Government recognizing Gay and Lesbian
Options
Replies
-
I love all these "tolerant" individuals who think if you're religious and are opposed to gay marriage on those grounds, you're "ignorant" or "trailer trash."
As for Jesus not thinking homosexuality is bad, read Matthew 19:4-5. He clearly explains to the Pharisees that marriage is between a male and a female.
"But anyone who says 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell." (Jesus) Mat 5:22
"You blind fools!" (Jesus) Mat 23:17
We already covered where religion belongs in this matter.
It doesn't.0 -
12 reasons why Same Sex Marriage should not be allowed:
1.Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control.
2.Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people can’t legally get married because the world needs more children.
3.Obviously, gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
4.Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage is allowed, since Britney Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.
5.Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all; women are property, blacks can’t marry whites, and divorce is illegal.
6.Gay marriage should be decided by people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of the minorities.
7.Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.
8.Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
9.Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
10.Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why single parents are forbidden to raise children.
11.Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven’t adapted to things like cars or longer life-spans.
12.Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a “separate but equal” institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages for gays and lesbians will.0 -
12 reasons why Same Sex Marriage should not be allowed:
1.Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control.
2.Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people can’t legally get married because the world needs more children.
3.Obviously, gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
4.Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage is allowed, since Britney Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.
5.Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all; women are property, blacks can’t marry whites, and divorce is illegal.
6.Gay marriage should be decided by people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of the minorities.
7.Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.
8.Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
9.Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
10.Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why single parents are forbidden to raise children.
11.Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven’t adapted to things like cars or longer life-spans.
12.Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a “separate but equal” institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages for gays and lesbians will.
YES! Thank you for posting this! I was just looking for it, but I think I deleted the email...0 -
I can be fired in 29 states of being gay. How do I have the same rights as straight people?
Show me those laws and for what organizations? Are they religious?
There is fed law that protects you from being fired on your sexual orientation.
i don't buy that one bit.
You have those protections as a federal employee. Not otherwise the state needs to provide them.
http://www.eeoc.gov/federal/otherprotections.cfm
Even if a judge were to hold it up, people can be fired for all sorts of things. People can be let go if they are sick too much, or if they cannot preform their job duties anymore. Should they get special protection as well. They didn't choose to get sick or lose their abilities. Many businesses have policies against straights dating coworkers, and will fire people if they go against policy. Should that be illegal?
Why should one group of people be protected based on the kind of sex they have? Maybe I should hope for the feds to hand down a law giving special protection for this group of people. If I ever get fired. I could claim it's because I was gay and go to the bank.0 -
I'm not touching this debate with a ten foot pole...
That being said, if anyone on my friends list is reading this, and you're a homophobic d-bag, remove me from your friends please.
Thanks
Yep, remove me too.
0 -
12 reasons why Same Sex Marriage should not be allowed:
1.Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control.
2.Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people can’t legally get married because the world needs more children.
3.Obviously, gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
4.Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage is allowed, since Britney Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.
5.Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all; women are property, blacks can’t marry whites, and divorce is illegal.
6.Gay marriage should be decided by people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of the minorities.
7.Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.
8.Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
9.Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
10.Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why single parents are forbidden to raise children.
11.Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven’t adapted to things like cars or longer life-spans.
12.Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a “separate but equal” institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages for gays and lesbians will.
Lol. I saw a video of this guy saying all that.0 -
Leaving now. This discussion is going nowhere.
I'm just stating again how glad I am to live in a state where both straight couples and gay couples can marry. I'm proud to be in the only state in the US that has universal health care. We still have our major problems here but we've paved the way for other states to put similar laws in place.
I will always admire states that treat gays and straight couples as equal. A state that does not bat an eye when a gay married couple has to deal with the laws around hospital care, adopting a child, buying a home, paying taxes, etc.
Our Government as a whole has a lot of room to grow and right now I know a lot of Americans that are losing their pride in their country.
The fact that people in this forum judge someone based on who they sleep next to at night (or who they don't) is really just terrible, shallow, and just plain mean.
As a society we judge people that never got married, never had kids, or married and got divorced. We judge people based on who they choose to marry.
I just can sleep better at night knowing I live somewhere that values ALL RESIDENTS as one and the same, and equal.0 -
paige marie...........times change. It was just in the 1920s that women were "allowed" to vote for the first time in their lives. Before that year, nope, they were treated as 2nd class citizens. Same with Blacks in the voting process, and there was a time Blacks and Whites weren't allowed to marry, and one state in the south still has it on its books, but not enforced
seems that you wouldnt be satisfied as a woman not to have the privelege to vote......that would make you feel 2nd class as a person. So maybe you could understand their situation as well.........Best wishes, Lloyd
I'm not really bothered about voting.
Since you ARE bothered by LGBT people and their wishes perhaps you should abide by all of the things mentioned in Leviticus. Start by taking that septum piercing out of your nose.
I didn't make cuts in my skin for the dead.
Also, their lives, their paths, they can choose to do what they wish I wont hate them for it, I follow "Love thine neighbour as thine self" I rebuke them, I don't judge, I don't hate, that's not my place.0 -
I have mixed feelings on the subject, but most of them have already been discussed here.
What I put forth to all of you is "Where do you draw the line?"
Is Polygamy OK? Can I have multiple civil partners?
Is a union between two brothers OK? Incest was historically banned due to the resulting birth defects.
Does a union even have to have a sexual relationship? Can it be simply two or more people who want the social, legal, and economic benefits of a union?
Is a union with a minor OK? Is it OK if it is non-sexual?
Not trying to stir the debate, just want to give everyone more to consider. Where does society draw the line?
GREAT POINT!!! Once gays/lesbians are allowed to marry, that still wont be good enough or equal. Next up, men will be fighting to have multiple wives of ANY age.... *sighs*
Children can't consent. If they're of legal age and they are, in fact consenting, I don't see the issue with polygamy.0 -
I can be fired in 29 states of being gay. How do I have the same rights as straight people?
Show me those laws and for what organizations? Are they religious?
There is fed law that protects you from being fired on your sexual orientation.
i don't buy that one bit.
You have those protections as a federal employee. Not otherwise the state needs to provide them.
http://www.eeoc.gov/federal/otherprotections.cfm
And even then, we're not fully protected. At the risk of too much information, I am a federal government employee with an EEO case against the division I used to work with (I'm still with the same agency, just a different section...). I alleged harassment , discrimination due to disability (I was temporarily disabled last year) as well as discrimination due to sexual orientation. Sexual orientation cases are NOT protected under the same laws--it's in a different classification (I can't for the life of remember what is is--chapter 7??)
For example--harassment due to disability, race, religion, gender, parental status, etc is on one form...and sexual orientation is on another form by itself. Because they are protected differently, I had to fill out all the paperwork twice and undergo two interviews instead of one (whereas if I was alleging discrimination based on say, disability and race, it would have just been once).
You are not entitled to a face-to-face meeting to state your case; rather, a judge whom you've never even met or spoken to reviews the material and makes the decision regarding the sexual orientation case. You are NOT allowed to appeal the decision. I received a letter in the mail the other day stating they did not rule in my favor...and, as I said, I can not appeal it.
The other end of my case--the disability end--is still going on. For that, I will meet face to face with a judge, state my case, etc, and then a decision will be made. If it is not in my favor, I can appeal it. The same procedure applies to discrimination due to age, color, religion, etc...everything except sexual orientatition.0 -
What I think many Christians are missing in this gay marriage issue is love. If you love someone, you don't call them an abomination. If you love someone, you build them up, without condoning nor condemning their behavior. The Bible does tell us to speak the truth, but to do so IN LOVE.
I bet no one ever witnessed to you (and got you to believe that Jesus loves you unconditionally) by telling you that you were going to hell because you lied about your weight on your drivers license... They probably told you all the verses about how much God loves you (John 3:16, John 10:10 are what come to mind) So why is it so different when witnessing to someone who is homosexual? Does God want good things from them. Yes! Did God send Jesus to die for them on the cross? Yes! So why do we tell them that they are abominations and that they are going straight to hell as a starting point? Aren't we all going straight to hell without the love of Jesus and His sacrifice and grace?
Does this mean you have to check yes on the ballot for gay marriage? No. Does it mean you need to get over yourself and realize that Jesus isn't just for you? Yes. Stop rationalizing your "little sins" and magnifying other people's "HUGE SINS".
3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. Matthew 7:3-50 -
I can be fired in 29 states of being gay. How do I have the same rights as straight people?
Show me those laws and for what organizations? Are they religious?
There is fed law that protects you from being fired on your sexual orientation.
i don't buy that one bit.
You have those protections as a federal employee. Not otherwise the state needs to provide them.
http://www.eeoc.gov/federal/otherprotections.cfm
Even if a judge were to hold it up, people can be fired for all sorts of things. People can be let go if they are sick too much, or if they cannot preform their job duties anymore. Should they get special protection as well. They didn't choose to get sick or lose their abilities. Many businesses have policies against straights dating coworkers, and will fire people if they go against policy. Should that be illegal?
Why should one group of people be protected based on the kind of sex they have? Maybe I should hope for the feds to hand down a law giving special protection for this group of people. If I ever get fired. I could claim it's because I was gay and go to the bank.
They are meant to protect against discrimination against aspects you can not control, like race, gender, religion, etc.
Those goes back to the argument whether homosexuality if a choice or not. I was arguing for "Not a choice", your seemed to be arguing "Is a choice". We can't get to this debate till we finish that one.0 -
Gov. Christine Gregoire of Washington State signed a gay marriage bill that stated, "accommodations, facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or goods related to the solemnization or celebration of a marriage” to the public must offer all those goods for use to homosexual couples seeking marriage or else face a penalty for discrimination."
From what I understand that language was dropped from the bill because it was forcing churches to perform gay marriages.
That language was dropped from the Washington State bill before it reached Gov. Gregoire's desk, so it never forced churches to perform gay marriages. Anti-equality churches feared that it would and lobbied to have the language dropped, which is just fine from my perspective. Forcing churches to marry a couple it doesn't want to would be a clear violation of the 1st Amendment.The bill text originally stated that religious organizations that provide “accommodations, facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or goods related to the solemnization or celebration of a marriage” to the public must offer all those goods for use to homosexual couples seeking marriage or else face a penalty for discrimination. The version of the bill that passed dropped the qualification, allowing religious groups to retain marriage facilities for heterosexual unions. http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/washington-governor-signs-gay-marriage-bill-without-religious-protections0 -
I love all these "tolerant" individuals who think if you're religious and are opposed to gay marriage on those grounds, you're "ignorant" or "trailer trash."
As for Jesus not thinking homosexuality is bad, read Matthew 19:4-5. He clearly explains to the Pharisees that marriage is between a male and a female.
I'm all about everyone being entitled to their own opinions, but it's when those opinions interfere with the rights of others that I can't stand. I mean, really, HOW will gay marriage affect you in any way, shape or form? Really...0 -
I have mixed feelings on the subject, but most of them have already been discussed here.
What I put forth to all of you is "Where do you draw the line?"
Is Polygamy OK? Can I have multiple civil partners?
Is a union between two brothers OK? Incest was historically banned due to the resulting birth defects.
Does a union even have to have a sexual relationship? Can it be simply two or more people who want the social, legal, and economic benefits of a union?
Is a union with a minor OK? Is it OK if it is non-sexual?
Not trying to stir the debate, just want to give everyone more to consider. Where does society draw the line?
GREAT POINT!!! Once gays/lesbians are allowed to marry, that still wont be good enough or equal. Next up, men will be fighting to have multiple wives of ANY age.... *sighs*
Because "two brothers" could have children? As it turns out, the increase in "birth defects" even when siblings reproduce is barely above that of two strangers. Why would multiple partners in a marriage be objectionable to you? YOU won't be required to marry more than one person any more than you would a person of the same gender. As to marrying a minor--marriage is a legal contract, and minors can't sign contracts, so that's covered.
Where I draw the line is easy. Anything an adult does that doesn't harm the person or property of a non-consenting other should not be the purview of government.0 -
Because "two brothers" could have children? As it turns out, the increase in "birth defects" even when siblings reproduce is barely above that of two strangers. Why would multiple partners in a marriage be objectionable to you? YOU won't be required to marry more than one person any more than you would a person of the same gender. As to marrying a minor--marriage is a legal contract, and minors can't sign contracts, so that's covered.
Where I draw the line is easy. Anything an adult does that doesn't harm the person or property of a non-consenting other should not be the purview of government.
I like you :drinker:0 -
Leaving now. This discussion is going nowhere.
I'm just stating again how glad I am to live in a state where both straight couples and gay couples can marry. I'm proud to be in the only state in the US that has universal health care. We still have our major problems here but we've paved the way for other states to put similar laws in place.
I will always admire states that treat gays and straight couples as equal. A state that does not bat an eye when a gay married couple has to deal with the laws around hospital care, adopting a child, buying a home, paying taxes, etc.
Our Government as a whole has a lot of room to grow and right now I know a lot of Americans that are losing their pride in their country.
The fact that people in this forum judge someone based on who they sleep next to at night (or who they don't) is really just terrible, shallow, and just plain mean.
As a society we judge people that never got married, never had kids, or married and got divorced. We judge people based on who they choose to marry.
I just can sleep better at night knowing I live somewhere that values ALL RESIDENTS as one and the same, and equal.
I want to Move to where you live.
Love This!0 -
Ok, I'm out for a while.
Live Long and Prosper!0 -
There was one state/governor that I think over-stepped its bounds in legalizing gay marriage by actually forcing churches to conduct gay marriage ceremonies (as long as it offered straight marriage ceremonies). I can't remember where I read this recently, but that was definitely crossing the line.
I have never heard of this and suspect you are either remembering incorrectly or were fed some bad information. Was it in a frantic e-mail from your Aunt Ida?
Gov. Christine Gregoire of Washington State signed a gay marriage bill that stated, "accommodations, facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or goods related to the solemnization or celebration of a marriage” to the public must offer all those goods for use to homosexual couples seeking marriage or else face a penalty for discrimination."
From what I understand that language was dropped from the bill because it was forcing churches to perform gay marriages.
That language was dropped from the Washington State bill before it reached Gov. Gregoire's desk, so it never forced churches to perform gay marriages. Anti-equality churches feared that it would and lobbied to have the language dropped, which is just fine from my perspective. Forcing churches to marry a couple it doesn't want to would be a clear violation of the 1st Amendment.The bill text originally stated that religious organizations that provide “accommodations, facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or goods related to the solemnization or celebration of a marriage” to the public must offer all those goods for use to homosexual couples seeking marriage or else face a penalty for discrimination. The version of the bill that passed dropped the qualification, allowing religious groups to retain marriage facilities for heterosexual unions. http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/washington-governor-signs-gay-marriage-bill-without-religious-protections
That is exactly what I said...that language was dropped from the bill.
So, I guess that person did not receive a frantic email from their Aunt Ida! 0 -
Aunt Ida's e-mail often have stuff that just ain't so!
From the text of Washington State's marriage-equality bill:(4) No regularly licensed or ordained minister or any priest, imam,
rabbi, or similar official of any religious organization is required to
solemnize or recognize any marriage. A regularly licensed or ordained
minister or priest, imam, rabbi, or similar official of any religious
organization shall be immune from any civil claim or cause of action
based on a refusal to solemnize or recognize any marriage under this
section. No state agency or local government may base a decision to
penalize, withhold benefits from, or refuse to contract with any
religious organization on the refusal of a person associated with such
religious organization to solemnize or recognize a marriage under this
section.
(5) No religious organization is required to provide
accommodations, facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or goods
related to the solemnization or celebration of a marriage.
(6) A religious organization shall be immune from any civil claim
or cause of action, including a claim pursuant to chapter 49.60 RCW,
based on its refusal to provide accommodations, facilities, advantages,
privileges, services, or goods related to the solemnization or
celebration of a marriage.
Full text here: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2011-12/Pdf/Bills/Senate Passed Legislature/6239-S.PL.pdf0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 920 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions