ignorant and naive. If I say any more, I may say some things that will insult you pretty bad.
Hairsprayxoxoful 9 months ago
God, I hate Mormons. Please help me not to hate them and to anger you, but I can't stand the sight of them. Help me get passed it. They are the scum of the Earth in my opinion and I can't wait until the final day when you send them to hell.
Amen to that!
sweetgothicrevenge 2 years ago
what a bitch! "no rights are being taken away"
You disgust me, that's just.. no... just no...
DaFawky 2 years ago
gays cant marry anymore. SOMETHINGS obviously been taken away. who cares what you call it but its changed, and for worse
MomntrySilence 2 years ago
Also I find it interesting how it was mormons also fought tooth and nail to prevent interracial marriages, and they also fought hard against women equality and are credited with defeating the Equal Rights Amendment. Odd how it's the same players fighting once again force their religious bigotry onto others. If churches want to act like PAC's then I believe they should be taxed like one.
ckunzler 2 years ago
How was it not taking away rights? Gays could marry in CA, and now they can't thanks to bigoted lies like this. It is also forcing your religion onto others. Not all churches teach that marriage is only for straight folks. Why should one persons religious beliefs trump another? If you don't believe in gay marriage, don't have one.
ckunzler 2 years ago
i did not agree with u YOU ARE WRONG
geektastic8 2 years ago
THERE ARE TOO RIGHTS BEING TAKEN AWAY! if two people are in love, they should be able to get married. my dad is a man and he is married to a man and they love each other very much, and now people wanna take that away like we arent a real family. we dont just barge into your home and tell u how to live your life and who you can and can not marry. bigot.
geektastic8 2 years ago
What if five people are in love? Or are we setting a double standard here?
utahgirl91 2 years ago
Comment removed
utahgirl91 2 years ago
@utahgirl91 Assuming you're LDS, it's ironic you should shed such a negative light on the concept of polygamy, lol. Perhaps polygamy, which is based more in religion than physiology, WILL be legal in the future. However, to be clear, sexual orientation is not a choice. Trying to change sexual orientation leads to much heatache and, more often than not, failed marriages. Allowing homosexuals to marry and adopt would help provide loving homes for the 2/3 of ignored children available for adoption.
danielsir 1 year ago
Also, in case you are under the impression that homosexual couples are somehow not as fit to act as parents than heterosexual couples or that having gay parents would affect the sexual identities of children, keep in mind that millions of normal children in the U.S. already have homosexual parents, and studies have shown that children's sexual identity is not affected by the parents being gay (or straight for that matter).
danielsir 1 year ago
@danielsir yeah ur so right. i am being raised by straight parents and damn i turned out gay.
thenewkeg10609 1 year ago
ok... you call THAT video exageration..... have you even seen the yes on prop 8 ads?????? they make it look like gays ruin everybody's lives!!!! and yea you actually are taking rights away from us. in a civil union, if a partner is in the hospital there is a good chance we might not even get to visit them, we can't pay taxes the same way, and there are MANY more rights that we can't have! look it up on google if you can't figure it out on yourself.
buenfiesta82 2 years ago
Buen:
I would support equal tax laws, hospital visits etc. What I cannot support is the definition of marriage changed to suit your purposes. I am not stating you should not be equal....your relationship is by its very nature different from mine and so it should be referred to differently. Different does not =inequality.
djwright44 2 years ago
do you realize that you are saying the EXACT same thing people used to say against blacks getting married with whites? nowadays people would think it's stupid to take marriage rights away form blacks.. because we've "moved on" from that. obviously we havn't be cause you don't see that not letting someone get married to who they want to is hurting people just as much as it used to.
buenfiesta82 2 years ago
Well, if you want to relate the 2, that's fine. But they are completely different. They were not requesting that they redefine marriage between one man and one woman. The 2 issues are not linked....it is not the equivalent to a civil rights issue faced back in the 50s/60s.
djwright44 2 years ago
whatever. i'm just trying to point out the fact that it's stupid I have to have people vote on who I can marry. I don't like the idea that people are telling me I am not loving someone the same way anyone else is.
buenfiesta82 2 years ago
I am not telling anyone who they can or cannot love, who they can or cannot sleep with....that is none of my business. What is my business however is preserving the definition of marriage and I will fight for that, as it is my right and you will fight for your position, as is your right. Should you win down the road, I won't go in front of your homes screaming for justice and being a hate-monger however as was clearly the case with the temple protesters.
djwright44 2 years ago
so true! prop 8 is ridiculous and unnecessary. so what? a man loves a man and a woman loves a woman. that doesnt affect other peoples lives, but taking away their right to vote is changing their lives. and it is so disgusting that they use the BIBLE to back up their claims. the Bible was not created as a weapon of hate and discrimination. and if God thought it was so wrong for people to be gay, why would there be gays? like my dad says, "God made me, and God doesn't make trash"
geektastic8 2 years ago
glad to see someone agrees with me. lol ^^
buenfiesta82 2 years ago
God did not make gay people gay. Just like god does not make liars, thieves, rapists, or murderers. Neither does he make people kind, honest, gentle, humble, strong, or heroic. People make themselves whatever they choose to be.
okamitora3 2 years ago
man consider the source! The bible, ok. Tell me this, how can you let a primative book of hate and vengful god control your lif? Maybe you should turn from the psyco god of the desert and find something else to worship. Hell try a pet rock, It's all going to lead you to the same place... NO WHERE
sweetgothicrevenge 2 years ago
Have you even read the Bible? Have you read any of it? AND left it in context? We are commanded to love each other, are we not? By the same god who suffered agony for us, right? And you call that a god of hate?
okamitora3 2 years ago
Amen brother. So I take it you voted no on prop 8? If so good for you. I admire you.
sweetgothicrevenge 2 years ago
Why is this no longer available? Youtube censorship?
PersonGuyDude1212 2 years ago
i agree w/ you on no rights taken away. and i'm also glad prop 8 passed. :) but as a feminist i wan't to say that married women often choose to keep their name or opt for a highthin for themselves and sometimes their children ( if they choose to reproduce) and that they should be encouraged to make there own decition and not be swayed one way or the other. p.s. home invation was hillarious. i added it to my fav.'s for a good laugh. :)
bluemoon014 2 years ago
I feel if our church put up the money through tithes and offerings I would totally agree with it. But they did not. It was the members. I think it was good we were able raise all that money. Now marriage is restored in California. THANK GOD!!!
healthnbeauty1 3 years ago
Ahwri,
There are a few Mormons-and some gay ones who feel that the church should have stayed out of Prop. 8. I disagree with it. How do you feel about it?
By the way, please continue to pray for Massachussetts and Connecticut.
healthnbeauty1 3 years ago
I think it's fair for the Church to recommend action. That's all the first presidency did! If the Church had used tithing funds and such to fund the effort, then I would be disapproving, but all the money came from individuals, so I find nothing wrong with it. It makes me confused that so many people are upset about that--plenty of groups make their wishes known to government officials (lobbying), so what's wrong with a group making its wishes known to its own members? Nothing :)!
Ahwri 3 years ago
The money was not all from individuals. The LDS have admitted to giving funds and, more importantly, "in-kind" donations worth nearly a million dollars. This is huge (ask anyone who writes grants about the importance of such contributions). They free up other money, provide physical facilities that cannot be built in time, provide professional leadership and skills that could not be purchased or would be very expensive. The LDS entered politics to discriminate. They must suffer the backlash.
potmanky 3 years ago
No, we entered politics to defend out beliefs, the family, sacred marriage, and civilization, even in the face of adversity.
okamitora 3 years ago
Who threatened your personal beliefs? You're free to believe what you want. Who threatened your marriage? It's no less sacred because someone else has it. Who threatens civilization? Religions who war with one another to impose their beliefs on others, to insist everyone believe as they do or vanish, who hold beliefs saying, "My God thinks its a good idea for me to hurt you now." If being disagreed with is adversity, you have it aplenty. But you stole rights. It's wrong.
potmanky 3 years ago
you say "it(prop 8) doesn't take anyones rights away"
You mean except: heritance, tax, insurance, hospital visitation, custody of children, rights. So in your world view, it's acceptable to take those rights away for minority groups because they're not real people anyway.
cgcsb 3 years ago
No, it does not take any rights away, and don't you dare start spouting about "real people." We know homosexuals are real people, more than you. If gay people want those government benefits, which are not the same as rights, then they are welcome to them, but marriage is between a man and a woman, and we stand up for that time-honored definition of that institution which is civilization's foundation.
okamitora 3 years ago
You know gay people better than I do? that's not possible, I am gay.Maybe you should re read what you said "If gay people want those government benefits, which are not the same as rights, then they are welcome to them," and then "but marriage is between a man and a woman". Contradiction much? News flash marriage is by far older than christianity, so is same sex marriage. You can't force the christian defenition onto other cultures. i.e. a man buying a woman slave of the same race as himself
cgcsb 3 years ago
I feel it would be best to allow the federal benefits to everyone, the state benefits are already allowed in CA. Tying those benefits exclusively to marriage is what the problem is here. With that changed, both sides could be happy! Why do same-sex couples need the sanction of government to be together? If heterosexual marriage was for some reason banned, I'd still get married, it just wouldn't be recognized by government. Marriage is more than a certificate. What do you think?
Ahwri 3 years ago
I didn't say I know gay people better. I merely refuted your claim that we don't see gay people as people.
As Awhri says, Federal benefits are one thing, and if any of these are denied in civil unions, then go ahead and amend civil unions to have those benefits. But marriage, which has always been between a man and a woman, needs to remain that way for reasons both religious and non-religious. I'm not forcing a Christian definition, I'm defending the ancient, original definition.
okamitora 3 years ago
marriage has not always been between a man and a woman, in pre christian Greek and Rome there were same sex marriages and marriage between more than two people. If you defend that 'ancient' definition, then you must also agree that a man buys a wife from her father, women are property, divorce should be illegal, and marriage can only be between two people of the same race. Also there are no non-religious arguements against same sex marriage
cgcsb 3 years ago 2
Firstly, there have been deviations from the definition of marriage, but it has never been the usual thing.
Secondly, you're not talking about marriage, you're talking about the unique customs of arranging marriage in various cultures. There's a difference.
Third, there are several non-religious arguments against same-sex marriage. Example: would you argue that the family is the foundation of our civilization, and marriage is the foundation of the family? Change marriage, good-bye civilization.
okamitora 3 years ago
yes and interacial ,arriage never used to be the usual thing either nor was women who chose not to be bare foot and pregnant in the kitchen all day. That is a non arguement right wing scare tactics say that gay marraige will cause the world to end. Bull crap. How would it cause anythig of the sort places that already have it for many years are just fine. Yes the family is the building block of civilisation which is why families need their rights.
cgcsb 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It's about hating gays more than caring for unwanted children.
It's about inflicting pain and suffering just because you can.
It's about making people's lives miserable with no gain for anyone.
It's about feeling superior and controling others.
It's a fight against equality, and YOU will lose that fight. Equality is coming, with or without the support of faith-based bigots.
Slavery was wrong, segreagtion was wrong, unfair treatment of gays is wrong. Don't blame God, it's YOU!
thursdaysrecords 3 years ago
you are so shallow to be glad that prop 8 passed. when you vote yes on prop 8, do you have any idea how many people you hurt? people like you are so closed minded and not willing to change anything, you should be ashamed of yourself
leeny11 3 years ago
We know very well how many people were hurt. That's the price of any conflict, no matter who wins, both sides pay the price. It is a heavy price, but sometimes it just needs to be paid for the sake of what is morally right and true.
Perhaps it is you who are closed-minded, refusing to accept any view that conflicts with your own.
okamitora 3 years ago
Thanks for your words! I've watched plenty of videos with different opinions than my own, but I don't feel that they are close-minded for not agreeing with me :)
Ahwri 3 years ago
You're welcome! :)
okamitora 3 years ago
I'd have to disagree with your video for a couple reasons. I don't think it was very exaggerated. If you look at the contributions the LDS Church has made to support the proposition, it would be somewhat of an invasion of a person's home and their right to interpersonal private activities. They are based outside of California and to raise funds for the sake of furthering their beliefs onto a large group of people is forcing what they want on people they should not be able to control.
MidoriSkyJT 3 years ago
I find your argument very rational and cool-headed. I appreciate your input ;), and I promise not to ever use age anyone's age against them--goodness knows, it's happened to me! The only thing I can disagree with is to say that the Church itself donated nothing--all the contributions came from individuals. There were also individuals outside of CA who contributed to the No on Prop 8 campaign. I suppose that would even it all out! Thanks again for watching, Happy New Year!
Ahwri 3 years ago
how is it fair that people from utah donated for a california ballot with the encouragement of a church? dont you believe in seperation between church and state? and the "definition" of marriage doesnt even have to apply to people, its the joining of two things. your religions definition of marriage is between a man and a woman, so then again i would argue a seperation between church and state. thank you
ryanallen333 3 years ago
Separation of church and state just means that the government does not lie in the hands of any religious body. It does not exclude people from acting in accordance to their religious beliefs. It is fair because the law in question was to have an effect on all of us, the entire country, our civilization. You think it's unfair for people one state over to take an interest in that?
okamitora 3 years ago
People donate to things outside their state boundaries all the time :). I donated to Wikipedia just last month!
Lobbyists go to extraordinary measures to get their views across, while all that Thomas Monson did was vocally ask for CA members' help. Some Mormons did support prop 8, some didn't.
Mostly, I just want to say thanks for watching :), and don't feel like you have to get the government's permission to get married--marriage is more than a certificate, Ryan, it's like you said: a joining.
Ahwri 3 years ago
Not so much, my friend. Remember, gay marriages were only performed in the first place because one man, a judge, overruled the voice of the people who had already voted against gay marriage. This second time around, the price of the vote was a bit higher, people hurt on both sides, and on our side I refer to the Mormons who are now harassed in CA. But really, a proposition such as this would affect our whole nation and society. I say we had an equal stake in it as Californians did.
okamitora 3 years ago
Is it just me? Or did the home invasion video have a little bit of a fascist element in it?
PrinceofGaul 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is the double standard ot these pro-Gay/pro-Liberal Holywood agenda. When Gore won the popular vote (meaning by majority), they were mad and they even wanted a COnstitutional amendment to do away with the Electoral College. Now that the MAJORITY of Californians, Mormons and non-mormons voted for Prop 8, they want to repel the popular vote. Please make up your mind people.
alexgomez2 3 years ago
all homosexuls must be kill like in my country
bibleistruth58 3 years ago
What country are you from?
okamitora 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
screw you, whore.
isabellafromnyc 3 years ago
Well I'm sorry to say this but if there is no national same sex union, not allowing gay couples to marry is taking away rights. They can't receive certain federal benifits and can't take their marriage to other states. Perhaps it would be more productive of you yes on 8ers to put your energy into making some sort of institution like that for gay couples and they might not be pushing so hard. If traditional marriage needs be different call them traditional marriage and 'blank' marriage.
mathmexican4234 3 years ago
yes sweet pea rights where taken away..look at that B.S. your lovely church put out ...
nico772005 3 years ago
And what B.S. would that be "sweet pea"?
okamitora 3 years ago
What everyone says about what Morons do to their daughters ...plus that remarkable story about how man = manhood and underwear all go together...
nico772005 3 years ago
With all due respect, I'm afraid you've lost me. What does "everyone say about what Morons do to their daughters"? And which remarkable story you refer to?
okamitora 3 years ago
I would rather have consentual Gay marriage than the threating of teenage girls into polygamous marriages that the early Mormon prophets/leaders like Brigham Young were purpotrating.
Threatening HEll to young girls to obey and marry old men polygamously is not my definition of marriage. Its more like rape.
We see this early LDS tradition still being practiced amongst Warren Jeffs's Mormon church.
ElderJoseph 3 years ago
Firstly, that was NOT practiced by the original Mormon Church.
Second, the practice of plural marriage was ended over a century ago. But some fanatics broke off and proceeded to continuer, abuse, pervert, etc. the practice. That is the origin of Warren Jeff's church. They are a splinter group of fanatics.
okamitora 3 years ago
Brigham Young - Journal Of Discourses VOL 17 page 159
'the revelation concerning celestial marriage, '''''' I say that if you imbibe that spirit and feeling, YOU WILL GO TO HELL, just as sure as you are living women''''YOU SISTERS MAY SAY THAT PLURAL MARRIAGE IS VERY HARD FOR YOU TO BEAR'
ElderJoseph 3 years ago
There is the quote which shows that Brigham Young threatened the firls with HELL.
This was the culture at the time. Women were given like a commodity to those Priesthood Leaders who OBEYED the cult leader.
ElderJoseph 3 years ago
No, not a cult.
No, they were not threatened with Hell.
No, I am certain he did not say that.
If he said those words, ever, I imagine you are taking them from completely different places and also out of context.
No, women were not treated as a commodity. Ever.
okamitora 3 years ago
okamitora
Then please check the quote. I had to shorten and cut it to fit in the box. Please read the whole thing for yourself.
When LDS Apostles are marrying and conceiving with 16 year olds polygamously at ages 57 like Orson Pratt did then its worth looking into. You may find the link with Warren Jeffs very appropriate.
How else can old men get teen girls to concieve with them unless they are threatened. I call it rape.
ElderJoseph 3 years ago
Elder Joseph. I was going to give you fact and truth about my beliefs, as I thus far have. But I have visited your channel, and have someething else to say.
You are a liar, an anti-mormon who is deliberately twisting both words and meanings from the prophets of God. What your motive is, I cannot say. But you are being very disrespectful of my friends and I, as well as our beliefs. You do not seek understanding, only the spread of hatred. You have no right to post here on my friend's video.
okamitora 3 years ago
okamitora There are NO FACTS or truth about your beliefs.
Tell me what are my lies?
Its no good just stringing such dramatic words together without identifying what you claim are my lies.
Why should I respect the beliefs of a church which claims that its ok for old men to threaten HELL to teen girls and force them into polygamous marriages with OLD men.
Or why should I respect a church which decieved me for two years with its bogus incomplete version of historical events.
ElderJoseph 3 years ago
Ah-hah! And that reveals your motive. You're just blaming the church for your own weaknesses, your own failures!
Never was a woman in the original Mormon church threatened with Hell. MEN were warned that they would go to Hell if they did not fulfill their duties as a husband. And the quote you twisted, as I read it, indicates that the danger is in fighting God's revelations (including the one that ended plural marriage, which gave rise to the fanatics who DO threaten girls with Hell).
okamitora 3 years ago
Brigham Young JOD 17:159
'concerning celestial marriage, and I want to say to my sisters that if you lift you heels against this revelation, ... I say that if you imbibe that spirit and feeling, YOU WILL GO TO HELL, just as sure as you are living women....BUT IT IS NOT THE PRIVILEGE OF A WOMAN TO DICTATE THE HUSBAND, AND TELL WHO OR HOW MANY HE SHALL TAKE,'
ElderJoseph 3 years ago
And you deliberately find clips of Mormon leaders and, with no evidence, declare them to be liars. All because you're sore about some past offense, am I right?
There is much truth, and many facts, about my beliefs. If you doubt this...well then, shall we see if we believe anything similar to each other? Tell me, what is it you believe in? Besides hatred, I mean.
okamitora 3 years ago
okamitora I've posted the section of Journal Of Discourses where Brigham Young threatens women with Hell over Polygamy.
It's volume 17 page 159
Why don't you take a read yourself.
It will also help you understand where Warren Jeffs gets his polygamy teaching and practice from.
Yes I hate people who ABUSE women in this way.
But you I love very much, you are just a victim of the church's deception.
ElderJoseph 3 years ago
I did read it, and you are twisting it even as you write.
I love you too. Just a victim of anti-mormon propaganda. But also one so hurt that you imbibe the spirit of hatred and contention and join with your enemies.
okamitora 3 years ago
okamitor What is the twist? Did Brigham Young threaten the early LDS girls with HELL or not over resisiting Polygamy and wanting it done away with?
How can it be AntiMormon.Its from your own church leaders and publications.
I'm not contending. I'm just asking why were they threatened with HELL?
ElderJoseph 3 years ago
Were they really threatened with Hell for resisting plural marriage itself? That was not the feeling I gained from reading the same text. No, I see Brigham Young not threatening, but delivering a warning, the essence of which is this: do not fight the revelations of God, especially when you already know that they come from God. (tbc...)
okamitora 3 years ago
okamitora You are trying to soften and justify such hideous behaviour.
What kind of concsience do you have?
God did not want this cruelty. Your church leaders like Brigahm Young were trying to justify Slavery as Divine as well. Its ridiculous. If they were Jesus Representatives then they would not forced Polygamy or justified slavery or even the total blunder and discrimination about blacks and priesthood.
Its not a restoration but an awful blunder where lots of people suffered.
ElderJoseph 3 years ago
No, I'm just addressing your accusations, that is all. (speaking of which, they did not support slavery, ever, or inequality, ever, but that's a separate discussion)
No one...not one single person in the entirety of the Mormon's church's history, was forced or intimidated or anything else into any sort of marriage whatsoever. They. All. Chose. It. Period.
Warren Jeff's group, as I have said before, was a splinter group that refused to cease the practice and THEN began to force and intimidate.
okamitora 3 years ago
Brigham Young Journal of Discourses, Vol. 10, page 250
HAM WILL CONTINUE TO BE THE SERVANT OF SERVANTS, AS THE LORD HAS DECREED, UNTIL THE CURSE IS REMOVED. WILL THE PRESENT STRUGGLE FREE THE SLAVE? NO; ............ Treat the slaves kindly and let them live, FOR HAM MUST BE THE SERVANT OF SERVANTS UNTIL THE CURSE IS REMOVED. CAN YOU DESTROY THE DECREES OF THE ALMIGHTY? YOU CANNOT.
ElderJoseph 3 years ago
Considering that the Mormons were driven from Missouri partially because they were abolitionist, I am fairly certain Brigham Young was not promoting slavery. It is much more likely (and I say "likely" because I have not yet read that discourse and therefore cannot give a complete interpretation of it) that he was foretelling the continuation of slavery for the present time, until they were eventually freed. (Some reading soon to be done)
okamitora 3 years ago
LDS Apostle Mark E Peterson 1954
IN SPITE OF ALL HE DID IN THE PRE-EXISTENT LIFE, the Lord is willing, if the Negro accepts the gospel with real, sincere faith, and is really converted, to give him the blessings of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there AS A SERVANT, but he will get celestial glory.
ElderJoseph 3 years ago
Okamitora you said" Warren Jeff's group, as I have said before, was a splinter group that refused to cease the practice and THEN began to force and intimidate. "
But if you ask those members about him, they all have Testimonies that he is the real prophet and that their church is true.
They will even testify this to you 'without a shadow of a doubt' :))
ElderJoseph 3 years ago
Very well, then. I ask how they know it.
okamitora 3 years ago
This warning includes those who KNEW the revelation of plural marriage came from God, and fought against it. And those who KNEW that the revelation to cease its practice came from God, and fell away (ie: Warren Jeff's predecessors). Also, those who left the church when blacks were given the priesthood, and others who left and fought the church over similar issues.
okamitora 3 years ago
JOD VOL 9 page 37 Brigham Young - Young girls given in marriage to Old Men-
"How will you be happy? Love the Giver more than the gift. Delight yourselves in your duties, mothers. HERE ARE THE MIDDLE-AGED AND THE YOUNG. I AM NOW ALMOST DAILY SEALING YOUNG GIRLS TO MEN OF AGE AND EXPERIENCE. Love your duties, sisters. Are you sealed to a good man?"
ElderJoseph 3 years ago
Alright, I ask a question: is it automatically perverse if an old man is attracted to a young woman? Or if an old woman is attracted to a young man? Or vice versa? We have that sort of thing today, of course, and I grant it baffles me some. But in my experience it isn't AUTOMATICALLY perverse. Genuine feelings can and do arise. Why not then as much as now?
(though I am still partially with you on that count...it completely confuses me)
okamitora 3 years ago
okamitoro
I don't think those young teens and young girls were attracted to very old men and into polygamous arranged mariages, In fact I am 100% certain they were not,
This behaviour Of Brigham Young and others is no different from Warren Jeffs.
ElderJoseph 3 years ago
You keep saying "young teens and young girls" and "very old men." Have you counted how often this occurred? You seem to believe that they waited until they were old and then selected their new wives solely from a population of teenagers. Not true, not even in the case of Orson Pratt, whom you mentioned. I'm not saying I understand one thing about it (it can be very baffling), but you seem to keep confusing today's version of the practice with the practice as it stood over a century ago.
okamitora 3 years ago
They were marrying younger girls all the time and the older they got the younger they became as well.
Its totally ridiculous to claim that Jesus of The New Testament was behind and in full approval to all this. If people knew this is what LDS missionaries came to testify of as part a restoration then more of them would get thumped.Luckily most of them don't themselves.
ElderJoseph 3 years ago
You cited one case and one case alone, and careful observation of that case reveals that it seems to have been exaggerated into multiple events.
I believe that, yes, Jesus of the New Testament was behind and in full approval of this FOR HIS OWN REASONS. I can't claim to fully understand it, but I have a personal testimony that both the revelation to begin and to end plural marriage came from the exact same source: God, through his prophets.
okamitora 3 years ago
okamoitora
Your personal testimony is not anymore reliable or convincing than serial Killer Peter Sutcliffes Testimony that God ordered him to kill local prostite girls many years back in my area.
Its no more reliable than the testimonies of Warren Jeffs's followers.
The Law helped stop LDS polygamy thankfully and threat of not being accepted as a state did the final trick.
Society will not accept barbaric practices in the name of God. Blacks given Priesthood was society again:)
ElderJoseph 3 years ago
Ah, see, thing is, the law and statehood had no bearing in the matter. It was a revelation from God to end the practice. How do I know this? Because the prophet who received it declared that he would have endured all manner of persecution for it had the Lord not said, "End it."
okamitora 3 years ago
Same with blacks and the priesthood. There WAS a black priest back in the early days of the church, but for some reason (and I am not absolving the Mormon people from guilt here) the Lord held off on his declaration until HE felt the time was right. See, God's church changes as HE wills it to change, not according to the whims of society.
okamitora 3 years ago
Besides which, you didn't answer my question: is it innately, automatically, irreversibly, inescapably perverse for older and younger people to be attracted to another and have a relationship together?
Hypothetical situation: if a source you trusted to be divine told you that it was your responsibility to do something, would you do it? No matter what it was? However sick it made you to your stomach? Would you kill a nation? Have more than one wife? Deceive someone? (all from the Bible)
okamitora 3 years ago
okamitora In my area many years ago we had a serial killer. He knew god told him to kill local girls. So why did we jail him then?
The way you are using the Old Testament to justify horrific injustices of the LDS past is scary and very irresponsible. I'm concerned you will go that length to justify things.
Thats exactly the excuse all cult leaders will give to their followers for blind obedience to things they know are wrong.
ElderJoseph 3 years ago
Again, you do not answer my question. I am not asking about me, I am asking about you. What would you do if a source that YOU trusted to be divine gave you an order you did not like?
With the after-comment, I'm showing that there are things which people do not like but had to be done, sometimes for reasons we do not fully understand.
okamitora 3 years ago
okamitora There are many things I don't like about what Jesus orders, but he never asked me to kill, or to take another mans wife, or to take my fellow members daughters into polygamous marriages. he never asked mt to decieve anyone for his behalf either.
This is a stramnge question you are asking. You have a strange concept of Jesus Christ. The old testament records mans failings and they are not commanded of God. Abrahams polygamy was Sarahs own mistake.
ElderJoseph 3 years ago
Abraham, Isaac, AND Jacob, friend.
By the way, no man has ever been ordered by God to take another man's wife. Unless it was to act as provider for a widow.
It's not strange at all. See, if God commanded these marriages you abhor, just as he ordered Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, and told Abraham to lie to the pharoah (sp?), and told King Saul to obliterate a kingdom, then why do you hate the people who participated in them?
okamitora 3 years ago
Brigham Young Journal Of Discourses Vol 16 p70JUNE 28, 1873 Couldnt care, Wives and Kids ?-
"and I can say truly and honestly that the thought never came into my mind, in all my labors, what my reward will be, or whether my crown would be large or small, or any crown at all, a small possession, a large possession, or no possession. I DO NOT KNOW THAT I SHALL HAVE A WIFE OR CHILD IN THE RESURRECTION. I HAVE NEVER HAD ANY THOUGHTS OR REFLECTIONS UPON THIS, OR CARED THE FIRST THING ABOUT IT."
ElderJoseph 3 years ago
Was he saying "I don't care about my family" or was he saying "I don't care what reward I do or don't get, I serve the Lord and leave Him to decide that."
okamitora 3 years ago
They weren't "expressing their beliefs" just for fun in a way I could ignore, if I chose to. They were taking away rights with a simple majority vote, deciding my future for me cuz of their hang-ups. We COULD marry someone we loved when we woke up on November 4 and by the next day, we couldn't. Gone. You did that to us, and it's time to stop calling it "moral" and being upset anyone knows via some "blacklist" that you donated to support it.
Why was this video recommended for me?
jimy9992000 3 years ago
Issue of gay marriage: which moral is higher?
Is it civil rights, aimed at obtaining the same marital benefits as provided by the government?
Or is it the sacredness of marriage, the institution, the union of man and woman, the means of bringing children into this world, the foundation of the family, which is the foundation of human civilization?
We chose what we believe to be the higher moral, though the price was very, very high.
okamitora 3 years ago
"Issue of gay marriage: which moral is higher?"
civil rights.
"...or is it the sacredness of marriage, the institution, the union of man and woman, the means of bringing children into this world..."
If marriage is "sacred," then vote to ban divorce. If marriage is and always has been between a man and a woman, explain polygamy, a practice dating back to the earliest records of our species. If marriage is a "means of bringing children into the world," then ban elderly and infertile marriages.
everygdusernametaken 3 years ago
I never said marriage hasn't already been abused. And marriage is not meant to be imprisoning, thus the allowance for divorce, though the reasons for divorce have gotten more and more superfluous these days. As I said, abuse of marriage. And marriage means spending your life together, so obviously elderly people can marry as they wish. Plus, so-called infertile married couples can adopt. But always there is a father and a mother involved with giving birth. No gay couple can ever produce a child.
okamitora 3 years ago
Dude, it's a nice gesture for you to wanna save everyone's soul (even mine), but screw you. I don't believe what you do, and you forced it on me anyway. Thanks for nothing.
Nobody waits to start making babies until marriage anymore, so that argument is baseless. And there are other cultures where "traditional" marriage does not denote the "holy union of one man and one woman." It only means that to you NOW cuz you needed to justify saying "you're not good enough" to gay and bisexual people.
jimy9992000 3 years ago
Correction:
I'm only standing for what I believe, and not letting sacred morals be trampled underfoot.
You say nobody waits to have babies. Firstly, some do, and second, that's another problem with society.
And I never said "holy" I merely said "union." I stuck with the world's definition of marriage.
I make no judgments of gay people, merely what they practice.
okamitora 3 years ago
Correction to your "correction":
You SHOULD've said "holy," then, cuz that's the only definition you have any right to decide: religious marriage. Let me get married downtown if I want!
The "world's" definition of marriage is not uniform, like I said. Polygamy is traditional in places and so is marrying relatives. Screw you for speaking for everyone all the time when your worldview is that tiny.
Judge me all you want, but don't you dare decide my future for me!
jimy9992000 3 years ago
I do not judge you.
Just because one or two tiiiiny groups of people pervert marriage, that does not give anyone else the right to do the same.
And I am not deciding your future. If two gay people want to be together, that's not my choice to make. If they want benefits as provided by the government, also not my choice to make. But if they want to change something that I feel is both sacred and essential to society as it is...then I am sorry, but I can't let you do that.
okamitora 3 years ago
ADL(continued): To place anyone in fear of threat to their houses of worship or their personal security because they have expressed deeply held religious views is contrary to everything this nation represents. Our Constitution's First Amendment protects freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of religion for all of us."
The ADL, founded in 1913, is the world's leading organization fighting anti-Semitism through programs and services that counteract hatred, prejudice and bigotry.
pangeanet 3 years ago
Anti-Defamation League issued the following statement:
"Although we strongly opposed Proposition 8, its passage does not justify the defacement and destruction of property. We urge Californians to channel their frustration and disappointment in productive and responsible ways to work towards full equality for all Americans.
pangeanet 3 years ago
shut up!
medavog 3 years ago
Fuk every godam mormon in the world.
jerrydoubleu 3 years ago
Actually, there never has been a constitutional definition of marriage - It only says that all are equal. Marriage is set outside of the constitution, and when the laws outside of the constitution banned gay marriage, then it was determined that those laws were unconstitutional (who can disagree with that? Even prop 8 yes folks agree or they wouldn't have felt the need to change the constitution). But guess what, it will likely be rejected by the courts - it needed a 2/3 legislative majority.
kf1000 3 years ago
There's never been a constitutional definition of marriage because the Founding Fathers never dreamed that this, which has remained the same for thousands of years, would need defining. The decision of one man to overrule the majority vote was unconstitutional.
okamitora 3 years ago
"There's never been a const. def. of marriage because the Founding Fathers never dreamed of this."
How the hell do you know that?
The founding fathers "never dreamed" of black men running their country, either (by the SAME logic, black men had not ruled over a nation of predominately white men, this had "remained the same for thousands of years").
Now I give our founding fathers more credit than this, and believe they did the best they could with the bigoted, primitive population they had.
everygdusernametaken 3 years ago
Actually, yes they did. They made provision for slavery to eventually end, for the "separate but equal" idea to die out, and for black men to be treated just like white men.
But they did not have the issue of gay marriage. The definition of marriage as the union between a man and a woman was universal.
Oh, and white men didn't always have their say.
okamitora 3 years ago
"The decision of one man to overrule the majority vote was unconstitutional."
I don't believe in violence, but if you said that to me in person I'd have a hard time not beating the shit out of you.
It's a good thing the "majority" didn't make the rules in 1954, or 1967.
Although they had their way in 1896, how did that turn out?
everygdusernametaken 3 years ago
You'll have to refresh my memory about 1954, and I assume 1967 was some major Civil Rights event. And what was in 1896?
I was referring to one man in San Francisco, who overruled the majority vote of California to prohibit gay marriage, and started handing out marriage licenses, and thus increased the suffering of the gay people today now that Prop 8 has passed.
okamitora 3 years ago
"You'll have to refresh my memory about 1954, and I assume 1967 was some major Civil Rights event. And what was in 1896?"
You should be ashamed of yourself. This is my last post to you, as you're not worth talking to.
The MAJORITY WAS WRONG in 1896, and in 1954, and in 1967. If wed let the majority decide what was "moral," black people would still be going to separate schools, bullied from the voting booth, and treated as lesser human beings.
Interracial marriage would still be illegal.
everygdusernametaken 3 years ago
Ashamed for not knowing some obscure little thing? I asked a pointed and civilized question, if you really want to come to some sort of understanding between us, then inform me. If not, then you have no right to post anything at all.
okamitora 3 years ago
I profoundly disagree with your view, but you seem fairly nice, so I will be as polite as possible.
First of all, yes, it was weird, but it was a metaphor; an accurate one.
Secondly, who's "definition" are you speaking of? Who "defined" marriage? You do realize the "definition" of marriage you're proposing is nothing more than a myth, right?
Have you ever examined your myths... excuse me, your beliefs? Are your beliefs worth denigrating your fellow human beings?
everygdusernametaken 3 years ago
Your definition of polite might need examining, as you label our beliefs mythical, like the winged horse.
Across the world, in all ages, among all peoples, and all religions, marriage has been defined as one thing: the union of a man and a woman. While the institution has often been abused, this has still remained "marriage."
We are not "denigrating" our fellow humans. We are merely opposing the alteration of the institution that is the foundation of all human civilization.
okamitora 3 years ago
"Your definition of polite might need examining, as you label our beliefs mythical, like the winged horse."
Okay, you're right, I am not polite.
Now, argue the case that somehow your beliefs are less "mythical" than the winged horse.
:) I look forward to the debate.
"...the institution that is the foundation of all human civilization..."
Please expand on this topic. I'd like more information from you before I respond.
everygdusernametaken 3 years ago
What is civilization, if not the interaction of humans as a group?
What is the first group a human enters at birth, if not the family?
Is not the family the building block of society?
And how are families made, if not marriage and child-rearing?
Yes, of course, people can come together and form close, family-like bonds, but that's only if they live long enough. So, who protects the individual as they grow and mature, if not the family?
okamitora 3 years ago
As for how mythical or factual my beliefs are, I take a page from my mother's book in this case.
She was challenged to prove that God appeared to a prophet. Her answer: sure, just as soon as you prove that He didn't.
I do not need to preach at you in order to know my own beliefs. I highly doubt that you would benefit from it either. But if you want to call my beliefs mythical, I must ask, with all due respect...have you any idea of what I believe, or do you bash something without knowing it?
okamitora 3 years ago
sorry I made some mistakes before proof reading
sabrinatai31 3 years ago
Gay marriage mob attacks old lady.
She was almost killed.
watch?v=hcKJEHrvwDI
SixTrey94 3 years ago
Thanks for the revelation because we all know the marriage is bout people with different genitals changing their last names
alofamo 3 years ago
C'mon. Let's not get crude.
Do I agree with everything she said? No, however I have chosen to engage her in discussion because she has presented herself with dignity. I'm defending her right to diplomatically express her feelings & beliefs in a public forum with out retaliation, not her support of Prop 8. It's called the "First Amendment".
Estrodile 3 years ago
I just wasted 51 seconds of my life watching a complete ignoramus who doesn't know anything about what she's trying to say. Thanks for that, Ahwri. Suggestion: Wikipedia "marriage" before doing something like that again. You might not make as much of an ass of yourself as you did this time around :)
littleandine 3 years ago
Let me also throw this out there real quick, with your naturalistic views:
Maybe homosexuality is humanity's response as a species to population pressure, overcrowding and overpopulation on Earth.
brainiac256 3 years ago
OMG's!!! Best wording of that thesis, ever! As I've been saying through out many of my comments animals have displayed homosexual behavior, just like humans.
Estrodile 3 years ago
True. Animals do display homosexual behavior. You'll have to forgive me, however, if the thought of humans becoming like beasts does not appeal to me.
okamitora 3 years ago
The more social animals behave much like humans. They organize into social groups, form hierarchies, work to support the society, will defend the group from intruders, etc.
Humans ARE animals or as Bill Hicks put it "viruses with shoes". LOL
Ok, getting serious again. We are as much an animal as a hyena, wolf, orangutan, kangaroo or any social mammal.
Estrodile 3 years ago
LOL, Bill Hicks, nice.
I like animals. They can do such cool things, and on occasion they display behavior that humans would call noble. (ex: a male tiger will wait for hours to feed on a kill in order to ensure that his mate and cubs have enough to eat)
But is there no difference between man and beast? Is there nothing that separates us?
okamitora 3 years ago
Thumbs, monolithic egos & debt?
Now wait a sec. I said "animal", not "beast". Define a beast.
We are a species of animal with language, tool use & critical analysis. Every social interaction we have is derived from simple & primal instincts.
Not that there is anything wrong with that but more people need to wake & realize that we have become a zit on the but of nature. At least beasts are driven by need instead of want.
Actually I think Bill said "germs" not "viruses".
Estrodile 3 years ago
I'll not dispute that, biologically-speaking, we are similar enough to animals to be classified in the same scientific kingdom. Neither will I deny that we have instincts. But beasts have ONLY their instincts. They are nothing but instinct. These instincts may direct actions that, among humans, would be considered noble and compassionate, but these are simply what beasts do. Humans, on the other hand, have so much more potential, both for good and evil.
okamitora 3 years ago
We can control our instincts, resist our urges. Beasts cannot. The only conflict a beast has is when two instincts collide. But humans can look at what they would choose and see the consequences beforehand. We can suppress our anger, our hate, our fear. We can heal our enemies, which I've never heard of a beast doing (though I might be wrong on that count). We can speak of honor and have a hundred definitions between us. We can reason. We can overcome base instinct for the greater good.
okamitora 3 years ago
Our ability to accessorize. That's about it, though.
littleandine 3 years ago
-giggle-
Nice one. Anyways, if we are able to see the consequences of our action what are they in the case of Prop 8? Why should something be illegal if it doesn't harm anyone & benefits thousands of tax paying citizens? If you could make illegal something that kills thousands of people a year, would you do it?
Estrodile 3 years ago
It's an insult to animals to suggest that humans aren't far more beastly than they could ever be. Think about it. Just a little bit.
captaincookiemonster 3 years ago
I have already thought long and hard about this. Have you? Answer these questions:
Is the female black widow spider, who eats her own husband, less beastly than the firefighter who rescues a child from a burning building?
Are savage hyenas, and the lion who steals their meal, less beastly than a humanitarian organization?
Are wolves, renowned for "loyalty" but fully capable of turning the pack against one of their own, less beastly than soldiers who defend each other's lives even unto death?
okamitora 3 years ago
Oh, yes, humans can be very monstrous at times. But that is the essence of bestiality, not humanity. Animals do whatever they do out of instinct, but humans make a conscious choice to do whatever it is that they do. This gives us great potential, much greater than that of animals. But this potential is not limited to "we can be as bad and worse." It includes, "we can be better, do better, act better." I don't deny, humans CAN be as beastly as animals, but don't you dare say we are all worse.
okamitora 3 years ago
"Their way is not the best way, so obviously there is something wrong with them that we must fix."
Difference between bestiality and homosexuality is that a LARGE majority of society believes bestiality is wrong but only a SMALL majority (2% over half) believe homosexuality is wrong.
I do not approve of homosexuality, but I also do not approve of alcohol or tobacco, things that are harmful to both individuals and society. Why are they not illegal?
brainiac256 3 years ago