Gandhi didn't like black people either, though.
Personally, I am in favour of the state performing Same Sex Marriage ceremonies and any religion or Church which wishes too as well, I am not religious, but I do feel very pasionately about freedom of religion, and while I personally would be fine were gay marriage to be legalised here in the UK for example, I wouldn't want it forced on churches is all I'm saying.
It relates to this because like I said, and you agreed, obviously I'm not racist, and obviously I think what this congregation did is absolutely appalling, my point was that my first reaction would be to force them to perform the marriage, but then it opens the doors for the LGBT Lobby (lobbyists who lobby for lgbt issues) to demand the state forces churches to accept their marriages too.
Bikini Miltank; mentioned the Bible doesn't say anything about same-sex marriage and also "LGBT marriage" is not actually a thing).
Also, your whole argument - "They're right about this but if we let them be right the LGBTs will use this to their advantage!" - rests on the assumption that homophobia is somehow not as bad as racism, which is bullshit. Plus, if we're going based on "but the Bible says," it's not that hard to find Bible verses to support racism as well, as any segregationist will tell you. As Shakespeare said, "even the devil can quote scripture to suit his purpose."
Well, here's one example about anti-Gandhi feelings among South Africans: Gandhi branded racist as Johannesburg honours freedom fighter | World news | The GuardianQuote:
And what is your source for this claim?
Anyway, he wasn't "KKK" BLACK HATE, but he did harbor negative feelings towards Blacks...mainly upset that they were seen in the same light as Indians such as him by the British Colonialists...more so early on in his life. Not that he's a bad guy because of it, because really, it seems like it was brought on by his own feelings of insecurity due to being discriminated against by the whites.
Thanks. I wasn't trying to suggest it wasn't true, just wanted to know more about it because I'd never heard about it in all the stuff I've learned about Gandhi over the years, including the more critical stuff.
This is why the US needs to have a Constitutional Amendment that essentially says this:
"All races, sexual orientations, fetishes(except those attracted to real, living animals, children under 17 and corpses), religions, subcultures, disabilities and political beliefs(minus those parties and organizations who would undermine this Amendment). are hereby equal, and therefore protected by, all of United States and its dependents Federal, State, County, Municipal and Local Laws. No exceptions unless otherwise stated."
I meant an all-encompassing version.
According to the anti-social justice jerks, 14 does only applies to races. Not everyone else.
It also fails to allow public expression of such things implicitly, as per the 1st's requirement.
I want it so the 14th does not apply only to races in the public's eye, but to all who don't fall under the following categories-White heterosexual married Christian Republican conservative upper and/or upper middle-class male power holders.
@Goodbye Blue Monday;
The 14th needs to be updated to 21st Century standards in that it needs to not only be more overtly inclusive, but to also identify and counter the source of all overt and covert oppression in this country.
Even if you updated it like you wanted, it would still allow this church to choose who it may marry. It would only prevent the government from discriminating (unless that was your whole intent?); plus, such an amendment would have to include everyone, not just those who are not "power holders" for it to have a snowball's chance in hell in passing.
They could probably sue the church actually. Also just to point out this is pure racism and has nothing to do with the christian religion. The only definition the bible has of marriage is between a man and a woman, color is never brought up. To see this makes me sick that those who follow God don't love his other children because of outside appearances. I wonder if that priest tried to make it allowed for them at all or just gave in?
I think the 14th Amendment is pretty inclusive, when you take in the ways that it's been interpreted by the Supreme Court over the years.
Also, as a strong advocate of the First Amendment, I don't agree with anything that would tell a church who they can or cannot marry, just because I don't like this particular application of it.
And iirc the Bible actually doesn't define marriage as "between a man and a woman" anywhere; the parts that apparently condemn homosexuality mostly have to do with sex.
Also, this is a Protestant church so there is no priest.
This comes down to an alternate version of that old saying:
In this case it's not what they say, but what they do. It repulses me that they refuse to marry a couple due to them having what is essentially just darker skin, but I don't support any government involvement with the church or forcing them to go against what they want to do, because then that opens up a whole new can of chaos about what the government can and can't interfere in.Quote:
I may not like what you have to say but I will fight for your right to say it.
The best we can do is make local people aware of this and try and ask them to boycott it, although as has been mentioned above if the place is that socially conservative, then there probably wouldn't be many willing to boycott.