California overturned gay-marriage ban today!

Post Reply New Topic

Gay marriage is just as much your business as it is your neighbor's. Yes, if gay marriage is offensive to your scruples, it is your place to feel out of sorts out of it. However, you have not given me any real reason that I should go to any great length to keep you from feeling out of sorts. In fact, I think that I would take delight in your misery. All the more reason for me to advocate gay marriage, I suppose. You haven't earned a scrap of my sympathy in all the time that I've known you.

So my sister is anti-Muslim if she doesn't wear a burka. I will inform her of this.

The sodomy laws in India are a hangover from British colonialism. One of their princes has made some of the opening moves in repairing this problem. It has cost him dearly, but he is a true hero for gay rights in his country. His countrymen will praise him for it one day, and perhaps his heritage will be restored. His integrity and heroism will be remembered. The Asian gay rights movement has begun.

I have heard you and your ilk insist that you bear no ill will toward homosexuals. I have heard your sort, when pressed, renounce such things as the sodomy laws. I have heard you deny that you are homophobic. Why don't you herald such men as Manvendra Singh Gohil as heroes of a good cause, though? Your silence is informative. I think that your ilk are insincere when you claim you are not homophobic. How can I not see you as liars when you speak elsewhere, then? How can I ever trust such as you? Why should your word have any meaning to me? for it doesn't; it is empty. It is nothing.

Socio-economic stability, commitment, and a sense of societal approval. Mostly, it is a sense of societal approval, and leadership in gay rights is one of California's most important symbols.

Whereas I just insult you personally. You're a dick.

You're free to advocate anything you want, and we are free to advocate against it.

Well, the issue is that EVERYTHING can be labeled as "involving society", but the idea of a free society IS that the choices of other people are their's and NOT part of your business. People marry and retreat to their homes, as it is a personal choice that involves you in only the slightest of degrees. There are a thousand things more public than this, so why this specifically?


Christianity is the tradition best known here, but I bet that most atheists are anti-other religions too.


Should? Who determines should? We already know that marriage is a package of legal rights that can be useful for any couple.

the should is the bigotry that i repeatedly call out as such and as nothing more than a personal problem on the "none of your damned business" level. he feels like he is superior to everyone else and as such can define their lives legally as many fundy christians in this country do.

Well, that may be true, but the power to accomplish anything you advocate is a dangerous step towards fascism. When all choices made are seen as societal choices to be controlled at an arbitrary whim, then we lose that little thing called individual freedom.

1) I need not your sympathy, I need not your prayers. I need not your blessings. I need nothing from you, neither your acceptance towards my stance. You taking delight in a person's misery shows your character, but if you mean that it would be a misery for me to see homosexuals touch and marry, no. I will look down upon it just as I look down upon the "freedom and liberty" derelicts of society masquerade their worthless lives under.


2) is Gohil speaking of homosexual marriage? No, he is advocating for more rights towards the homosexual, to be allowed to practice behind closed doors. He isn't advocating to go around kissing in public, or whatever other thing. He just wants them to be accepted and not characterized as criminals. There is nothing in my position that advocates the removal of something that a person cannot himself change (after all, many are said to be "born" homosexual, no?). Homosexuality is one thing, marriage is another.

I asked before, what does "homophobic" mean? Fear of homosexuals? Hatred towards homosexuals? I have none of these emotions inside of me.


3) Social approval? Approval on what? "homosexual marriage" is an oxymoron.


4) Have fun.

For future reference in this thread, I believe the word "heterosexism" might be more appropriate than "homophobia" for various reasons.

xenophobia might be more appropriate than homophobia. at least from how the discussion has gone so far.

1) Because marriage does involve society. To say it doesn't is ridiculous. Take this case: If a neighborhood had a high-rate of divorce, single-parent families, how would you as a citizen look at it? Would you say "It's their choice in a 'free society'" No one in their right minds, or wishes to advance society, would ever say such a thing. It's the same way with people like me who advocate against same-sex marriage. It doesn't contribute to the society as it should.


2) The Sikhs in Canada protested against same-sex marriage. Should we assume Sikhs are on a Christian agenda? The truth is that many, if not all as a whole, are against same-sex marriages. The only ones that allow them or advocate them are liberal churches who feel the need to change their faith in order to appease its followers. These people are readily acceptable of innovations in religion because they feel the people today "just don't feel it" anymore.


3) I already made a point before that any union between homosexuals should not be under the banner of "marriage." It does not fit. If my backwards ways was in a minority, then why is it 5 countries in the whole world allow same-sex marriages to be performed nationwide?

Apply the proper terminology. I don't fear or hate homosexuals. I accept them as a part of society, but same-sex marriage, as well as transgenderism/transsexuality should not be advocated or encouraged.

No, it really isn't. As a citizen, I would have to look at a number of factors before making a decision, off-hand, any discrimination I would make on the hypothetical neighborhood would be based upon factors that correlate with such an outcome and not the outcome itself, and I would choose to associate myself with a neighborhood that had features I preferred. Yes, I would say "it's their choice in a free society", I don't care what your opinion is on this thing, society as a blob is without inherent meaning, what matters is the people within that society. I don't see a should involved at all.



I never said we should, but are the Sikhs the majority force in Canada? No. And my argument was not "only Christians do X", my argument is that Christians comprise the majority of people that we see who do X. I still don't see a reason to care.

Um... let's see 5 nations allow same-sex marriage, and many 1st world nations either have that or same-sex civil unions. The nations that tend to be less likely to have this ARE in fact backwards nations. Really though, that was not my argument, my argument was from a legal package. I really don't care one way or another about the term "marriage". I think the government should not be involved with any of this at all, and have stated that throughout the thread, because of that, I would be more in favor of more general inclusion.

Ha, our major difference is how we look at society (being that you don't believe in one--IIRC).

The Sikh part was more directed to Ska's post of

you fear change and new things.

It is not so much a fear of change. It is not wanting to change that which has been known to be the proper practice since we knew of it. Same-Sex marriage, it does not exist. There is no definition to it.

Change is good. The Civil Rights laws and movement brought some good to America.

the proper practice? marriage has changed a lot over the existence of it...i have no idea where you get this impression of there being some kind of establishment that's beyond change.

and again, you fear change.

and i find it very ironic you're discussing civil rights in a thread about granting civil rights to a portion of the population that is currently being denied theirs on an arbitrary basis.

How has it changed? The only thing were that aspects were changed but the fundamentals weren't.


Funny, is there any change that you fear? Or are you brave to face the winds of change?


It is not ironic. A person cannot change his color, neither can he change his sexuality. None of these have anything to do with marriage which is between a man and a woman.