Gay Marriage and other problems homosexuals face

[synaesthetic]

Hating politicians is something I can definitely get behind!

Nobody here took the troll very seriously, but thanks NightWish. It actually kinda sparked discussion in this thread again, which had been dormant for a while.

[Archon_Wing]

There's some pretty long rants on hypocrites too. Yea, honestly I think hating politicians is the way.

It was actually a pretty decent warning on not blindly following the "sacred texts". But not many could take heed, as shown by the corruption of the church where the papacy became very strong in the middle ages. People couldn't read the Bible because it was in latin, and thus whoever did know it would be tempted to make up shit.

So it is a bit frustrating that it's been used (along with the Koran) to start countless wars and persecution.

Now when you see how people reacted to the printing press as the work of the devil... (uh oh, people are gonna know the truth) it all makes sense. Or you can lament how people have more access to information and reading but don't bother trying to understand anything anyways.

So indeed one of the problems that are faced is just ignorance.

[Simon]

Uganda gay rights activist David Kato killed

A Ugandan gay rights campaigner who last year sued a local newspaper which outed him as homosexual has been beaten to death, activists say.

Police have confirmed the death of David Kato and say they have arrested one suspect.

Uganda's Rolling Stone newspaper published the photographs of several people it said were gay next to a headline reading "Hang them".

[Kotohono]

Obama No Longer Will Defend Marriage Act

The Obama administration has abandoned its defense of a federal law that limits the definition of marriage to the union between a man and woman.

The announcement yesterday came as the administration faced March 11 deadlines to file motions to dismiss New York and Connecticut challenges to the law.

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said that he had written to House Speaker John A. Boehner that the administration could no longer defend in court the constitutionality of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. (Read the Holder Letter.)

The act absolves states and other subdivisions from the need to recognize, under the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution, same-sex marriages contracted in jurisdictions where they are legal. Its Section 3 defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

"[T]he President and I have concluded that classifications based on sexual orientation warrant heightened scrutiny and that, as applied to same-sex couples legally married under state law, Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional," Mr. Holder wrote.

While I don't see this changing anything right away, but I do think it will cause DOMA to fall in the near Future .

[xl_Legit_lx]

Everyone should have the right to be miserably married.

-Legit

[Archon_Wing]

Defense of Marriage act, lol. I like the innocent sounding names scumbags use to justify whatever they try to enact. Of course, nobody reads the fine print.

[justinstrife]

Originally Posted by Otaku Guy

People should just let others do what they want in regards to what they love.
Oh no! A guy wants to marry another guy!! ITS THE END OF THE WORLD!!!!!
Oh wait... No its not, your just overreacting and turning something so simple into the biggest problem in the world. Let people live how they want to live, love is love and we have no right to interfere.

Marriage wasn't created 'just for love'. It has other ramifications and meanings tied into it. Nobody is saying two gay people can't be in a relationship together.

[Nogitsune]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

Marriage wasn't created 'just for love'.

No, I suppose it "was created" for any reason but love. So what? Things have changed since then.

It has other ramifications and meanings tied into it.

Such as?

Nobody is saying two gay people can't be in a relationship together.

Yes, there are people who are saying exactly that.

[Kotohono]

Originally Posted by Nogitsune

Such as?

Tax benefits, power of attorney, becoming their "next of kin" so you can visit legally in the hospital for intensive care and you're decision is used if the other is incapacitated and unable to decide themselves, should something happen to them it allows collection of insurance and social security benefits to be defaulted to the other, gives say on any after event cases [ie if the police want to do an autopsy due to crime, they need your approval, or for arranging their funeral], and plenty of other important things this was just to give some examples that should show why marriage rights for everyone is something that should happen.

Yes, there are people who are saying exactly that.

Yes sadly they are really.

[justinstrife]

Originally Posted by Nogitsune

No, I suppose it "was created" for any reason but love. So what? Things have changed since then.



Such as?



Yes, there are people who are saying exactly that.

Change isn't always good, and this isn't one of them.

Originally Posted by Konakaga

Tax benefits, power of attorney, becoming their "next of kin" so you can visit legally in the hospital for intensive care and you're decision is used if the other is incapacitated and unable to decide themselves, should something happen to them it allows collection of insurance and social security benefits to be defaulted to the other, gives say on any after event cases [ie if the police want to do an autopsy due to crime, they need your approval, or for arranging their funeral], and plenty of other important things this was just to give some examples that should show why marriage rights for everyone is something that should happen.



Yes sadly they are really.

And no, the things you just listed, were not what I was referring to. Civil Unions grant many of what you did list, which I do support.

[Kotohono]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

And no, the things you just listed, were not what I was referring to. Civil Unions grant many of what you did list, which I do support.

Actually the standard "Civil Union" that some states have 749 benefits that are defined in marriage, but don't apply to them such as most of the things I listed aside from the tax benefits.

So either it needs to be same sex marriage, or Civil Unions are improved to offer the same rights and benefits as a marriage.

[justinstrife]

Originally Posted by Konakaga

Actually the standard "Civil Union" that some states have 749 benefits that are defined in marriage, but don't apply to them such as most of the things I listed aside from the tax benefits.

So either it needs to be same sex marriage, or Civil Unions are improved to offer the same rights and benefits as a marriage.

I don't believe civil unions should have every right that marriage has, but I'm all for improving civil unions so they are closer to marriage. It's something that needs to be ironed out by each individual state, but will in time.

Same sex relationships will never be equal to heterosexual relationships in everyway, and marriage is a union between a man and a woman. I am completely against degrading marriage, more than it already has been in the past century.

[Urzu 7]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

I don't believe civil unions should have every right that marriage has, but I'm all for improving civil unions so they are closer to marriage. It's something that needs to be ironed out by each individual state, but will in time.

Same sex relationships will never be equal to heterosexual relationships in everyway, and marriage is a union between a man and a woman. I am completely against degrading marriage, more than it already has been in the past century.

What are your reasons for being against gay marriage? I'm not really challenging your views, just wondering what they are. If you posted them in this thread already, link to said posts.

[james0246]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

I don't believe civil unions should have every right that marriage has, but I'm all for improving civil unions so they are closer to marriage. It's something that needs to be ironed out by each individual state, but will in time.

Why? If you believe that it is the act of marriage that is "sacred" (I'm not using the religious connotation of the word...unless that is your intent), then as so long as civil unions are not considered a marriage, why should it matter if all the same legal rights and responsibilities are shared between the two?

[justinstrife]

Originally Posted by Urzu 7

What are your reasons for being against gay marriage? I'm not really challenging your views, just wondering what they are. If you posted them in this thread already, link to said posts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTE9zWaQc_Y

Dennis Prager is far more eloquent than I am on such social issues. Homosexual couples are not capable of contributing to the same extent(all things being equal), that heterosexual couples are able to contribute. Yes there are always exceptions to the rule, but I am not talking about exceptions. Men and women are not the same. We are very different. Marriage was a way of bringing those differences together, as well as providing some sense of stableness in bringing children into the world and raising them, where they were exposed by two parents of different sexes, so they could get a well rounded upbringing.

Yes I know the divorce rate is high, yes I know there are millions of dysfunctional families. I had to live through both growing up. America recognizes marriage between a man and a woman, not as a matter of religious pretense, but as a matter of looking out for it's own survival for the future. A nation cannot survive without future generations. Heterosexual couples provide future generations. The ideal way for future generations to be brought up, is through a father and a mother.

I know 99% of the people on this forum will disagree with me. That's fine. Yes I'll get negative repped for what I say. I'm use to it. You don't like hearing what you don't agree with. But I refuse to stand quiet and let an important institution, and an important value be attacked.

I support Civil Unions. I am not against gay people. I have gay friends. I'm all for them having the same medical rights, as well as power of attorney rights, and other issues that I believe any couple in a civil union should have(whether they are gay or straight).

James you really want to go through this? You're never going to change my mind, and I'm never going to change your mind, so other than just arguing back and forth, is there any point to responding to my post? Unless you are just generally wanting to know and not convince me otherwise. In which case, I will respond.

[Urzu 7]

Originally Posted by james0246

Why? If you believe that it is the act of marriage that is "sacred" (I'm not using the religious connotation of the word...unless that is your intent), then as so long as civil unions are not considered a marriage, why should it matter if all the same legal rights and responsibilities are shared between the two?

Even then, it is "separate but equal", which they tried with African Americans back in the day (like schools 'just for blacks', etc.).

[justinstrife]

Originally Posted by Urzu 7

Even then, it is "separate but equal", which they tried with African Americans back in the day (like schools 'just for blacks', etc.).

Perhaps you didn't watch the video I posted...

Other than pigmentation, there is no diference between a black male and a white male. No difference between a black female, and a white female. There are huge differences between a male and a female.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTE9zWaQc_Y

Dennis Prager is far more eloquent than I am

So.. .basically, its the use of the word "marriage" that bothers you, not the legal concept?

So if the State (fed/state/whatever) got out of the very personal business of "marriage" completely and all such unions (hetero or other) were legally "civil unions" - you'd be okay with that?

"Marriage" should be left to the decision of each individual church and its people since the concept is intrinsically "religious". I've never felt the State had any business interfering in such a personal matter.

The legal instrument of joining together to create a family unit? -> civil union.

That's my take on it anyway.

[Urzu 7]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

Perhaps you didn't watch the video I posted...

Other than pigmentation, there is no diference between a black male and a white male. No difference between a black female, and a white female. There are huge differences between a male and a female.

I posted that before I saw your post with the video.

Originally Posted by justinstrife

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTE9zWaQc_Y

Dennis Prager is far more eloquent than I am on such social issues. Homosexual couples are not capable of contributing to the same extent(all things being equal), that heterosexual couples are able to contribute. Yes there are always exceptions to the rule, but I am not talking about exceptions. Men and women are not the same. We are very different. Marriage was a way of bringing those differences together, as well as providing some sense of stableness in bringing children into the world and raising them, where they were exposed by two parents of different sexes, so they could get a well rounded upbringing.

Yes I know the divorce rate is high, yes I know there are millions of dysfunctional families. I had to live through both growing up. America recognizes marriage between a man and a woman, not as a matter of religious pretense, but as a matter of looking out for it's own survival for the future. A nation cannot survive without future generations. Heterosexual couples provide future generations. The ideal way for future generations to be brought up, is through a father and a mother.

I know 99% of the people on this forum will disagree with me. That's fine. Yes I'll get negative repped for what I say. I'm use to it. You don't like hearing what you don't agree with. But I refuse to stand quiet and let an important institution, and an important value be attacked.

I support Civil Unions. I am not against gay people. I have gay friends. I'm all for them having the same medical rights, as well as power of attorney rights, and other issues that I believe any couple in a civil union should have(whether they are gay or straight).

James you really want to go through this? You're never going to change my mind, and I'm never going to change your mind, so other than just arguing back and forth, is there any point to responding to my post? Unless you are just generally wanting to know and not convince me otherwise. In which case, I will respond.

I understand many of your points and see where you are coming from. However, whether gay couples can get married or not, gay couples will still raise children in this society. Whether it is case A or case B, they will raise children. It just happens that in one case, they have less rights. That is how I see it. If you have something to add that counterpoints that, do add.

Also, I have two gay aunts. One got married, and she still didn't get full rights. So even the gay marriage that is available doesn't give full rights. The other aunt, she and her lover are raising a child, and that child (my cousin) is a great person. One of the top students in her class, smart, fun personality, and kind. She loves her parents and I know that they are good parents. Gay couples can raise children well like straight parents. It seems much of society doesn't want to think that many of them can.

I think the greatest challenge my cousin faces is that some people pick on her (but it isn't terribly bad) for having two moms. Ironically, the biggest problem with her parents isn't really about them, but how a large portion of society negatively regards people like them.

As I said, I can understand some of your points. I'm just added some things to contrast. It isn't black and white, like so many things in this world.

[james0246]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

James you really want to go through this? You're never going to change my mind, and I'm never going to change your mind, so other than just arguing back and forth, is there any point to responding to my post? Unless you are just generally wanting to know and not convince me otherwise. In which case, I will respond.

I'm not really up for a debate (that doesn't include Naruto) right now; I just thought it was weird. You're okay with civil unions, but they shouldn't be equal to marriage...why? You don't have to answer (me), I just thought it was weird for one to legally be assigned greater rights than the other ...