Gay Marriage and other problems homosexuals face

[synaesthetic]

Originally Posted by Sylphic

-snip-

I wasn't attacking you, honestly. I was attacking the rule itself. Your points are valid, but not the whole picture. I'd describe them here but some other person already posted in response to you concerning the other points.

I just wanted to clarify that I wasn't attacking you personally.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Kaijo

Take a look at the thread title "Gay Marriage" and then you'll realize we're talking about benefits that straight people get due to marriage, and thus gay people want to get the same benefits by having their marriages recognized. If two gay guys get hitched, and one gets seriously injured, the other one wants the same right to dictate what should happen to his love's life and possessions.

As for the military, "don't ask, don't tell" is a good policy. The military is not everyday life, and I don't want to know about anyone's relationships, gay or otherwise. I'm there to do a job, and I don't want it more complicated than it has to be. That's just a smart idea for a fighting force.

I don't want a gay guy crushing on me, in the same way that a female officer doesn't want a straight guy crushing on her, either. Save those kinds of things for the normal world, and just focus on what we're trying to accomplish. Two guys hooking up, can have as much impact on morale as a guy and a girl hooking up. Both can compromise the unit's integrity.

That's an argument against fraternization, not for "don't ask, don't tell".

And if different people can't fight in the same army... then what? Restrict recruiting to white protestant heterosexual males?

[synaesthetic]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

That's an argument against fraternization, not for "don't ask, don't tell".

And if different people can't fight in the same army... then what? Restrict recruiting to white protestant heterosexual males?

Sure, they can feel free to go off to shithole countries and get shot at.

[Zu Ra]

Forgot to post this quite a shocker ...... Ricky !!!!

[Nosauz]

Originally Posted by Zu Ra

Forgot to post this quite a shocker ...... Ricky !!!!

did anybody really think ricky martin was straight? i know it was a joke back in the late 90s that he was gay, but he just never came off as a hetero sexual, nothing wrong wtih it, I just find it funny that he comes out now, most likely the royalties from She bang's dried up.

[chichi13]

i think .. gays,bi.lesbians.and trans. has the right to live happily without discrimination.. they can chose whom they love.. like some of you say.. FREE WILL even God gives us free will for us to learn from our own mistake.. nobody is forcing you to love them, just accept them for they are people too.. human beings..

[master_buten]

i agree with chichi13, i have more gay & lesbian friends than the usual pack, though i'm not gay i enjoy their company and a lot of people don't quite understand why, at times crowds do make fun of them but for me, these people are more determined in life than most of us.

[Mystique]

BarackObama: Expanding hospital visitation rights -- same-sex partners and others should not be barred from a loved one's bedside in a time of need.
7 days ago from web · Reply · View Tweet

Ironically the keyword was 'sex' when i searched through twitter xD
But this was a shocker for me, are homosexual couples really not allowed to visit their partners if there is no immeadaite next of kin?
(like family before partners)

[justinstrife]

Originally Posted by Zu Ra

Some protest Signs hilarious at best :

Marriage is as old as Civilization and Society itself . So no one religion can claim stake to it . Though the founding fathers never meant the Country to be Christian . The current crop of politicians are brainwashing scribes to believe otherwise . (Ooh yeah Jefferson got censored in the new Texas Text Books Review)



* Thomas Jefferson to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814.




* Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814




* George Washington, letter to the members of the New Church in Baltimore, January 27, 1793




* George Washington, letter to the United Baptist Chamber of Virginia, May 1789

.

Our Founding Fathers meant for America to be a religious country. That much is fact. What our Founders didn't want, was an established religion in the Governemtn(i.e. The Church of England). They did believe in God, and there are references of our Lord, and Creator in more than a few papers(including the Declaration of Independence).

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

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

Our Founding Fathers meant for America to be a religious country. That much is fact. What our Founders didn't want, was an established religion in the Governemtn(i.e. The Church of England). They did believe in God, and there are references of our Lord, and Creator in more than a few papers(including the Declaration of Independence).

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

It really *does* depend on which Fathers you're talking about and how they used the word "God" in their writings. Some Founders were 'Christian' in the usual sense, some were Deists, some were closet atheists. True atheism was typically kept to oneself or a few trusted friends.

ALL totally grokked the idea that a state religion or any intertwining of secular and spiritual authority was a Really Bad Idea.

[cheyannew]

Originally Posted by Mystique

Ironically the keyword was 'sex' when i searched through twitter xD
But this was a shocker for me, are homosexual couples really not allowed to visit their partners if there is no immeadaite next of kin?
(like family before partners)

It rather depends on the establishment, it seems. Some places (like the hospital in DC where my gf had her daughter) don't seem to mind as much. That may be because there's concentrated areas of gays (Like Dupont Circle hehe) there, and they just don't enforce it.

But yes, it's a sad fact that partners cannot be there with their mates sometimes.

[2H-Dragon]

Originally Posted by cheyannew

It rather depends on the establishment, it seems. Some places (like the hospital in DC where my gf had her daughter) don't seem to mind as much. That may be because there's concentrated areas of gays (Like Dupont Circle hehe) there, and they just don't enforce it.

But yes, it's a sad fact that partners cannot be there with their mates sometimes.

Never knew the problem was that dire. It's amazing how people can deny other peoples civil rights.

Sad things you couldn't even vote for a guy that would give you these rights. :/

[cheyannew]

Originally Posted by 2H-Dragon

Never knew the problem was that dire. It's amazing how people can deny other peoples civil rights.

Sad things you couldn't even vote for a guy that would give you these rights. :/

What's even sadder is that even if we get these rights via the government, there will be people who try to take them from us.
There are far too many instances where a couple lives together for decades, one passes away and not only does the partner have to move because they don't have survivor rights, but they encounter issues with hospitals, funeral arranging, and so on.
As much as I hate what EA did to those of us they laid off, I DO give them props for being an openminded enough company to have partner rights. You could put your domestic partner on your insurance and whatnot. Sure, your partner might've had insurance through THEIR job, but what happens if they get laid off, or what have you? They're screwed.

[justinstrife]

Originally Posted by Vexx

It really *does* depend on which Fathers you're talking about and how they used the word "God" in their writings. Some Founders were 'Christian' in the usual sense, some were Deists, some were closet atheists. True atheism was typically kept to oneself or a few trusted friends.

ALL totally grokked the idea that a state religion or any intertwining of secular and spiritual authority was a Really Bad Idea.

I never once have showed support for a State Religion. That however, does not mean that religion is completely free from the American Government.

[2H-Dragon]

Originally Posted by cheyannew

What's even sadder is that even if we get these rights via the government, there will be people who try to take them from us.
There are far too many instances where a couple lives together for decades, one passes away and not only does the partner have to move because they don't have survivor rights, but they encounter issues with hospitals, funeral arranging, and so on.
As much as I hate what EA did to those of us they laid off, I DO give them props for being an openminded enough company to have partner rights. You could put your domestic partner on your insurance and whatnot. Sure, your partner might've had insurance through THEIR job, but what happens if they get laid off, or what have you? They're screwed.

Never knew, over here you also have the living together status(though we do have the ridiculous inheritance tax) .

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

I never once have showed support for a State Religion. That however, does not mean that religion is completely free from the American Government.

Which it should be. If you look at the founding fathers, you actually see some starkly contrasting viewpoints regarding religion. For instance here is a Jefferson quote: "Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear."

But that was fine because they knew and understood that religion and government are best kept as separate as possible. They were trying to avoid the centuries of religious influence upon European government. And why shouldn't they? Why does a devout Christian need the US to be a "Christian" nation? More accurately, the founding fathers envisioned a land where all the different Christian sects that disagreed with one another could co-exist peacefully. Obviously that hasn't been carried out all that well since their time...

[justinstrife]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

Which it should be. If you look at the founding fathers, you actually see some starkly contrasting viewpoints regarding religion. For instance here is a Jefferson quote: "Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear."

But that was fine because they knew and understood that religion and government are best kept as separate as possible. They were trying to avoid the centuries of religious influence upon European government. And why shouldn't they? Why does a devout Christian need the US to be a "Christian" nation? More accurately, the founding fathers envisioned a land where all the different Christian sects that disagreed with one another could co-exist peacefully. Obviously that hasn't been carried out all that well since their time...

That quote by Jefferson was not him questioning God.

As I've said before. As a majority, the Founding Fathers didn't want a Government instituted Religion. They did not want a Church of America(i.e. Church of England). And they did NOT want God and Religion completely out of Government, or there wouldn't be so many references to God in so many different American documents of that time. They wanted people to be free to practice their religions without prosecution. I have yet to see where that has happened. The only thing I've seen, is people on the left, trying to down-play or minimize religion in American History as much as they can.

[Nosauz]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

That quote by Jefferson was not him questioning God.

As I've said before. As a majority, the Founding Fathers didn't want a Government instituted Religion. They did not want a Church of America(i.e. Church of England). And they did NOT want God and Religion completely out of Government, or there wouldn't be so many references to God in so many different American documents of that time. They wanted people to be free to practice their religions without prosecution. I have yet to see where that has happened. The only thing I've seen, is people on the left, trying to down-play or minimize religion in American History as much as they can.

Religion is important to this country, that why when we've had a Catholic president it's been a big deal, but the fact of the matter is Atheism especially during that time period was not an acceptable manner of thinking if you look at political climate, considering Salem witch trials just a century ago persecuted all that disagreed with the puritan faith was burned at the stake or drowned is an indication of what type of mindset the people have about God. Let's also not forget the reason why the first immigrants came to America, was for religious freedom. Also deism is not chirstianity, and to somehow say that Jefferson because he was a Deist makes him more a christian man.

P.S. Why do people like you equate the founding fathers to some perfect epitome of humanity that we should all aspire too? They made mistakes and that's why they made the constitution a flexible document, lest we forget the founding fathers main gripe about slavery wasn't that it was inherently wrong but that they didn't want to give the slave owners more political power.

Also generalize much? People on the left all hate god/gods/mystical no father men/prophets/etc this is why civil debate with you is just not in the cards. Generalize and paint in broad strokes, because that's the definition of humanity./s if you couldn't get that.

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

That quote by Jefferson was not him questioning God.

As I've said before. As a majority, the Founding Fathers didn't want a Government instituted Religion. They did not want a Church of America(i.e. Church of England). And they did NOT want God and Religion completely out of Government, or there wouldn't be so many references to God in so many different American documents of that time. They wanted people to be free to practice their religions without prosecution. I have yet to see where that has happened. The only thing I've seen, is people on the left, trying to down-play or minimize religion in American History as much as they can.

I didn't claim it to be. It was a quote illustrating his deist views, which are obviously quite a bit different from Christian ones.

And yeah, I'm pretty sure passing references to 'god,' much more a cultural practice than anything else, don't constitute any desire on the part of the founders to incorporate religion into the government. (EDIT: I just went back and actually looked up quite a few early American documents and like Kaijo has said there actually aren't any references to god. Look who is changing history now???) You have yet to 'see' religious persecution in America? Well I guess I haven't directly seen any either, but who cares? It's a known fact that it has been a huge issue in American history.

People from the left, eh? Well I'll let you know I couldn't care less about the left or the right or any of those stupid political labels. I think both the Republican and Democratic parties are more bad than good, so I'm not trying to reconstruct American history to suit some ridiculous political agenda. All I'm interested in are facts.

[justsomeguy]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

...They did not want a Church of America(i.e. Church of England).
...And they did NOT want God and Religion completely out of Government
...They wanted people to be free to practice their religions without prosecution.

These three goals are mutually exclusive.

there wouldn't be so many references to God in so many different American documents of that time

And yet they chose to leave it out of the biggest document of them all, the Constitution. I will also point out that historically, organized religions have demonized and intimidated atheists, who must hence hide their true attitudes.

I have yet to see where that has happened.

I agree. I see Christians attempting to use the law to impose their will and their beliefs on non-Christians or different Christians.

The only thing I've seen, is people on the left, trying to down-play or minimize religion in American History as much as they can.

As opposed to the people on the right trying to justify their attempts to use the law to discriminate as not being religious in motivation?