The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[Joel]

Not sure when he indicated the desire to force homosexuals to never mention it and only be gay when in their houses. Kind of weird thing to take from saying they can get married.

Fair enough. I just don't think that "don't shove your lifestyle in my face" and comparisons of the rainbow flag vis a vis the confederate flag have the same connotations as a simple personal moral view on homosexuality.

Because they don't have the same freedoms as us when it comes to private property and liberty. Look at the cases for services to gay weddings. It's so ridiculous that if a person wants an adolf hitler cake, they can be refused and most people are fine. But if someone refuses a gay wedding cake then somehow they are horrible people and should be sued out of existence. These things are happening now and need to be addressed. Just because something is legal, doesn't mean I should be forced to do it. Private people should have the liberty to serve those they wish to serve.

No disagreement here from me. Any private person should be allowed to use their private property as they see fit so long as they're not violating the rights of another. And I certainly don't think anyone has the right to the labour of another. If a baker, florist, or a photographer wants to leave money on the table for any reason that's their choice.

 

[Daniel]

 

[Liquid]

I will be honest, even I thought that this was going a bit overboard, especially considering that the White House played almost zero role in the decision.

Humour me with some devil's advocacy.

Is it not better that it happened like that though, that the White House had little to do with it? That sounds more like how things are supposed to work in the United States; another body of government away from the federal executive makes a decision in its day-to-day routine and the White House, the executive, pays attention and thinks "Oh really? Gee, isn't that nice. You've all made a wonderful decision all by yourself without us. As your theoretically nominal overseers allow us to say jolly well done. Same-sex marriage for everyone because we respect equal rights."

I'm not saying it was the perfect way to go about things but I can imagine that if the unconstitutionality of same-sex marriage was made by an Executive Order, there would be outcry in some quarters that even if it was the right thing to do, they shouldn't be the ones doing it. On principle.

Although I can definitely see how colouring the White House in a rainbow pattern seems very much like a bandwagon; as if they haven't been around either maintaining some states' bans or not doing enough to get rid of them. But that leads back to my previous paragraph about how if the White House had ordered these things on their own, they'd be accused of wielding too much power even if it is for the greater good.

 

[FoolKiller]

Humour me with some devil's advocacy.

Is it not better that it happened like that though, that the White House had little to do with it?

I never said they should have been involved, just pointing out that they are celebrating as if they were. They most definitely should not have been involved.

I have expressed displeasure with how this came about in the past, and I still feel this way, but it definitely shouldn't have come about via executive order. That would have been a step in the wrong direction.

I'm not criticizing the White House not being involved in the process, but rather the behavior and bias shown by an office that is supposed to represent everyone in the country.

 

[Danny]

I think this probably belongs on the I bet that's probably not true pile, but regardless.

Survey finds half of 18-24 year olds are not straight


49% of young people not exclusively straight


An estimated quarter of British adults and half of 18-24-year-olds are not completely straight, survey reveals.

On Sunday, YouGov, the respected pollsters released a survey proving that only four per cent of adults actually class themselves as wholly gay, leaving just under a fifth putting themselves somewhere in between the two extremes. Where the original study, invented in the 1940’s, had a range of methods for placing people, this simple method adopted by YouGov simply asked people to place themselves on a sexuality scale which clearly showed their sexual preferences.

The candidates were asked to place themselves on a scale ranging from exclusively heterosexual to exclusively gay. A staggering 72% of adults and 49 per cent of 18 to 24-year-olds chose a position that was anything but completely straight.

It appears that especially in recent years, sexuality has become less set in stone and people are more confident about exploring their sexual preferences and seeing sexuality as non-binary. After surveying 1,632 people, it appeared that 60 per cent of heterosexuals and 73 per cent of homosexuals agreed with the idea that sexuality is measured on a scale.

Similarly, although the survey suggests that almost half of young people are at least a little bit gay, there is still a large number who would identify as heterosexual. However, many of these people put themselves at level 1, allowing for the ‘possibility of homosexual feelings and experiences’ as noted by Will DahlGreen, a data journalist at YouGov.

These figures compare to those aged over 60 where 89% stated they were completely heterosexual or completely homosexual.

The outcome of this recent survey arguably indicates that there is a progressively open minded approach to sexuality today, more common in the younger generations.

Events such as the legalisation of same-sex marriage in America earlier this year saw an outpour of emotion as well as the many Gay Pride marches held all over the world indicate a far less hostile approach to sexuality. They suggest more and people, those of a younger generation in particular, are becoming more comfortable with exploring their sexuality and displaying these emotions.

I know there's space on the Kinsey Scale for all, but that seem disproportionately high to me.

 

[Carbonox]

Title says half of them are not straight, then the article starts by stating 49% of them are not exclusively straight.

Strikes me as clickbait.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Title says half of them are not straight, then the article starts by stating 49% of them are not exclusively straight.

Strikes me as clickbait.

If you're bi then you're not straight. You're bi. The same goes for being exclusively gay, you're not straight. I'd agree that it's clickbait but the wording's correct.

 

[Dennisch]

 

[CodeRedR51]

DENIED sucka.

I love that their response is a single sentence.

http://www.aclu-ky.org/articles/breaking-scotus-denies-rowan-clerks-request-for-stay/

http://www.aclu-ky.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/SCOTUS-ruling-83115.pdf

 

[niky]

What you do in the privacy of your own home or in your personal business is your choice.

What you do in the name of the government... well, that's the government choice. Whether you like it or not.

Good luck finding another job, lady.

 

[huskeR32]

She's still denying licenses today, in direct defiance of SCOTUS ruling.

 

[FoolKiller]

She's still denying licenses today, in direct defiance of SCOTUS ruling.

Now it is just downright ridiculous. She should be facing a criminal charge at this point. The politics are high and it is an election year. No one wants to look bad. The state Attorney General is running for governor and is practically avoiding this at all costs.

Worst case scenario should hopefully be that she is taken care of properly after November.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Now it is just downright ridiculous. She should be facing a criminal charge at this point. The politics are high and it is an election year. No one wants to look like bad. The state Attorney General is running for governor and is practically avoiding this at all costs.

Worst case scenario should hopefully be that she is taken care of properly after November.

Don't you find it sad that she can't just be fired for not performing her job but instead must be turned into a political football and can only be dealt with after an election? Somehow I don't think this is how democracy is supposed to work.

 

[FoolKiller]

Don't you find it sad that she can't just be fired for not performing her job but instead must be turned into a political football and can only be dealt with after an election? Somehow I don't think this is how democracy is supposed to work.

Very sad. It is why Trump has the popularity he has. He appears to just be saying what he wants without playing games.

 

[CodeRedR51]

http://www.pressherald.com/2015/09/01/kentucky-clerk-still-wont-issue-same-sex-marriage-licenses/

She's been summoned to appear in court on Thursday along with her entire staff.

 

[homeforsummer]

I know there's space on the Kinsey Scale for all, but that seem disproportionately high to me.

I'd have said so too, unless there's a sharp cutoff even for people my age. I do know a lot of LGBT people, but I know a heck of a lot more completely straight people - much more so than a 50/50 split would indicate.

It does strike me that youth has a lot to do with it, but perhaps not in the way the survey indicates. Certainly when it comes to people in their teens, many don't even know whether they're happy or sad most days. I expect it's less about exploration than it is about knowing who they are as a person.

Or perhaps I just wasn't seeing it, and I was just in the 51% who were absolutely sure of their sexuality when they were 16-24.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I do know a lot of LGBT people, but I know a heck of a lot more completely straight people....

But do you...?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Don't you find it sad that she can't just be fired for not performing her job but instead must be turned into a political football and can only be dealt with after an election? Somehow I don't think this is how democracy is supposed to work.

She's making the play herself by refusing to do the job yet still taking the money for it.

Democracy does work, that's why she's in prison now.

 

[GTsail]

It will be interesting to see what the other five deputy clerks do, that also work in that same Kentucky office.

The Judge told them that they should begin issuing marriage licenses again, and that they would also face fines and jail-time if they refused to issue marriage licenses.

 

[Leonidae@MFT]

And people like her are the exact reason why the separation between state and church exists. She claimed to hold marriage sacred, yet she had divorced three times AND had children out of wedlock.. Pure old-fashioned bigotry that has no place when one works for state, which means upholding the law of the State.. Which is something she agreed to do when she took the oath.

 

[Swift]

And people like her are the exact reason why the separation between state and church exists. She claimed to hold marriage sacred, yet she had divorced three times AND had children out of wedlock.. Pure old-fashioned bigotry that has no place when one works for state, which means upholding the law of the State.. Which is something she agreed to do when she took the oath.

I would call it blatant hypocrisy over bigotry. But yeah, she is in a crystal house throwing some very large stones.

 

[GTsail]

And people like her are the exact reason why the separation between state and church exists. She claimed to hold marriage sacred, yet she had divorced three times AND had children out of wedlock.. Pure old-fashioned bigotry that has no place when one works for state, which means upholding the law of the State.. Which is something she agreed to do when she took the oath.

Yeah, the Kentucky Clerk needs to perform her duties in accordance with State and Federal laws, and she shouldn't use her own personal religious belief to determine which laws to ignore and which laws to uphold. Ms Davis is welcome to hold whatever religious beliefs she wants, she just needs to keep them from interfering with the execution of her duties as a Governmental official.

What if another Clerk had decided to strictly follow their religious belief that said divorce was a sin, and therefore wouldn't issue marriage licenses to anyone who had a divorce. When Kim Davis went to this Clerk for her second or third marriage license, it wouldn't have been granted, and Ms Davis wouldn't have been able to re-marry.

 

[Swift]

Yeah, the Kentucky Clerk needs to perform her duties in accordance with State and Federal laws, and she shouldn't use her own personal religious belief to determine which laws to ignore and which laws to uphold. Ms Davis is welcome to hold whatever religious beliefs she wants, she just needs to keep them from interfering with the execution of her duties as a Governmental official.

What if another Clerk had decided to strictly follow their religious belief that said divorce was a sin, and therefore wouldn't issue marriage licenses to anyone who had a divorce. When Kim Davis went to this Clerk for her second or third marriage license, it wouldn't have been granted, and Ms Davis wouldn't have been able to re-marry.

Excellent point. Or a Mormon going by the old text and not giving marriage license to blacks?

I'm all about the first amendment. However, when you volunteer for a government job, you can't push your views on some on else because you have to power and a monopoly. That's about as text book definition of discrimination as I've seen.

 

[BobK]

As I understand it, however, she became a born-again Christian after the previous marriages & divorces so she can't really be called a hypocrite.

That being said, though, she deserved the jail time and the Kentucky legislature should definitely begin impeachment proceedings.

 

[Denur]

Democracy does work, that's why she's in prison now.

This whole issue has John Grisham written all over it. 👍

 

[TenEightyOne]

Kentucky Fried Bigot;

 

[Danoff]

She's making the play herself by refusing to do the job yet still taking the money for it.

Democracy does work, that's why she's in prison now.

Well technically he penal system is not really democratic. I mean, you could argue that it spawns from a democratic republic, or that many judges are elected, but their hands are tied when it comes to the law they must enforce. I suppose you could argue that a jury is a form a democracy, but not really - because popular vote or even supermajority isn't the standard for juries. Plus the jury's hands are tied as to what they're supposed to enforce as well. So, I'm just saying... nobody got to vote for her to be jailed.

Anyway, carry on.

 

[Johnnypenso]

As I understand it, however, she became a born-again Christian after the previous marriages & divorces so she can't really be called a hypocrite.

That being said, though, she deserved the jail time and the Kentucky legislature should definitely begin impeachment proceedings.

You really think putting someone in jail for refusing to do their job is an appropriate consequence in this case?

 

[CodeRedR51]

You really think putting someone in jail for refusing to do their job is an appropriate consequence in this case?

When you work for the government and are required by law to do said job, yes.

 

[huskeR32]

You really think putting someone in jail for refusing to do their job is an appropriate consequence in this case?

Yes.

EDIT:

For defying a court order handed down by no less than the SCOTUS, yes.

This ^

I said 'Yes.' originally as if the bits in bold were the entire question.