Gay Rights are Not Civil Rights

[Rhyfelwyr]

Well Im glad this has descended into quoting the bible my work here is done.

At least you can't blame it on me this time.

[Askthepizzaguy]

EDIT: Stop quoting OT!

Why?

It's part of Christian belief, and it's still the basis of Jewish religious law. If it's an embarrassment for you, remove it from your holy text.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Why?

It's part of Christian belief, and it's still the basis of Jewish religious law. If it's an embarrassment for you, remove it from your holy text.

Because it is always taken spectacularly out of context. Much of the OT was only ever meant to apply to Jews, and much of it (especially in the Pentateuch as you quoted) has changed in a number of new covenants God formed with Israel.

The message of the NT to Christians is often very much different, you must see the whole Bible as God implementing his ways step-by-step.

And now, you may say that the only specific reference to sodomy is in the OT, however it is not given as a 'statute unto your people' for Israel as many other laws were. Also, the whole message of the NT of turning away from carnal desires (eg homosexuality since it is no use for procreation) clearly condems homosexual pracitices.

Plus of course God himself smote Sodom for the people's sin, notably that of sodomy.

You don't have to believe it, but please at least acknowledge other's beliefs for what they are.

[m52nickerson]

You don't have to believe it, but please at least acknowledge other's beliefs for what they are.

Fantasy?

[Ronin]

And yet they do. Reminds me of a guy in my school a couple of years below me, he kept lisping away to his friends about how he was deciding whether or not he was gay. Guess what - he decided he was.

Note how he decided.

He knew he could, and indeed should, be normal - he just chose not to be.

And now he wants to wreck an ancient institution for that... no thanks.

anecdotal evidence of one messed up kid in your school isn't really relevant.

Children are born in heterosexual orientated society....a kid going through puberty that starts noticing that is sexual instincts don't match what society tells him is the norm will probably feel confused by this....this is not surprising.

and for the record....if this ancient institution of yours can be entered into at 3 am by 2 people drunk out of their minds in front of an Elvis impersonator in Vegas I say that any sense of this being a sacred act is pretty much gone by now.

[Ronin]

Standing up for rationality Ronin?

For shame. Surely you realize rationality has a liberal bias.

It has come to my attention that reality has a liberal bias....

it's shameful really...somebody should complain to the manufacturer...

[Ronin]

Fantasy?

shhhh...don´t burst the bubble.

[PBI]

Is there any scientific evidence behind the causes of homosexuality?

Actually there is some evidence that some men may be genetically predisposed towards homosexuality; supposedly the relevant gene is also linked to increased female fertility, hence suggesting why it wouldn't be evolutionarily disadvantageous (of course, if you believe that evolution is a lie and gay people were created as they are by God 4000 years ago it would also explain away that little conundrum ). I posted a link to it in a previous Gay Marriage thread, can't remember which I'm afraid.

Not that it's relevant to our side of the debate whether homosexuality is genetically determined or not. However presumably evidence of a genetic cause would be an absolute death blow to the Christian opposition to homosexuality, since the manifest evidence of how God intended his creation to be all along would override a few ambiguously phrased sentences in the Old Testament?

Also,

And yet they do. Reminds me of a guy in my school a couple of years below me, he kept lisping away to his friends about how he was deciding whether or not he was gay. Guess what - he decided he was.

Note how he decided.

He knew he could, and indeed should, be normal - he just chose not to be.

That anecdote doesn't necessarily imply he had a choice to decide as he wanted. For hundreds of years people couldn't decide whether the earth was round or flat, but that didn't mean they could just choose whichever option complied with scripture and it would become true: The earth was round all along, people just didn't have enough evidence to be sure yet.

[Incongruous]

Fantasy?

Oh, if only I were so certain I had the power of mind to take down, the accumulated theological system of centuries, of millions of people, in one fell swoop, with the use of a single word.

But then again, my head probably would not fit through the door

[PBI]

By that logic, none of us would ever post anything in the Backroom at all; on just about any topic there will always be a great many people who are quite convinced my opinion is completely wrong, how could I be so arrogant as to think I know better than all of them?

[Rhyfelwyr]

I don't think you're arrogant at all PBI, but when people start calling others beliefs fantasy, it is a little insulting.

It is suggesting that so much of human history, so much suffering, so many great minds have all revolved around mere fantasy - quite a claim to make.

[Ronin]

It is suggesting that so much of human history, so much suffering, so many great minds have all revolved around mere fantasy - quite a claim to make.

no one made such a claim......all the suffering caused by religion is quite real

[Ser Clegane]

Please stay on topic, gentlemen.

Apart from the fact that simply labeling religion as "fantasy" is at least somewhat disrespectful (and actually borderline trolling), the nature of raligion is not really the topic of this particular thread.

The thread title already clearly implies that the focus should be on the legal aspects of the issue.

Thanks

[Whacker]

...the nature of religion is not really the topic of this particular thread.

The thread title already clearly implies that the focus should be on the legal aspects of the issue.

Respectfully, Ser Clegster...

I have found that they are almost inextricably linked, the topic and religion.

If is my personal experience that religion is the direct cause of the near complete majority of cases of hate and/or bigotry towards homosexuality that I have ever encountered in discussions, along with a sense of willful ignorance and rejection of scientific findings. This thread has done nothing if it hasn't reinforced that experience for me. At some point it becomes near impossible to continue the discussion when dogma becomes the basis for different party's arguments.

At any rate, this thread makes me sad in a number of ways, and a number of good posts by others were summarily ignored. /shrug

[Ser Clegane]

I have found that they are almost inextricably linked, the topic and religion.

That might well be the case - nevertheless Strike made a very clear point that the topic for this thread is the purely legal/constitutional aspect (and his response to religion suddenly coming up as a topic confirmed this).

We had a number of threads where the aspect of religion has been discussed, no need to drag this one there as well (apart from that - even when discussing the aspect of religion, I would consider a discussion about religion as such as somewhat OT).

Any further discussion about whether it is off-topic or not would now be Backroom-Watchtower or PM material

[Askthepizzaguy]

Because it is always taken spectacularly out of context. Much of the OT was only ever meant to apply to Jews, and much of it (especially in the Pentateuch as you quoted) has changed in a number of new covenants God formed with Israel.

The message of the NT to Christians is often very much different, you must see the whole Bible as God implementing his ways step-by-step.

And now, you may say that the only specific reference to sodomy is in the OT, however it is not given as a 'statute unto your people' for Israel as many other laws were. Also, the whole message of the NT of turning away from carnal desires (eg homosexuality since it is no use for procreation) clearly condems homosexual pracitices.

Plus of course God himself smote Sodom for the people's sin, notably that of sodomy.

You don't have to believe it, but please at least acknowledge other's beliefs for what they are.

It's very tempting to debate you on religion, because you're articulate and you don't seem like you're the type who would ad hominem me. Unfortunately Ser Clegane already put and end to the debate.

Perhaps another time, and elsewhere. In spite of my ardent rhetoric against religion, I am comfortable around most religious people and find the discussion quite fascinating, so long as no one takes too much offense at the discussion.

If I've offended anyone with my assertions or arguments, I'd like to apologize. I'm sometimes blunt, and I don't know everything, and so sometimes I come off as arrogant. However, it's not because I am arrogant, it's because I am an open speaker who is unafraid to discuss controversial issues. I will say things which will directly contradict the beliefs of 4 billion or more people.

Why would I be so... arrogant? Because history has shown us that sometimes, the grand majority of people can be dead wrong about something, and their beliefs can cause the direct suffering of billions. Not all religion falls under this category, but I find that it is usually the case when the religion escapes the confines of belief and becomes an ideology, a doctrine, a law, and motivates politics.

That being said... it's time to get off this subject before I get thrown in a dungeon somewhere.

anecdotal evidence of one messed up kid in your school isn't really relevant.

Children are born in heterosexual orientated society....a kid going through puberty that starts noticing that is sexual instincts don't match what society tells him is the norm will probably feel confused by this....this is not surprising.

and for the record....if this ancient institution of yours can be entered into at 3 am by 2 people drunk out of their minds in front of an Elvis impersonator in Vegas I say that any sense of this being a sacred act is pretty much gone by now.

Add to that the divorce rate, and it will tell you how seriously more than 50% of heterosexual couples take this sacred institution. I honestly don't see how gays would destroy marriage. Some have been together for 40 years, and are just waiting to be recognized as a legitimate couple by the state, regardless of what the Bible belt has to say.

It has come to my attention that reality has a liberal bias....

it's shameful really...somebody should complain to the manufacturer...

I've tried. But I've found that the manufacturer doesn't listen to the prayers of his customers. Or if "he" does, he answers those prayers with the same rate of success as a horseshoe, lucky rabbit's foot, pagan ritual, voodoo curse, and wizard's spell. He also doesn't appear to care for one religion over the other, so it seems clear to me that if there is one true faith, God isn't listening to just his followers. Seems evident that there isn't one true faith, or at least he doesn't play favorites if there is.

I don't think you're arrogant at all PBI, but when people start calling others beliefs fantasy, it is a little insulting.

It is suggesting that so much of human history, so much suffering, so many great minds have all revolved around mere fantasy - quite a claim to make.

A lot of suffering has come from unwavering belief in something that is not evidently proven. It's not belief that is the problem, but the actions resulting from that belief. See: Human sacrifice, mass suicide, cannibalism, holy wars, religious persecution, etc. Often the worst tragedies in human history, in fact I would say all of them committed by humans against other humans, were a result of some belief system imposing it's violent will onto others, whether there is a certain God involved or not. The exuberance of faith in something, be it religion or ideology or philosophy or self, is often disastrous.

Why it's relevant here, is because due to only two arguments; one, being it's unprecedented nature, and two, due to religious intolerance, the equal status of gays and their legitimate relationships are being repressed. Many are fearful of what could happen.

Fear is not the same as sound reasoning. Some say that allowing gays equal marriage rights would then open a pandora's box to polygamy. Need I remind people that polygamy, for example, has been around since the beginning of marriage. Hinduism, ancient Judaism, Mormonism, some Muslim sects, and many other religions, nations, and groups since the beginning of written history have practiced this. So to say that legalizing gay marriage will result in polygamy is the same as saying that landing on the moon will result in NASA.

Arranged marriages, underage marriages, and other practices considered aberrant in our society are time-honored and practiced across the world. That's not to say I don't find the idea backward, but to say that gay marriage will pervert marriage is to ignore the FACT that for THOUSANDS OF YEARS marriage has meant something entirely different from what some uptight Americans consider "traditional marriage". Not to mention the fact that for every one of those millenia, women were considered inferior and property.

Time's a-changin'. You need a better argument than the slippery slope. You need a better argument than it hasn't been done before. You need a better argument than religion. And votes, in and of themselves, do not constitute sound basis for law.

Explain why gays do not deserve equal marriage rights. Is it because they can't have children? Fact is, they can and do have children. There are lots of gay people with kids. Should we take them away? They raise those kids. Are they unfit parents? Many of them stay together for their entire lives. Is this not the same promise and commitment as heterosexual marriage? Many want to visit their spouses in the hospital, but due to hostility towards gays in our culture and the lack of their legal protections, they aren't allowed to. There is the problem of property upon a person's death.

Gays should get all of these protections. If the squeamish don't like it, call it a legal union. But frankly, if you allow that, you're allowing gay marriage and just calling it something else. And if you're going that far, I do not see what the big deal is over the word. If two drunks can get married in vegas and have in annulled the next day, but two gay people cannot spend a lifetime together and get at least the same legal respect given to the irresponsible drunkards, that's insulting.

The state is secular, and there is no argument, none, that explains why gays should not be given the same rights as straights, especially given our commitment to ban laws which are sexist and unnecessarily discriminatory. This is discrimination, this is sexism, and it is totally unnecessary.

If you have a difference of opinion, I welcome it. But the explanation should have gender-neutral reasoning behind it, or else it is sexist by definition.

If I have to accept that a person born as a woman, who looks like a man, talks like a man, acts like a man, and is legally a man, can give birth to a baby, then I'm sorry, but our culture has already decided that the legal status of gender should be neutral in most respects, and is welcoming of those whose gender is ambiguous or outside the norm, and guess what? They can get married.

Why can't gay people?

[Strike For The South]

I sit here and I laugh. How does the "bible belt" always get painted for holding the country. All I see is the running back to the old arguments. Lets not talk about the constitutionality of using the courts for this. Lets blame religion and the backwards people the believe.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Old attitudes and fears are what stands in the way of legalized marriage between two competent adults.

The courts and the process of making something a law, that's a separate argument. A lot of people consider Roe V Wade bad law because of how the law came about. I think that's a valid argument. I am just not prepared to outlaw all abortion.

We can discuss how the law is made in a separate discussion, and you might have a legitimate case. But here, I have yet to see a case made against the possible legalization of gay marriage.

[Strike For The South]

The courts and the process of making something a law, that's a separate argument. A lot of people consider Roe V Wade bad law because of how the law came about. I think that's a valid argument. I am just not prepared to outlaw all abortion.

We can discuss how the law is made in a separate discussion, and you might have a legitimate case. But here, I have yet to see a case made against the possible legalization of gay marriage.

This was about the courts to begin with but we somehow got away from that....

[Askthepizzaguy]

The original post does talk about precedence and court cases, true. But the OP also talked about slavery, and quote:

First lets forget the fact that gays arent nearly subject to 1/100000000 of the prejudice that blacks were.

And the topic of discussion is "Gay rights are not civil rights", inviting the discussion to open up to something beyond court cases and legal precedence. In fact, one could argue that this quote invites us to debate whether or not gays have been discriminated against in the past and under current law.

It seems to me the subject has not been confined to mere legal precedence, on either side. I think that to demand that at this point is a smokescreen for not being able to respond to my points, to be frank. However, I could be mistaken. Feel free to correct me at your leisure.

[Strike For The South]

The original post does talk about precedence and court cases, true. But the OP also talked about slavery, and quote:


And the topic of discussion is "Gay rights are not civil rights", inviting the discussion to open up to something beyond court cases and legal precedence. In fact, one could argue that this quote invites us to debate whether or not gays have been discriminated against in the past and under current law.

It seems to me the subject has not been confined to mere legal precedence, on either side. I think that to demand that at this point is a smokescreen for not being able to respond to my points, to be frank. However, I could be mistaken. Feel free to correct me at your leisure.

Im not really harping on you merely the fact that these kind of arguments always descend into who can feign the most emotional outrage. You were responding to someone's posts Im not going to fault you for that.

At any rate, The OP is an idiot and should be avoided at all costs. I mean the title itself is poorly planned.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Im not really harping on you merely the fact that these kind of arguments always descend into who can feign the most emotional outrage. You were responding to someone's posts Im not going to fault you for that.

At any rate, The OP is an idiot and should be avoided at all costs. I mean the title itself is poorly planned.

Shhh... don't let him hear you say that. And you could get busted by a moderator for abusing the OP.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I had actually forgotten that you started the thread, to be honest! I must admit I am a little distracted at the moment.

[Louis VI the Fat]

At any rate, The OP is an idiot and should be avoided at all costs. I mean the title itself is poorly planned.

Well he is a bit of a daft prick but not here. The title is perfectly specific and concise. The Gay Rights movement is trying to extend the interpretation that has been given to the constitution since the 1960's - briefly, 'no public and civil racial discrimination' - to hold that it is also unconstitunional to have public or civil discrimination based on sexual orientation. This is the subject.

[Strike For The South]

Well he is a bit of a daft prick but not here. The title is perfectly specific and concise. The Gay Rights movement is trying to extend the interpretation that has been given to the constitution since the 1960's - briefly, 'no public and civil racial discrimination' - to hold that it is also unconstitunional to have public or civil discrimination based on sexual orientation. This is the subject.

You're so sexy with your words

[Yoyoma1910]

Whatever moral or ethical concerns one may have, the precedence of creating a constitutional amendment, in order to overturn a judicial decision, whether moral or otherwise, is in existence.



In 1794-1795 the 11th amendment to the Constitution of the United States was enacted to overturn the Supreme Court decision in Chisholm v. Georgia of 1793.


It states:

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.


Is the granting of immunity from repercussion more moral than allowing one the right of legal recourse?

[Strike For The South]

Whatever moral or ethical concerns one may have, the precedence of creating a constitutional amendment, in order to overturn a judicial decision, whether moral or otherwise, is in existence.



In 1794-1795 the 11th amendment to the Constitution of the United States was enacted to overturn the Supreme Court decision in Chisholm v. Georgia of 1793.


It states:

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.


Is the granting of immunity from repercussion more moral than allowing one the right of legal recourse?

This is true. Honestly I wouldn't mind an amendment but the courts are using the existing language rather than passing legislation.

[Yoyoma1910]

This is true. Honestly I wouldn't mind an amendment but the courts are using the existing language rather than passing legislation.

The courts do not pass legislation. Their duty is to interpret the law as applicable.




While I find no fault with the courts of California in their decision, I also find no fault with the people of this state for overturning the ruling with proper legislative procedure.

[Strike For The South]

The courts do not pass legislation. Their duty is to interpret the law as applicable.

Agreed. I know this.

While I find no fault with the courts of California in their decision, I also find no fault with the people of this state for overturning the ruling with proper legislative procedure.

Perhaps this is the best route to take. The court made a decision on shaky evidence and the people voted it down. I simply do not like all the liberal interpretations of the constitution. People these days seem to want to throw away the legislature and go straight to the courts

I don't think we really disagree.

[Yoyoma1910]

Perhaps this is the best route to take. The court made a decision on shaky evidence and the people voted it down. I simply do not like all the liberal interpretations of the constitution. People these days seem to want to throw away the legislature and go straight to the courts

I don't think we really disagree.

No, but I disagree that this is anything new, or that liberal interpretations are worse than conservative. No man can make judgments if he is unable to think. But, if the people believe that judgment is not to their stance, they can then enact stricter or separate laws that affect how the judge will stand on a case. It's all part of the checks and balances that are necessary for our communities and country to work.


This is how our country has always functioned. We enact laws and precedents, then something happens that changes their viability or the social outlook, and things are set in to action that bring about changes.


Why were the Articles of Confederation replaced by the Constitution? They were ineffective, but certainly the overturning of ones central government for another could be considered a liberal goal.

[Strike For The South]

No, but I disagree that this is anything new, or that liberal interpretations are worse than conservative. No man can make judgments if he is unable to think. But, if the people believe that judgment is not to their stance, they can then enact stricter or separate laws that affect how the judge will stand on a case. It's all part of the checks and balances that are necessary for our communities and country to work.

This is how our country has always functioned. We enact laws and precedents, then something happens that changes their viability or the social outlook, and things are set in to action that bring about changes.

Why were the Articles of Confederation replaced by the Constitution? They were ineffective, but certainly the overturning of ones central government for another could be considered a liberal goal.

Conservative rulings simply allow for the legislation to do its job. I'll use Roe V Wade as an example. That was an extremely liberal ruling that haunts us to this day. Instead of having sensible abortion laws we have two extremes at each-others throats. The court should've stayed out and let the legislature do its job. I dont mind a progressive USA, I mind a court that hamstrings future legislature by making such sweeping dividing rulings (liberal or conservative)

The articles were passed by the state legislatures, they way it was supposed to be.