What is your view on homosexual rights and why?

[Ashmoria]

aye

they should have no more and no fewer rights than anyone else.

i dont know why it should annoy you that lgbt people should consider themselves a community. do you feel the same about deaf people or organic farmers?

it annoys me that whenever I hear about lgbt people it is always 'the lgbt community' a seperate community. as for organic farmers: to hell with them.

but lbgt IS a segment of society that all face similar discrimination for similar reasons. it would be foolish not to band together for political reasons to work toward their similar goals.

[Ifreann]

i feel as if it is wrong but if they want to like the same sex then it is none of my buisness.... as long as they dont make a move on me

Why would it matter if they made a move on you? I expect I'd be flattered if another man was coming on to me.

[SpectacularSpectacular]

i feel as if it is wrong but if they want to like the same sex then it is none of my buisness.... as long as they dont make a move on me

What do you do if a really ugly really fat chick that you have no interest in banging hits on you? Do you get furious or just brush it off? Really what does it matter, just say not interested and move on with your life.

[West Podunk]

behavior, including sexual, between consenting adults is not an issue for legislation unless and until someone is injured or killed.

[Sanguinthium]

Tell me what you think about LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) rights. And also explain why you hold that view.

Nonexistant. unless you consider being hanged, drawn, and quartered a right. in which case, the right is to be executed publically old style english treason way. Hanged, Drawn, Quartered.

Why: Leviticus 20:13
"A man who lays with a man as a man lays with a woman have commited an abommination; they shall surely be put to death. they have no one to blame but themselves; they have forfeited their lives"

as an islamic nation, we follow Sharia law, which coincidentally is almost exactly the same as OT justice.

however, women get off free. the reason is **Redacted**

[Aestalis]

There should be a comprehensive banning of sexual orientation based discrimination in terms of occupation, welfare, health, and the like.
Marriage, civil unions, and the right to adopt, however, should remain heterosexual privileges.

[Vecherd]

The same rights as heteros.

[Ifreann]

Marriage, civil unions, and the right to adopt, however, should remain heterosexual privileges.

Why?

[Lunarion]

I'm opposed to them apart from transsexual ones because it's true that homosexuals could adopt but there wouldn't be as strong a bond between parent and child. Plus allowing gay marraige would therefore be saying to people that given the choice best is as good as second best. I'm opposed to discrimination against LGBT people though because that is also impractical and there are enough divisions that people get hassle over as it is.

This sort of thinking is exactly what's wrong with the world. It was disgusting when the focus of our discrimination was the blacks, and it's disgusting now. "I'm opposed to you and what you are at your core, and I'm opposed to letting you do the things that I can do, but honestly I don't discriminate." This is exactly the sort of thing that led the US into a little thing called segregation. "Fine, I guess you guys can have the right to go to school, just don't go to the same ones we do." "Sure, I guess your money is still good in these restaurants, but you have to use a separate entrance and sit in a different area so we never see you." Yup, you have exactly the same rights as everyone else, as long as nobody actually sees you exercise them.

The hypocrisy is... delicious. It does make me wonder how some people can read some of their country's founding documents and not wonder how they can so unabashedly hold views that are in complete contradiction of them. "All men are created equal.... unless they're queer." I guess that little addendum must be from the lesser known Editor's Cut version?

[Tekania]

i feel as if it is wrong but if they want to like the same sex then it is none of my buisness.... as long as they dont make a move on me

Indeed, we should outlaw making moves on people. Besides, it's about time those jerks attempting their pathetic pickup lines on women at bars and clubs started ending up in jail where they belong.

[Ashmoria]

Tell me what you think about LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) rights. And also explain why you hold that view.

Nonexistant. unless you consider being hanged, drawn, and quartered a right. in which case, the right is to be executed publically old style english treason way. Hanged, Drawn, Quartered.

Why: Leviticus 20:13
"A man who lays with a man as a man lays with a woman have commited an abommination; they shall surely be put to death. they have no one to blame but themselves; they have forfeited their lives"

as an islamic nation, we follow Sharia law, which coincidentally is almost exactly the same as OT justice.

however, women get off free. the reason is **Redacted**

psssst

this isnt an incharacter forum.

you post your actual real life opinions here.

[Der Teutoniker]

They are not equal. As stated, we saw through that idiocy in the 1960's. It's no more valid now than it was then.

Whether or not the 14th was initially purported to be for it, does not have any bearing in that it's been proven ineffective on its own. Not to mention it's even less effective when morons purport that "well they are equal, they can marry anyone of the same race",, I'm sorry, they are saying "Well they are equal, they can marry anyone of the opposite sex" now...Sorry if I get my 1960's and 2010's idiots mixed up. They're hard to distinguish.

Ah, persistent ridiculousness. I'll leave you to it then.

[Imperial Aaronia]

...Plus allowing gay marraige would therefore be saying to people that given the choice best is as good as second best...

I wasn't aware that we had a choice. Was there a form I was meant to fill in? I might have to contact HMGov and backdate a few documents....

[Noiian]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with it, it's commonplace in nature and has been common throughout human history, and they have every right to be protected under the law from any kind of discrimination, including discrimination doled out in the name of religion.

And, unlike some others replying here, by no means do I think it should be kept away from me. I feel flattered when get hit on by anyone, of whatever gender. No one is forcing you to do anything. You're (presumably) a grown-up, capable of saying 'No, thank you'. Do you find the overtures of gay men just so irresistible that they must be kept away from you at all times, lest you lose control over yourself?

[Der Teutoniker]

Depends who you're talking about not being equal. With regards to men and women, they are not equal. Men can marry women, whereas women cannot, and women can marry men, whereas men cannot.

Or, to put it a simpler way, everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite gender. That is not reasonable, but technically equal.

Again, I'm still supporting same-sex marriage here.

[Aestalis]

Marriage, civil unions, and the right to adopt, however, should remain heterosexual privileges.

Why?

Marriage is the bedrock of our society. Our population has grown and flourished around the family unit, and our societies have developed around the family unit, reinforced by the institution of marriage. The institution was conceived to, and has been maintained to, regulate procreation and the continuation of the human species. It has existed for centuries to facilitate families and kinship. The forming of families is the key function of marriage, and extending the scope of marriage to those who are biologically unable to procreate makes marriage itself redundant. The upholding marriage between man and woman simply recognises important and inherent differences between the two sexes. There is nothing unequal about recognising difference.

The government does not and should not regulate or concern itself with love, and if you argue that those who love each other should be able to be married to announce that love, then I seriously wonder about their notion of love that needs paper, formal ceremony, or nomenclature to justify itself.

[Tekania]

Depends who you're talking about not being equal. With regards to men and women, they are not equal. Men can marry women, whereas women cannot, and women can marry men, whereas men cannot.

Or, to put it a simpler way, everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite gender. That is not reasonable, but technically equal.

Again, I'm still supporting same-sex marriage here.

gender =/= sex, it's quite possible and somewhat commmon throughout the states for not-reassigned transgendered individuals to not be able to marry their opposite gender partners because their partner isn't the opposite sex.

[Umbra Ac Silentium]

Why?

Marriage is the bedrock of our society. Our population has grown and flourished around the family unit, and our societies have developed around the family unit, reinforced by the institution of marriage. The institution was conceived to, and has been maintained to, regulate procreation and the continuation of the human species. It has existed for centuries to facilitate families and kinship. The forming of families is the key function of marriage, and extending the scope of marriage to those who are biologically unable to procreate makes marriage itself redundant. The upholding marriage between man and woman simply recognises important and inherent differences between the two sexes. There is nothing unequal about recognising difference.

The government does not and should not regulate or concern itself with love, and if you argue that those who love each other should be able to be married to announce that love, then I seriously wonder about their notion of love that needs paper, formal ceremony, or nomenclature to justify itself.

It looks like you're assuming marriage has never ever changed throughout the course of history.

[Aestalis]

Marriage is the bedrock of our society. Our population has grown and flourished around the family unit, and our societies have developed around the family unit, reinforced by the institution of marriage. The institution was conceived to, and has been maintained to, regulate procreation and the continuation of the human species. It has existed for centuries to facilitate families and kinship. The forming of families is the key function of marriage, and extending the scope of marriage to those who are biologically unable to procreate makes marriage itself redundant. The upholding marriage between man and woman simply recognises important and inherent differences between the two sexes. There is nothing unequal about recognising difference.

The government does not and should not regulate or concern itself with love, and if you argue that those who love each other should be able to be married to announce that love, then I seriously wonder about their notion of love that needs paper, formal ceremony, or nomenclature to justify itself.

It looks like you're assuming marriage has never ever changed throughout the course of history.

The key function of marriage has not changed.

[Umbra Ac Silentium]

It looks like you're assuming marriage has never ever changed throughout the course of history.

The key function of marriage has not changed.

:3 Lul, and what is that?

[Tekania]

The key function of marriage has not changed.

What? Property transference? Yep, you're right, hasn't changed at all.

[Daircoill]

It looks like you're assuming marriage has never ever changed throughout the course of history.

The key function of marriage has not changed.

What would that be, two people who come together out of love, deciding that above all else they would like to spend the rest of their lives with each other? Marriage has never been about reproduction, it has always been a union of two lovers (or in a few nasty cases a forced union between families for mutual benefit).

[Aestalis]

The key function of marriage has not changed.

:3 Lul, and what is that?

The forming of families is the key function of marriage, and extending the scope of marriage to those who are biologically unable to procreate makes marriage itself redundant.

[Brastunahh]

FULL RIGHTS FOR THE GAYS!

[Ashmoria]

Why?

Marriage is the bedrock of our society. Our population has grown and flourished around the family unit, and our societies have developed around the family unit, reinforced by the institution of marriage. The institution was conceived to, and has been maintained to, regulate procreation and the continuation of the human species. It has existed for centuries to facilitate families and kinship. The forming of families is the key function of marriage, and extending the scope of marriage to those who are biologically unable to procreate makes marriage itself redundant. The upholding marriage between man and woman simply recognises important and inherent differences between the two sexes. There is nothing unequal about recognising difference.

The government does not and should not regulate or concern itself with love, and if you argue that those who love each other should be able to be married to announce that love, then I seriously wonder about their notion of love that needs paper, formal ceremony, or nomenclature to justify itself.

which is an excellent argument for why it MUST be available to gay couples also. denying them marriage makes society LESS stable.

except the "important and inherent differences" part. that doesnt make any sense.