California overturned gay-marriage ban today!

Post Reply New Topic

I have yet to understand what homophobia means. Care to explain that?

I'm not afraid of catching the gay, neither do I feel a desire to fight a homosexual.


Or is calling people who do not support gays and lesbians a homophobe similar to calling a person racist? A catchall?

Don't you know? Have you forgotten? It is the 21st century! We can walk around naked if we wanted to and people should just accept it! It is part of my Human Right, my Freedom of Expression. You can't express disgust however because you'll be a bigot.

And that was a major reason I intervened as I often will intervene when I think that one group is too grasping. Frankly, I don't agree with what you say, and I have stated in an earlier thread that it was distinctly possible that I would disagree with any political thought you had, but I still think that you have a right to state a dislike of homosexuality. Now, if your reasons for doing so are bad interpretations of your accepted data, well then, I'll have to attack that too.

And that is the problem of the public. There is so much of it, and everyone has a right to say what can and cannot be done there.

Well, I think there should be areas where people can just walk around naked if they wanted to. The issue is once again, the public is a definite problem. It suffers because of the human desire for liberty but also the problem of the commons as certain actions will impose costs on others. Because of that, I would like more locality in government so that way nudist colonies, towns, or cities could exist. I dunno, maybe if we could get tinting on the windows, we could have a nudist coffee shop or restaurant.... but well, nudity is not popular enough for such activities.

I find nudist colonies silly but I have nothing against them because it IS a colony or center and should be away from the regular public.


How about nude mountain climbing?

how does this have anything to do with gay marriage and what homosexuals do in the privacy of their own home?

even better, what does homosexual marriage have to do with churches who refuse to perform homosexual marriages? those churches are protected by the constitution to be able to practice their religion how they choose so they're afforded the right to deny performing the action of marriage for homosexual couples.

conversely, individuals are also allowed to marry homosexuals if they want to and see fit in their religion or if they're simply a justice of the peace or other public official that can perform such ceremonies and provide the LEGAL paperwork. i emphasize legal paperwork because marriage is a LEGAL institution first in this country. it's on the law books, it's a legal matter and therefore it is subject to equal rights for all humans. including mixed marriages and homosexual marriages.

i'm sorry i got impatient before and cussed and all but it's very frustrating for you to not see how obvious this is because of your own personal prejudices and when you continue on with such pure stupidity as you are above...i can't help but get pissed at people who are so low on the evolutionary scale.

you're a bigot because you have this judgment about people and wish to deny them equal rights for something that doesn't effect you in any perceivable way. homosexual acts still somewhat creep me out but i also get that its their right and i would gladly sacrifice my comfort for them to have equal rights. you would rather oppress others to keep your level of comfort. and of course for your lack of willingness to compromise on such a petty issue, i hold you in quite a low regard.

You *CAN'T* walk around naked if you want to, oscuria. It's illegal and a very serious offence. Especially if children have to see you do it. You have Human Rights, but so do other people. Freedom of Expression is for everybody, not just you. Freedom works both ways, as does liability. You must be smoking something because your last few posts make no sense at all ...

I see no inherent problem in that other than the fact I would not want to engage in it and perhaps some concerns about whether or not people who don't want nude mountains will still find places to be satisfied.

I think you picked a random post of mine and decided to comment on it. Anyways:


Homosexual marriages have nothing to do with religious institutions. It should remain so. I find that the PRACTICING gay bishop in the Anglican Church (I believe) is an aberration, a very big one.


I understand that marriages are a legal institution in the US. Homosexuals aren't allowed to marry? Fine by me. If my state decided to vote on giving gays the right to vote, I would vote against it because I don't see it serving best society.


Like I began this post, you picked a random comment of mine because it has nothing to do with what you're talking about.


I couldn't care less if you hold me in low regard. There are by far people more hateful than I. I do not even hate homosexuals. I am just against their getting married. If that makes me a bigot and a homophobic bastard, then go ahead and consider me as such. I would highly disagree. With everything, there are people who will disagree.

Sarcastic post was sarcastic.

I would think it hurt to mountain climb naked.

Probably, and that is why it will never be popular, but I don't know, mosh pits are popular but they hurt.

CityAsylum's post has been the sanest on this thread. I continue to be amazed by the level of interest some people express in other people's sex lives.

Oh, and while no church will be forced to sanction a gay marriage (or any marriage, for that matter), there are ALREADY churches and synagogues which perform these ceremonies even if they aren't recognized by law. That's what freedom of religion means, and not all religion is of the same sort. One of the clergy at my own religious institution has been married (though not in law) to his male partner for at least 25 years, and they've raised three adoptive children with special needs. Why their relationship is less deserving of recognition under law than that of Vegas drive-by weddings, I have no idea.

Those churches and synagogues you speak of are corrupt. It just goes to show that if religion cannot change the people, the people will change the religion.

Oh well.

prove it.

Yes, because there is a universal definition of "religion" which everyone agrees upon. Except, well, not.

How a religious organization deciding to provide for gay marriage based on honest consideration of the issues is "corrupt" is beyond me. Do you imagine that these institutions are being paid off by the scary gays to marry them?

What I'm still not clear on is why some people's religious ideas should be imposed on everyone else? This thread indicates to me that further education on the First Amendment needs to occur.