Gay Rights and Marriage - Good, Bad, and the Like (European, african)

[Maxchus]

Originally Posted by Alex Libman

I think East-Asian cultures had the best attitude toward homosexuality: it didn't define the person, nor did it excuse him from family obligations, it was seen as just a recreational hobby. Same thing about pedophilia, prostitution, etc. It was the same in the west / middle east / etc as well, before that darn religion spread there...

Do I understand you correctly in saying that pedophilia should be looked upon as just another recreational hobby? That doesn't exactly help the case for thinking of homosexual lifestyles as just another alternative lifestyle, when you put them practically in the same context.

[boiseguy]

Originally Posted by Maxchus

Do I understand you correctly in saying that pedophilia should be looked upon as just another recreational hobby? That doesn't exactly help the case for thinking of homosexual lifestyles as just another alternative lifestyle, when you put them practically in the same context.

exactly.. pedophilia harms and scars others.. therefore infringing on their personal liberties.. comparing it to homosexuality is a bible reference.. not a civil reference or comparison... frankly it is insulting...

[Kerby W-R]

If marriage is not legal between gay people then it should not be legal for anyone. Everyone means everyone and equal means equal.

[mental_complex]

Originally Posted by Greatday

He also had a grandmother and grandfather who raised him

Umm I'm single and I also have a mother and father, therefore my adopted child would have a grandmother and grandfather. Lol Nice try tho.

[Chatteress]

Originally Posted by boiseguy

want a better job and more opportunity??? become white...
If michael jackson can do it.. why can't everyone else???
surely you see the error in your logic?

Really? Funny how my skin color hasn't helped me to get a full-time job in my field. Now had I been a bilingual latino, my outlook would have been much different.

But I digress ...

[CHICAGOLAND92]

Originally Posted by Ever Adrift

Fortunately, the US, at least theoretically, follows the principle of separation of church and state. In other words, if the only reason for not allowing gays to marry is religious in nature then the reason is insufficient. Religious belief is not an appropriate basis on which to formulate social policy. Many Americans, myself included, are not Christians. Furthermore, many Christians believe that the Bible shouldn't be taken literally. And beyond that, the only parts of the Bible which directly deal with homosexuality are in the Old Testament, the morals of which many Christian's argue are over-ridden by the New Testament. After all, the same book in the Bible that prohibits homosexual acts also says you should be put to death for eating shellfish and for lying in the same bed as a woman who happens to be on her period; you agree with that?

So if religion is insufficient, why are a majority still opposed to gay marriage? Would you argue that they vote no because of religion (the fact that some put God before secular choices, despite the fact they are not supposed to), or are there other factors as well?

Also, I do agree that not everything in the Bible should be taken literally, but how is one to choose what should be taken literally or not?

I don't really eat shellfish, and I believe the Bible meant you shouldn't have sex with a woman when she's on her period (not sure why anyone would want to).

Originally Posted by Ever Adrift

These are pretty crappy reasons to prohibit two loving people from marrying. Regardless of whether or not gays can marry, they are going to continue to exist so parents who disapprove are still going to have to find some way to explain it to their kids. Additionally, as has been discussed at length in another thread in this forum (so I won't go into detail here) there is growing agreement among biologists that homosexuality has a genetic component and is most certainly not a choice.

If homosexuals are allowed to marry, then it's viewed as "right" and parents would have to explain why it's right. When it's wrong, parents can simply say, "They're not right." I'm not saying that's the right thing to do, and I'm not trying to offend you, as homosexual acts may be right to you, but some people may not share your views. Of course, the more educated and tolerant you are, the more likely you are to accept non-normal things (and by non-normal, I mean not common. I don't mean it's weird, just different). I will agree with you that homosexuality is not a choice in the sense that you choose to be gay. I believe environmental factors play a role in homosexuality, along with biological factors. But that is just my opinion.

Originally Posted by Ever Adrift

How in the world does affording two people who love each other deeply and who are in a committed and monogamous relationship cheapen the institution of marriage just because they happen to be of the same sex? All the while divorce in this country is rampant and people like Britney Spears are having whirlwind 55 hour weddings?

I don't know your situation, but not everyone who gets married loves the other person deeply, is in a monogamous relationship, or is committed to their partner. And you are right, divorce is rampant in our great country. I'm not sure many people agree with Brittany Spears' 55 hour wedding. Why would gays want to be associated with this?
In all seriousness, I'm 100% positive there are gays who fit your given description. However, I'm also sure not 100% of them do, and a majority of the people voting (on Prop 8 at least) don't approve of gay marriage (yet).

Originally Posted by Ever Adrift

You know, it's obvious that you are trying really hard to sound as if you are tolerant and accepting, but its equally obvious that you really do have a problem with gays. You group gays in with "anyone who is not considered normal" - well, I along with many others consider gay people completely normal. You also seem to equate gay people with AIDS and promiscuity, a somewhat hurtful stereotype. You should really try to reflect more on your own hidden biases.

I believe I am tolerant and accepting. Just because I don't approve of gay marriage doesn't mean I have a problem with gays. People have a lot more to offer than sexuality.
Like I said above, by not normal I meant not common. I know not all gays have AIDS or are promiscuous; however, AIDS is more of a problem for homosexual men compared to their heterosexual counterparts, and gay(men) will obviously have more problems with promiscuity because of a man's nature. Men are naturally more turned on physically compared to women, who are naturally more turned on emotionally. That's all I was trying to say, so I apologize for seeming to equate gays with AIDS and promiscuity.

Originally Posted by Ever Adrift

While I'm no Christian, correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Jesus preach unconditional love? And, what's more, in the US isn't marriage a secularized legal institution? So, shouldn't gay people who are in love be allowed to have the legal benefits of marriage? I mean, currently if one person in a long-term gay relationship is hospitalized his partner has no rights to see him or any say in his treatment... is that right?

Jesus did preach of unconditional love, and I love gays. They're people just like everyone else. The Bible also considered homosexual acts a sin. And I hope your partner is never hospitalized, but what's the point of a civil union if you still would not have a say in your partner's treatment?

[RayinAK]

Lets face it folks, a great majority of Americans believe in the definition of "marriage" as being the union of a man and a woman. We can argue about this until we turn blue, but that "definition" is a fact, and all us us, unless we choose to ignore it, should remember how the definition or marriage has passed over and over at the ballot box for several years now. Why not facing reality and agreeing on some sort of legal or civil arrangement, and leaving "marriage" alone?

[think.reciprocity]

Originally Posted by think.reciprocity

I voted YES but that is not exactly true...

I would vote for & work towards "Civil Unions" for all US Citizens.

I believe that marriage can then be reserved for religious institutions to declare whom they see as "fit" to be married under their doctrines, rules, & beliefs.

We are a country established on the right to freedom of religion - that we would have a respectful separation of church & state.

This is the only way I see this as being correct.

All people of whatever gender can LEGALLY marry anyone of any gender - and have this be sanctioned as legal according to the law & therefore all other applicable laws regarding healthcare, etc will be afforded to all people who have established a civil union under the law.

The religious institutions can argue over who's "married in god's eyes" & who is not. This is not for the government to be a part of.

I am straight but would be greatly adverse to every marrying again as long as the laws are as they sit now. My union with my partner is between him, me, & our creator - no one else & I don't want or need to sanction of the government to interject itself.

that's my 65 cents

First - sorry for the typos...

I forgot to mention the reality of those who choose committed relationships but do not choose marriage or civil unions. Many people like this have strong spiritual beliefs - but often not traditional religious beliefs. I think all committed relationships should be respected & covered as far as healthcare, benefits, etc are concerned. We already have in many areas a legal way for people to declare their relationship as valid & committed - I believe this should include those who do not choose marriage or civil union (straight couples, for instance, who do not believe in marriage or civil union). Frankly, one day I may need to choose marriage as it is in order to continue my healthcare (which I very much need) - but to do so will go against my spiritual beliefs & the very creed I live by... something I don't think should be necessary...

[Ever Adrift]

Originally Posted by CHICAGOLAND92

So if religion is insufficient, why are a majority still opposed to gay marriage? Would you argue that they vote no because of religion (the fact that some put God before secular choices, despite the fact they are not supposed to), or are there other factors as well?

A small majority of people are still opposed to gay marriage (although I believe recent polls show that a small majority actually would approve if you referred to it as civil unions instead, which is fine by me) and I would wager that the vast majority of these people oppose it on religious grounds. People can vote for whatever reasons they choose, its fine for an individual to vote a particular way for religious reasons (remember, 'the people' don't make laws, they appoint representative to do it for them although in a few states, including California, some laws can be put to a popular vote). That's not what is at issue here; rather, many people make the argument that prohibiting gay marriage is unconstitutional because it amouts to legalized discrimination based solely on religious grounds (violating the 1st amendment). Now, I'm not a constitutional scholar nor a lawyer so I'm not in the best position to examine the nuances of this argument; it's a controversial issue. Now, aside from the question of constitutionality, I would say it's bad policy to make laws for religious reasons alone. This is debatable however, and you are free to disagree.

Originally Posted by CHICAGOLAND92

Also, I do agree that not everything in the Bible should be taken literally, but how is one to choose what should be taken literally or not?

I'm an atheist so I can guarantee you won't like or agree with my answer but I believe the Bible is a compilation of really old books that include a mixture of historical truths and myth and which were placed into the Bible arbitrarily for political reasons at the behest of Emperor Constantine. Remember, the Bible's current form didn't even exist until the 4th century; before that there were a lot more books that were seen as being just as sacred as the ones that found their way into the Bible (the Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Gospel of Marcion, the Gospel of Thomas and many others). Under pressure from Constantine, prominent Christians were forced to pick and choose from all these sacred books to create the modern Bible; the books that weren't chose were then banned. To me, this strongly suggests that the Bible is a rather political and arbitrary collection of selected texts about Jesus that were written long after his death by a variety of unknown people. I don't think you can take it literally at all; I believe they are just myths built around a man who, while admittedly great, was a mere mortal.

Originally Posted by CHICAGOLAND92

I don't really eat shellfish, and I believe the Bible meant you shouldn't have sex with a woman when she's on her period (not sure why anyone would want to).

Here's where this gets fun...

The Book of Leviticus, which is the book of the Old Testament used by Christians to claim that homosexuality is immoral, also includes these laws right along with the laws against homosexuality. Let's see what you think of them:

If a man cheats on his wife, or vise versa, both the man and the woman must die. (Leviticus 20:10).

Any person who curseth his mother or father, must be killed. (Leviticus 20:9)

If a priest’s daughter is promiscuous, she is to be burnt at the stake. (Leviticus 21:9) -- Note: the proper term isn't promiscuous, its a 5 letter word starting with W that the forum apparently automatically censors.

Don't wear clothes made of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19)

People who have flat noses, or are blind or lame, cannot go to an altar of God (Leviticus 21:17-18)

AND my personal favorite...

Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property (Leviticus 25:44-45)


So, the same book that says homosexuality is a sin says that its perfectly fine to have slaves, that it is a sin to wear clothes that are made from multiple types of fabrics and that promiscuous daughters of priests must be burnt at the stake. These are just a few choice laws from Leviticus; there are plenty of other fun ones to! Explain to me, then, how it is that you can follow the Leviticus law regarding homosexuality while simultaneously rejecting these laws? How do you justify that? It seems to me that logically you either take them all or leave them all... your thoughts?

Originally Posted by CHICAGOLAND92

If homosexuals are allowed to marry, then it's viewed as "right" and parents would have to explain why it's right. When it's wrong, parents can simply say, "They're not right." I'm not saying that's the right thing to do, and I'm not trying to offend you, as homosexual acts may be right to you, but some people may not share your views.

I'm going to try to pick this apart in a few different ways, so bare with me.

First, an analogy. Gambling and drinking alcohol are both legal but this doesn't entail that they are necessarily viewed as 'right' nor does it in any way imply that parents have to explain that its right. Just because something is legal doesn't mean that people are forced to believe and teach others that it is morally right.

Second, you're essentially arguing that just because some parents wouldn't feel comfortable explaining homosexuality to their children (who are going to learn about it at some point regardless, they can't stay ignorant forent) then we should not allow a whole group of people to receive he legal benefits of marriage? As a somewhat silly example: because Sally and Sam don't want to explain to their daughter that Tom loves Jack, Tom isn't going to be able to receive hospital visitation and decision rights when Jack gets hurt and goes into a coma?

Some parents believe it's morally wrong to teach evolution or that the Earth is older than 6000 years old, does that mean we shouldn't teach these in school?

I'm sorry, but it's my opinion that in this case its the parents in your example that are wrong and immoral; we can disagree on this, but I believe my arguments above adequately suggest that your argument is not a legitimate grounds on which to deny gays the right to receive the same legal rights that straights have.

Originally Posted by CHICAGOLAND92

Of course, the more educated and tolerant you are, the more likely you are to accept non-normal things (and by non-normal, I mean not common. I don't mean it's weird, just different).

So we shouldn't allow gays to marry because some people are too uneducated to deal with it? That seems like an argument as to why we need to improve our education system rather than an argument for why we should deny certain legal rights to gay people.

Originally Posted by CHICAGOLAND92

I don't know your situation, but not everyone who gets married loves the other person deeply, is in a monogamous relationship, or is committed to their partner. And you are right, divorce is rampant in our great country. I'm not sure many people agree with Brittany Spears' 55 hour wedding. Why would gays want to be associated with this?

The point I was making was that the argument that allowing gays to marry will somehow destroy the institution of marriage is ridiculous because straights have done far worse things to marriage already. Gays want the right to marry because there are gay couples who are deeply in love and committed to their partner and who would like to receive legal recognition of that commitment and the legal rights which that entails. Marriage extends a plethora of financial and social benefits/rights to those entering into it, including health/hospital rights mentioned above.

Originally Posted by CHICAGOLAND92

In all seriousness, I'm 100% positive there are gays who fit your given description. However, I'm also sure not 100% of them do, and a majority of the people voting (on Prop 8 at least) don't approve of gay marriage (yet).

100% of straight people don't fit the description of ideal marriage partners either! That's no reason to keep the ones who do from entering into it! As far as Prop 8 is concerned, the Supreme Court of California had granted gays the rights to marry and Prop 8 took it back after many gay couples had gotten married! I find that morally offensive. I also think that Propostion 8 may, in fact, be unconstitutional but we won't have a definitive answer on that question until/unless the US Supreme Court takes up the case.

Originally Posted by CHICAGOLAND92

I believe I am tolerant and accepting. Just because I don't approve of gay marriage doesn't mean I have a problem with gays. People have a lot more to offer than sexuality.

You seem like a decent guy; I don't agree with you but I think you're probably a good person. My guess is that you still have a somewhat stereotypical understanding of gay people, probably because you haven't met many. My hope is that as time goes on you'll meet more gay people who will change your mind. Gay people really are no different than you or anyone else; gays are just as diverse as straights and gay relationships are very similar to straight ones. We have the same kinds of relationship problems, we enter into relationships for the same reasons. The only difference is that you can marry the person you love and the government will give you legal benefits for doing so, but I can't marry my boyfriend no matter how much I love him and no matter how long we're together.

Originally Posted by CHICAGOLAND92

Like I said above, by not normal I meant not common. I know not all gays have AIDS or are promiscuous; however, AIDS is more of a problem for homosexual men compared to their heterosexual counterparts, and gay(men) will obviously have more problems with promiscuity because of a man's nature. Men are naturally more turned on physically compared to women, who are naturally more turned on emotionally. That's all I was trying to say, so I apologize for seeming to equate gays with AIDS and promiscuity.

Just try to work on picking less offensive and stereotypical examples. Also, keep in mind that the AIDS rate these days is almost as high among black heterosexual males as it is among gay males; I'm pretty sure you don't think that is a legitimate reason to ban black men from marrying women. In some countries the AIDS rate among heterosexuals is astronomical.

Promiscuity has been a problem in some parts of the gay community and this has led to higher than average std rate among gays, but think about why this may be. Gays have been ostracized, they have been marginalized. More importantly, they are not allowed to marry which means they have fewer incentives to pursue long-term, monogamous relationships. Marrage could theoretically help reduce promiscuity by helping to further integrate gays into the general society and by making monogamy more institutionalized. Additionally, keep in mind that there are plenty of straight people who are just as promiscuous as the most promiscuous homosexuals.

Originally Posted by CHICAGOLAND92

Jesus did preach of unconditional love, and I love gays. They're people just like everyone else. The Bible also considered homosexual acts a sin. And I hope your partner is never hospitalized, but what's the point of a civil union if you still would not have a say in your partner's treatment?

Just remember, the Bible says wearing a shirt made of both polyester and cotton is a sin, too.

As for the civil union thing; it's just another 'less controversial' term for marriage. I'd be just as happy with civil unions as marriage as long as civil unions included the same legal rights that marriages carry, meaning that they would have to be instituted at the federal level. Some gay people want it called marriage, pure and simple, but civil unions are fine by me.

[Ever Adrift]

Originally Posted by RayinAK

Lets face it folks, a great majority of Americans believe in the definition of "marriage" as being the union of a man and a woman. We can argue about this until we turn blue, but that "definition" is a fact, and all us us, unless we choose to ignore it, should remember how the definition or marriage has passed over and over at the ballot box for several years now. Why not facing reality and agreeing on some sort of legal or civil arrangement, and leaving "marriage" alone?

As I have said before in this thread, I'm personally fine with calling it a civil union as long as it includes all of the same legal rights entailed by marriage and as long as its instituted at the federal level. Some gay people disagree, but this is just as good in my book.

However, keep in mind that while it is true that the majority of Americans consider marriage to be the union of a man and a woman, that majority has, in fact, shrunk over the past decade and, more importantly and for the first time, the majority of people under 30 according to some recent polls support gay marriage. The point being that public opinon is moving, albeit slowly, towards a majority of people supporting gay marriage. In time, as the younger generations replace older ones, a majority of the population as a whole will come to support it. I'd say we've got another 20 or so years untit it becomes realistic at the federal level.