One-stop shop to make India 20 times richer

My FIRM opposition to gay marriage – repeating my blog posts

Some lazy people aren't willing to search my blog.

Here are a few posts for them to read:

Scientific evidence that marriage is a NATURAL imperative (hence that "gay marriage" is ENTIRELY unnatural)

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

Sanjeev Sabhlok

View more posts from this author
5 thoughts on “My FIRM opposition to gay marriage – repeating my blog posts
  1. vijay

    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

  2. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Before you explain further, can you pl. summarise what I’m saying? I don’t think people have bothered to understand.


  3. vijay

    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?

  4. vijay

    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

  5. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    “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.



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.