Gay Rights

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by 1368, Feb 17, 2004.

  1. 1368 Registered Member

    This could get ugly, but I am goig to bring up gay rights. If I am not mistaken, most supporters believe it's a matter of preferance and tolerance, and that its morality is irrelavant. It seems to me, however, that its morality must be adressed, and that laws that allow such civil unions and marriges are inconsistant with current ones.

    For example, other "unusual" marriges are illegal. I'm sure that there are many people who are not old enough would like to be married. Polygamy is illegal. Unions with animals are not recognized by the law.

    If homosexuality is going to be recognized, then let's be consistant, although I, personaly, would prefer things just stay heterosexual in the first place.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. the man with a ? Registered Member

    one thing...i dont believe homosexuality should be legal if we are going to keep god in this the bible, it specifically says that homosexuals are the only people that he doesnt THAT MEANS NO!
    Also...i believe that homosexuality is just plain GROSS...i dont see how u can love ur own anatomy...
    this is only my opinion...
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Undecided Banned Banned

    Legally they have a right to get married according to the UN charter, also the US constitution (to the best of my knowledge) does not Barr it, I am aware that some republicans want a amendment so it makes it impossible. But under Clinton you had a marriage act that decreed that marriage is btwn a man and a woman, but the issue is that the law passed was not binding (in a sense) because states still had the right to decide on their own. I personally have no problems with homosexuals, or them getting married. It is none of our business to interfere in their lives; marriage is an idiotic institution in the first place imo. So if they are stupid enough to get married, then let it be. We have no right to be in the bedrooms of the nation:

    Canada is much more socially progressive then the US that is for sure. I couldn't believe that anti-sodomy laws even still existed in the US in 2002, when it was repealed here in 1967.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    In America you can be whatever you want to be as long as you don't push yourself onto those that don't like it. Gays have their bars, beaches , lakes and other hangouts they go to. No one bothers them there, or at least most people leave them alone. When the vast majority of a society believes that HETROsexuality is the way of the society then homosexuals shouldd try and understand that the 1 percent of them can't tell the other 99 percent what should be done. This is a fact, 99 percent of the society we live in are HETROSEXUALS no matter what the fucking news media tells you.
  8. otheadp Banned Banned

    morality is irrelevant in rules.
    it depends on what the constitution says. the only people that can interpret the constitution (and that too, not arbitrarily at all) is judges.
    their job is not to determine if something is "moral" but if something is "constitutional".
    if it is, then morality is irrelevant.

    the fact that i think homosexuality is nasty and that "gay marriage" is a circus show and a farce, has nothing to do with the fact that it is "constitutional" (well, that's being debated in the courts right now)
    anyway, my and your opinions don't matter
  9. Undecided Banned Banned

    I agree with oth on this issue, it is a very basic human rights abuse to deny these people the right to get married. Why don't we use the analogy of inter-racial marriages in the 60's for instance? That was illegal as well and seen as "digusting, immoral, and unnatural", do we actually think that now? Let me call these ppl "moralists" for simplicity sake. These ppl believe that Gay sex and marriage is evil, disgusting, and even detestable to the human race. But could I not say that so is their intolerance? "Moralists" have the problem of it being a subjective view. What is the objective view here? Which one is more valid Natural laws, or Positive laws? As far as I know in westernized nations at least everyone has the liberty to do what they want. Since marriage is a victimless issue, and since marriage is a personal issue I do not see any reason or any validity of anyone to tell two consenting adults not to do what they want to do. To say that because 99.9% of the population is not gay, lends more to the argument that this does literally nothing to change the landscape of the nation, and it affect what? 100 ppl? Obviously up to 10-20% of the population is homosexual, and these ppl are being denied basic human rights. For what?
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2004
  10. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    I don't see why the government has any policy regarding marriage. Why not just let religious organizations take care of it? I don't know why the government would even recognize marriage. If two people want to commit to live monogamously with each other for the rest of their lives, well great. But why do they need a government paper saying that they've agreed to do it?
  11. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Death & taxes.
    Am I living in a world of rapists? Or is consent an issue? (Internet porn notwithstanding.) As to polygamy? That's a separate issue because it involves more than two people.
  12. Mystech Adult Supervision Required Registered Senior Member

    I don't see that there's much to discuss on the issue of homosexuality and morality. There aren't many arguments that can be devised on a secular level for why it is "wrong" or "Evil", and being that we have a secular government (Well at least in theory) I guess that the "morality" of it is about as relevant as asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Theological arguments haven’t got any place in a secular western democracy.

    Well we should be glad that it's not entirely up to you, then, I suppose. Seeing how as you have no stake in the issue one way or another, I don't see how you can think that you might have any legitimate right to decide on it. I don't mean to be too harsh toward you specifically, but this exact same argument is being used in Massachusetts, where we have religious groups demanding to let people vote on the matter, so it is certainly of relevance to the broader issue.

    The fact is that allowing homosexual marriage is simply allowing two consenting adults to receive the same benefits afforded to another group of consenting adults who happen to have the completely arbitrary difference of being heterosexual (Which, though I may not agree with it, I would never say makes someone less of a person, or should be used as reason to treat them like a second class citizen).

    Frankly this issue does not concern heterosexuals, so I don't see why any heterosexual should be up in arms over it. Quit whining and get on board the equal-protection-under-the-law train, already. It’s sort of sad that our nation should be back in this position again.
  13. SpyMoose Secret double agent deer Registered Senior Member

    Tiassa, of course concent isn't an issue with them, nor is the broader theme that homosexual relationships mirror heterosexual ones in nearly every social detail and nuance. The difference between homosexual marriage and somone marrying an animal is that in a homosexual marriage, one of the partners is not a dog! It is in fact a person who is capable of fulfilling the dutys and social role of a married person, and who is in love with thier spouce.

    As for god hating gays, I would like to see some evedence that would convince a court of that. Remember, they don't allow hearsay (Which I suppose means they practice herecy).
  14. Mystech Adult Supervision Required Registered Senior Member

    First off, the government should not be concerned with "keeping god in this country". Our government is secular, it's not it's job to endorse one religion or another, and though it may often endorse deism of some sort or another now and again, there is, at least a fairly large segment of the population that recognizes that these little slip-ups ought not be there. You can keep God in your home and in your Church, but you have to realize that he must stay out of government, and you have no right to force him into your neighbors home.

    Also, if you'd like to take up the issue of whether or not God hates homosexuals (it shouldn't be done in this thread) I suggest you go to the Religion forum. One thing I can assure you is that there is no clear passage in the bible with the message that God does not love homosexuals, and that, at least in the New Testament, there are plenty which say things quite to the contrary of the idea that God hates anyone.

    So some vague "ick" factor is enough, in your opinion, do discriminate against a whole segment of the population, and to hate people based upon factors which are out of their control? I hope you realize that is really no different than hating a person because of the color of their skin. Worse, you let that hatred motivate you to support those who would make these people second class citizens.

    I know this sounds a little Bush-ish, but shouldn’t the government be allowed to strip people with views like these of their citizenship? It really comes down to a national security. If anyone is a traitor, if there is any terrorist capable of destroying our great nation, it would be people like these who advocate the complete destruction of everything our forefathers stood for. The line between democracy and mob rule is when the majority grants itself the right to subjugate a minority for completely arbitrary differences, especially when those differences don't even effect them. Sir, you aren't fit to be an American.
  15. jps Valued Senior Member

    I've heard different ideas from religious people about who god does and does not love, but quite often i've heard it said that god hates gays. If this is true, I'd like to point out that a number of studies have linked homophobia to repressed homosexual tendencies or fear that one has such tendencies(this isn't to say that its linked in all cases, but a link has been shown), so if again god does hate gays, perhaps some self examination on his part could lead him to resolve his problem.
  16. Mystech Adult Supervision Required Registered Senior Member

    Though gay-bars and homosexual friendly districts in most large cities may offer a comforting social atmosphere and refuge from our usually all too heterosexist world for some, don't make the mistake of thinking that homosexuality is a separate culture or society from the rest of the nation. We walk among you, we live next door, we sit next to you on the subway. We've grown up, live, and continue to live shoulder to shoulder with every other man woman and child in this nation. Don’t think of this as an “us” and “them” issue. As much as some people hate to consider the idea, we’re all in it together. There's only one America for all of us, so why can't we just get allong?

    One percent? That's quite a strech. Even those conservative attack-dog wierdos are only willing to downplay the numbers enough to say 2% I've honestly never heard of the one percent figure before. Tell me, where are you getting your numbers?

    Recent US census indicate that the homosexual population is between 2% and 5% though, all those results show is how many homosexuals who filled out their census were willing to admit to being homosexual in a time when there were still laws outlawing the practice (in the form of sodomy laws) all together. Not exactly the most reliable source of information, but even with the negative bias, that still puts the population above one percent.

    Aside from that we have the famous Alfred Kinsey 1 in 10 statistic (that'd be 10% for the mentally lazy). Though debating the accuracy of that number is probably a thread unto itself.

    As it stands, there is really no accurate number of homosexuals in America, but clearly it's enough to start things moving and shaking-enough to stand up, be heard, and fight for their rights, and that's all that matters.

    This is not a matter of a minority group telling the majority what to do, because the majority is being left entirely unaffected. This is a matter of a minority standing up and demanding equal protection under the law, an ideal, and a right expressly given to all the people of the United States under our Constitution.
  17. Mystech Adult Supervision Required Registered Senior Member

    Marriage is not now, nor has it ever really been, a purely religious institution. There has always been a civil issue (probably much longer than it's been a religious issue). The government recognizes marriage as a legal acknowledgement of that particular bond between two people. In a more precise sense this comes into play in terms of taxes, as well as countless other legal considerations, and even in the private sector. Health insurance, being able to see a loved one in the hospital, being able to get a home loan, or adopt a child. These are all things which take a valid legal marriage into consideration, and at present homosexuals are at a distinct disadvantage in all of these areas because they are denied that piece of paper.

    Lets get this straight, so that it doesn't come up later: No matter the outcome of the current unrest regarding this issue, religious institutions will not be forced to perform ceremonies for gay couples. The very idea is, of course absurd, which isn't to say we're above absurdity, but this particular absurdity seems particularly unlikely. If gay marriage is made legal on a federal level, there's not a church in the land that will be obligated to perform a religious ceremony for them; you'll still be able to hold your own views on the issue, hateful and bigoted though they may be. All that will change is that the hateful and prejudiced will no longer have governance over homosexual people's lives; they'll finally be able to-get this-govern themselves in the issues that are relevant only to them. Kind of a wild idea, isn't it?
  18. one_raven God is a Chinese Whisper Valued Senior Member

    This was the first couple that were "legally" married in San Francisco.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Phyllis Lyon, 79, left, and Del Martin, 83, embrace after being married at San Francisco City Hall on Thursday. They are the first same-sex couple to be officially married in the United States.
    They have been a couple (without the rights of a married couple) for 51 years!

    Let's get those degenrates off the streets NOW!!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  19. Bubblecar Registered Senior Member

    If you are going to bother trying to develop a "universal" legal system - one that is functional for the whole society, not just "most" people - then it obviously should strive to be be reasonably inclusive & fair, & avoid unwarranted judgmentalism, especially in regard to moral views derived from superstitious sources such as religion.

    If you don't favour an inclusive approach, then you have to be prepared to face ongoing social conflict with groups who feel they're being unfairly discriminated against - & perhaps the increasing rise of "separatist" politics amongst such groups (which in the long term may be the fate of humanity anyway - today's vast "national" societies may be replaced by large numbers of smaller, semi-autonomous groups, more in keeping with the way humans have lived for most of the existence of our species).
  20. one_raven God is a Chinese Whisper Valued Senior Member

    One can only hope.
  21. Munchmausen Registered Senior Member

    *Standing ovation*

    My only regret is I didn't get to say it first. Oh, I will add that there's also no precedent for forcing churches to recognize marriages. As is, the Catholic Church generally doesn't recognize any marriage they didn't perform, and I don't recall any legal issues resulting from that.
  22. SwedishFish Conspirator Registered Senior Member

    it's nice to see people basing their politics on some intangible ick factor. since it has been expressed in this thread several times i'll go ahead and take the other side. sex is lovely, no matter who is doing it (consentual of course). btw, the same sexual acts performed by gay couples are done with much regularity by straight couples. i don't know the statistic off the top of my head, but anal sex is more common among straight married couples than homosexual men. and really, who hasn't had oral sex? nuns maybe?

    that picture is so sweet. it's like some old fashioned love story; they waited their whole lives to be official in front of the world.
  23. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    I was on a trip with a co-worker (who I conser and friend and seemed level headed), when he just started bashing gay marriage left and right. I thought he was joking, and then realized that he wasn't.

    I trying debating the issue with it, but he didn't say much of anything besides 'it is wrong'. I finally just asked why he thinks that it is wrong, and his answer was... faith.

    I was almost hoping that they had at least some logic behind their opinion, because then you can actually hold a conversation about the topic. As it is, gays are up against the same wall that many other groups have been up against... unconditional, unsupported, bigoted... faith. A small percentage of the 'faithful' have a history of causing violence in situations such as this (abortion, race rights, womens rights). This could get messy... but that in no way means that they shouldn't be trying to achieve equal rights.

Share This Page