Gay Rights

[Ryancbigfoot]

Every one should be able to do what ever they want, if they want to have children, let them have children, if they want to be married.... let them get married. Why must we look at people and just give them rights or take away some. Support them until they get their way.

 

[Yuna]

That's from the Old Testament, which also demanded punishment for heterosexual adultery, coveting, etc.

The New Testament doesn't have anything anywhere near as severe as that quote.

The Old Testament has always been on that "Eye for an eye" stuff.

(But, for the record, I do stand corrected)

In fact, the only passages in the New Testament that speaks against homosexuality are the words of Paul... in a letter to the Romans. In other words, the words of an ancient homophobe. Nowhere in said letters does he actually say that god or Jesus spoke to him about said matters.

The point has been made before about how the purpose of sex is to reproduce. This still stands as a valid point; homosexual activities don't bear children. The OP didn't do a good job of refuting this.

Should we outlaw the rights for anyone who uses contraceptives? Or who do not have sex at all? Or who just stay single? Or all of the three above?

After all, in order to get the right to marry, adopt, not get discriminated against at work, whatever, you need to have heterosexual sex to beget kids. But contraceptives work against this. Outlaw them and any users ofthem I say! Asexuality is also bad! No rights for asexuals as they produce no children!

Single parents? How dare they? Have sex, have kids and not get married, the very institution founded for the sake of getting children! No adoption for single parents!

I say take away the rights of everyone who isn't hetero married (as opposed to gay married) with kids! Until you marry and have kids, you have no human rights!

 

[Zero Beat]

You have to understand that all of these people who are opposing gay rights are doing it out of their own stubborn selves.

Homosexuals are human beings, and therefore are entitled to practice the same human rights as those who are "straight."

 

[Yuna]

I forgot to mention one thing yesterday:
Using the great logic of legally blonde Elle Woods: Every time you masturbate, you're guilty of reckless endangerment.

If you claim "Gay sex is unnatural because it can't produce kids" and that gays shouldn't have rights because of this, then you cannot masturbate (or use contraceptives... or have sex if either party is sterile or just barren). Because whenever you masturbate, you're wasting precious sperm that in a woman's womb would most probably become a baby.

So, either stop being a hypocrite or don't touch yourself... ever.

 

[Xsyven]

If marriage is such a religious ceremony, should gays not be able to celebrate Christmas either?

 

[MarsFool!]

If marriage is such a religious ceremony, should gays not be able to celebrate Christmas either?

Thats a good question but take into consideration that marriage concerns laws and the legal system. Christmas is celebrated within the walls of your own home and privacy.

 

[Xsyven]

Thats a good question but take into consideration that marriage concerns laws and the legal system. Christmas is celebrated within the walls of your own home and privacy.

My argument was against those saying that gay marriage is against the rules, according to the bible. And since marriage concerns laws and the legal system, shouldn't church and state not conflict with each other? People can only fight for one or the other.




Also: http://www.hrc.org/10444.htm

 

[blazedaces]

My argument was against those saying that gay marriage is against the rules, according to the bible. And since marriage concerns laws and the legal system, shouldn't church and state not conflict with each other? People can only fight for one or the other.




Also: http://www.hrc.org/10444.htm

Nice find man. But check this out from that source:

The court’s decision does not entitle same-sex couples in California to receive the federal rights and benefits extended to married couples. The so-called federal Defense of Marriage Act discriminates against same-sex married couples by denying them over 1,000 federal rights and benefits, including social security benefits, the ability to file a joint federal tax return, and the right to petition for a spouse to immigrate.

Of course in their defense I don't know any state has the right to change federal law. It's frustrating that it's not completely equal yet... but it's a step in the right direction.

-blazed

 

[The Executive]

Nice find man. But check this out from that source:



Of course in their defense I don't know any state has the right to change federal law. It's frustrating that it's not completely equal yet... but it's a step in the right direction.

-blazed

State law is subservient to federal law in any cases where a federal law on the subject is in existence. Example: medical marijuana, legalized in California is a violation of federal law.

States are superior in any area not given federal jurisdiction by the Constitution.

States, plural, can effect federal change through amending the Constitution by any of four methods not necessarily involving Congress. Besides that, federal law trumps state.

 

[blazedaces]

State law is subservient to federal law in any cases where a federal law on the subject is in existence. Example: medical marijuana, legalized in California is a violation of federal law.

States are superior in any area not given federal jurisdiction by the Constitution.

States, plural, can effect federal change through amending the Constitution by any of four methods not necessarily involving Congress. Besides that, federal law trumps state.

Good to know man. Thanks.

-blazed

 

[SkylerOcon]

The article that Xsyven found is what really is my problem with not allowing same-sex couples to marry. It denies a horrible amount of rights given to married couples.

The only reason that I think it hasn't been legalized yet is that the congress and president forget that Church and State are supposed to be separate, and though hard religious beliefs have to be kept out of professional opinion on what's fair or not.

 

[The Executive]

though hard religious beliefs have to be kept out of professional opinion on what's fair or not.

I don't remember who or where, but someone posted not too long ago that most of secular society's laws and morals are derived from religion. Even the basic three (do not steal, do not kill, do not ****) may fall under this category. Given that line of thought, how do you separate church and state?

 

[blazedaces]

I don't remember who or where, but someone posted not too long ago that most of secular society's laws and morals are derived from religion. Even the basic three (do not steal, do not kill, do not ****) may fall under this category. Given that line of thought, how do you separate church and state?

First of all, this is simply not true, though I believed it for a very long time. Religion has no concept of justice, government, or order (the reason for law). There is no idea about putting people who have committed crimes back into society either.

There was law in ancient civilizations prior to any of the religions we commit to today.

Still, this actually has almost no bearing on the subject. Separation of church and state is fundamental to our government as laid down by our forefathers. That's it. It ends there. We, as a government, have separated church and state for good reason and that will never and should never change.

-blazed

Edit: I believe someone in an earlier post, perhaps the response to the one you're referring to, responded in a similar way. Though I think they explained it much better than I did.

 

[The Executive]

First of all, this is simply not true, though I believed it for a very long time. Religion has no concept of justice, government, or order (the reason for law). There is no idea about putting people who have committed crimes back into society either..

I don't agree with it either; I was just bringing it up because it pertained to separation of church and state, which is what SkylerOcon had posted about in part.

We, as a government, have separated church and state for good reason and that will never and should never change.

I disagree. It's still not completely separate, and both can still influence the actions of the other, for better or worse. I'll PM more on this when I get the chance.

 

[daytimeninja]

I personally think that gay marriage shouldn't be married. I'm not religious, so I'm not going to say because Jesus said so, but mainly because society doesn't allow it. I'm not trying to offend anyone, but anyway who openly admits to being gay, should be put in mental treatment because homosexuality is a sickness.

Anyone who is gay is not right. It isn't your fault, but I'm not comforting you. I'm saying that you need help. Men aren't meant to like men, and women aren't meant to like women.

 

[blazedaces]

I personally think that gay marriage shouldn't be married. I'm not religious, so I'm not going to say because Jesus said so, but mainly because society doesn't allow it. I'm not trying to offend anyone, but anyway who openly admits to being gay, should be put in mental treatment because homosexuality is a sickness.

Anyone who is gay is not right. It isn't your fault, but I'm not comforting you. I'm saying that you need help. Men aren't meant to like men, and women aren't meant to like women.

I'm just going to assume this is some kind of sarcastic rant...

I disagree. It's still not completely separate, and both can still influence the actions of the other, for better or worse. I'll PM more on this when I get the chance.

The reality may be that the state is indirectly influenced by the church, but according to our law church and state must be separate.

-blazed

 

[jamai]

The article that Xsyven found is what really is my problem with not allowing same-sex couples to marry. It denies a horrible amount of rights given to married couples.

The only reason that I think it hasn't been legalized yet is that the congress and president forget that Church and State are supposed to be separate, and though hard religious beliefs have to be kept out of professional opinion on what's fair or not.

I see a lot of talk on the separation of church and state and I agree it's an important argument because it is clear that church is still influencing law of the state but at the same time the state can still side with the church easily, because it can simply state that it merely comes to the same conclusion indepentently. Of course that isn't happening from what I know of it down there (Canadian) but I'm sure the politicians can cite this as the reasoning for the law if they really needed to defend themselves.

I'd love to hear an official secular argument put forth by the government on the subject because it would probably be really hard to dress up without looking politically incorrect and ugly, but then again the social climate is different so what may work there may not here.

 

[pockyD]

Wow, get it straight, gays have the exact same rights as straight people. Gays are allowed to marry people of the opposite sex.

Whether they want to or not isn't the government's problem. I'm sure the government allows me to do plenty of stuff I have no interest in doing (for example, carrying guns, smoking cigarettes, always driving 10 miles under the speed limit).

Legalizing a "gay union" that receives similar rights to 'married' couples (which i'm not opposed to btw) is independent of the legalization of a traditional marriage; marriage is VERY well-defined throughout history, almost regardless of race, religion, whatever (unless you really really want to discuss polygamy ), and there should be no issue with the way the government uses that term, since if someone ever speaks the word "marriage" without leading it with the word "gay", there are almost zero people in the world who would think they would have to ask whether it was a same-sex or opposite-sex marriage

The institution of marriage largely isn't even about "love" all around the world; arranged marriages have been around forever, and still continue to persist in some cultures, because as many see it, marriage can instead be about procreation or politics, and if you say that is definitively wrong, then you are being just as closeminded as people you accuse of being homophobic

I'm probably rambling and at least a little bit off topic, but to me, an extension of the term "marriage" is in no way the answer.

 

[SkylerOcon]

I personally think that gay marriage shouldn't be married. I'm not religious, so I'm not going to say because Jesus said so, but mainly because society doesn't allow it. I'm not trying to offend anyone, but anyway who openly admits to being gay, should be put in mental treatment because homosexuality is a sickness.

Anyone who is gay is not right. It isn't your fault, but I'm not comforting you. I'm saying that you need help. Men aren't meant to like men, and women aren't meant to like women.

Assuming that you were actually being serious (which I really hope you weren't), you're using the 'it's against nature arguement'.

Now then, lets take a look around the natural world, shall we? We see homosexuality in dogs, elephants, dolphins, lions, cats, and well -- nearly every other species.

And it's not a sickness. It's just how you are. It's like saying skin color is a sickness.

 

[Dr. James Rustles]

Just because something is found in nature, does that give it any kind of justification? Infanticide and war are found in nature.

If you believe marriege is not rigidly defined throughout the world YET state it has been rigidly defined all throughout history, you're not making much sense, since a form of marriege is found in every corner of the Earth. We should extend the definition of marriege to include a bond between two people, not a man and woman. Your 'seperate but equal' solution does not work. Every human is entitled to the same rights as another human, so there really is no need to distinguish a marriege between a man and a woman and a marriege between two people of the same sex.

Daytimeninja, you have a skewed definition of 'sickness'. Address how homosexuality constitutes a 'sickness'.

 

[Biggie Smalls]

Gayness is a glutch in life, the parts a male interlock with a women. THe pieces do not go together when they are homo. Personally, I don't really care, but if this issue goes out of hand we may be facing human genocide because of lack of reprod uction.

 

[pockyD]

Man you need to brush up on your vocabulary

There's not going to be a "genocide" resulting from a lack of reproduction lol

And I'm sure gay people will argue that their pieces DO fit together (ugh i feel weird typing this), and the fact that you think that's not the way the pieces go is a matter of your personal opinion

 

[SkylerOcon]

Gayness is a glutch in life, the parts a male interlock with a women. THe pieces do not go together when they are homo. Personally, I don't really care, but if this issue goes out of hand we may be facing human genocide because of lack of reprod uction.

Of course you forget that humans are currently incredibly overpopulated so just because we can't make children (and this has been brought up many, many times before in this post, so next time read before you post) doesn't mean that we shouldn't be allowed to marry. It's like saying that a sterile couple, or an older couple shouldn't have these rights as well.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

Gayness is a glutch in life, the parts a male interlock with a women. THe pieces do not go together when they are homo.

This is called the naturalistic fallacy. What is "natural" is not inherently automatically good, and what is "unnatural" is not automatically bad. Homosexuality has been observed in a wide variety of species in nature. Check out Bonobos.

 

[Dr. James Rustles]

Gayness is a glutch in life, the parts a male interlock with a women. THe pieces do not go together when they are homo. Personally, I don't really care, but if this issue goes out of hand we may be facing human genocide because of lack of reprod uction.

How in the world would homosexuality get out of hand? You're throwing out a situation that will likely never happen. Percent wise, there will probably only be about as many homosexuals in the future than there are today.

 

[RBinator]

Not the classic "it's a sickness", (especially when no details are given) "the parts don't fit", or "homosexuals will become the majority and stop birth" arguments. I figured anyone posting here would be above such arguments.

I do agree that what happens in nature or what's 'natural' shouldn't be the sole basics for morals and ethics. I could be wrong, but don't certain species of animals eat their own children? It could also be argued that violence among people is natural, but it doesn't mean it has to be ethically correct. I feel that arguments used to defend homosexuality shouldn't be flawed like this.

Another thing that comes up are "I'm fine with it as long as they don't force it on me" statements. What exactly does this mean? Does this mean simply not making a big deal about being gay in front of everyone? Does this mean a guy not talking about his boyfriend in front of others? Does this mean two women not holding hands and showing their love for each other? How about two guys kissing in a public place? If this is what the statement means, I see it as very flawed. Do the majority of guys not talk about women a lot? Don't heterosexual couples hold hands from time to time?

On another note, I thought the thing with CA allowing gay marriages would give gays the same rights as heterosexual couples. If not, then what's the point of allowing it if it's just an illusion and not quite the same rights?

 

[blazedaces]

On another note, I thought the thing with CA allowing gay marriages would give gays the same rights as heterosexual couples. If not, then what's the point of allowing it if it's just an illusion and not quite the same rights?

It's not an illusion. In California all the rights they could possibly give to homosexuals when marrying they did indeed give. Only the federal laws could not be touched, but as someone pointed out, federal laws can't be changed by the state, but a majority of states vying for their change may try to do so.

Another words, it's a step in the right direction. If enough states rule in the same way then eventually things will change. Change is hard, give it time. And if you don't want to give it time, then find a way to make a difference in this struggle and make the change happen sooner...

-blazed

 

[RBinator]

The impression I was given was that the state allowed gay marriage, but decided to not give them the same rights as married heterosexuals couples. Now I understand that it's federal laws that is out of their control that stops them and them simply deciding not to grant the same rights.

I never complained that it was taking too long. Not sure how that came out of my wording. If I were gay, I certainly would care a lot more about how long this issue is taking. Yes, it's better to be able to get married with limited rights than not having any kind of marriage at all. I don't see much that I can do from behind a keyboard and computer monitor. if I tried to go outside to do something, the community that I live in would be very hostile to the idea. At the moment, I'm just watching the making of history and not directly taking part in it.

Two states down, only 48 more to go .

 

[RDK]

This is just my opinion, but I'll most likely get flamed for it (odd, isn't it?). I don't think matrimony should be available to homosexuals simply because homosexuality is counter-productive when it comes to what marriage and reproduction are all about. You can say that being gay is a sexual preference all day long, but there's a reason we don't allow 40 year olds to touch minors in inappropriate places, or let people marry animals (bestiality). There are some things that are just wrong.

And yes, there are documented cases of gay animals--but many animals also practice cannibalism, eat their young, etc.

 

[blazedaces]

This is just my opinion, but I'll most likely get flamed for it (odd, isn't it?). I don't think matrimony should be available to homosexuals simply because homosexuality is counter-productive when it comes to what marriage and reproduction are all about. You can say that being gay is a sexual preference all day long, but there's a reason we don't allow 40 year olds to touch minors in inappropriate places, or let people marry animals (bestiality). There are some things that are just wrong.

And yes, there are documented cases of gay animals--but many animals also practice cannibalism, eat their young, etc.

In response to RDK's post:
Firstly (and I thought someone already mentioned this), marriage, and reproduction do not necessarily go hand in hand. If your issue is with homosexuals being unable to bear children then you should be equally complaining about married couples who never have children of their own (or can't for that matter!).

Secondly, with today's technology homosexual couples can have children of their own either through adoptions or by visiting a sperm/egg bank/facility (and for males one would also need to find a surrogate mother). Still, since heterosexual couples use these same services for whatever reasons you can't argue that you have problems with homosexual couples having children by these means without arguing against those same means done by heterosexuals.

-blazed

RDK, I don't get it. I responded to you a few pages back on this same subject. Please respond to it before you repeat yourself.

-blazed

 

[RDK]

My bad then, Blazed; I missed your post completely.

The point I was trying to make was that the naturalistic fallacy argument could be double-dipped.

 

[blazedaces]

My bad then, Blazed; I missed your post completely.

The point I was trying to make was that the naturalistic fallacy argument could be double-dipped.

Could you elaborate? I don't understand what you're implying by saying it can be "double-dipped". Do you mean that examples of how being necessarily "natural" are not always good things... therefore the entire idea of natural should be thrown out the window? People don't imply that just because being homosexual is natural it's a good thing, they just point out how faulty the entire argument becomes depending on how you look at it (which you showed above).

-blazed

 

[SkylerOcon]

Haven't we already had this same argument like six times?

If this comes up again I'm going to make a rule against mentioning it in the OP because we've already talked about it so many times.