CAA: Christian Anime Alliance

I came across it using StumbleUpon, and reread it several times. Once, because I didn't grasp it the first time, and a few more times for the sheer beauty of it. I don't know if it is true, but I certainly hope it is.

http://facebookhumor.com/index.php/humor/amazing-story

"My little sister came home from school one day and demanded I take her to the library so she could get books on sign language.

I asked why? She told me there was a new kid at school who was deaf and she wanted to befriend him.

Today, I stood beside her at her wedding and watched her sign, 'I do.'"

Sounds more like fanfiction, but if it's true, then that's pretty cool.

Why was this on what looks like a humor site? Oh well...

Nate (post: 1488812) wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxVyg3-3d0M

The quote is clearly implying that the little sister married the deaf kid she wanted to befriend Nate. But something tells me you're just being facetious.

I want to post this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiRuG0Ci7Io&feature=related
In hopes that it's a real story!
Because it's really sweet! And the romantic in me is smiling! ^^;

But when you say "I do" you're saying it to the priest officiating the ceremony, not the other person. Thus it doesn't follow that she married the deaf kid. All we know is that the priest that was holding the wedding was deaf, forcing her to sign to him...but she could have been marrying anybody, so I still don't get it.

Nate (post: 1488820) wrote:But when you say "I do" you're saying it to the priest officiating the ceremony, not the other person. Thus it doesn't follow that she married the deaf kid. All we know is that the priest that was holding the wedding was deaf, forcing her to sign to him...but she could have been marrying anybody, so I still don't get it.

It isn't that hard to understand. As for who you say, "I do," to, does it matter? She's saying it in affirmation of the vows. Isn't it important for the spouse-to-be to hear that? Therefore, she would sign it, whether or not it is directed at the priest. Is it really necessary to try to ruin a good story, whether it is true or not?

Oh yeah, that was also on LML.com (the happy version of FML.com)

It actually happened

Destroyer2000 wrote:Therefore, she would sign it, whether or not it is directed at the priest.

But the priest is the one who's asking "Do you take this person blah blah blah so on." So the priest needs to hear the answer, and if the priest didn't know sign language, she would have had to say "I do" verbally in addition to the signing, making the signing pointless because "I do" is pretty easy to lip read, and if he was actually deaf he would have read her lips when she said it! It still makes no sense!

Is it really necessary to try to ruin a good story, whether it is true or not?

It's necessary for things to make SENSE! HAS THE WHOLE WORLD GONE CRAZY?! AM I THE ONLY ONE WHO GIVES A CRAP ABOUT LOGIC?!

MARK IT ZERO!

Nate (post: 1488824) wrote:But the priest is the one who's asking "Do you take this person blah blah blah so on." So the priest needs to hear the answer, and if the priest didn't know sign language, she would have had to say "I do" verbally in addition to the signing, making the signing pointless because "I do" is pretty easy to lip read, and if he was actually deaf he would have read her lips when she said it! It still makes no sense!

It's necessary for things to make SENSE! HAS THE WHOLE WORLD GONE CRAZY?! AM I THE ONLY ONE WHO GIVES A CRAP ABOUT LOGIC?!

MARK IT ZERO!

I get what you're saying, but if you just look at it with simple eyes you'll find it touching.

Ferb (post: 1488829) wrote:I get what you're saying, but if you just look at it with simple eyes you'll find it touching.

I agree.

Nate (post: 1488824) wrote:But the priest is the one who's asking "Do you take this person blah blah blah so on." So the priest needs to hear the answer, and if the priest didn't know sign language, she would have had to say "I do" verbally in addition to the signing, making the signing pointless because "I do" is pretty easy to lip read, and if he was actually deaf he would have read her lips when she said it! It still makes no sense!

It's necessary for things to make SENSE! HAS THE WHOLE WORLD GONE CRAZY?! AM I THE ONLY ONE WHO GIVES A CRAP ABOUT LOGIC?!

MARK IT ZERO!

If you consider the possiblity that she discussed the situation with the priest before the wedding and told him that she would be signing "I do" because it would be more 'romantic', then I believe it makes sense.

How is this romantic?

I am not being argumentative, I really want to be able to understand your mindset.

ich1990 (post: 1488909) wrote:How is this romantic?

I am not being argumentative, I really want to be able to understand your mindset.

She was willing to spend all her life doing sign language for this friend. In the end, she did sign language to the same person who she had befriended, her husband.

Ferb (post: 1488910) wrote:She was willing to spend all her life doing sign language for this friend. In the end, she did sign language to the same person who she had befriended, her husband.

So would you say that this single fact, even devoid of all other details about these two people, is enough to declare the act of learning sign language "romantic"?

ich1990 (post: 1488926) wrote:So would you say that this single fact, even devoid of all other details about these two people, is enough to declare the act of learning sign language "romantic"?

I don't think sign language is the main point of interest as much as "This person went out of their way to learn something for another person because they wanted to be their friend." In the case of this very short story we are given, sign language just happened to be that way of showing they cared about that other person. (while one cannot know for sure how important it was since we know little about either party, it must have carried some importance since they were getting married years after).
I suppose it's only considered romantic because they got married in the end. It would not be otherwise. It would just be kind of "Aww, that's nice of that person to do that".

Personally, my standards for romantic things are rather high, but the story is rather cute.

It's not that the story isn't romantic, it's just the way the ending is written that kills the mood.

For example, her brother wouldn't be standing beside her at her wedding. He'd be off to the side. In addition, I would say most deaf people learn to read lips.

It's a cute story but needs a bit more exposition.

Yamamaya (post: 1488934) wrote:It's not that the story isn't romantic, it's just the way the ending is written that kills the mood.

For example, her brother wouldn't be standing beside her at her wedding. He'd be off to the side. In addition, I would say most deaf people learn to read lips.

It's a cute story but needs a bit more exposition.

The story seems to have been posted by a sister, not a brother (unless her brother is named Elena....could be. >_>). Which may explain the "standing beside" (if she was the maid of honor). But, I do agree, it's not the most well written story. But then again, it does look like it was written on Facebook. XD;

Regardless if those who are deaf learn to read lips (I do know that most do), sign language tends to be easier for them (since they learn it before they learn to read lips, usually). And perhaps in this case, signing "I do." maybe a sign of respect from the girl even though the groom could have read her lips perfectly. Thing is, we can't know because we weren't given enough info. XD;

Oh, sign language is definitely way easier than reading lips. Reading lips can often be inaccurate, especially for long conversations. But for a short phrase like "I do" it'd be easy and simple to read. There's really no reason whatsoever to use sign language except the story wouldn't be "cute" if she didn't. And that's why it bothers me, because that is literally the only reason to sign "I do," is because if the story was just "My little sister asked to learn sign language to befriend a deaf kid at school and then later she married him" no one would think it was cute they'd just go "Okay." But by inserting the signing into it, it suddenly (somehow) becomes cute despite the fact it makes no logical sense.

Nate (post: 1488943) wrote:Oh, sign language is definitely way easier than reading lips. Reading lips can often be inaccurate, especially for long conversations. But for a short phrase like "I do" it'd be easy and simple to read. There's really no reason whatsoever to use sign language except the story wouldn't be "cute" if she didn't. And that's why it bothers me, because that is literally the only reason to sign "I do," is because if the story was just "My little sister asked to learn sign language to befriend a deaf kid at school and then later she married him" no one would think it was cute they'd just go "Okay." But by inserting the signing into it, it suddenly (somehow) becomes cute despite the fact it makes no logical sense.

Exactly, if it wasn't for the signing, "I do" part that story would be completely pointless. Even with the signing, the story really isn't that romantic. It's one of those cute okay stories. Not really that romantic. If there was a bit of conflict in the story, I'm sure it would be much better and more romantic.

Nate (post: 1488943) wrote:Oh, sign language is definitely way easier than reading lips. Reading lips can often be inaccurate, especially for long conversations. But for a short phrase like "I do" it'd be easy and simple to read. There's really no reason whatsoever to use sign language except the story wouldn't be "cute" if she didn't. And that's why it bothers me, because that is literally the only reason to sign "I do," is because if the story was just "My little sister asked to learn sign language to befriend a deaf kid at school and then later she married him" no one would think it was cute they'd just go "Okay." But by inserting the signing into it, it suddenly (somehow) becomes cute despite the fact it makes no logical sense.

A lot of stories in films are not what you see in real life and thus don't make logical sense. They're created so in order to give a good storyline. If all films were too realistic, they wouldn't be watched by many people of today, yesterday and tomorow.

ich1990 (post: 1488926) wrote:So would you say that this single fact, even devoid of all other details about these two people, is enough to declare the act of learning sign language "romantic"?

Absolutely. What the details are of those people is not important in this case, since it's just a romantic little story. In a book or film, yes, it would be required to give details of this lovely couple.

Edit: It's also the fact she went through all these years to develop such a close bond, which would lead to marriage. Such patience is rarely heard of.

It's funny how something that really has not much evidence of actually happening has had such responses and discussion about it in this thread.


Really this whole thing is nothing new; it's been done before in a Kay commercial and is probably done many with many other deaf people at different times of the year but those events may go unnoticed.


@ Ferb-Use the edit button instead of double posting.

Nate (post: 1488943) wrote:Oh, sign language is definitely way easier than reading lips. Reading lips can often be inaccurate, especially for long conversations. But for a short phrase like "I do" it'd be easy and simple to read. There's really no reason whatsoever to use sign language except the story wouldn't be "cute" if she didn't. And that's why it bothers me, because that is literally the only reason to sign "I do," is because if the story was just "My little sister asked to learn sign language to befriend a deaf kid at school and then later she married him" no one would think it was cute they'd just go "Okay." But by inserting the signing into it, it suddenly (somehow) becomes cute despite the fact it makes no logical sense.

>_>
<_<
I still thought it would have been cute without the signing at the wedding. XD;

But yes, the signing was to add emphasis, probably. I don't think it makes it more or less "cute", though. It's just there to end the story. To say it differently than "Then, she married him." XD;

*is no one ;.;*

ADXC, please a little more polite.

And I think it could also have been more symbolic, don't you guys think? Maybe even to show the audience in attendence that she was devoted enough to her husband to learn all this so they can talk?


And she PROBABLY said "I Do" As she said it, most people who sign also say the words. So logically this makes sense. XD I don't see why everyone is getting so silly about it. It's just a cute story.

I'm just speaking my mind.

ChristianKitsune (post: 1488993) wrote:ADXC, please a little more polite.

And I think it could also have been more symbolic, don't you guys think? Maybe even to show the audience in attendence that she was devoted enough to her husband to learn all this so they can talk?


And she PROBABLY said "I Do" As she said it, most people who sign also say the words. So logically this makes sense. XD I don't see why everyone is getting so silly about it. It's just a cute story.

Some people need to debate logic, it seems, when humans rarely work off logic. We aren't computers; we are emotional, irrational creatures. It is indeed a cute story. Facebook has a character limit, so I doubt there was room for much in the way of details. Also, as the person who posted this (if indeed, it was posted) is possibly not an author, and doesn't know how to convey things in the most efficient manner.

Ferb (post: 1488960) wrote:Absolutely. What the details are of those people is not important in this case, since it's just a romantic little story. In a book or film, yes, it would be required to give details of this lovely couple.

Edit: It's also the fact she went through all these years to develop such a close bond, which would lead to marriage. Such patience is rarely heard of.

[Quote=goldenspines]I don't think sign language is the main point of interest as much as "This person went out of their way to learn something for another person because they wanted to be their friend." In the case of this very short story we are given, sign language just happened to be that way of showing they cared about that other person. (while one cannot know for sure how important it was since we know little about either party, it must have carried some importance since they were getting married years after).
I suppose it's only considered romantic because they got married in the end. It would not be otherwise. It would just be kind of "Aww, that's nice of that person to do that".

Personally, my standards for romantic things are rather high, but the story is rather cute.[/quote]I think I am beginning to understand. The story is about an uncommon devotion, which is the heart of all romance. I guess I wasn't able to see the "uncommon devotion" aspect because the story was so haphazardly written and vague. I didn't even realize that she was supposedly marrying the person from school until I had re-read it a few times. Then again, I guess there is something to be about the emotional impact of brevity in storytelling.

One final question. Would the story have the same romance factor if the person had a different native tongue (rather than being deaf), or is the fact that the man was disabled an important aspect?

Destroyer2000 wrote:We aren't computers]
I never said that humans should be void of emotion or that we are all rational.

I simply said this story doesn't make sense. That's not the same as saying humans are or should be computers. One of the points of a story (usually) is to tell a coherent, logical series of events. There are of course exceptions done in the name of art...for example, the novel Dhalgren. But this story isn't trying to deconstruct the art of narration or anything, so it's just a nonsensical story. Which badly needs to make sense.

Facebook has a character limit, so I doubt there was room for much in the way of details.

Ha, no. Sorry, but that's not even a sound reason. If it was a matter of being limited by the character count, the story could have been told even more verbosely. Like I said, she could easily have written, "My sister once told me to take her to the library to learn sign language. I asked her why, and she said she wanted to befriend a deaf kid at school. Later, she married him." Boom, the exact same story told in even fewer characters.

No, the only reason it was written this way was an attempt to be witty, which as far as I'm concerned failed miserably for the reasons I stated in my initial posts.

Also, if they really wanted to tell a story, they could have written a FB Note instead. There's no character limit on that, I think.