@snow fox:

Your response was plenty eloquent! And I enjoy reading your thoughts on these topics as well. ^^

Yes, it's true that our society is not truly equal nor is social status as malleable as most Americans imagine. Our society and most other modern-day societies are still quite stratified; it's just that the dividing lines aren't as clearly-defined or as acknowledged by the public as they were in the past.

And yes, arguing contentious political issues purely on moral grounds is quite silly. With pretty much any issue, people on both sides of the argument can make a moral claim. For example, pro-life supporters say it is immoral to abort an unborn child, but pro-choice supporters say it is immoral to disallow women control over their own bodies. If these issues could be so easily solved on the basis of morality, then they wouldn't even be issues in the first place.

I always appreciate your commentary on such issues! You have a talent for this type of analysis and expressing it - something that I envy. I don't have nearly as much patience or eloquence.

These issues strike very close to the bone for me. I was not raised going to church, I have not read that text which people reference so frequently to justify barring certain rights for certain people.

I simply can't understand the basis for denying such rights. It just makes no sense to me.

The thought that I could run outside, find a random male and marry him right then and there (and receive all the tax benefits and various other associated rights) - but I couldn't do the same with some random girl - is pretty bizarre. Obviously, just picking some random dude off the street and marrying him - would make a mockery of what many people consider a sanctified union. But it is legal. I can't even get into the hardships faced by trans* individuals and those who don't fit comfortably within the established gender binary. That's where all this really breaks utterly down for me. We (I'm speaking from an American perspective) can't seem to regard individuals as equal in the eyes of the law.

What I need from society is to act upon facts. What is "moral" is oftentimes a blurry, muddy subjective thing. Privilege clouds moral judgment. It would be fantastic if we could switch our focus from actively denying rights to certain people on moral grounds to actively striving for a greater good. I suppose the problem comes in when privileged and powerful groups define the oppression of certain other groups as being for the "greater good." Recognizing that oppression, accepting that it is harming people, and then working to dismantle it... is against the interest of the privileged group, in a base sense. But it is the moral thing, the right thing to do.

@Shinmaru:

lmao, it is never an inappropriate time for fabulous poses!

Perhaps an inappropriate place to share this, but Psycho-Pass x JoJo.

@:

This is kind of a tangent, but South Africa is a really interesting case. When I was there, I got the sense that their human rights laws are really more of "idealistic guidelines" and aren't actually well-enforced. IIRC discrimination against gays has technically been illegal since Apartheid was abolished. Certainly, racial discrimination has been illegal since then. But from what I observed, South African society on the whole is much more openly racist, sexist, and homophobic than US society is, despite the fact that their laws are technically more progressive than the laws in the US. But even so, I'm optimistic since these progressive laws seem to mark the trajectory that the S. African government is hoping their society will eventually follow.

In any case, thank you for your input! It's always interesting to hear the perspectives of people from other countries, especially since the US media is always so US-centric. ^^;

@Japan:

It's fine! I'm glad that you responded and I really do appreciate when people reply to my really lengthy posts, even if they don't necessarily agree. (omg. I hope you like it even half as much as I do! ^^)

@bellpickle:

Thanks for understanding and not getting all debate like on me. I hate it when people do that. I am pretty sure I understand the point you are getting across. (Unrelated note, I downloaded Shingeki no Kyojin...gonna watch it after this hockey game)

@Japan:

I understand and I appreciate your honesty. I think what I am trying to get at here is that practicing intolerance for privileged groups (not even Christians specifically, but privileged groups in general) is very different and has many more advantages than practicing intolerance for marginalized groups.

For instance, if a small business owned by a gay couple refused service to the daughter/son of a Christian minister, that event would be construed by the media and by society as a whole very differently than if it were the other way around.

The thing is, even the ability to practice intolerance is limited depending on how much power a given group holds within society. The poor have very few means of practicing intolerance to the rich, but the rich can easily devastate entire communities of impoverished people (e.g. the frequent placement of waste facilities in poor neighborhoods). The author of the article wasn't even acknowledging this difference in power nor the fact that intolerance and the ability to practice it is inevitably tied in with privilege.

I don't want to debate here and let me remind you I'm horrible with debate. However since you're a friend I trust you to hear me out and hopefully understand my jarbles.

It is not so much about intolerance but more the fact that people who claim to be christians do/say stuff totally against what is what the Bible instructs or says...aka pro choice and for homosexuality which the Bible says that both is wrong.

As for myself personally, I don't support homosexuality or marriage for them for that matter. However I still have a lot of homosexual friends and I love them dearly. The thing I don't like about all this is yeah we can all go about our lives, however if stuff like homosexual marriage is legalized, and the way things are going, I can see people suing and taking legal action if some church or pastor won't marry them for being 'intolerant.' Which is already happening right now but with small businesses refusing business with the homosexual couples and getting sued because of it. It is all a sticky and frustrating situation really.

Yes we get called homophobes and intolerant. Homosexuals want us to accept them entirely into society and when we practice our religious rights or legal rights (ex. I have a right to refuse service to anyone), we get the butt end of the stick.