What's up with america and gays?

Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 12:52 pm

hm hm?
American politics doesn't seem very forthcoming on gay rights/equality.

Why not, do you agree with this, is it correct, are you for fag rights, will it change, do I have farty pants and those sorts of thungz.

Royal Guard Joined: 23 Jan 2008 Posts: 936

I don't see any rights being taken away from homosexuals. Marriage isn't a right, and that's pretty much the only thing gays aren't allowed to have.

Posted: Sun Apr 19, 2009 1:57 am

Marriage isn't a right. That's a church thing. Let the Christies deal with it.

Posted: Sun Apr 19, 2009 8:41 am

DragonLegend wrote:

I don't see any rights being taken away from homosexuals. Marriage isn't a right, and that's pretty much the only thing gays aren't allowed to have.

Mmm you look you could use some "stress relief" ;) Maybe I can help?

Royal Guard Joined: 23 Jan 2008 Posts: 936

For the last time, I'm not gay! And no, I'm not hiding my homosexuality by pretending to oppose gay marriage.

Posted: Sun Apr 19, 2009 10:13 pm

DragonLegend wrote:

For the last time, I'm not gay! And no, I'm not hiding my homosexuality by pretending to oppose gay marriage.

He never suggested anything along those lines. He could in fact be offering to provide for you voluminous quantities of porno (or alternately, suggestive non-porno...or both) for you to "relieve your stress" to.

If you don't know what I'm talking about at this point, I'm going to have to ask you to jump off the nearest cliff and report the amount of physical trauma sustained if you return. I've always wondered what such a sheer amount of pain would feel like...

Posted: Mon Apr 20, 2009 4:55 am

DragonLegend wrote:

For the last time, I'm not gay! And no, I'm not hiding my homosexuality by pretending to oppose gay marriage.

Ouch, darling, I'm hurt! I was going to take you to a movie and then to the pub so we could chat with old friends Sad

Posted: Mon Apr 20, 2009 8:01 am

Marrige is a right, it's a civil right rather than a basic human right. Such as voting, but you wouldn't denie that to parts of the population.

You're saying that it isn't a right and it's a christian issue. Well it's about the legal bond of marrige not forcing a church to marry you.

Lets think about voting, like marrige, it's a construct within organisations, so it's fine for it to be denied to parts of the population as it's not a right.

Lets make a paralell, women couldn't vote in the US for a long time, were they having a right denied to them? Voting for women was never a right, but was that acceptable?

Or, blacks voting is a state thing. Hm?

Marrige is a legal union which people add their own spiritual side to.

Rant over : p

And seeing as a lot of states in the US had sodomy laws until the 2000s I don't see how you can say there isn't a problem there Oo

Half the states don't have anti discrimination legislation.

Adoption stuffs, and the general tone of things such as the 'defence of marrige act'.

Plenty of states don't include gayness in hate crime laws.

Also, when one the major parties uses openly anti gay think tanks for policies, and uses anti gay stances to win votes, it does show a certain...culture over there.

This feels like trying to explain second wave feminism -.-'

Posted: Mon Apr 20, 2009 4:49 pm

Separation of church and state means that not only can the church not run the state, but that the state cannot run the church. The government has no right to tell religious organizations what they can and cannot do and likewise the church cannot tell the state what it can and cannot do.

Marriage is a church thing. It began as a church thing, it will always be a church thing.

Royal Guard Joined: 23 Jan 2008 Posts: 936

Santos, the Constitution says nothing about marriage, so it's a states thing. The majority of people don't want gay marriage legalized, and so the states must respect their wishes. That's democracy, get over it.

And gays can get married, it's just the states (except Mass and the other states that legalized gay marriage) won't recognize the marriage.

Posted: Mon Apr 20, 2009 8:50 pm

Ultimately it comes down to the individual level. The State may not recognize your marriage, but that's not who you want to recognize it anyways. Sure, it would have benefits, but really people should get married because they love each other, not for monetary benefits. You want people to recognize your marriage, not governments.

Royal Guard Joined: 23 Jan 2008 Posts: 936

Exactly. People are making a mockery of marriage these days.

Posted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 5:46 am

Guru Parasky wrote:

Separation of church and state means that not only can the church not run the state, but that the state cannot run the church. The government has no right to tell religious organizations what they can and cannot do and likewise the church cannot tell the state what it can and cannot do.

Marriage is a church thing. It began as a church thing, it will always be a church thing.

No, it's not just a church thing, it's a legal thing which people tend to start in churchs, and the seperation of church and state only means that the church shouldn't be able to stop people doing things.

DragonLegend wrote:

Santos, the Constitution says nothing about marriage, so it's a states thing. The majority of people don't want gay marriage legalized, and so the states must respect their wishes. That's democracy, get over it.

And gays can get married, it's just the states (except Mass and the other states that legalized gay marriage) won't recognize the marriage.

Democrcy isn't majoritarianism.

And, they let them get married but then don't recognise it? Oo what's the point in that? Learn something new everyday.

Looking at this map, one, the states constitutions does mention marrige, 2, most of them don't recognise them.

And wanting legal recognition is aslo about being given full equality, how are gays wanting legal marriges a mockery exactly?

Do straight people go get purpley spiritual ceremonies when they get married? Not very many. Why? It's not the same, it's kinda false, it's not really showing the same commitment(if you wanted to get full on married to someone, and then they wanted a non binding ceremony, it'd be a bit wierd no?) it doesn't give the same rights, and it's just something they want, it harms nobody, and they want to be able to have some of the established structures. No marrige is marginalising them for the sake of it.

What about inter racial marriges hmm? Pretty much the exact same thing.

And does federal law not define marrige as one man and one woman? Sooooo I'm seeing things which should be changed.

Then that still leaves the other things :

Posted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 4:36 pm

What the hell aren't you getting about this? Marriage is a church thing. It's preformed by church officials in a church with oaths taken from religious scriptures. Yes marriages are recognized by governments but not as anything they can mess with. They are recognized for tax benefits for married couples and families. The state can't void marriages or preform them, they can only recognize them as having begun and ended.

Royal Guard Joined: 23 Jan 2008 Posts: 936

Quote:

Democrcy isn't majoritarianism.

Yes, it is! That's the whole point of democracy; the majority gets to decide.

Quote:

And, they let them get married but then don't recognise it? Oo what's the point in that?

Marriage is a bond between one man and one woman. If people wanna get married, they should do it because they love each other, not because of the legal benefits.

Quote:

And wanting legal recognition is aslo about being given full equality, how are gays wanting legal marriges a mockery exactly?

Oh, I dunno, maybe because of the fact they wanna get married for legal benefits instead of for love?

Quote:

What about inter racial marriges hmm? Pretty much the exact same thing.

No, it's not. Not in the slightest.

Marriage = Man + Woman

Black man = Man
White man = Man
Black woman = Woman
White woman = Woman

Black man + white woman = Marriage
White man + black woman = Marriage

There. I hope that was easy to understand.

Quote:

And does federal law not define marrige as one man and one woman? Sooooo I'm seeing things which should be changed.

Sooooo I think you're being a fanatical political-correctness freak!

Posted: Fri Apr 24, 2009 2:48 pm

DragonLegend wrote:

Quote:

Democrcy isn't majoritarianism.

Yes, it is! That's the whole point of democracy; the majority gets to decide. no, it really isn't, especially as the US is a representative system, if you think it then you need to expand your understanding a bit.

Quote:

And, they let them get married but then don't recognise it? Oo what's the point in that?

Marriage is a bond between one man and one woman. If people wanna get married, they should do it because they love each other, not because of the legal benefits. Yes, so if a same sex couple loves each other, why can't they get married to? It's also about the government recognising it etc.

Quote:

And wanting legal recognition is aslo about being given full equality, how are gays wanting legal marriges a mockery exactly?

Oh, I dunno, maybe because of the fact they wanna get married for legal benefits instead of for love? How can you say what their motives are exactly? It's not about tax benefits it's about recognition and being able to partake in marrige, marrige is a fair bit more meaningful to peeps than co habiting, and you don't have any logical platform to stop gays from being married, if they want to do it then you have no real reason to stop them, gogo miller's harm principal!

Quote:

What about inter racial marriges hmm? Pretty much the exact same thing.

No, it's not. Not in the slightest.

Marriage = Man + Woman

Black man = Man
White man = Man
Black woman = Woman
White woman = Woman

Black man + white woman = Marriage
White man + black woman = Marriage

There. I hope that was easy to understand.

that just shows your argument is based on your own prejudice...Why can't a marrige also be a man and man exactly?

facepalm

Quote:

And does federal law not define marrige as one man and one woman? Sooooo I'm seeing things which should be changed.

Sooooo I think you're being a fanatical political-correctness freak!

EH, I'm being a control freak when I'm trying to give people more choice whereas you're trying to limit it...

In short, you don't want gays getting married for the sake of it then hide in religion to justify the crap.

Yes inter racial marriges are exactly the same principal. Perviously, inter racial marrige was down to states, and didn't allow inter racial marriges, which was just discrimination, based on people saying that marrige was between a white man and woman, or black man or woman, and inter racial marrige was dirty. And then people stopped letting their own prejudice control other peoples lives.

Your arugment is that it's a man and woman, I'm seeing so reason not to extend this to gays, why shouldn't a gay be able to marry? Again, your bigotry shouldn't limit the liberty of others.

Oh and marrige is a right article 16

And @ Parasky, no, marrige is a legal thing, that most people chose to do in churchs and add religious vows onto, ever notice those civil marriges? Getting married in a church is the church's own decision I agree, but the legal institution of marrige is a government thing and should be open to same sex marriges.

Seriosuly, why are you so keen to deny people the chance to be married?

Posted: Sat May 30, 2009 4:33 am

We should ban marriage altogether.

The Humble One Joined: 14 Oct 2007 Posts: 2179

What does it matter what Democracy is? We are a Republic.

Churches shouldn't be forced to marry gays, they have a right not to.

If gays want to marry, let them have a judge do it, then its purely a legal thing.

Beyond that I don't care.

Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 10:25 pm

Yes, marriage is a state thing. Some (most) churches would probably not allow gay marriage, and they have every right to do so. So, if a gay couple wants to get married and they are legally allowed to do so, then they should find a church that will let them, or some other means.

Posted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 11:55 am

I see nothing wrong with gay marriage, what I see wrong is the holy men that have to carry out the marriage against their will.