Marriage Equality and Other MOGAI/Queer Rights

[12dragon34]

people are made to strengthen there gene pool

[Riverwillows]

Allowing women the right to vote, did not lead our society to anarchy, as was predicted.

 

Giving Blacks the same rights as Whites did not lead to giving dogs the vote and our society to anarchy, as was predicted.

 

Giving Gays the equal right to marry and other legal issues, will not lead to people marrying their pets, or our society to anarchy as is predicted.

 

See where I'm going here???

[TikindiDragon]

people are made to strengthen there gene pool

And the planet is already over populated. Seriously, arguments about "we're just here to breed." are so full of holes and pointless it's ridiculous...

[Walker]

Honestly, the reason people probably never hear about it is our knee-jerk reaction to, "I'm in an incestuous relationship," is almost more severe than, "I'm in a queer relationship." There's so many darned stigmas about it that no one is going to stand on a rooftop and brag about it. Doesn't mean it can't/won't happen, though. Human possibility is endless, in this as much as anything else.

[Alpha1]

This is a big leap in judgement. While the most obvious answer is yes, if you view Adam and Eve as the only humans at that point, then yes, incest would have been necessary at that time. However, eventually, there are explicit laws forbidding it.

 

That's being two-faced like Adam.

 

Now, you can argue that this is because the genetics had degraded, as one would expect, but by the time of The Law, that had changed.

 

Well, if that's the factor for Christians, it's inconsistent because they don't want to police people with heritable disabilities from having children, and they certainly don't want to kill a fetus that an incestual couple have. These people wouldn't necessarily want offspring either, and homosexual incestual relationships obviously wouldn't produce any people. The other argument is that they can be abusive relationships, but it makes little sense to put someone in jail if it's brother/sister, for example, and they started it in their twenty's.

 

 

 

[HeatherMarie]

people are made to strengthen there gene pool

Yeaaaaah that argument really holds no water nowadays. The idea is completely outdated and fairly narrow-minded.

 

What about infertile couple? What about people *born* with genetic diseases or birth defects that make reproduction either impossible or possibly fatal? According to that idea, none of those people should exist. And yet they do. They were born, even though they don't/can't "strengthen the gene pool".

[Obscure_Trash]

Saw this on tumblr "there's a homosexual couple in the Bible we just never talk about":

 

we were taught about how David and Jonathan were ~best bros~

 

 

when this was

 

 

obviously

 

 

not the case

 

And one reply:

 

Erm….I hope you know that Jonathan and David come from a culture (dont remember exactly what country their story is based in) where it is natural for men to show affection to each other through kissing or holding hands.They don’t have to be in a relationship. I’ve seen it amongst old men in Ghana, but anyway, I digress. David and Jonathan were not in a homosexual relationship. If you read the whole story Jonathan’s Dad was trying to KILL David, and Jonathan was saying goodbye to his best friend as he spent the next few years in hiding. I hope the OP has actually read the whole story.

 

I'm not a big Bible person, so I was just wondering how others who do know the Bible interpret those passages? ^^ (And lemme know if you think this would be a better discussion in the religion thread!)

 

people are made to strengthen there gene pool

 

You sound a bit like you're leaning towards eugenics which is an extremely disturbing concept. D:

 

I don't think that's what you meant, but that is what it reminded me of.

[Riverwillows]

Actually, we have enough genetic material to provide for our existence for a long time to come, without human procreation being necessary, and the technology to do it. So our genome does not need any more strengthening, not for a very very looooong time.

 

And we don't NEED any more people on this planet, our planet is quivering under the weight of all of us as it is.

 

So using that argument, is pointless and erroneous as well.

Edited April 16, 2013 by Riverwillows

[Thorn]

There's a gathering at my uni to celebrate the third reading of N.Z's marriage equality bill, but I'm not sure if people are allowed to leave early, so I don't think I'll go. =c

 

(I wouldn't be able to stay for the whole thing because I'm going to visit my father that night).

 

Edited April 16, 2013 by Thorn

[ShinyTomato]

Saw this on tumblr "there's a homosexual couple in the Bible we just never talk about":

There's two, actually. But yes, that's one. In fact, Saul goes to the point of telling Jonathan that his relationship with David shames his mother's nakedness.

 

And then you have Naomi and Ruth.

[Obscure_Trash]

Oh! Now that you say that, I do remember you (or Noble?) mentioning that before. Thanks, Shiny!

[Alpha1]

Saw this on tumblr "there's a homosexual couple in the Bible we just never talk about":

 

 

Spread it around. lol

 

I'm not a big Bible person, so I was just wondering how others who do know the Bible interpret those passages? ^^ (And lemme know if you think this would be a better discussion in the religion thread!)

 

The kissing isn’t obviously sexual, nor is it as open (if true) as the description of David’s heterosexual life.

 

2 Samuel 11 One evening David got up from his bed and walked around on the roof of the palace. From the roof he saw a woman bathing. The woman was very beautiful, 3 and David sent someone to find out about her. The man said, “She is Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam and the wife of Uriah the Hittite.” 4 Then David sent messengers to get her. She came to him, and he slept with her.

 

Genesis 33:3-4 Then Jacob went on ahead. As he approached his brother, he bowed to the ground seven times before him. Then Esau ran to meet him and embraced him, threw his arms around his neck, and kissed him. And they both wept.

 

1 Samuel 10:1 Then Samuel took the flask of oil, poured it on his (Saul’s) head, kissed him and said, “Has not the LORD anointed you a ruler over His inheritance?

 

2 Samuel 19:38-39 All the people crossed over the Jordan and the king crossed too. The king then kissed Barzillai and blessed him, and he returned to his place.

 

1 Kings 5:15 And Hiram king of Tyre sent his servants unto Solomon; for he had heard that they had anointed him king in the room of his father; for Hiram was ever a lover of David.

 

Samuel 18:22 And Saul commanded his servants: 'Speak with David secretly, and say: Behold, the king hath delight in thee, and all his servants love thee; now therefore be the king's son-in-law.'

 

D.J. Wiseman, Iraq 20 (1958): 49, col iv 266-68 (Esarhaddon to various vassal kings requiring them to be loyal to his son and successor Assurbanipal): "You will love Assurbanipal as yourselves."

 

The “love surpassing that of women” doesn't necessarily mean it's sexual either.

 

Friendship between Gregory of Nazianzus in Oration 43 and Basil of Caesarea

 

“19. And when, as time went on, we acknowledged our mutual affection, and that philosophy was our aim, we were all in all to one another,housemates, messmates, intimates, with one object in life, or an affection for each other ever growing warmer and stronger. Love for bodily attractions, since its objects are fleeting, is as fleeting as the flowers of spring. For the flame cannot survive, when the fuel is exhausted, and departs along with that which kindles it, nor does desire abide, when its incentive wastes away. But love which is godly and under restraint, since its object is stable, not only is more lasting, but, the fuller its vision of beauty grows, the more closely does it bind to itself and to one another the hearts of those whose love has one and the same object. This is the law of our superhuman love. I feel that I am being unduly borne away, and I know not how to enter upon this point, yet I cannot restrain myself from describing it. For if I have omitted anything, it seems, immediately afterwards, of pressing importance, and of more consequence than what I had preferred to mention. And if any one would carry me tyrannically forward, I become like the polyps, which when they are being dragged from their holes, cling with their suckers to the rocks, and cannot be detached, until the last of these has had exerted upon it its necessary share of force. If then you give me leave, I have my request, if not I must take it from myself.

 

20. Such were our feelings for each other, when we had thus supported, us Pindar has it, our "well-built chamber with pillars of gold," as we advanced under the united influences of God's grace and our own affection. Oh! how can I mention these things without tears.”

 

There's two, actually. But yes, that's one. In fact, Saul goes to the point of telling Jonathan that his relationship with David shames his mother's nakedness.

 

Wait, what? It says he’s shaming himself and his mother because he’s acquiescing Saul’s throne to David.

 

[Kestra15]

Food for thought.

 

http://nursingclio.org/2013/04/02/same-sex...ional-marriage/

[NobleOwl]

Wait, what? It says he’s shaming himself and his mother because he’s acquiescing Saul’s throne to David.

 

*eyeroll*

 

Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him: 'Thou son of perverse rebellion, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own shame, and unto the shame of thy mother's nakedness?

 

That is explicitly sexual in Hebrew. In fact, a similar insult was levied at me by my grandfather when I told him I was gay the first time.

 

That however, doesn't mean that David wasn't bisexual, which is my personal opinion.

[hazeh]

Food for thought.

 

http://nursingclio.org/2013/04/02/same-sex...ional-marriage/

I thought this was a wonderful article! A lot of the comments there were also very insightful and thought-provoking as well.

[12dragon34]

People should just let others be happy!

[Alpha1]

*eyeroll*

 

Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him: 'Thou son of perverse rebellion, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own shame, and unto the shame of thy mother's nakedness?

 

That is explicitly sexual in Hebrew. In fact, a similar insult was levied at me by my grandfather when I told him I was gay the first time.

 

Jonathan doesn’t tell him that he’s gay. Saul is angry because another opportunity to strike David is gone. It’s common in the near East to use abusive language towards a man by referring to his mother's nakedness. Kind of like m—r or other abusive words.

 

"He said, 'Please let me go, for we are having a family sacrifice. My brother demanded that I be there. So please let me get away to see my brothers.' That's why he isn't here at the king's table."

 

Next verse after the one you posted:

 

“As long as that son of Jesse is alive, you'll never be king. Now go and get him so I can kill him!"

 

So basically he’s saying Jonathan’s disloyalty/loss of the throne brings nakedness to his mother.

 

[HeatherMarie]

Food for thought.

 

http://nursingclio.org/2013/04/02/same-sex...ional-marriage/

Huh. I don't know why I've never really thought about that part of the anti-gay rally before. Besides all those other "reasons" against same-sex marriage, it promotes *gender* equality, and... That article is very, very interesting.

[Vhale]

A couple articles to point out why equality is important.

 

Backers rally for fired gay teacher

She says Catholic school was told of her female partner

 

When Bishop Watterson High School teacher Carla Hale returned to work last month after her mother’s death, administrators at the Catholic school in Clintonville confronted her with a letter.

 

An anonymous parent had written to the Roman Catholic Diocese of Columbus, appalled that Hale had listed her female partner’s name in an obituary.

 

Within weeks, Hale said, she was fired because she is in a gay relationship.

 

This is of course, the ideal of the bigots that hide in the religious right. Wrap up bigotry in the name of religion and you are free of any Civil Rights laws.

 

Another is of two men who have been in a civil union for 5 years. The family of one doesn't like it. So they had the one partner kicked out of a hospital even though he has power of attorney to make medical decisions and the family does not. Something rather illegal, the feds are investigating.

 

Man handcuffed at partner's bedside

Second Article

 

According to Amanda, her father Roger had every reason to be disruptive at his husband’s hospital bedside – his authority as Allen’s spouse, and thus the person in charge of Allen’s medical decisions, were Allen unable to make them himself, was being challenged by Allen’s brother, Lee, in the presence of a nurse.

 

Roger has Allen’s medical power of attorney, so there should have been no question as to who was legally responsible for care decisions.

Nurse allegedly knew the parties, yet did nothing to confirm Roger had medical power of attorney

 

What’s more, the nurse, according to daughter Amanda, knew Roger and Allen.  Amanda say the nurse must have known that Roger was Allen’s designated representative, as they had been to the hospital many times before, and had been treated by the same nurse.

 

“The nurse knew who my farther was, she knew who Allen was,” Amanda told me by phone. “She had treated Allen before, and dad had been there before, dad had signed off on medical treatments before. She should have had all the information on file.”

Roger Gorley Allen

 

Roger and Allen

 

Amanda says that the nurse had her father removed because of the loud disagreement her father was having with his partner’s brother, Lee, who had arrived at the hospital room at the same time as her father.

 

Rather than intervene and inform the brother that Roger was in fact the designated representative of his gay partner, the nurse had Roger removed. This, in spite of Allen reportedly saying from his hospital bed that he wanted his husband to stay in the room with him.

 

On a more uplifting note, someone mentioned New Zealand's reading earlier, here's a video from that, that pwns.

 

[12dragon34]

here is a question for everyone:

one argument for gay marriage is that it is a form of expression.

With that said, would it be fair to prevent those that do not like it from expressing themselves?

Just a little food for thought.

[Svataben]

here is a question for everyone:

one argument for gay marriage is that it is a form of expression.

With that said, would it be fair to prevent those that do not like it from expressing themselves?

Just a little food for thought.

That makes no sense.

If you don't like gay marriage, don't get gay married. No-one is forcing anyone to marry their own gender.

[Orlageddon]

here is a question for everyone:

one argument for gay marriage is that it is a form of expression.

With that said, would it be fair to prevent those that do not like it from expressing themselves?

Just a little food for thought.

Thing is, basic rights aren't a matter of opinion. Should not be, anyway.

Edited April 18, 2013 by Orlageddon

[12dragon34]

That makes no sense.

If you don't like gay marriage, don't get gay married. No-one is forcing anyone to marry their own gender.

that is not what i meant.

should people not be able to say that they do not like gay marriage?

[Orlageddon]

that is not what i meant.

should people not be able to say that they do not like gay marriage?

Understood. I agree that everyone should be allowed to express their opinion, yes. That's their right. It's not their right to deny others the right to marry, though; that's where I (and most others here, I believe) have a problem.

[Svataben]

that is not what i meant.

should people not be able to say that they do not like gay marriage?

Yes, and they are able to say that.

 

They are just not able to say that without other people expressing that they find it bigoted.

You see, their ability to say it does not prevent others from disagreeing.

 

Freedom of speech =/= freedom to say anything without being called on it.