What are your views on gay rights in America? [Archive]

MuniAddict

2007-03-15, 02:50 AM

I think that gays should be allowed to be married and have equal rights as regular citizens of america.

(I have a friend that rides uni and he's gay, we are just curious.)Here's something I read online about marriage:<<It is a privilege because it is not guaranteed. Rights are. It is a privilege because it must be earned based on trust, love and respect. Not obligation. It is privilege because it can be taken away at any time. Rights can't. If your fiancee changes her mind and doesn't want to marry you she does not have to. It is a privilege because there are certain eligibility requirements, there are none for rights. In order to be eligible for marriage you have to be a certain age, your partner has to be a certain age (so pedophiles are not eligible to marry the children they want to), you can't be related, (so family members are not eligible to marry each other) and you can only marry one person at a time (so polygamists and bigamists are not eligible to marry everyone they desire) and of course you must be the opposite sex of each other. That is how privileges work, they all have rules that must be adhered to in order to get the privilege. If I don't take the driving test, I don't get the privilege of driving. If I don't pay my cell phone bill I don't get the privilege of having a cell phone. Yet there is no greater privilege than marriage.>> Seems to me that Gays do indeed have the same "rights" as heterosexuals.

JJuggle

2007-03-15, 03:14 AM

<<It is a privilege because it is not guaranteed. Rights are. It is a privilege because it must be earned based on trust, love and respect. Not obligation. It is privilege because it can be taken away at any time. Rights can't. If your fiancee changes her mind and doesn't want to marry you she does not have to. It is a privilege because there are certain eligibility requirements, there are none for rights. In order to be eligible for marriage you have to be a certain age, your partner has to be a certain age (so pedophiles are not eligible to marry the children they want to), you can't be related, (so family members are not eligible to marry each other) and you can only marry one person at a time (so polygamists and bigamists are not eligible to marry everyone they desire) and of course you must be the opposite sex of each other. That is how privileges work, they all have rules that must be adhered to in order to get the privilege. If I don't take the driving test, I don't get the privilege of driving. If I don't pay my cell phone bill I don't get the privilege of having a cell phone. Yet there is no greater privilege than marriage.>>
Save for the bolded bit, this quote is nothing more than verbal vapor; all meaning blows away in the face of its obviousness. The bolded part is thrown in so as to surround it by the obvious in order to make it appear obvious itself. Something it most certainly is not.

One could easily have made a similar argument with respect to voting some ninety years ago. That it is a privilege of those who are eligible by virtue of being 21, of not having committed a felony, and, of course, of being a man.

keys

2007-03-15, 03:20 AM

James_Potter

2007-03-15, 03:26 AM

James_Potter

2007-03-15, 03:29 AM

i think gays should have right and not be so unamamusly hated as they are but i dont think they shoulkd be allowed to marry or raise kids if they can raise kid then their kids dont get to live a normal life and it messes them up.
I totally understand what you're saying, but picture this: if gays were not discriminated against, then these kids would live a normal life. It's like saying that blacks and whites shouldn't have kids between them because they won't live a normal life and it messes them up...unless you're saying that they won't live a normal life because they won't have the stereotypical fatherly figure and motherly figure in their lives, in which case I present to you single parents, adopted children, and children who live with grandparents.

Goats_On_Unicycles

2007-03-15, 03:45 AM

i think gays should have right and not be so unamamusly hated as they are but i dont think they shoulkd be allowed to marry or raise kids if they can raise kid then their kids dont get to live a normal life and it messes them up.
why shouldn't we get married?? and why can't we have kids?? we're no different then other people. anyway, the kids would have a better life with us then they would after their parents died or threw them out of their house.
also mikael, even though i probably won't ever want to be legally married (i'm bi), it's still bigotry to not allow people to marry who they love.
LOVE IS NOT A CRIME! peace

James_Potter

2007-03-15, 03:48 AM

also mikael, even though i probably won't ever want to be legally married (i'm bi), it's still bigotry to not allow people to marry who they love.
LOVE IS NOT A CRIME! peace
I understand that, really I do, but there is nothing the government or anyone else can do to stop you from loving whomever you want...you are all still as free as you want to be!!
You can easily have all the pleasures of being married, without signing some piece of paper.

Goats_On_Unicycles

2007-03-15, 04:00 AM

I understand that, really I do, but there is nothing the government or anyone else can do to stop you from loving whomever you want...you are all still as free as you want to be!!
You can easily have all the pleasures of being married, without signing some piece of paper.
well, yeah, i wouldn't want to get married even if it was legal. i totally understand you but we're being denied freedom's that you have even though you don't use them. most gay people i know want to get married verrry badly. it's really sad.:(
p.s. i <3 canada. i'm moving there when i grow up.

James_Potter

2007-03-15, 04:03 AM

Well, maybe you should try to convince them that they are not trapped by the Government, like they think they are...no one can take away your right to love, I'm not just saying they're not allowed to, but they literally are unable to.

Unimonsterguy

2007-03-15, 04:03 AM

well, yeah, i wouldn't want to get married even if it was legal. i totally understand you but we're being denied freedom's that you have even though you don't use them. most gay people i know want to get married verrry badly. it's really sad.:(
if 2 gay people were to get married in the states, would it be like official or just like...not count or something?

Gilby

2007-03-15, 04:04 AM

Keep in mind that the fundamental purpose of the US government is to protect the rights of "We the People" which does include gay people.

Now, the specific issue mentioned is the right to marriage, so what is marriage, and what right are gay people fighting for? It's quite interesting when looking at the law and history of it. Right now, they are actually fighting for a privilege, not a right. Don't get me wrong, marriage is a right, and everyone has the right to marriage, even gay people right not have the right. Marriage is simply a contract between consenting people to form an arrangement. It's a right so you do not have to ask anyone permission to do this. However, marriage licenses were introduced in the US after the civil war. The black people, who were now citizens of the US under the 14th amendment only had privileges, and of course this lead to a lot of discrimination against blacks because they were considered second class citizens.

Let's look at some definitions from Black's Law dictionary, 2nd edition (1910):

MARRIAGE. Marriage, as distinguished from the agreement to marry and from the act of becoming married, is the civil status of one man and one woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent on those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex. 1 Bish. Mar. & Div. § a.

A contract, according to the form prescribed by law, by which a man and woman, capable of entering into such contract, mutually engage with each other to live their whole lives together in the state of union which ought to exist between a husband and wife. Shelf. Mar. & Div. 1.

Marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract, to which the consent of parties capable of making it is necessary. Consent alone will not constitute marriage; it must be followed by a solemnization, or by a mutual assumption of marital rights, duties, or obligations. Civil Code Cal. § 55.

Marriage is the union of one man and one woman, "so long as they both shall live," to the exclusion of all others, by an obligation which, during that time, the parties cannot of their own volition and act dissolve, but which can be dissolved only by authority of the state. Roche v. Washington, 19 Ind. 53, 81 Am. Dec. 376

Plural marriage. In general, any bigamous or polygamous union, but particularly, a second or subsequent marriage of a man who already has one wife living, under the system of polygamy as practised by Mormons. See Freil v. Wood, 1 Utah, 165.

Marriage license. A written license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to intermarry, usually addressed to the minister or magistrate who is to perfom the ceremony, or, in general terms, to any one authorized to solemnize marriages.

SOLEMNIZE. To solemnize, spoken of a marriage, means no more than to enter into a marriage contract with due publication, before third persons, for the purpose of giving it notoriety and certainty; which may be
before any persons, relatives, friends, or strangers, competent to testify to the facts.
See Dyer v. Brannock, 66 Mo. 410, 27 Am. Rep. 359; Pearson v. Howey, 11 N. J. Law, 19; Bowman v. Bowman, 24 111. App. 172.

INTERMARRY. See miscegenation.
MISCEGENATION. Mixture of races; marriage between persons of different races; as between a white person and a negro.

What's this tell us? Well, that intermarriages needed to have a license. After all, it was considered a privilege for the black person.

Today, for some reason, people typically want to get a license from the government as if they need permission to get married. I think they are just ignorant about what a marriage license is and what a marriage legally is. When you get a license, it's a contract between three parties, you, your spouse, and the state. The state then has an interest in the marriage and a lot of rules written in the contract that you may or may not like. Rules on how to divorce, what happens to your assets, your children.

Wouldn't you want to define those yourself and write your own contract? Makes you wonder why gay people are fighting for a privilege to be subject to the State.

James_Potter

2007-03-15, 04:06 AM

if 2 gay people were to get married in the states, would it be like official or just like...not count or something?
Two people of the same sex are not allowed to get a marriage license or certificate or whatever it's called...it's just plain against the law.

Gilby

2007-03-15, 04:08 AM

i think gays should have right and not be so unamamusly hated as they are but i dont think they shoulkd be allowed to marry or raise kids if they can raise kid then their kids dont get to live a normal life and it messes them up.
What is a normal life? Foster care? Single parent? Communal? Etc.

I think having two loving parents, whether gay or not, would be preferable to many other "normal" situations out there.

ThisGuyIKnow

2007-03-15, 04:09 AM

i think gays should have right and not be so unamamusly hated as they are but i dont think they shoulkd be allowed to marry or raise kids if they can raise kid then their kids dont get to live a normal life and it messes them up.

Don't get to have a normal life? Based on whose definition.

While we're at it we should kids away from single parents. Outlaw divorce, etc.

I don't THINK ignorant people like you should be allowed to reproduce, but I wouldn't take any action on that belief.

Jerrick

2007-03-15, 04:10 AM

Marriage is just a paper and some extra tax bonuses. You dont need that to live with someone or to prove you love them.

I would like to see the day where a guy can marry a guy, or a girl can marry a girl, and it wont cause such a commotion as it does now.

Goats_On_Unicycles

2007-03-15, 04:14 AM

Two people of the same sex are not allowed to get a marriage license or certificate or whatever it's called...it's just plain against the law.
yeah, that pretty much sums it up.
mikael, they still love each other no matter what the guv'ment thinks but for some people getting married is sort of like, i dunno... kind of like sealing the whole thing. it's a ceremony. a ritual type thing.
KEEP YOUR LAWS OFF OF MY BODY!

James_Potter

2007-03-15, 04:19 AM

True, but since that option isn't allowed, they can do some other ritual, like...I donno...I once heard this one crazy idea, where you buy a ring for each other... q-:
Seriously though, I understand...and it should be legal, even though it's not really necessary, in my opinion.

CliffNaylor

2007-03-15, 04:20 AM

think gays should have right and not be so unamamusly hated as they are but i dont think they shoulkd be allowed to marry or raise kids if they can raise kid then their kids dont get to live a normal life and it messes them up.

I actually did have a gay friend that ended up going to harvard university paid for in full. He was raised by 2 females his whole life. He must have been terribly screwed up.

yoopers

2007-03-15, 04:21 AM

It appears to me that people hate gays for two main reasons, the first being religion (usually some branch of Christianity) and the second is that people fear what they don't know/understand, or what is different...regarding the first reason (I'm gonna generalize here) Christianity is a rather arrogant religion in that many Christians feel it is their duty to force their own beliefs on to everyone else. They have very pure motives (to "save" the unbelievers from going to Hell) so you can't entirely blame 'em for trying to convert those who are not Christians, but when they try to force their own personal prejudices (is the plural of prejudice, prejudi?) upon those who don't share the same beliefs to start with, well, that's just not cool. Personally I understand why these Christians don't think being gay is right, it's in the bible and all, but for one thing, not everyone believes in the Bible and so you can't (shouldn't) force these beliefs on American Buddhists or American Hindus, and for another, I just forgot my second point, I'll remember later.

Mikael,

You know I generally don't get involved in religious or political discussions or debates on the forums, but I feel you are making some short-sighted accusations here to which I'll respond.

Every religion has it's extremists including Christianity. And it's always a shame that a group seems to become known by it's bad apples. But Christianity is supposed to be based on love, not hate. In that, I don't hate gay people. I don't hate any 'people' for that matter. I do as you pointed out diligently believe and follow my Bible's teaching on homosexuality. But my views on gay marriage are not simply a matter of withholding rights or freedoms from people. They are much more in depth in that it I see the situation deeply affecting life and culture of communities country and me...and I'll leave that discussion right there.

To your second point, that Christians shove their beliefs down unwanted throats. Firstly, Christianity is very similiar to any other religion on the face of the earth; it desires to make converts to its belief system because its members believe the faith to be the truth. That was the agenda of the Hare Krishna the last time I met on campus with them at their evening service. (Best food I'd had in a long time!) Secondly, apart from the extremists, again every religion seems to have them, it is generally not the norm that Christians grab people by the throats and scream "REPENT!" As stated before in these forums, I'll let you watch the way I live my life as a Christian in an effort to live out my proof of its truth. It's called relational evangelism.

You had some good thoughts, though. I just had to jump in with some defense. But now it's waaaaay past my bedtime. I'm sure I'll see your response in the morning.

CliffNaylor

2007-03-15, 04:23 AM

Gilby, delete this thread asap!!! IT WAS POSTED BY BUSH!!! AHH DELETE ALL THE GOOD STUFF!!!

ThisGuyIKnow

2007-03-15, 04:31 AM

Don't hide behind the Bible as excuse to withhold privileges from people.

The Bible also says not to work on Sundays, but many Christians do that on a regular basis. The government certainly couldn't get away with outlawing that.

If you call yourself a Christian you'd have compassion for the families that have been destroyed because the state refuses to recognize their marriage even when their church does.

saskatchewanian

2007-03-15, 04:32 AM

My position is that gays should be able to get married in a legal since and also a religious sense as long as said religion agrees with it. I think that the government has no place telling the church that they need to marry people despite their objections. If one church will not marry a couple then another probably will so that should not be a problem.

As for the issue of rights; you do not make rights, you cannot give them; you can affirm recognize, ignore or oppress them. Muniadict is right that it is not your right to get married but a great privilege. A privilege that gays should not be excluded from.

I acknowledge that the traditional definition of marriage is between man and woman but I believe that that things change and it is high time for this to change as well.

What makes people think that gays cant raise a family? To be able to adopt couples need to be checked out by child services and have a criminal record check and all that jazz. If you cant tell I'm actually not all that familiar with the system but I do know that they don’t just give kids to whoever asks for them. If a gay couple is seen fit (for who they are, not for the fact they are gay) then there is no reason they should not have a kid.

Why would the kid be messed up? I know a few people who grew up in single parent homes and they ended up OK. Being raised by a gay couple would be like a cross between being raised by a single parent (male or female influence but not both) and a traditional couple so the kid can get the same amount of attention.

By the way, this is an issue in many places in the world not just the States.

James_Potter

2007-03-15, 05:44 AM

Every religion has it's extremists including Christianity. And it's always a shame that a group seems to become known by it's bad apples. But Christianity is supposed to be based on love, not hate. In that, I don't hate gay people. I don't hate any 'people' for that matter. I do as you pointed out diligently believe and follow my Bible's teaching on homosexuality. But my views on gay marriage are not simply a matter of withholding rights or freedoms from people. They are much more in depth in that it I see the situation deeply affecting life and culture of communities country and me...and I'll leave that discussion right there.
It's pretty much normal to see the very worst sides of any group, any person, any idea, etc...I know I was generalizing (I said that I was), and I certainly know that all Christians don't hate gays...but those who hate gays are, most often, some sort of Christian (or call themselves that). Actually I think hate isn't really the right word...intolerant of, perhaps is more accurate. Once again I know all Christians aren't like that...So, don't think that I have this anti-Christian in any way, I do disagree with some of their beliefs yeah, but Christians (in general) must disagree with some of my beliefs too so to say that's a bad thing would make me a hypocrite (:

To your second point, that Christians shove their beliefs down unwanted throats. Firstly, Christianity is very similiar to any other religion on the face of the earth; it desires to make converts to its belief system because its members believe the faith to be the truth. That was the agenda of the Hare Krishna the last time I met on campus with them at their evening service. (Best food I'd had in a long time!) Secondly, apart from the extremists, again every religion seems to have them, it is generally not the norm that Christians grab people by the throats and scream "REPENT!" As stated before in these forums, I'll let you watch the way I live my life as a Christian in an effort to live out my proof of its truth. It's called relational evangelism.
I forgot about Hare Krishnas...they were a little before my time I think. But my parents told me they used to like hang out at airports and stuff. And there's that one scene from Airplane...but anyway. Of all religions, Christianity is the one most well known for evangelizing...that might just be because it's the biggest religion in the world. But even so, you don't get Buddhist or Muslim missionaries at your door or preaching on TV (: Sooo, this generalization of course isn't very accurate at all, and I don't wish to further spread a false belief about a group of people, I think it's rather relevant to the current discussion (legalization of gay marriage) because I feel that the entire issue really comes down to those who do believe it's wrong for religious purposes, and trying to run the country based on those beliefs...I don't entirely blame them because I mean we elected these people, and now they're trying to do their job how they feel is morally right...its just that most people think these decisions are morally wrong.

torkerdx

2007-03-15, 05:52 AM

gays arent people, they better never have rights. theyre lower than scum in a septic tank

and because you feel that way about a person who's only difference is that he likes the same sex makes you even worse than what you think of gays.

what makes a gay person different than you? not that much and not something you could tell by looking at them.

how is discriminating against gays any different than discriminating against black people or not giving women equal rights or discriminating against a religion? its not.

what if someone said to you "your religion sucks, so get rid of it"
it is basically the same thing that you just said to gay people

if you aren't affecting anyone you should be allowed to live your life the way you want to with out being harrased

wickedbob

2007-03-15, 07:00 AM

They should have all the rights just like anyone else your sexuality should not make you any less deserving of anything such as the right to marriage or anything else. I also believe people need to accept them for who they are by being obnoxious (many are here) and being an ass is not going to change anything at all. Also people that dislike gay people often have no argument (reasonable one) of why they don't like gay people except they're gay which is like saying I hate you cause your white, black or anything else much of it is fueled by the same ignorance. I don't know how stupid people are, but I am tired of people acting like being around a gay person is going to turn you gay (unless you really are) that is just ridiculous.

P.S. On a side note it was proven more homophobic people were turned on by gay people than the average person. That could be the reason they hate gay people....

cathwood

2007-03-15, 09:47 AM

Wouldn't you want to define those yourself and write your own contract? Makes you wonder why gay people are fighting for a privilege to be subject to the State.

This is kind of missing the point.

Presumably gay people are fighting to have the same rights/privilages as everyone else. Then they can chose what kind of partnership/contract they have. At the moment they do not have the choice, although heterosexual couples do. Perhaps they are fighting for the 'right' to chose, rather than the 'privilage' of marriage.

I think everyone should have the choice and not be discrimiated against because of thier gender.

yoopers

2007-03-15, 01:10 PM

like saying I hate you cause your white, black or anything else
Mr. Bob,

That works for so many issues. I am certainly all for protecting the rights of engendered groups of people. For the issue of homosexuality though, it does not work in my book as don't most of the stances within this thread because I do not believe that homosexuality is a trait. I firmly believe that it is a behavior. And I do not see that as intolerant (as is sure to be the cry). It's simply a statement of fact (for me :)) about a situation that exists.

yoopers

2007-03-15, 01:58 PM

but those who hate gays are, most often, some sort of Christian (or call themselves that).
I don't know. If I were to guess, I might be tempted to say that military folks could be the most intolerant of gays. My job in the mililtary took me across the paths of so many from across the branches and it seems to me that the military was chock full of some pretty staunch people. If I had to define homosexual intolerance, it might be tough not to point at the mililtary.

Here's what's going to get me into trouble though. I think such an intolerance in the military is a good thing.

cathwood

2007-03-15, 02:14 PM

Mr. Bob,
For the issue of homosexuality though, it does not work in my book as don't most of the stances within this thread because I do not believe that homosexuality is a trait. I firmly believe that it is a behavior. And I do not see that as intolerant (as is sure to be the cry). It's simply a statement of fact (for me :)) about a situation that exists.

But why would homosexuality being a behaviour rather than an inbuilt predisposition/trait/whatever make a difference to whether gay people had the choice about whether to marry thier chosen partner or not?

yoopers

2007-03-15, 02:43 PM

But why would homosexuality being a behaviour rather than an inbuilt predisposition/trait/whatever make a difference to whether gay people had the choice about whether to marry thier chosen partner or not?
Because the behavior does not grant the status of a group deserving rights any more than runners of stop signs deserve group status or protected rights.

Unicorn

2007-03-15, 02:43 PM

I see the gay fight for the right to same sex mairraige on par with the black movement for equality in the 50's. I think that in the future school kids are going to study about thier struggle just as they learn about Martin Luther King.

Besides why shouldn't Gays be allowed to suffer in mairraige just like the rest of us? Why does the heterosexual white male always get the shit end of the stick?

It is said that mairrage is like a three ring circus - Engagement ring, Wedding ring and SuffeRING.

Anyone should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as it does not infringe opon ohters.

If gays are not allowed to marry why not ban interaicial mairraige? Why not ban interfaith mairage?

Unicorn

UniBrier

2007-03-15, 02:54 PM

I don’t know how many of you get the e-mail updates from our fellow unicyclist Lars Clausen but if you want some perspective on how, even in the Christian church, people fall into two camps I suggest you take the time to read the 25 posts over four pages of his blog (http://larsclausen.blogspot.com/index.html). The conversation starts on October 27, 2006 then ends on February 21, 2007.

To read in order go to the bottom of the blog and click “Older Posts” three times then scroll down to the first post:

WELCOME TO A NEW CONVERSATION!

Dr. David Glesne's book UNDERSTANDING HOMOSEXUALITY, has been provided free to pastors of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, throughout America. I read Glesne's book, wrote him a letter, and asked for a conversation.

Glesne agreed including also that it would be good for us to communicate publically via blog. So here it is, a conversation we can all participate in. Today I'm posting the letter that I first wrote to David Glesne. On Monday I'll post his reply to me. From then on we'll be posting directly to this blog. Please use the comments and add your thoughts and experiences. In these terribly polarized days, I hope this conversation can be of use.

David Glesne and I are both trained in the same Lutheran Christian tradition, yet Glesne's book is very different from my own STRAIGHT INTO GAY AMERICA. How do we establish our viewpoints and beliefs? How do we change them? I expect to learn much from this conversation. Thank you in advance for your participation. Please invite others.

yoopers

2007-03-15, 02:58 PM

I see the gay fight for the right to same sex mairraige on par with the black movement for equality in the 50's. I think that in the future school kids are going to study about thier struggle just as they learn about Martin Luther King.

If gays are not allowed to marry why not ban interaicial mairraige? Why not ban interfaith mairage?
That's a great argument if, as does the rest of the thread, you believe that homosexuality is an engendered trait.
It is said that mairrage is like a three ring circus - Engagement ring, Wedding ring and SuffeRING.
Evidently I only have a two-ring circus. I love being married. I love the married and family life and everything about it. Sure we have our difficulties, everyone does, but those times come and go. Married is the foundation for the good times and the difficult times, but it still supports the whole works.
Anyone should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as it does not infringe opon ohters.
The difficult part here is what does one define as infringing? For example, I don't like hearing profanity in public. It grates me the wrong way, makes me sad, and in my opinion, infringes on my right to make my way through a day in peace. But the other side of the coin would argue free speech and the works and can't understand why I have a problem with it. So who's right?

Unicorn

2007-03-15, 03:40 PM

Hi Yupopers,

I understand you. It might not be nice to hear profanity. Especially in a playground where some 9 or 10 year olds are swearing by 5 and 6 year olds. Another place would be a ball game. A lot of swearing goes on in Ball games and some people bring thier young kids to ball games. It is also not nice to see road killed animals or bad car accidents. The other day I drove by a bad accident and my 3 year old son saw a bloodied naked man sprawled out on a paramedics strecher. It was not a pleasant site but it is life. A lot of people hate gays because they don't want thier kids exposed to homosexuality. Well, Kids are curious and they learn about everything sooner or later! (Except maybe thier grammar, Spelling and Algebra!) I don't think that unpleasantness would be considered an infringement. Dogs barking at 2am is an infringement. Someone saying Sh*t because something did not go well for them might be unpleasant but it is not an infringement. There are a lot of unpleasant things that we have to live with. A lot of people might find the thought of Homosexuality unpleasant but it exists. I am sure that a lot of gays and lesbians probably think of heterosexual sex as unpleasant. Arn't we lucky that they are not in the majority because then it might be illegal to have different sex mairrages! Just think of that. I am married and am not pro gay, but I don't want to see anyone infringed upon even if I don't agree with his or her lifestyle if it is not hurting me.

Unicorn

mscalisi

2007-03-15, 04:01 PM

You'd pretty much have to see it that way from a religous perspective, because if you didn't, you might have to question it, which is the problem with approaching homosexuality from a religious point of view. You already know what your stance is going to be, you just have to rearrange bits of logic to justify it. Did you ever honestly examine the body of evidence out there and make up your own mind, or just accept the views of your church?

Is hetrosexuality a trait? Did you choose to be sexually attracted to women? Could you choose to live your entire life denying yourself of any sexual expression? Could you simply turn it off and pray it away.

This is what you're asking gay people to do. People don't choose to be gay. WHY THE #@$% WOULD THEY?

For the issue of homosexuality though, it does not work in my book as don't most of the stances within this thread because I do not believe that homosexuality is a trait. I firmly believe that it is a behavior. And I do not see that as intolerant (as is sure to be the cry). It's simply a statement of fact (for me :)) about a situation that exists.

johnfoss

2007-03-15, 04:10 PM

I think that gays should be allowed to be married and have equal rights as regular citizens of america. Cliff has started us off here with *two* requests, which I think should really be considered separately. Based on the discussion so far, many of the people posting do not understand the problem.

For the gay couples I know, the big problem is not whether they can be married in the old-fashioned sense. That is, they can get married if they want, or form a civil union. What they *can't* get is the civil rights of a married couple. That's the stuff you get with that marriage license Gilby thought was so unimportant. The marriage license recognizes the couple as "legally connected" (I don't know the proper legal term), having the rights, financial and otherwise, of any other married couple.

I'm not an expert on what these rights are, but one of the big ones are tax breaks (or different application of taxes), which are intended, in part, to help married couples buy homes or raise families. And yes, gay couples can raise families. In fact many of the gay people I know have children, often from past marriages (or other mistakes). The issue here is the financial rights.

The other big problem I'm aware of is the right of power of attorney, or of next of kin. Say you've lived in the same house as a couple for fifty years, and one of you is dying of cancer. Your parter of fifty years has no rights over decision-making for you or of handling your estate in the event of your death. Because you aren't related. The marriage license makes you related. This is not a problem for fifty years from now. People are having these problems now.

There are probably other major "rights" issues but those are two of the big ones. I believe if you separate out the legal rights part from the marriage part, the problem might be easier for people to talk about. I think it might be a lot easier for people to agree that maybe those rights are less of a problem than using the word "marriage" for a same-sex couple. That's why I've had the idea that it should be called something else if you're of the same sex, so conservative, or traditional people don't get offended.

The people I've talked to are less interested in the marriage part than they are in the legal part. And why does the state grant all these rights to married couples? Is it *only* to promote making babies? If not, why base it on the sexes of the couple, rather than on their living arrangements and committment to each other?

unifreak7

2007-03-15, 04:11 PM

Mscalisi I love you. Beautifully put. I couldn't see anyone wanting to be hated by everyone, and live a life of incompleteness (not really being with the one they love).

Just alittle sidenote, let's not hang up so much on rights and privaleges of the fact.

Also married couples can share insurance and family packages i.e. family gym memberships, waterparks, anything that has a bonus for family.

-Shaun Johanneson

mscalisi

2007-03-15, 04:22 PM

Hey, thanks. Thank you. That's awesome, %$#@ awesome...I mean, uh, that's cool you can, you can say that.

"...Don't you have something to say?"

No...oh I mean, I uh, I like you.I like you too dude.

I have a compromise for everyone. Lets take "marriage" and hand it over to churches, and they can marry who they choose to. Lets also remove any legal rights from "marriage"

For the legal parts, lets have "civil union" for everyone. Civil unions will grant exactly the same rights that marriage previously did.

This way, the (anti-gay) churches can continue to deny gay people marriage, and gay couples can have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples.

I've always been a big fan of the separation of church and state, and if you look close enough at this issue, thats what it boils down to.

Mscalisi I love you. Beautifully put. I couldn't see anyone wanting to be hated by everyone, and live a life of incompleteness (not really being with the one they love).

Just alittle sidenote, let's not hang up so much on rights and privaleges of the fact.

Also married couples can share insurance and family packages i.e. family gym memberships, waterparks, anything that has a bonus for family.

-Shaun Johanneson

cathwood

2007-03-15, 04:27 PM

Because the behavior does not grant the status of a group deserving rights

Why not? And why does it grant the status of a group being denied thier rights?

Gilby

2007-03-15, 04:42 PM

This is kind of missing the point.

Presumably gay people are fighting to have the same rights/privilages as everyone else. Then they can chose what kind of partnership/contract they have. At the moment they do not have the choice, although heterosexual couples do. Perhaps they are fighting for the 'right' to chose, rather than the 'privilage' of marriage.

I think everyone should have the choice and not be discrimiated against because of thier gender. They want to be treated the same as blacks just after the civil war? :) Essentially a marriage license is giving up your rights, but so are most things we do today.

In any case, you have the unlimited right to contract. This means that two people have the right to form whatever kind of contract they want with each other. They have the right to choose the contract. But pulling in a third party means that you are subjected to the terms they make for the contract.

I understand the point, but the real underlying issue is that our current system is so messed up because of ignorance, that people are mislead into thinking they have no rights and only privileges so they want the contract to be formed with the State.

It mostly comes down to the problem introduced in the 1930s where the courts significantly changed. This is when the statutory laws were started and is when the court system changed from being all common law jurisdiction to having statutory jurisdiction. The constitution is common law. Statutory agreements are in implied consent, whereas common law agreements are in full knowledge. Today most things are statutory because when you form a contract and pay with colorable money, you are forming a colorable contract, which is what statutory jurisdiction was made for. That colorable money we use is called a Federal Reserve Note (FRN).

From Black's Law Dictionary, 2nd Ed. (1910):
COLORABLE. That which has or gives color. That which Is in appearance only, and not In reality, what it purports to be.
By signing a contract and using FRNs, you are forming a colorable contract, subject to all statutory laws surrounding the FRN and that encompassing the issues in the contract and subject to change. By using FRNs we are passing on commercial obligations of the government and therefore are subject to that. All terms in statutory contracts, which can in many cases be totally different from what most people think they are, are used as defined in the statutes. Statutory laws waive your rights, unless you explicitly reserve them as required in the UCC 1-308:
A party that with explicit reservation of rights performs or promises performance or assents to performance in a manner demanded or offered by the other party does not thereby prejudice the rights reserved. Such words as "without prejudice," "under protest," or the like are sufficient.
This basically says that anytime you sign something you need to say "all rights reserved" next to your signature.

So it does boggle the mind why anyone would fight to be subjected to having no rights when it comes to marriage, but I do understand that most people are simply not informed.

mark williamson

2007-03-15, 05:14 PM

Here's something I read online about marriage:<<It is a privilege because it is not guaranteed. Rights are. It is a privilege because it must be earned based on trust, love and respect. Not obligation. It is privilege because it can be taken away at any time. Rights can't. If your fiancee changes her mind and doesn't want to marry you she does not have to. It is a privilege because there are certain eligibility requirements, there are none for rights. In order to be eligible for marriage you have to be a certain age, your partner has to be a certain age (so pedophiles are not eligible to marry the children they want to), you can't be related, (so family members are not eligible to marry each other) and you can only marry one person at a time (so polygamists and bigamists are not eligible to marry everyone they desire) and of course you must be the opposite sex of each other. That is how privileges work, they all have rules that must be adhered to in order to get the privilege. If I don't take the driving test, I don't get the privilege of driving. If I don't pay my cell phone bill I don't get the privilege of having a cell phone. Yet there is no greater privilege than marriage.>> Seems to me that Gays do indeed have the same "rights" as heterosexuals.

The trouble is when it gets to what you're allowed by law; marriage generally has special consideration under law (e.g. next of kin rights - can you make medical decisions about your life partner. Or simple inheritance / pension rights).

In western society, marriage typically has more implications than just a commitment to one another or the religious connotations. It makes an important difference to the rights afforded you by law regarding your partner. Whether you choose to call it "marriage" or hold it in a place of worship, consenting adults who have committed to one another for life really ought to all be equal under the law.

James_Potter

2007-03-15, 05:16 PM

This is what you're asking gay people to do. People don't choose to be gay. WHY THE #@$% WOULD THEY?
I don't think people choose to be gay, but I don't think they're born that way either...it's a mental thing, in my opinion. I donno what happens to make someone that way...but I believe that people aren't born with sexual orientations at all, and sometime later in life (puberty, perhaps), their mind chooses subconsciously.
Of course I have no real reason to believe this, it just makes most sense to me that way (:

Because the behavior does not grant the status of a group deserving rights any more than runners of stop signs deserve group status or protected rights.
But those who run stop signs are putting people besides themselves in danger...gays are just minding their own business if they want to get married.

James_Potter

2007-03-15, 05:20 PM

The difficult part here is what does one define as infringing? For example, I don't like hearing profanity in public. It grates me the wrong way, makes me sad, and in my opinion, infringes on my right to make my way through a day in peace. But the other side of the coin would argue free speech and the works and can't understand why I have a problem with it. So who's right?
There are some things I don't like to see in public either, but just because I don't like them doesn't mean I will be able to avoid them forever...Should someone who breaks his leg in public and has a piece of bone jutting out their thigh be prosecuted, because the sight is disturbing to everyone? I know this analogy is kind of a leap, mostly because swearing is a choice that people make, and breaking ones leg isn't...usually. And you believe that being homosexual is a choice that people make...here's a better one: a lot of single people are sensitive about not having a boy/girlfriend, so when they see a heterosexual couple holding hands or kissing in public they get depressed...however I don't think this is a legit reason to ban Public Displays of Affection.

cathwood

2007-03-15, 05:26 PM

There are some things I don't like to see in public either, but just because I don't like them doesn't mean I will be able to avoid them forever...Should someone who breaks his leg in public and has a piece of bone jutting out their thigh be prosecuted, because the sight is disturbing to everyone? I know this analogy is kind of a leap, mostly because swearing is a choice that people make, and breaking ones leg isn't...usually.

No but people can chose to behave in ways that are more likely to result in a broken leg than others, now let me think of an example ... um .... unicycling for instance. So not that much of a leap.

mark williamson

2007-03-15, 05:39 PM

Because the behavior does not grant the status of a group deserving rights any more than runners of stop signs deserve group status or protected rights.

Runners of stop signs put other people's safety at risk.

Also, you can use exactly the same argument for denying rights to heterosexuals... "Just because they choose to do something doesn't mean they have rights".

I think it's absolutely the right of a Church to take a negative view of homosexuality; I wish they wouldn't but I can't stop them. Homosexuals being married in the eyes of God is an issue that is up to their Church.

However, being allowed the civil rights (right to visit your partner in hospital and make decisions about their care) associated with marriage is a wider legal question. It's not a religious question, it applies to atheists and people from any religion and they get it ... by getting a marriage license. In a country with separation of church and state, the legal benefits of a marriage license should be a separate issue from the moral / theological issues of whether homosexuality is right or wrong, trait or behaviour.

BluntRM

2007-03-15, 05:42 PM

I don't think people choose to be gay, but I don't think they're born that way either...it's a mental thing, in my opinion. I donno what happens to make someone that way...but I believe that people aren't born with sexual orientations at all, and sometime later in life (puberty, perhaps), their mind chooses subconsciously.
Of course I have no real reason to believe this, it just makes most sense to me that way (:

The Freudian concept of development argues that biological instincts are constant. Within the frame of a developing mind, the intuition for food, sex, and self-preservation is always present, although these instincts may be dormant until a balance of physical growth has been sustained. Nothing is spontaneous, sub-conscious, but never spontaneous.

ThisGuyIKnow

2007-03-15, 05:43 PM

Gilby,

The problem with creating a legal contract of your commitment other than the marriage contract with the state as a third party is that the state doesn't recognize it.

There are cases for example where a Same-sex couple lived on worked a farm together. They were co-owners of the property by legal contract. In both of their wills they willed their half of the farm to the other. When one of them died the family of the deceased legally overturned the will because the couple was not "married" under the law. The court sided with the family despite a legal contract saying the farm should go to the spouse and she ended up losing the farm that her and her wife had lived and worked together for decades.

So the problem with not being included in the marriage contract is that certain legal statuses are ignored and cannot be created by contract.

saskatchewanian

2007-03-15, 07:02 PM

I have a compromise for everyone. Lets take "marriage" and hand it over to churches, and they can marry who they choose to. Lets also remove any legal rights from "marriage"

For the legal parts, lets have "civil union" for everyone. Civil unions will grant exactly the same rights that marriage previously did.

This way, the (anti-gay) churches can continue to deny gay people marriage, and gay couples can have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples.

I've always been a big fan of the separation of church and state, and if you look close enough at this issue, thats what it boils down to.

this sounds good to me

JJuggle

2007-03-15, 07:18 PM

The Freudian concept of development argues that biological instincts are constant. Within the frame of a developing mind, the intuition for food, sex, and self-preservation is always present, although these instincts may be dormant until a balance of physical growth has been sustained. Nothing is spontaneous, sub-conscious, but never spontaneous.
Blunt, would you translate that into simpler language please?

Also, are you providing this information as background or are you providing a statement of your own beliefs?

forrestunifreak

2007-03-15, 07:21 PM

Mr. Bob,

That works for so many issues. I am certainly all for protecting the rights of engendered groups of people. For the issue of homosexuality though, it does not work in my book as don't most of the stances within this thread because I do not believe that homosexuality is a trait. I firmly believe that it is a behavior.

Thank you.

thejdw

2007-03-15, 07:30 PM

Of coarse they should have rights! They are just the same as anybody else :rolleyes: I mean come on, what does your sexuality do to your rights? :confused:

yoopers

2007-03-15, 07:37 PM

You'd pretty much have to see it that way from a religous perspective, because if you didn't, you might have to question it, which is the problem with approaching homosexuality from a religious point of view. You already know what your stance is going to be, you just have to rearrange bits of logic to justify it. Did you ever honestly examine the body of evidence out there and make up your own mind, or just accept the views of your church?
As a matter of fact, I have...but the research was conducted and written from a Christian point of view. :)

Is hetrosexuality a trait? Did you choose to be sexually attracted to women?
It is my stance that hetrosexuality is a trait and homosexuality is not. If nothing else, the design of human anatomy is proof enough for me.

Could you choose to live your entire life denying yourself of any sexual expression? Could you simply turn it off and pray it away.Why would I want to do that?

This is what you're asking gay people to do. People don't choose to be gay. WHY WOULD THEY?And from my perspective, why would God say that homosexuality is wrong then create beings as homosexuals? Doesn't stand to reason with me.

cathwood

2007-03-15, 07:46 PM

It is my stance that hetrosexuality is a trait and homosexuality is not. If nothing else, the design of human anatomy is proof enough for me.

Could I just ask what you mean by 'trait' as your use of the word doesn't seem to fit any of my understandings of it?

Thanks

ThisGuyIKnow

2007-03-15, 07:49 PM

Why would I want to do that?

I don't know but that's what you're asking other people to do.

I'm curious, when was it that you realized you were heterosexual?

musketman

2007-03-15, 07:59 PM

gays arent people, they better never have rights. theyre lower than scum in a septic tank

woa, lol

I wouldn't go that far, but I definiatly dont want any gay rights/marriage! NO NO NO! The very though of the word "Gay" is oooooo:eek: I hate it, and it puts bad thoughts in my head, and well...no no no!

yoopers

2007-03-15, 08:15 PM

Could I just ask what you mean by 'trait' as your use of the word doesn't seem to fit any of my understandings of it?

Thanks
Sure, Cathy. It is a natural process and originally created to be such. It was design intent. Hopefully that helps.

yoopers

2007-03-15, 08:18 PM

I'm curious, when was it that you realized you were heterosexual?
I believe I already answered that. I never made a choice to be hetrosexual. It is ingrained in creation.

James_Potter

2007-03-15, 08:27 PM

And from my perspective, why would God say that homosexuality is wrong then create beings as homosexuals? Doesn't stand to reason with me.
Homosexuality occurs naturally in animals besides humans all the time though...a lot of animals, in fact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior).
Do you believe these animals make the conscious decision to not be heterosexual, as nature intended them to be?

tobbogonist

2007-03-15, 08:34 PM

nearly all my friends believe that homosexuality is a choice and that people can be made change their mind. and it is the same through the older generation of Tasmania.

It causes things like this (http://www.samesame.com.au/news/local/508/Not_So_Fairy_Penguin) to come about, which is just rediculous. they are saying that people should say no to development and think of their children first. because the proposed plans are being pushed by a gay couple.

I believe it is more on the natuer side of things. if one takes into consideration examples such as David Reimer, although he had his penis burnt off (*eek*) and was brought up as a girl, nature prevailed and when he/she finally found out he/she said he/she had never felt happy as a girl and new there was something wrong. it was enough to send he/she to suicide. Although not stricly homosexual related it still show that nature generally prevails and that fighting it can proove futile.

Homosexuals have as much rights as any other group and i think it is sad that people hold such prejeduce(sp?) towards them and try to get them to change!
I think zfreak220 hit it on the head with
i say live and let live.

James_Potter

2007-03-15, 08:36 PM

nearly all my friends believe that homosexuality is a choice and that people can be made change their mind. and it is the same through the older generation of Tasmania.
I agree with this, and also that heterosexuals can be made to change their mind.

tobbogonist

2007-03-15, 08:39 PM

And from my perspective, why would God say that homosexuality is wrong then create beings as homosexuals? Doesn't stand to reason with me.

That is if there is a God, Bannana's could just be a co-incidence?

and those little fishies that swim up your wee stream and stab you in the nob, how is it possible somthing like that evolves?

I find it hard to believe that anyone who does not follow 'God' is wrong and followers of religions such as buddism are wrong, but then people who do follow 'God' are wrong two. these are all intelligent people, religion to me is more their to give poeple a sense of meaning and hope.

would all gay people go to hell?

ThisGuyIKnow

2007-03-15, 08:51 PM

I believe I already answered that. I never made a choice to be hetrosexual. It is ingrained in creation.

No, you didn't. When did you personally realize that you were heterosexual?

Children are asexual. So at some point you BECAME heterosexual. At some point in your life you found that you were attracted to women.

Go have a conversation with someone about when they realized that they were attracted to members of the same gender. It will probably be very similar to your story of when you realized you were attracted to the opposite gender.

You're willfully ignorant about this issue. I find willful ignorance to be shameful.

tobbogonist

2007-03-15, 09:01 PM

when you ask a child what gender he/she is, they will, by the age of around 4, know to say either boy or girl. but when asked why this is so, they cannot answer.

we did an interview with one of the school councillers daughters in class (she was the cutest) and she told us that she was a girl, that her mother (after some thought) was a girl and her father (after alot of thought) that her father was also a girl. She new some of here friends where boys but that was only because that is what her mother had told her.

a grasp of sexuality, she did not have. i connot remmember the age at which children are said to become aware of sexuality.. :(

ThisGuyIKnow

2007-03-15, 09:06 PM

a grasp of sexuality, she did not have. i connot remmember the age at which children are said to become aware of sexuality.. :(

There is a difference between gender distinction and one's own sexuality.

Some men are attracted to blonds, some men are attracted to men. But I think society would find it awfully silly these days to try to tell someone, "You're not allowed to be attracted to blonds"

tobbogonist

2007-03-15, 09:08 PM

but it is wrong to be attracted to men?
lol
I think you may have kept studing where i have dropped off :)

hopefully i can afford to continue next year!

James_Potter

2007-03-15, 09:11 PM

Some men are attracted to blonds, some men are attracted to men. But I think society would find it awfully silly these days to try to tell someone, "You're not allowed to be attracted to blonds"
True, but if that man was Black then I wouldn't put it past some people in this country to say he can't be attracted to blondes...my point is that some people are racist, some people are sexist, but not everyone is, and therefore no one should impose that opinion on the entire country through law enforcement.

cathwood

2007-03-15, 09:16 PM

There is a difference between gender distinction and one's own sexuality.

Means nothing anyway - gender distinction. My son (when he was 7) said that being a woman meant that you have long hair (despite the fact that my hair is shorter than his and always has been) and that nurses are women (although both myself and my husband were nurses and my husband still is) whereas men are doctors (whereas I will be called doctor soon).

ThisGuyIKnow

2007-03-15, 09:16 PM

True, but if that man was Black then I wouldn't put it past some people in this country to say he can't be attracted to blondes...my point is that some people are racist, some people are sexist, but not everyone is, and therefore no one should impose that opinion on the entire country through law enforcement.

Exactly. If someone thought for example that it's wrong from white women to be attracted to black men or vice versa, we would think that persons opinion was niave and silly, especially since it has no basis in fact, or human compassion.

I'm not a practicing Christian so I'm not exactly sure of their beliefs, but isn't one of the main teachings of Christ to treat others as you would like to be treated?

maestro8

2007-03-15, 09:19 PM

And from my perspective, why would God say that homosexuality is wrong then create beings as homosexuals? Doesn't stand to reason with me.
Why would the Bible say the Earth is 7000ish years old, yet it contains artifacts that appear to be hundreds of thousands of years old?

Simple. You have to suspend reason, logic, et. al. when interpreting the Bible. It is, after all, a work of fiction.

I never made a choice to be hetrosexual. It is ingrained in my creation.
Fixed.

Many homosexuals say the same thing... they never made the choice, they were made that way.

ThisGuyIKnow

2007-03-15, 09:21 PM

Means nothing anyway - gender distinction. My son (when he was 7) said that being a woman meant that you have long hair (despite the fact that my hair is shorter than his and always has been) and that nurses are women (although both myself and my husband were nurses and my husband still is) whereas men are doctors (whereas I will be called doctor soon).

Exactly, so I think it would be safe to assume that he also doesn't know whether he's attracted to boys or to girls.

My point was that kids aren't aware of sexual preference so at some point in their development a realization of what type of people they are attracted to happens whether they attracted to the same gender, the opposite gender, or both genders.

That's all the point I was trying to make, that others have expanded on.

mark williamson

2007-03-15, 09:22 PM

Homosexuality occurs naturally in animals besides humans all the time though...a lot of animals, in fact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior).
Do you believe these animals make the conscious decision to not be heterosexual, as nature intended them to be?

I'd just like to point out that the God of the Old Testament made a number of animals that He pronounced to be "abominations" and forbade the eating of so at least there's some kind of precendent for His creating things he didn't approve of.

Of course, the New Testament gives a different spin to the events of the Old. Equally well, does it say as much about homosexuality as the OT? Jesus didn't mention gay relations... Jesus seems to stand for the kind of God who wouldn't create things he inherently hated; but surely you can equally argue that this means He must not disapprove of homosexuals given that they exist.

(in this vein, see the parody site http://www.godhatesshrimp.com which apply this in campaigning against objections to gay marriage)

This is getting off the track though: I believe gays should be allowed to "marry" but I don't think it has to be called that. As long as they have equivalent rights to that of a heterosexual marriage license then that is as far as the state needs to legislate. Whether Churches choose to recognise these as actual "Marriage in the eyes of the Lord" is an entirely separate issue that the State would seem not to have any business in.

James_Potter

2007-03-15, 09:24 PM

I'm not a practicing Christian so I'm not exactly sure of their beliefs, but isn't one of the main teachings of Christ to treat others as you would like to be treated?
It is, but that can be thrown around however you want it to be...for example, a Christian would say s/he does not want the right to marry someone of the same sex and therefore won't give it to anyone else.

johnfoss

2007-03-15, 09:27 PM

Sorry Yoop, I've got to quote you now too:
It is my stance that hetrosexuality is a trait and homosexuality is not. If nothing else, the design of human anatomy is proof enough for me.
You don't need to be married, or physically attracted to each other, to make babies. The anatomy part clearly answers the making babies question, but isn't really relevant to having a loving relationship.

In response to: "Could you choose to live your entire life denying yourself of any sexual expression? Could you simply turn it off and pray it away."
Why would I want to do that?
If you were raised Christian and then realized you were attracted to men. This happens to lots of people. You then have to choose to stick with your religion and deny your feelings, or go seek happiness and deny your religion. Or kill yourself. This happens a lot too.

And from my perspective, why would God say that homosexuality is wrong then create beings as homosexuals?
Why would God create hermaphrodites (people with mixed, both, or unclear sexual organs)? And what sexual orientation is "biblically correct" for one of these people? Do they have to go by what a doctor determines when they're a few days old?

I have a feeling it will never be proven (at least not anytime soon) whether homosexuality is a choice or not. But it doesn't matter. The choice issue is separate from the decision to have a committed relationship with someone of the same sex or someone of the opposite. One is traditional and the other is not, but both have been around as long as written history.

BluntRM

2007-03-15, 09:29 PM

Blunt, would you translate that into simpler language please?

Also, are you providing this information as background or are you providing a statement of your own beliefs?

Freud was a pyscho-analytic materialist which breaks down to mean that everything is derived from a previous form and these chronological layers of instinct/experience are present in later character development; that means humans are developing the expression of their sex instinct at birth, as well as any other internal drive that we might call an instinct- that's about where I'd leave Freud for any discussion on sexual orientation, but it's half relevant to this discussion; a psyche is the sum of experiences, so a sexual orientation is less of a choice and more the culmination of an expression/repression cycle to date.

The second part of this then is to say that it is unlikely that a gay or straight genetic trait exists, but a general human trait for sexual function, after that, any number of influences create sexual tendancies, brain chemicals and culture shape that development, and what comes out is random minus the logic of compatible sexual organs and procreation.

ThisGuyIKnow

2007-03-15, 09:31 PM

It is, but that can be thrown around however you want it to be...for example, a Christian would say s/he does not want the right to marry someone of the same sex and therefore won't give it to anyone else.

The thing is it's not the about the right to marry that is really in debate here. It's the privileges that are given to Opposite Sex couples that are not given to Same sex couples.

There are thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands of same sex married couples in this country. Unfortunately the government refuses to recognize there marriage and denies certain privileges because of this.

So Christians are basically saying, the government should recognize my marriage, but not theirs. Things should be given to me, but not them.

Someone can try to twist their views to have make the golden rule not apply here, but if you break it down it really ought to.

But I guess this is just more of the hypocrisies that exists in modern religion.

Gilby

2007-03-15, 09:45 PM

What they *can't* get is the civil rights of a married couple. That's the stuff you get with that marriage license Gilby thought was so unimportant.

Good. They are still free then. Why would you want civil rights when you already have the equivalent inalienable rights? Do you know the difference?

"We the People" (settlor) wrote the constitution (trust document) to ensure the inalienable rights of "ourselves and our posterity" (beneficiaries) with the congress and executive branch (trustees) having a fiduciary duty to us (beneficiaries). Following the rules in the trust document, the trustees created the 14th amendment, which made it where "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." The 14th amendment does not apply to the beneficiaries of the trust, but the 14th amendment made the slaves citizens and gave them "privileges", not rights. We refer to these as "civil rights". The 14th amendment made the "United States citizen" and if you have ever filled out a government form and claimed to be a US citizen, then you told them that you are a 14th amendment citizen that only has privileges and they will make this presumption. Instead of fighting for civil rights, you should be fighting to erase that presumption so you can get your inalienable rights back.

The problem with creating a legal contract of your commitment other than the marriage contract with the state as a third party is that the state doesn't recognize it.
Recognized means that the State has record of it, but just because it's not recognized does not mean it's not valid. The burden is on them to prove that it's valid. Have the signed and notarized contract. Have a ceremony with witnesses present. Have witnesses sign the marriage certificate. Have photos or video of the ceremony. Tell people that you are husband/wife and live together. This establishes the validity of a marriage so a court can hold it to be valid.
There are cases for example where a Same-sex couple lived on worked a farm together. They were co-owners of the property by legal contract. In both of their wills they willed their half of the farm to the other. When one of them died the family of the deceased legally overturned the will because the couple was not "married" under the law. The court sided with the family despite a legal contract saying the farm should go to the spouse and she ended up losing the farm that her and her wife had lived and worked together for decades.

It depends on the details of the case, but I would guess that there was a lack of defense for the foundations of the marriage or contract, a problem of accepting the jurisdiction of a statutory court, or another contract involved with the property that resulted in statutory jurisdiction.

Today everything is set up to enslave you every chance they get, so it's a tough battle to remain free if you choose to be.

So the problem with not being included in the marriage contract is that certain legal statuses are ignored and cannot be created by contract.

They are both contracts. So yes, the legal status is created by contract.

ThisGuyIKnow

2007-03-15, 09:56 PM

They are both contracts. So yes, the legal status is created by contract.

Not true.

Another example.

A female couple. One of them has a child. They raise it as THEIR child. The birth mother of the child works and the other mother does the stay at home mom thing. When the birth mother dies. The wife is not able to collect the survivor benefits on behalf of the son they shared. The money went to the grandmother. The couple had tried to get get a co-guardianship type contract, but the state wouldn't allow it.

So, no, you can't just write your own marriage contract and still expect to be given the same privileges and legal rights to the other person that a government marriage contract grants.

Many same sex couples have hired lawyers to draw up contracts to try to replace a state-issued marriage license and cover every hole that might arise from the non-recognized status of their commitment, but when a challenge arises often from disapproving type parents the blood family is given the rights and permissions over the commited partner despite co-guardianships of children, powers of attorney, etc.

Writing up your own marriage contract is simply not something the legal system in this country allows for. Maybe the constitution says that it should, but the reality of the situation is that it's not allowed.

Gilby

2007-03-15, 10:05 PM

Your example does not prove that the marriage license is not a contract...

But anyways, the problem is that some other contract is overruling the new contract. If a contract exists, the rules in that contract must be followed to change the contract. The other possibility is the lack of proof of this common law contract.

Unfortunately, most lawyers are barred from practicing common law and must only deal in statutory law. Go figure. It's the same with most courts, so the system is really stacked up against freedom today.

ThisGuyIKnow

2007-03-15, 10:16 PM

Your example does not prove that the marriage license is not a contract...

I wasn't trying to prove that a marriage license is not a contract. Of course a marriage license is a contract. As you stated it's a contract between the two individuals and the state.

Since the state isn't willing to sign the contract when both of the people are of the same gender, the parts of that contract having to do with next of kin, inheritence, tax law, property rights, etc can apply.

Couples have signed the contract only between the two parties involved, in some cases intentionally writing in stipulations to cover inheritance, next of kin, property rights, etc. However when pressed despite the stipulations the contract was not honored by agents of the state.

So same sex marriage exists whether the state signs onto it or not. What the gay community is really fighting for is that they be allowed to make a contract with the state in the same manner that an opposite sex couple is able to make a contract with the state that allows them to grant their personal and property rights to a partner in the same that a heterosexual is able to. Until that happens at least as far as the government is concerned same-sex married couples are just permanent roommates who share expenses.

With the kind of gray area exceptions of a few states that is sort of the way things stand.

They are fighting for equal access to right to contract with the state.

Goats_On_Unicycles

2007-03-15, 10:16 PM

The very though of the word "Gay" is oooooo:eek: I hate it, and it puts bad thoughts in my head, and well...no no no!
like... love??
anyway, why the f*ck would i chose to be gay?? really. if i had a chocie i'd be straight. then maybe i wouldn't get beat up and shit. where do the heteros get all this crap?

James_Potter

2007-03-15, 10:17 PM

like... love??
anyway, why the f*ck would i chose to be gay?? really. if i had a chocie i'd be straight. then maybe i wouldn't get beat up and shit. where do the heteros get all this crap?
They just don't understand, man...and they don't bother to try to....

wickedbob

2007-03-15, 10:21 PM

Being gay is like being straight you really don't choose it is just how you are...

ThisGuyIKnow

2007-03-15, 10:21 PM

They just don't understand, man...and they don't bother to try to....

Exactly, it's a matter of willful ignorance.

wickedbob

2007-03-15, 10:21 PM

They just don't understand, man...and they don't bother to try to....

I do try to understand the best I can and most should to but don't..

Goats_On_Unicycles

2007-03-15, 10:46 PM

this might be a good place to post a picture of a patch i have on my bag...
18588
in other words, it's none of your business who i love. if you don't like it, that's fine, just keep it to yourself.

mscalisi

2007-03-15, 10:50 PM

Your answers are pretty generically the answers of your church. Your stance that its not a trait is in stark contrast to what has been proven scientifically. Logic is once again a causualty of religion. Research conducted from a christian point of view is going to be as flawed as cigarette research from a big tobacco point of view.

Why would ANYONE want to live an asexual life, or worse yet, a false sexual life. Yet, that's what your avocating. A gay person cannot simply try to not be gay. Ask Ted Haggard, not that he could really be honest seeing has he was miraculously "cured" in three weeks. (Think we'll see him again in the media?)

Why would god create albinos, deaf people, blind people, autistic people....etc. Could an albino just choose to have pigment?

God didn't say homosexuality was wrong any more than he said it was ok to rape...err marry women prisoners of war (Deuteronomy 21:11-14 ).

Also, people forget about the other victims of making homosexuality a sin:
Their opposite gendered spouses, who learn of their husband's (or wife's) homosexuality many years into a relationship. Sometimes after contracting AIDS that their "straight" husband got after having a gay affair.

As a matter of fact, I have...but the research was conducted and written from a Christian point of view. :)

It is my stance that hetrosexuality is a trait and homosexuality is not. If nothing else, the design of human anatomy is proof enough for me.

Why would I want to do that?

And from my perspective, why would God say that homosexuality is wrong then create beings as homosexuals? Doesn't stand to reason with me.

saskatchewanian

2007-03-15, 10:51 PM

Goats:

haha that is awesome. You have guts carrying that around, especially in the states.

you have my respect

Goats_On_Unicycles

2007-03-15, 10:58 PM

Goats:

haha that is awesome. You have guts carrying that around, especially in the states.

you have my respect
thanks! yeah, i live in kind of creepy place... our county made international headlines a few years ago when it tried to close the library system. that would've been the first time a library system was shut down!!

wickedbob

2007-03-15, 11:10 PM

Totally goats you got my respect for that I don't know if I would be brave enough to wear that like you that is awesome dude...

Chris.James

2007-03-15, 11:20 PM

monkeyman

2007-03-16, 12:11 AM

this might be a good place to post a picture of a patch i have on my bag...
18588
in other words, it's none of your business who i love. if you don't like it, that's fine, just keep it to yourself.

Haha, that's pretty cool. When I first read it, my mind left out the "Don't", and I had to reread it twice before I saw the "Don't"

:o

DrumCorpsFan

2007-03-16, 03:03 AM

what makes a gay person different than you? not that much and not something you could tell by looking at them.

i dare you to look at an extremely homosexual man and tell em that you cannot tell he is gay by looking at him. When they stop carrying pink purses around then you can tell me that. i dont care if someone is gay and continues to act like a man, but when they talk in girls voices and act rediculously gay, i do not concider them people.

ThisGuyIKnow

2007-03-16, 03:07 AM

i dare you to look at an extremely homosexual man and tell em that you cannot tell he is gay by looking at him. When they stop carrying pink purses around then you can tell me that. i dont care if someone is gay and continues to act like a man, but when they talk in girls voices and act rediculously gay, i do not concider them people.

I dare you to. You'd actually be quite surprised. Yes, some gay men dress or act a certain way, but many don't. It has nothing to do with their level of "gayness". You'd never know they were gay unless you asked them and they felt like telling you.

I do not consider ignorant bigots people.

DrumCorpsFan

2007-03-16, 03:14 AM

I dare you to. You'd actually be quite surprised. Yes, some gay men dress or act a certain way, but many don't. It has nothing to do with their level of "gayness". You'd never know they were gay unless you asked them and they felt like telling you.

straight guys dont carry pink purses, i would obviously know they were gay. and the ones who i cant tell are gay. then i dont care about them thats cool, as long as they dont touch me

saskatchewanian

2007-03-16, 03:18 AM

straight guys dont carry pink purses, i would obviously know they were gay. and the ones who i cant tell are gay. then i dont care about them thats cool, as long as they dont touch me

i knew a guy who used to cross dress, i thought that he was probably gay, turns out he was strait and just liked peoples reactions.

ThisGuyIKnow

2007-03-16, 03:19 AM

straight guys dont carry pink purses.

You don't know that. You're speaking in generalizations.

If gay men hitting on you makes you feel uncomfortable now you know how every girl you've ever hit on feels.

Chris.James

2007-03-16, 03:22 AM

straight guys dont carry pink purses, i would obviously know they were gay. and the ones who i cant tell are gay. then i dont care about them thats cool, as long as they dont touch me
i like the color pink, and im as straight as....well...something that is really straight. And some gay people are femme, but others are quite butch and you could never tell they were gay by looking at them

ThisGuyIKnow

2007-03-16, 03:23 AM

i knew a guy who used to cross dress, i thought that he was probably gay, turns out he was strait and just liked peoples reactions.

Yeah, cross dressing is unrelated to sexual preference. A man who likes to wear women's clothing could be gay, but it doesn't mean that he is. The two things sometimes occur in the same person, but it doesn't mean they are related.

monkeyman

2007-03-16, 03:46 AM

I do not consider ignorant bigots people.

Doesn't that make you...ah, nevermind. :rolleyes: ;)

DrumCorpsFan, I'm gonna let you in on a little secret, for when you actually go out and interact with people:

Some people are different than you!!

Believe it or not, you aren't better than them because of that.

Goats_On_Unicycles

2007-03-16, 03:59 AM

i dare you to look at an extremely homosexual man and tell em that you cannot tell he is gay by looking at him. When they stop carrying pink purses around then you can tell me that. i dont care if someone is gay and continues to act like a man, but when they talk in girls voices and act rediculously gay, i do not concider them people.
i'm not violent but most of my gay friends would beat the f*cking shit out if they heard you say that.
as long as they dont touch me
that's what the pope says too.

wickedbob

2007-03-16, 04:24 AM

straight guys dont carry pink purses, i would obviously know they were gay. and the ones who i cant tell are gay. then i dont care about them thats cool, as long as they dont touch me

You might catch the gay lol how stupid is that.

James_Potter

2007-03-16, 04:27 AM

You might catch the gay lol how stupid is that.
http://pics.livejournal.com/fallingangels/pic/00010zt0

Jerrick

2007-03-16, 05:16 AM

i knew a guy who used to cross dress, i thought that he was probably gay, turns out he was strait and just liked peoples reactions.

I cross dress time to time. Its freaking fun to do.

The reactions you get from some people are priceless, or better yet, when a person tries really hard to not even notice, but you can see their mouth twitching, that's hilarious.

But even though I have been in dresses, straighten my hair, wore make-up, and all the other cross-dressing stuff, I am not gay.

Therefore,
Drumcorp - 0
Me and everyone else - 1

wickedbob

2007-03-16, 05:21 AM

http://pics.livejournal.com/fallingangels/pic/00010zt0

lol..... I think I might have seriously..... nope I didn't S.I. swim suit addtion looks good as ever lol....phew that was close...

TheObieOne3226

2007-03-16, 06:02 AM

The future of gay marriage???

http://www.impawards.com/1994/posters/junior.jpg

haha he runs a state.

BillyTheMountain

2007-03-17, 02:59 AM

James_Potter

2007-03-17, 03:28 AM

You obviously never heard of the effeminate heterosexual.
This is what many unicycle guys are.
Also known as the metrosexual (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrosexual)...like that guy in Snakes on a Plane, who you just KNOW is gay, but then at the end he has a girlfriend.

wickedbob

2007-03-17, 06:01 AM

Many guys on uni's are? I never new I am to lazy to be metrosexual lol woludn't care to be either, but whatever works for you.

James_Potter

2007-03-17, 06:08 AM

that's what the pope says too.
That's what SHE said too!!

uni57

2007-03-17, 06:54 AM

Many guys on uni's are?Oh, my. Apparently you've committed a logical fallacy called Listening to Billy.

wickedbob

2007-03-17, 07:09 AM

Oh, my. Apparently you've committed a logical fallacy called Listening to Billy.

No I committed a logical fallacy of asking to Billy or whomever.

digigal1

2007-03-17, 11:52 PM

Can the other gay person speak here?

On marriage = hundreds and hundreds of benefits: tax breaks, insurance, pension, health care proxy, etc. etc. Look them up on the web sometime. Also, the being a second-class citizen" Once my brother in law said, while we were visiting my girlfriend's family: "we get the big bed because we're married." Oh yeah, and being 41 years old and still having to call my beloved my "girlfriend."

On gayness not being a trait: gayness is not an activity. It is a predisposition, a propensity. There are gay people who never have sex with anyone. The acting on it does not suddenly make it so. I don't know for sure that I was gay at birth or some mixture of genetics and my upbringing made me this way. But that doesn't really make a difference. I feel the way I feel.

There were too many posts for me to read them all. But this is all I have to say about this topic at the moment.

BillyTheMountain

2007-03-22, 02:22 AM

unifreak7

2007-03-22, 03:30 AM

Gays should be giving equal rights as straight people. To me they do a BETTER job at raising kids because they don't teach hatred (being gays are hated, why would the teach the same). Homosexuallity is a trait in the brain created in the womb. Sorry guys you're going to have to hate me cause I have brown eyes.

-Shaun Johanneson

Gilby

2007-03-22, 03:39 AM

To me they do a BETTER job at raising kids because they don't teach hatred (being gays are hated, why would the teach the same). I wouldn't jump to that conclusion. It's possible that because of the hatred they have gotten from others that they are likely to have a view towards others that does not go well with raising a child. So it could go either way.

Goats_On_Unicycles

2007-03-22, 03:48 AM

i'm not heterophobic. neither are any other gay people that i know. we want everybody to be respected as a person because we know what it feels like to be hated.

yoopers

2007-03-22, 12:33 PM

we want everybody to be respected as a person
You have my full respect as a person.

JJuggle

2007-03-22, 01:09 PM

You have my full respect as a person.
Bruce, what does it mean to afford someone "full respect as a person" yet to feel that they have made an immoral choice? If you don't believe that a person enjoys the same rights and privileges, i.e being able to marry, being able to serve in the military, can you really respect that person? In the dictionary the word "respect" is associated with esteem, honor, and appreciation. Do you feel any of these things for gay people, not despite their homosexuality, but including it?

(1/f: 1/1) re·spect (ri-spekt').
transitive verb: re·spect·ed, re·spect·ing, re·spects
1. To feel or show deferential regard for; esteem.
2. To avoid violation of or interference with:: respect the law.
3. To relate or refer to; concern.

noun:
1. A feeling of appreciative, often deferential regard; esteem.
2. The state of being regarded with honor or esteem.
3. Willingness to show consideration or appreciation.
4. respects. Polite expressions of consideration or deference.
5. A particular aspect, feature, or detail.
6. [Usage Problem] Relation; reference.; see regard

digigal1

2007-03-23, 12:25 AM

Thank you, all you straight male lovers of lesbians. You are one of my favorite groups of people.

It's funny, I don't like lesbians much anymore! Most of them take themselves way too seriously.

burjzyntski

2007-03-23, 01:22 AM

"..and then I realized; it's not that I'm anti-gay, I'm anti-poop! There's poop in there!"
-Tommy Chong

Chris.James

2007-03-23, 01:27 AM

Thank you, all you straight male lovers of lesbians. You are one of my favorite groups of people.

It's funny, I don't like lesbians much anymore! Most of them take themselves way too seriously.
we do what we can, you know. :D

lol!

wickedbob

2007-03-23, 04:16 AM

we do what we can, you know. :D

lol!

Yes I do like lesbians that's why you should see 300! the movie ha ha it has almost no clothed lesbians that is why everyone likes it so much =p.:D

BillyTheMountain

2007-03-24, 02:50 PM

Denying gay couples marriage led Olive Watson to adopt Patricia Ann Watson, when Olive was 43 and Patricia was 44 years old. A Maine law allows one adult to adopt another.

Olive is the grand daughter of Thomas Watson Sr, founder of IBM, and she wanted her partner to establish inheritance.

Now she is ready to take her share of the inheritance, but Watson trust lawyers are trying to annul the adoption. This of course would leave other adoptions on shaky grounds.

BillyTheMountain

2007-06-12, 01:49 AM

Hey,

Your town is probably having their local gay (or GLBT) pride parade and celebration soon.

A good time to remember GLBT heroes, like the gay rugby player who, on 9-11, helped down the jet headed to Washington DC.

Also, since the USA had gotten rid of over 80 Arabic language interpretors due to the military's "Dont ask, don't tell" anti-GLBT rules, they were short on people to intercept the communications on 9-10 which could have prevented the 9-11 disaster.

Funny how all the Republican presidential candidates are still against gays being allowed to be OUT in the military.

CKCrowe

2007-06-12, 01:51 AM

Im agianst gay marriage because the bible says it is wrong.

CKCrowe

2007-06-12, 01:52 AM

Homosexuallity is a trait in the brain created in the womb. Sorry guys you're going to have to hate me cause I have brown eyes.

-Shaun Johanneson[/QUOTE]
Thats not true is it??? Sounds weird.
Do you have like a website or something where I could look at that?
i dont think thats true?

monkeyman

2007-06-12, 01:56 AM

A good time to remember GLBT heroes, like the gay rugby player who, on 9-11, helped down the jet headed to Washington DC.

Way to promote discrimination based off sexual preference, Billy.

monkeyman

2007-06-12, 02:08 AM

Im agianst gay marriage because the bible says it is wrong.
Oh really now? Just because the Bible says so? Might want to rethink (http://www.laughparty.com/funnyjoke/Dr-Laura-and-Gay-Marriage/946/)that.

CKCrowe

2007-06-12, 02:13 AM

now look up after the flood and see what God says, people were alloud to marry brother and sister before the flood there were no laws agianst it, but after he put down many laws, look them up, those are all leviticus and and old testament verses, before the flood, way before.

I was reading on the being born Gay, heres one website, im currently looking up more.

heres also some old testament stuff about being gay

http://nosamesexmarriage.com/marriage/bible_verses.php

how many unicyclists are gay?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/article542811.ece
theres another

James_Potter

2007-06-12, 02:13 AM

Way to promote discrimination based off sexual preference, Billy.
You misunderstand, he's talking about Flight 93, wherein they say that the passengers helped overthrow the terrorists so the plane did not hit the White House, it instead crashed into a field. He's saying that a gay guy was one of the people who helped save the White House from destruction.

dudewithasock

2007-06-12, 02:16 AM

James_Potter

2007-06-12, 02:21 AM

now look up after the flood and see what God says, people were alloud to marry brother and sister before the flood there were no laws agianst it, but after he put down many laws, look them up, those are all leviticus and and old testament verses, before the flood, way before.
He's talking about the Leviticus verses, which list the many laws other than no homosex which no one follows today because they just don't make sense, even though they're in there right next to the one about being gay.

monkeyman

2007-06-12, 02:27 AM

You misunderstand, he's talking about Flight 93, wherein they say that the passengers helped overthrow the terrorists so the plane did not hit the White House, it instead crashed into a field. He's saying that a gay guy was one of the people who helped save the White House from destruction.

I understood perfectly, Mikael/Matt. Why does it matter one little bit that one of the guys who helped was gay? Should we make a big deal that one of them had brown hair? If you make a distinction based off of sexual preference, you are discriminating. Even if it may seem all nice and pretty, you are still promoting treating gays differently than everyone else.

CKCrowe

2007-06-12, 02:34 AM

my dad told me to stay out of this convo, but he said there are 3 types of laws, leviticus, cerimonial, and legal, leviticus laws were to protect the people like for protection from desieses for newly born pregnant women, diseases from pig, I forget what it is called, i'll have to look it up, something about the cooking of it, and other laws to protect ones self, though these laws were to protect, which we have medicines and such, so not all are taken like the touching of pig's blood, unclean where you stay away from others so not to catch or infect other for periods of time, i probably forgot some stuff or something, you guys can look up the other stuff on this.

Legal are what we have today to prevent corruption.

and cerimonial, like how to present sacrifices, before Jesus Christ died on the Cross for us. And how the high prest should go into the Holy of Holies. ect...

James_Potter

2007-06-12, 02:36 AM

Oh I see what you mean...well, you know how Billy always writes rather tongue-in-cheek. I believe what he was implying is actually that gays are the same as everyone else, in that, most of those who helped in the plane were straight but there was a gay guy in there too, and he did what he could, for a country who hates him.

dudewithasock

2007-06-12, 02:37 AM

I understood perfectly, Mikael/Matt. Why does it matter one little bit that one of the guys who helped was gay? Should we make a big deal that one of them had brown hair? If you make a distinction based off of sexual preference, you are discriminating. Even if it may seem all nice and pretty, you are still promoting treating gays differently than everyone else.

The reason BTM pointed it out was because this thread is ABOUT homosexuality. If he just wanted to point out some dude who helped with flight 93 without mentioning his sexuality, he wouldn't've put it in this thread.

BillyTheMountain

2007-06-12, 03:13 AM

Way to promote discrimination based off sexual preference, Billy.

Not discrimination to remember GLBT heroes.

Thanks james and Alex Dude!

carsonpalooza

2007-06-12, 03:25 AM

Im agianst gay marriage because the bible says it is wrong.
well the bible also says (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=1+Corinthians+14%3A34&passage2=&passage3=&passage4=&passage5=&version1=31&version2=0&version3=0&version4=0&version5=0&Submit.x=0&Submit.y=0):
Passage 1 Corinthians 14:34:
women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.
Do you think that because the bible says women shouldn't talk in church there is no good reason at all they should and if they do they should be banned from that church? You shouldn't let your religion make you have a closed mind about opinions.

Gilby

2007-06-12, 08:02 PM

Also, since the USA had gotten rid of over 80 Arabic language interpretors due to the military's "Dont ask, don't tell" anti-GLBT rules, they were short on people to intercept the communications on 9-10 which could have prevented the 9-11 disaster.

Funny how all the Republican presidential candidates are still against gays being allowed to be OUT in the military.

I look at it as a good thing now, assuming the US uses the gay bomb (http://cbs5.com/topstories/local_story_159222541.html) and it backfires.

The war would end quite quickly then. :D

dudewithasock

2007-06-12, 09:46 PM

Not discrimination to remember GLBT heroes.

Thanks james and Alex Dude!

What about me? :(

BillyTheMountain

2007-06-13, 12:55 AM

What about me? :(

Dude,

Of course, you are the COOLEST!

BTM

mscalisi

2007-06-13, 01:34 AM

It makes me sick, when people use the bible as an excuse to discriminate against gay people.

From Deuteronomy 21:11-14
21:10 When you go out to do battle with your enemies and the Lord your God allows you to prevail19 and you take prisoners, 21:11 if you should see among them20 an attractive woman whom you wish to take as a wife, 21:12 you may bring her back to your house. She must shave her head,21 trim her nails, 21:13 discard the clothing she was wearing when captured,22 and stay23 in your house, lamenting for her father and mother for a full month. After that you may have sexual relations24 with her and become her husband and she your wife. 21:14 If you are not pleased with her, then you must let her go25 where she pleases. You cannot in any case sell26 her;27 you must not take advantage of28 her, since you have already humiliated29 her.

It's a 2000 year old book, written by people that have been dead for nearly as long. Do you sincerely believe that the above text is the word of god? Yet, People use the same text to condemn gays. If god didn't want gay people on this earth, he wouldn't have created them. It sure is easy to pass judgement on others when you'll never have to walk a mile in their shoes.

JJtheunicycle

2007-06-13, 02:24 AM

forrestunifreak

2007-06-14, 04:11 AM

I did not really read any of this thread, nor do I care to. But I scanned through a random page and this caught my eye.

we want everybody to be respected as a person

Yet you continually call people that don't agree with you horrible names like "fucking shitbags", etc.?*
Sorry, that sounds like anything BUT respect.

* (not nessecarily in this thread)

why the f*ck would i chose to be gay?? really. if i had a chocie i'd be straight. then maybe i wouldn't get beat up and shit.

There are even today many places in the world were Christians are beaten, tortured and/or killed for their faith. Often times they could save themselves from acts like having their finger nails torn out and other actrocitys by simply renouncing christ, yet they do not. According to you, are they "born" to be christians?

Consequently, do you believe robbers or murderers to be "born that way"? Why would a man, after spending years in prison for theft, get out and do it again and again when he know's he's going to get caught?

Goats_On_Unicycles

2007-06-14, 05:03 AM

I did not really read any of this thread, nor do I care to. But I scanned through a random page and this caught my eye.

Yet you continually call people that don't agree with you horrible names like "fucking shitbags", etc.?*
Sorry, that sounds like anything BUT respect.

* (not nessecarily in this thread)

There are even today many places in the world were Christians are beaten, tortured and/or killed for their faith. Often times they could save themselves from acts like having their finger nails torn out and other actrocitys by simply renouncing christ, yet they do not. According to you, are they "born" to be christians?

Consequently, do you believe robbers or murderers to be "born that way"? Why would a man, after spending years in prison for theft, get out and do it again and again when he know's he's going to get caught?
Oh my god, man. I NEVER called ANYONE a shithead. I was pissed off at peoples views, not them personally. I am SO VERY, VERY SORRY if I in any way even APEARED to be trying to be mean. I am verry sorry, man. That isn't what I was trying to say.

People tend to follow the religion that their parents followed. Wether that is being "born" into that religion, I don't know. At any rate, I find it horrifing that ANYONE is discriminated against based on their religion, sexual orientation, color of skin, political beliefs or anything like that.
BUT, I don't know what your point is. I'm gay cuz of the chemical mix in my brain. Bisexuality is not my religion. It's my orientation.

Also, I would say that how someone becomes a robber or a murderer is *pretty* much the same as how someone chooses their religion. It's environment. AND are you comparing gays to criminals?? I'm not sure if that's what you were saying. but I hope it isn't.

And again, I'm SO sorry if you thought I was trying to hurt you. I really need to work on my language. I'm very sorry.

aussy

2007-06-14, 06:19 AM

my best friend is a lesbian, so i have no problem with homosexuality. i am disgusted when people say that gays are going to hell or gays are bad or whatever. it's a confusing subject, because i'd like to say"respect all people", but quite frankly, some people don't deserve respect. not because of what they are, but who they are. if a person is black, and i don't like then, it's not because they're black. if i don't like him/her, it's because of the way the act, who they are, not what. a person deserves respect depending on the quality of their character. no offense to anybody here, because most people here seem really smart and put thought into what they write, but a lot of people in the world don't deserve respect.

and goats on unicycle, i have one thing to say to you:
i love rainbows
straight but not narrow.
YAy homos!! or bi's or whatever.

Danni

2007-06-14, 06:50 AM

The bible is a load of shit. Men, under the laws that the bible dictates, must treat women like second hand citizens.

If a daughter of a priest is found to have lost her verginity, she can be BURNED ALIVE.
Once a man has been wedded to a woman, he may do with her as he wishes. Rape, beatings, slavery, etc.

"For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." Corinthians 11:8-9

If you follow the bible so anally about gay marriage, then you should also beat your wife, make her shut up in church and burn your daughter when she has premarital sex.
I could go and rape a Babylonian woman (Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished." (Isaiah 13:15-16)) and use this sorry excuse when I am charged.

You only adhere to the rules that you want to listen to, and use it to back you up in instances like gay marriage.
We live in the modern world. Not the fawking medieval ages.

aussy

2007-06-14, 06:49 PM

danni,

first of all, you probably don't know that much about the bible and teh like, because if you did, you would know that it was written to certain groups of people at certain times. back in the day, it was okay to beat your wife around and stone her if she screwed another dude. it was as normal for that to happen as it is for someone to get a divorce today. back then, there was no divorce, and later on, divorce was unheard of until the recent centuries.

number two, you're doing exactly whay you said not to do

You only adhere to the rules that you want to listen to, and use it to back you up in instances like gay marriage.
We live in the modern world. Not the fawking medieval ages.

the bible doesn't just talk about how to rape bitches and kill ho's. it's main theme is a theme of love, just as i heard james potter say in other threads. you're taking one part of the bible, puting it out there, and use it to back up your belief that the bible is a load of horse defecation.

and finally, the only place in the bible that says homosexuality is bad, that hasn't been discounted, also states that lying, pride, and other sins that everyone is guilty of, are just as bad as bein' a homo. the bible didn't make homosexuality a giant sin, people did.

p.s. i love homos.

James_Potter

2007-06-14, 07:57 PM

the bible doesn't just talk about how to rape bitches and kill ho's. it's main theme is a theme of love, just as i heard james potter say in other threads. you're taking one part of the bible, puting it out there, and use it to back up your belief that the bible is a load of horse defecation.
p.s. i love homos.
I didn't say that, I said Jesus' main message is Love...the Bible, most of it, is completely different from what Jesus taught.

JusticeZero

2007-06-16, 05:00 AM

Personally, i'm mystified why this is a government/legal question. Shouldn't this be between the couple and their religious leaders, since said religious leaders are the one doing the whole ceremonial bit anyways? Most churches won't sanction the marriage. Some will. By putting a law in, you're stepping on the rights of the churches that would support the couple.
Anyways, they're really not hurting anyone. "Be fruitful and multiply" has gone out of style with the crunch in global resources. No high end industrialized nation has been able to meet replacement levels with their birth rates for a long time; increasing populations we are seeing are almost purely driven by life span extension, not birth. The exception is the poorer nations, where birth rates are still high but have plummetted rapidly.
There are plenty of children out there who need good secure homes. Committed gay couples, say, the kind you would be able to pick out if they could be married, have been shown to be secure and good environments to raise a child in, and the child's preferences are unaffected by the experience.
I seriously fail to see what the big deal is, other than "oh, I think that's icky, i'll bet god agrees with me that that's icky."

JusticeZero

2007-06-16, 05:10 AM

the bible doesn't just talk about how to rape bitches and kill ho's. it's main theme is a theme of love... you're taking one part of the bible, puting it out there, and use it to back up your belief that the bible is a load of horse defecation..
The point being that people use the parts that agree with how they think and lay it down saying "The Bible says that you must do X! Therefore, you must do X! The Bible is the last word!" Yet, there are many things that the Bible says to do which we find outright immoral or wrong or ridiculous, and the people who make the claim that the Bible must be followed on the bit that confirms their personal bias suddenly discover that the Bible is metaphorical and flexible when it comes to these -other- parts that they do NOT agree with. It's inconsistent and dishonest.