Gay Rights?

[zx0]

I really don't see the big deal. How does sexual orientation matter to anyone?!?

I just heard the other day that the American Scouts have banned homosexuals. Talk about a backward culture in the US! Are you guys going to start slavery again next?

[† Emotional Outlet]

I don't know that you can necessarily say the actions of the Scouts represents American culture as a whole or attribute their actions to the possibility of slavery once again being a viable option. That's like saying Chick-fil-A and their profits apparently going towards anti-gay initiatives represents our culture.

A lot of social justice fighters seem to focus on attacking things like this, going after the Boy Scouts and Chick-fil-A instead of being putting their energies towards more positive and productive initiatives. I doubt the Scouts or Chick-fil-A are going anywhere and, regardless of their anti-gay sentiments, they don't exactly run the country, haha. I'm not saying I agree with any of these groups, their decisions, or beliefs ("all" gay men are paedophiles? Really?), but I don't think they really have as much power as people say they do. But maybe I'm wrong; maybe Chick-fil-A is as serious a problem as, say, major oil conglomerates.

It's not a change that'll happen overnight, getting people to stop caring about strangers' orientations or being offended/disgusted by it, but it is already happening.

[Gringo1323]

I never understood why people cared about what benefits others were getting. I mean seriously why should anyone but those who wish to be married care about whether they have tax breaks and visiting rights. Marriage is a civil issue, and I don't know anyone who wants to force churches to wed those who are homosexual. I really don't get it.

[Prometheus1991]

Personally I'm of the "Each to their own." mentality. I look at it this way, does it affect me, directly or indirectly? If two men/women want to get married, is it going to cause me any problems? Since 9 times out of 10 the answer is going to be "No", I say more power to ya.

[Dark_Angel13]

I have a number of gay friends both female and male so I've discussed this a lot with them. In my opinion I see no problem with it, if you love someone enough to want to bind yourself to them with marriage it should be perfectly legal and allowed. Religion also pisses me off epically so when I hear the people blasting "Death to the sodomites" and all that shit I get pretty angry, I've had my same sex experiences and I have to say love is love, no matter what sex you go with, so it should be legalised everywhere and to hell with what anyone thinks.

[Minkseru]

I have nothing against gays, but do find it sad that in north america you HAVE to be MARRIED to have any real rights when it comes to your partner, regardless of choice. Not because marriage is a bad thing, I am married, but the fact is the government has put too much effort in keeping it so if you aren't married you have really little say on things, and even if you ARE MARRIED, if you have not adopted the children to be yours, you have no say either. :/

[mnvbmn]

Since I am not a religious person, I think gays should be able to do what they way like everyone else and that includes marriage. Besides, marriage only seems to have mostly legal and financial benefits (at least in the US). Nowadays, marriage seems almost disposable with the high divorce rate. Gay marriage should be made legal so we can move on and solve real problems.

Edited September 3, 2012 by mnvbmn

[Rideout89]

 

I dont support gay marragies. I am glad it is against the law. Also the Bible talks about it being wrong and that is another reason why I dont believe in it. But hey that is what I think.

The bible says it clearly? Please, find me the versicle cause I want to read it.

As far as I know the church is against it on its 'free will' (which I respect but do not agree with), because I do not remember seeing this written on the bible. Of course, I may not have read the part it's written, because although I try to read it even being atheist, the bible is quite big...

Anyway, I support it for a very simple reason: I see absolutely nothing wrong with it. They are human like everyone else and should have the same freedom others do to have relationships out of will and not out of obligation. And don't come with that 'it's not natural'. War for instance is not natural and much worse than gay marriage, worry with that before worrying with a small matter like gay marriage and let people be happy.

 

If you were to go to a Islamic nation, they'd just plain kill you for being gay. Though I do not agree with them.

I am however against it. Where does the bible go against it?

Leviticus 18:22 (New International Version)

22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (New King James Version)

9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,[a] nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.

Romans 1:27 in the New International Version reads:

In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

None of that says homosexual marriage is bad. It seems to say "either straight, or straight to hell". I think that's silly, but regardless of my opinion, if you're going to hell anyway, why not go their as a married couple if that's what pleases you?

Also, I'd really like it if they stopped calling it "gay" marriage. It makes it sound like it's only for homosexual guys, and I think that makes some people dislike the idea even more than it otherwise would.

Really, I think this should fall under the separation of church and state. I think "marriage" should be in the realm of religious organizations, and "civil unions" (or whatever you want to title them) should be handled by the state. That, in my opinion, would solve this whole issue, at least it would solve it politically. Thanks to the large percentage of a-holes in our society, nothing is ever REALLY solved.

I could've written this better, but it's 2:23AM, so good enough.

In summation: Yeay lesbians! I support anything that helps and encourages them! (And, uh, everybody else should be happy too... yeah... woohoo...)

[† Emotional Outlet]

I'm not certain what solution you are proposing with having "marriages" only handled by religious organisations and "civil unions" by state. The problem lies with certain benefits that are afforded to those who are "married" as opposed to those with "civil unions".

 

If you are saying that it should only be a nominal difference and benefits should be the same across the board, then I completely agree with you. Otherwise it's just kind of putting a bandage on the problem to simply rename things without addressing the underlying issues.

[† Mute point]

Allowing same sex marriage requires passing only 1 law and repealing 1 other. Making civil unions fully equal to marriage requires changing every law that mentions marriage.

 

 

 

In regard to this...

"Leviticus 18:22 (New International Version)
22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

 

There are many ways to interpret this, but since most churches no longer hold Leviticus as relevant to today's world, it seems silly to bring it up. I'd also point out that it says nothing about women sleeping with other women. Clearly Leviticus was just the first hypocritical perv to admit in writing that he thinks that man on man is gross but girl on girl is awesome.

 

It also says absolutely nothing about marriage.. Because marriage is not sex. If you're getting married to have sex, go hire a hooker, it's cheaper than divorce.

[† Emotional Outlet]

They say sex for free costs more than sex you pay for...

 

I'm not super versed on the Bible so I might be making this up, but I thought the Old Testament became moot when Jesus died on the cross? Like, I thought that was the entire point of his whole sacrifice, so we didn't have to be held to the old laws.

[† Mute point]

The story goes that JC died for our sins and ensured that all would live on when they died, instead of just those who repented for their sins, or lived exactly according to the bible. So yes, that would render most of the Old Testament invalid, because it was, essentially, a how to guide to living with as little sin as possible. (In this case, sin being whatever they wrote down as being sinful, not necessarily what they were told by the Voice)

 

I've recently been involved in a rather lively debate with someone over the issue of the Boy Scouts of America ending their long standing ban on gay members.

 

Obviously this would have no direct impact on me, even if I were of a proper scouting age. (by the way... Girl scouts kinda sucked. Not nearly enough camping, hiking, fishing, and shooting things with bows and arrows...) But I am all for them ending the ban. Because the entire basis of the ban is ridiculous. They say it's because they will be tempted by their fellow scouts.. Well guess what? Regardless of orientation, sex under 18 is illegal, and thus, against the scout code. (You know... the whole "Duty to god and my country" thing? That includes obeying all laws of your country) Doesn't stop the straight guys from screwing their girlfriends though. So I say kick out everyone who is known to be having sex if that's the basis for the ban.

 

Then there is the point about it being too tempting for the straight kids to pick on the gay kids. Guess what? They're doing it anyway. It doesn't matter if they only think Jimmy might possibly be gay because he doesn't have a girlfriend (He could have many reasons, including just being shy.) they pick on him, and lie about it. (So much for "A scout is Trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind... ect.) Everything the scouts are supposed to stand for is based on the lie that the administration actually gives a shit. Yes, sometimes, the kids learn good things from their time in scouting, but the rest of the time... It's a thug factory.

[Rideout89]

I'm not certain what solution you are proposing with having "marriages" only handled by religious organisations and "civil unions" by state. The problem lies with certain benefits that are afforded to those who are "married" as opposed to those with "civil unions".

 

If you are saying that it should only be a nominal difference and benefits should be the same across the board, then I completely agree with you. Otherwise it's just kind of putting a bandage on the problem to simply rename things without addressing the underlying issues.

 

In short, what I mean is:

A "civil union" would be handled by the state, and come with all of the rights currently attached to marriage.

A "marriage" would be handled by a religious institution, and would have nothing to do with anything else.

Basically, it would be a purely constitutional version of things, completely separating the church and state sides of the issue.

[† Emotional Outlet]

I see. Then you run into the problem Mute brought up, which was
 

Allowing same sex marriage requires passing only 1 law and repealing 1 other. Making civil unions fully equal to marriage requires changing every law that mentions marriage.

 

In theory, as I mentioned, I agree with you. Civil unions shouldn't be stripped down versions of marriage and people shouldn't be forced to bring religion into their relationships if they don't want to.

 

However, civil unions do in fact lack a lot of benefits that marriage does and changing that would be a lot of red tape and paperwork. I think we all know how efficient the lumbering beast of bureaucracy is, haha. Unless we can go back in time and change how they instated civil unions, it's really not much of a viable solution.

[† Mute point]

If they managed to set it up to be completely equal, civil unions would be fine. But they can't without changing every single law that mentions marriage, and added civil unions to it. Change everything to make a different status equal, or change 1 thing and make everyone have the same thing.

 

This article details just some of the differences. http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm

 

As you can see, they are far from equal, and currently, even a same sex marriage is not equal... Not yet.

 

There are currently no federal protections, no federal benefits. Few state protections, few state benefits. It is a terribly flawed system, and it needs to be changed as soon as possible.

 

Easiest way to solve the problems.

 

Step 1: Repeal DOMA. Without the ridiculous Defense of Marriage act, the federal government, and all state governments must recognize gay marriages performed in the US. This doesn't mean that all states have to let them be performed, but, just like your driver's license, your marriage license you received in New York, would still be valid in Idaho. This also extends all state and federal rights and protections to gay marriages with what could be a single vote.

 

Step 2: Declare gay marriage bans unconstitutional, so that all state governments must allow same sex marriages to be performed.

 

Alternate Step 2: Create specialized wedding chapels in each state that answer only to federal law so that any couple can go there instead of having to travel to places like New York or DC that allow non-residents to marry.

 

The anti-gay states won't like it, but it will ensure that all legitimate couples are treated equal under the law.

[† L4ugh]

In short, what I mean is:

A "civil union" would be handled by the state, and come with all of the rights currently attached to marriage.

A "marriage" would be handled by a religious institution, and would have nothing to do with anything else.

Basically, it would be a purely constitutional version of things, completely separating the church and state sides of the issue.

[Dark-hunter]

i dont care  if ppl want to dam them selfs then let them as long as they know what there getting into   like a few posters said before   if its your nature , you cant very well fight or change that with out corrupting it ^^  so let bygones be bygones

[Malyssa Rahl]

Best Yahoo comment ever!

 

DanT writes:

"You might be able to stop marriage homophobes, but you can't stop love. Did you think you could just blow out the candles and wish it all away? It is going to happen, and no matter what you wish, no matter how you squirm. There is nothing you can do to stop it."

 

 

For those who don't recognize the wording here, it is from an episode of Teen titans. Or rather, a clipped version of that episode, with words changed to make it relevant. 

 

That's right fuckers, he Sladed you!

[SammiePumpkin]

i dont see why it is such a problum, its a known fact that being gay was okay, hell even incuraged before there were christians, so whos right:

christans who were created thanks to a man who wanted contol over his people

or

gays who have been here long before christans and who will be here long after they are gone

 

and no im not saying this because im gay, infact to be honest im bi but i lean more tward men, im just stating the odvious gay is never goin to go away so y not just execpt it like we did before christans fukd everything up

[Dark-hunter]

your statement is inacurate

religion will always be here till the day humanity unites under 1 banner  will that ever happen  >> prob not 

but  it may also be true that  same sex  marriage will not always be here   no one can say with certainity that some things will or will not be   here or changed