By continuing you agree to eChinacities's Privacy Policy .
Sign up with Google
Sign up with Facebook
Q: Gay marriage is legal in the 50 states. Chinese reactions?
My gay friends in America now have the same legal rights that I enjoy to marry a person of my choice.
Most Chinese don't seem too interested in politics but I heard a reaction that made me laugh: apparently recognizing gay marriage will lead to a proliferation in HIV/AIDS. Because.... you know..... legally recognizing monogamous relationships causes STDS to spread like wildfire and all.
So what other reactions have you heard from Chinese?
the backlash from religious groups in america is going to be worse than the march at selma. glad im not there to see the results.
dongbeiren:
And those who oppose the Supreme Court's decision will be remembered as fondly by history as those that opposed integration of the public schools.
ambivalentmace:
the integration of schools was a disaster (white flight) to the suburbs and has done more damage to the education standards of america than anything in history, good intentions dont always lead to good results. 50 years later the results, poverty, drop out rates etc absolutely stink. the law of unintended consequences always bites you in the ass.
when the pope closes all catholic hospitals in america because liberals want romans chapter one ignored and force churches to marry homosexuals, the violence of the kkk will be childs play compared to the gun toting religious interests. china is crashing and america is dead, guess i will have to hang my hat somewhere else.
dongbeiren:
Not even sure where to begin responding here, so would you prefer to go back to the days of separate but equal? Jim Crow? Jefferson Davis? I fail to comprehend how letting black and white children sit in the same classroom destroys educational standards. Though I do oppose bussing so I'm sure we can at least agree on something. White flight is actually reversing now as cities have become more attractive places to live. Look at the exploding white population in places like Brooklyn, NY.
ambivalentmace:
i dont know the answer, i just know the results are terrible, urban schools in most major cities are terrible and one exception in new york does not make the results change, my school was forced into integration in my 7th grade year or grammar school in 1975, it was the worst year of school in my life, my parents were poor and could not afford the white flight to the suburbs, never had a fight in 6 years of school and had eight in one year, i lied about my address in high school to get out of the inner city of atlanta and go to a suburb high school, im quite sure i would be dead or in a prison if i had not done this, integration destroyed many friends of mine. the noble experiment from the snobs who pass the laws and send their kids to private schools did not suffer at all, may they all rot in hell.
dongbeiren:
It's inevitably going to be a messy transition when people who have been oppressed for hundreds of years are instantly given rights. Rather than blame integration, why not examine the root causes of society's problems? As in, America's horrific history of race relations. It sucks you had a bad experience but keeping kids in segregated failing schools and giving up on them does not seem like a proper alternative morally or practically. Funny thing is, those private schools full of snobs are bending over backwards to attract minority students (and compromising their standards to do so in many cases). So maybe Bob Jones University is the last refuge for people of your worldview.
ambivalentmace:
i have no problem with the intention, but the plan and execution did not work and it is still not working, i really dont give a rats ass one way of the other, i just expect people in power who promise that things are going to be fine to actually have a good plan that works and the results show it worked, sadly this never happens, is their a racially mixed country where education works for everybody, lets use their system, blaming it on history, i was deprived of medical school by affirmative action, should my great great grandchildren have the same fate, for this noble failed experiment, when is the guilt over and everyone is judged by the content of their character, like i said i dont know the answers but im a pissed off victim of something my ancestors had nothing to do with for a plan that has been a complete failure.
if this scheme had worked and the bellyaching and whining was over and my pathetic victimization had been a noble sacrifice, perhaps my view would be more different but like dying in iraq for nothing, i was restricted by circumstances from my potential and somebody will face the same thing a century from now with the same good intentions and no good plan and lousy results.
mattsm84:
No it won't. The writing has been on the wall for them for some time now. The coalition that Reagan created for them is dead and gone. You'll see a handful of businesses deny services to people, at which point social media will blow up. As far as wide spread action is concerned? They don't have that kind of muscle anymore.
the backlash from religious groups in america is going to be worse than the march at selma. glad im not there to see the results.
dongbeiren:
And those who oppose the Supreme Court's decision will be remembered as fondly by history as those that opposed integration of the public schools.
ambivalentmace:
the integration of schools was a disaster (white flight) to the suburbs and has done more damage to the education standards of america than anything in history, good intentions dont always lead to good results. 50 years later the results, poverty, drop out rates etc absolutely stink. the law of unintended consequences always bites you in the ass.
when the pope closes all catholic hospitals in america because liberals want romans chapter one ignored and force churches to marry homosexuals, the violence of the kkk will be childs play compared to the gun toting religious interests. china is crashing and america is dead, guess i will have to hang my hat somewhere else.
dongbeiren:
Not even sure where to begin responding here, so would you prefer to go back to the days of separate but equal? Jim Crow? Jefferson Davis? I fail to comprehend how letting black and white children sit in the same classroom destroys educational standards. Though I do oppose bussing so I'm sure we can at least agree on something. White flight is actually reversing now as cities have become more attractive places to live. Look at the exploding white population in places like Brooklyn, NY.
ambivalentmace:
i dont know the answer, i just know the results are terrible, urban schools in most major cities are terrible and one exception in new york does not make the results change, my school was forced into integration in my 7th grade year or grammar school in 1975, it was the worst year of school in my life, my parents were poor and could not afford the white flight to the suburbs, never had a fight in 6 years of school and had eight in one year, i lied about my address in high school to get out of the inner city of atlanta and go to a suburb high school, im quite sure i would be dead or in a prison if i had not done this, integration destroyed many friends of mine. the noble experiment from the snobs who pass the laws and send their kids to private schools did not suffer at all, may they all rot in hell.
dongbeiren:
It's inevitably going to be a messy transition when people who have been oppressed for hundreds of years are instantly given rights. Rather than blame integration, why not examine the root causes of society's problems? As in, America's horrific history of race relations. It sucks you had a bad experience but keeping kids in segregated failing schools and giving up on them does not seem like a proper alternative morally or practically. Funny thing is, those private schools full of snobs are bending over backwards to attract minority students (and compromising their standards to do so in many cases). So maybe Bob Jones University is the last refuge for people of your worldview.
ambivalentmace:
i have no problem with the intention, but the plan and execution did not work and it is still not working, i really dont give a rats ass one way of the other, i just expect people in power who promise that things are going to be fine to actually have a good plan that works and the results show it worked, sadly this never happens, is their a racially mixed country where education works for everybody, lets use their system, blaming it on history, i was deprived of medical school by affirmative action, should my great great grandchildren have the same fate, for this noble failed experiment, when is the guilt over and everyone is judged by the content of their character, like i said i dont know the answers but im a pissed off victim of something my ancestors had nothing to do with for a plan that has been a complete failure.
if this scheme had worked and the bellyaching and whining was over and my pathetic victimization had been a noble sacrifice, perhaps my view would be more different but like dying in iraq for nothing, i was restricted by circumstances from my potential and somebody will face the same thing a century from now with the same good intentions and no good plan and lousy results.
mattsm84:
No it won't. The writing has been on the wall for them for some time now. The coalition that Reagan created for them is dead and gone. You'll see a handful of businesses deny services to people, at which point social media will blow up. As far as wide spread action is concerned? They don't have that kind of muscle anymore.
This is pretty much the most important Supreme Court Case of my time, and not for the reason people think.
-There is no 'legal precedent' to gay marriage. The right to marry people of the same sex is not contained in the constitution. However, 5 justices said it is. Therefore, ANYTHING that a majority says is in the constitution is.
-Again, I think Gay Marriage would have become legal, eventually, in the US. A contract in one state is legal in another state. The supreme court had already ruled that.
-But this changes that. How a document written more than two hundred years before the first country legalized gay marriage could have allowed gay marriage seems silly.
-Oh granted, the dissenting justices didn't all agree. I've read them all, and agree with ALL the reasons they gave. I especially like Roberts Line " Celebrate, but don't thank the Constitution. This has nothing to do with the constitution."
-Of course, does this really matter? Hard to say. I especially liked Thomas' argument that comparing miscegenation to gay marriage is a lie. As marriage between race has existed, as norm, EXCEPT where forbidden. Second, a marriage between a white and black was illegal, but not illicit. Said marriage was recognized anywhere in the world save in a place where miscegenation law was in effect.
-But truth is relative. Women can have a penis. Unpopular opinions are bigotry. 2+2=5. These are all things that make post-modernists proud. Legal gay marriage would have happened eventually, in all 50 states. But there is no longer any ground for debate. It is being forced down the throat of the unwilling. Far better to have let the South, and the Conservatives who oppose it, die out. But now we have serious divides. A 5-4 decision is not one that will persuade people of the error of their ways.
-I expect to gather a huge number of down votes as soon as this is published. However, I will not be shocked. Justice Alito mentioned this. It is not for this Court to determine that a view held by man, all mankind, without exception, for millennia, should define bigotry.
dongbeiren:
This is a great post and I hope you don't get down voted. The fact is that the role of the courts in America has long been about more than strictly interpreting the Constitution. The political views of justices on both sides of the political spectrum influence their decisions. Supreme Court rulings often reflect a changing society and can push forward changes faster than they otherwise would take place. Look at Brown versus Board of Education, desegregation would have happened eventually but the court took a stand to ensure that positive change would happen sooner. Now the framers of the Constitution would never have conceived of integrated public schools. Was that a bad decision too? The Constitution is an intentionally vaguely worded document, the interpretation of which necessarily evolves with the times.
Finally, I completely disagree with Alito's reasoning. Views can be held for thousands of years that are bigoted and ignorant. Think TCM, Chinese bodies are different, yuezi, etc.
rasklnik:
-Remember that Constitutional Law is based on precedent. Racism in Law was not a part of Roman Law. Paul, a Jew, was a Roman Citizen. He was a different religion, and a different ethnic group than an Italian (or what ever you call a person from Italia at the time)
-There is no 'legal' precedent for gay marriage. It does not exist. No country, race, ethnic group, or creed has ever defined marriage as anything other than between a man and woman. Ever. The Supreme court heard no evidence to the opposite.
-Do two men who live together have the same legal rights, under American law as a man and woman?
-I put it this way. Two people, of any gender may have the same legal rights, as two people, of opposite genders. But only people of the opposite gender are married. That is just what the word means. I can change all the laws in the world, but a triangle has three sides. No man can change geometry. No man can change what marriage means. A man can, and should change laws. We all agree the government should stay out of bedrooms, because, this is not a reasonable place for a search and seizure, or there is a lack of cause, but today the Supreme Court has abandoned Law for what is "the popular feeling of the day." The popular feeling of the day in Germany meant killing Jews. In Serbia it meant killing Muslims. In China it means...something. What if 5 justces decide that people can't have guns anymore? What if 5 justices decided that the constution says all people must have a university education paid for by the goverment? (I'd like that by the way!) What if 5 justices decide the constitution forbids the color blue? Yes these are silly things, but so is sayin the constitution is about gay marriage. Legal precedent in the US says marriage is a power given to the states to regulate.
-Stop comparing civil rights. The blacks, freed slaves, had legal rights in 1865. Those rights were not put into practice, particularly in the south, but they existed on paper, and in the constitution. There is no mention of marriage in the constitution. There is only activist judging gone mad...
ironman510:
You're right can't debate but I can say that's f**kin disgusting every time I see gays doing their gay thingy.. So now middle school students 5 years later will be asking for same sex dates. My friends from England this might send every single international student to your hood in the future.. I can imagine a Chinese father say: I worry more about gays than guns in America, send our son to England for study!
mattsm84:
You got a down vote from me. Here's why:
"-There is no 'legal precedent' to gay marriage. The right to marry people of the same sex is not contained in the constitution. However, 5 justices said it is. Therefore, ANYTHING that a majority says is in the constitution is"
rasklnik:
Nowhere is the majority’s extravagant conception of judicial supremacy more evident than in its description—and dismissal—of the public debate regarding same-sex marriage. Yes, the majority concedes, on one side are thousands of years of human history in every society known to have populated the planet. But on the other side, there has been “extensive litigation,” “many thoughtful District Court decisions,” “countless studies, papers, books, and other popular and scholarly writings,” and “more than 100” amicus briefs in these cases alone. What would be the point of allowing the democratic process to go on? It is high time for the Court to decide the meaning of marriage, based on five lawyers’ “better informed understanding” of “a liberty that remains urgent in our own era.” The answer is surely there in one of those amicus briefs or studies.
mattsm84:
You're wrong here for three reasons. First, we are a Republic precisely because we don't vote on civil rights. Second, while the opinion of the majority of the electorate is irrelevant, it should be pointed out that the public is overwhelmingly in favor of extending marriage rights to gay couples. Here is a poll from Pew http://www.pewforum.org/2015/06/08/graphics-slideshow-changing-attitudes-on-gay- marriage/ and here is one from gallop http://www.gallup.com/poll/117328/marriage.aspx Third, the court did exactly as its supposed to do in this situation, which is to say that it made a decision on a matter of law based upon legal argumentation rather than succumbing to the temptation to play at being an amateur anthropologist. This is how the state should function on exactly this kind of issue.
rasklnik:
I'm going to take the opinion of the CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT over the opinion of some dude on the internet. I think a guy with a JD from an Ivy League Law School has a better, more informed opinion than either you or I.
mattsm84:
Or you could take the opinion of 5 people with JDs from the ivy league over he opinion of the other four. C'mon man, the dessenting arguments were weak and petty. After all, if the argument he makes can stand up to the holes I've poked in, how strong can it be?
Shining_brow:
"-There is no 'legal' precedent for gay marriage. It does not exist. No country, race, ethnic group, or creed has ever defined marriage as anything other than between a man and woman. Ever."
This is absolutely not true!
i think marriage and government have no business in the same sentence, like separation of church and state,
they should have left marriage to the religious interests and said government can do contract civil unions of adults gay or straight and outlawed the word marriage as a government or legal term altogether, but to change the meaning of marriage and i fear force churches to violate their teachings is going to lead to violence, this could have been handled better and i hope the lazy congress does something before all hell breaks loose. i never thought i would see the day that muslims and catholics would both be pissed off at the american government and agree on anything, but that day is coming.
dongbeiren:
Marriage does not necessarily have to do with religion - I'm getting married next month and no religious ceremony will take place. Marriage has secular implications regarding issues like child custody, inheritance, immigration, and taxes just to name a few. So my gay friends deserve the same legal recognition in those areas. And no, I don't believe churches should be forced to perform gay marriages but the state should not be able to withhold benefits from committed same sex couples either. The Constitution protects religious freedom so IMO churches that oppose gay marriage should not be forced to perform gay weddings. But seriously, homosexuality is such a minuscule part of the Bible and I have no idea why some Christians obsess over it. The Bible also says most rich men end up in Hell but I don't see priests turning away wealthy couples.
ambivalentmace:
i hope your right, but i fear your wrong about the churches not being forced, im still pissed off at notre dame for covering all their religious symbols for an obama speech, and im not catholic or religious at all, it was the most shameful thing i have ever heard of, if you dont like the scenery, do your damn speech somewhere else, since im not religious, forgiveness is not in my vocabulary. http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/26/same-sex-marriage-wont-bring-us-peace/
Seen a lot of female Chinese support it.. Did you know you cannot discriminate against gays? Because it abnormal, and incorrect, it's no different than sticking two double AA batteries with the two + signs next to each other.. So I completely don't support gays! It's not normal nor were humans designed for this, ok sure we can love our friends, but marriage and sex were meant for a man and a woman. Not for the same sex! That's not discrimination ! Because it can't be.. Being gay should be and is a sin.
dongbeiren:
I'm confused, are these the words of Chinese or your words?
ironman510:
My words.. I said female Chinese seem to accept it. , Out of the closet? Do the logic yourself. Humans weren't designed to be like this! Just like every other species on this planet. We were designed to meet, mate and reproduce. Not to join lips to lips and sticks to sticks.. I'm an American, and I'm disgusted by this decision! Marriage for gays is a whole new gig, marriage was meant for two people that love each other to be together, so gays can enjoy that whole sign the marriage document that humans created! The rules we made have been rewritten, ok I get that, go enjoy it, but no matter what document or piece of paper says humans were not meant to be gay and you can't rewrite that fact! My point is proven..
mattsm84:
There are only two reasons to feel as Ironman does. First, that you're dumb. Second, that you are secretly afraid that dicks taste delicious.
dongbeiren:
So basically homosexuality disgusts you and you therefore wish to deprive gay people of their human rights. You have every right to feel however you want about other people's behavior but why should your prejudices take away their rights? I find straight couples who tie each other up and whip each other to be weird as such behavior is "unnatural" but they should still be entitled to get married if they wish.
Also, the fact that something is "unnatural" does not mean it should be banned - society and its norms are evolving. Freud referred to any sexual activity other than vaginal sex between a man and a woman as an unnatural perversion. So he felt the same way about straight oral sex as he did about gay sex. Is using one's mouth to give a partner sexual pleasure "natural"? How about any other number of sexual acts and fetishes that are widely practiced?
In my opinion, it is unnatural for humans to spend their days sitting in an office and not getting any exercise. We have a natural hunter-gatherer instinct and are meant to be active. Now, I choose to avoid sitting in an office all day but I would not wish to discriminate against those who feel differently. It's also unnatural to eat processed foods but they have become a staple of the modern diet for various reasons.
Or is your opinion entirely based on your religion? You use the word "sin."
ironman510:
None of your points can make any sense! Because you can't it's impossible, because like I said being gay or should I say trying to be and do something that humans weren't made for is and will always be abnormal! Matts I can't wait to hear you post a video on YouTube and I want you to answer your child's or children's question truthfully when they ask you: "hey dad my classmates Tom & Greg are dating, boys can date boys, dad? So dad should I date boys and girls?"...... Go for it Matts tell your kids that dick&pussy are delicious..
ironman510:
@Dong， all those unnatural things that people do like sitting at the office, not getting any exercise, smoking or whatever are a choice you make, working at an office is something we designed and choose to create, just like one day a boy chose to date a boy and a girl chose to date a girl.. But again you can't change the fact that humans are made for the opposite sex.. And if a human chooses not to follow his or hers true nature than of course it becomes abnormal.. It's basic science! It's something you can't change! Can boys have babies? No because it's impossible just like trying to justify being gay!
dongbeiren:
Being abnormal, as in different from most others is not necessarily wrong. Actually a lot of my gay friends would argue that male to male pleasure is very natural (as one of them put it, the parts fit and certain areas can be stimulated). Homosexuality has also existed in every culture throughout history and was even heralded as the superior expression of human sexuality in ancient Greece where heterosexual sex was seen as a means to make babies and something people should derive no pleasure from. If you lived in that culture, you probably would have been a homo.
But again, all of this is irrelevant to the main point that all people deserve equal treatment under the law, whether or not ironman510 finds their behavior to be sick.
mattsm84:
Let me ask you something, at what age did you choose to like girls? Put another way, do you like girls because you have an attraction to them that is innate to your conception of yourself or is it that it was a choice you made at some point in your life because all things being equal you thought it the correct and conventional thing to do? If its the latter I don't think you get to credibly complain about people calling you a closet case.
I mean, I don't even think that the second one is possible. Then again, you could easily prove me wrong by making the choice to be into guys for about a week or two. That would sure show me.
mattsm84:
To be fair, and to answer your question, I'd ask him the type of porn he looks at. If he's looking a naked ladies. He's straight. Naked dudes? Gay. If he doesn't know what porn is, then he probably isn't attracted to men or women yet so this is a total non-issue.
Shining_brow:
"marriage was meant for two people that love each other to be together,"
And... that could well be homosexual partner - yes?
There are some huge holes in this 'argument'.
Firstly, there is the confusion between the physical and the emotional. (unless Iron is of the opinion that the 'person' is purely a material/biological construct, and the 'mind' is only electro-chemicals... and if that's the case, then there can be no 'sin', as that only exists when there is a deity and a soul that can be punished in an afterlife).
So, obviously realising that a human being is more than just the body, Iron now wants to say that homosexuality is unnatural (which, as we've discussed in other threads, is categorically not true - it is in fact, RAMPANT in nature!)
BuTT I digress...what about asexual people? They have all the same body parts - but have absolutely NO desire to have sex at all.
What about those of us who don't want to have kids? Are we 'abnormal' as well, and not deserving of having a marriage?
Anal sex between a man and a woman? According to you, not ok... and yet, perfectly legal! (now). As pointed out by DongBeiRen... oral sex... same counter-argument!
"True nature"... you really don't know much about human beings, do you?? Our 'true nature' is to rape, kill, eat (piss and shit where we want, and screw over anybody who doesn't agree with us). It's civilisation that is 'unnatural' And that includes monogamy!!!!
Given that civilisation, by defniition, is not natural, nor are 'laws' and a legal system, nor being in a monogamous marriage natural.... how now is your stance on the legality of gay marriage?
To put it fairly bluntly - you're trying to impose religious and legal ramifications using excuses that are only a few thousand years old... to take away rights to actions that are hundreds of thousands of years old.
Off on a slight tangent....
Broke back Mountain. What a fantastic film. My (Chinese) wifes favourite western film of all time. Honestly, it makes her cry.
2006 Oscars... Broke back did not win best movie. WTF we all said. "Crash".. "what the hell is "Crash?""
A few years later I watched the Oscar winner that beat broke back... and I have to say, "crash" was an amazing film. It started slow, but goodness me, it was a well deserved "best picture Oscar" winner.
If broke back had won that Oscar.... Gay marriage in the US, and world wide, would probably have come sooner. There might have been no supreme court judgement required.
Lots of stuff on here about the US constitution. As is right.
The first amendment...
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
North Carolina, however, disagrees.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/11/north-carolina-gay-marriage_n_7...
Switching to rant mode now....... cough cough..
I have had the pleasure of the company of a texan redneck for the past week or so in my local bar. Redneck he is. Dungarees, loud. boy.. boy that... stories with the N word.
" Yeah man... I have guns... it's my right, protected by the constitution to have a gun to protect myself from the feds"
Yup, I have no problem with that.
He... "its in the constitution man... the second amendment"
Yup. So it's not actually in the constitution. It's in an amendment.
Why do people not get this. The constistution has been amended. It has been changed. Forgive me if I am wrong, but the 14th amendment outlawed mixed race marriage. That amendment was amended.
How can anyone use an amendment as evidence to say you cant change the constitution? It's a fecking amendment for fecks sake.
I have the right to bear arms as part of a well formed militia... yeah boy... the constitution says that.
No it does not. The constitution does not say that. The amendend constitution does.
Constitution should evolve with the times. It should not be stuck in the past where slavery and colonialism was on the agenda. It needs to change with the times.
End rant.
I gotta say though, Obama might not be the best president the US has had... but wow... He is the smartest they have ever had.
But Bernie Sanders.... he will be the best president the US did not have. Unless you guys back him and put him in the Whitehouse.
If you vote for Jeb! your deserve to fall
Well done to the USA for recognizing same sex marriage.
Lets see you sort out the gun issues now.... please.
ScotsAlan:
Oh.. For the record... the UK does not actually have a constitution. It's all done on a gentlemans agreement sort of thing. We have Magna Carta, that says no one is above the law. But that is well out of date.
China has a Consitution... here...
http://en.people.cn/constitution/constitution.html
mattsm84:
The 14th Amendment, which contains the Equal Protections Clause, isn't/wasn't about miscegenation. Those were state laws. And cheer up. You may not have a constitution but its not like you have a state dragon or wizard or something. The monarchy is only similarly medieval and silly to those things.
ironman510:
Scott's forgive our gay friend Matts, he's no expert.. Yes I hope Jeb Bush NEVER becomes the next president.. It looks like Hillary Clinton has it won already.
Not living in China anymore, I can't speak for the way that most Chinese are reacting to it. But I can speak for my wife. One of the joys of moving her here has been, for me, watching her opinions evolve from those that were more or less typically Chinese to those that jive more with those that we have in the west. Her opinions on gay people have probably changed the most dramatically. Before we left, she felt that most gay men, despite never having met any one openly gay, were dangerous, drug addicted, disco dancing moral degenerates and that gay women simply didn't exist. A little over two years later she was as happy as anyone else was that marriage right had been fully extended to people that are now her friends and co-workers. It's heartening to know that the sort of backwardness that her culture sometimes saddles people with can be shaken off like a dog with a bad case of fleas might.
So from the comment what I get is;
1. I dislike gay marriages. "you are dumb, living in the cavemen era."
2. I like the idea of giving legal rights to gays who intend to marry. " You are civilized"
3. Gay marriage, 
. "WOW! man you are awesome."
I don't really get why is it important to condone or condemn this whole thing if one is not interested in? Is it becoming another parameter of judging civility of a society? How does disliking the idea make one 'dumb'? Isn't it stuffing things up one's arse?
I don't like the idea of gay marriage whether legal or illegal but if that's what people want, give them and stop stuffing it up our arses or judging us for not liking it. Congrats to the states and brace up for millions flocking in from all around the world to get married over there, specially Chinese will take extra bit of it. Good luck to everyone for getting anything they strive for.
ironman510:
I can put it to you simply, this isn't what the future children should be brought up in, it's disgusting, like I told Matts, are you going to teach and allow your kids to date the same sex? You said if it makes them happy than go for it, does that also apply to your children? Be civilized means being appropriate as possible, kind and understanding towards the world. But humans are not meant to rub lips with lips or stick dicks into anal holes and you're saying we must accept this as civilized behavior? Of course we can't, science can't therefore we can't.
thefidu881:
Ironman, I agree with your arguments and you might have read the whole thread over the question, 'Will gays be allowed to marry in China?" Where I just said pretty much similar to what you think of it and I was bombarded with racial slurs by bigots. I personally don't give two spits about gay marriages happening next door to me but I certainly won't teach my kids to date people of same gender.
The way media is propagating all this stuff is like stuffing it up our arses in the name of 'human rights and freedom'. I am in favor of the freedom one wants but I certainly won't let it drag me with it.
ironman510:
If same sex couples are allowed to marry in China that would save the economy haha a whole new line of clothing, products, schools for gays only and more haha.. Why there are so many people here.. Taobao would go crazy
thefidu881:
Well! most people take it in the context of religions but they fail to see it in the context of nature as you mentioned earlier. Had the opposition/disliking been religious thing than China should have been the first country to embrace gay marriages followed by Russia and so on. America as a Christian state should have been opposing it.
dongbeiren:
I certainly wouldn't call opponents of gay marriage universally dumb - look at rasklnik's argument about judicial restraint and precedent. I might not agree with him but it's clearly not a dumb argument. Supporters of gay marriage are also not necessarily civilized - but they are generally more tolerant and open-minded to allow people to live their lives as they see fit without facing discriminatino.
dongbeiren:
And America is most certainly not a Christian state - see the First Amendment.
dongbeiren:
Ironman, if my kid were gay I'd have no problem with that. Much better to let him live his life and be who he is than try to force him into a sham marriage by adopting a lifestyle that makes no sense to him. I have a gay Chinese friend whose parents are trying to force him into an arranged marriage with a woman he barely knows - that is truly shameful.
thefidu881:
Open minded and tolerant? lol, you better have a look at the question mentioned above and my answer(replies) from gays/marriage supporters how tolerant they pretend to be and what they are. Majority of the gays I have met goes after religions as hounds but become cry babies if opposed.
I am in favor of people getting rights but again judging me as intolerant/uncivilized because I do not like 'gay marriages' is stuffing things up my arse.
dongbeiren:
Fidu, I didn't say everyone on one side was tolerant. But I'd say supporters of gay marriage are usually more tolerant because they are allowing people to live life in their own way without passing judgment.
And I would say that religious people tend to be less tolerant because their whole worldview is largely based on ancient texts of questionable origin that were written by many different people over long periods of time and therefore contradict themselves repeatedly.
Shining_brow:
Fidu - I suspect part of the issue is less that you don't like the whole 'gay marriage' debate, but more about allowing people what are seen as fundamental legal rights - and your apparent apathy towards that. (well, maybe - others are just dumping stuff!)
Human rights are what makes us... human (though I don't personally claim to be).
Same with 'freedom'. Someone famous said something about - if you don't fight for your freedom, then you don't deserve to have it.
Similarly, there's the "When they came for the Jews, I wasn't a Jew, so I did nothing... blah blah... and then they came for me...".
icnif77:
Are this newly weds cross-dressing?
Too
What kind of VNP did you use for this pic? Don't tell!
thefidu881:
No veepeein involved since I got it from Baidu images. They seem to be caricaturing the idea of 'gay marriages'. Not sure but there was a story not long ago of a Chinese elder;y gay couple.
dongbeiren:
This picture reflects the maturity level of a lot of Chinese regarding any issue related to homosexuals - a giggle. It's interesting how I teach Chinese university students and the mention of the word "gay" elicits giggles whereas when I was a high school student we had an organization called the Gay Straight Alliance and put on plays like the Laramie Project.
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/six-gay-candidates-running-connecticut-republicans-n909701
make sure you are sitting down with a stiff drink when you read this, you poor heart might explode.
diverdude1:
jeez louise! guess ol' Dylan was on to something when he kept going on and on about how 'Times change'...
,,, or was it Neil?? hell,,, one of 'em anyway...
