Author Topic: Gay rights  (Read 8484 times)

GreenMonsta

  • Level 22
  • *
  • Posts: 1156
  • Fell Points: 0
    • View Profile
Gay rights
« on: October 31, 2008, 07:45:49 PM »
Listen this is continued from Grumpy Bear thread. I am not a leader in the gay rights movement. I dont see why the government should have any say in the matter. I mean honestly isnt there such a thing a separation of church and state? Why should the government allow certain things for heterosexuals and not homosexuals? How is that in any way right. Ok I get the fact that you at the same time think homosexuality is wrong but you dont dislike it. Alot of people are in the same boat. The thing is why are you any better than them? Who are you to have more rights than they? I honestly think that we as American citizens have the right to be EQUAL in every way. Not forced equality like Communism but the availability of equality. How could you tell a homosexual couple that your "family" was better than his/hers? Could you do that with a clean conscious? I for one hope not. The government has no right allowing some accepted group of people rights and denying those same rights to others with sexual orientation as the only driving factor. Ok the idea of marriage has been declining at a fairly rapid rate, your right about that but so has the christian religion as a whole. What if there was a religion out there that allowed gay marriage? Why would you say then? I only wonder. I dont mean to be one sided here seeing how im a hetero-sexual male but come on. There isnt one American who deserves more rights than any other.
"No signs of anything that could cause even a slight case of death"

"He's a paraplegic whats he gonna do, bite us?"

Peter Ahlstrom

  • Administrator
  • Level 59
  • *****
  • Posts: 4902
  • Fell Points: 2
  • Assistant to Mr. Sanderson
    • View Profile
Re: Gay rights
« Reply #1 on: October 31, 2008, 08:05:36 PM »
The "right" of a man to marry a man and a woman to marry a woman did not previously exist in this country and is a new invention. Gay people have just as much right to marry as everyone else: The right to marry someone of the opposite gender who agrees to marry you.

Gay marriage advocates think this is a ridiculous argument, but it's the plain truth. Marriage in our society has always had a gender component and the definition should not be changed unless there is a broad consensus among all walks of society that it should be changed. If a broad consensus does decide to change it, that will mean this country has gone down the tubes, but I don't think that day has yet arrived.

Yes, my conscience is entirely clear. If something is a sin, I am constitutionally free to say so, and I will.

And regarding church and state, go to churchstate.org, which (I think) has long fought for the separation of church and state, to see how gay marriage actually hurts the separation of church and state.

(My previous post, my wife's posts, NPR story on what's being done to people/organizations who are against same-sex marriage.)
« Last Edit: October 31, 2008, 08:13:22 PM by Boooookla »
All Saiyuki fans should check out Dazzle! Emotionally wrenching action-adventure and quirky humor! (At least read chapter 6 and tell me if you're not hooked.) Volume 10 out now!

GreenMonsta

  • Level 22
  • *
  • Posts: 1156
  • Fell Points: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Gay rights
« Reply #2 on: October 31, 2008, 08:28:21 PM »
So you wouldnt be oppesed to same sex unions that would entitle same sex couples to have all the same rights a a married couple? The only differance would be the title. If that were the case then I would be fine with that. I mean in the end what is a title if the end result is still the same.
"No signs of anything that could cause even a slight case of death"

"He's a paraplegic whats he gonna do, bite us?"

Comfortable Madness

  • Level 9
  • *
  • Posts: 339
  • Fell Points: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Gay rights
« Reply #3 on: October 31, 2008, 08:49:02 PM »
Thomas Jefferson wanted to make sure government could not "come between a man and his God." My point is that was included in the Constitution to ensure that government could not interfere with matters of the Church not the other way around. This country was founded on Christian ideals. I believe most, if not all, of the founding fathers were members of the Church of England the mother church of the Anglican Communion. So, if you search the Constitution for evidence supporting the right to gay marriage I do not think you will find it.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2008, 08:58:27 PM by Comfortable Madness »
“I will never serve you, Father of Lies. In a thousand lives, I never have. I know that. I’m sure of it. Come. It is time to die.” Rand al'Thor

"Mourn if you must. But mourn on the march to Tarmon Gai'don." Logain Ablar

GreenMonsta

  • Level 22
  • *
  • Posts: 1156
  • Fell Points: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Gay rights
« Reply #4 on: October 31, 2008, 09:49:04 PM »
I don't think I ever said there was any evidence saying there was a right to gay marriage. I'm only saying that it isn't right to keep rights from any person who would be involved in the same type of committed relationship as a married man and woman. I'm also almost positive that our government was created with the ability to realize change and conform to it. I don't think the constitution was created as a way to keep rights from people just because of the way some choose to interpret it. I think things like the constitution were created to allow us as a country to modify the outlines of our laws according to the time. If you think they intended to keep the laws of this country the same from inception to present day I think you are short sighted. I don't understand how people think the way some of you do. That isn't meant as an insult it is just a product of being raised in a different environment. I love how this comes down to some people thinking it is ok to select a group of people and dub them privileged and say that if you are not in this group then you don't deserve the same treatment as those of us who are. It boarders being a biggot, and I for one know that those of you who feel this way are not bigots. Explain to me why they don't deserve the same rights. Please give me a level headed clear explanation why we shouldn't allow them some type of union. Also please tell me what place that religion has in the government? That I would like to hear. I mean really the idea is nice seeing how religion outlines how people should live and generally gives an outline of how to be a moral person but that should not be factor when it comes to things of this nature. Committing a Sin is not the same as being a criminal so if you view homosexuality as a sin tell me why it is a crime and why we should treat people differently because of it. Fine marriage is a religious term, just give all the rights and privileges of a married couple to the gays and come up with some new term, maybe something flashy and flamboyant to fit their character right?

Please hold while I vomit.
"No signs of anything that could cause even a slight case of death"

"He's a paraplegic whats he gonna do, bite us?"

Comfortable Madness

  • Level 9
  • *
  • Posts: 339
  • Fell Points: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Gay rights
« Reply #5 on: October 31, 2008, 10:08:29 PM »
Mean,

   My post about the Constitution was in response to your question on the seperation of Church and State. Also, I have been labeled, in the past, as a Constitutionalist so you must forgive my "short-sightedness". I wholeheartedly agree with you that no person should be restricted from being with whomever they chose to be. Oh, by the way my sister is gay so I don't know what "different" environment you are referring to. I struggle to find the right answer in this situation as I am Christian but find it hard to say a gay union should not be allowed as I love my sister and wish her nothing but happiness. ....Anyways.... My post was to outline that nowhere in the Constitution does it grant the right to same sex marriages. However, I agree that it was written with the idea that it could change according to the time ie Ammendments but just because something CAN change doesn't mean it should. Also, just because a change IS made that doesn't mean it was the right thing to do.


As far as the place religion has in government...well...this is how I see it. What is right? What is wrong? Two , simple,yet immensely puzzling questions. I believe that right and wrong are objective concepts. So, where else would you look to find the answers to what is wrong and what is right?
« Last Edit: October 31, 2008, 10:10:29 PM by Comfortable Madness »
“I will never serve you, Father of Lies. In a thousand lives, I never have. I know that. I’m sure of it. Come. It is time to die.” Rand al'Thor

"Mourn if you must. But mourn on the march to Tarmon Gai'don." Logain Ablar

Peter Ahlstrom

  • Administrator
  • Level 59
  • *****
  • Posts: 4902
  • Fell Points: 2
  • Assistant to Mr. Sanderson
    • View Profile
Re: Gay rights
« Reply #6 on: October 31, 2008, 10:15:47 PM »
Quote
So you wouldnt be oppesed to same sex unions that would entitle same sex couples to have all the same rights a a married couple? The only differance would be the title. If that were the case then I would be fine with that. I mean in the end what is a title if the end result is still the same.
Basically yes.

Except that I'm concerned about adoptions, with the possible exception of adoptions of kids whose parents are related to the adopter or are explicitly totally OK with it; personally I'm against it but if it's the will of the original guardian (and it's not the state making the decision) then I could consider it a free will issue. I don't think getting raised by gay parents is the best option for a child, but it's for sure better than abortion and I acknowledge that there are plenty of bad heterosexual parents out there.

Nevertheless this proposition won't do anything to affect adoptions via California state-sponsored adoption agencies; same-sex couples have already been allowed for several years to adopt via those agencies either by law or by agency policy (I'm not sure which). Passing prop 8, however, may help religious-based private adoption agencies keep their heterosexual parent policies without being sued to change them; Catholic Charities in Massachusetts for instance already had to stop offering adoptions there because of state pressure.

However—back to your original question—same-sex couples already have most of, if not all, the rights of married couples under California law. But a lot of same-sex couples aren't satisfied with that; they want the recognition that their relationships are just the same as traditional marriages (and this is in fact how the state government views it since the Supreme Court ruled in May). I understand their desire for this recognition, but I can't agree that the judges made the right decision for society as a whole or the right decision according to the existing legal wording of the state constitution.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2008, 10:28:52 PM by Boooookla »
All Saiyuki fans should check out Dazzle! Emotionally wrenching action-adventure and quirky humor! (At least read chapter 6 and tell me if you're not hooked.) Volume 10 out now!

GreenMonsta

  • Level 22
  • *
  • Posts: 1156
  • Fell Points: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Gay rights
« Reply #7 on: October 31, 2008, 10:29:08 PM »
Alright Maddness I liked that.

First the different environments wasn't meant as a bad thing it was only to state that I was raised differently. Again it wasn't meant to say that what I think or how I feel is better but to say we may have different points of view according to how we were raised.

Good response to the church and state comment, don't get me wrong I understand constitutionalists and most of the time I agree with them as long as they realize as you do that things can change. I also agree that just because they can change and we might change things doesn't make it right. But is denying rights from people right. Wouldn't you think that from any kind of religious standpoint that it would make more sense to treat people equally. This goes beyond what the words of the bible might say and beyond what the church might say but what the overall ideals are. And don't get me wrong again I am also christian (catholic), the ideals are for the good of mankind and I don't see how we as a country are in any way looking out for the good of mankind by denying these things from people who aren't doing anything wrong. And yes I said it, they aren't doing anything wrong. If people want to hide their children from what is out there and shelter them from reality then I would call that wrong. For in the end all you would be doing is limitting possabilities for us as a race. Whatever I'm not going down that road. All I'm saying is that by dividing these people we are causing a problem we don't need. I don't know what it would take for some people to just accept who other people are and realize we all deserve the same possabilities. If I were gay I would want the chance to have a union with the one I loved. Heck I'm straight and don't think I'll ever marry but that isn't the point. Its like I'm wasting something that many people don't even have the right to. How right is that.

Also I think as an intelligent community we have the overall ability to asses a situation and decide what is right. In a general sense. That doesn't mean that we make the right choice all the time and even in a situation like this we may choose wrong. But in the end we know what is morally right and we don't need the bible or any other religious source to tell us that. I mean if we didn't have religion would the whole human race be evil? I for one think not. That isn't saying that I am not religious its just saying I have a little more faith in us than that.

Ook-
Alright I knew you weren't a bad guy. I'm glad to hear alot of what you posted. The adoption thing is a little iffy for me. I really don't know how I feel about it. I do for one feel that a child needs both male and female support to properly grow but that isn't saying that gay couples would do a bad job of it. Heck maybe the kid would get enough from outside sources. I frankly don't know and when it comes to kids I guess I would tend to lean your way on it only because I wouldn't be willing to risk it. I also agree that Marriage is a religious ceremony and term and that the government should have no say in what any religion accepts. If the church says no then that's the way it is. As long as there are no rights being with held from the gay couples I don't have any issue with it. As far as I'm concerned they really don't have the "right" to be "married" in the traditional sense only because it isn't traditional and that is kinda important.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2008, 10:36:28 PM by MeanMonsta »
"No signs of anything that could cause even a slight case of death"

"He's a paraplegic whats he gonna do, bite us?"

Comfortable Madness

  • Level 9
  • *
  • Posts: 339
  • Fell Points: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Gay rights
« Reply #8 on: October 31, 2008, 10:44:58 PM »
Mean,

   I believe our opinions on this matter are closer than they originally appeared. We both want to do the RIGHT thing and are struggling to find out just what that really is.
“I will never serve you, Father of Lies. In a thousand lives, I never have. I know that. I’m sure of it. Come. It is time to die.” Rand al'Thor

"Mourn if you must. But mourn on the march to Tarmon Gai'don." Logain Ablar

GreenMonsta

  • Level 22
  • *
  • Posts: 1156
  • Fell Points: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Gay rights
« Reply #9 on: October 31, 2008, 11:02:15 PM »
Aww your right madness and even though Ook looks at homosexuality as wrong I think we are close to him as well.
"No signs of anything that could cause even a slight case of death"

"He's a paraplegic whats he gonna do, bite us?"

CthulhuKefka

  • Level 15
  • *
  • Posts: 691
  • Fell Points: 0
    • View Profile
    • My Facebook
Re: Gay rights
« Reply #10 on: November 01, 2008, 03:46:05 AM »
Whooo boy hot button issue here. :D

First off, I'll probably upset a lot of people on here, but I am bisexual. Wow, let's grab the pitchforks and torches amd burn CthulhuKefka!  ;) I have been this way my whole life, and believe me, it is not a "choice."

In response to Madness's assertions that America's was founded as a "Christian Nation." I am tired of hearing this argument. Most of the founding fathers, including Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Monroe and many others were NOT Christians. They were Deists. Deist hold to using Reason to solve political and social problems. Deists also believe that "God" separated himself from the Universe after he created it. This country was founded as a religious Neutral country.

Here in lies the problem though. On one hand, there is the separation of Church and State. Ok, so in the eyes of most religious faiths, homosexuality is a sin, therefore, a man wedding a man would be denied. And technically, under the first amendment, they are legally protected in their beliefs.

But what of other religions that are more liberal in their beliefs? Say for instance, an established religion where homosexuals are treated just as regular as any other person (which they are)? Are they also not protected legally under the first amendment? What right does the government have to tell another church that their religious beliefs are invalid? Absolutely none.


Marriage may well be a religious institution. So if a homosexual couple wishes to get married under a religion that accepts them, there should be nothing prohibiting them.
« Last Edit: November 01, 2008, 03:59:54 AM by CthulhuKefka »

Peter Ahlstrom

  • Administrator
  • Level 59
  • *****
  • Posts: 4902
  • Fell Points: 2
  • Assistant to Mr. Sanderson
    • View Profile
Re: Gay rights
« Reply #11 on: November 01, 2008, 06:51:22 AM »
CthulhuKefka, first off, having an attraction to someone is not a choice. Acting on that attraction is what is a choice. Unless you get raped, you make a choice about who you have sex with.

Second, you're absolutely right: The government should not be involved in telling churches who they can and cannot marry. And there are prominent churches like the Episcopalians which are A-OK with homosexuality. They have gay marriage ceremonies in their churches, and I'm not particularly aware of anyone (who is not in the Anglican community) having tried to stop them. (Or rather, not all Episcopalian churches agree on this, and they're having a sort of internal crisis now, with some individual churches deciding to go through the anti-homosexual African branch of the church instead of through the pro-homosexual US branch. But this is beside the point in this thread.)

Your statement is kind of confusing the issue, unless it's just reaffirming what we already said. The government should not get involved in what churches call marriage within their own church. If they don't want homosexual marriages performed in their buildings, no one (from outside their organization) should force them to allow them. If they want homosexual marriages performed in their buildings, no one (from outside their organization) should force them to stop.

Nevertheless, homosexual marriage being accepted in these churches is a relatively quite recent development and does not represent the opinion of anywhere close to the majority of religious communities.

The real question here is not what churches should or can do within their own organizations but what the government should do. In the last decade, almost every state in the U.S. has passed a law defining marriage as between a man and a woman. A large majority of them have also enacted constitutional amendments saying the same thing. Most people in the country believe that the government should not recognize as marriage the relationship of a same-sex couple.

The question of whether the founding fathers were Christian: Eh, there are a lot of contradictory sources.  Most people writing about this issue that I've found are pushing one agenda or another. Here's one that seems more balanced. It seems clear to me that according to the quotes that can actually be verified, the founding fathers who are identified as Deists did not believe in a God who created the universe and then went away—they believed that the hand of Providence took an active role in certain events of the day and that they were ultimately answerable to God. The Deists did not trust the creeds of the organized religions, and some of them did not believe in the divinity of Christ, but they believed in the rightness of Christian principles (principles, not "doctrines"). Even Jefferson thought Christ's teachings (the ones he thought were recorded correctly in the Bible) were good stuff. Yet they were very much against persecution of anyone for religious reasons, and were against using religion to promote tyranny. So am I.

But trotting out the names of the deists also sidelines the large percentage of the founding fathers (members of the constitutional convention, etc.) who were explicitly Christian. Here's a link (note that while it lists all the convention delegates' religious affiliations, that doesn't necessarily mean they were practicing Christians, but it gives examples of ones who were and ones who at least were not clockmaker-Deists).

...This whole discussion also though is kind of beside the point. I'm not sure what you were trying to say in regards to whether a definition of marriage should be part of the constitution.
« Last Edit: November 01, 2008, 06:56:07 AM by Boooookla »
All Saiyuki fans should check out Dazzle! Emotionally wrenching action-adventure and quirky humor! (At least read chapter 6 and tell me if you're not hooked.) Volume 10 out now!

CthulhuKefka

  • Level 15
  • *
  • Posts: 691
  • Fell Points: 0
    • View Profile
    • My Facebook
Re: Gay rights
« Reply #12 on: November 01, 2008, 05:38:53 PM »
You're right, acting on attraction is a choice, not just for homosexuals, but for heterosexuals as well. Marriage is also a choice. It's kind of a bum argument. A homosexual couple can't find acceptance because someone says "it's a choice." Heterosexual couples make the SAME choices. There is no difference.

I'm not saying that Christian churches should be forced to allow same-sex marriages. If it came out that way, I apologize., that wasn't my intention. What I mean to say is that for religions that allow same-sex marriages, which law should be followed if it is in a state that has "defined" marriage as between a man and a woman? While the state's law clearly says no, the first amendment prohibits interference in that religion, therefore a church that allows same-sex marriages should be allowed to conduct those marriages. It seems like a contradiction in law.

Since a large majority of homosexual couples I know want to get married, if only to get the same benefits as a regular married couples, then it IS a governmental issue. And when it comes down to a governmental issue, the real problem lies in which law to follow. It is a sticky situation. I'm just glad I live in a state that acknowledges this, but feel for my friends who live in other states that haven't recognized this.

Peter Ahlstrom

  • Administrator
  • Level 59
  • *****
  • Posts: 4902
  • Fell Points: 2
  • Assistant to Mr. Sanderson
    • View Profile
Re: Gay rights
« Reply #13 on: November 01, 2008, 07:54:16 PM »
Churches in all states can perform same-sex marriage ceremonies if they want. The ceremonies are not legally binding in states that don't recognize same-sex marriage, but it is not illegal for churches in those states to perform the ceremonies.

Actually, in all states, it is not the religious ceremony that has any recognition under the law—so no church wedding ceremonies are legally binding whether they're for same-sex couples or opposite-sex couples. According to the law, the marriage comes into effect and is legally binding as soon as the state-issued marriage license is signed by all parties and filed with the state, whether this is before or after the religious ceremony or whether there is a religious ceremony at all.

I'm not sure what you're saying when you say "which law to follow." Also, I still don't get what you're saying when you say it's a choice. I think we all agree that people choose who they decide to marry.
All Saiyuki fans should check out Dazzle! Emotionally wrenching action-adventure and quirky humor! (At least read chapter 6 and tell me if you're not hooked.) Volume 10 out now!

Reaves

  • Level 23
  • *
  • Posts: 1226
  • Fell Points: 1
    • View Profile
Re: Gay rights
« Reply #14 on: November 02, 2008, 04:32:44 AM »
I was under the impression that "Gay rights" meant much more than just the right to get legally married to another gay person, but also things like protecting against job discrimination etc. Is that not the case?
Also Meanmonsta you're a Catholic Christian. Does that mean you believe the Bible is the true and inerrant word of God? If so what do you think about verses like 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10?
Quote from: VegasDev
RJF: "AHA! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Cairhien, but only slightly less well-known is this: never go in against a warder when he is only the distraction! Get him Rand! Buzzzzzzz!