Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
Mad Poster
#76 Old 30th Jul 2010 at 9:10 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Nekowolf
Though on the other hand, homosexuality could be constitutionally protected; in which case banning gay marriage is unconstitutional, thereby illegal. The US Constitution, of course, applying at a federal level. I think a judge actually ruled that not too long ago.


Based on that ruling, though, you could conceivably have states that will never allow gays to marry. My question is not whether states are allowed to make these rules, but why.
Advertisement
Scholar
#77 Old 30th Jul 2010 at 9:43 PM
Mm, if it went to a Supreme Court level (or maybe just federal? I dunno, I'm unfamiliar with the court system) and they agreed, then all states have to allow gay marriage. They have to.

As for why...

The Founding Fathers, from what I understand (correct me if I'm wrong), wanted a balance of state and federal governments. It's the Tenth Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

So basically, the reason with gay marriage is it has yet to be found as a protected status under the US Constitution at a federal level, unlike race. Therefore, it is a state power whether to allow or ban gay marriage.

Is that a shillelagh in your pocket, or are you just sinning against God?
Scholar
#78 Old 30th Jul 2010 at 10:47 PM
Quote: Originally posted by whiterider
Oaktree, Vanito, SuicidiaParasidia etc. - I don't think this phenomenon of some areas being very accepting and some very guanophrenic (thankyou Amtram ) is really restricted to the USA. What you've been describing between you is a global picture - some parts of some countries, like NL and certain parts of the UK, tend to be populated by people who don't really care if a person is gay, straight, disabled or purple; and some others, such as Poland, parts of Spain and, yes, parts of the US are very prone to close-mindedness and irrational phobia of people who are different.

You get those kinds of variations in North America, in Europe, in Africa, and everywhere else; the US is perhaps unusual in that being such a large country, it contains more variation within its own borders than others - it does, after all, cover more than half a continent on its own. I wouldn't say, though, that it's really any more or less tolerant as a whole than most other developed nations; it contains both extremes.

It depends what you consider to be "developed". Compare West Europe to the USA, and the USA is much more intolerant towards homosexuals, in comparison to its over-all modernness.

Would you rtry and add east Europe to try and balance the number in favor of the USA, numbers will turn since Europe gained many extra countries fast from the former USSR. Most of those countries have been oppressed by the former USSR for years, are backwards in many ways. However, these countries may be considered "backwards" in all values, not just homosexuality.

The USA is often said to have a 'doube standard'; divorces are treated the way modern countries do, but when it comes to homosexuality, the USA is not that modern.

So yeah, when comparing the USA to Afrika, etc, its numbers are no shock; and the USA can cheer its not that intolerant towards homosexuals!

However compared to equally -modern- countries the USA does crappily. It just depends where you draw the line for 'modern'.

Count Afrika as "modern" and the USA all of a sudden is a heaven of peace, but thats not what this debate about the USA-intolerance for homosexuality is about.


"When the moon is in the seventh house
And Jupiter aligns with Mars
Then peace will guide the planets
And love will steer the stars"
Field Researcher
#79 Old 8th Aug 2010 at 8:38 AM
Why is it always "about the children"? sure, none of us would be here without a mother and father (whether separated or together), but we ARE given the right to live as we please, so why doesn't the law get with the program as well?

What if you don't want to have children? There are a lot of couples (straight or gay) that don't want a kid, which is for some reason some foreign mindset to America (apparently; not to me though... or maybe this is all some terrible conservative brainwashing telling us all we have to raise children, or else God will damn us all, end off-topic rant). I think it would be pretty pathetic to hear of a couple that solely marries to produce children, and for no other reason, though for ages this was the case. But it's about love now, not just kids.
Sure, the Bible says "Be fruitful and multiply," but with an exponentially increasing population, does EVERYONE have to have children? My answer? No.
There are plenty of people on the Earth already, not to say that we should all stop makin' babies nao.


When the smoke clears, you can consider us even.
Banned
#80 Old 8th Aug 2010 at 9:11 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Nekowolf
So basically, the reason with gay marriage is it has yet to be found as a protected status under the US Constitution at a federal level, unlike race. Therefore, it is a state power whether to allow or ban gay marriage.


As I've told my friends, parents and some other people, my rights to marry will ALWAYS be limited unless the federal government steps in. Which sadly they won't do because they don't want to piss off their constituents, which really is sad. But luckily the federal government won't step in for the other side either so maybe there is at least a little hope that one day before I die all states will allow gay marriage.

From the whole beginning of the recent gay marriage debacle, I believed that the gay side was trying to take too big of a step to get gay marriage. Perhaps it's just me, but if the advocates of gay marriage were to have taken the small step(civil unions) that would've given them a foothold for "marriage" in the long run. I personally could care less if I had a civil union(since all marriages are civil unions in a sense) or "marriage", they're the same to me, I would just like to be able to have the benefits of "marriage" regardless of what it's called.
Scholar
#81 Old 8th Aug 2010 at 10:21 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Safyre420
As I've told my friends, parents and some other people, my rights to marry will ALWAYS be limited unless the federal government steps in. Which sadly they won't do because they don't want to piss off their constituents, which really is sad. But luckily the federal government won't step in for the other side either so maybe there is at least a little hope that one day before I die all states will allow gay marriage.

From the whole beginning of the recent gay marriage debacle, I believed that the gay side was trying to take too big of a step to get gay marriage. Perhaps it's just me, but if the advocates of gay marriage were to have taken the small step(civil unions) that would've given them a foothold for "marriage" in the long run. I personally could care less if I had a civil union(since all marriages are civil unions in a sense) or "marriage", they're the same to me, I would just like to be able to have the benefits of "marriage" regardless of what it's called.


Do you really think the average USA christian would let you get marriage when you have a civil union? Never.


"When the moon is in the seventh house
And Jupiter aligns with Mars
Then peace will guide the planets
And love will steer the stars"
Scholar
#82 Old 8th Aug 2010 at 11:48 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Vanito
Would you rtry and add east Europe to try and balance the number in favor of the USA, numbers will turn since Europe gained many extra countries fast from the former USSR. Most of those countries have been oppressed by the former USSR for years, are backwards in many ways. However, these countries may be considered "backwards" in all values, not just homosexuality.


Being a person from one of these "backward" countries, I'd like to see this statement supported with some evidence, since this statement provoked a rather strong reaction in me.

I think some sort of an apology to any one person from these countries reading this thread is in order.
Scholar
#83 Old 8th Aug 2010 at 12:01 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Simsica
Being a person from one of these "backward" countries, I'd like to see this statement supported with some evidence, since this statement provoked a rather strong reaction in me.

I think some sort of an apology to any one person from these countries reading this thread is in order.

- Less modern ideas about society, as in compared to the west.
- Less advanced and poorer.
- For the former USSR countries: less time to adapt to the rest of the world too.
- And poor Moldova as a third world country.

I am sorry if the word 'backwards' offends you, no harm is meant.


"When the moon is in the seventh house
And Jupiter aligns with Mars
Then peace will guide the planets
And love will steer the stars"
Instructor
#84 Old 8th Aug 2010 at 12:05 PM
I'm from one of these backwards countries and it really sucks in regards to gay rights, tolerance of any kind, etc...
Banned
#85 Old 8th Aug 2010 at 1:09 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Vanito
Do you really think the average USA christian would let you get marriage when you have a civil union? Never.


Actually yes I do, when the advocates for gay marriage started jumping for marriage that gave the bigots the chance to use fear against them, by going the civil union route first, they would still use fear against them but it would be a hell of a lot less effective. Fear is after all religion's best weapon.
Instructor
#86 Old 8th Aug 2010 at 1:18 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Safyre420
From the whole beginning of the recent gay marriage debacle, I believed that the gay side was trying to take too big of a step to get gay marriage. Perhaps it's just me, but if the advocates of gay marriage were to have taken the small step(civil unions) that would've given them a foothold for "marriage" in the long run. I personally could care less if I had a civil union(since all marriages are civil unions in a sense) or "marriage", they're the same to me, I would just like to be able to have the benefits of "marriage" regardless of what it's called.


The problem with "civil union" is that it is basically "separate but equal," and we've already determined that is unconstitutional.

If civil unions were allowed, I can see future problems with states trying to deny rights based on that.
Banned
#87 Old 8th Aug 2010 at 1:20 PM Last edited by Safyre420 : 8th Aug 2010 at 1:33 PM.
Quote: Originally posted by grumpy_otter
The problem with "civil union" is that it is basically "separate but equal," and we've already determined that is unconstitutional.

If civil unions were allowed, I can see future problems with states trying to deny rights based on that.


Being gay myself, I really could care less, yes I know I'm like the minority, but I'm looking at the best course of action with the bigoted americans, civil union would've been the best course of action, it could've been dealt with at a federal level with relatively little fuss and less "OMG DEATH OF MARRIAGE!!!!11111ONE". Sometimes you have to take baby steps to get what you deserve.

ETA:
By going the civil union route, you effectively remove ALL religious connotations with it, you keep it exclusively secular. The religious CANNOT touch that under the US Constitution. Yes, it would've been separate but equal but it would've been a step to the ultimate goal of marriage. While I'm not particularly upset with the advocates going directly for "marriage" they could've went for civil unions when the whole gay marriage crap started, and then started pushing for marriage.

More Edit:
While America claims to be secular, we really aren't considering that the majority of our government is Christian, Christian morals, values and views will inevitably penetrate law, there is no helping that. It's coming from both the democrats and the republicans. For the most part America is a Christian country, whether we like to believe it or not, we are.
Scholar
#88 Old 8th Aug 2010 at 1:38 PM
Actually, I would like to make something clear.

Civil unions are different than marriages. They are not the same. Civil unions lack the same rights and privileges as marriage. So, yeah, they're not even equal.

Basically, civil unions are like... Marriage Lite.

Is that a shillelagh in your pocket, or are you just sinning against God?
Banned
#89 Old 8th Aug 2010 at 1:46 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Nekowolf
Actually, I would like to make something clear.

Civil unions are different than marriages. They are not the same. Civil unions lack the same rights and privileges as marriage. So, yeah, they're not even equal.

Basically, civil unions are like... Marriage Lite.


Yes that may be true, but by going the civil union route, that could've changed with the accepting of gay civil unions. While luckily the FMA didn't pass when it was introduced, it would've discriminated against straights and gays alike, it would've affected those with common law marriages and such like that as well as gays.

I personally would've accepted a marriage lite, over real marriage for the reasons I stated earlier.
Lab Assistant
#90 Old 8th Aug 2010 at 5:27 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Vanito
So yeah, when comparing the USA to Afrika, etc, its numbers are no shock; and the USA can cheer its not that intolerant towards homosexuals!

However compared to equally -modern- countries the USA does crappily. It just depends where you draw the line for 'modern'.

Count Afrika as "modern" and the USA all of a sudden is a heaven of peace, but thats not what this debate about the USA-intolerance for homosexuality is about.


If you are going to use Africa as part of your argument, lets get some facts straight. Africa extends from the Northern Islamic countries right down to South Africa. Africa is made up of a huge number of countries and each has its own consitition and laws with regard to a wide variety of social issues.

In South Africa, gays are permitted to legally marry, which means they are able to claim from each others company medical benefits, pension fund, life insurance policies ect, they are permitted to adopt children, raise children and fight for custody of children, no discrimination is tolerated with regards to sexual orientation in the workplace, or the courts, or society. They have the same rights as any other couple, as any other citizen. In fact discrimination of any kind is frowned upon. So please dont use the whole of Africa as an example of bigotry and prejudice.

Ooopppps..... did I mention too that almost 75% of the country affiliate themselves with the Christian faith? Not bad for an 'unmodern' or 'backward' continent populated by 'bigoted homophobic' Christians! Another stereotype shot to h**l.

Stereotyping and generalisations are almost always inaccurate, and are used to death in debate.

And, I apologise if I seem a bit snippy its because it is SO tiring when people speak with knowledge about people or countries they so obviously have never bothered to check out first hand. We all just get lumped together in a great big ball of assumptions. The more I read others opinions, the more I thank God I live where I do.....amongst those who find it uncool to discriminate against someone just because of their sexual orientation, social standing or the religion they choose to follow.
Banned
#91 Old 8th Aug 2010 at 6:05 PM
Quote: Originally posted by thetinhouse
If you are going to use Africa as part of your argument, lets get some facts straight. Africa extends from the Northern Islamic countries right down to South Africa. Africa is made up of a huge number of countries and each has its own consitition and laws with regard to a wide variety of social issues.

In South Africa, gays are permitted to legally marry, which means they are able to claim from each others company medical benefits, pension fund, life insurance policies ect, they are permitted to adopt children, raise children and fight for custody of children, no discrimination is tolerated with regards to sexual orientation in the workplace, or the courts, or society. They have the same rights as any other couple, as any other citizen. In fact discrimination of any kind is frowned upon. So please dont use the whole of Africa as an example of bigotry and prejudice.

Ooopppps..... did I mention too that almost 75% of the country affiliate themselves with the Christian faith? Not bad for an 'unmodern' or 'backward' continent populated by 'bigoted homophobic' Christians! Another stereotype shot to h**l.

Stereotyping and generalisations are almost always inaccurate, and are used to death in debate.

And, I apologise if I seem a bit snippy its because it is SO tiring when people speak with knowledge about people or countries they so obviously have never bothered to check out first hand. We all just get lumped together in a great big ball of assumptions. The more I read others opinions, the more I thank God I live where I do.....amongst those who find it uncool to discriminate against someone just because of their sexual orientation, social standing or the religion they choose to follow.


Except for those countries that are predominately christian like Nigeria, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Kenya, Uganda, Congo, Central African Republic, Benin, Togo, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Liberia, Gabon, Angola, Namibia, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Madagasgar, South Africa, Swaziland and Lesotho. They can be compared to America in terms of Christianity bigotry.
Scholar
#92 Old 8th Aug 2010 at 6:11 PM Last edited by Vanito : 8th Aug 2010 at 7:07 PM.
Quote: Originally posted by Safyre420
Except for those countries that are predominately christian like Nigeria, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Kenya, Uganda, Congo, Central African Republic, Benin, Togo, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Liberia, Gabon, Angola, Namibia, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Madagasgar, South Africa, Swaziland and Lesotho. They can be compared to America in terms of Christianity bigotry.
Compared to the rest South Afrika sounds pretty cool. I wonder why no gaysite ever has given this country attention.

Lets not get too enthusiastic about Afrika though - in 38 countries homosexuality is ILLEGAL and in Mauritania, Sudan, and northern Nigeria, homosexuality can be punishable by DEATH. Afrika is quite retarded when it comes to homosexuality. http://old.ilga.org/Statehomophobia...phobia_2010.pdf

This South Afrikan dude however catches attention in a positive way:

In an interview with BBC Radio 4 on 18 November 2007, Tutu accused the church of being obsessed with homosexuality and declared: "If God, as they say, is homophobic, I wouldn't worship that God."

Tutu has lent his name to the fight against homophobia in Africa and around the world. He stated at the launching of the book 'Sex, Love and Homophobia' that homophobia is a 'crime against humanity' and 'every bit as unjust' as apartheid. He added that "we struggled against apartheid in South Africa, supported by people the world over, because black people were being blamed and made to suffer for something we could do nothing about; our very skins...It is the same with sexual orientation. It is a given."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desmond_Tutu

Now if USA christians (or the rest of Afrika) would go a bit more like this... "just as bad as racism"... "crime against humanity".. "if god would be homophobic I would not worship him".... Thumbs up for this guy.


"When the moon is in the seventh house
And Jupiter aligns with Mars
Then peace will guide the planets
And love will steer the stars"
Lab Assistant
#93 Old 8th Aug 2010 at 7:35 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Safyre420
Except for those countries that are predominately christian like Nigeria, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Kenya, Uganda, Congo, Central African Republic, Benin, Togo, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Liberia, Gabon, Angola, Namibia, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Madagasgar, South Africa, Swaziland and Lesotho. They can be compared to America in terms of Christianity bigotry.


Forgive me, I dont understand your point? You simply listed a bunch of countries........? I have just gone into great detail about the fact that we (South Afirca) are free from all that rubbish and you still lump us in with the rest? You also forgot all the predominately Islamic countries where homosexuality and even adultery is sometimes punishable by death. Is Christian bigotry to blame in this case too?

A lot of African countries have traditional faiths and laws that come from ancient times and most times homophobic teachings were already in place long before first world cultures/religion arrived here. Dutch, British and French settlers arrived and brought their own prejudices and wrote them into law. Prejudice is not unique to any one religion or culture, it is not exclusively aimed at homosexuality either, it rears its ugly head against race, gender and religion as so many demonstrate. Prejudice has little to do with any of those things and everything to do with the individual. If enough individuals spread enough poison others are influenced, and if enough are influenced by that poison........well, you get judgement and fear and vicitmisation that has no basis in reality and is undeserved.

@ Vanito, thank you for your positive comment.
I am pleased you quoted form Archbishop Desmond Tutu, he is a man of God who fought for peaceful change in my country and had the grace to back off with his critisism when he saw change come about. That change only happened when opposing sides stopped judging and stereotyping each other and worked together for the greater good of the country and its people, we are all equal and protected, in the eyes of the law, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation and yes, even religion. That is exactly how it should be.
Banned
#94 Old 8th Aug 2010 at 7:48 PM
Quote: Originally posted by thetinhouse
Forgive me, I dont understand your point? You simply listed a bunch of countries........? I have just gone into great detail about the fact that we (South Afirca) are free from all that rubbish and you still lump us in with the rest? You also forgot all the predominately Islamic countries where homosexuality and even adultery is sometimes punishable by death. Is Christian bigotry to blame in this case too?


I got the impression that you were stating that the majority of countries in Africa were Islamic, that's my bad. But either way, this from the predominately christian country of Uganda....http://www.time.com/time/world/arti...1946645,00.html <-- that can be blamed on christian bigotry and human bigotry for that matter.
Mad Poster
#95 Old 8th Aug 2010 at 7:54 PM
In light of the recent decision on Prop 8, our news networks ran some stories about gay marriage here in Canada. There were some interesting facts...

We got legal same-sex marriage in 2005. Unlike in the U.S.A., marriage is the responsibility of the federal government... not the individual provinces. A few provinces did not allow same-sex marriage before 2005; I'm not sure how that worked, but that's probably part of what led to the 2005 ruling.

The most interesting thing, though, was that as little as five years earlier, the government had declared marriage to be between one man and one woman. Five years! That is one speedy change... and I don't see us turning back. I think even the people who don't agree with the concept have realized that it doesn't affect them and their marriages at all. They're responsible for the success or failure of their marriages... not the gays.

If we can do it in five years, surely the "greatest nation on earth" can get their act together and make something happen. Of course, by leaving the decision to individual states, it's going to take longer. But I do wonder how many years it will be before it isn't a huge freaking hassle to marry the person you love.
Scholar
#96 Old 8th Aug 2010 at 8:05 PM
Well, if the case goes to Supreme Court, like predicted, and they rule in favor of gay marriage being Constitutionally protected (in spite of some of their other rulings that questions their nonpartisanship, they DID rule against Texas, saying sodomy could not be outlawed), then it wouldn't matter. All states would HAVE to recognize gay marriage. It would nullify the gay-marriage-is-illegal laws that are out there.

Is that a shillelagh in your pocket, or are you just sinning against God?
Banned
#97 Old 8th Aug 2010 at 8:27 PM
Quote: Originally posted by fakepeeps7
If we can do it in five years, surely the "greatest nation on earth" can get their act together and make something happen. Of course, by leaving the decision to individual states, it's going to take longer. But I do wonder how many years it will be before it isn't a huge freaking hassle to marry the person you love.


Which is another reason why I think that the gay marriage advocates should've went with "civil union" instead of marriage, we'd have gotten it sooner and at a federal level because it is exclusively secular. Which in turn would make it slightly easier(not much but slightly) to get marriage later on at a federal level without too much interference.
Née whiterider
retired moderator
#98 Old 8th Aug 2010 at 8:46 PM
Quote: Originally posted by thetinhouse
Forgive me, I dont understand your point? You simply listed a bunch of countries........? I have just gone into great detail about the fact that we (South Afirca) are free from all that rubbish and you still lump us in with the rest? You also forgot all the predominately Islamic countries where homosexuality and even adultery is sometimes punishable by death. Is Christian bigotry to blame in this case too?
This is essentially my original point - both Africa and the US are in a situation which involves huge variations in attitude (and in religion) depending on the region. South Africa is certainly one of the richest and most developed african nations; so I can understand Vanito's point about homophobia being mainly a property of less developed nations - except, of course, for the US; and it does seem, of late, that development and liberalism go hand in hand in most places.

I guess this matches with the stereotype of the southern US states being both very homophobic and very technologically "backwards" - with little infrastructure, much more blue collar industry than elsewhere etc. I don't know if this is an accurate conception though - can anyone who's lived in the south of the US confirm or deny it?

What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact.
Banned
#99 Old 8th Aug 2010 at 9:01 PM
Quote: Originally posted by whiterider
I guess this matches with the stereotype of the southern US states being both very homophobic and very technologically "backwards" - with little infrastructure, much more blue collar industry than elsewhere etc. I don't know if this is an accurate conception though - can anyone who's lived in the south of the US confirm or deny it?


Be glad to since I live somewhat in the south, northern south but still the south, still in the bible belt lol

The area that I live in is generally more progressive than say hardcore rural mountain virginia or rural tennessee(yes this is where I'm basing all this from). We have a rather strong economy in this area, our infrastructure is good, the economic debacle didn't really affect us that much here. Coal mining, from what I know, is the largest industry in the area here. Technologically, we're probably better off than most where I am specifically, but go say 2 miles away from where I live and you can barely get DSL let alone Cable internet. For the most part everyone here is southern baptist, the whole gay hate thing doesn't seem to be as prevalent as I remember it being when I was in high school, after high school it was like a whole completely other world. But the general stance for gays and gay marriage that I've gathered from those around here(even them hardcore southern baptists in the area) is pretty much "to each their own" and "hit on me and I'll shoot you" but that seems pretty common with the "treat my daughter badly and I'll shoot you" crowd. They are generally accepting of it as long as they don't have to see it kind of thing.
Lab Assistant
#100 Old 9th Aug 2010 at 7:31 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Safyre420
They are generally accepting of it as long as they don't have to see it kind of thing.
So true! And true of most people!
 
Page 4 of 17
Back to top