The U.S, Then France, Now Russia. Gay rights issues

[breadisfunny]

It's possibly been answered and if it has, I apologise, but..

Given that every major faith has their own interpretation of "Marriage" how can any of them claim ownership over the institution?

because each of them thinks they have all the answers.....basically its the same reason humans rarely admit they are wrong.

[-Ethos-]

what do civil unions entail exactly?

This is actually the problem with civil unions. Each state of each country that accepts civil unions has a different definition to them - each with different rights. Its a bandaid solution - with sandpaper in the place of the bandaid.

[Zhangfei]

This is actually the problem with civil unions. Each state of each country that accepts civil unions has a different definition to them - each with different rights. Its a bandaid solution - with sandpaper in the place of the bandaid.

Well it depends - if it awards the exact same rights as marriage, it's doing exactly what it says while removing the religious conservative complaint of "marriage" being religious.

[Grizzly Willy]

Additionally, in places where the rights are effectively the same, you end up with a separate-but-equal effect, where it's basically people who don't want their institution infringed upon, even though allowing for marriages wouldn't actually harm anything.

[Deleted]

because each of them thinks they have all the answers.....basically its the same reason humans rarely admit they are wrong.

Well, my angle on this is... Given that The Christian church seem to be opposed to the idea of Gay marriage on the principle that it's a Christian institution that the government have no place in meddling. How can said Christian church reconcile telling the government that they shouldn't mess with religious institutions yet accept that, say, 2 muslims can get "married" completely outside of the Christian religion?

Maybe I'm just being utterly stupid on this, if I am I'm sorry, had a bit to drink.

[FathomFear]

I'll say this: I'll never support gay rights. I'll never support assaulting gays. I'll never believe that you are born gay. I'm a Christian, and I believe that homosexuality is something that is against nature (even from an atheistic perspective), and especially against God. I think that the idea of simply letting people do as they please leads to a moral cesspool of evil, because the boundaries will ALWAYS be pushed back further and further until they are completely gone and immorality runs rampant (Which it somewhat does already).

I'm not a crazy old guy, I'm 22 (I might be crazy, I guess). My belief is that like anything else a person does wrong (you know, other than committing murder or rape or something), the intent should be to educate people against what is a dirty lifestyle and help attempt to change those people. I fully admit that it is an unpopular opinion, especially among my age group, but I partially believe that to be because things like the Internet and its anonymity have lead to a pretty high level of apathy when it comes to morality.

I'd apologize if anyone is offended by those statements, but I'm honestly not sorry for my beliefs. I never see gay people and think "we'd be better off if they were dead," I just think "it's too bad they are making a bad choice," just as I am bothered by the fact that I am imperfect and repeatedly make mistakes. I try my best to keep a merciful mindset against things like Jesus did, rather than flat-out attempting to condemn people to hell as can be the norm from the right.

Curious--if you were a guy who 1) wasn't sexually attracted to women, but 2) was sexually attracted to men, how would you be approaching your life? Would you just pray and hope it goes away?

[Zhangfei]

Well, my angle on this is... Given that The Christian church seem to be opposed to the idea of Gay marriage on the principle that it's a Christian institution that the government have no place in meddling. How can said Christian church reconcile telling the government that they shouldn't mess with religious institutions yet accept that, say, 2 muslims can get "married" completely outside of the Christian religion?

Maybe I'm just being utterly stupid on this, if I am I'm sorry, had a bit to drink.

There's no such thing as "the" Christian church - and the tacit agreement is that the state doesn't interfere with the rules of the religion in question as long as all marriages are only official if they've gone through the state's paperwork. A fundie might not respect Islam but if they complained that the state couldn't marry people, then the state might take the idea to its full conclusion and take it from their religion too.

[IRL]

http://www.france24.com/en/20130125-...gay_propaganda



Most of us are familiar with the U.S stance on this issue. We recently saw protests in France against gay rights. Russia is now in the spot light.

To be clear, what you see in France and The US has nothing to do with gay rights. It has to do with redefining a social institution for a vocal minority.

ALL of the legal benefits the gay community are requesting could be achieved through laws and policies WITHOUT attempting to redefine marriage (and it would be easier as well).

[Deleted]

I'm getting pretty sick now of these people that seem to think it's okay to deny somebody their basic rights as a human being just because they don't "agree" with their way of life. Why can't these people just mind their own damn business, gay people aren't harming anyone, nor is it harmful to be gay. When I hear the argument "COS GOD SAID SO IT R IN BIBLEZ!" I just want to scream, an opinion is not taken seriously if it's based on fairytales.

They need to focus more on people that are actually harming society, rather than persecuting a minority just for being who they are.

[IRL]

Curious--if you were a guy who 1) wasn't sexually attracted to women, but 2) was sexually attracted to men, how would you be approaching your life? Would you just pray and hope it goes away?

Here's a guy that's been through that struggle:
http://www.christopheryuan.com/mobile/index.html

We all have crosses to bear and we ALL have urges we shouldn't act on.

[Keristrasza]

When I hear the argument "COS GOD SAID SO IT R IN BIBLEZ!" I just want to scream, an opinion is not taken seriously if it's based on fairytales.

I'm pretty sure people feel the same about your "anti-religious" drivel. You get angry at people using a proper reason because you wishing to view it as a "Fairytale" is no different than Heterosexuals refusing to accept Homosexuality. It's one side being blind to another because of personal feelings, beliefs or lack there of. So long as one group tries forcing the other no middle ground will ever be found.

I for one agree as it goes against my religion, I will always feel that way. Do I care what they do behind closed doors? Nope. Let them do as they please, but stop making a huge stink about it. I have many gay friends, we get along swimmingly. They keep all talk of homosexuality to a minimum and even they agree that all this media attention on gay rights is hurting them more than helping.

[Xaephira]

To the people still trying to spread the hate around -
You have to realise that all that is asked is being able to be who you are, not living in the fear of something bad happening just because of a VERY small part of the ''mix'' that makes you, you.
I wonder what you would do if one day one of your kids came to you and told you he/she was gay, you'd just send him away and just stop caring/hope he dies? Leave him in a world where he'd never be able to be happy, hated for something he never, ever had control over?
Or maybe if it was your best friend, you'd just say ''F off'' even tho nothing changed? (other than the fact that you now actually know about it)

You really have to stop acting like it affects you, cause it doesn't at all. It's just trying to find problems where there isn't any... All you're doing is ruining some people's lives and even tho many would refuse to admit it or just think about it, the lives you might be ruining may just be one of your familly or friends.

[IRL]

I'm getting pretty sick now of these people that seem to think it's okay to deny somebody their basic rights as a human being just because they don't "agree" with their way of life. Why can't these people just mind their own damn business, gay people aren't harming anyone, nor is it harmful to be gay. When I hear the argument "COS GOD SAID SO IT R IN BIBLEZ!" I just want to scream, an opinion is not taken seriously if it's based on fairytales.

They need to focus more on people that are actually harming society, rather than persecuting a minority just for being who they are.

Redefining THE building block of society is a big deal. Marriage creates families for raising children. Redefining it has vast ramifications and they should ALL be considered.


What's best for the children? What's best for society? What's best for the state? What's best for these individuals? What's best for the institution?

[breadisfunny]

I'm pretty sure people feel the same about your "anti-religious" drivel. You get angry at people using a proper reason because you wishing to view it as a "Fairytale" is no different than Heterosexuals refusing to accept Homosexuality. It's one side being blind to another because of personal feelings, beliefs or lack there of. So long as one group tries forcing the other no middle ground will ever be found.

I for one agree as it goes against my religion, I will always feel that way. Do I care what they do behind closed doors? Nope. Let them do as they please, but stop making a huge stink about it. I have many gay friends, we get along swimmingly. They keep all talk of homosexuality to a minimum and even they agree that all this media attention on gay rights is hurting them more than helping.

"because god said so" is NOT a valid reason for denying someone their human rights. it defies the laws of debate. saying because "i said so" presents an undebateable argument. if your going to argue something do not use "because x said so" as it amounts to "i'm right your wrong end of story."

[-Ethos-]

Redefining THE building block of society is a big deal. Marriage creates families for raising children. Redefining it has vast ramifications and they should ALL be considered.


What's best for the children? What's best for society? What's best for the state? What's best for these individuals? What's best for the institution?

Didnt Canada pass gay marriage? I dont think society has fallen to pieces up there after changing its "building block".

[Endus]

I'll never believe that you are born gay.

This is essentially no different than saying "I'll never believe in gravity". It's a scientific fact, there are observable biological differences. The science is still a bit out there on precisely what causes those differences, whether there's a genetic component, or a developmental one due to hormones during pregnancy, or (more likely) a complex combination of the two, etc.

I just think "it's too bad they are making a bad choice,"

It's not a "choice".

Here's the issue with that argument; if you really, seriously think it's a "choice", then what you are saying is that, at heart, you think everyone experiences sexual attraction to both sexes equally, at all times. And "good" people stick to the opposite gender, while others "sin" and go gay. What you're really saying is that you think everyone is bisexual.

And, on behalf of the population of fully-hetero people out there, let me tell you; that ain't true. I don't "choose" to be straight. Sexuality isn't a choice, for me. The only people for whom it could be a choice are those who are bisexual.

And if you're bisexual and those feelings scare you and you don't want to "sin" according to your faith, whatever. Make your own choice. That's fine; it's your life. But stop spouting hatred against others who don't have that kind of choice.

To be clear, what you see in France and The US has nothing to do with gay rights. It has to do with redefining a social institution for a vocal minority.

ALL of the legal benefits the gay community are requesting could be achieved through laws and policies WITHOUT attempting to redefine marriage (and it would be easier as well).

No, it would be vastly more complicated. There is a ton of legal implications to being married. Tax benefits, deathbed visitation rights, end-of-life decision making, inheritance in absence of a will, etc.

The only way to have civil unions be just as good as marriage, legally speaking, would be to amend every law that mentions "marriage" to include "or civil union". To amend every reference to a spouse, wife, husband, to also include life partner or whatever term you're using for those with a civil union. You need to change all those laws. If you try and emulate a marriage with things like a limited power of attorney, you risk missing out on critical rights and putting those in that situation at a greater risk, inherently.

And the other option is to just change "marriage" from "one man and one woman" to "two consenting adults". That's all it takes. It's absolutely the easiest and simplest way to go, and there are absolutely no negative side effects down the line as a result of that change.

And really, it's not a "social institution". Marriage is, and has always been, a legal institution. That's why you need a marriage license from the government or it doesn't count. That's why it's only government-authorized representatives who have the right to conduct a marriage. That's why you can get married by government representatives without any religious involvement whatsoever. Because the religious ceremony people typically have is window dressing. None of it matters, in terms of the marriage itself. All that matters is that the representative determines they both consent (they each say "I do"), and then they sign the marriage license and have it witnessed. That's it.

It's a legal agreement. The religious stuff is extraneous and matters as much to the institution of marriage as the big party you throw matters to the divorce that was just finalized, which you're celebrating. It might be a lovely, meaningful, emotion-rich celebration, but in the end, it's just a party.

[-Ethos-]

Here's a guy that's been through that struggle:
http://www.christopheryuan.com/mobile/index.html

We all have crosses to bear and we ALL have urges we shouldn't act on.

Ugh, not the "Ex-gay" arguments again.

[Xaephira]

Here's a guy that's been through that struggle:
http://www.christopheryuan.com/mobile/index.html

We all have crosses to bear and we ALL have urges we shouldn't act on.

That is nonsense at its best. There is no change as there is no choice. And this is just again showing how religion can be taken way, way too far.

[Endus]

Redefining THE building block of society is a big deal. Marriage creates families for raising children. Redefining it has vast ramifications and they should ALL be considered.

The issue is, there are absolutely no negatives to allowing gay marriage. It creates more families. It creates more potential homes for children. And as long as there's more children up for adoption than there are homes for them to go to, we should be welcoming the creation of more families that may adopt.

No negatives, at all. Only positives. The only "negatives" that have ever made any sense at all are the religious ones, and to be utterly frank, your faith only matters to you. It's a personal choice. You don't get to force it on others, ever. Particularly as there are plenty of faiths, including Christian sects, that are open to and welcoming of gay marriages. The only thing your faith determines is whether YOU should get gay married or not. Not whether anyone ELSE should.

[Xaephira]

I'll say this: I'll never support gay rights. I'll never support assaulting gays. I'll never believe that you are born gay. I'm a Christian, and I believe that homosexuality is something that is against nature (even from an atheistic perspective), and especially against God. I think that the idea of simply letting people do as they please leads to a moral cesspool of evil, because the boundaries will ALWAYS be pushed back further and further until they are completely gone and immorality runs rampant (Which it somewhat does already).

I'm not a crazy old guy, I'm 22 (I might be crazy, I guess). My belief is that like anything else a person does wrong (you know, other than committing murder or rape or something), the intent should be to educate people against what is a dirty lifestyle and help attempt to change those people. I fully admit that it is an unpopular opinion, especially among my age group, but I partially believe that to be because things like the Internet and its anonymity have lead to a pretty high level of apathy when it comes to morality.

I'd apologize if anyone is offended by those statements, but I'm honestly not sorry for my beliefs. I never see gay people and think "we'd be better off if they were dead," I just think "it's too bad they are making a bad choice," just as I am bothered by the fact that I am imperfect and repeatedly make mistakes. I try my best to keep a merciful mindset against things like Jesus did, rather than flat-out attempting to condemn people to hell as can be the norm from the right.

Oh, so you woke up one morning and told yourself, ''okay, it's decided, I will be hetero and I choose to be attracted to the other gender''.. Damn, now it all makes sens.
And you know what would actually not be a mistake? Let others live as they wish, because not you nor anyone should have a say in it for as long as it doesn't start taking things from others.