Yes and no.

What is now termed a legal "marriage" in America should be renamed a "civil union," regardless of whether it is for a hetero- or homosexual couple.

The argument against gay marriage in the US is almost wholly built upon the definition and the ownership of the word "marriage."

If the government were to relinquish ownership of the word, the religious nutcases wouldn't have a leg to stand on, and more states would be able to allow gay and lesbian couples the same rights and privileges that heterosexual couples enjoy.

Edit: And I just want to add, the whole "choice vs. no-choice" argument is wholly defeatist.

It doesn't matter.

Even if it was a choice, it's wrong for people to forcibly impose their will upon others. You know, maybe I like sleeping with other girls. It's not like I have to do it in order to continue to live. I could choose to have sex with men (and hate it) or choose not to have sex at all!

But I choose to live the way I want to live. My lifestyle doesn't hurt anyone or intrude upon anyone. To violently force me to live otherwise is, on so many levels, just fucking wrong.

Well, they just overturned a ban on selling sex toys last year, so you can buy Tengas in Texas now :D

(but still not in Alabama)

But yeah, laws vary widely by state. And while Iowa allows same-sex marriage, it was not put up to a vote, unlike California where it was legal for a while until enough there was enough pressure to form and pass Prop 8. In fact: "Iowa legislators hurried to pass a local Defense of Marriage Act to prohibit marriage between gay and lesbian couples to avoid a similar court challenge." It's only because of the ruling by the Iowa Supreme Court that it's still legal.

But there are idiosyncrasies even within each state. Even Iowa does not look so progressive when you see how Chris Handley is facing up to 20 years in prison just for buying "obscene" manga :mad:


actually I also tend to associate "gay" with male because that's the popular connotation it has in most of the US/UK/AU/NZ. Of course it can apply to both men and women, unlike lesbian which only applies to women.

I don't know any Dutch but maybe the language uses a more accurate and gender neutral term by using the "homo" prefix to refer to homosexuality which may be why you don't have that male/female split perception in the first place.


lol, I guess all the fujoshis will have to turn yuri then, which should make the world an even happier place :heh:


It's like what synaesthetic, Vexx and others have mentioned. The problem is that marriage in the US is technically a non-religious function, just like how you say it is in France. But almost every single politician, legislator and person opposed to same sex marriage uses a moral rationale which in turn is usually influenced by their religious views.

In fact, it's only very recently in the last couple of years that many states have explicitly banned same-sex marriage by amending their state constitution in reaction to Massachusetts' legalization of same-sex marriage (then subsequently legalized in Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, and will be in New Hampshire next year).

But even without the issue of same sex marriage, the issue who gets to marry and the rights of women have been very spotty and downright unconstitutional (federally) IMO in the past and have changed over time. See here.

BUT if you actually do the reverse, where you do treat it as a piece of paper and let the people handle however they want to interpret that:
-- and you leave marriage simply as a personal or religious union and treat it as you would a contract, and have the government get completely out of the entire business of marriage (divorces, disputes, inheritance, etc. would be treated by the local courts just like any other civil case)--would simply solve the entire issue since it wouldn't be an issue to begin with.

(Note that this would not mean you can't have tax breaks for having children. They would be treated as 'dependents' as they currently are now for anyone, married or not. You just would not have a different legal status simply by being married nor benifits by law)

I'm not really in tune with what you said about the behavioral science or behavioral repression thing. Sorry about that. I don't quite understand. I was just stating my opinion even though it came on a bit too strongly :p

I think that the family is what composes the basic structure of an individual. Now when you meant puppy love I think that already pertains to those small crushes adolescents have and that is the exact period where most growing individuals would wonder why they don't seem to be fancying members of the opposite sex and instead seem to be crushing on same sex people. That would start around 10 or 11 years old I believe. So that shows that there was plenty of room of raising and lots and lots of experiences that could occur in the earlier 8-10 years of a child.

I do not believe that homosexuality is determined solely by genetics only and I really do not plan to dismiss that idea as of now. I would lean more to the environmental factors.

I am not sure that I fully understand you. Whether you call it civil union or civil marriage, I disagree if you want the state to not legislate it. As I said, I studied the case in the USA it a bit but I don't remember some things and I don't want to say stupdities, but in France, the civil marriage is an institution (and the church marriage has nothing to do, and has no legal value), and the legislation works, and I think it is good that way for the sake of the persons involved, the kids, and the society (how they handle divorces, inheritance, etc. and what the spouses are compelled to do.) (i don't feel like writing 3 pages about how it works here, I guess you can find a website about it). Even if tomorrow they allow civil marriage (and there is alreday the PACS in France, I wonder if you checked the link that i posted ealier) of people of the same sex, the legislation of the civil marriage would still work after, of course, corrections to take in account the couples of people from the same sex.


edit, in french. Haven't checked if all the infos are exactly the good ones, but must be: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariage..._fran.C3.A7ais

You might not be able to understand french, but before saying that the legislation is useless and what not, I hope you will read the informations about it in french or in english, the laws related to it, and try to understand it and how it works.

To whoever who wrote that to me in the rep, get some courage and post your thoughts here if you have something against me or France, you shitty coward.

I have a question. So you believe it's more nature than nurture?

Next, what do you mean by "heterosexual" upbringing or upbringings where heterosexuality is encouraged? Can I ask for some examples? Sorry if I misunderstood but I'm thinking you mean that parents raise their children to be attracted to the opposite sex? When I was in my elementary years, my mom didn't go like "Oh look honey isn't that little boy over there cute? You should talk to him." And about homosexuality being vilified, I'll have to take a statement from someone else who posted in this thread. Parents don't usually bring up discussions regarding homosexuality with their children unless they actually see one with their children.

And if whether homosexuals repress or flaunt their true orientation, this points to genetics?

I still believe orientation is developed. It's not only based on nature or whatever inborn trait that could cause it. Growth and development plays a larger part in my opinion. A baby isn't born to automatically love. It's through learning while growing that makes up an individual.

What I meant by "indulge" is that they take part in homosexual relations. I wasn't condemning them. A person can't exactly choose their orientation but they can choose to kiss or hold hands in a public area.

Neither heterosexuality or homosexuality is actually encouraged except by the media and orthodox social expectations, the latter of which has been steadily changing as people start to accept that others are different and just roll that way. Some people hide it because of peer pressure, or because they realize it's more normal for people to appreciate the opposite sex better because everyone else does it, including their friends, or their family isn't exactly accepting of something because of their own expectations. Some people are quite open about it on the other hand.

Yes, some people are genetically bound to be gay, but I have known some people who have actually chosen to date people of the same sex. It could be for any reason, be it boredom of the opposite sex or what to try something radically different. It can go either way.

I know gay couples can't get married in the UK, but does David Cameron's planned tax break for married couples include gay couples in civil partnerships?

Agreed.

I'm seeing too much of the girl/girl side of things to fully believe its 100% 'born with it' without the environment, incl the media playing a big part in terms of social attitudes, the relaxation of them, the access to more information because of the internet and the desire to 'experiment'.
There's too many grey areas to cleary define it almost 100% eitherway.
But, that's to be followed up in the sexuality thread if someone wanted to continue off that.

However, in an attempt to follow from Vexx's post earlier, please copy your posts (if you don't wish to delete them here) to the relevant threads.

Sexuality - For discusson on sexual origin
Religion - For various religions and their views on homosexuality.

Opening poster mentioned that a thread based off almost the same topic was locked 4 years ago, and I doubt it's gonna be the case because of flaming here, since the GC bunch are respectable for most part, but cause it dips into too many side paths which as I'm seeing is turning into a lot of personal posts between groups of pple. :\
So ideally topics regarding the law of marriages, vs civil union, the definition of marriage within a religious instituion and out for each country around the world or for each state of America would be more apt perhaps?

I'm curious to see how the law and homosexuality has developed for other countries in the last 50 years in all honesty and would love to hear from each of you what the local cultural attitudes are like.
(As narona mentioned a French example which kinda surprised me to see they view marriages as civil unions for the default, without the religious aspect)
Perhaps, that'll also help diffuse some of the tension in here while things go waaaay off track. :)
Nicely put to be honest.
Respecting choices and posts with opposing views or for views, listening and checking out the differences to global views offers a more level playing field that outright have a spat about who's 'right' and who's 'wrong'.

Play nice now.

This thread is, very unfortunately, a negrep minefield. Tread with care.

Where is the line between "evil/sinful" behaviour and being merely "different"?

I highlight this question not to conflate homosexuality with other issues of sexual morality, but to point out that it's not necessarily straightforward to say that homosexuals are merely different from the heterosexual majority. Pro-gay groups are making certain assumptions that aren't always examined closely.

And, more on topic, if we already accept that homosexuals are "different", then why should they ask to be treated the same as heterosexuals with respect to "marriage"? They could ask for civil unions — to be legally "married" in the eyes of the state — instead of something closely associated with traditional/religious views of what constitutes a "family".

These are questions worth asking, because they lie at the heart of objections from the "conservative" camp. It's ad hominem to paint them as irrational "nutjobs" without seriously considering why they hold their points of view.

It's often hypocritical to verbally attack people who don't support gay behaviour and same-sex marriage for being "narrow-minded bigots". When it comes to things that we firmly believe to be right, would we be anything other than uncompromising in our stand? So, all I ask for is more civility towards those who hold the opposing view — who are, ironically, very much the intimidated minority in this thread.

Indeed. Nothing is ever just one or the other: either you're gay or you're straight. Like I said just now, there are gay people who may choose not to show their actual tendencies to other people because they are able to understand that other people view them as "abnormal" whereas it is "normal" to be attracted to the opposite sex. These people try to fit in and I know a few of them. So it's not that you can be either one or the other. You may have certain tastes, but for the sake of fitting in, you prefer not to show it publicly. You wouldn't reveal to people that you like to eat something nobody likes. Same concept, although on a much more serious scale. There are also those people who aren't born gay, but choose to go out with people of the same sex, like I said.

And now for the punch-line: there exists such a thing as bisexuals. What do you make of that? If that's no word for gray-area, I don't know what is.

In Italy, it's a bit similar to France, to bring another example. We don't recognize civil unions between same sex couples, lest it be in marriage or otherwise, although there are certain parties trying to change this, such as introducing PACS like they already have in France. Get this, we even have a gay transvestite in the government.

Lucky me, I haven't tripped on one yet :rolleyes:

Evil and sin is a point of view. In terms of this topic, I see nothing evil in being homosexual. That is merely a state of preference, lest it be conscious or semi-conscious. Being different is having different opinions. Being negligent toward other people's needs, dependencies or even lives is what I would define as cruelty and sin. But being homosexual doesn't fall under this category. If anything, I would encourage it because a homosexual would still love another person. That's absolutely not the same as being evil.

It's true that some people in favor of homosexuality make assumptions about the opposition, and vice-versa. But what makes homosexuals more than different iyho?

Because half the time, religion has a huge influence on politics, or individual politicians at any rate. Most of them are raised with some degree of religion and learn morality and learn about what is considered right and wrong from the Bible, Quran, you name it, in the beginning. Most of them will eventually develop their own ideas about right and wrong, but it will be fundumentally based on what they learned in their early childhood. Ergo, religion is the greatest opposition against homosexuals because it also influences politics to some extent. I think from their pov, religion needs to be reformed for them to be more widely accepted.

The issue at least in the US, is that they cannot get exactly that. There is no union equivalent to marriage carrying the same rights, privileges and legal status at all. Because there is no "religious" marriage. It's just a certificate that carries a lot weight. But politicians, conservative groups use religious or traditional reasons to deny such legally equivalent unions.


Well, their point is quite simple: that it's morally damaging to the country, to the idea of marriage itself, an attack on traditions, etc.

Which is why I say fine. Let's reserve traditional marriage for heterosexual couples and allow churches to deny marrying gay couples, which they can already do. AND let's remove marriage from being a function of the state to be function of the church.

By doing so, we also remove all of these legal benefits reserved only for heterosexual couples in most states today, IF we cannot grant them to homosexual couples as well.

While everyone is different, the law isn't supposed to be concerned about that (especially at the federal level which can override state). At a fundamental level of the US constitution and Bill of rights, it just cares about granting equal rights and privileges and limits what government can do, of which some say we have strayed very far from.

For everything else, the law don't treat homosexual people, nor people of various gender, age, or race any differently. So why do so when it comes to marriage? Note that this does not mean that the law requires people view each other equally. You simply must grant people certain rights without discrimination. But you still have very much the right to preach to the public on the evils homosexuality. The law grants everyone the right to point fingers at everyone else saying they're gonna go to hell.


I think I address most of this in the above. To clarify what I mean: yes sure, if you can grant such civil marriages to gay couples, then I see no issue in keeping such laws.

To address the other part about reasons behind such legislation, I suppose it's different in France. Here, there's really no psychological concerns, or concern for being "fit to be parents" (which sort of makes sense to me since it's possible to be married without ever having children too). I mean in the US, anyone can get married--mentally unstable, homeless (no offense), criminals, whoever--as long as they're straight.


Personally I'm for everyone standing their ground for their own opinions since they themselves are the only ones who can change it. The problem comes when other peoples attitudes have very real consequences, and negatively affect other people in terms of rights and privileges. That's why I say if people can't reconcile their differences in the idea of marriage, then why not just allow the two camps to go their own way and not interfere with each other? That's what I meant by moving the issue from legal/state/civil to traditional/personal and abandon marriage specific legislation since it's the church/personal side that is affecting the legal/state/civil side.

I agree that verbal attacks won't get us anywhere, however, I don't think it's hypocritical of me to view something as narrow-minded. There are many believes that are valid and perfectly reasonable in this world, and there are at least as many that are not.
If someone believes killing people for personal gain is right, I can refrain from insulting them, but it doesn't make me a hypocrite if I do or simply get annoyed at them. Likewise, I don't randomly throw insults at people who believe that men are stupid, women should do nothing but bear children or that gay people are sinful; but if I did, "hypocrite" would not be the word that applies.

I regard asexuality as another prove that in most cases, you can't change your sexual orientation. There are a lot of asexuals who thought something was wrong with them and tired to "fix" it, but what they learned in the end was that that's just how they are, and that as long as they are happy, that's perfectly all right.
A sexual orientation is not a morally relevant factor, and therefore, heterosexuals and homosexuals should be treated the same as long as there is no other morally relevant difference. If there are Christian gay communities, let them have their own branch of the religion if you must, but let them marry in church. It's not like the bible doesn't get constantly interpreted differently already.

People are social animals, we have been existing together for survival even before creation of society . We still have the reminiscent of that herd mentality . Marriage in its earliest form was a just a union for existence (reproduction and survival) . Marriage was more of an understanding or in the most basic vulgar way marking your territory . Marriage became a social process of sorts with the creation of society . Marriage became a union of two souls in the presence /approval of eyes a deity . Over the period of time the religious aspect/ritual of marriage became a lot stricter . But in core it was a union of two souls . The highest authority or law in ancient times has always been the deity at that time .

That still lingers in our psyche, either for the sole reason of approval from a higher power or traditional aspect of it . When two people form that union and decide to spend a large part of there lives together . Irrespective if they are married or not it doesn't belittle the emotions involved or love . Marriage in modern times is associated more with ritual / tradition than the religious aspect of it . Marriage also sets in approval of the couple in eyes of society . So process of marriage religious or legal in just a elaborate ritual to elevate the love two people share . Marriages doesn't increase loves between couples it actually decreases it . With marriage, partners take each other for granted ... and thats just dulls out the fireworks IMO .



So why is marriage such an important issue for same sex couples ??? .


They are madly in love so being married or not doesn't change anything . Same sex couples have always existed on the fringes of society due to there orientation . For once they want to be accepted for who they are . Marriage is a ticket to that ... Refusing marriage of same sex couples is basically an underhanded way of displaying unapproval of there orientation and union . Live and Let Live should have been the motto in these troubled times . But we just cant be happy for people as they are . We have to insult there love/bond/union by denying social acceptance / religious acceptance or at times both when it comes to marriage .

The bolded part being the crux of contention. You see, for someone who believes in the word of Christ, it would be negligent of him to ignore the plight of someone who is danger of causing grave spiritual harm to himself. Hence the Christian agitation against "promoting" gay lifestyles and marriage. To a Christian — and, in fact, many other people of mainstream faiths — homosexuality is a perversion of nature. They don't hate the person but the sin (admittedly, this crucial distinction is not always made clear), and they are therefore upset that modern society appears to champion such behaviour as something "normal".

It always important to remember that there is nothing intrinsically right about believing that homosexual sex is normal and that homosexuals are just people with different sexual preferences. As you've pointed out yourself, it's merely another point of view, one that has gained increasing popularity in today's "liberal" society — which is why it's not completely wrong for some Christians to claim that their views are being violently silenced by a strident pro-gay agenda. One only needs to look at the kind of verbal abuse being hurled at conservative "anti-gay" groups to see why they feel as though they are under siege.

When considering debates over morality, it's critical to be aware of the different axioms that lead to the different sets of beliefs that each individual holds dear. It's as easy to attack the assumptions of the pro-gay camp as it is to ridicule the so-called "outdated" views of traditional/religious people. Or, to put it another way, why is it necessarily "progressive" to adopt a pro-gay agenda? In the view of conservative people, such an agenda would be regressive instead.

To me, the concept of "harm" lies at the heart of any debate over morality. An act of evil is something that causes harm to an individual or a group of people. Yet "harm" itself is a word that is in dire need of a stronger definition. What must happen before harm is rendered? In the eyes of the law, "harm" extends beyond just physical damage and includes intangible damage as well, such as to mental well-being or a person's reputation, to name but a few examples.

So, when homosexual people attempt to adopt traditional institutions, such as "marriage", it's not hard to see why they would inevitably offend many people. Just like how they view homosexuality to be a perversion of human nature, conservatives view the granting of marriage to same-sex couples as a perversion of a cultural tradition that sanctifies the union between a man and a woman.

Therefore, such people cannot simply sit idly by and allow a minority group to cause damage — harm — to their way of life. We are fond of saying that we shouldn't impose our ways of life on other people. Well, if you think about it from the other point of view, you could say that pro-gay groups are attempting to force their values on the heterosexual majority. Hence the potential ugliness that such debates can arouse.

Similarly, it is not hypocritical for conservatives — who include more than just Christians — to point out why they think many pro-homosexual people are being "narrow-minded" for not seriously considering their opposing points of view.

Seriously, how often do you see atheists or agnostics giving religiously-inspired beliefs fair say? As we've already seen in such threads on this forum, it has become a norm to attack religious people for being deluded, and therefore not "rational" (hur hur hur, they believe in entities that can't be empirically proven to exist, therefore they must be mad).

All this is not to say that I necessarily agree with the conservative view against homosexuality and same-sex marriage. It is, however, my attempt to show that while I may not agree with what they say, I will staunchly defend their right to say it.

Agreed.

Well, how should I as an atheist seriously give the belief that homosexuality is a sin "a fair say"?
If I don't believe in it, then there's not much room for discussion. The Christian (and not all Christians think being homosexual is a sin, by the way) will say that that's how God wanted it, and I will say that if there is no God, then he can't have wanted it that way.
And then we will get into a religious debate on how likely it is that Christianity is right.

I will defend everyone's right to express their beliefs, but I will not defend those beliefs themselves. If they are unwarranted and harmful, they need to go. I'm aware that both sides think they're doing something good, but like everyone else, I have my opinion on the matter.

Hm... but I wonder... how can you defend this "hate the sin but not the person" thing when the bible states you should murder homosexuals? And if you don't take it literally, then how can you be sure homosexuality is a sin at all?

They can say whatever they want.

They cannot legislate it though.

And seriously, they cannot possibly argue from the same basis as we can.

The LGBT community is hardly championing laws and constitutional amendments that would prevent heterosexual people from getting hitched. That would be intruding upon their lifestyle.

I don't know a single lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered person who would believe banning heterosexual marriage was anything but lunacy.

But it's pretty easy for the other side to accept taking our rights away. Very fair and impartial, don't you think?

Like I said, they can say what they want. They just can't legislate it.

To them, it may be a perversion of nature, but only because they were taught by a book written 2 millennia before they were even born (one that's been butchered beyond recognition over time, if I may say so). The problem with religion is that a lot of things just don't hold out within modern civilization where there are so many things whose concept was never even imagined when the bible was written. Homosexuality has existed for a very long time and, despite what I said earlier, there is _some_ scientific proof that homosexuality is genetic. By definition, that is entirely natural. In other words, to a Christian, God's perfect creation came out wrong.

I think it depends entirely on what their Point of View of what is natural and what isn't. I can understand why they believe it's more natural for a man and a woman to unite (without having to mention the specifics), but when you have scientific proof regarding homosexuality, that also can't be diregarded as natural. But then again, we all know how science and religion have always been at odds over many things, like evolution and the shape of the universe, but that's a discussion for another time. My point is, religion is but one gargantuan point of view for masses who, over the course of history, have needed a certain source with which to form their own opinion.

The fact of the matter is, the bible or any religious text is no longer the sole source of information on which an individual can create their point of view. Considering the hyper speed at which information goes around the world today, people can compare different sources that can come in contrast with the first source. An example is science. Another is what they see with their very own eyes. It is up to the individual to believe which source is more reliable and which one isn't. The problem lies in the fact that there are people who prefer to rely on a single source rather than multiple ones.

Conflicts between the church's views and more modern ones have existed all throughout history, like my example of evolution and the center of the universe, the former of which is still being debated today. The problem here, as you suggested, lies in what is considered natural and what isn't. Feelings of love are considered entirely natural, but what gives anyone the right to define love? Love can take as many forms as there are people on the planet, and that's quite a number. One point of view cannot possibly encompass all of those forms, and it rejects the idea that love can exist between people of the same sex because the sexual act should involve a man and woman to promote childbirth. But let me pose this question: if the bible's idea of love is based on the sexual act of intercourse to make children, is it implying that sex defines love? That is but one definition of love in billions, and as things are today, we know that sex can never define love. Just go watch a pr0n flick and you'll see what I mean. Sex is just a feeble action compared to real emotions.

Perhaps that is the reason Christians feel they are attacked by the more liberal arguments proposed by modern society. The writings of the bible never took account of the great amount of change that occurred since its inception. That is why some people believe it is progressive thinking to act in favor of this change of outlook. The bible, being a single point of view shared by a collection of authors, failed to take account of all the different forms love could take. That is why some people believe it is progressive thinking to do such a thing, or try to at any rate. To religious hardliners, it can be deemed as regressive thinking because it goes against their idea of nature, but that was at a time when science was hardly able to explain the wonders of the world.


I agree that an act of evil is an action that causes harm to an individual or a group of people, but what makes harm inherently evil is deliberate harm, not accidental or perceived harm. When homosexual couples attempt to adopt these traditional values of marriage that you speak of, I honestly believe they have every right to do so. After all, is it not the bible itself that promotes every human being should be treated as equal? Or was God lying when it said everyone is equal beneath the eyes of the Lord?

The only reason religious hardliners are offended is because they want to be offended by other people's actions which they perceive to be unnatural and thus harmful to their way of life. Gay couples do not want to get married to attack other people's point of view, but because they love each other. That is not deliberate and thus cannot be classified as evil. Like I said before, the bible states that the natural union of marriage is between man and woman for the purpose of childbirth. But like I said, childbirth (hence sex) is not the sole definition of love. It is but one in billions.

The majority group, therefore, only considers their actions harmful simply because they let it be harmful to their way of life. Realistically speaking, it's a marriage between two people who, by the end of the day, have no realistic effect other people's lives. Their marriage isn't killing anyone. Love can never be harmful to anyone.

can you cite me the exact chapter and verse for that?:eyebrow:

Yeah, kinda curious about that too now that I've read it O_o

Leviticus 18:22 - "And if a man lies with mankind as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

@Yoko Takeo:
Nice posting, by the way.
Even though a consequentialist would argue that something can be evil even if it wasn't intended to be harmful. For example, if someone believes they are saving my soul by burning me, I would still consider the act very much evil due to a failure regarding epistemic duty.

Thanks :D. In the example you refer to, the action is aimed directly at you regardless. A gay couple marrying isn't directed at anyone for any reason at all. The only reason people take offense from their action is because they want to. Nothing more.

If by "perversion of nature" they mean it's "unnatural," then they're flat out wrong, period. New scientific evidence shows homosexuality in nature.

And if they mean "nature is wrong," then I'm quite willing to fight their little culture wars and ask them hard questions of human, social ideologies -- why the hell are they making enemies out of harmlessness? What principles of freedom, harmony, or whatever nice word of the day demand of them this intolerance?

If it's a siege, then it's an incredibly weak one. The majority of Americans are still awfully reluctant to allow something that would not harm them in the least to go on. What was Proposition 8 of California but a statement of simple intolerance, a big "fuck you" to the LGBT community?

Also, beware of selective perception. We are in animesuki -- the vast majority of our posters are younger, and I suspect many more are "liberal" than in the larger communities. If this thread is being "overwhelmed" by us who see the shitty attitude for what it is, forgive us, because once we step out of the monitor back to the real world, we go back to being the minority, seeing these so-called "besieged" Christians being the ones who walk up to us and telling us Jesus hates gay or whatever shit they have to say -- and those are the overt ones, the easy to spot ones. The silently homophobic are far more damaging.

Is my rhetoric virulent? Yes. Do I care? No. I've heard their premises, I've considered them. I find absolutely no common ground with them.

What you're asking is that we place our burden of proof with us, except that I largely consider the ones discriminating against somebody else to be the ones who need to bear the burden of proof. Do I think homosexuality is something to be celebrated, honored, etc.? No, I just think it's a sexual orientation and that's that.

I'm aware of their axioms. I dismiss them wholesale. Fair enough?

I place them on the same category -- though not the same level of vileness -- as anti-Semitism. Before cries of Godwin's Law, let me explain myself: the centuries, even a millenia, of anti-Semitism in Europe came from a combination of factors: Jews were discriminated from owning land, and forced, often intentionally pressed into becoming moneylenders; nobles who borrow ridiculous amounts from Jewish moneylenders don't want to pay back; they encourage anti-Jew sentiments among the population; pogroms ensue, peasants get to vent their anger at their conditions at some scapegoat, nobles don't need to pay back to dead people; everybody's happy, except a few dead Jews. Sociological factors, but why were Jews discriminated in the first place? A bunch of theologians had the idea to interpret the tale of Jesus' execution in such a way that the blame is placed on "the Jews."

Same for the Sodom and Gomorrah myth. Biblical scholars debate to this day if God's problem with the two cities were with "sodomy" or with the acts of rape (forced intercourse), but the prevailing interpretation happens to be a homophobic one.

Such a weak reason to be cruel. Of course I'm angry, am I supposed to play all nice with people who are willing to be absolutely horrendous against another, innocent group of human beings? Fuck no. I'm not killing them, I'm not setting them on fire on the stake, I'm not denying them legal rights, not even to speak their minds, despite your -- devil's advocate? -- assertion that we are doing that.

Yet a century ago, Oscar Wilde died in prison because he was gay.

I would be nice, but that's murder.

Be careful how far you are willing to go with using relativism to play devil's advocate when defending attitudes diametrically opposed to relativism. :)

Leviticus was more of a civil law of an ancient society than a theological treatise. Of course, it leads to the question: how are these religious groups willing to pick and choose the points they like to keep from an ancient document. We have come...so far...since those ruthless times.

Hm... all right. I have to think that over, but at the moment, it makes sense to me. xD

It really irks me that people cling so tightly to this "homosexuality is evil" thing, because really, who takes the bible literally anymore? Who can believe it's perfectly moral to offer up your "untouched" daughters to a bunch of vile people just so that your guests don't get raped instead? How many Christians believe God approved of every single word in this book and that the writers didn't add their own opinion?

I just found this on the net:
It's from a site that explains very nicely why even amongst Christians, there are many people who don't regard homosexuality to be a sin - and don't follow the teachings above.

Edit:
Isn't Leviticus one of the books in the Old Testament?
Anyway, I agree.

This proves my point that the bible was written at a time where change 2000 years later wasn't taken into account. Society is different these days, along with its values and ideas. Not to mention that it's just a point of view outnumbered by millions of others.

Not all conservatives oppose gay marriage either.

In fact, I'm not even left-wing at all. I'm a minarchist, a libertarian.

In my opinion, it's none of the government's fucking business who I get married to. The government has a duty to protect the individual rights of its citizens and nothing else. It's failing pretty spectacularly at this.

Individuals have rights. Organizations don't. But the government acts a hell of a lot like it does, when all it actually has are duties it's not fulfilling.

Ding Ding Ding, we have a winner!

great... now these guys are playing victims






and btw Compared to other religious groups I think the LDS prefer too keep it themselves rather than branching out.

I think that, like what other people said, marriage as a civil institution should not be affected by religion, and that homosexuals should not take their arguments further than the civil aspect.
However, I don't believe that homosexuals adopting children is right. I don't want to go too far into my personal convictions on this matter, but while I think that adoption by homosexuals is wrong, there should be no restrictions by the government on the adoption organizations themselves to give kids to gay couples. However, they should not be forced to "treat homosexuals equally" under the law either; if I were running an adoption program, I may not want to let those couples who come to me adopt any children that come through my organization, and the government should not force me to do so.

I disagree.
As far as I know, those organizations usually aren't private and receive large sums from the government. But even if that weren't the case, personal prejudices should not deceide over the life of other people - neither are you the child, nor are you the gay couple that wishes to adopt it.
If you want to prevent such an adoption and decide over other people's fate, you should be able to name a good reason for it - a morally relevant difference between the gay couple and a heterosexual one. Otherwise, they should be treated equally.

Social conservatives like to cherry-pick Bible passages to support their views... unfortunately, it often ends up that *all* of their cited passages are Old Testament. The New Testament has some very different opinions that apply that such folk completely ignore in their zest to "burn the witches" or punish those that come up short in their minds... funny how that works since the New Testament is where the "christian" part arrives...

Good to see another person who thinks on the similar lines, mentioned that in Post 58 . Most of the real damage is done by likes of them and California was the victim .


I am well aware what context this statement was made under .



But take a moment to realize the repercussion of this . In practicality though untrue, but Law in Theory treats everyone the same way right from Rapist to Pedophile to MassMurders . Its quite demeaning to say Queers should not be treated fairly . Someone already used this thought process way back in 30s 40s and went by the name of Himmler . Next Homophobic zealots may force queers into wearing a rainbow badges at all times for all we know .

Once again I repeat I know the contextual reasons this statement was made but the repercussions of such a clause is devastating . ...


Shall I dare say Amen to That : D

I heard all homosexual children come from homosexual families, care to confirm or deny?

I can deny. I know plenty of people who grew up in straight families and still turned out to be homosexuals, and I have met a person or two who grew up in a homosexual home (for some reason or another) and they were still straight. Just because one grows up in a homosexual family doesn't automatically mean they'll be homosexual.

I deny this, since there are people i know who are gay but their families aren't. I don't understand what your purpose/objective in asking this question is.

But I have my own ethical considerations. If I work for an adoption program and deny a homosexual couple a child, I'm not discriminating against the gay couples themselves, I'm just acting on my conviction that a child should be brought up by male and female parents. This choice does not excessively intrude upon the rights of others. The gay couple can find another organization, or try to convince me that they are somehow superior to any other option the child has (if I didn't already know) despite the lack of parents of both genders.
If the organization is government-run, I can see your point as being more valid.

WK's sense of humor is burbling up on the "nature vs nurture" shard of the debate. An emoticon probably might have helped a bit. Obviously, homosexuals must spontaneously spore like mushrooms to create more :)

No. Marriage (meaning the legal recognition by the government of a pairing) is not a civil right. (However, living with who you wish to is a right).

This is because civil rights all derive from the three basic rights.
1: The right to life
2: The right to liberty (eg not being imprisoned)
3: The right to property.

These are three rights that are essential for freedom. If another power can kill you at their whim, then you are not free. If an outside power can imprison you without cause, you are not free. If an outside power can seize your property simply because they want it, you are not free.

This is why government is a necessary evil. Governments prevent the strong from oppressing the weak, but also there is always both the temptation and the means for the government to begin oppressing people itself. In fact such oppression is likely to be attempted.

Governmental refusal to to recognize the pairing of same sex couples does not deprive gays of life, liberty, or property. Therefore, that recognition can not be a civil right. This does not mean that governments should refuse recognition. Just that no rational claim can be made that the refusal to do so is some kind of oppressive act.

It is not oppression. Attempts to label a refusal to recognize same-sex marriage as a civil rights violation is just an attempt to shut down legitimate debate by using loaded words.

Are there some elements of marriage that impact property rights? Of course, but these are also available through legal arrangements outside of marriage. Naturally marriage is more convenient as it's a package deal, but I see no reason governments can't create non-marriage legal packages that conveniently accomplish these legal arrangements.

Rather the debate ought to focus one issue: What is the purpose of government recognition of marriages?

Historically the purpose of marriage is to protect the interests of women and children. Although marriage has occasionally been used to control women- primarily it protects them from male abandonment.

This is what traditional marriage supporters mean when they say: "It's changing the definition of marriage." To them, gender is an intrinsic element of marriage. There is a wife and there is a husband. The wife can bear children, the husband cannot. These biological facts determine the roles of the wife and the husband- as they become mother and father. Marriage is primarily about commitment and obligations, and only secondarily about love. Government recognizes marriages so that it can either enforce or promote the fulfillment of these obligations.

They simply cannot comprehend the concept of same-sex marriage at all. It has little to nothing to do with hatred of gays. The main feeling that opponents have in response to same-sex marriage is incomprehension, not hate.

Supporters of gay marriage on the other hand perceive marriage to be primarily about love. Often I will hear them say: "How can you deny marriage to two people who love each other?" Simple, opponents don't see what love has to do with it. So what if people love each other- they can't fulfill the roles and obligations mandated by marriage and therefore cannot be married. To them same-sex marriage is an oxymoron.

This dramatic difference in understanding about what marriage is all about, is the primary cause of disagreement on this issue. It is vitally important to understand this so that we don't end up hating each other, but instead can understand why the other person disagrees, and therefor not call people names like bigot and hater which only causes anger and contention.

My main point though, is that if marriage is only about the celebration of two people's love for each other- then what business is it of the government? Why should the government give a special place to that kind of relationship?

On the other hand, if the traditionalists are correct, and marriage is about obligations of men and women to each other and to their children, then indeed I can see why the government has a legitimate interest in promoting marriage as special relationship with special privileges. The carrying out of such marital obligations would be beneficial to the entire society as a whole (including the unmarried gay people).

Personally I find the arguments of traditional marriage supporters to be persuasive (if poorly articulated).

The position that the government ought to get out of the marriage business altogether I find to be rational and respectable, if less persuasive.

I find the position that the government ought to continue recognizing marriage pairings as special but should also extend that recognition to same-sex couples, to be irrational, overly emotional, and completely unpersuasive.

I understand that many gay people feel persecuted and therefor want recognition and acceptance- but I don't find that a reasonable motivation for establishing government policies that attempt to reformat a social institution that pre-exists all current governments.

Gay people are not the only people to be bullied, attacked, or mistreated. I was bullied and attacked too- at age 12 another boy tried to kill me, for no other reason than because I was smaller and weaker then him. Does that give me some special right to demand the implementation of policies to make me feel safer? No it does not.

Government policy should be made by reason. Not emotional appeals for the healing of past persecution.

I know that many here disagree with me. I hope that though we disagree you will understand my reasoning and therefor do me the respect of recognizing that I have a legitimate position- even if you disagree with it.

Please do not attempt to de-legitimize me by name-calling or accusing me of evil motives that I do not have.

that's an issue that some of them face in city/county/state gov level.

I might have composed a reply to that retort, but Sackett has already beaten me to it with a far better post than I could have come up with.

To quote him: "It is not oppression. Attempts to label a refusal to recognize same-sex marriage as a civil rights violation is just an attempt to shut down legitimate debate by using loaded words."

That is something that I find, from personal experience of such debates, that pro-gay groups agitating for same-sex marriage do not seriously consider. Just because there are conservative people who spew hateful remarks in opposition to homosexual lifestyles, it doesn't mean that they are all like that. Some of them do have legitimate, and rational, reasons for believing what they do.

And, yes, of course I'm playing devil's advocate. Because I dislike it when debate becomes completely one-sided. It wouldn't then be a debate — it would be a mutual-admiration party instead. ;)

I say again, there is nothing intrinsically right in believing that homosexual behaviour and lifestyle is "normal" — that is merely a point of view that has gained increasing acceptance in modern society. To say that science has "proven" that homosexuality exists in nature (in itself a debatable issue) is also, to an extent, mere cherry-picking of evidence to support a particular point of view. Just because something comes naturally to human beings, does it necessarily mean that we should allow it? If so, what is the point of government and civilisation? There are perfectly "natural" forms of human behaviour that are deemed anti-social and damaging to the welfare of other people, that the law naturally prohibits. Is that then also a form of "oppression"?

So should the government not grant marriage licenses to infertile hetero couples?

And we are trying to create a society where the genders are equal, so gender being "an intrinsic element of marriage" goes against so much progress society has made on equality. Granted, gender today still plays a huge role in hetero marriages, but it is rightfully declining.

Sure, I'll bite.

This is most interesting. Can you point me to a credible source which supports your definition of the basis of civil rights? Additionally, can you substantially prove that your definition indeed is the universal basis of all civil rights?

To help you get started, I present the sole source I have been able to find through quick research which fits with your definition; John Locke's Second Treatise of Government, which states that "no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions." However, seeing as you hail from the United States of America, I present as a counterargument the most famous phrase of your very own country's Declaration of Independence; "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Clearly, this does not perfectly mesh with John Locke's phrase; the downplaying of "property" in favour of "the pursuit of happiness" was supported by none other than Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. Therefore, just by this, I prove that your definition of the basis of civil rights, which is largely in accordance with John Locke's definition, is not the basis of the civil rights at least in the USA; the Declaration of Independence, which is authored by the Founding Fathers of the United States of America, is.

To further support my stance, I present the 1967 civil rights case Loving vs. Virginia, which overturned all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States. In this case, the Declaration of Independence was referred to by then-Chief Justice Earl Warren:

This was mirrored in the final verdict of the case, which stated that:

Therefore, since "pursuit of happiness" is judged as a basis of civil rights in the United States of America, and Loving vs. Virginia has defined marriage as an aspect of the pursuit of happiness, it therefore holds that, at least in the United States of America, marriage is indeed a civil right. And since I have proven that marriage is indeed a civil right at least in the USA, I cannot see how you can prove that your definition of the basis of civil rights is indeed universal in nature. :eyebrow:

Appeal to Motive. Attempting to claim ulterior motives on the part of the opposing side of the debate merely constitutes a particular form of argumentum ad hominem circumstantial, and does not support your stand.