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. _________________ I'm no democRAT, I'm a republiCAN!
For future reference in this thread, I believe the word "heterosexism" might be more appropriate than "homophobia" for various reasons. _________________ "My strength is that I can laugh at myself."
"^Your weakness is that you have no choice."
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? _________________ I'm no democRAT, I'm a republiCAN!
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. _________________ I'm no democRAT, I'm a republiCAN!
Joined: Dec 18, 2005 Posts: 5708 Location: United States
Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 7:12 pm Post subject:
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.
Joined: Mar 21, 2006 Age: 24 Posts: 4663 Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 7:19 pm Post subject:
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.
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. _________________ I'm no democRAT, I'm a republiCAN!
Joined: Mar 21, 2006 Age: 24 Posts: 4663 Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 7:34 pm Post subject:
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.
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. _________________ I'm no democRAT, I'm a republiCAN!
Joined: Mar 21, 2006 Age: 24 Posts: 4663 Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 8:11 pm Post subject:
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.
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. _________________ I'm no democRAT, I'm a republiCAN!
Joined: Nov 27, 2007 Posts: 2505 Location: The murky waters of my mind...
Posted: Sun May 25, 2008 7:59 am Post subject:
I think this song is appropriate here...
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...
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
