The Gay Thread

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Wow! There's a new topic here. While religion in a free society is a choice; once accepted isn't one then bound to act in accordance with that religion? If one hopes to glorify God in all they do can they knowingly participate or foster an activity which for thousands of years has been taught to be forbidden or unholy?

In a pluralistic society one accepts that they need not agree or sanction all individual activities to practice the Golden Rule knowing that visa-versa not everyone sanctions your beliefs. Translation; Tolerance needs to be a two-way street.

No, you are not bound to anything.

It's still a choice. You CHOOSE to bind yourself to certain things, to limit your life in certain ways, it would be just as much choice to opt out.

Why should the rest of the world have to change because YOU decide to change according to a book written a couple thousand years ago?

Tolerance needs to be a two way street indeed. You can practice your religion IMO, go ahead, go to church, don't eat pork, I don't care. But in return I'd like some basic human rights. I wasn't planning to go out prancing in the streets making out with my girlfriend or anything, so don't be afraid... if you practice your Christianity in private, I'll do my stuff in private as well. Nobody bothers anyone. Everybody happy... right?
 
That's not intolerant.

You choose whether or not you want to believe in god. You choose whether or not you want to have sex. You choose whether or not you want to buy that new TV. You choose who you want to be with.

You don't choose whether you like the taste of that pizza. Or whether or not you get sick (albeit this might be preventable). You don't choose what color eyes you have. You don't choose how tall you are. You don't choose what sexual orientation you are (unless you're a strange person).

There's a clear difference between a choice and innate behavior.
 
I figured FYM readers were smart enough to realize that while there are and will always be bigots of all strips no one is attempting to codify into law discrimination against gays.

I was wrong.
That's more or less what the Arizona law was about, dude. If you wanna put your head in the sand about that, be my guest.
 
While religion in a free society is a choice; once accepted isn't one then bound to act in accordance with that religion?

This is the salient difference between religious liberalism and lconservatism. Conservatism accepts the sacred book or statement as divine fiat--it simply is and is subject to no further moral investigation. Any command or action of God or anything sanctioned by God is necessarily right, and the believer can simply accept it at face value. Liberalism holds that the book or statement may contain errors and needs to be subject to reason and one's own inner moral sense, or the divine light/Holy Spirit within.

So, if your dogma holds that your dogma can't be examined by outside standards, then yes. But, refusing to be guided by an inner standard and relying absolutely on an external guide can lead to some bad places. The Nuremberg trials essentially codified that you can't get rid of your own moral agency no matter how much you want to--that you're always morally responsible for your actions no matter who told you to do it. I think that's a good standard.
 
I figured FYM readers were smart enough to realize that while there are and will always be bigots of all strips no one is attempting to codify into law discrimination against gays.

I was wrong.



That's exactly what the AZ law was doing. That's exactly what these marriage amendments are about.

Defend marriage from whom?
 
That's exactly what the AZ law was doing. That's exactly what these marriage amendments are about.

Defend marriage from whom?

[spooky hands]The Gay Agenda!*[/spooky hands]

*The Gay Agenda is defined as more than one** gay person taking any coordinated action that forces straight Christian Americans to consider that maybe their religious beliefs shouldn't have the power to deny other people equal treatment in a secular society.

**Because they're not against gay people individually - why, they have good friends who are gay, donchya know?
 
Last edited:
I mean, this is all a "letter of the law" vs. "intent of the law" situation, but apparently I'm too stupid to understand all of this since INDY disagrees with me on something.
 
Would you use one of these INDY?

640x479xGAYTM.jpg.pagespeed.ic.wknOkX8yDE.jpg
 
[spooky hands]The Gay Agenda!*[/spooky hands]

*The Gay Agenda is defined as more than one** gay person taking any coordinated action that forces straight Christian Americans to consider that maybe their religious beliefs shouldn't have the power to deny other people equal treatment in a secular society.

**Because they're not against gay people individually - why, they have good friends who are gay, donchya know?

Soooo, does that mean it's actually The Christian Agenda that is operating here?


I mean, I've no problem with individual Christians.. I even have a couple of friends that are Christian! I just don't want them to gang up on me because I disagree with who they are! Oh wait, I don't disagree with who they are, just what they believe.... so as long as they don't force their beliefs down my throat we're fine.... ohwait.
 
Tolerance needs to be a two way street indeed. You can practice your religion IMO, go ahead, go to church, don't eat pork, I don't care. But in return I'd like some basic human rights. I wasn't planning to go out prancing in the streets making out with my girlfriend or anything, so don't be afraid... if you practice your Christianity in private, I'll do my stuff in private as well. Nobody bothers anyone. Everybody happy... right?

No, because just like Christians are able to preach or pray in public, you should be able to kiss your girlfriend in the street without anyone giving a shit.
 
No, because just like Christians are able to preach or pray in public, you should be able to kiss your girlfriend in the street without anyone giving a shit.

I know :) But just trying to show INDY how small his two way street is. Since he as a Christian has far more rights and freedoms than me as a gay person(though technically I am bisexual but let's focus on the gay part for now). He wants to protect his rights, I want to gain rights. So his tolerance street is this gigantic highway, and I'm just a small lane merging in.... Yet he won't even allow that because apparently I'm disgusting according to the book he chooses to believe. It's just so damn skewed...



Makes me happy I don't live in the US.
 
the world only spins forward.

Support for same-sex marriage hits new high; half say Constitution guarantees right

By Peyton M. Craighill and Scott Clement, Wednesday, March 5, 12:00 AM

Half of all Americans believe that gay men and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll in which a large majority also said businesses should not be able to deny serving gays for religious reasons.

Fifty percent say the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection gives gays the right to marry, while 41 percent say it does not.

Beyond the constitutional questions, a record-high 59 percent say they support same-sex marriage, while 34 percent are opposed, the widest margin tracked in Post-ABC polling.

The poll was conducted in the wake of a series of rulings by federal judges that state bans on same-sex marriage and prohibitions on recognizing marriages performed elsewhere are unconstitutional.

The judges have said they relied on the reasoning in the Supreme Court’s 5 to 4 decision in June that struck down a key part of the Defense of Marriage Act, which withheld federal benefits from, and recognition of, same-sex couples married in states where such unions are legal. Since then, the highest courts in New Jersey and New Mexico have said same-sex couples must be allowed to marry in those states, and the six federal court decisions have come in some of the most conservative states, including Oklahoma and Utah.

In the 33 states that prohibit same-sex marriage, 53 percent of those polled support allowing it, while 40 percent oppose doing so.

Apart from supporting the policy, Americans are slightly more ambivalent about whether the Constitution guarantees gays the right to marry.

According to the poll, public opinion is more unified on recent proposals that would allow businesses to refuse serving gays and others based on the religious convictions of the business owner. Nearly seven in 10 respondents say businesses should not be allowed to refuse service to gays. On this question, majorities across partisan lines said businesses should not be allowed to deny service. Last week, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) vetoed a measure that would have allowed businesses to refuse service to customers based on religious grounds.

“She did the right thing in vetoing that,” said Charles Musser of Marana, Ariz., who said that he opposes same-sex marriage and adoption rights for gays but that he thought the legislation was ill-conceived. If they passed that law, “that would open the door to all kinds of discrimination,” he said.

Support for same-sex marriage has changed more rapidly than almost any social issue in the past decade. In a Post-ABC poll in March 2004, 38 percent said same-sex marriage should be legal, while 59 percent said it should not, the same percentage now in favor of allowing gays to marry.

The shifting attitudes extend beyond issues of marital rights to more basic beliefs about the nature of homosexuality and its implications for child rearing. Nearly eight in 10 say that gays can parent as well as straight people, up from just below six in 10 in a 1996 Newsweek survey.

Sixty-one percent support allowing gays to adopt a child, up from 49 percent in 2006 and 29 percent in a 1992 poll by Time magazine and CNN. More than twice as many people consider being gay as “just the way they are,” rather than something they chose.


Despite the changing views, deep chasms remain along religious, generational and political lines. Six in 10 evangelical Protestants oppose same-sex marriage, while about six in 10 Catholics, non-evangelical Protestants and eight in 10 with no religious affiliation support it. Three-quarters of Americans younger than 30 support same-sex marriage, while less than half of seniors say the same.

Although support for such unions has grown to clear majorities among Democrats (70 percent) and independents (61 percent), Republicans have moved at a slower pace. Fifty-four percent of Republicans oppose same-sex marriage in the new poll, while 40 percent approve of it.

“I just don’t believe in the marriage thing; the Bible says that isn’t right," said Musser, who opposed the Arizona legislation on the religious rights of businesses.

Republicans are split along ideological and religious lines. Support for allowing same-sex marriage is lowest, below one-third or less, among conservatives and evangelical Protestants.

Among Republicans who say people are born gay (half say this), 64 percent support same-sex marriage, 61 percent say the Constitution provides the right to such unions and 70 percent favor allowing gays to adopt.

“Even though I was brought up very conservatively and very religiously, I don’t care what sexual orientation people are,” said Lilly Telatycki of Surprise, Ariz., who asked to be identified by her maiden name, saying she feared being harassed for that view. Telatycki, who usually votes Republican, said she thinks the party is spending too much time on the issue.

The poll also shows divisions among Democrats along racial and class lines. Support for same-sex marriage peaks at nearly eight in 10 white Democrats, and an even larger proportion with incomes more than $50,000 favor such unions. Support is lower, just over six in 10, among non-whites and those with lower incomes.
 
Which direction is forward though? I've always considered clockwise to be backwards. But then again if north is south and south is north things are all different.


Sorry I've had one or two.
 
more:

TPM Interview: Why Kentucky's Attorney General Refuses To Defend His State's Anti-Gay Law

SAHIL KAPUR – MARCH 5, 2014, 6:00 AM EST17040
Kentucky's chief lawyer Jack Conway went against his governor and arguably the will of his constituents when he tearfully announced on Tuesday he wouldn't defend a Kentucky law banning recognition of out-of-state gay marriages.

"I felt like I would be defending discrimination," the Democratic attorney general told TPM in an interview on Tuesday. "And for me that's a line in the sand. I couldn't do it."

It was a rare and extraordinary move that split the administration of Gov. Steve Beshear (D), who revealed that he would appeal a federal judge's ruling against the statute after his top lawyer refused to do so.

"I've known for the last couple of days that's where he was headed. I respect Steve Beshear. I had a duty to defend the law ... and I read the [judge's] decision, I agreed with it, and I informed my client I agreed with it," Conway said, citing attorney-client privilege in refusing to divulge the details of their conversations.

Conway, who opposed same-sex marriage during his failed run for the U.S. Senate in 2010, wouldn't pinpoint when he changed his mind to support full marriage equality. He said he came around "over the last few years" after conversations with friends in the gay community, and after thinking about how his two daughters would come to view his decision.

"I thought long and hard. I thought about the arc of history," he said. "I thought about the fact that at one time in this country we discriminated against women. At one time we discriminated against African-Americans and people of color. At one time we discriminated against those with disabilities. This is the last minority group in this country that a significant portion of our population thinks it's OK to still discriminate against in any way. And I didn't think that was right."

His conversion coincides with that of millions of Americans, who in recent years have shifted rapidly toward support for gay marriage. Marriage equality polls at over 50 percent nationally, but notably, not in the Bluegrass State: 55 percent of Kentucky voters oppose gay marriage, while 35 percent support it, according to a poll last month. The Supreme Court struck down that prohibits federal recognition of gay marriage, and a flood of lower court decisions suggests the court may soon end up deciding whether gay marriage is a constitutional right.

"To discriminate and not allow two people to marry does not have a rational basis under the law, and therefore it cannot withstand scrutiny under the equal protection [clause of the 14th Amendment]," Conway said, arguing that laws against gay marriage are unconstitutional.

Barring a sudden and swift change in statewide public opinion, the decision poses potential dangers for the attorney general, who has served in the role since 2008, and told TPM he intends to run for governor in 2015 once Beshear maxes out his two terms.

"My wife Elizabeth knew what I wanted to do in my heart," he said. "And at one point she pulled me aside and said 'Jack, you stink when you're not authentic.' And at that point I knew it might cost me politically but I needed to ... make a decision I could be proud of."

Conway shed light on his thought process in recent days that led to his move.

"I'd made my decision internally Friday of last week. And over the weekend I wrote the statement myself. And I didn't anticipate getting emotional at the end," he said. "But I've sort of been in the middle of a maelstrom here for the last little bit -- I've been under siege from both sides. And I thought about all the people who'd privately written my notes and talked to me. ... I got to a point where I realized that if I took it any further I'd be defending discrimination, and that I couldn't do."
 
Which direction is forward though? I've always considered clockwise to be backwards. But then again if north is south and south is north things are all different.


Sorry I've had one or two.


fwiw, this is the quote:

“We won't die secret deaths anymore. The world only spins forward. We will be citizens. The time has come. Bye now. You are fabulous creatures, each and every one. And I bless you: More Life. The Great Work Begins.”


― Tony Kushner, Angels in America
 
It sounds pretty good the way things are rolling, about time the US joins the 21nd century. :D


“I just don’t believe in the marriage thing; the Bible says that isn’t right," said Musser, who opposed the Arizona legislation on the religious rights of businesses.

:lol: Yeah, uh, about that shellfish and divorce and stuff the bible says isn't right....
 
You would think that breaking that sacred vow made to God and your spouse would be a bigger deal than other people wanting to make that vow to their significant other.
 
Makes me curious, did a similar thing happen way back when divorce was made legal(don't have a clue when that was?)? Cause you'd kinda expect it, seeing how they oppose gay marriage so much, it'd be odd if they didn't oppose all the other things listed in the bible, right?

edited to add: Ha, just saw this on 9gag. Pretty much what I just thought of.
aBKX4jQ_460s.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom