The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[Azuremen]

People who say marriage has nothing to do with religion is like saying America isn't a Christian country.

Of all the dried up arguments to use, you pick this? Really?

I'll go grab your coat for you.

 

[Danny]

Just had this via email because some Jean Graham woman from Alaska has signed my email address up to the 'Alaska Family' Newsletter, no matter now many times I 'unsubscribe'. But I digress.

So much wrong with this, I don't even...

Great Alaska Council delegates to vote:
Will active homosexuals be embraced
by Boy Scouts of America?

This Saturday, April 13th, from 2-5 pm, the Boy Scouts of America Great Alaska Council will hold a Town Hall meeting at Community Covenant Church in Eagle River, specifically for MEMBERS OF THE SCOUTING FAMILY here in Alaska. While the gathering will cover several topics, this meeting is the principle format for Scouting families to convey their concerns in person to the three voting delegates to the BSA National Meeting, where this issue is scheduled to be decided next month.

Alaska Family Action is forwarding this information because many concerned families are not aware of this important meeting. As the crowd is expected to be large, please click here to register if you are planning to attend to help them prepare.

For decades, this honorable group has kept the interest of the boys it serves as the focus of all its actions. No matter what, the Boy Scouts of America could be counted upon to do the right thing and not yield to any social pressure, and has thus far stood strong.

We firmly believe that the Boy Scouts should not jeopardize the safety and moral integrity of Scouting in the interest of social activism. The proposal to relegate the decision on homosexual leaders to local chartered organizations sends the wrong signal from the national body: that political correctness ultimately triumphs over character.

Click HERE to view an ad Alaska Family Action helped sponsor earlier this year in USA Today along with Family Research Council and other family policy councils. Click HERE for excellent resources on this issue provided by Family Research Council.

Present BSA policy, upheld by the US Supreme Court, excludes avowed homosexuals because this behavior is not consistent with a key part of the Scout Oath: “Morally Straight.” Nevertheless, Scouting is under tremendous pressure from the homosexual lobby, including corporations, to abandon their long-standing policy. If BSA caves, many chartering organizations will drop the program, making this venerable part of our national heritage unavailable to millions of boys.

If you are a registered Scout leader, or the parents of a registered Scout, please take the time to attend this meeting and express your concern. Again, the Council has asked that you pre-register by clicking on this link.

If you are not a part of Scouting, but wish to comment, rather than attend the meeting, please provide feedback to BSA using this link.

One of the most thoughtful statements I've read about this sad episode was the following comment regarding a First Things article recently that went as follows -

" Sexual tension and/or attraction had no place in the former culture of the Boy Scouts. But then children (as we then called them) were allowed a period of stasis which provided them with the time necessary to integrate their sexuality – time to achieve at least the beginnings of mature personhood before being labels as a “this” or a “that” rather than simply a growing boy.

I am certain that a certain number of Boy Scouts have in the past and at this time struggled with questions surrounding sexuality.

But, until now there was no need to announce a particular policy on this question of sexuality. No child who was struggling inwardly with sexual desires was excluded (surely the Boy Scouts were not capable of mind reading) unless he himself or certain interested parties chose to make the matter an issue – in other words, decided to force a confrontation.

Since the organization has nothing whatsoever to do with sexual activity and since all of the members are of the same sex, the reasons for this initiative seem politically motivated."

As this outstanding resource from FRC states," Affirming homosexuality in Scouting would be a violation of the Scouts' own moral code and would jeopardize the well-being of vulnerable young men. It would introduce issues of explicit sexuality into the lives of boys who join Scouts to learn to camp, hike, and become responsible and respectable citizens. The homosexual lobby is free to start their own organization based upon their own values. Is it fair for them to force scouts and parents to surrender their values?"

Show up Saturday and make sure your answer to that question is heard.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Forgot about that.. What if I live with multiple people?

Then let me shake your hand..

Ding ding ding ding we have a winner

Also worth mentioning, homosexuals are not subject to common law marriage yet

Gay couples are subject to the same common law marriage rules as any other couple in the province of Ontario. Same rules for divorce, support/alimony etc. We are way ahead of the curve here. Stuff you guys are arguing about in the States we passed into law with a yawn a decade ago

 

[TheDrummingKING]

Gay couples are subject to the same common law marriage rules as any other couple in the province of Ontario. Same rules for divorce, support/alimony etc. We are way ahead of the curve here. Stuff you guys are arguing about in the States we passed into law with a yawn a decade ago

So do you have to be gay for common law marriage to apply to you and your buddy if you're living together, or does it happen even if you're both straight? If it's the former, I'll just live with a "lesbian" () to avoid common law marriage.

 

[Johnnypenso]

So do you have to be gay for common law marriage to apply to you and your buddy if you're living together, or does it happen even if you're both straight? If it's the former, I'll just live with a "lesbian" () to avoid common law marriage.

I believe the definition is something like, "living together as a married couple". So unless you and your buddy are bumpin' uglies and splitting the bills, you're in the clear...lol. Living with the lesbian could be more interesting...💡

 

[watermelon punch]

Gay couples are subject to the same common law marriage rules as any other couple in the province of Ontario. Same rules for divorce, support/alimony etc. We are way ahead of the curve here. Stuff you guys are arguing about in the States we passed into law with a yawn a decade ago

I didn't actually know that about Ontario. One would assume that if there were any potential problems, Ontario would've discovered them by now. ?
I think of this because the other day my husband found a Youtube video that was sort of making fun of straight couples fears about gay marriage. I would link to it but I don't know how to find it, but it's probably pretty popular if my husband saw it. Anyway, I could never figure out how if gay couples could marry, how it would detriment straight couples. My husband said that's because the only "detriment" is that "it creeps some people out".

Well, a lot of American reality television shows creep me out! I mean REALLY creep me out.
But I don't have to watch them, and I guess I don't think they should be outlawed.
I think of the entire premise of "Bridalplasty" ... gay or straight, you'd think that religious people would be more concerned about intervening with those people.

And after all, I've seen plenty of straight couples who probably shouldn't be together. I think back to some neighbors I had many years ago.
Rather than banning gay marriage, I would suggest to these people a system of law where people can petition the courts to impose mandatory divorce on their neighbors, family, & friends, whose bad marriages cause a community nuisance.

I'm just kidding about that of course. But it just really demonstrates how I have a hard time grasping where either materially, or morally, the logic or consistency is in any of this, when people argue about it.

 

[Joel]

I didn't actually know that about Ontario. One would assume that if there were any potential problems, Ontario would've discovered them by now. ?

As Johnny and I (and the other Canadians on GTP) have said in this thread, it's almost adorable (you know, if it weren't for the part where there are millions of people being discriminated against) watching people in the US try to argue it wrecks the moral fabric of a country and that it devalues marriage. You'd think that with all the people that try to argue that the US should adopt our health care system that someone would point to Canada on a map and say that in the 10 years since it's been legal there have been no polygamist, dog, or sex toy marriages.

It's been legal here for 8-10 years depending on the province, and it really just isn't something that's talked about much any more. Gay marriage was legalized, and gay people got married. It'll eventually happen in the US, and that's the way it'll be. I just becomes part of life and it's at the point now here where it's no more "out of place" as seeing a mixed race couple. Asking average Canadians (at least younger ones) what they think about gay marriage is like asking someone what they think of mixed race couples, people would be shocked that there's even a question.

 

[arora]

What is the rate? Did many do it at first and now it has dwindled as the buzz wares off? I'm sure that will happen here, in fact I bet the numbers in the states that have tried to legalize it have dropped already.

I know somewhere we have a 'gay marriage' thread but I guess it's just come into this one. I'm pretty sure I stated this in that thread but I'll say it again. If you wish to fight to be crapped on by the gov then more power to ya 👍

 

[Joel]

There was a bit of a rush the first few months it was legal but after that things have normalized. The rates of gay marriage have been steadily climbing now, mostly because of the changing public opinion towards it. When it was first legalized it was less accepted than it is now, but after 10 years it's basically a ho-hum who cares thing and there's far less pressure (at least in the bigger cities). About 33% of gay couples are married, the other 66% are common law.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/09/19/canada-marriage-census-2011_n_1896155.html

 

[watermelon punch]

You'd think that with all the people that try to argue that the US should adopt our health care system that someone would point to Canada on a map and say that in the 10 years since it's been legal there have been no polygamist, dog, or sex toy marriages.

Well I'm constantly confused about why a lot of my fellow Americans seem reluctant to ever learn from other nations' successes & failures.
It seems on MOST topics, Americans ignore what's working elsewhere, and just discard the evidence.
This isn't just about gay marriage... it's about anything.
We're willing to do what failed in another country, and reluctant to try what's worked out well in another country.
It's very bizarre.

 

[FoolKiller]

Well I'm constantly confused about why a lot of my fellow Americans seem reluctant to ever learn from other nations' successes & failures.
It seems on MOST topics, Americans ignore what's working elsewhere, and just discard the evidence.
This isn't just about gay marriage... it's about anything.
We're willing to do what failed in another country, and reluctant to try what's worked out well in another country.
It's very bizarre.

Success is measured very differently by different people. Christians don't see success in public acceptance of an act they see as immoral.

And other things that work in other countries come at cost that the more independent nature of Americans won't accept. Are you willing to pay almost $10 a gallon for gas or twice your income and sales tax rates? And then how you define working is not the same for everyone. America started out different than most other countries and has been different ever since. Some times that has worked out better and other times not.

 

[watermelon punch]

Success is measured very differently by different people. Christians don't see success in public acceptance of an act they see as immoral.

The problem here is that they don't leave it at, "This is immoral".
It would be one thing if they did... But they don't.

They introduce arguments that try to prove it would be problematic for others in other ways... other than just offending someone's personal religious beliefs.

Like that this will cause legal problems for other people... or that it will cause this or that issue in society... or that it will lead to a slippery slope of other things that "everybody" will find "offensive".

All these arguments have very little to do with just a single religious moral opposition. Yet those are the arguments that are presented & pushed.
If they left it at "I oppose this morally according to my religion" - I could understand it. But they don't.

And other things that work in other countries come at cost that the more independent nature of Americans won't accept. Are you willing to pay almost $10 a gallon for gas or twice your income and sales tax rates? And then how you define working is not the same for everyone. America started out different than most other countries and has been different ever since. Some times that has worked out better and other times not.

I think a lot of Americans would be willing to pay a lot more toward a lot of things, if they saw the benefits of how it translated to them paying a lot less for other things, and getting a lot more out of a wide variety of aspects.

But your tax argument is OFF TOPIC to the topic of gay marriage.
Which just goes to show that apparently these things, for Americans, are all wrapped up in political ideologies rather than people's personal individual views about things.

People don't think for themselves anymore in America. They follow a party line. If they think one thing about taxes, they MUST feel a particular way about gays.
I think it's not like this in Canada or European countries so much.
People can oppose the death penalty, while also opposing gay marriage.
People can accept homosexuality as okay, while campaigning for free market economic policies.
NOT so for most Americans.
In other countries these things are not linked this way.

But moreover I think Americans' independent nature is a crock of baloney. I think Americans are just like humans everywhere... needing and liking community & social cohesion, and benefiting from civilization that works on a large scale.
I think the idea of the lone bearded man living off the land in the mountains is a tragic fantasy which never existed at any scale, and never was all that beneficial to advancement of a civilization.
Moreso, I think a lot of those mountain men were probably gay.
After all why did they live in the mountains only seeing other men??

 

[FoolKiller]

The problem here is that they don't leave it at, "This is immoral".
It would be one thing if they did... But they don't.

They introduce arguments that try to prove it would be problematic for others in other ways... other than just offending someone's personal religious beliefs.

Like that this will cause legal problems for other people... or that it will cause this or that issue in society... or that it will lead to a slippery slope of other things that "everybody" will find "offensive".

All these arguments have very little to do with just a single religious moral opposition. Yet those are the arguments that are presented & pushed.
If they left it at "I oppose this morally according to my religion" - I could understand it. But they don't.

At which point did I try to defend how Christians argue their point? I merely pointed out that success is a relative term and gave a single example relevant to the topic. Read through the thread and you will see I agree with you on this. But why they argue at all is where their definition of successful comes in.

And I suggest you look at any political debate in the US. Hyperbole and unrelated straw men are the trend.

I think a lot of Americans would be willing to pay a lot more toward a lot of things, if they saw the benefits of how it translated to them paying a lot less for other things, and getting a lot more out of a wide variety of aspects.

I'm willing to pay a lot more...for my benefit. And I do, which is why I like lower tax rates, so I can choose how and when to spend more.

But your tax argument is OFF TOPIC to the topic of gay marriage.

You'll have to excuse me. I was apparently confused by this part of your post.

It seems on MOST topics, Americans ignore what's working elsewhere, and just discard the evidence.
This isn't just about gay marriage... it's about anything.

I'm sure how you can see how addressing MOST topics seemed a relevant response.

Which just goes to show that apparently these things, for Americans, are all wrapped up in political ideologies rather than people's personal individual views about things.

People don't think for themselves anymore in America. They follow a party line. If they think one thing about taxes, they MUST feel a particular way about gays.

I haven't been a registered Demoplican or Republicrat in years.

I think it's not like this in Canada or European countries so much.
People can oppose the death penalty, while also opposing gay marriage.
People can accept homosexuality as okay, while campaigning for free market economic policies.
NOT so for most Americans.
In other countries these things are not linked this way.

Really? It is more that most countries have more then two parties. Our media has ruined us, taking one extreme or the other.

But moreover I think Americans' independent nature is a crock of baloney. I think Americans are just like humans everywhere... needing and liking community & social cohesion, and benefiting from civilization that works on a large scale.

I hate people, am very anti-social, think most political parties are full of crap, and feel that social media requires too much social interaction. What does that make me?

By the way, do you find any irony in complaining about people adhering to party mindsets and then saying people need community and social cohesion? I wonder why people will just go along with a party ideal...

I think the idea of the lone bearded man living off the land in the mountains is a tragic fantasy which never existed at any scale, and never was all that beneficial to advancement of a civilization.
Moreso, I think a lot of those mountain men were probably gay.
After all why did they live in the mountains only seeing other men??

You are right, the lone mountain man never existed. They took their families with them, which of course means your gay joke is completely wrong.

Since you mention mountain folk and social cohesion, I invite you to visit Kentucky or Tennessee, where you can see the one room cabins entire families lived in. Then go back to your home full of walls.

 

[watermelon punch]

@ FoolKiller
I wasn't specifically making comments about you.
I was using your comments as a jumping off point.
Sorry that it came off as a pointed argument directed personally at you, as I see now that it obviously unavoidably did.
That was not my intention.

As for the mountain men... I was referring to the fantasy people have of Grizzly Adams. And a joke is never wrong, because a joke by its very nature is exaggerating reality for comedic value. Quite obviously it wasn't meant seriously.

Also, my grandmother grew up in a 2 room rented house (owned by the coal mining company her father & brother worked for)... with her parents, 1 brother & 4 sisters. (Actually 5 sisters, but one died at the age of 4.)
But - they also lived in a community. That was my point.

Nobody really exists as completely independent from the rest of their society.
We are all interdependent & rely on community and/or infrastructure in some way in our modern society.

 

[Johnnypenso]

As I see it, just about every issue of any significance in the States is politicized, painted as black and white, right and wrong etc. When you treat everything that way, it's hard to find common ground or get anything done. When you throw the Bible into the mix as the gay marriage debate does, you introduce an element into the debate that leaves no leeway for discussion, no chance of give and take. Logic never enters the debate, it's all opinion,hyperbole, labelling etc.

We're certainly not perfect here, we have plenty of issues of our own, but one thing that works in our favour I believe, is that we aren't defined by our political beliefs. I'm a staunch conservative, you'd have to poke wooden sticks into my eyes before I'd even consider voting Liberal or NDP (Commie/Socialists), and although the Conservatives made some fuss about the gay marriage issue when it was introduced by the Federal Liberals a decade ago, all the conservatives I knew, basically said, "Yeah, I don't like it, two guys making out gives me the willies, I wish I didn't have to deal with it, but it doesn't harm me so I dont' really care"

 

[watermelon punch]

@ johnnypenso... By American standards YOU would be considered the "commie socialist" here.
By American standards, it doesn't matter what you think about anything... if you thought any of the social laws in Canada are "okay" in any way - you're "a commie:.
Because American conservatives view Canadian policies with disgust for some reason.
It's basically taboo to even mention Canadian laws... Or heaven forbid any Scandanavian policies, in a political discussion.
And in Denmark, Obama would be considered "conservative".

So there's definitely no way to associate conservatives or liberals across nations.

That's why I call foul on any after-the-fact kluged explanations for why the issue of gay marriage is related to economic views of Americans, or anything else.

I've noticed that a lot of gay conservatives wind up supporting gay marriage banning.
Why would this make sense???
Only if they have political reasons.

One time when I was on jury duty about 15 years ago... and you know you spend a lot of time waiting around... I spent several hours talking to a Lutheran minister, about a variety of topics.
He said that among many Lutherans, there was discussions a lot that gay marriage should be accepted simply because promiscuity is immoral, and it would promote gays being monogamous, so why not go that route?

But I saw a guy on Youtube recently who was gay and denouncing gay marriage. He said something like "I'm gay and I oppose gay marriage."
I thought... well geez, isn't that basically like he's saying, "I'm gay and I'm a big whore & promiscuity is okay with me". ???
How is that conservative?

It's all very confusing.

But yeah, I mean I'm environmentally liberal. I care about clean water, clean air, and wildlife.
But I do not oppose nuclear power. I do not oppose genetically modified crops. I do not oppose vaccinations. And I do not oppose hunting.
I do not oppose these things because I'm a realist... and I think these issues are not problems worth arguing about or spending any time on.
Yet I think if you say you're concerned about the environment... people assume you oppose those things.

So it's like this on both sides.

I have known lots of Catholics who said they are not allowed to eat red meats on Fridays during the Lent season period.
My doctor is an Orthodox Jew... He has non Jewish colleagues care for patients on Saturdays while he observes his religious laws & duties, because he can't use phones or turn on light switches etc.
I had Hindu neighbors a few years ago who rang a bell to pray every morning on the back porch, and smashed coconuts on the sidewalk.
What if these people tried to tell others not to eat red meat on Fridays, not to use phones on Saturdays, or told other people they needed to ring bells & go out & smash coconuts?
It would be madness.

If your religion bans gay relationships or gay marriage... simple, do not have a gay marriage!

I just will never understand people who believe it's imperative for everyone to subscribe to the same arbitrary preferences, when the differences are not interfering with anyone else.

 

[DK]

It looks like Ireland is on its way to legalising same-sex/gay marriage/marriage equality. 👍 http://www.thejournal.ie/same-sex-constitutional-convention-vote-yes-869290-Apr2013/

 

[Liquid]

For a country as stoically entrenched in religion as the Irish Republic, that would be a magnificent step forward.

 

[Daniel]

NZ's Parliament is in the middle of the final bill reading for Marriage Equality. Live stream here.

 

[JohneyPixel]

was my post deleted? nice one

 

[nobuffalo]

NZ's Parliament is in the middle of the final bill reading for Marriage Equality. Live stream here.

I just tuned it to the end of a song then cheering and some seemingly teary eyed people, I take it it passed!

 

[Daniel]

Yup!

 

[Jared93]

Well, It's good to know that around 80% of us on here are normal, rational people. As for the others...eesh.

 

[Famine]

was my post deleted? nice one

Did your post contain a creatively typed expletive that I didn't give you an Infraction for but now you've kicked up a fuss?

Nice one.

 

[Joel]

Glad to hear about NZ. Seems like we're hitting a bit of a tipping point in the Western world and it won't be much longer for most other countries.

 

[FoolKiller]

I've noticed that a lot of gay conservatives wind up supporting gay marriage banning.
Why would this make sense???
Only if they have political reasons.

One time when I was on jury duty about 15 years ago... and you know you spend a lot of time waiting around... I spent several hours talking to a Lutheran minister, about a variety of topics.
He said that among many Lutherans, there was discussions a lot that gay marriage should be accepted simply because promiscuity is immoral, and it would promote gays being monogamous, so why not go that route?

But I saw a guy on Youtube recently who was gay and denouncing gay marriage. He said something like "I'm gay and I oppose gay marriage."
I thought... well geez, isn't that basically like he's saying, "I'm gay and I'm a big whore & promiscuity is okay with me". ???
How is that conservative?

I know straight conservatives opposed to straight marriage. My dad is one. And promiscuity has little to do with it for him. He has had a live-in girlfriend for nearly 10 years now. But he does not want to commit to something that he can't just walk away from if he ever feels he needs to.

Oh, and:


Someone being gay and being opposed to gay marriage may have very little to do with politics. It may also have little to do with promiscuity. You have gone from complaining about people picking a party to assuming people are part of a party based on one issue. Now you are labeling people based on prejudice.

Just to blow your mind, I know many Democrats that won't vote Obama because he's black. But they will admit that they think he's a pretty good president, "for a black man.". Welcome to Kentucky.

It's all very confusing.

Own your own opinion and just worry about the relevant points. Don't worry about the opposed view's opinions on other topics or party affiliation. You keep it simple and there's less confusion.

 

[counter345]

Same-sex marriage: French parliament approves new law

The bill, which also legalises adoption by same-sex couples, was passed by 321 votes to 225 in the French parliament.

The decision follows a divisive public debate with some of the biggest protests seen in France in recent years.

 

[Dotini]

Yes, France has become the 14th nation to approve same-sex marriage. However, I don't think they have approved same-sex adoption - on the grounds that children have a right to both a mother and a father.

Respectfully,
Steve

 

[counter345]

Yes, France has become the 14th nation to approve same-sex marriage. However, I don't think they have approved same-sex adoption - on the grounds that children have a right to both a mother and a father.

Respectfully,
Steve

I don't understand this argument. People say that children have a right to a mother and a father, yet adoption, state caring, uncle or aunt caring, grandpa/grandma caring, single mother/father caring, cousin caring, friend caring or even own caring is acceptable, yet two willing fathers/mothers aren't able to adopt.

It seems illogical to use that argument, unless they were to use it against all of those above, too.

 

[DK]

Actually, France is also approving of same-sex adoption.