Homosexual Rights: What Should They Be?

[Cyrus]

Heres the thing Evo, you will see man and man or woman and woman, but not so much man and woman. Did you notice that? For example, in the middle east you will never see a man and woman holding hands in public. But you will always see men with their arms around each others shoulders, and women holding hands.

 

[Evo]

Heres the thing EVO, you will see men and men or women and women, but not so much men and women. Did you notice that?

It's because of what we're trained is acceptable. Like me thinking the behavior in Italy was so strange.

 

[Hurkyl]

Is your right to foster your child in the way you se fit(to the extent of preventing others actions) any more "basic" than peoples right to show affection towards each other in public.

I didn't know either of those were actually "rights" -- they surely don't appear in the constitution, do they?


Ignoring the technicalities, the answer is yes. Raising a child cannot (reasonably) be done without interaction with the environment. OTOH, showing affection can be done without being in the public environment.

And I would say one certainly doesn't have the right to force others to see their showing of affection. (In my eyes, this is a core part of the problem -- homosexuals... at least the vocal ones... seem not to just want the rights to do things, but the right to force it down everybody else's throat)

 

[Moonbear]

A child does not have a full sense of right and wrong. Its the parents job to teach them right from wrong. And not everyone thinks homosexuality is right. Even if two straight people were making out, that's nothing a child should see.

The poll doesn't say "making out in public" it says "showing love in public." In my experience, making out in public does not necessarily indicate love between two people, and more often is a display of possessiveness or infatuation rather than love.

 

[Moonbear]

Thats better IMO. If he's gay he keeps it to himself. I don't go around saying I am hetero. You should come down to DC EVO, they way the gays talk around here, you can sniff them out by their 'dialect'

This is sounding horribly homophobic to me. You're stereotyping entire groups of people based on the actions of a few. Interestingly, there are just as many heterosexual couples who make quite a spectacle of themselves in public, yet I don't hear you saying you can sniff out heterosexuals based on that behavior.

 

[loseyourname]

It's pretty easy to sniff out a hetersexual male, as he will be turning slyly to check out the backside of every halfway decent-looking women that walks past him.

I don't see what's so bothersome about public homosexual behavior anyway. I practically spent all of my high school years hanging out in West Hollywood, and I was never once bothered. Even when I got hit on. I just realized that I knew what it was like to be a woman now, to always be hit on by people you have no interest in.

 

[Azael]

I should just let you answer for me, you said it better than I did.

Thanks

 

[Azael]

It's because of what we're trained is acceptable. Like me thinking the behavior in Italy was so strange.

Its funny how it can change so much betwen countries. If I compare my swedish friends with my friends form thailand its like night and day. The thai friends have no problem hugging each other, telling you they love you(in a friendly way ), use you as a pillow when watching tv ect. Because its so natural to them it becomes easy to act the same towards them. But I could never act like that with a swedish friend it would be so damn acward.

I can say for sure that I prefer the thai way though

I didn't know either of those were actually "rights" -- they surely don't appear in the constitution, do they?
Ignoring the technicalities, the answer is yes. Raising a child cannot (reasonably) be done without interaction with the environment. OTOH, showing affection can be done without being in the public environment.
And I would say one certainly doesn't have the right to force others to see their showing of affection. (In my eyes, this is a core part of the problem -- homosexuals... at least the vocal ones... seem not to just want the rights to do things, but the right to force it down everybody else's throat)

Well I don't have the slightest clue what is in the constitution(Im not american). But I wasnt really speaking about legal rights. More about basic freedom to do what you want aslong as it doesn't hurt others(I know this isn't a law but it should be, go libertarians )

Its very easy to turn your eyes away if 2 people is making out. I don't se the big deal Its not like they tie me down, force my eyes open and start to make out in front of me and if it is 2 girls you better believe I would enjoy it

I can agree that the "sissy" type of homosexuals. Those that really feel the need to flaunt it, is way over the top. Especialy transvestites. But it bothers me no more than to se wiggers, goth followers or women in burkha. If people want to express themself in a certain, way who am I to say that they cant? All kinds of different lifestyles have different way of expressing themself. Why just pic out gays?

 

[EL]

But I could never act like that with a swedish friend it would be so damn acward.

Really? I have no problems using my friends as pillows!

 

[Azael]

Really? I have no problems using my friends as pillows!

:) you must be less conservation than most swedes. or maby its just because I am from norrland

 

[EL]

So I can see this thread has aroused som feelings, that good.

What I would like to ask (especially those of you who are more conservative) is about this "making out in public"-thing:
Should homosexuals and heterosexuals have the same rights when it comes to making out, or should there be a difference due to that you find homosexual acts "more disgusting"? I.e. is this really a subject related to a discussion about homosexuals?

I would also like to ask if people should be allowed to choose their own accent when speaking? So is this really a subject related to a discussion about homosexuals?


Anyway, I thinks most of this anti-homo propaganda is based on fear of the unknown. Get to know some gays (well, you certainly already do without being aware of it), and you'll find the typical homosexual to be quite ordinary (whatever that now means...). In general they do not talk in a funny way, do not walk silly, etc.
And, anyway, those who do these things, why is it so hard to accept people for who they are? What the world need is more acceptance of differences!

 

[EL]

:) you must be less conservation than most swedes. or maby its just because I am from norrland

Haha, no I'm actually from Norrland too!
But I think you have a point in general...

 

[Azael]

Haha, no I'm actually from Norrland too!
But I think you have a point in general...

Last place I would expect to find a fellow norrlänning What part? I am from Gällivare, the second worst place of misery in sweden except offcourse the number one Kiruna(my apologise if you are form kiruna )

Yeah we swedes are pretty damn stiff in general. But what is quite odd is that even though we are stiff we don't have a problem with homosexuals in general(except the hillbilly villages offcourse). The most politicaly correct people in the known universe...

 

[arildno]

I voted for the first two, since there are quite a few elements with the last three that requires modification, IMO:

3. "Showing love in public":
Totally depends on the act one wishes to consummate in public
(Holding hands OK, 69 no-no, for example)

4. "Getting married":
In as much as one grants religious communities the right to perform marriage rites, it would, IMO, be a violation of the free exercise of religion to demand of such communities that they should perform rites contrary what they have thought up as their own standards.

5. "Right to adopt children":
No one, IMO, has the RIGHT to adopt kids; that is quite different from opposing the AUTOMATIC disbarment of gay couples from adopting kids.

 

[Jelfish]

Ignoring the technicalities, the answer is yes. Raising a child cannot (reasonably) be done without interaction with the environment. OTOH, showing affection can be done without being in the public environment.

Also, fat and ugly people should opt to live as secluded of a life as possible, because god knows they're disgusting to look at. "Mothers! Shield your children's eyes, for their witness will lead them to a life of fat and ugliness!" Personally, I'd be more protective of children seeing acts of violence than love, but hey, we're living in a culture where movies with murder are rated less sensitively than ones with a flash of nudity. Go figure.

 

[rachmaninoff]

I voted for the first two, since there are quite a few elements with the last three that requires modification, IMO:
3. "Showing love in public":
Totally depends on the act one wishes to consummate in public
(Holding hands OK, 69 no-no, for example)
4. "Getting married":
In as much as one grants religious communities the right to perform marriage rites, it would, IMO, be a violation of the free exercise of religion to demand of such communities that they should perform rites contrary what they have thought up as their own standards.
5. "Right to adopt children":
No one, IMO, has the RIGHT to adopt kids; that is quite different from opposing the AUTOMATIC disbarment of gay couples from adopting kids.

I thought it was implicit that "right" in this context meant identical rights with those of heterosexuals, meaning the same rights are applied uniformly without a particular discrimination. So that (5) the "right to adoption" actually meant "right to be eligible for adoption", or "right to be free from discrimination in adoption"; likewise (4) "right to marriage" meant right to the legal benefits of marriage, not endorsement by a specific church (which isn't a legal right at all).

I think this is how most of you also interpreted this?

 

[EL]

Last place I would expect to find a fellow norrlänning What part?

Well I'll give you a hint. I'm from the city with the hockey team which everyone here every year expect to make it to Elitserien, but which always fails due to nervous breakdown.

Yeah we swedes are pretty damn stiff in general. But what is quite odd is that even though we are stiff we don't have a problem with homosexuals in general(except the hillbilly villages offcourse). The most politicaly correct people in the known universe...

Well, It's just on the outside we're stiff (could it be due to the climate?). On the inside however, we are soft as cotton!

 

[arildno]

Well, my stance on 4 is closely concerned with Norwegian concerns, in which we have a State Church. It is no secret that several politicians are eager to foist upon the state church the obligation to marry off gays in a religious context, if that is the couple's wish (we already got a secular version of marriage).
I disagree with that trend (and for that matter, with the institution of a state church).

 

[Jelfish]

4. "Getting married":
In as much as one grants religious communities the right to perform marriage rites, it would, IMO, be a violation of the free exercise of religion to demand of such communities that they should perform rites contrary what they have thought up as their own standards.
5. "Right to adopt children":
No one, IMO, has the RIGHT to adopt kids; that is quite different from opposing the AUTOMATIC disbarment of gay couples from adopting kids.

IMO, the "right" to get married would imply the state benefits of marriage, since religious marriage by itself doesn't have any legal ramifications.

For #5, I would say that the "right" to adopt a child is the same thing as opposing automatic disbarment. For example, a person has the right to get a job without him/her being discriminated based on race, religion, sex, and national origin (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964). Is that not the same as opposing the automatic disbarment of people based on the previously mentioned criteria? No one is saying that homosexuals automatically make perfect parents. I think that point should be obvious. Therefore, the "right" must imply protection against descrimination based on sexual orientation.

 

[Jelfish]

I thought it was implicit that "right" in this context meant identical rights with those of heterosexuals, meaning the same rights are applied uniformly without a particular discrimination. So that (5) the "right to adoption" actually meant "right to be eligible for adoption", or "right to be free from discrimination in adoption"; likewise (4) "right to marriage" meant right to the legal benefits of marriage, not endorsement by a specific church (which isn't a legal right at all).
I think this is how most of you also interpreted this?

Right, what rach said.

 

[arildno]

As for "right", we have the concept of "violation of a person's right" if the content of that right is not realized when a person wants it so (as in everybody has a right to a lawyer). That was the sort of right I was thinking of.

Note that this is the type of right most would say that biological parents have with respect to the rearing of their own children.
(Only in extreme cases is it considered allowable to deprive parents of this right).

I see your point, though.

 

[fargoth]

that letter was great EVO!

i think homosexual couples should be treated like any other couple from society.
they should have every right other people have in their country.

getting married by the church though, is not a right... you can't make them do it againt their belief.

maybe some homosexual will make his own stream of cristianity and solve the whole problem

id suggest though that he tries the flying spaggheti monster.

 

[arildno]

Letter??
Evo letters? Where??
What are you hiding from me?

 

[EL]

See Evo's first post in this thread.

 

[arildno]

See Evo's first post in this thread.

Oh dear...

 

[Moonbear]

IMO, the "right" to get married would imply the state benefits of marriage, since religious marriage by itself doesn't have any legal ramifications.
For #5, I would say that the "right" to adopt a child is the same thing as opposing automatic disbarment. For example, a person has the right to get a job without him/her being discriminated based on race, religion, sex, and national origin (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964). Is that not the same as opposing the automatic disbarment of people based on the previously mentioned criteria? No one is saying that homosexuals automatically make perfect parents. I think that point should be obvious. Therefore, the "right" must imply protection against descrimination based on sexual orientation.

This is how I interpreted the poll choices too. I don't really factor church weddings into my opinions of the right to get married. There are already plenty of restrictions on who can get married in a church, such as needing to be a member of the church, or not allowing it if you've previously been divorced, etc., but that doesn't block them from getting married at all.

For the right to adopt, I don't take these polls too literally. It would mean the same rights as anyone else has, in terms of not having your sexual orientation matter in the approval process...you still need to show you're a fit parent in every other way that anyone is evaluated.

I have also earlier pointed out that showing love does not mean the same thing as making out or having sex in public. I don't want to see ANYONE doing that. But, things like holding hands or walking with your arms around each other, or the ability to choose a public location to get down on bent knee and propose marriage, or just to utter the words "I love you," while in public are all perfectly acceptable things that any couple should be allowed to do.

 

[arildno]

This is how I interpreted the poll choices too. I don't really factor church weddings into my opinions of the right to get married. There are already plenty of restrictions on who can get married in a church, such as needing to be a member of the church, or not allowing it if you've previously been divorced, etc., but that doesn't block them from getting married at all.
For the right to adopt, I don't take these polls too literally. It would mean the same rights as anyone else has, in terms of not having your sexual orientation matter in the approval process...you still need to show you're a fit parent in every other way that anyone is evaluated.
I have also earlier pointed out that showing love does not mean the same thing as making out or having sex in public. I don't want to see ANYONE doing that. But, things like holding hands or walking with your arms around each other, or the ability to choose a public location to get down on bent knee and propose marriage, or just to utter the words "I love you," while in public are all perfectly acceptable things that any couple should be allowed to do.

These are issues I would support.

 

[fargoth]

yep, i support these too.

 

[Evo]

Well, my stance on 4 is closely concerned with Norwegian concerns, in which we have a State Church. It is no secret that several politicians are eager to foist upon the state church the obligation to marry off gays in a religious context, if that is the couple's wish (we already got a secular version of marriage).
I disagree with that trend (and for that matter, with the institution of a state church).

Being a State Church is something I hadn't considered. So this is, perhaps, more of a political move than a decision on reform within the church itself. That would explain the conflict Hurkyl brought up with their decision to bless people they still consider as sinners.

 

[arildno]

Being a State Church is something I hadn't considered. So this is, perhaps, more of a political move than a decision on reform within the church itself.

Precisely.
I understand that such issues are rather peripheral to Americans, who have made a very sensible division between political and religious life.

 

[ek]

Gay people are still people.

This really should be a non-issue.

Only socially-regressive fascists think otherwise.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I've never had a problem with displays of affection between members of the same sex in public. I always hug my best friends. I have an online friend who is gay and when we met with a bunch of other people from the same internet community he gave me a hearty slap on the back and said "Hey there buddy!" all masculine like after giving everyone else hugs. I poked fun at him for it and told him that I don't have a problem with hugs.
I actually saw a commercial on television for a men's only phone dating line for the first time yesterday. I thought that was a bit odd.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I feel it necessary to point out a clear fundamental difference between these:
Stoning or burning people was a punishment for a sin.
Homosexuality is, itself, a sin. (as I understand it)
The main tenant of Christianity, as I understand it, is that the law of the New Testament has supplanted that of the Old -- we are no longer obligated to stone people for their sins, nor to sacrifice animals to atone for our own.
To restate: while we're not supposed to stone people for adultery anymore, it is still a sin.
I know of nothing that has suggested that things that were once a sin had become non-sins.

Try telling that to a fundementalist, they won't listen trust me. Some believe the Old testament is just as valid as the new and frankly they ignore anything that is upsetting or irrelevant or contradicts itself. It's a sort of inditement of the illogical reasoning that faith can spawn.