NationStates Jolt Archive

Since the burst of 2000, people have been exposing themselves as gays/lesbians/bisexual. It is usually against religion, ACCORDING to many religious leaders. But can we live through it anyways? Do they desrve their rights? TRY TO KEEP THIS ONE CLEAN,PLZ!

Do they desrve their rights?

I see no reason why not.

The majority of people who are staunchly opposed to gay rights of any kind are those sanctimonious Jerry Falwell-worshippers who no one takes seriously, anyway.

Gay? Bi? Transgendered? Fine by me! :)

BTW, I would say a majority of my Buddhist brothers and sisters are fine with people of all sexualities. ;)

I see no reason why not.

The majority of people who are staunchly opposed to gay rights of any kind are those sanctimonious Jerry Falwell-worshippers who no one takes seriously, anyway.

Actually, Jerry Falwell has frequently said that even though he thinks it's a sin to be in a gay relationship, civil unions should be okay. Just not marriage.

It's people like Pat Robertson and the AFA ya gotta watch out for.


But yes, I want them to be happy and out. I just don't see the point of having a parade about it. I'm bi, and I don't need a parade. Why would they?

I just don't see the point of having a parade about it. I'm bi, and I don't need a parade. Why would they?
backlash against longterm repression.

Since the burst of 2000, people have been exposing themselves as gays/lesbians/bisexual. It is usually against religion, ACCORDING to many religious leaders. But can we live through it anyways? Do they desrve their rights? TRY TO KEEP THIS ONE CLEAN,PLZ!

Religious leaders who spout the "omfg gays eval go to hell" bit need to take a look at their own life. They sin just as homosexuals do; and no sin weighs more than another sin, as the bible says. For all have sinned, all fall guilty before God's glorious standard. -Romans 3:23. I'm not saying homsexuality is right, I'm simply stating that those types of leaders are hypocrites. Do gays deserve their rights? Of course. Do they deserve the right to marriage? Why does it matter? What does it matter if you have a piece of paper from the government saying that you can marry? If you want to be with the person you want to be with, just be with them. ;)

IMO, the government should get the hell out of marriage, and do it the way the U.K. does. Marriage is between a man and woman, but gays can get civil unions.

BTW, this topic has been beaten to death with a stick.

backlash against longterm repression.

I was about to say something similar to that effect!

*hands you a cookie*

I just don't see the point of having a parade about it. I'm bi, and I don't need a parade. Why would they?


I never understood the point of parades, either.

It's like, okay, we know you're a homosexual/black/amputee midget. Why go down the streets proclaiming it from atop hideous floats?

Do they deserve the right to marriage? Why does it matter? What does it matter if you have a piece of paper from the government saying that you can marry? If you want to be with the person you want to be with, just be with them. ;)

IMO, the government should get the hell out of marriage, and do it the way the U.K. does. Marriage is between a man and woman, but gays can get civil unions.

BTW, this topic has been beaten to death with a stick.

Brown v. Board of Education. Seperate is not inherantly equal.

Do they deserve the right to marriage? Why does it matter? What does it matter if you have a piece of paper from the government saying that you can marry? If you want to be with the person you want to be with, just be with them. ;)
reason i want it legal is because i am not protected in the same ways a married couple would be. i am not my mate's "next of kin" if my mate is unconcious in the hospital and i have power of attonery yes i can see him, however if he is concious, even with power of attonery, a hospital can legally deny me the right to see him. if either of us is accused of commiting a crime there is nothing preventing the other from being supeonaed to testify.

BTW, I would say a majority of my Buddhist brothers and sisters are fine with people of all sexualities. ;)

As far as I know, Buddhism isn't too comfortable with any sexuality, hetero or homo.

I never understood the point of parades, either.

It's like, okay, we know you're a homosexual/black/amputee midget. Why go down the streets proclaiming it from atop hideous floats?

Hahaha. That sounded very Monty Pythonish! :)

But yes, I never understood parades for much of anything. A long procession of people waving from paper mache figures on the back of a Mack truck flatbed.... Sounds sane to me!

Brown v. Board of Education. Seperate is not inherantly equal.

Seperation of church and state. The government has no right to interfere with religion, and thus, marriage.

Seperation of church and state. The government has no right to interfere with religion, and thus, marriage.
marriage is not religous. it has religous recognition. you dont need religious recognition to be married. just need a justice of the peace to be legally married.

Seperation of church and state. The government has no right to interfere with religion, and thus, marriage.

But we are not talking about a church issue here. We are talking about marriage liscenses issued by states and the rights and protections they provide. I dont give a shit if a church doesnt want to marry a gay couple. But the government can not deny people rights afforded to others because they are different or in a minority.

reason i want it legal is because i am not protected in the same ways a married couple would be. i am not my mate's "next of kin" if my mate is unconcious in the hospital and i have power of attonery yes i can see him, however if he is concious, even with power of attonery, a hospital can legally deny me the right to see him. if either of us is accused of commiting a crime there is nothing preventing the other from being supeonaed to testify.

Correct. You deserve those rights, and they should be protected, marriage or not.

Seperation of church and state. The government has no right to interfere with religion, and thus, marriage.

Um, but if we go by what the Constitution actually says, then Income Tax is illegal as well. (BTW, I think government should issue partnership licenses, and leave marriage to churches. The United Church of Christ would gladly marry a gay couple.)

-snip-
awesome sig.

Correct. You deserve those rights, and they should be protected, marriage or not.
indeed. yet several states do not feel this way. /mourn :(

Um, but if we go by what the Constitution actually says, then Income Tax is illegal as well. (BTW, I think government should issue partnership licenses, and leave marriage to churches. The United Church of Christ would gladly marry a gay couple.)

I'd tend to agree with you. Marriage should be left to whatever church you choose to be married at. If you choose not to get married religiously, then get a partnership license/ Civil union. :)

Correct. You deserve those rights, and they should be protected, marriage or not.

The problem with civil unions as opposed to marriages, as far as my limited understanding goes, is that civil unions wouldn't be able to draw on the divorce and child custody laws.

I'd tend to agree with you. Marriage should be left to whatever church you choose to be married at. If you choose not to get married religiously, then get a partnership license/ Civil union. :)
i dont care if they call it setting your hair on fire. i just want the same rights i should be afforded as a US citizen in good legal standing.

As far as I know, Buddhism isn't too comfortable with any sexuality, hetero or homo.

It's fine with sexuality. As long as two people love each other and have sex to please each other and not themselves, there's no problem. This does NOT mean those people have to be married or of different sexes. Of course, monks and nuns abstain from sex, but that doesn't mean a lay person (someone who is Buddhist, but not a monk or nun) has to abstain from sex. It's not seen as wrong or evil, like I said, as long as both people are in it to please their partner.

The problem with civil unions as opposed to marriages, as far as my limited understanding goes, is that civil unions wouldn't be able to draw on the divorce and child custody laws.
the term "civil union" is not the same as "civil marriage". a civil union is much much more restrictive and does not allow those rights i complained about. for everyone's referance, a RELIGIOUS marriage means nothing in the legal system on its own. however, the priests and such that perform them are given the ability to perform a civil marriage. hence, marriage is government based, not religion.

awesome sig.

Daily Show > Real News

the term "civil union" is not the same as "civil marriage". a civil union is much much more restrictive and does not allow those rights i complained about. for everyone's referance, a RELIGIOUS marriage means nothing in the legal system on its own. however, the priests and such that perform them are given the ability to perform a civil marriage. hence, marriage is government based, not religion.

As far as I know the exact stuff allowed by "civil unions" varies depending on the particular plan in the particular state. I think that the one being offered up for vote now in Oregon allows the stuff you were talking about.

Just as a sidenote, there was a rather brilliant piece of propaganda for this plan in the form of a newspaper article about it that gave an example of two strait widowed sisters who live together who want the benefits of a civil union. I think if the public is shown that civil unions aren't just a "gay issue" they'll be more in favor of them.

I never understood the point of parades, either.

It's like, okay, we know you're a homosexual/black/amputee midget. Why go down the streets proclaiming it from atop hideous floats?


All those parades started years ago to celbrate the fact they could actually have a parade main street and not get lynched for it. Considering the attitudes of only a decade before those weird Gay Pride Parades, just being gay could earn someone a violent beating. I think the point of having a parade for gay pride day is just....to have a parade.

I know is a little out of the blue but... my choice on gays...is that they SHOULD have their marriges and rights. Whats wrong with that?!?! I know...random.

P.S.-People who remember me by being a Christain Witch...THATS RIGHT...A CHRISTIAN...OH MY! blah blah blah. Naturally, we must remeber that God will judge us no matter what race, beleifs, way of life or how many sins we made... Every1 makes it a big issue that wasn't suppost to be raised... :rolleyes:

Religious leaders who spout the "omfg gays eval go to hell" bit need to take a look at their own life. They sin just as homosexuals do; and no sin weighs more than another sin, as the bible says. For all have sinned, all fall guilty before God's glorious standard. -Romans 3:23. I'm not saying homsexuality is right, I'm simply stating that those types of leaders are hypocrites. Do gays deserve their rights? Of course. Do they deserve the right to marriage? Why does it matter? What does it matter if you have a piece of paper from the government saying that you can marry? If you want to be with the person you want to be with, just be with them. ;)

IMO, the government should get the hell out of marriage, and do it the way the U.K. does. Marriage is between a man and woman, but gays can get civil unions.

BTW, this topic has been beaten to death with a stick.

I agree.I'm not gay,I don't really care if anyone else is, but they should have an civil union to allow the same legal benefits as marriage, such as superannuation access, custody rights etc.

Homosexuality is a deeply personal matter, and impinges on a person's legal freedoms for no reason other than people do not like it.

I agree.I'm not gay,I don't really care if anyone else is, but they should have an civil union to allow the same legal benefits as marriage, such as superannuation access, custody rights etc.

So people should be allowed to seperate white kids and black kids into different seperate but equal schools?

Brown v. Board of Education. Seperate is not inherantly equal.


That quote was applied to education, and while it could be extended to include other things... separate drinking fountains and the like... I do not believe the quote applies here. And I'll give an example to illustrate.

We have defined the sexes as males and females. They're separate but equal (in theory). Does that mean we're going to get rid of the concept of sex? Even if we could I think nature played a cruel joke on us for that.

What we are talking about is a recognition of a couple. Marriage until now has been defined as between a man and a woman, and a lot of people are sensitive to that. Why hold back civil rights on insisting we call it the same thing? A rose by any other name still smells as sweet.

-A GLBT for civil unions

i dont care if they call it setting your hair on fire. i just want the same rights i should be afforded as a US citizen in good legal standing.

Good legal standing? Can't ex-cons get married too?

So people should be allowed to seperate white kids and black kids into different seperate but equal schools?

I was about to make a response of that sort. I hate it when people give someone a lesser version of what they have and ca,, it equality. Hell, science has proven that it is not a choice[Thank you, local paper].

So people should be allowed to seperate white kids and black kids into different seperate but equal schools?

The problem with separate but equal was mostly that they weren't equal and were actually separating people. It wasn't just an issue of name, which this seems to be turning out to be. You're right that insisting on giving a separate name to gays is bigotrous in the extreme, but if all we need to do to appease the bigots is to change a word we should feel extremely lucky.

-A GLBT for civil unions

All four? (sorry, just had to say that)

That quote was applied to education, and while it could be extended to include other things... separate drinking fountains and the like... I do not believe the quote applies here. And I'll give an example to illustrate.
Though the ruling applies to the education systems its primary message goes far beyond that.

We have defined the sexes as males and females. They're separate but equal (in theory). Does that mean we're going to get rid of the concept of sex? Even if we could I think nature played a cruel joke on us for that.
Dude are you joking. We are talking about rights not the different types of sexes. Your compairing apples to oranges here.

What we are talking about is a recognition of a couple. Marriage until now has been defined as between a man and a woman, and a lot of people are sensitive to that. Why hold back civil rights on insisting we call it the same thing? A rose by any other name still smells as sweet.
We are talking about more than a recognition of a couple. We are talking about insurance benefits and other rights which gays do not have afforded to them under civil unions. If we give gays a civil union with the same rights as regular couples whats to stop people from saying well lets go back to the seperate white and black schools.

Religious leaders who spout the "omfg gays eval go to hell" bit need to take a look at their own life. They sin just as homosexuals do; and no sin weighs more than another sin, as the bible says. For all have sinned, all fall guilty before God's glorious standard. -Romans 3:23. I'm not saying homsexuality is right, I'm simply stating that those types of leaders are hypocrites. Do gays deserve their rights? Of course. Do they deserve the right to marriage? Why does it matter? What does it matter if you have a piece of paper from the government saying that you can marry? If you want to be with the person you want to be with, just be with them. ;)

IMO, the government should get the hell out of marriage, and do it the way the U.K. does. Marriage is between a man and woman, but gays can get civil unions.

BTW, this topic has been beaten to death with a stick.

I still keep hearing how Homosexuality is the most horrible sin and such... and I am a homosexual, btw. I think it is ridiculous and generally a double standard that some sins are worse than others.... when they all mean we have fallen from grace in some way, and NO ONE is perfect.

I am not Christian. I don't really have a stance on whether homosexuality is a sin or not. But even if I do... I advocate people making choices for themselves. And I have done so.

I have read numerous passages in the Bible. I own one. What I do with my life is my choice and it is a choice that I make without fear.

Mattathias

PS ...For those who wish to know what I know of the Bible (it is interesting)... Contact me. If anything, I have found good ways of self-defense against those who challenge me regarding my choices.

We have defined the sexes as males and females. They're separate but equal (in theory). Does that mean we're going to get rid of the concept of sex? Even if we could I think nature played a cruel joke on us for that.

No nature has defined biological sex and that we cannot change. It is gender that we have defined culturally, and that can/will/has changed.

What we are talking about is a recognition of a couple. Marriage until now has been defined as between a man and a woman, and a lot of people are sensitive to that. Why hold back civil rights on insisting we call it the same thing? A rose by any other name still smells as sweet.

As noted by other forum members, the problem is that the other names do not, as yet, grant the same rights as marriage does. When civil unions truly are the legal equivalent of marriage, then we can talk.

Ok, the whole arguement on religion is bullshit! There is a law about that you know! Seperation of church and state is fundamental in our system. It is in the back-bone of our society! What would the founding fathers have wanted? some people ask. Seperation of church and state is in the CONSTITUTION!!!!!!! and besides, this may be a shock but NOT EVERYONE BELIEVES IT IS WRONG!!!!!!! I am Wiccan. (I know, burn the witch) We believe live and let live. Wow, a sane approach to things...

Excuse me? Homosexuality has been a hot issue since the dawn of time, not just the nineties. Recently (even since the 60's) there have been more open movements due to the gaining of freedoms and liberties by other parties (women, blacks). There is less oppressive religion (not religion in general, mind you, just less intolerance) and more logic in present day, and thus, the belief that people should be allowed to be free and open to do as they feel best for themselves. In ancienct Greece there was very open homosexuality. The main reason it was "done away with" per se, is because mainstream religion (aka Christianity and like forms) essentially abolished free thought. You must remember that every form of religion has died out at one point or another, and also that not everyone is of the same religion. Just because one person thinks something is unclean, does not mean that everyone else does, and that belief will eventually change in some way, anyway. I believe wholeheartedly that if there is a God (which is a pretty large "if" on my part), He intended people to be different and to be happy.

And by the way, marraige actually was originally "religious" to the best of my knowledge. It's turned into a legal affair, but back in the days of theocracy (haha, as if we're past it..) it was handled by the church. But I digress...

Everyone deserves the same rights, whether they're black, white, red, yellow, gay, straight, short, tall, fat, skinny, femminine, masculine, whatever. With the current state of marraige the way it is, with the absolute disintigration of the "family," with divorce rates so high, why NOT let gay people get married? If anything, it'll only add to the stature of the family. Every gay couple I know is more monogomous that most straight couples.

If we allow the government to control the way we run our lives, pretty soon we won't be the democracy that so many people delusionally beleive we are. If a gay couple wants to get married, so what? So you'll have a potentially loving couple to raise a child who will be much more tolerant than others. Hopefully that marraige will cancel out one of the thousands of broken homes with fat old drunk guys who beat their wives and children, who in turn grow up and beat their children or become alcoholics themselves.

Equality. Respect. Care. Maybe even a little bit of empathy. That's all I ask for.

Now, for my rant on separation of church and state.

Ok, the whole arguement on religion is bullshit! There is a law about that you know! Seperation of church and state is fundamental in our system. It is in the back-bone of our society! What would the founding fathers have wanted? some people ask. Seperation of church and state is in the CONSTITUTION!!!!!!! and besides, this may be a shock but NOT EVERYONE BELIEVES IT IS WRONG!!!!!!! I am Wiccan. (I know, burn the witch) We believe live and let live. Wow, a sane approach to things...

I'm sorry, but do you actually believe that there is true separation of church and state? Our founding fathers were, in part, deists, and thus, did not believe in religion, per se, but our nation was founded on religion. Puritanism? Separatism? Quakerism? Catholicism? The Anglican Church? None of it ever left, although most of the religions died out. Over half the country, at its founding, was theocracy. now it's just theocracy under the hypocritical mask that there's separation of church and state. Lobbyists for religion pour millions, if not billions, of dollars into campaigns for religious candidates in hopes to get them into some office to make the political system more "moral" and religion based.

Now that I've said that, don't think I'm attacking you. I'm jsut realistic, or bitter, whichever you prefer. I'm wholly agnostic, though I have ethics and morals to make up for my heathenistic lack of beliefs in the almighty Lord. note the sarcasm.

Dang.. long post. Sorry! I'm done now.

Of course they have their rights.
And to those who say "they betrayed our religion," key word there is that its Your religion, not necissarily theirs. Keep in mind, that your theories on religion may be a flawed as the next guy, not to offend. Your view of the omnipresent "deity" or lack there of, may be wrong, and at the very least may not be a shared view, and freedom of religion is one right you cannot deny no matter how you try and no matter how many other rights you intend to deny.

Excuse me? Homosexuality has been a hot issue since the dawn of time, not just the nineties. Recently (even since the 60's) there have been more open movements due to the gaining of freedoms and liberties by other parties (women, blacks). There is less oppressive religion (not religion in general, mind you, just less intolerance) and more logic in present day, and thus, the belief that people should be allowed to be free and open to do as they feel best for themselves. In ancienct Greece there was very open homosexuality. The main reason it was "done away with" per se, is because mainstream religion (aka Christianity and like forms) essentially abolished free thought. You must remember that every form of religion has died out at one point or another, and also that not everyone is of the same religion. Just because one person thinks something is unclean, does not mean that everyone else does, and that belief will eventually change in some way, anyway. I believe wholeheartedly that if there is a God (which is a pretty large "if" on my part), He intended people to be different and to be happy.

And by the way, marraige actually was originally "religious" to the best of my knowledge. It's turned into a legal affair, but back in the days of theocracy (haha, as if we're past it..) it was handled by the church. But I digress...

Everyone deserves the same rights, whether they're black, white, red, yellow, gay, straight, short, tall, fat, skinny, femminine, masculine, whatever. With the current state of marraige the way it is, with the absolute disintigration of the "family," with divorce rates so high, why NOT let gay people get married? If anything, it'll only add to the stature of the family. Every gay couple I know is more monogomous that most straight couples.

If we allow the government to control the way we run our lives, pretty soon we won't be the democracy that so many people delusionally beleive we are. If a gay couple wants to get married, so what? So you'll have a potentially loving couple to raise a child who will be much more tolerant than others. Hopefully that marraige will cancel out one of the thousands of broken homes with fat old drunk guys who beat their wives and children, who in turn grow up and beat their children or become alcoholics themselves.

Equality. Respect. Care. Maybe even a little bit of empathy. That's all I ask for.

Now, for my rant on separation of church and state.



I'm sorry, but do you actually believe that there is true separation of church and state? Our founding fathers were, in part, deists, and thus, did not believe in religion, per se, but our nation was founded on religion. Puritanism? Separatism? Quakerism? Catholicism? The Anglican Church? None of it ever left, although most of the religions died out. Over half the country, at its founding, was theocracy. now it's just theocracy under the hypocritical mask that there's separation of church and state. Lobbyists for religion pour millions, if not billions, of dollars into campaigns for religious candidates in hopes to get them into some office to make the political system more "moral" and religion based.

Now that I've said that, don't think I'm attacking you. I'm jsut realistic, or bitter, whichever you prefer. I'm wholly agnostic, though I have ethics and morals to make up for my heathenistic lack of beliefs in the almighty Lord. note the sarcasm.

Dang.. long post. Sorry! I'm done now.


There are some arguments against it being completely religious but I am not as expert as some others around here (and they will come) but even so what makes Christianity the one that defines what “marriage” is they were not the first to have religion and they are not the keeper of what marriage is ... they really have no more right to define marriage then if I did

There are some arguments against it being completely religious but I am not as expert as some others around here (and they will come) but even so what makes Christianity the one that defines what “marriage” is they were not the first to have religion and they are not the keeper of what marriage is ... they really have no more right to define marriage then if I did

And I completely agree, but thats the way the United States works. Christianity is the prevailing religion, and thus, the decision maker. It shouldn't be like that. Religion shouldn't have a say, but it does. The worst part is that it's a religion that claims openness and tolerance and love and brotherhood (yes, I love to list things... yay lists) yet there are so many hypocrits who choose from the Great Salad Bar of Religion and decide not to follow those practices.

Just waiting for the anti-gay-marraige folks to trot out their same old lame-ass arguements.

Just waiting for the anti-gay-marraige folks to trot out their same old lame-ass arguements.

Teh BuTt**x is icky!lol!!1

All four? (sorry, just had to say that)

Bah. ;-) That would be something, wouldn't it? Nah. Just one applies.

War, hunger, poverty, disease, torture, deforestation, genocide and rape? Bad?
Naaah, let's 'protect our families from the evil homo's' instead. :rolleyes:

I had to vote on the "this is USA"-option. even though I live in Sweden. Gay-people should have every right other people have. I am a Christian and a bi-sexual/lesbian, and I really really think it's important with religious freedome, but with responsbility. And really, Gays are just as loving to each other as heteros, if not even more, so why shouldn't they get the same rights? They don't harm anyone.

We're all humans.