Homosexual Rights.
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
| Go fuck yourself Devil's Got Your Number  Age: 30 Gender: Female Posts: 37823 | Deb:I know this doesn't really go here, but I'll make it tye in. In America we have Freedom of Religion. Our country was literally based off of christian values, we derived how to lead and thrive as a nation from the Bible (which can be argueable) but for the most part our founding 'fore fathers established this country on christian beliefs and too this day you can derive from our structure christian ideas and beliefs. Now we grant freedom of religion, so people can practice whatever feels right to them, and they are active members of society so their beliefs and their values are shown through what they'll vote for and what they'll do in society. Now we grant voting rights to a christian, who would vote for things within their beliefs, we grant the same permission to various other religions, do you get me? Now a radical goes to vote, but they may not see that to be enough to get their beliefs across or to have it how they see fit, cause honestly we all see how we want the world to be and we try to accomodate to that. They'll act according to what they belief. Now there is no denying that there are religions out there that completely discriminate and find it wrong to be a homosexual, there are churches in america that have been known to go to soldiers funerals with signs saying how america is all gonna go to hell because "we allow fags to life thier sinful life" and its a sin to them to be a homosexual. Now I say this is a person who has questioned my sexuality and come to terms that I'm bi. I have so much family and I've been forced for years to go to churches with a preacher standing behind of a podium, shaking his finger at the congregation and screaming how immoral and nasty "queers" are. Now personally, I concider myself a pretty decent person, I work hard to get a good education, I volunteer alot, I try to help people as much as possible, so really should I be sent to hell just cause I'm attracted to both boys and girls? honestly I think thats completely irrelevant. but people deny fundamental rights to some homosexuals and see it fit to punish them or even kill them because they "aren't right" you can blame religion, but people hide intolerance and ignorance behind religion. |
| SavvyTheEntertainer Killjoy  Age: 30 Gender: Female Posts: 76 | Decimated Stars you're right. That first paragraph is arguable. Our founding fathers were for the most part Diests and this country was built on a seperation between church and state. Yes some of the values may have been in the bible but they were also just basic human values! The whole not letting radicals vote thing...well to be honest just scares the shit out of me. You honestly think it's acceptable to stop a person from voting because they have an extreme opinion that isnt your own? To opress people for not believing what you do? I personally find the whole issue of homosexual marriage to be ridiculous. Not because I dont believe gays deserve the right to be married but because I dont think the government should be involved with marriage at all. Marriage is a religious ceremony and as previously stated america is a country based on the idea of a seperation of church and state. It doesnt make any sense. If a gay couple wants marriage that's between them and god and their church. Not the government. |
| John St. John Shotgun Sinner  Age: 31 Gender: Male Posts: 7145 | Quote Yes, but many of them basic human values stem from values established in the bible. Quote While I agree that it would be wrong to take away the vote from radicals, there aim pretty much is to oppress other people for having an opinion or being something that they hate. |
| questionable content Always Born a Crime  Age: 28 Gender: Female Posts: 5604 | SavvyTheEntertainer: Is it really a religious ceremony? Yes, many people get married in churches or other houses of worship, and it is between the couple and God if they so believe. But what about atheists? and homosexual couples who are condemned by their religion? Marriage does have to do with the government in the sense that married couples are granted rights by the state, and it is the state which allows them to marry (marriage licenses). But that being said, not allowing homosexual couples to marry because of the religious beliefs of some, in the United States and many other countries, I believe, is a violation of constitutional rights (equal rights). |
| Mindfuck Always Born a Crime  Age: - Gender: Female Posts: 5614 | SavvyTheEntertainer:If marriage is strictly a religious ceremony, then why are (straight) Atheists able to get married with no questions asked? (I mention 'straight' because where I'm from gay marriage is illegal). The fact is, marriage has evolved beyond the church. Marriage is still religious, but it's not religious for everyone. For some people it's more legal than anything else, or it could be symbolic. |
| Go fuck yourself Devil's Got Your Number Age: 30 Gender: Female Posts: 37823 | Mindfuck:I really hate government involving itself in marriage and saying who can and cannot get married. That part really bothers me. I can almost guarentee you, in other parts of the world before Christianity reached it that they had thier own form of marriage, or at least people were together cause they needed to to continue on. So we can't say that Christianity invented completely invented that. though for their believers they had rules and so on about it. Today marriage is suppose symbolize loving someone so much that you commit the rest of your life to them, but in todays world thats become so obsecured. so even if you aren't christian its still ideal to get married |
| ennui. Awake and Unafraid  Age: 31 Gender: Female Posts: 11393 | SavvyTheEntertainer: As everybody else has said, atheists are allowed to marry, and not everyone is married in a church. I don't really believe that marriage is a religious ceremony at all. Yeah, for some people it may be extremely spiritual and sacred and I have no problem with that, but for some all it is is marrying the person you want to be with and love. I'm a Christian, and marriage, for me, is more about marrying the person who I want to spend the rest of my life with, not god. |
| believing. Salute You in Your Grave  Age: 30 Gender: Male Posts: 2318 | ennui.: I completely agree with you, and coming from a country where Islam is the dominant religion, I can say that if homosexual couples want to get married, the beliefs of others shouldn't stop them. They may be condemned by their religion, but it's still their right. Gay marriages are completely opposed in this country, and there was even a friend who almost got shot by his brother for being in a gay relationship. I'm not surprised that the government doesn't care for "trivial things like this" and instead, turn the focus to stupid stuff like the cabinet's members getting in fights during parliament meetings. Honestly, at least people in US have the sense to listen. When my dad found out I was gay, he threw me out of the house for almost a month and a half. After that, he made me attend church like four times a week to listen to some preacher talking about how much a sinner these "queers" are, and the whole time, it was horribly insulting to hear the words "homosexuals will go to hell unless they repent their sins". So, I don't care for the government. I don't care for religion. I may be as much an atheist as anyone else but as long as I have my beliefs, nothing will make me say otherwise. |
| bellamurte Killjoy  Age: 33 Gender: Female Posts: 45 | I thought - regarding religion- we were all taught to love each other. Surely Muder and pedofilia are FAR worse than loving someone of the same sex? |
| light up Awake and Unafraid  Age: 31 Gender: Female Posts: 11917 | double, sorry |
| light up Awake and Unafraid Age: 31 Gender: Female Posts: 11917 | bellamurte: agreed. unfortunately, there are not enough people who feel this way. Yet. |
| SavvyTheEntertainer Killjoy Age: 30 Gender: Female Posts: 76 | I'm not quite sure what the fact that Atheists are able to get married has anything to do with anything. I simply think that marriage has no place in government. It IS at it's root a religious ceremony and the fact that its apart of government at all doesnt make any sense. The idea of a civil union is more or less the same thing as marriage and if we simply replaced marriage with civil unions (for EVERYONE not just gay couples) this issue would be gone. Then churches could make the choice whether or not homosexuals are allowed to get married and though it seems most churches wouldnt allow it we've lately been seeing many churches who support homosexuality. |
| Mindfuck Always Born a Crime Age: - Gender: Female Posts: 5614 | SavvyTheEntertainer:Marriage is not just religious anymore. Marriage - once upon a time - may have been strictly a religious thing, but it's not anymore. You can't just say "the roots of marriage are in religion, so I don't see why it's part of the government etc." The fact remains that it IS part of the government and legal system these days. That's that. It's no longer reserved for the church or religion, it's entered into OTHER SPHERES. The reason why a lot of people brought up the topic of Atheists marrying was because it's a valid point - Atheists (who do not believe in God, and probably don't have any religion whatsoever) - are able to marry and they're not religious, so why can't gay people marry? It's not about religion. It's about gay people having the same legal rights as straight people. |
| Person0001 Always Born a Crime  Age: 43 Gender: Female Posts: 5099 | SavvyTheEntertainer:Excuse me, but I never said to "not let radicals vote," I said it was dangerous to let them have such sway over our Legislature, i.e. controlling which bills get put onto the ballot or not. Quite a few of our Senators are radicals. Also, marriage is not just a "religious ceremony," it is also a business arrangement. A couple can go down to City Hall and become just as legally married as a couple who went through the big tadoo church service. And before you become too concerned about squashing the rights of those who "don't believe as you do," remember too that this is the exact definition OF a radical. |
| SavvyTheEntertainer Killjoy Age: 30 Gender: Female Posts: 76 | Ok Marriage is at this point in time more than a Religious ceremony. That's not what I'm arguing. I'm saying that it SHOULDN'T BE more than a Religious ceremony. Because if we look at the origins of Marriage itself there are so many religious ties which create the current definition of Marriage. That definition calls for a man and a women. If we replace marriage with Civil unions no such definition exists! This frees gay couples to receive the same benefits and rights as straight people! You can get married in a church and have a civil union with the goverment. Nothing changes except the words and when the word changes the definition changes. It seems small and unimportant but it could make the biggest difference. |
| questionable content Always Born a Crime Age: 28 Gender: Female Posts: 5604 | But, if marriage is changed to just a religious ceremony now, atheists and others without a set, organized religion will not be allowed to marry either. And what about religions such as Buddhism? Buddhism is acceptant of homosexuality. Not allowing it would conflict with their ideals. Their definition of marriage is NOT between just a man and a woman. A marriage is a civil union. But a civil union is not always a marriage. The state legally controls both; it has the right to grant civil unions, some of which (usually only in the case of straight couples) are marriages. Others have said this, but marriage does not have to be in or associated with a house of worship. That may have been the definition in the past, but it is changing. Just because it originated as between a man and a woman does not mean that it still must. But isn't it a good thing if gay couples and straight couples have the same benefits? The people concerned both love each other (for the most part), and have chosen to spend their lives together. In my mind, that is equality. Not doing so is infringing on their constitutional rights. |
| Mindfuck Always Born a Crime Age: - Gender: Female Posts: 5614 | SavvyTheEntertainer:Okay, let's look at the history of marriage. In Ancient Greece and Rome, marriage wasn't always religious (this is B.C, by the way). It was usually a no-frills legal ceremony and there were no namby-pamby vows exchanged then and 'til death do us part' etc. That's a Christian invention. In fact it wasn't until the Middle Ages that the Church actually involved itself in registering marriages, and even then it wasn't just religious. Weddings were not necessarily religious ceremonies, although the Church could perform them. Marriage has had different purposes. One of the main and well-known purposes of marriage in centuries past was a transfer of a girl from her father to her husband. I.e, she was property of her father until she got married then she was property of her husband. It wasn't religious necessarily and it wasn't often for love. I guess the long-winded point I'm trying to make is that marriage has so much history that you cannot group it into the category of 'traditional religious ceremonies' because it hasn't always been seen that way. And you have to remember that Christian marriage isn't the only type of marriage, and never has been the only type. The argument that marriage should only be religious is flawed because it has never just been religious throughout history. /offtopic slightly. SavvyTheEntertainer:I don't disagree that marriage has typically been a male-female union. But I think - personally - it would be better to change how marriage is viewed. What's the point in having one thing called marriage and another thing called Civil Unions if they're exactly the same? If couples having Civil Unions have the same rights has married people, then what's the point in differentiating between Marriage and Civil Union? They're the same, just different names. |
| KAT0123 Killjoy Age: - Gender: Female Posts: 3 | Personally, I think that everyone should be treated equally and have the same rights. The problem, however, is that marriage is a religious ceremony made into a legalized institution. Is it really fair to draw the line and say that marriages HAVE to be based off of the orthodox Christian religion in order to be recognized by the government? Of course not, people should have a choice. But recognizing marriage from all religions legally can become problematic. For example, there are some religions out there that allow marriage to multiple partners. It wouldn't be fair for the gov't to only recognize marriage between 2 ppl (gay or straight) when all 8 ppl are sincerely in love with e/o and want to be married as a group. Even though many of us would say, "no way...that's wrong," wouldn't that be depriving them of their rights? Therefore, we can logically conclude that it is impossible to draw the line without discriminating or depriving one group or another. The only fair solution that is fair to all people, regardless of their religion, to get married to the person of their choice to as many people as they see fit and leave the federal government out of it. That way no one gets any special rights/privileges/recognition over anyone else. Marriage will then become a personal issue in which people will have complete freedom over whom to love and commit their lives to. This is just my logical conclusion, and while I do think having multiple partners is morally incorrect due to my own religious believes, I don't want to deprive other religious groups from a political standpoint to the same rights that I have a a Christian and hetero woman. This is a question about rights, not who IS right. What I do find ironic is that while homosexuals are fighting for their rights to marry, heterosexuals are busy getting divorced. |
| Person0001 Always Born a Crime Age: 43 Gender: Female Posts: 5099 | SavvyTheEntertainer:And what is the matter with that? |
| questionable content Always Born a Crime Age: 28 Gender: Female Posts: 5604 | California's Supreme Court has just ruled in favor of Proposition 8, the amendment that made gay marriages illegal. But, the court has also ruled that all marriages performed before Proposition 8 are still valid. link What does everyone think of this? I support gay rights, so I think that the proposition in the first place was one, discriminatory, two, despicable, and three, illegal, but the state's supreme court has said that it is legal and will enforce the ban. California is also one of the leader states, so to speak; it has tougher environmental legislation than most states, which the federal government is also moving toward. It was also among the first states to legalize gay marriage, but it is also the one that has most recently banned it as well. Does this mean that other states will take California's lead and ban it as well? /apologies if that sounded like propaganda, I have very strong opinions about gay marriage |
Options
Go back to top
Go back to top