Gay Marriage and other problems homosexuals face
The poll question does not mention gays and begs another question: how do you define civil rights? Most people would define civil rights differently which makes it hard to conclude what people think about gay marriage from the poll, so please post your opinions on the matter.
Also, what are other problems homosexuals face around the world today?
Side note: The only other thread I found discussing this issue was from 2004 and had to be locked after a few weeks and 26 pages. Hopefully 5 years has been long enough for us to chill out.
I personally believe the state should stop legislating marriage in general--and in fact remove itself from the entire institution (ie No tax credits for marriage). Leave marriage as a strictly religious union. Follow a seperation of church and state ideal more than they do. All the difficulties with gay marriage tend to disappear then.
Jeez, this thread is awful...
Of coz, no! C.O.
While the term "marriage" is endlessly debatable, everything that is covered under current marriage laws should be extended to all same-sex couples (within the age of consent, of course). There is no real feasible reason why same-sex couples should be refused equal rights to opposite-sex couples.
btw, if it is still possible, can we change the poll so we can see who votes for what?
Additionally, what is meant by "other problems homosexuals face?"
Civil rights are defined as a class of rights and freedoms that protect individuals from unwarranted government action and ensure one's ability to participate in the civil and political life of the state without discrimination or repression. What is unwarrented government action is also debatable because each government is different between different countries. Heck, each state in the US has its own system independent of another.
Imho, if people want to get married, they can, although there has to be a limit. Otherwise, you'll have 50 year olds marrying 10 year olds, which is just wrong for obvious reasons. However, like james said, homosexual couples should be granted equal rights as hoterosexual couples. By the end of the day, it's their decision and they are just as human as anyone walking on the same land as everyone else, capable of the same feelings as anyone else. Their rights shouldn't be reduced because of their tendencies.
I was originally going to make the poll this question: "Is it wrong for gay rights activists to compare their strife to the 1960's civil rights movement?"
Obviously, African-Americans faced far worse conditions with de facto segregation in almost every aspect of life. And gay people in America today are only fighting for marriage and an end to Don't Ask Don't Tell; hardly the same. But what was the point of us studying the Civil Rights movement?
Historian Simon Schama says history should be the instrument of self-criticism. We can look back at slavery, discrimination against women, and prejudice against minority races and think how evil the people of the past must have been to treat people differently based on their race and gender. Those are the teachings of history that we accept today, but can we not imagine the world a century from now and think about how future generations will think of today's society?
Gay marriage is a civil rights issue that I am convinced the government will one day acknowledge. Marriage is so deeply ingrained in societies everywhere that granting homosexual couples only "civil unions" is at best separate but equal and at worst treating gays as second class citizens.
Compare the marriage debate to segregated baseball. Why didn't black baseball players stick to their own colored leagues? No one was stopping them from playing baseball. The government could treat white leagues and black leagues the same way, giving them both the same recreational activity tax breaks. As long as the MLB remained for whites only, blacks could play all the baseball they wanted to in their own leagues. As long as the institution of marriage remains for hetero couples only, gays can enjoy (almost) all the same rights in their civil unions. The government is indeed discriminating against gays by not letting them be married in name like hetero couples can be.
It is totally unrealistic to advocate government getting out of the business of marriage. Marriage just doesn't entail tax breaks. It encompasses the all important issues of child custody and medical decisions for unconscious partners. You can hope all you want that the Libertarian Party will one day gain power and stop issuing marriage licenses, but until then are gay couples supposed to be content not being married in society's eyes?
Personally, I don't particularly care. What two consenting adults do with each other in private isn't really my concern.
Unfortunately, in public life, I cannot call for nor defend marriage for homosexuals. It's simply not possible, because doing so would kill all chance of getting conservative Singaporeans to even accept homosexuality in the first place. Conservative Singaporeans have repeatedly said that attempts to decriminalise gay sex between two males are the start to a slippery slope — that is, today they ask for sodomy to be legalised; tomorrow they'd start asking to legalise gay marriage, and so on.
Best I can say is this: Homosexual men here can live together, so long as they keep their love life private. No one would deliberately seek to persecute them. But if they push the boundaries too far, before people are willing to consider ideas such as "gay marriage", they're bound to get ugly reactions.
Change, if it does arrive, will not come from pushing an agenda too aggressively. At least, not in Asia. That's just the fact of life in this part of the world.
The effort to change the language of traditional civil rights to include gay marriage has been one of the most clever yet sinister elements of the same-sex marriage movement this last few years. The equation of gay rights with the black feedom struggle - and the traditional civil rights agenda (as defined in the 60s) - is a fraud that cheapens the historic legacy for equal treatment under the law in the United States!
I wouldn't mind if homosexuals get married, if that makes them happy then let them do it
However it is the strict religious section that is always saying no to it because the bible says it is supposed to be man and woman... (and as long as the majority of the world believes this it will not change in some countries) all a bunch of crap IMO cause times change and I think the bible is merely a guideline to living but not one to be taken literally... I mean talking snake.. c'mon but helping another person is good
All those people who are religious and who say gays go to hell will end up in hell eventually by their own rules cause wasn't one of the commencements or whatever called Thee shalt not judge? They are judging the gays in case they haven't noticed yet...
Also the whole crap about how if gays get married they will take over the world and all that.. all a big pile of poo
Let gays be gays, let straights be straights but allow them the same rights cause after all they bleed just like us if we cut them
Something else they face:
First off, I've issues with the thread title.
(Pardon my random feminist rant)
If being 'gay' wasn't so heavily associated with male homosexuality only, then I'd not laugh at the irony of 'equal rights' aspect of this thread.
So we're only looking into male/male unions, not female/female, right? *amused*
Same-sex marriage in the United Kingdom
(Or as officially passed ‘civil partnerships’, of which many homosexual people I’ve met when I was working at the Library, usually refer to their other half as ‘my partner’, which is a nice, clear definition which saves embarrassment for both sides under the assumption that they’re heterosexual).
I dunno, maybe cause the UK have this nice neutrality to it, that it doesn't make me twitch when I hear 'gay marriage, gay marriage', unless we've finally got to calling women 'gay' too? :)
‘Eeeew, she’s so gay, that's nasty~~’
‘Lesbian? Aw hot!’
(Equality, really? How about trying to adjust the mindsets of being ‘gay’ (negative) vs being ‘lesbian’ (positive) first before going elsewhere.) :p
That’s just me, I dunno if anyone has gripe with this, especially with recent internet culture, but I can’t help but twitch and come out with this face. --> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...leys/sleep.gif
Anyways, digressing, lol.
As for my opinion, the US has been touch and go with this but someone will need to define the 'terms' of it all in a state/religious way for me under American beliefs.
I'll throw in the UK's two pence which coincides with my view and as a Catholic.
As I see it, that is a big step to the general British public acting and acknowledging the married status too of same sex couples as well as the simple fact that ‘yes’, homos do take relationships as seriously as hetreos, they do work hard to maintain their relationship for many years and to treat each other with love and respect.
It’s a massive acknowledgement since it involves banks, courts, immigration, insurance companies and hospitals having to treat their clients the exact same under the married status, be it two men, two women or a man and a woman.
For that, I was kinda happy for the UK to establish back in '05 and I'm sure Mr Sir Elton John was very happy about it too.
(That was a pretty A list lavish affair) :)
In that sense of 'marriage' under a civil union which doesn't invoke any religious aspects into the ceremony and has the laws and people acknowledge it, I happily endorse. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2.../teethgrin.gif
For Chey, this lil nugget may prove interesting, I dunno the current take America has on that though.
Spoiler for Polygamy marriages:
So where does it become an 'issue' for me?
When we have same sex couples wanting a church wedding.
I won't even limit that to homosexual relationships, the same applies with hetreo as well. If you've no belief in a faith, why try to imitate aspects of it because it seems 'nice' or just because “well why do they get to wear such a beautiful dress?”
(Here's looking at you Japan) http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...leys/sleep.gif
Many people who don't have particular belief but want to get married (as in be officially recognised by law under the marriage status) go to the registry office for something private and small and will discard the typical frills (such as the white dress which has a significance).
But, to marry outside of the church was also something that had to be fought for, for quite some time for the law to recognise it as 'official'.
Since the church doesn't condone divorces, to get around that issue, civil ceremonies allow people to remarry, which millions of hetreo people do (and even some women do go as far as to wear 'ivory' on their day, which makes me smile) - but you ain't hearing hetero peeps rallying going:
'I want rights to re marry in the church more than once!'
The use of the 'ring' is another feature that has deep meaning in a religious note, however I can understand since its the only outward sign we have to show others our relationship status that it applies to anyone, whether they believe or not.
As someone mentioned before the term of 'marriage' is even sketchy, so I'm not sure if the LGBT were protesting for civil rights as their fellow hetro lot in the same way as the UK has done 4 years ago or if they want the church aspect of it as well at the protest that Chey participated in.
(Clarify for me will ya when you read this)
The reasons I have issues with the religious link in is simply because it forces those who are actively practicing or fully believe to have to break certain foundations to accommodate those outside of the religion.
That doesn't become a compromise then, it becomes an imposition.
To many, marriage is just a piece of paper and a road straight to hell.
(in the sense of ball and chain) :p
To me, it's an eternal promise.
A promise (with regards to the conventional, biological sense) between a man and woman to each other and to God (or a higher being to spread the net to other religions) to love, care, treasure each other, support each other, through the good and bad (yes the vows mean more to me than just ramble always spouted on romcom Hollywood movies), to screw like bunnies and spout kids and raise them with love, good values and morals of which divorce is something that has serious consequences, not only on your family but also to your faith and your belief.
(Of course we can thank Henry VIII for getting around that and planting the seed to hundreds of years of wars and confusion cause of his selfish decision)
And naturally until recently (that being the last 40 years or so), the laws and rights reflected that via 'joint mortgages', 'joint bank accounts', identifying 'next of kin' and so on.
For the laws to reflect the change and allow same-sex couples those lifestyle rights is perfectly fine as those laws were made by the government (by man within the last 200 years or so for US) to support a couple who have been recognised under the status of 'married'.
For a church wedding, or a wedding with a religious practictioner such as a priest, is to ask for God's blessing on top of it all.
Q: So what if you're homosexual and both people believe in God?
A: In the sense of Christianity, since it's branched off and diluted itself to hell, I wouldn't be surprised if there's a branch that disregards that aspect as a sin, otherwise most peeps won't feel comfy with it (even touching Islam beliefs too) since it doesn't follow the teachings of what we believe in. My brand is Catholism, and we're a stuffy bunch so go figure. For those in that paradox, it'll probably be a painful conflict to be caught up in sadly...
Anyways, to resume;
Since we have 24hr ones in Las Vegas (which saddens it for me to be honest), if America can 'devalue' the practice of this ceremony to something as tacky as that, which I dare hazard to say doesn't involve vows with religious references per se, just a witness and sign a contract which then the state 'recognises', then damn straight to same-sex couples also having the right to say:
"Baby, let's go to Vegas and get married”, as in let’s make this official between us and have that legally recognised.
But to ask for the blessing of the church or a faith under their own practice which doesn't condone it, if by 'marriage' they're asking for that, then sorry 'no'.
People don't like it when believers "force" their beliefs onto others who don't quite agree or share the same sentiment as it goes against who you are as a person and what you belief in life, then don't demand the same from your end.
That seems kinda selfish in a sense, having your cake and eating it too, rather than stepping back some as part of an active act of compromise as society ever changes.
And be it religion, opinion, lifestyle or anything else, if you have two opposing elements try to enforce an action that has to force the other, there will be turmoil as you're challenging their existence and way of life and not too many humans are happy to be so flexible.
I know I won’t get time to follow up in this thread when it hits weekday again, so if there is something specific you wanna ask me of which I’ve not replied to, send a note on my profile wall with question in tow, (of which I’ll feel more guilty about when I don’t reply to it) :heh:
In 50 years though, homosexuals have come a long way in the West (well when we think about it, the world has grown at an insane rate in terms of globalaisation, laws and intergration)
Intereting timeline for anyone curious to see how it progressed in the UK since the 50's :)
Actually, there are people who are both homosexual and Christian. Prohibiting them from marrying in church seems wrong to me. If people want to take the bible literally on this issue, I can't help but wonder how they can say they accept homosexuals.
Hm... and isn't the word "gay" also used for homosexuals in general? Not typically, but still more and more often?
I don't quite understand how someone can be gay and christian. Isn't homosexuality technically a sin within itself?
Anyway, marriage nowadays is all about money, at least that's how I see it. I have no qualms about people wanting more money, hell I want more money. So inadvertedly I have no qualms with gay marriages.
And yes, gay is the generalise term for homosexuals.
Christianity alike Islam is a group and inside are many divisions that differ some. It wouldn't only be a bible issue but the feelings of the mass in what aspect it's interpreted, so on my end, nuh uh.
And it's not as simple as someone pointing a finger and going
"Naughty, naughty, you mustn't be gay now."
Digs way deeper than that, but to put it simply, it's celebrating and embracing the differences between a man and a woman, physically, emotionally and mentally who work to become as one.
But that's a seperate issue I'd need to chat over with some tea of something with a Christian homosexual, prob in a similar sense with chats I have with other branches of Christianity were we don't see eye-to-eye.
However on a legal note, which is what I beleive Americans are fighting for at present and what is meant by 'civil' rights, then sure. But after what went down in California with revoking the law, that felt like a massive slap in the face. The country is just too divided on a 50/50 note (be it elections, race, abortion, etc) in a world where 50/50 rarely applies.
The challenge is probably more with the 320 million odd society wise, than the White House lot, imo.
Some very interesting points raised. Though I come from a very liberal area, I've never actually thought about people being both gay and christian (I feel a little ignorant right now :( ). Are there specific qualifications needed to be met for one to call oneself christian?
I came a across this article and was just skimming through and this line caught my eye:
Anyway, the article seems to say that being gay is a philosophy/lifestyle, and in order to become christian, they must change this.
This brings me to the question of whether sexual orientation is something one is born with or is chosen by the individual. I'm going to quote this guy on yahoo questions:
But a lot of Christians disregard certain "sins" because they don't fit their way of thinking, claiming that even though the bible was inspired by God, quite a few of its contents stem purely from its human writers and are therefor not relevant. I think it's a pretty healthy way of looking at the bible, considering it also preaches violence otherwise.
Oh well. Yeah, it's probably better you discuss this with a gay Christian, because I'm an atheist, and it shines through. xD
This whole "homosexuality is a sin" thing irks me enough as it is.
Can't always be so overly serious in a debate, humour helps keep tension low for something that is sensitive to some people, so I beleive anyways.
If we're to discard the politics and BS behind it all, it's two things.
- Believe in God and in Jesus (Christ = Christian)
- Love your neighbour as you want to be loved.
Ta da, that's it.
Hence there's a lot of 'Jesus, Jesus, Jesus' in America, it's to beleive in him to save your soul come Judgement time, and be it Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, Church of England, Protestant (for the main gangs), we all kinda look at each other and go:
Yeah... we at least agree on that much. xD
I've never really thought of 'christian and gay' either to be honest, it really just doesn't jive with me, but I do practice the 'it's not my place to judge, after all, I'm human' and try to (as much as I can) respect my fellow humans as long as they're nice too.
(2nd rule I wrote above)
You're from Cali, yet sadly check out the stunt your state pulled.
That doesn't spell 'liberal' to me, rather the tolerence level in public is lower than let's say the states on the bible belt.
But to many people, in their minds, hearts, the sentiments are the same.
3 points m'dear :)
I have a link to a post a sexologist wrote about what sex feels like for a woman, which has sentiments that tie into the physical differences between a man and woman of which the church also note on, if you're interested, (and you are over 18, good, lol) I'll link to ya.
And drag me to the sexuality thread or elsewhere or hop onto my profile wall, my spider senses are tingling and I sense mod/admin eyes about wondering if we're deviating too much from the topic at hand:
Civil marriage laws for homosexuals
Them: Come join our evening meetings, here's a copy of our magazine.
Me: Uhh.. I already beleive in God/Jesus and I'm Catholic, so thanks but no thanks.
Them: Oh that's good, but come listen to what we have to say, hear the real message of God.
Me: Hmm... we beleive in God? Good. We believe in Jesus? Good. We beleive in the second rule of his? Good.
Have a nice day, don't let the door hit you on the way out. ^^
It's more a feature of just being human beings from all over the world, trying to follow the same faith. There's bound to be disagreements, differenences to suit the environment, and it applies to Islam too ironically enough. (faiths are more similar than people wish to believe)
But yes, that is a 'religion' thread topic tho :)
Not to mention, I better get up and do chores. ><;;
Another thing I don't quite like about christianity, the different divisions are basically interpretations of the bible, where they pick and choose what they find most convenient for themselves. It's like a "uh... I don't like these "laws", let me make my own interpretation and start a new faith"
But I think this belongs into one of the threads directly concerned with religion. xD
And yeah, I can't believe Prop 8 passed. Oh how I wish I were 18 when it all went down :heh:.
|All times are GMT -5. The time now is 00:20.|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.