Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I wondered why people in the US were so upset about a piece of chicken and not about muslim religion where they vilify homosexuals? Why they hate the christian religion but not the muslim. Why christians are apparently to them these bigots when muslims who are much more hard line in their actions and attitudes toward gays are just peachy keen. I guess I figured folks could decifer that. Apparently I was wrong. Maybe Limbaugh will say something about it tomorrow? lol
Again...I do hate Muslim extremism. I hate Christian extremism. I hate any kind of religious extremism, where people's rights are taken away or violence is committed in the name of any religion, including Islam. I don't mind and tolerate moderate religion, regardless of what brand of moderate religion it is, even though I personally disagree with it. Some of my family is Muslim and some of my family is Christian, but they're not bombing metro stations or abortion clinics so I really don't care what they believe in. If someone is committing an act of violence, I don't care what they believe--even if they they somehow had the same beliefs as me (even though that would be impossible since non-violence is embedded into my beliefs)--it's the level of extremism and the justification of harming others that I disagree vehemently with. Unlike how many Conservatives claim that "all Liberals" think, I really don't categorize people in terms of religion, but rather, in terms of degrees of extremism.
Is it really so hard to see the difference between two groups when one is fighting to have my rights denied IN THIS COUNTRY, while the other has laws IN ANOTHER COUNTRY.
I live here, what happens here concerns me, and my life. I don't want to be the world police.
Is it wrong to kill people because of their sexual orientation? YES.
Do I have ANY control over the laws of another country? NO.
Can I make a difference here? YES
Islam doesn't tolerate homosexuality but also doesn't try to ban gay people from having rights in this country. However, many Christians in this country are trying to interfere with my rights.
As for in other countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, the United Arab Emirates, Sudan, Nigeria, and Mauritania, where homosexuality is punishable by death, in most cases as a result of Islamic law, yes I am vehemently opposed to those human rights violations, as I imagine many other people who stand for gay rights are as well. And yes, that angers me far more than the rights I don't have in the U.S. as a gay person, which pale in comparison.
That said, seeing as I live in the U.S., it's hard to make a difference in other countries, except through indirect work like working for a human rights foundation, which I have done. For what it's worth, though, I don't only care about my own kind, and did human rights work for all kinds of groups, ranging from religious minorities to gay people to people who were just "not Muslim enough" according to their country's standards.
I think a lot of the Christians in this country who only think about their own kind would benefit from caring about people other than their own demographic more often.
Excellent post and quite telling! Gays in the US are supposed to stand for the rights of others in Muslim nations when they themselves are fighting for the same Equality here?
You can still be arrested in many parts of the US for kissing someone of the same gender!
Of course not! Liberals hate Christians and accept Muslims without question, despite the fact that they hang gays, mutilate women, stone adulterers, and demand a culture which mimicks the Dark Ages.
It is funny to hear the double stand and hyprocristy that causes liberals to contort, rationalize, and squirm to accept all the brutal and hostile aspects of Islam, all the while condemning Christianity. Why? Thier handlers DEMAND that the liberal condemn Christianity, as it is an impediment to the spread of socialism. There can be no loyalty to the state when one is loyal to God. Islam provides the perfect foil for the libs against Christianity, even if it requires one to embrace brutality, intolerance, and human subjugation- not a big deal!
Very correct.
The common ground liberals have with Muslims is statism, and for liberals, that trumps everything else.
Islam doesn't tolerate homosexuality but also doesn't try to ban gay people from having rights in this country. However, many Christians in this country are trying to interfere with my rights.
You have just as much right to marry a member of the opposite sex as do the Christians or any other religious, non-religious groups here in America. You always have. Nobody has the "right" to marry the one they love. The Marriage Law doesn't state such. One just simply is recognized, by law, to be married if that person is of opposite gender. The law was established to encourage couples to procreate by giving them special marriage benefits. Obviously, same-sex couples cannot procreate. Therefore, the law cannot apply to same-sex couples. That is not a hate message, that is simply a fact of biology.
In this day and time, population fulfillment is no longer an issue. In fact, the country is probably starting to become overly populated. Therefore, there really is no need to have a marriage law in place any longer. If all states repealed the Marriage Law, but on the grounds that anyone could appoint someone on their health insurance if they choose so, then it would solve a lot issues.
First of all, there would no longer be the argument of homosexuals wanting to be recognized as legally married, since there would no longer be a such thing for anybody. Marriage would be left to the religious institution - just the way that it should be. Religious people would not be forced to recognize a same-sex couple as being married, since it is against their beliefs to do so - so no intrusion on religious beliefs. All couples would be on an even playing field. There would no longer be tax benefits to being married - but that just means Uncle Sam could keep some of that money instead of raising taxes elsewhere.
Since anyone with health insurance would have the right to put anybody they want on their health insurance, more people would be insured in the country - making it less of an issue to have state sponsored health insurance. I would also add that one should have the right to appoint whoever they want to knowing their medical conditions that they choose.
Lastly, the courts would not be tied up going through so many divorce cases. We could actually use the court system for other things rather than sorting out failed marriages and forcing soon to be ex-spouses to lose half of what they've worked for. With the exception of children (which would probably still need to be worked out in a court of law) the "possessions" are up to you to divide. Work it out among yourselves and keep the taxpayers out of it.
If the government had stayed out of marriage from the very beginning, you wouldn't have as much divisiveness as we do. Heck, if the government stayed out of a lot things, you would see a much more "united" States of America than what you currently do. But, as proven, the more socially nosy the government becomes, the more divisive its people become. It's obviously been proven by this particular social issue. I'm sure you won't find many on either side of the issue that would agree with what I've said in this post, but everyone would be better off in the long run by not having a marriage law at all.
You have just as much right to marry a member of the opposite sex as do the Christians or any other religious, non-religious groups here in America. You always have. Nobody has the "right" to marry the one they love. The Marriage Law doesn't state such. One just simply is recognized, by law, to be married if that person is of opposite gender. The law was established to encourage couples to procreate by giving them special marriage benefits. Obviously, same-sex couples cannot procreate. Therefore, the law cannot apply to same-sex couples. That is not a hate message, that is simply a fact of biology.
Um, yes, you do have the option to possibly marry the person you love. The way marriage is now, in most states, I can get married, but it would be a loveless sham marriage.
How would you feel if you could get married—as long as it was only to someone of the same sex?
How would you feel if you fell in love with someone of another race, but were only allowed to marry your own race?
Quote:
In this day and time, population fulfillment is no longer an issue. In fact, the country is probably starting to become overly populated. Therefore, there really is no need to have a marriage law in place any longer. If all states repealed the Marriage Law, but on the grounds that anyone could appoint someone on their health insurance if they choose so, then it would solve a lot issues.
I think we should do away with legal marriage altogether—including opposite-sex marriages. The problem is, I don’t see very many married heterosexual couples willing to give up their rights. Easy to say that gay people don’t have any “special rights” but they seem to be singing another tune when it comes to their own rights being called into question. However, I do personally completely agree with everything you said here.
Quote:
First of all, there would no longer be the argument of homosexuals wanting to be recognized as legally married, since there would no longer be a such thing for anybody. Marriage would be left to the religious institution - just the way that it should be. Religious people would not be forced to recognize a same-sex couple as being married, since it is against their beliefs to do so - so no intrusion on religious beliefs. All couples would be on an even playing field. There would no longer be tax benefits to being married - but that just means Uncle Sam could keep some of that money instead of raising taxes elsewhere.
Quote:
Since anyone with health insurance would have the right to put anybody they want on their health insurance, more people would be insured in the country - making it less of an issue to have state sponsored health insurance. I would also add that one should have the right to appoint whoever they want to knowing their medical conditions that they choose.
I’m not sure exactly how this would work, but I'm sure the government could figure out a way that doesn’t involve marriage. After all, a lot of polyamorous people will want to have plural marriage if same-sex marriage passes federally, so why not just get rid of the whole institution altogether, from a legal point of view?
Quote:
Lastly, the courts would not be tied up going through so many divorce cases. We could actually use the court system for other things rather than sorting out failed marriages and forcing soon to be ex-spouses to lose half of what they've worked for. With the exception of children (which would probably still need to be worked out in a court of law) the "possessions" are up to you to divide. Work it out among yourselves and keep the taxpayers out of it.
Hadn’t even though of this. To add, I do think that if we can’t get rid of marriage altogether, we should have it automatically expire after 5 years. People should be forced to renew their marriage contracts every 5 years. I think that would help people truly decide if they want to stay in a marriage or not.
Quote:
If the government had stayed out of marriage from the very beginning, you wouldn't have as much divisiveness as we do. Heck, if the government stayed out of a lot things, you would see a much more "united" States of America than what you currently do. But, as proven, the more socially nosy the government becomes, the more divisive its people become. It's obviously been proven by this particular social issue. I'm sure you won't find many on either side of the issue that would agree with what I've said in this post, but everyone would be better off in the long run by not having a marriage law at all.
Amen. I just think that so long as straight people have rights, so to should any other arrangement of consenting adults. But like you said, it would be easier to just do away with the whole legal marriage business.
I'm trying to remember the last time a Muslim in this country persecuted or beheaded a gay person.
Maybe the OP can cite me a few cases.
Heck, when was the last time a prominent Muslim in the US who owned a large corporation come out against gays? One who's company was overtly geared towards the Muslim faith, to the point that it was closed on holidays and all employees were encouraged to be members of that faith?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think we should do away with legal marriage altogether—including opposite-sex marriages. The problem is, I don’t see very many married heterosexual couples willing to give up their rights. Easy to say that gay people don’t have any “special rights” but they seem to be singing another tune when it comes to their own rights being called into question. However, I do personally completely agree with everything you said here.
