Sour grapes? Seriously, dude, the traditional kiss to seal the wedding is prompted by the clergyman who performed the ceremony, and it’s the same beautiful sentiment that triggers the awww’s, applause, and flashbulbs. Calling that chaste kiss disgusting tells us more about you than you may have intended.
Maybe I’m naive, but in his defense he was responding to me, and I was not referring to the couple kissing at a wedding but rather to explicit PDAs out in the public space.
And I have no problem with a couple kissing to seal their wedding, regardless of the gender makeup of said couple. It’s just a scripted peck anyway. I don’t consider that a “PDA.”
I assumed you both were referring to the OP’s remarks about “ecstatic couples getting married” as seen in recent media. My response was caustic, but I’d be truly sad for any observer made squirmy by a simple wedding kiss. Apologies for misunderstanding.
I did a quick search. For those who are interested, near as I can tell, Aji is a Roman Catholic and his views happen to agree with the official view of his Church. SSM is bad because it expands the definition if marriage which somehow harms traditional marriage. I am having a difficult time following that logic but I think that it’s something like change to a very special, sacred and long lasting historical thing is a bad thing because it makes it less sacred.
Nope. It took me about five minutes. I don’t think that anyone was claiming that it was difficult though. Even easier than the search was typing it out and not being a pill about it.
This is really freaking sad, and even sadder, not new. I’m bewildered by this fear that I’ve heard expressed only from WASP men that all this minority preaching and protesting is about revenge in our hearts. How silly. When god invents magic, I’ll place you guys in a minority’s shoes for a week, and you’ll realize very quickly that we don’t want a fight. We just want equality. That’s it.
From here on, I’m going to post in threads about my opinions, and if anyone asks for clarification, I’m going to tell them to search my posts, and refuse to answer like a giant tit.
I don’t know about our scholarly friend here but often when I hear it, it’s obvious that the unspoken bit at the end is “…because that’s what I’d do in that position.” Which says more about the speaker than the minorities.
You meanlike this?
(Link NSFW but probably not in the way you’re expecting)
I think it’s a huge stretch to claim that it’s insulting and dehumanizing to refrain from giving them a fancy piece of paper. In the event that I ever marry, I won’t particularly care if the government gives me one or not.
I never claimed it affected me, though. Voters and lawmakers are supposed to formulate policy based on what is right, not on what benefits them personally.
The dearth of animal sacrifices in the West today has very little to do with evolving away from the Bible. Jews no longer perform sacrifices, not because their theology changed, but because the Temple in Jerusalem was uncomfortably destroyed in A.D. 70. And Christians don’t perform sacrifices, not because their theology changed, but because the founding document of the religion itself declares that such rituals are unnecessary.
All living creatures? Ah, but what about the asexual community? We can’t be using discriminatory language now, can we?
Oh I didn’t mean to imply that. I was just talking about converting sinister oppressors such as I.
It’s actually quite easy to square, because it’s not excluding anyone from peace and understanding. Nothing is preventing homosexual couples from engaging in non-violent conversation with their conservative neighbors (a number of whom are doubtless homosexual themselves). Now it’s true that I would exclude homosexual couples from civil marriage, but that’s not what you were asking about.
Tell you what, WW, best way to show your disdain for that “fancy piece of paper” and the rights conveyed is to protest and refuse a civil marriage yourself. That’ll teach us!
If I spent every day of my life suffering systematic discrimination from the government and society, I would feel an urge for vengeance and retributive justice that would infiltrate every cell in my body, and urge me to walk and talk like a gruesome ventriloquist dummy, driven forward by uncut malice.
And I don’t deny the legitimacy of that anger, not in the slightest. I mean, tomorrow you might get what you want, but what is done by the pen may just as easily be undone by it, and I would demand the correction of the causes that made me such a victim in the first place. But even as I accept those feelings, I can’t shake the desire not to be a target of them…
Hell, I already feel that way, and all my grievences are petty and private. How could someone with a genuine grudge feel more forebearing about it than I do about mine? Does not compute.
So… You don’t care if the government gives you that fancy piece of paper, but somehow, it’s a big deal if the government gives me that piece of paper?
You’re really not doing your side a lot of favors with that line of argument.
Anyway, it doesn’t really matter if you consider our position to be insulting to gays. The point is that gay people, overwhelmingly, find your position to be insulting. Which is why you’re not going to find your opinions greeted with a lot of “peace and understanding.” Because whatever feat of cognitive dissonance you manage to perform that makes it possible for you to believe that there’s a substantive difference between, “I don’t think you should be allowed to marry,” and “Go fuck yourself,” that feat only works within the confines of your own skull. No one else is going to find it remotely persuasive.
I don’t consider that a “PDA.”