Same Sex Unions In America

[Dyani]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_defense_of_marriage_amendments_by_type

This caught my eye when browsing on Wiki. I'm sure this topic had been posted before but I searched through Scar's Lair and couldn't find it.

Twenty-seven U.S. states (pictured) have adopted constitutional amendments to prevent same-sex marriage or civil unions. Why is this? Is this purely a homophobic reaction by the masses or a religious thing?

[Shadow]

fu3king basterds...

[Stormfury]

It would seem rights aren't God-given. They're earned, apparently.

[Dyani]

Mind you, whos gonna agree with that sort of thing?

[Katari]

Dyani, apparently 27 of the 50 United States agree with that sort of thing....

[Only-now]

This is already being discussed in another topic..and I don't feel like getting into another debate here...but marriage is not a right Sonique...just as driving isn't. Any church, or judge/legal-person-who-can-marry-people can say that they don't want to marry two people for whatever reason. The government doesn't have to provide for marriage..and the church is seperate and can make its own decisions...and it is also not protected by the Constitution. So...no one has the right to marry..straight or gay. If it were a right, we wouldn't be having a debate on how to establish it etc. Freedom of speech and expression have nothing to do with gay marriage..as gays are allowed to say just as much as straights, as well as express themselves as much as they want (even if it is asinine) This is all I am saying though.

On a side note, I am also starting to get tired of the amount of cursing I see at Lea...definitely has built up over the years.

~Kiva

[Dyani]

STL = well... tis typical. And LOL KATARI! Forgot that aspect. I was meaning about people on Lea, not many people will agree with it because it such an unpopular viewpoint. Although freedom of speech does work both ways. But it is like saying *yes you're free to do blah blah blah, except being who you are*.

Thank God for being British, even if we only allowed civil partnerships a couple of years ago.

Oh, and Only-Now... piss off! :lol: No i really don't mean that and I agree with you really, sorry it was too tempting.

[Aurelian]

Originally posted by Only-now
This is already being discussed in another topic..and I don't feel like getting into another debate here...but marriage is not a right Sonique...just as driving isn't. Any church, or judge/legal-person-who-can-marry-people can say that they don't want to marry two people for whatever reason. The government doesn't have to provide for marriage..and the church is seperate and can make its own decisions...and it is also not protected by the Constitution. So...no one has the right to marry..straight or gay. If it were a right, we wouldn't be having a debate on how to establish it etc. Freedom of speech and expression have nothing to do with gay marriage..as gays are allowed to say just as much as straights, as well as express themselves as much as they want (even if it is asinine) This is all I am saying though.

On a side note, I am also starting to get tired of the amount of cursing I see at Lea...definitely has built up over the years.


~Kiva

Sounds about right, Kiva, but it makes you wonder how the government managed to obtain the rights to ban churches in seperate states from using their rightfull powers to marry same-sex-couples. If religion can't be inserted into the government, why can the government be inserted into religios traditions?

But then, if marriage is still uniquly a religios tradition, then why are athiests allowed to marry? Wouldn't that be like a full-fledged homosexual having an afair with a person of the opposite gender? No, I don't think marriage is seen by the majority as being a religious tradition anymore. In fact, I think it is more a way for the government to decide on each couples income-tax situation. lol

About the swearing, Kiva and STL are right. Mufasa created this website as a place for Lion KIng fans of all ages to gather. Let's keep it apropraite to that description.

[Pnt]

Originally posted by Only-now
This is already being discussed in another topic..and I don't feel like getting into another debate here...but marriage is not a right Sonique...just as driving isn't. Any church, or judge/legal-person-who-can-marry-people can say that they don't want to marry two people for whatever reason. The government doesn't have to provide for marriage..and the church is seperate and can make its own decisions...and it is also not protected by the Constitution. So...no one has the right to marry..straight or gay. If it were a right, we wouldn't be having a debate on how to establish it etc. Freedom of speech and expression have nothing to do with gay marriage..as gays are allowed to say just as much as straights, as well as express themselves as much as they want (even if it is asinine) This is all I am saying though.

On a side note, I am also starting to get tired of the amount of cursing I see at Lea...definitely has built up over the years.

~Kiva

Eh, I wouldn't say that gay people have just as much an ability to express themselves. Simply admitting that one is homosexual can easily result in removal from a military or federal occupation. Likwise, homosexual people have little to no discrimination protection in a good number of states, though many companies have taken it upon themselves to add such a policy (Which is one thing I commend a lot of companies for). While one can't currently be arrested for being openly homosexual, they can lose their government job, and I consider that a violation of a person's rights and the general concept of an equal, democratic society.

Also, outside of freedom of speech, I also think it's wrong that a homosexual person cannot see his or her partner in the hospital if the person is seriously injured. Another thing that miffs me is how so many states are trying to ban gay adoption.

[Kovu The Lion]

Well there is a good reason.

take our pledge. "one nation under God"

Last time I checked Christianity condemned homosexuality (Bedding with the same-sex)

Hmm..

Though to be honest, I do think it has things to do with Homophobia, Pretty much people are scared of gay's because they think they may be touched inappropriately by them.

Most of the people who hate gay's have either seen one or been touched by one or been told jokes about them that are wrong or parental teachings.

Most people in America think of a gay guy, someone who is really outgoing, Likes to touch people, talk in a weird voice. and acts all giggly 24/7

Sadly, Not a lot of gay's are like that but, Loud minorities do stand out ~ Neph.

[Dyani]

Originally posted by Kovu The Lion
Last time I checked Christianity condemned homosexuality (Bedding with the same-sex)

Only with gay men, nowt about lesbians. Doesn't actually give an emphasis on it, as in *You shalt not sleep with a person of the same sex*, unless you're talking about the Old Testament. Mind you, take it in account of the time-frame they were in. The Romans had invaded and they really didn't give a toss about sex in any aspect. People were doing it with everyone/everything. Thus the people who were writing the ol' Bible probably thought, well lets not turn into the invading people, and have a *rage against the power* sort of book to lead the sheep along to rebellion.

All references to homosexuality are very vague in the Bible. I mean when you sit down and read the actual Hebrew Bible, not the translated stuff, you won't nessisarily find a reference to homosexuality.

[Aurelian]

Originally posted by Dyani
Only with gay men, nowt about lesbians. Doesn't actually give an emphasis on it, as in *You shalt not sleep with a person of the same sex*, unless you're talking about the Old Testament. Mind you, take it in account of the time-frame they were in. The Romans had invaded and they really didn't give a toss about sex in any aspect. People were doing it with everyone/everything. Thus the people who were writing the ol' Bible probably thought, well lets not turn into the invading people, and have a *rage against the power* sort of book to lead the sheep along to rebellion.

All references to homosexuality are very vague in the Bible. I mean when you sit down and read the actual Hebrew Bible, not the translated stuff, you won't nessisarily find a reference to homosexuality.

Iv'e alwasy said that it's in the translation of each version and each individual. The Bible isn't directions for life anyway. More of a guideline to follow. It's not like we have a 11th comandment that says, Thou shalt not sleep with another being of the same sex.

KTL

Ask the US government if we are ruled by the bible, and they will say NO. It's us civilians who threatened a major lawsuit when the government tried to take the words "Under God" out of the pledge, then again when they wanted to ban the pledge from schools. I agree that people are always afriad of what's different, though.

[Nephilim]

Originally posted by Dyani
The Romans had invaded and they really didn't give a toss about sex in any aspect. People were doing it with everyone/everything.

Urgh. Please to be going back to classical studies and learning about sex in the ancient world. Thank you. :woeisme:

[Dyani]

Romans were kind of promiscious compared to the Jews. What about the Roman Baths? What about when young men were training for wars with their older tutors? This is my basic knowledge and I know its not enough to really base an arguement on, so could you tell me some more, Neph?

[Kovu The Lion]

To be honest I think Gay Men started in Roman, when they had the olypimcs ffs i can't spell, anyways it was during Wrestling, since they often wrestled in the nude. They tended to bond together afterwards/etc

I think Homosexuality did origionate in Roman times, i'm not going to say for fact it did though, I just remember watching it on a historical documented movie somewhere

[Nephilim]

Originally posted by Dyani
Romans were kind of promiscious compared to the Jews. What about the Roman Baths? What about when young men were training for wars with their older tutors? This is my basic knowledge and I know its not enough to really base an arguement on, so could you tell me some more, Neph?

Basically, in ancient times, there was no such thing as "homosexuality." If you were man, you married a woman, had kids, and that was that. Married men could have sex with any slaves they wished to, because they weren't real people (similar to the view that was held about black slaves; no soul and such) and it wasn't uncommon for men of high status to have sex with other women while married, though it was generally not thought a good idea if she was married - don't want to get into trouble with her husband, after all. It was pretty much frowned upon, socially anyway. There were also hetairai too (entertainers/prostitutes) which were a common aspect of symposiums.

Now, let me just say this - Romans Baths were not a Hot Bed of Sex, gay or otherwise. Of course, men and women had seperate bathing areas. The baths, unless you were very rich, were the only place you got to clean yourself, and so that time wouldn't be wasted having sex. You'd exercise, steam off, be cleaned with oils that were then scraped off, and massaged by slaves before ending up in a cold bath.

As for gay sex with the Romans; it's not as popular as people would have you believe, and certainly not the same as it is in today's society. It's simply that a blind eye of sorts was turned towards it. You wouldn't have a relationship with a man - you wouldn't live together and so on, and really wouldn't class yourself as more than friends. The majority of male relationships were seaked out because males were thought of as more intelligent than women (as they received a far better education) and so it was to have a intellectual, meaningful relationship. Women were still the main form of sexual intercourse. I mean, even the most famous gay couple of the ancient world, Achilles and Patroclus, were married and had children of their own.

As for older men>younger boys, yup, it happened. (The Greeks have some great child porn on their pots.) But, a lot of the time it wasn't even sexual, and if it was... then well, let me tell you it was weird. Men would compete with each other for the affections of younger boys to train them for married life to women: so yes, sometimes it was sexual, but hardly ever penetrative. Take this ritual for example:

If a man liked a younger boy, he would present him with a chicken. If the boy accepted and took the chicken, for that night, the older man was allowed to use parts of the boy's body (his armpit, crook of neck, between the knees/legs/elbows etc) to pleasure himself for that night.

So no, there was a social order on what was and wasn't right with sex, and they certainly did not have sex with everyone/everything.

Except for Zeus. Zeus really did.


KTL
To be honest I think Gay Men started in Roman, when they had the olypimcs ffs i can't spell, anyways it was during Wrestling, since they often wrestled in the nude. They tended to bond together afterwards/etc

I think Homosexuality did origionate in Roman times, i'm not going to say for fact it did though, I just remember watching it on a historical documented movie somewhere

You've proved yourself wrong in so many ways with this post:

Firstly, Olympia is not in Rome! The Olympic games existed long before Troy fell and Aeneas sailed to Italy to father the people who would found the city of Rome.

There have been many, many civilisations before the Romans, and many, many gays before them too. What's more, the Romans certainly didn't invent wrestling. Gays didn't just pop-up one day after some exercise.

And people wrestle today, some naked, some near-naked. Are you telling me that it turns them gay? No offence, but this is the worst theory I've heard since someone claimed that homosexuality started in concentration camps when two twins were seperated.

[Dare]

Originally posted by Kovu The Lion
Well there is a good reason.

take our pledge. "one nation under God"



And yet that's not what the original pledge said. The "under God" stuff wasn't added until 1954...it was part of the parcel along with "In God we Trust" and the ousting of "E Pluribus Unum" as our national motto in the 1950s.
Personally, I leave the "under God" part out, as I do not consider that part to be necessary to express my patriotism.

*applauds Neph for refreshing display of Classical knowledge*

You get the Golden Toga award!

[DarkElf]

Overreacting. There are so many posts about gay this and gay that on Lea. If they want to get married that's fine with me, and I do realize that most of the members on this board are homosexual or whatever, but for how long can we drag this on?

[Shadow]

lol we can discuss we dont have to break out in war everytime show that where adults hehe


an other thing witch is ridicelusy dumb is that if your gay in amarica your not alod to join the scouts....now if thats not "violation" for being gay i dont know what is

"Mind you am straight as a tree but i support gays"

[Nephilim]

Originally posted by shadow
l"Mind you am straight as a tree but i support gays"

Are you sure about that?

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a269/caiconfiend/208BenttreeFairylandTrailm.jpg

[Dare]

Originally posted by SimbaTheLion
You have to wonder why on earth it would grow like that o_o;;; ...


Maybe it has a stomach ache? ^_^

Yeah, the Boy Scouts of America ban gay scout leaders as well as gay scouts - the BSA also has strong ties to the Catholic church...
They also ban atheist/agnostics too, I think.
Eh, private organization 'n all...not that I think that's right.

The Girl Scouts, on the other hand, have no official stance...at least none that I'm aware of. I've been remiss in keeping up with my old GS roots.

*knits a doily with a hunting knife to rekindle fond GS memories*

As for the UK, from my understanding, it is perfectly acceptable to be gay/bi and a scout. ^_^

[Darkslash]

Dyani -- I've tried to make this clear before, but it didn't work too well. I'll give it another go, however.

Each state (or the people) is given all powers not enumerated in the Constitution. Defining and regulating marriage is not in there, so each state can decide for themselves how they would like to manage marriage. Since recently, things have been working pretty well, writing laws and such powers as given to each legislature by the state's constitution. But since this gay right crusade started in the 70s (and gained momentum since), it has achieved legal victories by a technique known as "legislating from the bench," whereby a minority group, lacking support from the majority of the population, could find allies willing to push the group's agenda among state and federal judges, who could redefine a law's meaning, or the state/federal Supreme Courts, who could ultimately strike a law down as unconstitutional. Many states, after the renegade San Francisco mayor broke the law and started issuing marriage licenses to gays and Massachusetts started to pave the way for gay marriage, tried to pass laws preventing anything of the sort in their states. These laws were overwhelmingly overturned by liberal judges, so the more conservative legislatures (at that time -- 2004-2005) acted in their constitutional powers to pass, in various forms, a concrete definition of marriage as amendments to their state constitutions, which cannot be altered by a few judges in the judiciary.

Now, not all states have passed such amendments, nor will all of them. That's the beauty of America -- people in various locales can make laws that apply to their immediate areas. From now on, I believe that there will be states allowing gay marriages and states allowing only civil unions (that's every other state, by the way...). This is far more fair to everyone on both sides of the issue than passing some federal-level law or amendment, since it allows far more input and customization on behalf of the people, doesn't require the federal government to overstep its bounds, doesn't impose unpopular draconian standards to state governments, etc.

Keep in mind that it is fairly difficult to pass a state constitutional amendment in any state -- oftentimes it's 2/3 of two houses of a legislature, or 3/4 of one, or 2/3 and a referendum. Referendums are clear and forceful indications that many people are against gay marriage in these states, since it requires a direct vote.

Now, Dyani, I hope with this knowledge you will realize that your question presents two choices for the reason behind this phenomena in America, two reasons which cannot possibly in the smallest part describe why these states have chosen to do what they've done.

People in these 27 states have said that they'll have no San Franciscos or Massachusettses in their neck of the woods. They've seen some effects of this so-called civil "rights" movement, and decided that it is nothing of the sort, and kept marriage a privilege for the types of people they want it to be between. It's democracy.

The bottom line here is that you may not like these amendments, but they're here to stay until people who believe as you believe, Dyani, convince them otherwise. That's why they're amendments -- people have found it impossible to exercise their will any other way because of the judges' animosity. So before calling the people who implemented these amendments "homophobic" or implying they're part of a "religious mafia" in control of the government, remember that by-and-large, these are the people you'll have to convince to think otherwise, and calling them names and thinking the worst about them isn't a good place to start.

(side note about the BSA -- I think it's only adult leaders who can't be gay -- there's no restriction on youth. And the reason the BSA is so closely tied to church in general any more is that the ACLU has pretty much cut off all public facilities from them -- schools and the like, so they have to rely on church's support. Plus, what better way to reinforce moral values than to have the support of a religious institution?)

[Dare]

Originally posted by Darkslash


(side note about the BSA -- I think it's only adult leaders who can't be gay -- there's no restriction on youth. And the reason the BSA is so closely tied to church in general any more is that the ACLU has pretty much cut off all public facilities from them -- schools and the like, so they have to rely on church's support. Plus, what better way to reinforce moral values than to have the support of a religious institution?)

Eh? I heard some reports of scouts (not just scout leaders) getting kicked/run out due to being gay and/or being raised atheist/agnostic. Maybe not on a nation-wide official mandate, but it does happen.

Ah well, who knows? *le shrug*

[SpiritWolf77]

Something people need to remember (this is somewhat related to your post, Roquivo): Legal marriage and religious marriage are not the same thing. Legally, in the United States, the church has the right to deny marriage to anyone they wish. Our first amendment is supposed to prevent the government from interfering in a negative way in the activities of the church and prevent the church from interfering in the activities of the government.

I'm an atheist. I would not care if a Christian church refused to marry me. Having a Christian marriage is not important to me. There are plenty of secular churches out there that can perform marriages. I would only be upset if the government denied my right to a legal marriage on the basis of religious reasoning, which is indirectly what's going on with gay marriage right now.


Originally posted by Kovu The Lion
Well there is a good reason.

take our pledge. "one nation under God"

Last time I checked Christianity condemned homosexuality (Bedding with the same-sex)

Might want to make sure you research things thoroughly before using them to support an argument: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance#Addition_of_the_words_.22unde r_God.22

The US was founded on the basis of religious freedom, not as a religiously controlled country. There is also the 1st Amendment, which begins: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Under the US Constitution, it is illegal to create government-instituted laws with the intent of favoring a specific religion.

And on the subject of Christianity condemning homosexuality, there are (as far as I know, it's been a while since I read the whole Bible in full) only two Biblical passages which allude to this.

The first is Leviticus 18.22:
"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

Of course, various portions of Leviticus also say the following:
"And the pig, though it has a split hoof completely divided, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. 8 You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you."

And:
"Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard."

So unless you also never cut your hair/shave and never eat ham/bacon, and believe it is wrong to do these things, condemning homosexuality based on Leviticus is hypocritical. Why accept only one portion of it as true and not the others?

The other passage that is cited as proof of God's opinion of homosexuality is Sodom and Gomorrah. However, if you have read the passage, you will note there is a rather extensive description of the many sins these people committed, but nothing that is clearly specifically suggesting homosexuality is one of those condemnable sins. It can be interpreted that way, but that is only one interpretation and not necessarily the correct one. You can read about the various interpretations here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorra

It can be debated that the passage condemns homosexuality, but it is not proven and I don't feel it's a strong enough argument that so many Christians should be steadfastedly condemning it.

[Stormfury]

Originally posted by Kovu The Lion
To be honest I think Gay Men started in Roman,

It is not 100% clear if same-sex orientation dawned with man. Because it's considered to be a genetic trait or an antecedent milieu, homosexuality would be far older than ancient Rome.

[lionloversam]

Here is what the book of Romans (first chapter) has to say about homosexuality, which is in the New Testament:

" 26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In 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."


For me,I am against gay marriage, but I still respect the individual as a person and do not view myself better than them.


On the history about it, I can't say for sure when it started. It has been interesting reading everybody's opinoins on it.

[Pnt]

What I find kind of ironic is that the kind of marriage that many opposed based on religious reasons, holy matrimony, is actually the only kind of gay marriage permitted in states that ban it. A state can't tell a church that it's not allowed to marry two members of the same sex or honor such a marriage, it just doesn't recognize that marriage as a legal marriage. A church can still have the ceremony, the declaration that the two people have been married before they eyes of God, and that said people are now considered religiously married to eachother. Though some have tried to ban these sorts of marriage, to my knowledge any such ban would be considered a violation of freedom of religion, as it's soley a religious ceremony.

[Kovu The Lion]

Originally posted by Darkslash
Dyani -- I've tried to make this clear before, but it didn't work too well. I'll give it another go, however.

Each state (or the people) is given all powers not enumerated in the Constitution. Defining and regulating marriage is not in there, so each state can decide for themselves how they would like to manage marriage. Since recently, things have been working pretty well, writing laws and such powers as given to each legislature by the state's constitution. But since this gay right crusade started in the 70s (and gained momentum since), it has achieved legal victories by a technique known as "legislating from the bench," whereby a minority group, lacking support from the majority of the population, could find allies willing to push the group's agenda among state and federal judges, who could redefine a law's meaning, or the state/federal Supreme Courts, who could ultimately strike a law down as unconstitutional. Many states, after the renegade San Francisco mayor broke the law and started issuing marriage licenses to gays and Massachusetts started to pave the way for gay marriage, tried to pass laws preventing anything of the sort in their states. These laws were overwhelmingly overturned by liberal judges, so the more conservative legislatures (at that time -- 2004-2005) acted in their constitutional powers to pass, in various forms, a concrete definition of marriage as amendments to their state constitutions, which cannot be altered by a few judges in the judiciary.

Now, not all states have passed such amendments, nor will all of them. That's the beauty of America -- people in various locales can make laws that apply to their immediate areas. From now on, I believe that there will be states allowing gay marriages and states allowing only civil unions (that's every other state, by the way...). This is far more fair to everyone on both sides of the issue than passing some federal-level law or amendment, since it allows far more input and customization on behalf of the people, doesn't require the federal government to overstep its bounds, doesn't impose unpopular draconian standards to state governments, etc.

Keep in mind that it is fairly difficult to pass a state constitutional amendment in any state -- oftentimes it's 2/3 of two houses of a legislature, or 3/4 of one, or 2/3 and a referendum. Referendums are clear and forceful indications that many people are against gay marriage in these states, since it requires a direct vote.

Now, Dyani, I hope with this knowledge you will realize that your question presents two choices for the reason behind this phenomena in America, two reasons which cannot possibly in the smallest part describe why these states have chosen to do what they've done.

People in these 27 states have said that they'll have no San Franciscos or Massachusettses in their neck of the woods. They've seen some effects of this so-called civil "rights" movement, and decided that it is nothing of the sort, and kept marriage a privilege for the types of people they want it to be between. It's democracy.

The bottom line here is that you may not like these amendments, but they're here to stay until people who believe as you believe, Dyani, convince them otherwise. That's why they're amendments -- people have found it impossible to exercise their will any other way because of the judges' animosity. So before calling the people who implemented these amendments "homophobic" or implying they're part of a "religious mafia" in control of the government, remember that by-and-large, these are the people you'll have to convince to think otherwise, and calling them names and thinking the worst about them isn't a good place to start.

(side note about the BSA -- I think it's only adult leaders who can't be gay -- there's no restriction on youth. And the reason the BSA is so closely tied to church in general any more is that the ACLU has pretty much cut off all public facilities from them -- schools and the like, so they have to rely on church's support. Plus, what better way to reinforce moral values than to have the support of a religious institution?)

You sir are very smart.

Darkslash 4 president tbh m8's <3

[Xinithian]

Originally posted by Darkslash
Now, not all states have passed such amendments, nor will all of them. That's the beauty of America -- people in various locales can make laws that apply to their immediate areas. From now on, I believe that there will be states allowing gay marriages and states allowing only civil unions (that's every other state, by the way...). This is far more fair to everyone on both sides of the issue than passing some federal-level law or amendment, since it allows far more input and customization on behalf of the people, doesn't require the federal government to overstep its bounds, doesn't impose unpopular draconian standards to state governments, etc. People made the same argument regarding the Jim Crow laws. "It's okay, if people want to be treated equally they can just move elsewhere!" I think that if something is unfair, and cannot be sufficiently justified, it should be changed. Seriously, there's no argument against homosexual marriage other than "the Bible says so," "the definition of marriage traditionally has been... (like no other definitions have changed over the years)." I believe that anti-homosexuals intentionally want to discriminate.

Also, it's funny how so many rights and priviledges that were initially hated and frowned upon, become accepted. I'm almost 100% sure that homosexual marriage, when passed, will become socially acceptable and the next generation will wonder why the hell we even discriminated against homosexuals in the first place (just like we wonder how people could deny women's sufferage or racial civil rights).

EDIT: and going back to what you said about minority groups pushing past the majority... throughout the entire civil rights campaign, a majority of people were against the civil rights movement. However, using the same techniques you mentioned, such groups as racial minorities and women have been able to get the rights that they deserve. This tactic has been prevalent in American politics since the creation of this nation, and I still believe that the beauty of our system is the ability of minorities to be able use the tactic.

[lion_roog]

Here is a pretty good article on Gay marriage and such: http://atheism.about.com/od/gaymarriage/a/whymarriage.htm


Originally posted by Kovu The Lion
You sir are very smart.

Darkslash 4 president tbh m8's <3
You seem to have a cheerleader, Darkslash...:p

[Dyani]

Cheerleader? :lol: Where are your pom poms?


I agree with Pnt. The government should not tell religion what to do. Neither the other way round even though government may be based on religion. Laws banning a religious act is against the freedoms of religion. Why can't they just leave it up to the individual religions?

This *Jim Crows* law, "It's okay, if people want to be treated equally they can just move elsewhere!" just makes the leaders of a state sound lazy, bossy and mean. Its against freedom of rights.

[Shadow]

Amarica is ruled be relugion thats the dot of that..

[Nephilim]

Originally posted by shadow
Amarica is ruled be relugion thats the dot of that..

What?

[Kovu The Lion]

Originally posted by shadow
Amarica is ruled be relugion thats the dot of that..

Read the Constitution,

America is ruled by the People, Democracy.

Sorry you fail

[Darkslash]

@KTL: Why thank you.

@Xinithian: The current gay rights crusade, does not, I'm afraid, find its parallel in the laudable 1960s Civil Rights movement. And the current constitutional amendments that have passed are not laws, much less Jim Crow style laws. They are much harder to pass for a reason -- to ensure the broad support of the measure in question. It's not pretty or perfect, it's democracy. It's pretty clear that the current civil rights "crusade" has failed to convince many people that its goals are good and wholesome.

@Roog: Why yes I do!

@Dyani: Then let's take the government out of marriage -- no joint filing for taxes, no benefits to partnerships, marriage or civil, leave all the marriage to churches and then there's no disparity in rights! Small government = good.

@Shadow: US was founded partly on the religious freedom Europe wouldn't provide.

@Neph: Ditto

@KTL: pwn

[Xinithian]

Originally posted by Darkslash
@Xinithian: The current gay rights crusade, does not, I'm afraid, find its parallel in the laudable 1960s Civil Rights movement. And the current constitutional amendments that have passed are not laws, much less Jim Crow style laws. They are much harder to pass for a reason -- to ensure the broad support of the measure in question. It's not pretty or perfect, it's democracy. It's pretty clear that the current civil rights "crusade" has failed to convince many people that its goals are good and wholesome. It's similar to the Civil Rights movement in that there is absolutely no reason for the discrimination. I honestly don't know how conservatives can justify their discrimation. Give me one solid reason why homosexual marriage should be illegal and I would be satisfied. If you're religious, why does it matter to you? It's not like you're forced to marry or anything, and if you're thinking that gay marriages would be displeasing God for whatever reason, I'm sure the huge divorce rates would be way more displeasing to God.

Also, the civil rights "crusade" hasn't failed. In fact, that is an absolutely rediculous assumption. Look at how many statewide anti-homosexual (sodomy) laws were repealed within 30 years of the "failing" civil rights movement.

EDIT: Also, look at how widely accepted gays are in the media. 40 years ago, gays were never even hinted at in the media, but now there are numerous successful shows featuring gay characters.

[Pnt]

Originally posted by Darkslash



@Dyani: Then let's take the government out of marriage -- no joint filing for taxes, no benefits to partnerships, marriage or civil, leave all the marriage to churches and then there's no disparity in rights! Small government = good.


I don't know whether you were being sarcastic or not, though you're not usually a sarcastic type of a person. Regardless, I completely agree, and I think this would be a great solution to the issue at hand.

Oh, and I also agree that Small Government = Good.

[Stormfury]

Originally posted by Nephilim
What?

Amarica is ruled be relugion thats the dot of that..

He said: "'all your base are belong to Sonique." :secret:

Or was it... "America is ruled by religion that's the dot of that..." :thinks:



Originally posted by Kovu The Lion
Read the Constitution,

America is ruled by the People, Democracy.

Sorry you fail

By the people, or certain people? :knowdees:

[Darkslash]

If you're religious, why does it matter to you?
And I'm not, yet it does matter. I still have standards that I would prefer my society, and my government, to reflect.

Regarding the gay rights "crusade" -- sure, it has raised the visibility of gays in media, in fact raised, I would say, the basic tolerance of gay behavior. But it's a sure sign that America's had enough when states are passing AMENDMENTS to their constitutions, by popular REFERENDUMS in many cases, to define what can and cannot be considered marriage.


Regardless, I completely agree, and I think this would be a great solution to the issue at hand.

Oh, and I also agree that Small Government = Good.
I'm serious as a heart attack. However, though a novel solution I would like to see pursued, it would (as one of my friends has pointed out) pose immense problems for court systems re: child custody, divorce, etc.

[Vekke]

Originally posted by Wicked

The Girl Scouts, on the other hand, have no official stance...at least none that I'm aware of. I've been remiss in keeping up with my old GS roots.

*knits a doily with a hunting knife to rekindle fond GS memories*

As for the UK, from my understanding, it is perfectly acceptable to be gay/bi and a scout. ^_^

GS is pretty gay-friendly. Had a kiosk at Gay Pride.

Some things . . . I don't know if the majority should be deciding. At one time the majority of people said it was okay to treat black people unequally.

[Darkslash]

I don't know if the majority should be deciding. At one time the majority of people said it was okay to treat black people unequally.
And after the minority brought the majority of Americans to see things the other way, things changed. Would you have the minority, the KKK, for example, decide racial issues today? Or the majority?

[Dyani]

Aint the point. We have improved for the better in terms of Racial Harmony. Now its the turn of the homosexuals. I think that is only fair.

Talking of which, theres an article in the papers here in England about something similar to this. Basically, the church is effectivly blackmailing the government to allow them to turn away same-sex couples for adopting.
*Will someone think of the children???* :rolleyes:

They basically do not like the idea that the children will be growing up in a non-traditional family. They may get different from normal views on society.

[Nephilim]

Originally posted by Dyani
Aint the point. We have improved for the better in terms of Racial Harmony. Now its the turn of the homosexuals. I think that is only fair.

Talking of which, theres an article in the papers here in England about something similar to this. Basically, the church is effectivly blackmailing the government to allow them to turn away same-sex couples for adopting.
*Will someone think of the children???* :rolleyes:

They basically do not like the idea that the children will be growing up in a non-traditional family. They may get different from normal views on society.

I saw that on the news. The news reported said "The Catholic Church needs to learn that the law is the law, and it isn't going to bend for them." Heh.

Also: in before "but you need parents of both genders to grow up good" arguments.

[Pnt]

Originally posted by Vekke

Some things . . . I don't know if the majority should be deciding. At one time the majority of people said it was okay to treat black people unequally.

I think that many Americans need to learn what's up with this whole majority rule thing. For a democracy to exist, the majority gets to decide how things are run. What most people forget, however, is that all minority groups must be guaranteed certain rights to exist or the majority will effectively wipe them out; the majority does not have the right to do whatever it wants. In the case of how blacks were treated, their minority rights were not respected by society. If you take away minority rights, the majority will soon wipe out any minority, and if you take away majority rule, the people are no longer in control of their government. Thus, both majority rule/minority rights must exist for democracy to exist.

Personally, I think that many of the harsher laws passed against gay people, such as the efforts to not allow gay people to adopt, are direct violations of that understanding of democracy. As a parent usually passes many of their beliefs onto their children, by not allowing homosexual people to adopt and raise children, this has caused a huge blow to their ability to protect and pass on their views in society. This in turn uses laws to restrict their political impact in the future and can eventually lead to further laws being passed against them. In effect, they could be politically, or God forbid physically, wiped out by a majority opinion. That is why I think people need to look at the impact of every law they pass with careful thought, both for the issue at hand, the possibility and extent of abuse, and further trends that it could result in.


As a side note, I don't think that over the last 10 or so years our society has changed for the better in terms of racism. I think racism has been passed on to other groups of people, such as white people, through affirmative action, race-based political caucuses, and a general trend in society with regards to overwhelming political correctness. But alas, that is for another thread.