Pages
Stay In Touch
More
© 2012 Sanjeev Sabhlok's revolutionary blog
Some lazy people aren't willing to search my blog.
Here are a few posts for them to read:
A child is not a play thing – for use in "gay marriage"
A "gayrriage" must be a STERILE institution, in accordance with three billion years of evolution
Gays' distortion of human rights, well exposed:
My position on gay "marriage" summarised in a table
There is no natural "right" to marriage, hence no "right" to "gay" marriage
My FIRM opposition to the idea of "gay" marriage
If you found this post useful, then consider subscribing to my blog by email:
Join the Freedom Team of India or become a Freedom Partner.
Related posts:
- My FIRM opposition to the idea of “gay” marriage
- Scientific evidence that marriage is a NATURAL imperative (hence that “gay marriage” is ENTIRELY unnatural)
- There is no natural “right” to marriage, hence no “right” to “gay” marriage
- I’ve reopened comments on this blog for posts older than 7 days
- My position on gay “marriage” summarised in a table
- A child is not a play thing – for use in “gay marriage”
- My vigorous opposition to the “Right to Food” advocated by Amartya Sen
- My strong opposition to the Women’s Reservation Bill
- After being hacked by Internet Gangsters, this blog is back once again
- Blog name change: Sanjeev Sabhlok’s revolutionary blog
To spread the message of liberty and critical thinking, please share this post
For the first time maybe in this blog, I am finding your arguments for opposing gay marriage a bit weak, maybe even a bit anti-liberty which is surprising. Some of the comments there especially that of Sumantra’s have hit the nail on its head. My guess is that you have your own personal bias/revulsion against gay marriage which maybe manifests itself in your arguments
Before you explain further, can you pl. summarise what I’m saying? I don’t think people have bothered to understand.
s
Your argument is that “nature”‘s law or biological laws require a man and woman to be together, in a marriage, for progeny.Gay is anti-nature or anti-biological and hence the insitution of marriage should not be invoked for same sex living together.
This is like some pro-vegetarian groups arguing that by nature a human’s teeth is not designed to eat animals and so eating meat is against nature or something alone those lines.
Well, it is the same “nature” that is also responsible for some sections of our population to be attracted towards the same sex. They might be in the minority, you might consider it as deviant behavior, but the fact remains that they were genetically disposed that way. And you have to respect their right to marry and live together.
In one of your posts you have said that you are not opposed to gays living together but we should not recognize that as marriage. Can you elaborate? why would you hestitate to accept their union as marriage ina court of law? after all a marriage certificate is a [piece of paper and a lot of “normal” couples even bribe the registrar to get it signed in their absence. Is it because are you worried that if it is recignized as “marriage” then they have the right to adopt children? And that is something that you are uncomfortable with?
you say
“I have repeatedly said that “gay” people can CONTRACT any form of property arrangements they wish, and the state can enforce the contract.
However, it is extremely improper for “gay” people to want to call THEIR contract a marriage. ”
what are the actual implications of calling their contract a marriage that you are worried about? List them and we can debate on that
“Gay is anti-nature or anti-biological”. As expected, you are totally distorting my position. This is not me saying things. You are putting words in my mouth and then opposing me!
Why don’t you first reconstruct my position from my blog posts. Just cut and paste. I’ve repeated everything many times over. Should be easy.
s