LGBT rights discussion

Invisusira's playground

Moderators: Aergis, Invisusira

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Klaudandus » Sat Jul 21, 2012 2:26 pm

Image

This goes to both sides, really. I kindly suggest you guys take a deep breathe and maybe ignore this thread for a while? Biting each other heads' off does nothing to advance either side of the argument -- and makes compromise kinda hard when you're a headless chicken running around in circles and bumping into other headless chicken.

This reminds me so much of the arguments we have at the office between the more staunch atheists and the overly religious folk -- and I gotta stand in the middle and try to have everyone play nice with each other...

Which kinda sucks cuz I'm one of the youngest guys in the office and I gotta play the role of cool big bro on people that are 10-15 years older than I am.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 11224
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Aubade » Sat Jul 21, 2012 2:45 pm

The magical sky fairy doesn't want gays together, how terrible. We should all do as he says and keep oppressing basic human rights.
Image
- Awbade Level 85 Human Paladin - <Tsunami> Frostmourne - Retired.
Deliriously wrote:I prefer the, "Lonely Hand Approach" (trademark pending)
User avatar
Aubade
Moderator
 
Posts: 4877
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 12:51 am
Location: Tacoma, WA

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Klaudandus » Sat Jul 21, 2012 3:03 pm

also, i hope no one thinks i'm being anti-lgbt because of my last post, i just think that name-calling is not a good way to go.

i swear to you that i am pro-lgbt, i mean, i am not gay nor bisexual but i fuckin love ponies and have always been reading upon lgbt issues on the fark threads...

so, just because i am calling for cooler heads to prevail, even to the side i support, does not mean i'm suddenly against you
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 11224
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Koatanga » Sat Jul 21, 2012 3:13 pm

halabar wrote:Homosexuality (and other things) are not part of that.

Why? Jesus never spoke about homosexuality, so why is it still a sin while other previously-banned activities are not?

It's because man, not god, decides that is or isn't a sin. Homesexuality does not produce offspring to multiply the numbers of the church and increase church income, therefore it remains a sin, while pigs are tasty and therefore OK.

But putting all that aside, homosexuals generally do not belong to churches who believe they are anathema, so why should they be barred from marriage on the basis of the beliefs of organisations they don't belong to? It's completely idiotic.
Retired. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry, Doominatrix of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 2017
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Melathys » Sat Jul 21, 2012 4:35 pm

When it comes to all this Christian crap these days, I love Gandhi's view on this.

When asked about his rejection of Christianity... "Mr. Gandhi, though you quote the words of Christ often, why is that you appear to so adamantly reject becoming his follower?"

"Oh, I don't reject Christ. I love Christ. It's just that so many of you Christians are so unlike Christ."

Though, doing a little more searching, it seems to be disputed whether or not he said this, but either way, I entirely agree with it.
Image
User avatar
Melathys
 
Posts: 1911
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 1:08 pm

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Koatanga » Sat Jul 21, 2012 5:02 pm

As far as I am aware, there is a provision in the US Constitution that specifically references a separation between Church and State. Therefore, religious reasons cannot be taken into consideration when talking about the rights of same-sex couples be legally wed.

So if you look at it without religious reasons, what is standing in the way of legalising same-sex marriages or at least civil unions?

There is the economic impact - companies that offer insurance to spouses would have to extend that coverage to additional people.

Other than that, what's standing in the way?
Retired. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry, Doominatrix of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 2017
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Klaudandus » Sat Jul 21, 2012 5:04 pm

you should also remember that the whole "Under God" thing in the pledge wasn't there till the mid 50's, which was a response in part to the red scare
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 11224
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Melathys » Sat Jul 21, 2012 5:06 pm

also, I found this amusing and somewhat relevant.

Image
Image
User avatar
Melathys
 
Posts: 1911
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 1:08 pm

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Koatanga » Sat Jul 21, 2012 6:01 pm

Klaudandus wrote:you should also remember that the whole "Under God" thing in the pledge wasn't there till the mid 50's, which was a response in part to the red scare

Are you suggesting the Pledge of Allegience trumps the US Constitution as a legal document?
Retired. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry, Doominatrix of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 2017
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Klaudandus » Sat Jul 21, 2012 7:01 pm

Koatanga wrote:
Klaudandus wrote:you should also remember that the whole "Under God" thing in the pledge wasn't there till the mid 50's, which was a response in part to the red scare

Are you suggesting the Pledge of Allegience trumps the US Constitution as a legal document?


i am not the one claiming that!
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 11224
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby bldavis » Sat Jul 21, 2012 7:13 pm

Klaudandus wrote:
Koatanga wrote:
Klaudandus wrote:you should also remember that the whole "Under God" thing in the pledge wasn't there till the mid 50's, which was a response in part to the red scare

Are you suggesting the Pledge of Allegience trumps the US Constitution as a legal document?


i am not the one claiming that!

he was stating that one of the biggest arguments wasnt even around for 175 yrs of history

also @Methalys
Image
Image

Brekkie:Tanks are like shitty DPS. And healers are like REALLY distracted DPS
Amirya:Why yes, your penis is longer than his because you hit 30k dps in the first 10 seconds. But guess what? That raid boss has a dick bigger than your ego.
Flex:I don't make mistakes. I execute carefully planned strategic group wipes.
Levie:(in /g) It's weird, I have a collar and I dont know where I got it from, Worgen are kinky!
Levie:Drunk Lev goes and does what he pleases just to annoy sober Lev.
Sagara:You see, you need to *spread* the bun before you insert the hot dog.
User avatar
bldavis
 
Posts: 7411
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 12:04 pm
Location: Searching for myself. If i get back before I return, please have me stop and wait for myself.

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Koatanga » Sat Jul 21, 2012 7:32 pm

Klaudandus wrote:i am not the one claiming that!

bldavis wrote:he was stating that one of the biggest arguments wasnt even around for 175 yrs of history

Ahh, my bad.
Retired. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry, Doominatrix of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 2017
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Skye1013 » Sun Jul 22, 2012 5:32 pm

Koatanga wrote:As far as I am aware, there is a provision in the US Constitution that specifically references a separation between Church and State. Therefore, religious reasons cannot be taken into consideration when talking about the rights of same-sex couples be legally wed.

So if you look at it without religious reasons, what is standing in the way of legalising same-sex marriages or at least civil unions?

There is the economic impact - companies that offer insurance to spouses would have to extend that coverage to additional people.

Other than that, what's standing in the way?

If you look at that article Klaud linked, the insurance thing is probably going to be moot soon, leaving only the religious argument. And really, why would that be an issue in the first place? LGBTs are paying their taxes just as much as straights. Maybe we should make the argument that if we fall outside the lines when marriage/civil unions are concerned, we shouldn't have to pay taxes either. I mean we're already "lesser" citizens, right? Did slaves* have to pay taxes when they weren't considered full people?



*No, I don't really think slaves and the LGBT community are the same thing. Y'know... because I'm pretty sure slaves were allowed to marry (though not so much interracially...)
"me no gay, me friends gay, me no like you call me gay, you dumb dumb" -bldavis
"Here are the values that I stand for: I stand for honesty, equality, kindness, compassion, treating people the way you wanna be treated, and helping those in need. To me, those are traditional values. That’s what I stand for." -Ellen Degeneres
"I'm not going to censor myself to comfort your ignorance." -Jon Stewart
Horde: Clopin Dylon Sharkbait Xiaman Metria Metapriest
Alliance: Schatze Aleks Deegee Baileyi Sotanaht Danfer Shazta Rawrsalot Roobyroo
User avatar
Skye1013
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 3968
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 5:47 am
Location: JBPH-Hickam, Hawaii

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Fridmarr » Sun Jul 22, 2012 9:38 pm

Koatanga wrote:As far as I am aware, there is a provision in the US Constitution that specifically references a separation between Church and State. Therefore, religious reasons cannot be taken into consideration when talking about the rights of same-sex couples be legally wed.

So if you look at it without religious reasons, what is standing in the way of legalising same-sex marriages or at least civil unions?

There is the economic impact - companies that offer insurance to spouses would have to extend that coverage to additional people.

Other than that, what's standing in the way?

There actually is no mention of the Separation of Church and state in the Constitution, that phrase comes from a letter that Jefferson wrote. However, it is a notion that is often upheld through the first amendment. That said, legally there is no religious argument (that's a popular argument but not one particularly compelling legally). Here's one of the rubs that homosexuals currently have:

Homosexuals and heterosexuals currently have identical marriage rights under federal law. The reason for this is because homosexuality (federally) is not treated like a status, it's treated like a choice. Likewise marriage is also a choice. The result is that neither heterosexuals nor homosexuals can choose to marry members of the same gender. Both can choose to marry members of the opposite gender. Therefore, they have the same rights. In order to make the rights argument, you must first establish homosexuality as a status and not a choice. That has been accepted at various levels, it just needs to be done at the federal level, at which point the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment will kick in and voila, legalized gay marriage at a federal level.

I don't know that that is a simple legal hurdle, I would like to think it is...but who knows.

Anyhow, people can argue the religious stuff all they want for their own personal opinions, but I don't think it has much standing legally.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9669
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Koatanga » Sun Jul 22, 2012 10:22 pm

Fridmarr wrote:Anyhow, people can argue the religious stuff all they want for their own personal opinions, but I don't think it has much standing legally.
It doesn't have legal standing but it has an impact on the speed of which things are addressed. It is political suicide to push anything through if the majority of your constituents are against it, even if it's the right thing to do.

And while this is an issue of the rights of people, the religious folk come out in droves at the mention of it because it is something that their religion teaches is wrong. Politicians risk losing the Christian vote, so they tend to avoid the issue.

It seems to boil down to DOMA which established the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, but that legslation was only enacted in 1996. While the broad intent of the law was to protect states from having to acknowledge same-sex marriages if they did not want to, it unfortnately has the effect of establishing the position of the federal government with regards to the way federal employees are treated, and with regard to joint tax returns and the like.

In my opinion the law is clearly against the spirit of the constitution as it was passed specifically to exclude a segment of the population from equal treatment - that treatment being the ability to have their state-recognised marriage also recognised by the federal government.
Retired. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry, Doominatrix of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 2017
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Arkham Asylum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest

Who is online

In total there are 2 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 380 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:28 pm

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest