Thanks Thanks:  0
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 48

Thread: Same Sex Unions In America

  1. #21
    You have your orders, soldier. Dare's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,167
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    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. ^_^

    Providing Lea with quality curmudgeon and lurking services since 2004.
    Lea Felon: warned for the heinous crime of poking a badger with a spoon.

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Age
    36
    Posts
    1,175
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    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?)

  3. #23
    You have your orders, soldier. Dare's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,167
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    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*

    Providing Lea with quality curmudgeon and lurking services since 2004.
    Lea Felon: warned for the heinous crime of poking a badger with a spoon.

  4. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    216
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    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_...22under_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.

  5. #25
    Sonique Stormfury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Keystone State
    Posts
    1,413
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    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.

    ♩ "Summer's going fast, nights growing colder.
    Children growing up, old friends growing older.
    Freeze this moment a little bit longer.
    Make each sensation a little bit stronger." ♩

  6. #26
    Senior Member lionloversam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Maryland
    Age
    38
    Posts
    2,356
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    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.

    Thanks for the banner, Sombolia.

  7. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    181
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    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.

  8. #28
    Senior Member Kovu The Lion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    5,584
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    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

    It's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice.

  9. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    1,257
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    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.

  10. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    5,044
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Here is a pretty good article on Gay marriage and such: http://atheism.about.com/od/gaymarri...hymarriage.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...

  11. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,241
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Cheerleader? 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.

  12. #32
    Senior Member Shadow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    sweden
    Age
    34
    Posts
    2,041
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Amarica is ruled be relugion thats the dot of that..

  13. #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    2,899
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Originally posted by shadow
    Amarica is ruled be relugion thats the dot of that..
    What?

  14. #34
    Senior Member Kovu The Lion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    5,584
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    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

    It's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice.

  15. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Age
    36
    Posts
    1,175
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    @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

  16. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    1,257
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    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.

  17. #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    181
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    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.

  18. #38
    Sonique Stormfury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Keystone State
    Posts
    1,413
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Originally posted by Nephilim
    What?
    Amarica is ruled be relugion thats the dot of that..

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

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


    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:

    ♩ "Summer's going fast, nights growing colder.
    Children growing up, old friends growing older.
    Freeze this moment a little bit longer.
    Make each sensation a little bit stronger." ♩

  19. #39
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Age
    36
    Posts
    1,175
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    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.

  20. #40
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    14
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    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.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 28
    Last Post: May 21st, 2011, 12:47 AM
  2. America: Not religous enough
    By Simba_2004 in forum The Shadowy Place
    Replies: 137
    Last Post: March 30th, 2007, 01:55 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •