Are gay rights, including gay marriage, evolving?

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

10/15/2008 02:46:25 PM · #201

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

OTOH, I do recognize that the tradition of "marriage" is rooted in religion and not government.

You've said this several times, and I will concede for the sake of argument but may not necessarily agree. However, many things have roots in religion, and are now secular: law-making and agriculture have demonstrable roots in religion. But priests have no part in the legislative process, and shamans no longer pray over the harvest. Things change as unreasonable positions are abandoned in the face of society's advance.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

If the populace decides that they don't want to call it marriage, so be it. If they do, so be it. Both are likely to cause harm to some small group of people and while I see that as unfortunate, I think it inevitable.

Religionists are not barred from practicing, and they are free to discriminate in their hearts as much as they like. However, they are not free to curtail the rights of even the lowliest minority under the guise of "religious freedom". That kind of thinking belongs to Kafka, not to civil discourse, and it certainly doesn't deserve to be enshrined in the constitution of a country that pretends to make all human beings in every sphere of life equal under the eyes of the law.

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

10/15/2008 02:46:42 PM · #202

Originally posted by eqsite:

Yeah, I went back and reread that as well. Shocking.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Stop it with the "shocking". The harm done to gays by not calling a union "marriage" when in all other ways it is equivalent under the law (ie. domestic partnership in california or Canada) may be equal to the harm done to a very small % of the devoutly religious as they raise their children. I would find either harm to be hard to characterize.

I agree with the verbiage being crap.

However, I'd like to really work on this definition of harm thing.

I really feel that the difference between the legal ramifications as they apply to rights, and the offendd moral sensibilities is an apples and oranges argument.

I'm not sure how teaching your kids your version of right and wrong has anything to do with the legal aspect of it.

My kid got hit on a school bus by a boy three or four years older than her and called a lesbian like it was a dirty word because she SUPPORTS the marriage amendment.

Now........regardless of the politics, my daughter's rights to NOT be physically assaulted were violated BIG TIME, and guess what.....she's not gay, but this pinhead boy isn't even smart enough to know the difference between a political stance and sexdual orientation.

Moreover, WTF is he doing assaulting someone anyway for either her beliefs OR sexual orientation??????

Where do you think that behavior came from??????

He was TAUGHT that! Hate and intolerance! Fear and ignorance!

This stupid shit is what goes on in the real world and you want to tap dance about people's right to adhere to this kind of behavior and downplay a serious issue for couples trying to get basic rights????

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

10/15/2008 02:48:15 PM · #203

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by eqsite:
Yeah, I went back and reread that as well. Shocking.

Stop it with the "shocking". The harm done to gays by not calling a union "marriage" when in all other ways it is equivalent under the law (ie. domestic partnership in california or Canada)....

Gay marriage is fully legal in Canada. Same-sex partners can marry and be called married, and enjoy the rights and benefits of all other married couples. It just so happens that the government calls 2 folks living together for 2 years "common-law" for the purpose of taxation.

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

10/15/2008 02:48:31 PM · #204

Originally posted by posthumous:

Okay, so both of us could be made happy. The problem is that politicians on both sides use the confusion about the term "marriage" to hide their real agendas.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Friggin politicians...

Yeah.......why the hell do we leave politics to them????? LOL!!!

Spork99

Canon EOS M6 Mk II

Canon EF-M 22mm f/2.0 STM Lens

10/15/2008 02:48:42 PM · #205

Another story

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

10/15/2008 02:50:27 PM · #206

Originally posted by eqsite:

I know we're ganging up on you -- sorry about that.

Good grief, he's an adult. Stop apologizing for holding your position. :-P

eqsite

Nikon D7100

10/15/2008 02:52:01 PM · #207

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by eqsite:
I know we're ganging up on you -- sorry about that.

Good grief, he's an adult. Stop apologizing for holding your position. :-P

:-P duly noted, but I think it's only fair to allow the guy a chance to breathe and collect his thoughts. How else is he going to realize how wrong he is (I raise you a :-P).

Canon EF-M 22mm f/2.0 STM Lens

10/15/2008 02:53:00 PM · #208

Originally posted by eqsite:

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by eqsite:
I know we're ganging up on you -- sorry about that.

Good grief, he's an adult. Stop apologizing for holding your position. :-P

:-P duly noted, but I think it's only fair to allow the guy a chance to breathe and collect his thoughts. How else is he going to realize how wrong he is (I raise you a :-P).

:-P :-P It's more fun circling though :-P :-P :-P

:-P

Spork99

Canon EOS M6 Mk II

10/15/2008 02:54:41 PM · #209

You could use the good Doctor's argument about the harm being done to those whose faith condemns gay marriage to pretty much any behavior. The Amish don't believe in using electricity, cars or other modern conveniences. Does that mean we should shut down the power plants and go back to driving buggys?

10/15/2008 02:55:46 PM · #210

Anyway, apparently he doesn't hold the opinion that anyone should be actively discriminated against on the basis of their sexuality which was my one question. And I also think abandoning the religio-defined term "marriage" to the non-secular institutions, thus leaving only "civil unions" (you can only be married according to the state if a civil servant has unionized (?) you) is the way to go.

Nullix

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

10/15/2008 03:51:01 PM · #211

There are some religions that see being gay as a disorder called Same Sex Attraction that is curable.

Should such a disorder be propagated, especially by the government?

posthumous

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

10/15/2008 03:54:40 PM · #212

Originally posted by Nullix:

There are some religions that see being gay as a disorder called Same Sex Attraction that is curable.

Should such a disorder be propagated, especially by the government?

There are some religions that believe in 12 foot tall men with wings. Does that mean that federal buildings should make their doors and windows bigger?

citymars

Nikon D700

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

10/15/2008 04:09:22 PM · #213

Originally posted by Nullix:

There are some religions that see being gay as a disorder called Same Sex Attraction that is curable.
Should such a disorder be propagated, especially by the government?

Why should the government care if a religion sees homosexuality as a disorder? I think your post would make more sense if written: "There are some religions that see being gay as a disorder called Same Sex Attraction that is curable. Should such a view be propagated, especially by the government?"

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

10/15/2008 04:16:14 PM · #214

Originally posted by Nullix:

There are some religions that see being gay as a disorder called Same Sex Attraction that is curable.

Should such a disorder be propagated, especially by the government?

You are claiming that religious viewpoints are identical to the diagnosis of clinical mental problems. Ha. (Can only muster one of the three "has" for this exhausting proposition.)

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

10/15/2008 04:49:55 PM · #215

You guys seem to be having lots of fun without me. :) Carry on.

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

10/15/2008 04:56:23 PM · #216

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by Nullix:
There are some religions that see being gay as a disorder called Same Sex Attraction that is curable.

Should such a disorder be propagated, especially by the government?

You are claiming that religious viewpoints are identical to the diagnosis of clinical mental problems. Ha. (Can only muster one of the three "has" for this exhausting proposition.)

That makes sense if you're inflicted with the religion disorder. :P

scalvert

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

10/15/2008 04:57:07 PM · #217

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

The term "marriage" is what seems to have everybody up in arms. What harm is done by not calling it marriage? Seriously? If domestic partners were viewed equally under the law, then what harm would there be?

Oooh... and let's call "holidays" something else like "civil absence days" in case some holidays don't agree with a particular religious concept. The common term describing a lifelong partnership of two people is marriage. The word likely pre-dates ANY modern religion (and was originally a civil service anyway), so if no harm is done why not let churches call their ceremonies something else? If they have a problem with that, then they should certainly understand why others would.

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

10/15/2008 05:02:04 PM · #218

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The term "marriage" is what seems to have everybody up in arms. What harm is done by not calling it marriage? Seriously? If domestic partners were viewed equally under the law, then what harm would there be?

Oooh... and let's call "holidays" something else like "civil absence days" in case some holidays don't agree with a particular religious concept. The common term describing a lifelong partnership of two people is marriage. The word likely pre-dates ANY modern religion (and was originally a civil service anyway), so if no harm is done why not let churches call their ceremonies something else? If they have a problem with that, then they should certainly understand why others would.

I don't think government should be in the business of marriage period but as long as it does I think you have keep things consistent (i.e. marriage and not domestic partners or civil unions). Reason being we tried that separate but equal thing a while back and that didn't turn out so great.

citymars

Nikon D700

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

10/15/2008 05:05:41 PM · #219

Originally posted by Louis:

... And I also think abandoning the religio-defined term "marriage" to the non-secular institutions, thus leaving only "civil unions" ... is the way to go.

Hmmm, I get your point, but I suspect that could somehow lead to further social divisiveness. And then would we also need new terms for husband and wife? It could be quite a nightmare!

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

10/15/2008 05:11:11 PM · #220

Originally posted by citymars:

Originally posted by Louis:
... And I also think abandoning the religio-defined term "marriage" to the non-secular institutions, thus leaving only "civil unions" ... is the way to go.

Hmmm, I get your point, but I suspect that could somehow lead to further social divisiveness. And then would we also need new terms for husband and wife? It could be quite a nightmare!

Hence why the best solution is for government to divorce itself from it altogether. I've never understood why people in general are so comfortable about government infringing in this aspect of our lives. It is one less tentacle government should have.

Message edited by author 2008-10-15 17:11:58.

Nullix

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

10/15/2008 05:13:40 PM · #221

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by Nullix:
There are some religions that see being gay as a disorder called Same Sex Attraction

You are claiming that religious viewpoints are identical to the diagnosis of clinical mental problems.

Well, until 1973, The American Psychiatric Association (APA) classified homosexual behavior as a disorder. The APA had to change their diagnosis after pressures from the gay activists. This happened while 68% of psychiatrists in the USA, "considered homosexuality to be the result of psychological maladaption."

However, it's not just religious viewpoint when most psychiatrists agree it's a disorder. There's just a political move by gay rights activists to push this disorder as being an acceptable behavior.

scalvert

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

10/15/2008 05:13:44 PM · #222

Originally posted by yanko:

I don't think government should be in the business of marriage period but as long as it does I think you have keep things consistent (i.e. marriage and not domestic partners or civil unions)...

Government has to be involved in marriage since many of the associated benefits/differences (taxes, estate, health, etc.) are government-related. The church only became involved to keep records for the government and later co-opted the whole enchilada as their own.

JMart

Nikon D80

Tamron SP AF 90mm f/2.8 Di for Nikon

10/15/2008 05:17:41 PM · #223

Originally posted by scalvert:

LOL! Great point as the term holiday was originally a religious observance of a "holy day" and has now taken on secular meaning (just to point out the obvious).

If the term marriage is the problem for religious people then they should take that up with the state rather than taking it out on gay couples. The trouble is that it's not really the problem. Arguing that it's about the word marriage is just a red herring used by religious zealots to mask their bigotry. Otherwise they should also be defending their special religious terms from use by people like me who are not religious.

10/15/2008 05:18:57 PM · #224

Originally posted by Nullix:

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by Nullix:
There are some religions that see being gay as a disorder called Same Sex Attraction

You are claiming that religious viewpoints are identical to the diagnosis of clinical mental problems.

Well, until 1973, The American Psychiatric Association (APA) classified homosexual behavior as a disorder. The APA had to change their diagnosis after pressures from the gay activists. This happened while 68% of psychiatrists in the USA, "considered homosexuality to be the result of psychological maladaption."

However, it's not just religious viewpoint when most psychiatrists agree it's a disorder. There's just a political move by gay rights activists to push this disorder as being an acceptable behavior.

How supremely insulting. Do you seriously think that clinical diagnoses are determined by pressure groups?

Do you appreciate how your attitude -- religiously rooted, not clinically arrived at -- is injurious to people? People who have done nothing to you, have done you no wrong, could care less about how you practice your faith? Do you realize that your attitude and your exposition of it in places like this is discordant and hurtful?