NationStates Jolt Archive

This for discussion of laws against gays in the United States. Thread specifically created to move discussion out of the Flu thread.

Discuss.

No gay or straight people bashing. Just argue the facts please.

Oh, for crying out loud. All those lovely little rascals with nothing better to do than stating homophobic remarks on the internet should all be stripped naked, covered with oil and be thrown into a darkroom. That would be way more entertaining than the inevitable course of this thread.

Oh, for crying out loud. All those lovely little rascals with nothing better to do than stating homophobic remarks on the internet should all be stripped naked, covered with oil and be thrown into a darkroom. That would be way more entertaining than the inevitable course of this thread.

Endorsed. ;)

Why Homo Sexuality Should Be Banned. (http://www.maniacworld.com/Why-Homosexuality-Should-Be-Banned.html)

This video should be shown to all homophobes.

Don't use this thread to troll.

Why Homo Sexuality Should Be Banned. (http://www.maniacworld.com/Why-Homosexuality-Should-Be-Banned.html)

This video should be shown to all homophobes.

Haha, that's great.

I would like to know what's wrong with allowing gays to have a secular marriage. I understand objections to religious marriage but I don't think those should carry over to the secular version.
If the sheriff or the county clerk are to going to be doing any kind of marriages, they ought not discriminate on basis of orientation. Priests are different and I don't hear anyone saying that priests should be forced to marry this person or that person.

Maybe it's time that the seperation of church and state be extended so our society will accept that there religious marriages done by priests, rabbis, and whatever the Islamic versions of those are, and secular marriages that are performed by government employees. Government employees can't be allowed to perform religious marriages because I think it violates seperation of church and state.

For the record, I think there are churches out there who are willing to marry gays. I've heard of a couple of them existing in San Francisco.

I don't know who the kid in that video is, but he seems like an agreeable lad. However, now I'm wondering if we should stone every blasphemous heretic who dares to use artefacts made from synthetic and therefore unnatural materials. Wait a minute... my keyboard is made of PLASTIC!!!!!! OH NOES!!!!!! Suicide is not an option, since that's forbidden as well by the benevolent religions we all know so well. I could of course ask my neighbours or friends to stone me, but unfortunately they're all godless infidels, just like me. The confusion! Oh well, I guess there's nothing left but to live a life of debauchery and sin.

Why Homo Sexuality Should Be Banned. (http://www.maniacworld.com/Why-Homosexuality-Should-Be-Banned.html)

This video should be shown to all homophobes.

Is that supposed to be a spoof?

Is that supposed to be a spoof?

Yes. If it's serious then I worry.

It seems like UnitedStatesOfAmerica was seriously wondering if that video was or wasn't a spoof... what does that tell us about UnitedStatesOfAmerica? More than he intended to, I guess. Now that's entertainment.

I was just hoping it wasn't fishing for trolls attempt. I know people have strong feelings but I am asking them to put them aside and talk only facts.

You're cute, but you probably hear that a lot.

What I do?

As far as the government is concerned, marriage should be considered as a contract. Who is to say who should be allowed to enter into a contract (as long as they are of legal age, of course :rolleyes:)?

What I do?

If only we knew, then our curiosity would be satisfied.

I would agree as long as it is a secular contract. I don't agree with the government enforcing religion.

Of course, religious marriages could also have secular components such as marriage licenses which could be required if you want the state to recognize your marriage.

Employer's should only be allowed religious exemptions from not discriminating against gays if they apply to those standards to everyone. For example, Christian employers who argue they can't hire anyone who does not live or believe the same way they do would also have to not hire nonchristians, nor can they hire people living together out of wedlock or who is a single parent. Otherwise if they do any of that, they should not be allowed the exemption. We need to make any religious exemptions tight and restrictive so they can't be abused and so some dude can't all of sudden claim them just because he doesn't like gays.
And also, they should have to have been devout followers of their religion for at least a year before they can claim the exemption. This is the religious truth test to make sure they not inventing an excuse for unlawful discrimination.

I don't know about America too much but I remember there being laws against doing gay acts in public when I used to be in Nicaragua.

Of course, religious marriages could also have secular components such as marriage licenses which could be required if you want the state to recognize your marriage.

Is this not already the case?

So am I correct in assuming that the religious are 'special' and cannot be trusted to function in modern democratic nation-states with the same ease as their more secular brethren?

For the record, I think there are churches out there who are willing to marry gays. I've heard of a couple of them existing in San Francisco.

There's a great deal more than "a couple," and they exist all over the country, not just in San Francisco.

Is this not already the case?

true. What I am proposing is that we have two classes of marriage. The way it is now, you have the state sanctioning religious marriages and I don't believe the state should be doing that.

But at the same time, there has to be a way couples in such marriages to get the same kind of state benefits as everyone else. One way to do that is to continue requiring them to have licenses in order to get state benefits. You won't need a license to be married but you would if you wanted the state benefits.

I would agree as long as it is a secular contract. I don't agree with the government enforcing religion.

Of course, religious marriages could also have secular components such as marriage licenses which could be required if you want the state to recognize your marriage.

Employer's should only be allowed religious exemptions from not discriminating against gays if they apply to those standards to everyone. For example, Christian employers who argue they can't hire anyone who does not live or believe the same way they do would also have to not hire nonchristians, nor can they hire people living together out of wedlock or who is a single parent. Otherwise if they do any of that, they should not be allowed the exemption. We need to make any religious exemptions tight and restrictive so they can't be abused and so some dude can't all of sudden claim them just because he doesn't like gays.
And also, they should have to have been devout followers of their religion for at least a year before they can claim the exemption. This is the religious truth test to make sure they not inventing an excuse for unlawful discrimination.

I more or less agree with you, but I would point out that all religious marriages in the US have secular components, if the couples wishes to take advantage of the over 1,200 benefits that being "married" confers. Doesn't matter if Pope Benedict performs the ceremony, if you don't have the marriage license and if you don't sign it and send it in, you ain't married.

Homosexuality wasn't even completely decriminalized in the United States until 2003 (Lawrence v. Texas), and criminalization of consensual same-sex acts was upheld as late as 1986 (Bowers v. Hardwick). Same-sex couples are specifically targeted in the Defense of Marriage act, systematically denying them 1138 specific rights (source: GAO study, 2003). Same-sex unions of any kind are constitutionally banned and unrecognized in 19 states, 10 more have constitutional bans on marriage specifically, and 13 more have statutes banning it. Four states plus DC allow "separate but equal" civil unions, four more allow domestic partnerships unequal to marriage. Only four allow it, and only two more recognize it.

We chew out other countries about their human rights records, but perhaps we should examine our own reality before we point our fingers at others.

So am I correct in assuming that the religious are 'special' and cannot be trusted to function in modern democratic nation-states with the same ease as their more secular brethren?

I have not thought about that. What do you mean by "cannot be trusted"?

I don't know about America too much but I remember there being laws against doing gay acts in public when I used to be in Nicaragua.

What's a gay act? I know that the US has local laws that ban sexual expression in public but those apply to everyone.

There are muslim countries that ban anyone from kissing or holding hands in public. It doesn't matter in those countries if its a guy and a girl or a guy and a guy.

Oh, for crying out loud. All those lovely little rascals with nothing better to do than stating homophobic remarks on the internet should all be stripped naked, covered with oil and be thrown into a darkroom. That would be way more entertaining than the inevitable course of this thread.

Oh yummy!:p

Well, they might be a liability. If you read the Holy Books they use as guidelines in their lives, you will find that those mythological masterpieces usually don't say anything in support of free speech, the right of the individual to do as he or she wills and democracy. Some of the more consistent defenders of democracy even go so far as to call the followers of religion to be potential threats to the democratic nation-state.

It seems like UnitedStatesOfAmerica was seriously wondering if that video was or wasn't a spoof... what does that tell us about UnitedStatesOfAmerica? More than he intended to, I guess. Now that's entertainment.

It tells us that USoA can't be bothered to scroll down a few centimeters to where the page hosting the video has a statement from the guy who made it actually SAYING IN BOLD TYPE that it's indeed a spoof. Big letters. Spoof. *facepalm*

true. What I am proposing is that we have two classes of marriage. The way it is now, you have the state sanctioning religious marriages and I don't believe the state should be doing that.

I like the way you think. If gay couples can't get the hundreds of rights granted by secular marriage, then NOBODY should. How surprisingly fair of you.

But at the same time, there has to be a way couples in such marriages to get the same kind of state benefits as everyone else. One way to do that is to continue requiring them to have licenses in order to get state benefits. You won't need a license to be married but you would if you wanted the state benefits.

You want state benefits, you get a state marriage license. You want to be married only in your church without those state-granted benefits because you're so petty and unenlightened that you believe that if gay couples are treated equally it somehow sullies your marriage certificate? You can do that, too. Nobody's forcing you to get a state marriage license. Just expect to have to fill out dozens upon dozens of legal forms just to get the same rights that one marriage license confers.

Isn't America great? It's time you learned something about it.

I won't go that far but I do believe that enforcing the Bible or any other religious text as the law of the land is contrary to founding values of our republic. Hence we must be weary of any laws being espoused by a group with religious connections.

I won't go that far but I do believe that enforcing the Bible or any other religious text as the law of the land is contrary to founding values of our republic. Hence we must be weary of any laws being espoused by a group with religious connections.

Such as those looking to impose a "second class" marriage on people they don't like?

true. What I am proposing is that we have two classes of marriage. The way it is now, you have the state sanctioning religious marriages and I don't believe the state should be doing that.

But at the same time, there has to be a way couples in such marriages to get the same kind of state benefits as everyone else. One way to do that is to continue requiring them to have licenses in order to get state benefits. You won't need a license to be married but you would if you wanted the state benefits.
There are already two classes of marriage: Religious marriage and civil marriage.

The problem is that many US states are violating the First Amendment prohibition against establishment of religion by allowing some churches' marriage rules to dictate what the state will recognize as a marriage. If marriage is no longer defined by the rules of one group of churches, then there will no longer be any argument for a definition of marriage that disallows same sex marriage.

If the states obeyed the Constitution properly, then legal marriage, and its rights and privileges, would be available to both hetero and gay couples, and all civil officiants and some religious officiants would offer marriage to both kinds of couples. Some churches would reserve the right to pick and choose who they would officiate marriages for.

Hence we must be weary of any laws being espoused by a group with religious connections.

Well, that sounds reasonable.

It tells us that USoA can't be bothered to scroll down a few centimeters to where the page hosting the video has a statement from the guy who made it actually SAYING IN BOLD TYPE that it's indeed a spoof. Big letters. Spoof. *facepalm*



I like the way you think. If gay couples can't get the hundreds of rights granted by secular marriage, then NOBODY should. How surprisingly fair of you.



You want state benefits, you get a state marriage license. You want to be married only in your church without those state-granted benefits because you're so petty and unenlightened that you believe that if gay couples are treated equally it somehow sullies your marriage certificate? You can do that, too. Nobody's forcing you to get a state marriage license. Just expect to have to fill out dozens upon dozens of legal forms just to get the same rights that one marriage license confers.

Isn't America great? It's time you learned something about it.

If gay couples have to go through mountains of paperwork then so should religious couples. Equal treatment for everyone by the law should be the motto.

Such as those looking to impose a "second class" marriage on people they don't like?

yes

Nothing wrong with a bit of good old bureaucracy.

If gay couples have to go through mountains of paperwork then so should religious couples. Equal treatment for everyone by the law should be the motto.

It's supposed to be. We call it the Fourteenth Amendment.

If gay couples have to go through mountains of paperwork then so should religious couples. Equal treatment for everyone by the law should be the motto.

So instead of everyone needing just one form, $52 (in WA), and a three day waiting period (again, in WA), everyone should have to get a lawyer and draft numerous forms? Just because you can't handle gay couples getting the single form, just like you can? Preposterous.

yes

So we must be wary of you, then:

What I am proposing is that we have two classes of marriage. The way it is now, you have the state sanctioning religious marriages and I don't believe the state should be doing that.


Got it.

So instead of everyone needing just one form, $52 (in WA), and a three day waiting period (again, in WA), everyone should have to get a lawyer and draft numerous forms? Just because you can't handle gay couples getting the single form, just like you can? Preposterous.

That's the way it is. It shouldn't be like that, but it's changing.

true. What I am proposing is that we have two classes of marriage. The way it is now, you have the state sanctioning religious marriages and I don't believe the state should be doing that.

But at the same time, there has to be a way couples in such marriages to get the same kind of state benefits as everyone else. One way to do that is to continue requiring them to have licenses in order to get state benefits. You won't need a license to be married but you would if you wanted the state benefits. I think the government should only recognise licensed marriages. If you want some farcical aquatic ceremony in which a moistened bint lobs a scimitar at you, it should be over and above state licensure.

I think the government should only recognise licensed marriages. If you want some farcical aquatic ceremony in which a moistened bint lobs a scimitar at you, it should be over and above state licensure.

</thread> :cool:

That's the way it is. It shouldn't be like that, but it's changing.

I know that, thanks. USofA didn't seem to. Try to keep up, hm?

That's the way it is. It shouldn't be like that, but it's changing.

We hope it is changing. If change ever had a great opportunity it's now. Once the religious Republicans regain control in 2016, the door will be slammed shut for another 8 years.


Those who care about the issue need to work with a greater sense of urgency.

I know that, thanks. USofA didn't seem to. Try to keep up, hm?

I was agreeing with your sarcasm. Try to keep up, will you? :p

Once the religious Republicans regain control...

Except they've showed themselves to be completely incompetent when they're in charge. The independents are ditching them left and right. Not gonna happen.

Wouldn't second class marriage be denial of state benefits that come with marriage? In that case, wouldn't religious marriages by default become the second class marriages?

Wouldn't second class marriage be denial of state benefits that come with marriage? In that case, wouldn't religious marriages by default become the second class marriages?

They're talking about less-than-equal civil unions being the second-class citizens' version of marriage.

Except they've showed themselves to be completely incompetent when they're in charge. The independents are ditching them left and right. Not gonna happen.

That was said in 92 and look what we got in 01 and for 8 years after. We're still cleaning up.

Except they've showed themselves to be completely incompetent when they're in charge. The independents are ditching them left and right. Not gonna happen. I see what you did there :shifty eyes:

That was said in 92 and look what we got in 01 and for 8 years after. We're still cleaning up.

The ones from the '80s were run-of-the-mill neocons. I'm talking about theocrats.

They need to stop that civil union nonsense and just go with full scale secular/civil marriages.

That whole civil union deal was invented by religious quaks who didn't want to let the "christian institution of marriage" get dirtied.

As if christianity owned the monopoly on marriage.

They need to stop that civil union nonsense and just go with full scale secular/civil marriages.

That whole civil union deal was invented by religious quaks who didn't want to let the "christian institution of marriage" get dirtied.

As if christianity owned the monopoly on marriage.

I agree in full.

I think the government should only recognise licensed marriages. If you want some farcical aquatic ceremony in which a moistened bint lobs a scimitar at you, it should be over and above state licensure.

Hmm, replace scimitar with pie and that becomes almost appealing :p

Frankly (and I admit, as a non-american) I have to wonder why this is left to the state level and not done at federal level - after all unless there is federally allowed gay marriage (or equal civil unions) then surely there are still a lot of benefits gay couples will be missing out on, not least but including immigration issues and federally-mandated benefits?

I think this is the fifth time in a row i have gotten on here and argued about homosexuality

I think this is the fifth time in a row i have gotten on here and argued about homosexuality

On NSG? Say it isn't so :p

You can pretty much set your clock by threat popping up on Homosexuality/Religion/Gun Control/<The current president> with pretty predicable regularity

As far as the government is concerned, marriage should be considered as a contract. Who is to say who should be allowed to enter into a contract (as long as they are of legal age, of course :rolleyes:)?In Michigan, the law will not recognize any contract that is "similar" to marriage. What does that word "similar" mean? Hard to be sure, but covering someone else with your health insurance counts.

If gay couples have to go through mountains of paperwork then so should religious couples. Equal treatment for everyone by the law should be the motto.

Or, and I know this is amazing, we could just FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION and let gay couples have secular marriage contracts. I know its a radical concept, but just think, we could eliminate all that paperwork for EVERYONE! The ONLY thing that stops gay marriage in America is the overwhelming influence of bitchy religious figures moaning about how they'd have to let fags into the church to get married, which is a blatant falsehood. The ONLY thing being fought for, in case it slipped anyone's mind, is the 1100+ legal rights that are all bound up into one neat little package; there's precious little desire to go into a church where everyone hates you just to do a religious ceremony that has no standing with the law.

Wouldn't second class marriage be denial of state benefits that come with marriage? In that case, wouldn't religious marriages by default become the second class marriages?

Religious marriages already have no rights young one.
You still need to go to a judge and file a marriage license with the state.

Religious marriages already have no rights young one.
You still need to go to a judge and file a marriage license with the state.

Well, not a judge but you do need a license. And some states require people performing marriages be registered with them, too.

Well, not a judge but you do need a license. And some states require people performing marriages be registered with them, too.

otherwise your marriage is null and void and never happened.

otherwise your marriage is null and void and never happened.

Right. So basically all marriages in the US are secular first, and then religious, not the other way around.

I consider giving married couples a special tax status to be gay...er, I mean antigay. Mainly because gay couples are not allowed to get married in most places here.

Right. So basically all marriages in the US are secular first, and then religious, not the other way around.

The state currently does not differentiate between secular and religious marriages. It requires state issued marriage licenses for both.

If your pastor does not have a state issued license to marry people he can't preside over your marriage.

My brother went through this some years back. He and his ex got married by a pastor but found out the marriage was void (as if it never happened) because the Pastor didn't have a license to marry people.

They had to find another pastor and do the whole thing over again.

The state currently does not differentiate between secular and religious marriages. It requires state issued marriage licenses for both.

If your pastor does not have a state issued license to marry people he can't preside over your marriage.

Half wrong. He can preside all he wants. The marriage can even be recognized by the offices of that church around the world. It won't mean a thing to the state without a license, though. So you're half right.

(Walks in)

Oh, another thread about gay marriage? Been there, posted that.

(Leaves)

(Walks in)

Oh, another thread about gay marriage? Been there, posted that.

(Leaves)

Good call.

I would like to know what's wrong with allowing gays to have a secular marriage.Health concerns.

http://kuvaton.com/kuvei/aids_the_gay_plague.jpg

Health concerns.

That child... looks quite the demon...
:eek:

That child... looks quite the demon...
:eek:

I wonder if her name is Damiena

Also research fail on the poster, and the fact it seems to indicate that bestiality is somehow better than homosexuality. Does that seem wrong to anyone else?

I wonder if her name is Damiena

Also research fail on the poster, and the fact it seems to indicate that bestiality is somehow better than homosexuality. Does that seem wrong to anyone else?This may or may not be why it's all over the internet.

I wonder if her name is Damiena

Also research fail on the poster, and the fact it seems to indicate that bestiality is somehow better than homosexuality. Does that seem wrong to anyone else?

Indeed, also they seem to have left out the horse-on-woman bit of the Damiena presentation.
:rolleyes:
How forgetful of them!..

Personally, I think all marriages should be civil unions, people can later have a service in a church if they want, if that church allows them to hold the service.

Indeed, also they seem to have left out the horse-on-woman bit of the Damiena presentation.
:rolleyes:
How forgetful of them!..

Tsk, it's terrible the lack of rigour in young people's research today

I wonder if her name is Damiena

Also research fail on the poster, and the fact it seems to indicate that bestiality is somehow better than homosexuality. Does that seem wrong to anyone else?

This may or may not be why it's all over the internet.

Indeed, also they seem to have left out the horse-on-woman bit of the Damiena presentation.
:rolleyes:
How forgetful of them!..

Old photoshop is old. (http://www.somethingawful.com/d/photoshop-phriday/science-fair.php?page=7)

Right. So basically all marriages in the US are secular first, and then religious, not the other way around.

Half wrong. He can preside all he wants. The marriage can even be recognized by the offices of that church around the world. It won't mean a thing to the state without a license, though. So you're half right.
This and this. This is why I say that all bans on gay marriage are violations of the Constitution by denying equal protection of the law and usually also by disobeying the anti-establishment clause because all the arguments against gay marriage are religious ones promulgated by only some churches. It is time to stop this BS about marriage being a "religious" institution. First, it isn't. Second, not all religions have the same rules.


Personally, I think all marriages should be civil unions, people can later have a service in a church if they want, if that church allows them to hold the service.
I agree. Let the state marry people for tax and other legal purposes. Then they can get their marriages blessed by their gods whenever they like, and as their religions permit.

Personally, I think all marriages should be civil unions, people can later have a service in a church if they want, if that church allows them to hold the service.

I don't have a problem with a single service being held in a church once you've received your marriage license from the state. It's much more convenient than needing to plan two separate services.

And I don't think we need to change the name of civil marriages. The fact that various religions also have something called "marriage" doesn't somehow invalidate the fact that the government also uses that word to describe something similar.

I don't have a problem with a single service being held in a church once you've received your marriage license from the state. It's much more convenient than needing to plan two separate services.


Yet it's how it works in other countries. I remeber when my Mum got remarried in Belgium they had two services - a civil service at the local commune (Town hall) and a religious service the next day.

For the life of me I still can't figure out why they did the religious service since they are both agnostics/not-fussed atheists - I suspect combination of grandparental pressure and love of traditional marriage services.

Edit: A quick wiki indicates that we can thank Napoleon for this - Napolionic law indicates that all marriages must be civil marriages - religious ceremonies can only take place after the civil one

I don't have a problem with a single service being held in a church once you've received your marriage license from the state. It's much more convenient than needing to plan two separate services.

And I don't think we need to change the name of civil marriages. The fact that various religions also have something called "marriage" doesn't somehow invalidate the fact that the government also uses that word to describe something similar.

Especially given the concept of marriage predates all of the religions who happen to be bitching about it.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hmxKiiSIsM-k7nX2yECb7kGw1qhwD97SC36O3

The problem will soon be solved.

Oh, for crying out loud. All those lovely little rascals with nothing better to do than stating homophobic remarks on the internet should all be stripped naked, covered with oil and be thrown into a darkroom. That would be way more entertaining than the inevitable course of this thread.

How do you know that's not what they when they think people aren't looking?