California overturned gay-marriage ban today!

Page 26 of 27 [ 420 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 23, 24, 25, 26, 27  Next

oscuria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,748

23 May 2008, 5:20 pm

Griff wrote:
...


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.


_________________
sticks and stones may kill you.


twoshots
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,731
Location: Boötes void

23 May 2008, 5:25 pm

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


_________________
* here for the nachos.


skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

23 May 2008, 5:27 pm

twoshots wrote:
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.



oscuria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,748

23 May 2008, 5:28 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
...


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?


_________________
sticks and stones may kill you.


oscuria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,748

23 May 2008, 5:30 pm

skafather84 wrote:
twoshots wrote:
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.


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.


_________________
sticks and stones may kill you.


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

23 May 2008, 6:12 pm

oscuria wrote:
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.

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.


Quote:
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.

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.
Quote:
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?

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.



oscuria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,748

23 May 2008, 6:16 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
...


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
Quote:
and i know that because no one else in the western world gives as much of a rat's ass about it


_________________
sticks and stones may kill you.


skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

23 May 2008, 6:19 pm

oscuria wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
twoshots wrote:
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.


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.


you fear change and new things.



oscuria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,748

23 May 2008, 6:23 pm

skafather84 wrote:

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.


_________________
sticks and stones may kill you.


skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

23 May 2008, 6:34 pm

oscuria wrote:
skafather84 wrote:

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.



oscuria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,748

23 May 2008, 6:45 pm

skafather84 wrote:


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.


_________________
sticks and stones may kill you.


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

23 May 2008, 7:07 pm

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

True.



skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

23 May 2008, 7:11 pm

oscuria wrote:
skafather84 wrote:


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.



up until about 40 or so years ago, it was illegal for people of different races to get married. previously, endogamy was the trend and culture and still remnants of it are alive and kicking today though no longer in the court system...just in people's personal bigotry.



oscuria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,748

23 May 2008, 7:27 pm

skafather84 wrote:


up until about 40 or so years ago, it was illegal for people of different races to get married. previously, endogamy was the trend and culture and still remnants of it are alive and kicking today though no longer in the court system...just in people's personal bigotry.


I already addressed that. It had more to do with racism, bigotry, superiority, than it had to do with marriage. Besides it had to do with the status of a slave child.


_________________
sticks and stones may kill you.


LeKiwi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,444
Location: The murky waters of my mind...

25 May 2008, 6:59 am

I think this song is appropriate here...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kq9Arlvdeg8[/youtube]

Mew - She Spider

After we go to sleep
Our sun rises...
I will make it the truth.
Oh, painfully helping me
Cover up things I wish I never had felt

Confident!
Tangled up in a nice life
Put the spider in you
Watching in disregard
You live a nice life
With the spider in you

I save myself for someone somewhere's sweet caress
Something goes wrong
And all I sought was happiness.

Confident!
Tangled up in a nice life
Put the spider in you
Watching in disregard
You live a nice life
With the spider in you

I save myself for someone somewhere's sweet caress
Something goes wrong
And all I sought was happiness
And so in right-wing fashion
we'll nurture xenophobia and be strong
In right-wing fashion
With haste and generosity
Because no-one is safe from someone somewhere's sweet embrace
And so I have simply decided to dislike you now


_________________
We are a fever, we are a fever, we ain't born typical...