Category: LGBT Discussion
I wish the other topic hadn't been locked, but I wanted to share...
New York legislators cleared the last major hurdle to legalize same-sex marriage Friday when the state Senate followed the Assembly's lead in approving legislation to do so.
Earlier in the day, the Assembly passed a version of the bill that included an amendment about religious institutions. The Friday night vote in the Senate means the legislation's fate is now in the hands of Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who proposed it.
The Senate vote came after lawmakers agreed on an amendment that would help protect religious institutions from potential lawsuits, Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos said.Demonstrators have gathered for days in Albany as state lawmakers pored over the details of the bill, which would help make New York the nation's sixth and largest state to legalize same-sex marriage.
The vote on the marriage measure, which the state Assembly passed June 15, was stalled in part by Republican concerns over protections for religious institutions against the potential for litigation.
Cuomo says the bill would grant same-sex couples equal rights to marry "as well as hundreds of rights, benefits and protections that are currently limited to married couples of the opposite sex."
Currently, five states - Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont and New Hampshire - and the District of Columbia grant same-sex marriage licenses.
The passage of same-sex marriage laws faced a daunting history in the New York state legislature.
The Senate rejected a bill to legalize same-sex marriage in 2009 and has blocked the last three attempts by the state's lower house to get the proposed legislation signed into law.
Although New York currently does not grant same-sex marriages, a 2008 appellate court ruling upheld the right of couples to have their same-sex marriages recognized if they are performed elsewhere.
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/24/new-york-senate-votes-on-same-sex-marriage/
The same-sex marriage bill was approved on a 33-to-29 vote, as 4 Republican state senators joined 29 Democrats in voting for the bill. The Senate galleries were so packed with supporters and opponents that the fire marshals closed them off. And along the Great Western Staircase, outside the Senate chamber, about 100 demonstrators chanted and waved placards throughout the night — separated by a generation, a phalanx of state troopers and 10 feet of red marble.
“Support traditional marriage,” read signs held by opponents. “Love is love, Vote Yes,” declared those in the hands of the far more youthful group of people who supported it.
Senate approval was the final hurdle for the same-sex marriage legislation, which is strongly supported by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo and was approved last week by the Assembly. Mr. Cuomo is expected to sign the measure soon, and the law will go into effect 30 days later, meaning that same-sex couples could begin marrying in New York by midsummer.
Passage of same-sex marriage here followed a daunting run of defeats in other states where voters barred same-sex marriage by legislative action, constitutional amendment or referendum. Just five states currently permit same-sex marriage: Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont, as well as the District of Columbia.
The approval of same-sex marriage represented a reversal of fortune for gay-rights advocates, who just two years ago suffered a humiliating, and unexpected, defeat when a same-sex marriage bill was easily defeated in the Senate, which was then controlled by Democrats. This year, with the Senate controlled by Republicans, the odds against passage of same-sex marriage appeared long.
But the unexpected victory had an unlikely champion: Mr. Cuomo, a Democrat who pledged last year to support same-sex marriage but whose early months in office were dominated by intense battles with lawmakers and some labor unions over spending cuts.
Mr. Cuomo made same-sex marriage one of his top priorities for the year and deployed his top aide to coordinate the efforts of a half-dozen local gay-rights organizations whose feuding and disorganization had in part been blamed for the 2009 defeat. The new coalition of same-sex marriage supporters also brought in one of Mr. Cuomo’s trusted campaign operatives to supervise a $3 million television and radio campaign aimed at persuading a handful of Republican and Democratic senators to drop their opposition and support same-sex marriage.
For Senate Republicans, even bringing the measure to the floor was a freighted decision. Most of the Republicans firmly oppose same-sex marriage on moral grounds, and many of them also had political concerns, fearing that allowing same-sex marriage to pass on their watch would embitter conservative voters and cost the Republican Party its one-seat majority in the Senate. Leaders of the state’s Conservative Party — the support of which many Republican lawmakers depend on to win election — warned that they would oppose in legislative elections next year any Republican senator who voted for same-sex marriage.
But after days of agonized discussion capped by a marathon nine-hour, closed-door debate on Friday, Republicans came to a fateful decision. The full Senate would be allowed to vote on same-sex marriage, the majority leader, Dean G. Skelos, said Friday afternoon, and each member would be left to vote according to his conscience.
"The days of just bottling up things, and using these as excuses not to have votes — as far as I’m concerned as leader, its over with," said Mr. Skelos, a Long Island Republican.
Twenty-nine Democrats voted for the measure, joined by four Republicans: James S. Alesi of Monroe County; Stephen M.. Saland, from the Hudson Valley area; Roy J. McDonald of the capital region; and Mark J. Grisanti of Buffalo.
Just one lawmaker rose to speak against the measure: Rubén Díaz, Sr. of the Bronx, the only Democratic senator to cast a no vote.
“God, not Albany, has settled the definition of marriage, a long time ago,” Mr. Diaz said.
But Mr. Grisanti, a Buffalo Republican who opposed gay marriage when he ran for election last year, said he had studied the issue closely, agonized over his responsibility as a lawmaker, and concluded he could not vote against the bill. Mr. Grisanti voted yes. “I apologize for those who feel offended,” he said. “I cannot deny, a person, a human being, a taxpayer, a worker, the people of my district and across this state, the State of New York, and those people who make this the great state that it is, the same rights that I have with my wife.”
Related
So proud of my state right now. This is a great moment for all New Yorkers, gay, straight or whatever. Another giant step towards full equality for all.
This is so sad. I will def pray for all involved in this and there salvation.
To those in fierce opposition to the equality of gays and lesbians in marriage, to those of you sold on a no-compromise position, I would urge you to examine how the United States Martials behaved themselves after the Brown vs. Board of Education proceedings in the 1960s.
Some of said Martials have gone on record recently to say that at that time, like many who oppose gay marriages today, they had some serious questions ethical and otherwise about the integration of black and white people, in particular in education.
Now, unlike many of the modern no-compromise cowards, they were willing to take bullets, rocks, and other flying objects, to protect black students going to white schools: a change some of them did not fully embrace. That did not mean they were haters of blacks as some people opposed to gay marriage may not be haters of gays. They simply opposed the integration of black and white. And yet, these were tru men unlike you: They were willing to take a bullet for the protection of civilization and the students in question, to control radical opposition to this progress. In a modern context, they would be the ones surrounding gay and lesbian couples headed into the courthouses to get married, prepared to take a bullet for these people and protect the dignity of both them and our civilization. That doesn't mean they personally understood, believed in or personally supported black white integration. Some did, some did not. And, like many now, some were simply in the position of: "The jury is still out on this one."
They are something to be extremely proud of. You are not.
Jessica, you used to be all for gay marriage a few months ago. Of course, you have the right to believe whatever you want, you've just changed a lot...
Agreed. How sad. Pray all you want, though. If there really was a god, and he really did answer prayers, he wouldn't have allowed this to happen. either that, or he's supportive, or at least accepting, as everyone should be.
this is sad. god would never have wanted this. Don't get me wrong. I don't dislike homosexuals, but yep, like someone before said, I will pray for their salvation. god not want you to do that. Not because he wants to spoil our fun, but because he knows what's best for us. And what's best for us in this situation is this: God made them male and female, and that's how it's supposed to be. the so-called freedom to do otherwise might be great in the short term but it's never the best that god intended for you.
if two consenting adults love each other and they are not harming anyone then this should be celebrated at all costs! there is very little more to say about it! gay marriage or not this makes very little difference to the way people live their lives. some of the negativity towards this legislation just makes my blood boil, I feel deeply sad that people would oppose this. I never thought I would say this but I am so extremely grateful to live in the UK where same sex love is not regarded as unholy. Bullshit to my soul being saved! I'm a lesbian and same sex marriage is not going to determine whether people or good or bad or not. People really need to sort their priorities, there are people out there committing the most hidious and atrocious crimes against one another and there are people who are mourning the passing legislation of gay marriage! sorry for pointing out the obvious but this is the only thing that is sad here!
I agree completely and although I'm happy to live in the states, They're lucky in the UK. All we want is equal rights after all and I feel that it's coming soon. I know I certainly hope to see it in my life time.
I don’t believe in gay marriage because I’m Christian, and I believe in the Bible. I believe marriage is between a man and a young woman sold by her parents in exchange for cattle, crops, and village safety.
To those who say "I'll pray for..." If your god really answered prayers then why won't he cure amputees?
OT: This proves that America, or at least parts of it, are finally realizing that gays/lesbians are people to, and should have equal rights.
Totally an awesome step in a direction towards equality. Unfortunately, a step I doubt we'll see in my state. At least, not in my lifetime. I really need to move to a more understanding location, where my neighbors across the street won't have to leave the state just so they can get married.
I don't know what state you're speaking of, but there are states even in the Heartland who have come to the same conclusion as New York and California.
My bet? Eventually, the Right will justify it to their followers, because it will no longer make any eeconomic sense to oppose it anymore. Not that it ever did, but business booms where these sorts of barriers go away.
Look at racially oppressed areas, areas where women have fewer rights, you see a lot less commerce and trade going on. And nothing, not even religion, is closer to the American Right's heart than is markets, no matter what they tell you.
When these barriers are broken down, my friend and her wife won't have to take papers to prove she is the adoptive parent of their mutual daughter, as their marriage will be recognized.
A step in the right direction I'll grant. Because so long as we continue to deny people their rights based on sexual orientation, religion, race or what have you, regardless of te resons for that denial, we'll nevertruely be the land of the free. As for the god angle I firmly believe that god allows homosexuality as a means of testing our faith and our ability to love and respect our neighbors. And if that is indeed true then we're probably little more than a big disappointment to him.
One other thing to tink about when talking about this issue. People go on and on abou how legalizing and supporting same sex marriages is going to destroy the institution of marriage. Bt let's just take a good long look at that statement. Then let's take a good long look at how people behave these days and how society seems to view it as acceptable. We have folks like Arnold Schwarzineger, Tiger Woods, Jesse James, Charlie Sheen...well you get the idea. All of these men at one time or another cheated on their significant others, many of them many times over the years. And then of course there's Kelsey Grammar (sp?), who ended a fifteen-year marriage over the phone. And people just raise an eyebrow if they have any reaction at all. Oh some might feel outraged but it still amounts to the same thing. The general attitude is that's celebrities for you. Celebrities and politicians. Look at Clinton and the others who've been caught fooling around. I need hardly point out that not one of these people is gay or lesbian. So no, it isn't same sex couples who are destroing the insitution of marriage by seeking the right to marry and be recognized as such. Not to say that gays don't cheat on their partners but it seems we hear far less about that sort of ting than we do about straight couples doing the same. So as far as I'm concerned straight people, not gays, have already made a start at and will probably be the ones who end up destroying the institution of marriage long before gays do. They're far more deserving of that right than a lot of straight folks it seems.
I'll say this, love is love. reguardless of your gender. so to those of you who says god loves all his children, which is what i've been told in the past, then why is it wrong for us to love who we love even if that person is the same gender is us? yay for NY!
Well said.
The country's making great progress and I love it! Sure, we've got a lot more to go, and some in the south probably won't do it at all, or at least will be among the last, but for others like Jersey, it would be a stupid political move not to legalize it!
I agree.
I just found an article a friend of mine shared on Facebook that I'm sure would give a lot of fundamentalist Christians strokes. The basic jist of the article has to do with a history professor who did some quite extensive studies of various records in the Catholic church. And these records seem to indicate that, contrary to popular belief there was atime, albeit quite a few hundred years ago, when the Catholic church not only condoned but actually performed same sex unions in more or less exactly the same ceremonies as heterosexual marriages. My guess, knowing them, is that they'd probably try to sweep it under the rug they way they've done with the sex abuse scandals and the fact that the church condoned and even practiced torture as a convertion technique at one time during its history.
Even though I feel incredibly strongly about this issue, I try my best not to judge those who are against gay marriage because they reason that the bible says so. I don't think it's fair for me to say that a persons opinion is wrong just because I disagree. but I am left with some questions.
The Bible says women arn't supposed to cut their hair, but we do.
The bible says we are not supposed to wear clothing containing two different types of thread. But we do.
The bible says something about wearing hats or not wearing hats, but we do.
The Bible is an ancient and archaic book written hundreds of years ago. in this modern day, we have shrugged off some of the restrictions we feel are too restrictive, like women cutting their hair. You could argue that marriage is a more sanctified and a much more significant rule than hair cutting, but doesn't the same principle apply? We either follow all the Bible's rules, or we pick and choose which ones to follow. If we don't follow the rules to the letter, how can we say that one is OK to break but another is not?
I've heard it argued that marriage is, and has always been a religious term. In these modern days, that's crap. Marriage is no longer just a spiritual union which binds two people in the eyes of God. Marriage is still that spiritual union, but firmly attached to the ceremony are legalities like tax benifits, hospital rights, rights to children and death wishes and birth wishes and property. Today, marriage is as much a legal binding as it is a binding in the church. Two people who hate each other can go sign a piece of paper in the court room and be married just like that. No god, no church, no minister. And yet, that kind of marriage is legal. Nobody scoffs at the married couple who got hitched just for the baby, or for the taxes, or because their parents said so.
For me, whether it's a man and woman, two women, or two men, I'm happy to see a marriage built on love. For me, a same-sex marriage of love is infinitely better than a heterosexual marriage built on hate or convenience.
I agree with you. Not only that but the Bible is so full of contraditions. It'll say one thing inone chapter or passage and thenthe exact opposite in the next. And I've heard so many so-called Christians shrug that off and say there are no contradictions.
The way I see it is that maybe god had a problem with gays in the beginning, but even if that's true I wouldn't be surprised to find that it's gotten tot he point that given all the hatred and stupidity we humans exhibit, god's probably just thankful that there is still room for love, regardless of whether it's love beween a man and a woman, two men or two women. All I had to do to figure out where I stand on this issue was to ask myself what I would do if I was gay or had a child or children who were gay. And the one time I got a response from one of these conservative Christians when I asked that question, her reply was I'd love m child no matter what. Really? You absolutely sure you wouldn't try subjecting them to convertion therapy? And would you believe some circles actually refer to it as Reparitive?
I've heard of that conversion therapy crap too. The way I see it, you can make anyone believe anything if you try hard enough. That's not conversion, that's brainwashing. It would do more harm than good. And I seriously doubt that any conservative Christian parent would actually love their child unconditionally if they came out. That's just what they say in public to try and take away some of the bad feelings people have about them. What really happens, most times, is that the kid gets thrown out and disowned, as sad as that is.
I agree completely FR. I saw a big debate about that on Facebook when a Zone member who definitely qualifies as being conservatively against these marriages and even that lifestyle, commented on a link about Obama's coming out in support of gay marriage. And while this woman, whom I shall not name because I do still respect her, has always struck me as a very intelligent young lady, she did suffer from what I will suddenly call Conservative Christian Syndrome, meaning she resorted to constant repetition of the same Bible verses and desperately claiming that there are no contradictions in the Bible. But even someone who doesn't study the Bible cover to cover can see them if they pay attention. But it's views like that that have over the years made me extremely distrustful of organized religion. But she did claims he would love her child no matter what eve if they came out gay. THen there was that incident not long back where another conservative Christian minister made remarks that seemed to condone physical abuse of children if they were gay.
Another thought I just had this morning, and it shocks me that I never thought of it before, is that the statement tat it's a sin to be homosexual is, if one wants to get right down to it, a contradiction. Why is this, you might be asking? Because if I'm not mistaken lying is also a sin. That's one of the ten commandments is it not? And as far as I'm concerned, someone trying to live a straight life even though they may be gay would be lying. So they would be committing a sin. Seems to me that would create a catch-22. What's the expression, damned if ya do and damned if ya don't?
That's true, I never thought of it that way.
I never really thought of it eiter until reading some coments on Facebook, particularly about how gays went through "convertion therapy" notice the quotes, only to later admit that their "convertion" was a lie. I'll probably et some flack from the right wing folks for saying this but so be it. I wouldn't be surprised that god, if indeed such a being existed, didn't have as much o a problem with homosexuality as those who speak out so fervently against it would like us to believe. I tink it more likely that he allows it because it's who these people are. And he allows it as a means of testing the rest of us, seeing how well we can love one another. And if, by chance, I should happen to be right, I would bet he'd be pretty disappointed.
I feel sorry for gay children of extremely religious parents. They say they love their children no matter what but all that bible thumping definitely sends a different message. Makes yo wonder what happens behind closed doors.
Judging from a lot of stories I've read and news reports I've seen, a lot of child thumping is what goes on. They either beat their children, or send them to abusive therapy sessions which do nothing but make them afraid to be themselves.
so-called repairative therapy is so ineffective that they removed it from the child sex offenders' information. They had used to put in there that a particular individual had undergone said therapy as a consolation prize to the community, but most of us apparently took it to mean they were cured, leaving communities open to further victimization.
Note to gay people: Unlike some Private Numbnuts' out there I am not comparing you to molesters. For those who haven't noticed, most molestation is heterosexual in nature. Anyway you don't want to be in a program that uses a delivery system intended for penal institutions, let alone is so ineffective your local district attorney will argue against it in court as a reason to let out a perp. Again, not comparing you to them, just raising the biohazard alert on that particular skam.
I did some research about it and it seems a lot of religious institutions swear by that reparative therapy nonsense. And it apparently says in the Bible, although I'm not entirely sure I believe it, that if you can't be cured of your gayness tat's fine, you just have to not indulge it.
I don't remember that anywhere in the bible, but that does not mean that it is not in there. That book is so full of nonsense, it would take much more energy than I possess to remember all of it.
I think you're right, Bryan. I think what the Bible says is that it's not homosexuality that's a sin, it's the sexual act itself. On the other hand, lust is supposedly a sin too, even looking at an attractive member of the opposite sex, let alone the same sex, and fantasizing about what you'd like to do with them is supposedly wrong. And we all know that one of the main stereotypes associated with gays is that they only look for lust and promuscuity in their relationships. Of course that's not true, but I can see Christians grabbing onto something like that and using it to spew their hate speech. So if there is a distinction, I wouldn't know where it is, or whether there really is one at all, since the Bible is so full of contradictions that it's not really worth trying to find out.
There are people, if you can believe it, who swear that there are in fact no contradictions in the Bible. Thheir view is that we're obviously not reading it clearly enough or we'd see that. And this issue was raised during the whole debate on Facebook about whether gays were sinful.
the bible. largest pile of. a headach i've ever had the missfortune to be made to read
pagan who was forced to going to catholic classes. and all that stuff.
glurp. I am what i am don't like it too dam bad. lol
The oversexualized remarks on gays and multiple partners is not limited to gays or even to religion. This is one of the primary tactics used by groups to disenfranchise the masses against a particular group, here are the categories:
- oversexualization (no meaningful relationships)
- predation on the masses's wives / children / daughters ("it's all about the children!")
- cannibalism
All three were primary reasons stated by the Eugenics movement for elimination of the 'negroid' classes, a real scourge on us wonderbread whites. The fundamentalists have played into number 1 and number 2, have not yet played into number 3.
If they want to be heard, they are going to have to quit playing from the playbook of the eugenics people of the 30s and similar groups. Let's pretend they're actually right: If they are right, and the rest of us completely dismiss them out of hand, that is not our problem. as any adult knows when dealing with a habitual shoplifter or school-skippin' fool, it is technically possible that said fool will get popped for an offense they did not commit. But how much sympathy would they garner since they had first not made any attempts to change their ways and shape up?
Fundamentalists have to change their ways and shape up, in the same way, and quit playing from the same book as the Eugenics people, or suffer the consequences. This isn't persecution against your poor wittow victimy selves, kids: it's because your movement has behaved badly for so long on these types of issues that when the hammer falls, you've yourselves to blame and nobody else. Unfortunately, that means innocent people get hurt, all because some people apparently cannot control themselves.
The primary reason that groups oversexualize, demean relationship statuses, acclaim a lack of intelligence, and attribute widespread cannibalism or entitlement mentality to other groups is so they can acquire the resources the other group has. Past is prologue: Sorry fundies, happy newage-style words aside, some of us are aware of what this is about: resources. Hey, we're all jealous: the gay guy on the engineering team is usually a cut above the rest of us smarts-wise. Sorry gay people, not meaning to pedestal you, but it's just the way it usually is. And no, it's not special treatment on account of being gay: they just turn in sharper results quicker oftentimes. Fundies, you're jealous. Deal with it: so are the rest of us. Only some of us just try to better ourselves to better compete with the smarter ones, rather than try to bring them down to our level. You've got your rights, but nobody has their rights to the exclusion of others. I profoundly appreciate now, for instance, that most modern elevators have Braille on them, even Federal buildings - hell even the Coast Guard base! - has Braille next to the room doors. As a blind guy who is for real inconvenienced when I cannot read things this is a dream! But, notice that while the Braille is now there, we did not go tearing off the print, and stamp our widdow childish foot demanding our rights to the exclusion of people who can see. That would be ridiculous, and so are you.
That doesn't mean you have to accept the gays, or the blind, or any other group. Who you accept or reject in your own mind is your own business. But for God's sake, grow a pair, throw away that ridiculous onesie, put on a pair of pants, and start acting like a civilized human being. That doesn't mean you have to so-called agree or disagree with being gay, or that gays have to so-called agree or disagree with being you. It cuts both ways, kids.
Nobody is interfering with how the churches can conduct themselves: For the two or three scriptures about gays, I'd submit there were people we knew once who tried giving me over 20 on spontaneous biological regeneration aka healing. Some rather astounding claims were issued, and to them, I don't know if they saw me as half a man or what long-ass verbiaage they could come up with. They have a right to think what they want, and I reserve my right to maintain a healthy distance. The same can be said for those who wax elephant about how lack of photons means some higher purpose or higher plane or whatever. Don't think you're gonna plot that one on a graph any time soon, but, well, okay. Think what they want. But in public, behave: don't play grab-ass-the-stranger-and-start-bellowing, or intrusive monk.
On the other side, I really think the gays will serve themselves better if they tone it down some. I know, the activists are like to get themselves all upset, and maybe wet themselves like the fundamentalists, but hear me out: Get the legal work done so you can be married, get it done in the right place: the courts, the Congress, etc. You've got a lot of straights running around who are reasonable and supportive of your civil rights, just like plenty of men supported women's right to vote in the 20s, and plenty of whites supported the civil rights of blacks. Because reasonable people will do reasonable things. But your minority status may not be the most important part of who you are. I'd go so far as to say this: Being blind, white, straight, average height and build, are all perhaps characteristics - physical and otherwise, but none of them are "who I am." People aren't required to accept me. Now, I want to be accepted, in many places, based on my merits or achievements, or based on common interest.
And, shock of all shocks, people are going to reject me out of hand for any number of reasons: Some think 'hater' when they see a straight white running around. If they know I'm straight, I guess. Some see white guy early 40s, they think any number of things. And some see blind guy, they think either incompetent, amazing, amazingly incompetent, or a sloppified combination of all three. Part of what you're dealing with is common to all minorities. the best thing we can do as members of any minority is be context-oriented in our disclosure of it, when we can actually help it. So if I am on a online dev team made up of mostly Asians and Indians, people who usually outperform us whites especially in certain areas in software, what would be the point of me going "Beep beep! Wonderbread white coming through! Yes, I know, I sunburn under the light of a candle, but you people have to accept me for who I am! I can't help being white, but I can do as well as you!"
Now, if I perform well, and I am competitive with them, and when we finally meet face to face or it somehow comes up I have no Asian blood, they'd be more likely to see me on par with them. Some won't: might inadvertently attribute any coding mistakes to being a White American with less-than-adequate math and science education. Is that right? Well, it's just the way it is. It's not hiding one's ethnic origin, or blindness, or gayness. It's about advancing yourself in such a way as to be most successful. People will respect you for it, because they see what you do. Since respect is earned and acceptance is given and taken away at the whim of the accepter, respect is what you really want. Activists may not be happy, because your minority status will fade into the background, quietly acquiescing to your accomplishments. But more people know about Allan Turing because of his Turing Test and theories on computation, than know about Allan Turing because he was gay. And that goes for a very misused individual who was truly and shamefully prosecuted to the point of death because of his being gay.
His contributions to the world of science are forever. And yet, his misfortunes on acount of being gay, while popularized right now, will fade into the background of history with so many others for so many other reasons, once this ridiculous so-called controversy, monkeys throwing their pooh around, blows over. And, it will. And it will. Just ask Jews who dealt with fundamentalists before the second World War, or blacks and black/white couples who
My opinion on this topic is that it should be allowed. People live together for life, so why not have the legal part if that is what they want.
Even if it is for a year or so different sex couples breakup all the time, so sex doesn't matter commitment does.
I agree. Because contrary to what I've heard a lot of religious people inparticular claim, homosexuals cannot always if ever change their orientation, let alone do it without causing longterm psychological harm. Andif that's the case they need to be commended if they embrace who they really are. Because pretty much every religion I know of considers lying to be a sin. So it strikes me that a gay person trying to live a straight life just because some book supposedly says they'll go to hell if they embrace who they are would be a lie. So they'd be screwed either way.
And you know what? I'll pray for them as well. I'll pray that within the next five or so years, ten at most, gays everywhere in this country will be able to marry the people they love. Equal rights doesn't just apply to straight folks after all.
Everyone does have a right to stand up for what they believe in. That's a fact. What I have a problem with is when people try to interfere with other people's beliefs. Homosexuals can marry if that's what they feel is the right thing to do, but that doesn't mean that people who don't believe in gay marriage have to agree with them.If that's how you feel about marriage, then go for it. Stand up for what you believe in and make your voice heard. After all, it is your choice and nobody else's.
But they can't marry yet, at least not everywhere in the country. I'm not saying those who don't believe in it need to change their beliefs. All I'm saying is that gay marriage needs to be made legal in all states. Then gays can marry and those churches and other facilities that are willing to perform such unions can do so without fear of legal reprocussions. And yes, those who are opposed to it can still continue to perform only traditional marriages. All that really needs to happen, aside from gay marriage being made legal in all states, is that both sides need to stop interfering with each other. So gay marriage opponents would need to stop interfering wth thoe who are willing to perform gay marriage ceremonies and yes, some of the more militant gay communities would do well to stop trying to forcefully convince those who don't see their way of life as either moral or viable.
agreed brian just, agreed all round.
I've always felt this way but I have even more reason since my girlfriend has a six-year-old daughter. And if she should grow up and discover that she's a lesbian I want her to be able to accept who she is without fear of getting persecuted bythe extreme religious folks. And that would include being able to marry the woman she fell in love with regardless of where she lives.
I am very proud that in my country, same sex marriage is alloud and totally legal on the national law! I honest can't stand any kind of discrimination. Who cares about the intimacy of my neighbours as far as they are two adults who agree and don't cause any problem to others! People have the right to be happy and the country or state don't have the right to enter in our bedrooms and decide for ourselves!
This is so saddening but def attests to where the world is heading.
Yes, isn't it sad that the world is becoming more enlightened and hopefully a kinder place for everyone, including gay people, to live in? When I think about it, I just get so pissed.
Me too. It's outrageous! LOL.
There are others who are sorry for their effects on the LGBT community now and it may surprise you who it is.
Exodus International, the controversial repairative therapy Christian organization, has for the past year been distancing itself from repairative therapy and now is closing. The above link is the president's apology to the LGBT community.
Also, an Alaskan Republican senator is now in support of gay marriage after having voted for a definition of marriage act in 1998, her stance being a rather Liberty-loving stance, and you might find her response an interesting read. I do not have her article in front of me, I just got this one with a news story on Exodus International sshutting down, and providing a new site called ReduceFear.org.
That's all well and good, and I applaud them on their new stance. However, it begs the single question of why the hell did it takethis long? Its 2013, there shouldn't be any question of equal rights anymore. Its absolutely pathetic that anyone can still look at someone else and say "No, I'm better than you and this two thousand year old book proves it."
The irony in some of these posts is killing me.
As for me, I'm glad to see the equal rights thing, honestly. I don't see why they don't deserve it.
Maybe instead of praying for the salvation of those who have "strayed", people would be better served improving the world itself?
Even that last sentence is derogatory SW. By saying that instead of praying for those who have strayed, you are sayng that homosexuality is a deviance which should be looked upon as wrong. You're saying, in translation, "Rather than praying for the sinners who are living wicked lives apart from the norm, you should spend your time making the world a better place." That, though I don't think you meant it harshly, is a terrible thing to say.
The word "strayed" is in quotes, Cody. Not sure if you picked up on that. The people who, in my opinion, could be doing more productive things with their time, and maybe even their prayers, might refer to it as straying; I do so only as a sort of tongue-in-cheek reference to them.
Ah, I see where you're coming from, sorry I misunderstood
Well they're not off the hook, of course, with the Crimes against Humanity lawsuits underway by the sexual minorities groups in Uganda. Your so-called family conservative groups lobbied in Uganda to get bills passed first for the extinction of homosexuals, and second when that failed, for the reparative therapy on homosexuals. They will have to pay and neither god nor beast will separate them from this, it is international affairs they have messed with.
The positive I see, though I fail to understand some of the mumbo jumbo in the letter, is that moderates may be more inclined to follow their conscience and good sense rather than their dogma.
I think to answer your question, Cody, probably what did take them so long is that now they are in trouble with the Sexual Minorities group in Uganda who is suing in American court. Disbanding their organization will not in any way relieve them of this, because the financial ties and their connections are not to one organization alone. I should not be surprised if, under a future Ugandan government, officials from there request we deport some of these to Uganda to stand trial for some crimes that have to do with interfering in their affairs. If that happens, the stiff punishments they so wanted for the homosexuals in Uganda may be theirs. Of course this is somewhat speculative, but you can read about Uganda and the religious Right in America and draw your own conclusions, or draw your own parallels between this and the Chiquita Banana fiasco in Venezuela in the 1950s. Only then it was governments, wrong as it was, now it's a relatively small, if affluent, group of individuals, for which the ultimate end game could prove quite different.
That doesn't excuse the every day person who is bigoted against homosexuals though Leo.
That's true, I don't know how we'll fix that one though. I pertsonally think many of those people are just using the gays as a scapegoat, or someone to bully. They don't have a phobia, they've got a punk-ass attitude, most of them. And I don't care if they're sixty: it's still a punk-ass attitude to treat another human being that way.
I just don't get it. I can usually see both sides of an issue but honestly, I cannot see why anyone would have such a hatred towards homosexuals, or bisexuals, or anyone, really. And Coty's right: it's 2013, time to move forward. How hard is that? Does anyone else find the hatred of same-sex marriage kind of arbitrary? "You're not like me, therefore I condemn you for whom you choose to love". I'm sorry, that just makes zero sense to me.
People should really get with the program in 2013! The older I get the more I try to be tolerant of others. Gay is gay and straight is straight. I do admit that I am bothered by flamboyancy. Fabulous! Lol but people need to realize not all gay people are like that.
It's like any other group: there will always be some who further the stereotypes.
And now DOMA the so-called Defense of Marriage act has been declared unconstitutional. In other words, it's gone the way of the bans on interracial marriages. Now we'll see what happens in states like Oregon that had its own DOMA. And remember, interracial marriage bans were also called a States' Rights issue when that was banned.
Real liberty lovers would let the gays get married.
And as to the religious argume? All churches can refuse to marry a couple for any reason, or for no reason at all, so that religious argument is a red herring. They could just say some nonfalsifiable straw man argument like the pair is spiritually incompatible, which can be neither proven nor disproven, and that would be that. Happens all the time. So no, churches won't be forced into marrying gay people.
Hell, a church is not even required to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. The ones that do are doing it by choice rather than for compliance with the law. So surely nobody can actually believe that they'll be forced to do anything they don't want to. They're the only adults who don't have to do what they don't want. Unlike the rest of us.
I'm waiting for the reaction from folks like the Westborough Baptist Cult. You can bet and hope they'll be having strokes left and right. LOL. And just a slight correction Meglet, Cody's name is spelled C O D Y, not C O T Y. Smile.
Oops. Thanks. I've only ever seen it written a few times and those a long time ago when I went to junior high school with someone with the same name. Different spelling I guess.
Its ok, I've been called worse.
I love Leo's post though. Finally someone else who sees the similarities between this and the civil rights movements of the 1860's 1920's 1950's and 1960's. Its sad that we never seem to learn, or seem to be able to tell the Christian right to shut up and go away. That has historically been the one who tries to stop civil rights actions such as this. Its pathetic in my opinion.
Probably because Christianity is such a huge driving force, even still, especially out here. If it wasn't the Christians doing it, it'd be somebody else. And that's...even sadder, really.
I'm sure you're right, but for the moment I can't really think of who would step up and do such a thing. Especially with the gay rights movements, the absolute driving force is religion. I've never heard someone claim any other reason for wanting to discriminate against gays. Its always religious morality or sin. So I wonder, if Christianity didn't exist, would this even be an issue today?
I've wondered about this, too. But I think we're looking more at the Big Three, Christianity, Islam and Judaism. They all would. Only in America it's Christianity because of the Fallwell takeover in the 1980s, their tight marriage with the tobacco industry (see Bob Jones University as political action trustee for tobacco firms and the Republican Party) and Big Texas Oil.
What's interesting is you look at middle east countries where they pump a lot of oil out of the ground, they have the luxury of allowing their religious dogma to run wild. Egypt, for instance, was a progressive center in the 60s and early 70s, but was co-opted by the extreme wing of the religious party afterwards. Take a good look at the book Hot, Flat and Crowded it's on Bookshare and explains a lot.
In America, just to complicate matters, parties need a vote. The best way for the party who represents the top 1% of the population to get its votes is through religion. People will do an amazing amount of things if they become convinced God wanted them to do it.
I think it's not one particular religion in this case, it's a cocktail situation: First you have monotheistic faiths which by definition have a single deity / authority, you have all their splintering (Christianity, 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, and so on), and with the large groups of their followers, you have a market of potential votes. In a republic such as ours, numbers matter in elections, so getting the votes especially in concentrated spaces, is key.
Examine 2004 elections, black churches and the republican party. What was interesting there was you heard people saying, "I'm black, and I can be a republican, and the Republincans have promised to help us black folks out." Of course this is a contradiction, since that party generally has at least the illusion of being handouts-free.
Anyway all of this generally leaves a lot of us in the critical thinking / liberty loving space scratching our heads in bemused dazzlement at how this whole thing called faith could actually work without proper corporate financing.
Religion only exists because as an entitled welfare weenie it is sponsored by big corp, period, end of story. The gay issue can be understood if you look at an insurance point of view. Take away the veneer the religious put on it, and you have a situation where insurers would have to take more risk because of a new group of potential beneficiaries. Beneficiaries never really make the insurance companies money: only the primary insurance holder does, and the investments they hold the money in.
So in simple terms, Joe and Steve are a private gay couple. Joe has full insurance coverage with his workplace. Now, it becomes legal for Joe and Steve to get married. Steve gets on Joe's insurance for an added fee, but this is less than half of what it would cost for Steve to just take out his own claim. Steve gets sick with a terminal illness, say something incurable and long-lasting like multiple sclerosis. (Sorry for the spelling, medical people, biologist I am not). Okay, now insurance company took on a liability - Steve - as a spouse of Joe, and the liability lives down to its name by incurring a chronic and expensive medical condition. This all would never have happened if steve had not been accepted as a claimant beneficiary but had been forced to carry his own insurance claim.
This, in part, is what the churches and their texts means by it being an abomination. Because they are no less than Wall Street's bitches.
Now, if you're relatively observant, you've noticed that economic interests have increasingly supported gay marriage. This isn't a koombaya tolerance thing either, it's about flow of trade. Nobody wants to do business where a bunch of hill-billy bigots bottleneck trade. And here is where Christianity version next, and Judaism version next, and Islam version next will have to move from alpha to beta to release: If they still want money from big corp and the support of big business they will have to talk their way into acceptance of gays and gay marriage, just as they talked their way out of it in favor of insurance companies and domestic loans.
By way of another example? The going green phenomenon. Now, in recent years, Christianity Version Next has actually started to support going green. Hell, there may be even a recycle bin at a church somewhere. A few years ago, to mention environmental issues made you in league with the devil in the mind of Christians. Why? Because the environmental movement sided with academia in the 60s and excised business from its discussion. In putting itself against industry, religion in defense of factories and oil wells had to lawyer its way into an anti-environmental position in order to keep getting paid.
Now green is big business. Hell, it's huge. And now even Patty Robertson had a Ureka moment and talked about going green. Anyone see that commercial with him and Big Al Sharpton? That was pretty funny.
But if you understand religion's tie to economic interest, and why, you will better understand their position beside the maze of relativist whiny confusion speak about groups and who's causing the end of the world today, that they usually put forth. They serve economic interest by provisioning the votes and moral support of the populace, and economic interest keeps them fed. Their only value to their benefactors is in the number of votes they can provide, and the moral support they can garner from the masses for those things which benefit the benefactors.
You just watch. If Wall Street quit paying their way and serving their meals to them, they'd cease to be. Sure, you have the occasional wealthy devout who will sponsor but what's a million or two dollars to a nationwide multi-billion-dollar industry?
Again, this is the sort of stuff that leaves many of us standing outside scratching our heads in bewilderment at the elephant in the room that this game really is.
I"m no biblical scholar by any means, but it's interesting to me that Christ never mentions homosexuality in the gospels. Anything that was written about homosexuality vis a vis Christianity was written, to my understanding, either in books like Leviticus or Romans, which was written, I think, after Christ's death. In any event, there are interpretations of Christianity that do not consider homosexuality a sin. But those branches are often deemed anathema by groups like the Westborough Baptists and others. In any case, it should be pretty interesting in the next few years.
Yes, Leo, I more meant that if the Christians weren't doing it, some other religious group would. Thanks for helping me clear that up.
Johndy they are probably deemed anathema because they have as of yet to garner the economic support of the Supermajority's benefactors.
Make no mistake: Wall street as a whole could care less about gay, straight, or one-legged frogs. The gay issue has merely served as crisis diversion so that other less palatable activities can carry on. And it's really exciting for ne'er-do-wells who get off on picking on a tiny and vulnerable group.
It affects gays, but it's not really about gays. It's one way to create a crisis to divert the attention from real issues.
So I read this article on gays who decide to say "I don't."
I find the trends interesting but not surprising.
The older gays in their 60s and 70s were by necessity linked to the feminist movement, joint as tightly to that as Christianity is joined to Wall street. Ironic, dualistic, and not that surprising. Feminism of that era was anti-marriage and so gays by definition were anti marriage, or better stated, they were in support of the partnership arrangements they had made.
And the Millennials now that are gay have all the same questions about marriage that many straight people have, including on this site in the Marriage is Obsolete threads. Looks like I was wrong and AgentR08 aka Rob was absolutely right.
Anyway I find all of this interesting. Though as a average white straight dude I still think this was important we fixed this issue so those who want to can do so. Restriction of rights against any group in society says more about society itself than anything else.
Anyway, check it out if you care, it's rather interesting reading. If any of the language of the older gay people confuses you, read Gloria Steinam's writings on wedlock and relationships.
I say Gloria Steinam because her work is the bedrock of most modern self help and relationship materials now, Christian, Feminist and otherwise. Though she could probably amass some sums of money for the way she has been misquoted by groups who use parts of what she says out of context.
Anyway, I will say again, Rob was right on that other thread, and I was wrong. I also know gays now who resent the assumed political conformity of yesterday's gay leaders. How many times have I heard: "Just because I'm gay that doesn't mean I vote democrat," or "Just because I'm a Lesbian doesn't mean I resent men, eat tofu and love animals."
So perhaps demarginalizing them will help them not only be freer of the trappings put on them by society at large, but also freer to be themselves even if it doesn't comply with the dogma of the only group there to support them. Dogmatics are opportunists, not terribly unlike the seagulls that congregate in the parking lot outside my window.
Completely agree with Leo. We as individuals and as a society need to accept people with different preferences despite whether or not we can understand them. The annoying thing is that we can not always control the turns that society takes, and even if we do leave a huge impact in some way, it takes time for the adjustments to follow through. We have many people that are stubborn and refuse to put their old ways and beliefs behind them. I have heard some harsh racist remarks that were not said as a joke by older people, and they were from the New Jersey/Pennsylvania area. And a lot of these same people strongly oppose homosexuality and try to justify why it is bad and how it will threaten our society, and how it goes against Christianity by means of that poor argument "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steeve." I learned about a case in my sociology class. I forget what it was called and I forget the party's that was involved but it was and probably still is very controversial. Basically what happened was back in 2003, this guy had a warrant. The Police in the area found where he was living and went in to search the place. Upon doing so they came across the guy giving another man a blow job. He was immediately detained and arrested on the basis of what he was doing, because in that state it was illegal for two men to have sex. That is how I heard it and if anyone knows the case I am referring to, and if there was something I said that was wrong about it please let me know. But it was shocking to know that something like this was illegal in some places so recent as 2003. I guess it is because I have conditioned myself to be an accepting person no matter the circumstances, but I really didn't understand what the big deal was because he was doing it in his own privacy behind closed doors.
At least they were closed until the police opened them LOL.