And yet, here in the "Land of the Free" (the USA), we are told on a daily basis that our relationships aren't equal, aren't good enough, and we are somehow morally inferior by the Christian right. We deny gay people the right to marry, adopt, serve their country, and why? There is no good reason. Many nations have a greater acceptance of me and mine than the US, and they haven't collapsed or found themselves in hell. I think how it was viewed in other societies is an excellent benchmark; it's always existed. And I have to agree with Kava, you're basing your opinions on a 2000 year old book. Guess what, I'm not Christian, so why should your values trump mine? Why arte mine somehow less? And don't feed me the "the founders of the US were Christians" bunk because they weren't; the First Amendment guarantees that you can't force your religious beliefs on me. And there's the kicker. The Christians say "we're forcing them to comply with the homeosexual agenda". No, we're not. We're asking you to leave us alone and let us live with the same amount of freedom that you have. We're not asking for the Pope to condone homosexuality; we're asking him to mind his own business. My existance, my ability to live fully and freely does not infringe on your rights as a person; your bigotry certainly infringes on mine.
Try being called an intolerant bigot because you disagree with the popular opinion on homosexuality, even though you love your gay friends and strive to love all of humanity. Then you'll understand.
With all due respect meg, do you know how condescending that sounds to me as a gay man? It's like back in the 60's when it was all the rage to show how open-minded you were by having "negro friends". Ugh. If you really wanna love us, then let us have the same rights as everyone else. :love:
I have not once stated that anyone is morally inferior. Why is my opinion on homosexuality so hurtful to you? It is simply my opinion. "Love the sinner hate the sin" is relevant to this argument. Just because I don't agree with your choices, doesn't mean I don't love you as a fellow human being. I don't hate gays. The government has not actively discriminated against gays. I consider homosexual acts as being as sinnful as premarital sex, or lying. It is simply a sin. If I was going to consider Gays as morally inferior then I would have to consider myself morally inferior, because I too have sinned. I don't want to say it but I have to...stop being so emotional. I don't even know where I stand on the whole Gay marriage thing anyway. So, I guess I have to be this way because this is the way I am. I hope there wasn't any inference that I am a nazi because I don't agree with your lifestyle. Listen, peace be with you. I hope you enjoy your lives.
With all due respect, do you know how insulting it is to be called an intolerant bigot? Given the fact that the person stating it does not know me and is basing that opinion on one view I have. Trust me I don't have "token" friends. Why do you need to have the right to government recognized "marriage"?
But you keep referring to moral decay and decline in this thread... I find it condescending, what more can I say? And it's not a choice. I can't be gay just as much as I can't be white or have hazel eyes. You're kidding me, right? Let's see.... In the late 1990's we got the Defense of Marriage Act, which specifically states that no state has to recognize a legally binding homosexual union from another state, thereby attempting to sideswipe the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution (since they couldn't get an amendment passed, even as recent as oh November of 2004!). That's discrimination. 1986, Bowers versus Hardwick, US Supreme Court decision, allowed states to specifically criminalize consentual sex between two adults of the same gender while legalizing consentual sex between two adults of different genders. That's discrimination. The United States does not allow gays to actively serve in the military. That's discrimination. 30+ states have made illegal gay marriage, that's discrimination. I can be fired from my job and I have no recourse under federal civil rights laws; that's discrimination. Federal Civil Rights laws protect all minorities except me. That's discrimination. In several states I cannot adopt kids simply because I'm gay; that's discrimination. Shall I continue? I'm glad you can admit you're a sinner, but I'm a Taoist, we don't follow Judeo-Christian concepts of sin. So while I may be a sinner in your mind, I'm simply being true to my own Inner Nature in mine. Why push your morals on me by calling me a sinner when I don't subscribe to your views? That whole First Amendment thing rears it's ugly head again... It's admittedly difficult to not be emotional on a topic like this, especially when it's a real threat to my personal rights. Can you even begin to comprehend the number of legal loopholes I have to jump through to get what a straight couple does from a silly piece of paper? It's ludicrous that I have to spend time and money (ok, not so much money since I can do it all myself as an attorney) to make sure my partner is protected if I die? Not from me, no, there wasn't. I'm actually enjoying this discource, all things considered, it's quite calm! Props to everyone participating.
BKguy, I am torn. I feel bad that your life is not as easy as mine. I am sorry that walls have been built that prevent you from having the same rights as me. In the same breath I have to say that since I do not agree with the lifestyle I can not actively help you recieve all those same rights. I know this seems contridictory, and it probably is. Please understand that when I refered to moral decay, I was refering to all different forms of sexual sin (I am sorry to use this word), and other forms of sociatal woes. The Roman cultural (plays, entertainment, etc.) mirrored the moral decay. Just like in our current society TV and movies and music are reflecting the donward trend of our morality. I respect you and your views, unfortunately we disagree. That doesn't change my level of respect for you.
Understood and agreed. As I said, this has been a very civil (sometimes heated, but never hateful) discourse!
Nitpick - full faith and credit doesn't apply to matters of "great public policy" or something like that. Thus, the Defense of Marriage Act doesn't violate this.
Meg- Please don't think I find YOUR statements hateful per se. And I'm not all that upset, I just got back from acupuncture, so I'm feeling quite relaxed. What is hurtful to me is how representative your opinion is of the culture at large. I realize there is a cultural shift and society is becoming more accepting of gays. I understand how this might be hard to fit into some Modern Judeo Christian practices. However, there is still a great deal of discrimination we face because of who we ARE, not because of who we sleep with. If I chose never to sleep with my girlfriend, say for instance I aspired to a monastic like lifestyle to further my MA training , I would still face legal discrimination for identifying as a lesbian, which I would do regardless of my sexual practices. I would have difficulty visiting her in the hospital, our taxes would be a mess, we would have trouble adopting children, and some wingnut might decide to attack us in the park, as happened close by in boston not long ago. To answer the marriage question- I understand why the idea of marriage is so important to the religious right. I personally would be quite satisfied with civil unions, all I want is the same legal rights and benefits, I don't care what name it's called. If I wish to be married by the church, I can already be "married" ANYWHERE in the US at a Unitarian church. However, I do not claim to represent the gay community. I've met a few gay catholics, and yes they go to church regularly, to whom the IDEA of marriage is very important. They need "marriage" just as much as you do, it's part of the religious tradition they grew up in. But again, given the current cultural climate, Civil Unions are a-ok with me, and are not even the biggest issue to me, it's the fact that my girlfirend's grandmother can never meet me or she would never speak to her again. And please don't think I called you a nazi. (Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell however, are definetly nazis. ) We can agree to disagree, you are certainly entitled to your belief system, but when certain issues are raised in cyber space, a few feathers are bound to get ruffled. Also, I don't find my life all that difficult, I'm rather happy and content, but every once in a while I get reminded of the fact that not everyone out there is on the same page, and it's always a little unsettling.
Quote me caselaw on that AZ; I'll admit it's been a bit since I've actively studied Conflicts of Law as it's not something my legal practice entails, but I don't remember my conflicts prof ever making such a statement.
Sorry, not trying to be uber-lawyer dude on you; it's not fair. It's just that DOMA and it's impact on the FFC Clause is a big debate, and since I haven't looked at it in a bit, I was wondering of you knew of a change I didn't. It was supposed to be a "Please, if I'm wrong correct me" post, and it may have come across as a "I'm a lawyer, I know something you don't" post, and if it did I apologize
They had a lawyer on the news some time back who was explaining the full faith and credit claus. He was saying that it has a provision for matters of great public policy. I have no reason to put a huge amount of faith in him, though, which is why I'd be just as willing to take your word for it.
BGuy, Did you hear about the case in WA where to Lesbians are trying to file there taxes as married status? They are suing the state for not recognizing thier marriage. They got hitched in Vancuver BC. There is another one where the couple got married in Canada and want to file married status in Iowa. Interesting stuff.
I just found out that to make Civil Unions legally equivalent to marriage, meaning all the legal and economic benefits would be the same, more than 1000 seperate laws and regulations would need to be amended.
you'd be surprise how many people have left the gay life style after being heavily in it for a number of years. Now we gat into the debate of nature/nurture. There is substancial evidence that people can change from gay to straight. The only evidence I have seen (maybe you could enlighten me) to the contrary it that homosexuals don't "feel" they can change. How do you know that two same sex parents won't screw what ever kid up? I am not saying it will, I am not saying it won't. I am saying that I don't think there is much evidence one way or the other. Ther is evidence, however, that parents can screw kids up. Are you saying that the 1st admendment says we aren't allowed to have opinions on other peoples actions? I sympithize. Life can be tough for people who aren't accepted by others. I wish you nothing more than a long and heathy life. However, I don't think self indulgence will achieve a long and emotionly heathy life. Props to you, too. It can be hard to remain calm on subjest that can hit close to home.
Following the same logic there is substancial evidence that people can change from straight to gay. Your presuming that homosexuality is deviant which I dont think we have established that it is unless of course you take a conservative religious or biological view as to the 'proper' way to live. What exactly is your point here? The point BaikaiGuy made was that he would automatically not be considered for adoption in some states because he is gay. Your response seems to be "yeah well but parents can screw up kids", be that as it may it has nothing to do with why gay people should automatically not be considered for adoption. Seriously Im a bit confused?
Probably, with all due respect, the same number of "straight guys" who frequent gay chat rooms? I'm wary of the behavioural studies, mainly because my understanding, and as I'm not a therapist I could be mistaken, is that aversion therapy is used. Aversion therapy doesn't make someone heterosexual, it makes them not expressive of their homosexual desires. See the difference? If not I'll try to explain it better. True enough. But we're not allowed the chance, which is a major difference. My own experiencences with kids who have gay parents has gone both ways, positive and terrible. Of course, it's the same with straight couples, isn't it. Not at all. My point was this: Megk brought up the topic of sin. I retorted with "I don't believe in that particular religious philosophy". The First Amendment expects that you'll have opinions. However, it also prevents religious thought from being the sole influence behind lawmaking. Saying "homosexuality is a sin [in the eyes of the Abrahamic faiths] and therefore should be criminalized and/or marginalized" violates the First Amendment. Read the full dissent in Bowers versus Hardwick, US SCt, 1986. It's the case that allowed the criminalization of same sex intercourse. It says what I'm saying much better. Or the majority opinion in Texas v Geddes, 2004. I'll defer to the experts sitting on the highest US court
