Marriage Equality and Other MOGAI/Queer Rights

[Fengari]

I felt his thread might be in need of a straight person to come in and give you guys some support, so: no, I'm not gay, and yes, I'm all for gay marriage (and other) rights and I will actively support them.

 

It is too easy to say 'it doesn't affect me, so I don't care either way'. People's rights are important to everyone. If you will not fight for other people's rights, how can you expect them to fight for yours when the time comes you might need that? Though it's a completely different context, that reminds me of this text:

First they came for the Communists,

  and I didn’t speak up,

    because I wasn’t a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews,

  and I didn’t speak up,

    because I wasn’t a Jew.

Then they came for the Catholics,

  and I didn’t speak up,

    because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me,

  and by that time there was no one

    left to speak up for me.

[hazeh]

The country that claims religious freedom was based on the christian religion. People came to get away from religious persecution. I respect other peoples belief i was just stating my opinion. sorry if i offended anyone.

Not really. And even if it was, that argument holds absolutely no ground these days. So...no.

[skinst]

not exactly but it might! not hating on lesbians or gays you feel the way you do. thats fine.

...Okay, I highly reccomend you do some research on gender identities. I'm getting the impression that you really don't have a great understanding of how it works.

 

And whether or not your intent was to offend or not, you've pretty much offended everyone who posts in here on a regular basis.

[Obscure_Trash]

Board Rules:

 

Respect Others

It isn't possible to get far in the world if you refuse to respect others. Treat others kindly, don't insult them, and others will do the same in return. If you refuse to treat others well, then you will get not only a warning, but a bad reputation, which opens the door for more negativity.

 

If there is an offensive or rude post, please use the report function or PM a moderator. You can debate without insulting others.

 

Warns have been given out.

[Rosedamai]

Board Rules:

 

 

 

If there is an offensive or rude post, please use the report function or PM a moderator. You can debate without insulting others.

 

Warns have been given out.

Sorry about that, sock.

[Khallayne]

not exactly but it might!

If I met your cowboy man, and he started looking at me the way he looked at you, I'd feel sick to my stomach.

 

You have to understand that lesbians are attracted to women. So, unless this man has womanly parts hidden beneath his clothes, there will be no falling for him from our side of the tracks! A man, no matter how gorgeous, sexy, or hot, is simply a man. It's not in our interest range. Some people can appreciate his looks, by all means, but appreciating his looks does not mean that we're turning straight. It just means that we can appreciate aesthetic beauty (or what each person considers it to be respectively).

[philpot123]

The country that claims religious freedom was based on the christian religion.  People came to get away from religious persecution.  I respect other peoples belief i was just stating my opinion.  sorry if i offended anyone. 

I agree with you to a point, because I believe America was founded as a Christian nation. But here's where it starts to get iffy.

 

Appeal to tradition is a fallacious argument because two things are assumed that may not be true. 1, that the previous/founding/traditional thinking/principles were RIGHT, and 2. That the REASON they were right is still applicable today. I firmly believe both of those things are true, but considering you are arguing with a forum of people who reject the Bible as the authentic, infallible word of God and will not accept it as grounds for an argument, I would suggest that if you want to actually ARGUE the topic, you find another means. As it stands with the people you are debating, that argument is considered fallacious. If you want to state your opinion, then feel free to base it on scripture because of your faith, as I do with most of my beliefs. But it won't be accepted on this forum as a legitimate ARGUMENT if you see what I'm saying.

Edited November 29, 2011 by philpot123

[7Deadly$ins]

The Puritans had the freedom to practice their religion before they came to America. Their "religious persecution" was that they were upset that the other religions were ALSO allowed to practice.

[philpot123]

The Puritans had the freedom to practice their religion before they came to America. Their "religious persecution" was that they were upset that the other religions were ALSO allowed to practice.

Could you clarify what you mean by this? Which puritans, which group, what time period?

[7Deadly$ins]

You'll have to give me a minute; I'm regurgitating information from my History class two years ago. I'll have to take a moment and research source material.

[Kestra15]

If I met your cowboy man, and he started looking at me the way he looked at you, I'd feel sick to my stomach.

Me too. But I am a strictly heterosexual man.

[TikindiDragon]

The Puritans had the freedom to practice their religion before they came to America. Their "religious persecution" was that they were upset that the other religions were ALSO allowed to practice.

Not quite. Certainly the initial group on the Mayflower, while technicaly 'free' to practise their religion, were also required to attend Anglican services at the time (as was everyone else in England).

 

Although, it must be pointed out here, that their problem with Anglicanism was that it was largely too liberal. They wanted, essentialy, to form a community where they could enforce a stricter religious doctrine than that enforced by the State in the United Kingdom at the time.

 

They were after the freedom to practise their own religion, yes. But they also weren't terribly interested in letting anyone else practise theirs either.

[Gsea]

I have absolutely nothing against homosexuality.

 

 

Love is love.

[Chiaki]

I know I'm cutting into a religious debate and I'm not sure if you've seen it already but I'd like to share this video:

 

I just love it

[kudzu]

I'm a lesbian, and I'm a fighter for equality, not recognition. So yes, I am 100% for marriage and rights, because, surprise! We are people too and just want to be treated as equals!

[philpot123]

Not quite. Certainly the initial group on the Mayflower, while technicaly 'free' to practise their religion, were also required to attend Anglican services at the time (as was everyone else in England).

 

Although, it must be pointed out here, that their problem with Anglicanism was that it was largely too liberal. They wanted, essentialy, to form a community where they could enforce a stricter religious doctrine than that enforced by the State in the United Kingdom at the time.

 

They were after the freedom to practise their own religion, yes. But they also weren't terribly interested in letting anyone else practise theirs either.

That is pretty much what I wanted to say, I just wanted to clarify who he was talking about first. From William Bradford's own writings, we see that they left because the Anglican church was preventing them from practicing according to the scripture and their convictions, and rather made them worship according to the Anglican tradition. They went to Holland to be able to worship freely, and subsequently left because of the culture's negative impact on their children. They did not want to force anyone to worship as they did, they only wanted the right to worship as they felt led according scripture.

[potterwolf]

That is pretty much what I wanted to say, I just wanted to clarify who he was talking about first. From William Bradford's own writings, we see that they left because the Anglican church was preventing them from practicing according to the scripture and their convictions, and rather made them worship according to the Anglican tradition. They went to Holland to be able to worship freely, and subsequently left because of the culture's negative impact on their children. They did not want to force anyone to worship as they did, they only wanted the right to worship as they felt led according scripture.

But when they got to America, they did persecute people that they thought didn't fall in with their beliefs. (See witch hunts)

 

The Puritans definitely weren't a poster child for religious freedom.

[Gsea]

I know I'm cutting into a religious debate and I'm not sure if you've seen it already but I'd like to share this video:

 

I just love it

That is adorable <3

[xhunter]

I know I'm cutting into a religious debate and I'm not sure if you've seen it already but I'd like to share this video:

 

I just love it

that is nice, i'm surprised it had so many likes.

though that is very good and i too like it. thanks for sharing.

 

*goes back and shares it with a few people*

[Disturbedchic]

The country that claims religious freedom was based on the christian religion. People came to get away from religious persecution. I respect other peoples belief i was just stating my opinion. sorry if i offended anyone.

Not sure how you get that when most of the key figures of the founding fathers were at BEST Deists and in the cases of Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, out right anti-clerical.

 

Also the country was founded during the Age of Enlightenment which lasted from about 1700-1800 in which logic and reason was given favor over the intolerances and abuses of church and state. Several key founders were avid followers of this movement.

[ShinyTomato]

That is pretty much what I wanted to say, I just wanted to clarify who he was talking about first. From William Bradford's own writings, we see that they left because the Anglican church was preventing them from practicing according to the scripture and their convictions, and rather made them worship according to the Anglican tradition. They went to Holland to be able to worship freely, and subsequently left because of the culture's negative impact on their children. They did not want to force anyone to worship as they did, they only wanted the right to worship as they felt led according scripture.

 

But we also know they were cruel to others who didn't share their faith.

[SolarCat]

I'm straight, and currently have a boyfriend who is very masculine. <3

 

I was also raised to believe that same-gender relationships were wrong and immoral.

 

That said, I have been to a gay "wedding" and loved every minute of it. One of my best friends' sons is gay (he's a great guy, although still trying to figure out where he fits into the scheme of universe, if you know what I mean, now that he absolutely knows what he knows about himself).

 

It's tough to go against the grain and beliefs of society, for any reason, and I just think it's great for anyone to stick up for themselves and be themselves, no matter what the "popular opinion" seems to be.

 

Just because something isn't "my thing" doesn't mean it's wrong.

As long as people don't try to force me to act/believe/be what they are, I think it's unfair to push my preferences on someone else, because that's all they are - preferences, not Facts, not Truths, just preferences.

[MissNoShame]

It's tough to go against the grain and beliefs of society, for any reason, and I just think it's great for anyone to stick up for themselves and be themselves, no matter what the "popular opinion" seems to be.

 

Just because something isn't "my thing" doesn't mean it's wrong.

As long as people don't try to force me to act/believe/be what they are, I think it's unfair to push my preferences on someone else, because that's all they are - preferences, not Facts, not Truths, just preferences.

I'd have to agree with this 100%

 

I also, in all of my years of helping my friends fight for gay rights, have not seen ONE single, completely legitimate, NON-RELIGIOUS, and NON-OPINIONATED argument against why people should not be allowed to marry the same sex.

When someone provides me with that information then I would gladly take into consideration the feelings of those against it; but even then I can't say that I would change my mind on whether or not I'll fight for my friends' rights.

[Kelkelen]

But when they got to America, they did persecute people that they thought didn't fall in with their beliefs. (See witch hunts)

 

The Puritans definitely weren't a poster child for religious freedom.

This oversimplifies the situation, though. There were more religious groups than just the Puritans settling in the colonies, over a broad span of time. The initial groups didn't persecute others; they were mostly attempting not to die of the cold and disease, and formed cooperative relationships with the Native Americans of the area.

 

As for witch hunts, that's another complicated situation. (I studied this time period and culture in particular, during university.) It had less to do with religious persecution, and more to do with a great many other factors -- unexplained illness, Satanism, and possibly dividing lines of wealth and family lineage, to name a few. The infamous Salem witch hunts, for instance, were not about attacking another faith. Rather, they were nominally about putting Christians on trial for making pacts with Satan, while in reality they often had more to do with fear of the unknown (i.e., undiagnosable illness), local rivalries, and possibly with female children feeling repressed and acting out.

 

I'm not saying that religious persecution didn't exist, but the Puritan culture was much more concerned with following their own faith than with harming those of other faiths. Puritans were quite serious about religious doctrine, and not tolerant of violence against other people. Granted, their punishments were severe, but their actions were mostly against their own kind. They also usually didn't prevent their slaves from practicing their own faiths, though they of course assumed that the slaves weren't "God's elect."

 

Their legal system *was* based on their faith, but in a community where all the founders were of that faith, where their faith was the basis for the community itself, it made sense that their laws didn't take other faiths into account. So, under their system, they punished fornication, homosexuality, bestiality, and Satanic practices, but not because those were markers of other religious faiths; rather, because they were deviations from the agreed-upon rules and norms of the community.

 

Okay, so that was a wall o' text about Puritans. On the actual topic of this thread, I don't see any justification for laws against homosexual marriage in a nation that professes and attempts to safeguard freedom of speech, expression, and religion.

[diannethegeek]

With the WBC thread closed, this seems like the best place to post this:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/13/w..._n_1145987.html

 

One particularly hapless member of the Westboro Baptist Church -- which is known for its extreme stance against homosexuality -- was recently snapped wearing a T-shirt emblazoned with the logo for "Glee," arguably the most gay-friendly show currently on television.

 

As Buzzfeed has noted, she "told [the photographer] she didn't know anything about the shirt, but that her sister gave it to her when they headed out this morning."