Okay, yeah on another thread there's this guy who opposes gay marriage. He's written an entry
about how he's really upset that his friends keep on going ballistic about it. In the end it turns out that his only real issue, it seems, is with the term 'marriage'. I don't agree with him on that AT ALL, but I figure it might help him to know that distinguishing himself from people who don't want gay marriage whatever it's called might help. He indicates quite clearly (but not anything like as clearly as he ought to) that he would totally approve civil partnerships which convey all the same rights and priveledges provided for heterosexual married couples (such as we have in the UK). - Of course the issue that comes up then is why he can't say "well they aren't really
marriages" instead of cancelling the existing marriages and expecting married gay couples to have their ceremony over again with this rather worryingly symbolic less important
But yeah, that's just the context. Along comes someone who is, it seems, a little more hardcore. Here are some neat little
quotes which made me laugh:By the way, in this community someone who thinks homosexuality is unnatural is just as welcome as a flaming gay guy who is militant about homosexuality.
- I've had the debate in the past about militant atheism and I feel the best response on that comes from a video by Albert10110.
However, the idea of a flaming militant homosexual just cracks me up. I can't help but imagine someone in a Navy uniform.First article of human rights is irrelevant in this community as it's not in the rules, nor do I expect others to abide by it.
- (By the way this is in response to me saying: "I think people need to take account of the feelings of minorities regardless of whether they agree or disagree with me regarding anything else. If you have a problem with the first article of the universal declaration of human rights, that's your choice of course."
) I love how human rights become unimportant when they aren't in the internet community's list of rules, lol! 'Human rights are not
on the agenda!'
I'm afraid that's your lot. He's not that
I've made a bit of a u-turn in my opinion of fanha, the guy who started the thread. Here's some recent contributions from him:
"God laid down marriage the moment He made male and female and told them "Be fruitful and multiply"."
A Genesis literalist. How cute!
The human race could not have begun with one man and one woman. That would have been a population bottleneck too narrow for survival. We might as well say that re-marrying when you have children is bad because of the example of Snow White's evil stepmother.
A "right to marriage" no more implies a right to "marry" a member of the same sex than it would imply a right to "marry" a dolphin.
Because a consensual, mutual expression of love between a man and a dolphin is so likely....Your examples are silly, because "freedom of religion" was never instituted or understood in such a way. "Religion" in that phrase never was equitable with "Muslim".
Islamophobic too?Homosexuals are free to marry (enter into a legally recognized relationship with a member of the opposite sex) if they so please.
Yuck! The Orson Scott Card