Marriage Equality and Other MOGAI/Queer Rights

[TikindiDragon]

Guys, you're being very hostile here. Just saying, as that's how reading that last bit comes across. Pika appeared to be very pro the granting of legal rights to gay people, on the sole proviso that her church was not forced into anything, and you lot shot her down. Nice going, and great way of befrinding someone that may well have helped the cause.

 

Also I actually have to say that I agree with her. No one Should be forced to do something against their beliefs. Separation of Church and State should mean just that - that the Church has no say in what the State does, and that the State has no say in what the Church does!

 

You do not want someone elses moral choices interfering with your life. Which is fine as long as you are talking State Benefits. But the moment you start suggesting that something such as the entire Roman Catholic Church needs to be forced to change to accomodate you - then we've got problems. Because you're now treading the dangerous ground where you're beginning to say 'we don't just want the legal rights, we want the Church to *have* to accept us too'! You want to use the Law to force the Church to do something, and that seems just as wrong to me as wanting to use the Church to force the Law to do something.

 

Edit: couple of typos.

Edited April 28, 2013 by TikindiDragon

[Syaoransbear]

Guys, you're being very hostile here. Just saying, as that's how reading that last bit comes across. Pika appeared to be very pro the granting of legal rights to gay people, on the sole proviso that her church was not forced into anything, and you lot shot her down. Nice going, and great way of befriending someone that may well have helped the cause.

 

Also I actually have to say that I agree with her. No one Should be forced to do something against their beliefs. Separation of Church and State should mean just that - that the Church has no say in what the State does, and that the State has no say in what the Church does!

 

You do not want someone else's moral choices interfering with your life. Which is fine as long as you are talking State Benefits. But the moment you start suggesting that something such as the entire Roman Catholic Church needs to be forced to change to accommodate you - then we've got problems. Because you're now treading the dangerous ground where you're beginning to say 'we don't just want the legal rights, we want the Church to *have* to accept us too'! You want to use the Law to force the Church to do something, and that seems just as wrong to me as wanting to use the Church to force the Law to do something.

I totally agree with this, and I also agree that people are misunderstanding Pika and being extremely hostile.

Edited April 28, 2013 by Syaoransbear

[Obscure_Trash]

Yes I think gays should be respected by religion, but they should not force it to perform the cetemonies against their beliefs. It would be nice if everyone knew about gay friendly religions. And in some religions, that change would go against it. It would not be evil, of course not. And yes, vitro fertilization is the term, thank you.

I edited at the same time as you posted, so I just wanted to make sure my clarification is seen. :3

 

EDIT: I want to clarify. As a non-religious person, no, I do not think I have a right to bust into a religion and demand they change. However, that doesn't mean I have to agree with what they do and I don't think it means that nobody within can't stand up and demand better. Changes need to come from the inside. Think of Uganda's anti-homosexuality bill. LBGT Ugandians spoke up to thank us for support but told us we needed to let them bring about the change. I can support those who want change and help when they ask. My questions really are questions to gather your thoughts on this. As I'm not religious, I'm not going to burst into a religion and demand they change, but I will support those of that religion who are promoting change.

 

But what if a GSM of that belief doesn't agree that their marriage would go against the religion? Do they have any avenue for equal treatment by the religious leaders they respect? What I'm getting at, is why are GSM within a religion not allowed to promote a more accepting attitude and spread how they see their religion since they are a part of that religion, too?

[Banuk]

That? That wasn't hostility. That was me speaking normally. I'd be banned if I were to actually be hostile.

 

I still can't understand why Christians have no problem looking past the (much more numerous) parts of the Bible that say I'm property to be raped and enslaved and sold and married to men against my will and so on and so forth, but oftimes refuse to look past the few parts about homosexuality too.

 

This is the same thing that has happened numerous times in the past. Different ethnicities. Women. We look back on those struggles now and wonder, "Why did everyone make such a big deal out of this stuff? Of course non-white ethnicities and women are people and deserve the same rights everyone else had, duh!" I hope that one day we as a species will look back on this topic and say the same. And I do believe we will, regardless of whether religion changes to reflect the times or not.

 

We're still not saying that everyone is going to hold your church down and force it to allow gays to marry inside its walls. No. If your church doesn't want to marry gays, fine, but said couples should be able to go to another church, or at least a courthouse, and have it done. And if your church wants to allow gays to marry, that's okay too! You are not the only member of the church you go to and maybe others feel differently! As for your faith... this may shock you, but not everyone in your faith believes in your faith the same way you do and some even think gay marriage is A-OK, but they're still not allowed to do it because other same-faith people are trying to force them to believe in said faith in a way they may not agree with!

 

 

 

And as for separation of church and state...ha! Political and religious debates are pretty much one in the same in this country, sad as it is. That's a problem that will never go away. Politicians simply can't not let their religious views color what they do in office, because that's just how human beings and religion are. The Church should have no say in the affairs of the state, but it does all the same. Meanwhile, the State still faces unbelievably heavy opposition if it even looks at the Church the wrong way. Hypocrisy. We has it.

 

 

 

In short, though, really, no group of people should be able to decide who someone should be able to love or marry. If they want to regulate that in their own faith, go ahead, no law can stop them from doing that just like it can't technically stop religious institutions from firing people for being gay or black or (insert other arbitrary reason here), but they have no right to force their beliefs on others and deny EVERYONE equality because they personally don't believe in it.

 

 

 

Sadly, though, these kinds of debates are...actually, kinda like DC updates. There are the people who want to progress, keep pushing forward into new and exciting things, and then there are the people who will argue stalwartly against any change at all because they feel it threatens them. Things would be much better if people just did them instead of standing around arguing in circles with people who aren't going to budge in their opinion no matter what the opposition tries to say. Sure, people might whine and complain in the short-term, but guess what? In the long run we suck it up and figure out, "Oh, hey, everything is still around and is not in a broken shambles!" Or, you know, some of us don't suck it up and will continue to complain that everything is broken despite it working perfectly fine for everyone else because we refuse to give up on our antiquated views of things.

 

Humans are, though, animals of habit, and a good deal of us tend to deny any change from the norm because we don't want to deal with potentially having to do things differently, even if changes don't really change anything at all.

 

tl;dr - I'm going to bed.

[hazeh]

I agree that Pika's statements were a bit misconstrued here, but let's ease off the steam here a bit. c:

 

 

 

Has anyone heard any updates on that man who was barred from visiting his husband in the hospital?

[herobrine745]

Has anyone heard any updates on that man who was barred from visiting his husband in the hospital?

WHAT?????

[pikapooka]

Some gay people are demanding some religions to change so they can get the religious matrimony. I am against that. Clear and Simple.

[brairtrainer]

Some gay people are demanding some religions to change so they can get the religious matrimony. I am against that. Clear and Simple.

They aren't demanding religions change, they are asking for the government to recognize their marriage so that they can get the beneifits. Besides several relgions and denominations of relgions arlready recognize gay marriage.

[klinneah]

They aren't demanding religions change, they are asking for the government to recognize their marriage so that they can get the beneifits. Besides several relgions and denominations of relgions arlready recognize gay marriage.

huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/24/topless-femen-protest-andre-jozef-leonard_n_3146609.html link broken for NSFW

 

Really? You don't think so?

 

link from a catholic site in case anyone is interested in that

 

edited to add: I don't mean to come across as hostile, I just really dislike it when we can hold up examples of the bottom-of-the-barrel Christians, so to speak, as an example of why the entire religion is corrupt and yet no-one seems to want to talk about the bottom-of-the-barrel LGBT+ activists. It goes both ways.

Edited April 28, 2013 by klinneah

[pikapooka]

I can't believe that Shiny Hazard. I think that is unjust. I believe that if gay people are married, they should have the full rights a hetero sexual couple does. Could you provide a link to the article?

[diannethegeek]

I can't believe that Shiny Hazard. I think that is unjust. I believe that if gay people are married, they should have the full rights a hetero sexual couple does. Could you provide a link to the article?

I know it's been posted here in this post before but here's one of many articles about it. A quick google search would give you more: http://americablog.com/2013/04/missouri-ga...cal-center.html

[PointOfOrigin]

I can't believe that Shiny Hazard. I think that is unjust. I believe that if gay people are married, they should have the full rights a hetero sexual couple does. Could you provide a link to the article?

Right now, in USA, there's over one hundred rights (I think) that are unavailable to homosexual couples that heterosexual married couples have. People who know more about it then me probably have some links lying around; as far as I remember there was an article that listed all of the missing rights.

Edited April 28, 2013 by PointOfOrigin

[Obscure_Trash]

Some gay people are demanding some religions to change so they can get the religious matrimony. I am against that. Clear and Simple.

So, in your opinion, a GSM within a religion must suffer through being second class to everyone else and cannot bring to light how they interpreted the Word?

 

I just really dislike it when we can hold up examples of the bottom-of-the-barrel Christians, so to speak, as an example of why the entire religion is corrupt and yet no-one seems to want to talk about the bottom-of-the-barrel LGBT+ activists. It goes both ways.

 

I'm not sure if you're specifically talking about here or just in general, but as someone a part of, hm, let's put it, the social justice circle on tumblr, I've heard quite a lot about FEMEN, specifically we've been passing around counter protests from women in Islam trying to get their voice heard that FEMEN doesn't speak for them. I had a really great piece on how FEMEN was Islamophobic and such detailing why FEMEN was so disliked that I wouldn't mind sharing, but I think I reblogged before I started tagging for reference. I'll have to dig into it.

I will say that for the US, at least, we don't tend to get a lot of media on events elsewhere unless we can easily construe the story as 'look how much better we are than these people' so I'm guessing a lot of people haven't even heard of FEMEN to talk about them.

 

~

 

Here is the Missouri couple's gofundme: http://www.gofundme.com/2kofr8 The daughter is making updates there along the way. Looks like they are serious about pursuing legal action. AFAIK the hospital still hasn't issued any kind of apology even though the brother has basically admitted he was the one in the wrong.

 

~

 

Here's the wiki for GSM rights in the US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_i...e_United_States Covers marriage, adoption, housing, anti-discrimination laws, military, medical, etc. which I don't think is exactly what you're thinking of but is a good start.

Edited April 28, 2013 by SockPuppet Strangler

[klinneah]

I'm not sure if you're specifically talking about here or just in general, but as someone a part of, hm, let's put it, the social justice circle on tumblr, I've heard quite a lot about FEMEN, specifically we've been passing around counter protests from women in Islam trying to get their voice heard that FEMEN doesn't speak for them. I had a really great piece on how FEMEN was Islamophobic and such detailing why FEMEN was so disliked that I wouldn't mind sharing, but I think I reblogged before I started tagging for reference. I'll have to dig into it.

I will say that for the US, at least, we don't tend to get a lot of media on events elsewhere unless we can easily construe the story as 'look how much better we are than these people' so I'm guessing a lot of people haven't even heard of FEMEN to talk about them.

I was more talking in general. There was a lot of buzz a few weeks ago around campus when somebody heard of this group protesting in one of the eastern European countries (can't remember which one atm). They were just disrupting church services, walking in there topless, defacing property, smashing holy objects, cursing, basically making themselves look foolish in every way possible. I'm not surprised people haven't heard of them, most people don't like to talk about people that make them look bad. I know very well that not all LGBT+ people are this extremely disrespectful but it seems to me like most liberals are quite happy to talk about the so-called bigotry of Christianity and Catholicism in particular and yet when liberal fringe groups arise....silence. Hm.

 

And I don't understand this FEMEN group. Yes, you're topless women desecrating churches and being disrespectful s...how is this supposed to help your cause again?

[kiffren]

Some gay people are demanding some religions to change so they can get the religious matrimony. I am against that. Clear and Simple.

This is what I think as well. Marriage should be between you and the state, not you and the church and the state. The church, whatever church it is, can decide if it wants to give you the religious benefits of holy matrimony separately from the legal benefits of marriage through the state. Even if I were to marry a man in a heterosexual marriage, it would not be through a church. I would have no religion brought into a ceremony between us and the state.

 

I don't know of anyone who demands that religions accept them, from what I see of the majority of the pro equality movement is that they want the word marriage to apply to us as well with the same benefits. Unfortunately it's the religious people who are convinced that 'marriage' is their word and thus we cannot have the legal benefits of marriage.

 

Would it really be that hard for everyone, regardless of sex or gender, to get civil unions and that be the only legal binding? Let marriage be with the religions and have civil unions be with the state. All it would take would be a simple redefining of the word marriage into the word civil union in legal matters. That's all.

[ShinyTomato]

I was more talking in general. There was a lot of buzz a few weeks ago around campus when somebody heard of this group protesting in one of the eastern European countries (can't remember which one atm). They were just disrupting church services, walking in there topless, defacing property, smashing holy objects, cursing, basically making themselves look foolish in every way possible. I'm not surprised people haven't heard of them, most people don't like to talk about people that make them look bad. I know very well that not all LGBT+ people are this extremely disrespectful but it seems to me like most liberals are quite happy to talk about the so-called bigotry of Christianity and Catholicism in particular and yet when liberal fringe groups arise....silence. Hm.

 

And I don't understand this FEMEN group. Yes, you're topless women desecrating churches and being disrespectful s...how is this supposed to help your cause again?

What kind of church was it? Because if we're talking EO, considering how much funding they get from hate groups, it wouldn't particularly surprise me that someone went to that extreme.

 

I can see why even Christians would want to go in and break things up that were bought with money from groups like Noua Dreaptă, especially if they were considered "holy."

[diannethegeek]

Right now, in USA, there's over one hundred rights (I think) that are unavailable to homosexual couples that heterosexual married couples have. People who know more about it then me probably have some links lying around; as far as I remember there was an article that listed all of the missing rights.

It's actually 1,138 specific rights according to a 2004 report from the U.S. General Accounting Office. This site has the detailed list available for download: http://www.marriageequality.org/1-138-federal-rights

[PointOfOrigin]

It's actually 1,138 specific rights according to a 2004 report from the U.S. General Accounting Office. This site has the detailed list available for download: http://www.marriageequality.org/1-138-federal-rights

I overestimate humanity sometimes Thank you for correction. I'll be sure to gothrough it once I get the time.

[brairtrainer]

huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/24/topless-femen-protest-andre-jozef-leonard_n_3146609.html link broken for NSFW

 

Really? You don't think so?

 

link from a catholic site in case anyone is interested in that

 

edited to add: I don't mean to come across as hostile, I just really dislike it when we can hold up examples of the bottom-of-the-barrel Christians, so to speak, as an example of why the entire religion is corrupt and yet no-one seems to want to talk about the bottom-of-the-barrel LGBT+ activists. It goes both ways.

Most groups and people I've come into contact with aren't interested in forcing any relitgions to change, but that they are considered equal under the law.

 

Now of course you're going to have radicals with any movement/thought. PETA for one and the group with three k's for instance.

[Red Dragonette]

Look at what i just read today: http://inspiredcreativity.deviantart.com/a...ality-155041403

 

I just found out that the ancient, original, and true bible supported same-sex relationships while the modern and constantly-changed book of lies opposed it. It's a very long read, but if anyone's interested in getting some real education, please read it.

 

To all those who said that God is against homosexuality, you obviously didn't do your historical research before judging other people.

[brairtrainer]

Look at what i just read today: http://inspiredcreativity.deviantart.com/a...ality-155041403

 

I just found out that the ancient, original, and true bible supported same-sex relationships while the modern and constantly-changed book of lies opposed it. It's a very long read, but if anyone's interested in getting some real education, please read it.

 

To all those who said that God is against homosexuality, you obviously didn't do your historical research before judging other people.

That is interesting. (makes note to talk to her boyfriend about it the next time the debate, there is always a next time >.>)

[Syaoransbear]

I just don't really understand how if the bible seems to be so open to interpretation that people would choose to interpret it in a way that makes homosexuality seem evil and makes other people suffer for it. If you could interpret it in a way that is accepting and loving, why wouldn't you?

Edited April 29, 2013 by Syaoransbear

[kiffren]

I just don't really understand how if the bible seems to be so open to interpretation that people would choose to interpret it in a way that makes homosexuality seem evil and makes other people suffer for it. If you could interpret it in a way that is accepting and loving, why wouldn't you?

Because people are insecure. They use the bible and religion to be discriminate against people they don't understand. If you have something you can justify your fear and hatred with, why not use it? Interpreting it as loving and caring would force them to admit they were wrong.

 

I don't know for sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if the bible was used to support segregation, slavery, discriminating against women, etc.

[brairtrainer]

Because people are insecure. They use the bible and religion to be discriminate against people they don't understand. If you have something you can justify your fear and hatred with, why not use it? Interpreting it as loving and caring would force them to admit they were wrong.

 

I don't know for sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if the bible was used to support segregation, slavery, discriminating against women, etc.

Actually people did use the bible for all those things.

 

Slavery: passages that said slaves should listen to their masters (not sure if mistranslated or not but that was a documented reason of keeping slaves in the states)

 

Segregation: The cursing of Noah's son made blacks inferior to whites (that was the arguement I do not feel this way) documented in notes of the era and in the book The Poisonwood Bible

 

Discriminating Against Women: passages on stoning to death contribute to shaming*, Eve's fall means that women must be the inferior sex, etc.

 

At least from what I understand with my history.

 

Edit: didn't realize the forum would censor that word. Essentailly for people who are having trouble with what I was saying there: shaming for having sex

Edited April 30, 2013 by brairtrainer

[Obscure_Trash]

Major props for Jason Collins for being able to come out!

 

“I’m a 34-year-old NBA center. I’m black. And I’m gay.

 

I didn’t set out to be the first openly gay athlete playing in a major American team sport. But since I am, I’m happy to start the conversation. I wish I wasn’t the kid in the classroom raising his hand and saying, “I’m different.” If I had my way, someone else would have already done this. Nobody has, which is why I’m raising my hand.”

— Jason Collins, a 12-year NBA veteran, has announced that he’s gay in a moving personal essay from http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/magazine/.../#ixzz2Rrh8O559

 

The whole essay is definitely worth the read. I encourage anyone to read through it. <3

 

And of course some random straight, white sportscaster threw a fit on twitter because people have been calling Jason a hero and "you can't just abuse the dictionary like that".