Homosexuality & Politics in the 21st Century

[marioguy]

I honestly believe there will come a time when we start discriminating against ignorance. That would be good.

Also, even though I am against gay marriage (as seen throughout the thread), I feel it should be noted that Christians, and other groups, shouldn't discriminate based on religion, tradition etc. I remember readin a bible verse to live in the world and not be of it. That means that as a Christian, we should realize that our values won't always match up with the values of society. Does that mean someone has to embrace it? No. But it does mean we need to be respectful.

As for the traditional aspect, tradition will always change between groups. There will always be those clingy to old ways, but I think everything will go for the best.

Interesting thought though: if gay marriage does become legal in the majority of the united states, after a while, those who oppose it would be defined as the liberals.

Why exactly are you against gay marriage?

I don't think you understand what a liberal is. According to you, someone who is pro-slavery would be considered a liberal.

[WizardTrubbish]

Interesting thought though: if gay marriage does become legal in the majority of the united states, after a while, those who oppose it would be defined as the liberals.

How is that so?

[7 tyranitars]

I don't doubt there will always be people against it for a long time to come; there are still people against racial equality, or rights for women, even though the United States and many other European countries have since smoothed out all of the major legal biases against anyone who wasn't white or male a long time ago. But I'd put money on the idea that if it were legalized, God would not rain fiery wrath down on the planet for it, and tension would flatten out a hell of a lot more if there were no legal basis to discriminate against anyone not heterosexual.

Ofcourse there will always be people against the idea. It is what I said, for a very big part of the population it simply isn't a problem anymore.

[miles0624]

Why exactly are you against gay marriage?

I don't think you understand what a liberal is. According to you, someone who is pro-slavery would be considered a liberal.

The reason I am against homosexual marriage is partly in both tradition and religion. The religion aspect is in doctrine that is expressed. I am Methodist and we follow closely to Catholics. It is not because we hold that it is wrong for a man and a man to get married, as it is that they can't reproduce. It is held in both these doctrines that if either a woman or man are unable to reproduce, they cannot be married within the church. The only difference in this is that a straight couple can fake like they can reproduce, but if they are found out, their marriage is void through the church. However, like I said, that is how I feel, but you can't force that view on people.

In reality, in the 21st century, someone who is pro-slaverly is a modern day liberal. A liberal is defined as someone who is favorable to progressiveness or reformation. That is why you were a liberal if a Republican in 1840s, but now you are a conservative. When you go against something that is ingrained in society (slavery is no longer ingrained in American Society) you are now liberal in that aspect.

Likewise, if homosexual marriage were to become ingrained in American Society, those who then try to abolish Gay marriage on the basis that it would help would be liberals no. Anyways, a little off topic, was just stating who things shift in politics. (The idea will become a liberal/radical idea, they won't be full liberals. Just on that idea.)

[7 tyranitars]

The reason I am against homosexual marriage is partly in both tradition and religion. The religion aspect is in doctrine that is expressed. I am Methodist and we follow closely to Catholics. It is not because we hold that it is wrong for a man and a man to get married, as it is that they can't reproduce. It is held in both these doctrines that if either a woman or man are unable to reproduce, they cannot be married within the church. The only difference in this is that a straight couple can fake like they can reproduce, but if they are found out, their marriage is void through the church. However, like I said, that is how I feel, but you can't force that view on people.

In reality, in the 21st century, someone who is pro-slaverly is a modern day liberal. A liberal is defined as someone who is favorable to progressiveness or reformation. That is why you were a liberal if a Republican in 1840s, but now you are a conservative. When you go against something that is ingrained in society (slavery is no longer ingrained in American Society) you are now liberal in that aspect.

Likewise, if homosexual marriage were to become ingrained in American Society, those who then try to abolish Gay marriage on the basis that it would help would be liberals no. Anyways, a little off topic, was just stating who things shift in politics. (The idea will become a liberal/radical idea, they won't be full liberals. Just on that idea.)

The opposite of conservative is actualy progesiveness. I think you might have confused liberal and progresiveness. For example in some countries the liberal party can be the conservative party. (I believe Australia is such a country)

[miles0624]

The reason I am against homosexual marriage is partly in both tradition and religion. The religion aspect is in doctrine that is expressed. I am Methodist and we follow closely to Catholics. It is not because we hold that it is wrong for a man and a man to get married, as it is that they can't reproduce. It is held in both these doctrines that if either a woman or man are unable to reproduce, they cannot be married within the church. The only difference in this is that a straight couple can fake like they can reproduce, but if they are found out, their marriage is void through the church. However, like I said, that is how I feel, but you can't force that view on people.

Just decided to clarify something else. That is why in these two denominations, the person being gay in not a sin in itself, it is engaging in the actual act that makes it an actual sin. (By church doctrine.)

[WizardTrubbish]

In reality, in the 21st century, someone who is pro-slaverly is a modern day liberal. A liberal is defined as someone who is favorable to progressiveness or reformation. That is why you were a liberal if a Republican in 1840s, but now you are a conservative. When you go against something that is ingrained in society (slavery is no longer ingrained in American Society) you are now liberal in that aspect.

You're confusing liberal and progressive. Besides, that wouldn't be progressive, it would be reactionary.

[Kaiserin]

The reason I am against homosexual marriage is partly in both tradition and religion. The religion aspect is in doctrine that is expressed. I am Methodist and we follow closely to Catholics. It is not because we hold that it is wrong for a man and a man to get married, as it is that they can't reproduce. It is held in both these doctrines that if either a woman or man are unable to reproduce, they cannot be married within the church. The only difference in this is that a straight couple can fake like they can reproduce, but if they are found out, their marriage is void through the church. However, like I said, that is how I feel, but you can't force that view on people.

I feel it might be pertinent to mention here that marriage is largely a social institution, has been for thousands of years, and is generally not made invalid if, you know, a couple never has kids. There are historical couples long before choosing not to have children was an acceptable option who were just never able to reproduce, even if they tried. Based on this argument, we should be going back and retroactively nullifying any marriages between people who did not/could not ever have biological children.

At least you're not being hypocritical when it comes to the having kids thing, I'll give you credit for that much -- most people hold the double standard of "well, gays can't have kids, but it's okay if they're straight but can't/won't have kids" -- but I personally find that even more restrictive and unfair than the usual stance on it. I don't know what you religion says about it, but from a secular standpoint, marriage is not all or even mostly about the offspring that can come from the pairing. Not in this day and age, anyway.

[miles0624]

I feel it might be pertinent to mention here that marriage is largely a social institution, has been for thousands of years, and is generally not made invalid if, you know, a couple never has kids. There are historical couples long before choosing not to have children was an acceptable option who were just never able to reproduce, even if they tried. Based on this argument, we should be going back and retroactively nullifying any marriages between people who did not/could not ever have biological children.

At least you're not being hypocritical when it comes to the having kids thing, I'll give you credit for that much -- most people hold the double standard of "well, gays can't have kids, but it's okay if they're straight but can't/won't have kids" -- but I personally find that even more restrictive and unfair than the usual stance on it. I don't know what you religion says about it, but from a secular standpoint, marriage is not all or even mostly about the offspring that can come from the pairing. Not in this day and age, anyway.

That is why in the Methodist faith (I believe Catholics hold to this too, but don't take my word on it) we separate being married through the church under God, and being married through the public institution. You can still be married, just not recognized by the church. Our doctrine holds that marriage is a sacrament recognized by God between two people to do what he commanded. (Be fruitful and multiply.)

Anyways, that is the reason we have separations between church/state and the like. One can't impose their views on those that don't agree. (Within reason.)

[BigLutz]

Just weeks after the Brooklyn College political science department co-sponsored a hate fest advocating boycotts, divestments and sanctions against Israel, the City University of New York psychology and philosophy departments are now cosponsoring another hate fest against the Jewish state.

“Homonationalism and Pinkwashing,” sponsored by CUNY’s Gay and Lesbian Studies Center, is scheduled for April 10-11, 2013; the cosponsors include New York University’s Center for the Study of Gender and Sexuality and several other centers and programs at both schools. We’re told the conference will be academic, but much of the emphasis plainly will be on the claim that Israel is “pinkwashing” its mistreatment of Palestinians by promoting gay rights in Israel.
The only Middle Eastern country where drag queens needn’t fear: From Tel Aviv’s 2012 gay pride parade.

The conference’s coordinator and inspiration is gay activist Sarah Shulman. In a New York Times op-ed and elsewhere, she has argued that Israel’s positive approach to gay rights is “a deliberate strategy to conceal the continuing violation of Palestinians human rights behind an image of modernity signified by Israeli gay life.”

In other words, she accuses Israel of feigning concern over the rights of gay people in order to whitewash — “pinkwash” — its lack of concern for Palestinian people.

This absurd, obscene argument is nothing more than anti-Semitism with a pink face.

Israel is easily the most gay-friendly country in the Middle East, and among the most supportive of gay rights in the world. Openly gay soldiers have long served in the military and in high positions in both government and the private sector.

In the West Bank and Gaza, by contrast, gays are murdered, tortured and forced to seek asylum — often in Israel. Indeed, in every Arab and Muslim country, homosexual acts among consenting adults are criminal, often punishable by death.

But all this doesn’t matter to the “growing global gay movement” against Israel, which (Schulman insists) regards these positive steps as nothing more than a cover for malevolent Israeli actions.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion...7iKUIEbqRs3rZO

So there is a protest happening because Israel is Gay Friendly... not that the other countries kill Gays, but Israel accepts gays. That country seriously cannot win no matter what.

[7 tyranitars]

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion...7iKUIEbqRs3rZO

So there is a protest happening because Israel is Gay Friendly... not that the other countries kill Gays, but Israel accepts gays. That country seriously cannot win no matter what.

Wait what? She is a gay activist, complaining Israels pro-gay approach is to hide their palestina policies? Seriously she lost me there.

Last part isn't completly true, homosexual acts aren't illegal in Turkey and Jordan. Israel is just far more gay friendly.

[WizardTrubbish]

Being the most gay-friendly country in the middle east isn't really a huge accomplishment.

[BigLutz]

Being the most gay-friendly country in the middle east isn't really a huge accomplishment.

Honestly it is one of the most gay friendly countries on the face of this planet.

[7 tyranitars]

Honestly it is one of the most gay friendly countries on the face of this planet.

Uhm partialy yes. The secular society of Israel is very friendly towards gay people. But there are also ultra orthodox jews, and muslims who aren't that friendly towards gay people.

Being the most gay-friendly country in the middle east isn't really a huge accomplishment.

That is true, but Israel is quite a gay friendly country.

[master3019]

Wait what? She is a gay activist, complaining Israels pro-gay approach is to hide their palestina policies? Seriously she lost me there.

Last part isn't completly true, homosexual acts aren't illegal in Turkey and Jordan. Israel is just far more gay friendly.

Oh? Other countries don't kill gays? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qxjocm5fCc

This anti-gay behavior is disgusting

[7 tyranitars]

Oh? Other countries don't kill gays? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qxjocm5fCc

This anti-gay behavior is disgusting

Read my post again please, I was giving examples of other countries where homosexuality in the middle east isn't illegal. I was saying two countries where it wasn't illegal,

and apparently you read: "Gay people don't get killed in the middle east"

[master3019]

Read my post again please, I was giving examples of other countries where homosexuality in the middle east isn't illegal. I was saying two countries where it wasn't illegal,

and apparently you read: "Gay people don't get killed in the middle east"

Apparently, you read on mine: "Only Israel is gay friendly" WHICH I didn't say. I did read what you said.

[7 tyranitars]

Apparently, you read on mine: "Only Israel is gay friendly" WHICH I didn't say. I did read what you said.

Nope, I read: "Oh? Other countries don't kill gays?" Which implied I was suggesting that I don't think gay people are killed in the middle east, if not I don't know why you quoted my post.

[master3019]

Nope, I read: "Oh? Other countries don't kill gays?" Which implied I was suggesting that I don't think gay people are killed in the middle east, if not I don't know why you quoted my post.

Haha, at least we're on the same page when it comes to gay rights. Okay, that was really a pointless argument, and I'm sorry for misinterpreting.

[7 tyranitars]

Haha, at least we're on the same page when it comes to gay rights. Okay, that was really a pointless argument, and I'm sorry for misinterpreting.

All good. Glad we cleared it up.

[Psychic]

Uhm partialy yes. The secular society of Israel is very friendly towards gay people. But there are also ultra orthodox jews, and muslims who aren't that friendly towards gay people.

There are also ultra religious Christians in North America who aren't that friendly towards gay people. And to be frank, the ultra orthodox Jews in Israel aren't friendly to the majority of people because it's such an insular society.

These aren't excuses, but my point is this isn't a unique case of religious people not getting along with x group.

~Psychic

[WizardTrubbish]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...586_story.html
Former President Bill Clinton writes why he now believes the Defense of Marriage Act (which he signed) should be repealed.

Am I the only one who finds it ironic that Clinton, of all people, was the president who signed the Defense of Marriage Act?

[Silver Soul]

Ohio Republican Senator Rob Portman reversed his stance on gay marriage after his son comes out of the closet.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/15/politi...age/index.html

[marioguy]

Ohio Republican Senator Rob Portman reversed his stance on gay marriage after his son comes out of the closet.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/15/politi...age/index.html

I wonder if this will mean he'll never get reelected again.

[BigLutz]

I wonder if this will mean he'll never get reelected again.

He might, "Doing it out of fatherly love" could mitigate many problems he will have with voters, it also helps that he is from a swing state.