LGBT Rights & Issues Thread

[New Israel and Pan-America]

The US is ever closer to having all 50 states recognize same-sex marriage.

We must begin preparations for the next developed country to work on. Italy, perhaps.

This thread, so the OP seems to say, is open for carefully-written debate. I will say that I disagree that all 50 states will accept same-sex or "gay" marriage.

There are states that have constitutional prohibitions on it. Furthermore why should all states be forced to accept it? That does not seem fair. My state's constitution prohibits this sort of behavior outright.

I'm thinking about making an OP all about gay marriage in the United States.

Personally: against it, totally from a Biblical Christian standpoint. I don't hate "gay" people, I do hate their lifestyle. It is a Christian doctrine to love the sinner but hate the sin.

More info on this: http://www.gotquestions.org/love-sinner-hate-sin.html

By the way, if I'm not actually allowed to talk here and this is only for certain people, I apologize. Please let me know if this is the case.

[Farnhamia]

The US is ever closer to having all 50 states recognize same-sex marriage.

We must begin preparations for the next developed country to work on. Italy, perhaps.

This thread, so the OP seems to say, is open for carefully-written debate. I will say that I disagree that all 50 states will accept same-sex or "gay" marriage.

There are states that have constitutional prohibitions on it. Furthermore why should all states be forced to accept it? That does not seem fair. My state's constitution prohibits this sort of behavior outright.

I'm thinking about making an OP all about gay marriage in the United States.

Personally: against it, totally from a Biblical Christian standpoint. I don't hate "gay" people, I do hate their lifestyle. It is a Christian doctrine to love the sinner but hate the sin.

More info on this: http://www.gotquestions.org/love-sinner-hate-sin.html

By the way, if I'm not actually allowed to talk here and this is only for certain people, I apologize. Please let me know if this is the case.

A ruling from the Federal bench that state constitutions with clauses prohibiting gay marriage are unconstitutional - out of line with the US Constitution - would invalidate those clauses (amendments). The national Constitution trumps state constitutions.

[Pandeeria]

This thread, so the OP seems to say, is open for carefully-written debate. I will say that I disagree that all 50 states will accept same-sex or "gay" marriage.

There are states that have constitutional prohibitions on it. Furthermore why should all states be forced to accept it? That does not seem fair. My state's constitution prohibits this sort of behavior outright.

I'm thinking about making an OP all about gay marriage in the United States.

Personally: against it, totally from a Biblical Christian standpoint. I don't hate "gay" people, I do hate their lifestyle. It is a Christian doctrine to love the sinner but hate the sin.

More info on this: http://www.gotquestions.org/love-sinner-hate-sin.html

By the way, if I'm not actually allowed to talk here and this is only for certain people, I apologize. Please let me know if this is the case.

A ruling from the Federal bench that state constitutions with clauses prohibiting gay marriage are unconstitutional - out of line with the US Constitution - would invalidate those clauses (amendments). The national Constitution trumps state constitutions.

When did the Supreme Court (I'm guessing) did that anyway?

[Farnhamia]

A ruling from the Federal bench that state constitutions with clauses prohibiting gay marriage are unconstitutional - out of line with the US Constitution - would invalidate those clauses (amendments). The national Constitution trumps state constitutions.

When did the Supreme Court (I'm guessing) did that anyway?

They haven't, not yet and to be honest, I don't think they would if a case came their way. It would be another 5-4 split and a sanctimonious majority from Scalia about marriage and thinly-veiled "states' rights." Lower Federal courts have done so, though.

[New Israel and Pan-America]

A ruling from the Federal bench that state constitutions with clauses prohibiting gay marriage are unconstitutional - out of line with the US Constitution - would invalidate those clauses (amendments). The national Constitution trumps state constitutions.

State constitutions have to be approved by Congress whenever they wish to adopt a new one, as far as I know. It is true that the national constitution trumps state constitutions. State constitutions and state laws, for that matter, have to be in accordance with the national constitution. The problem: the national constitution does not provide for gay marriage. It is neither permitted nor denied. Regardless, there is nothing unconstitutional about denying marriage to homosexual people.

Where in the Constitution does it provide for such a thing?

George Washington viewed sodomy (18th century word for homosexuality in general) with 'abhorrence and detestation'. We should always try to base our laws off of the values made clear by our Founding Fathers.

Here's my source, by the way.

“Head Quarters, V. Forge, Saturday, March 14, 1778: At a General Court Martial whereof Colo. Tupper was President (10th March 1778) Lieutt. Enslin of Colo. Malcom’s Regiment tried for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier; Secondly, For Perjury in swearing to false Accounts, found guilty of the charges exhibited against him, being breaches of 5th. Article 18th. Section of the Articles of War and do sentence him to be dismiss’d the service with Infamy. His Excellency the Commander in Chief approves the sentence and with Abhorrence and Detestation of such Infamous Crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of Camp tomorrow morning by all the Drummers and Fifers in the Army never to return; The Drummers and Fifers to attend on the Grand Parade at Guard mounting for that Purpose” [emphasis in the original].

(End quote)

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?a ... t(gw110081))

[Farnhamia]

A ruling from the Federal bench that state constitutions with clauses prohibiting gay marriage are unconstitutional - out of line with the US Constitution - would invalidate those clauses (amendments). The national Constitution trumps state constitutions.

State constitutions have to be approved by Congress whenever they wish to adopt a new one, as far as I know. It is true that the national constitution trumps state constitutions. State constitutions and state laws, for that matter, have to be in accordance with the national constitution. The problem: the national constitution does not provide for gay marriage. It is neither permitted nor denied. Regardless, there is nothing unconstitutional about denying marriage to homosexual people.

Where in the Constitution does it provide for such a thing?

George Washington viewed sodomy (18th century word for homosexuality in general) with 'abhorrence and detestation'. We should always try to base our laws off of the values made clear by our Founding Fathers.

Here's my source, by the way.

“Head Quarters, V. Forge, Saturday, March 14, 1778: At a General Court Martial whereof Colo. Tupper was President (10th March 1778) Lieutt. Enslin of Colo. Malcom’s Regiment tried for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier; Secondly, For Perjury in swearing to false Accounts, found guilty of the charges exhibited against him, being breaches of 5th. Article 18th. Section of the Articles of War and do sentence him to be dismiss’d the service with Infamy. His Excellency the Commander in Chief approves the sentence and with Abhorrence and Detestation of such Infamous Crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of Camp tomorrow morning by all the Drummers and Fifers in the Army never to return; The Drummers and Fifers to attend on the Grand Parade at Guard mounting for that Purpose” [emphasis in the original].

(End quote)

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?a ... t(gw110081))

The Constitution does not have to mention something explicitly in order for that something to be constitutional, nor is it required that there be a direct prohibition of something. You're requiring the writers of the document to be clairvoyant. Federal and Supreme Court rulings are made on the spirit of the Constitution all the time. After all, where is health insurance or female contraception mentioned in the Constitution? How could the Court even take the Hobby Lobby case and decide that they had a First Amendment right to freedom of religion if health insurance or female contraception is nowhere mentioned?

As for George Washington's views on homosexuality, they're his personal opinion and so irrelevant. Besides, the people he was punishing had different views and they fought bravely to throw off the British yoke.

[Geilinor]

When did the Supreme Court (I'm guessing) did that anyway?

They haven't, not yet and to be honest, I don't think they would if a case came their way. It would be another 5-4 split and a sanctimonious majority from Scalia about marriage and thinly-veiled "states' rights." Lower Federal courts have done so, though.

The Supreme Court didn't go for "states' rights" in Loving v. Virginia, so I hope they stay with that precedent. There's no way to know with this Court. SCOTUS's authority to strike down state marriage statutes already exists.

[Farnhamia]

They haven't, not yet and to be honest, I don't think they would if a case came their way. It would be another 5-4 split and a sanctimonious majority from Scalia about marriage and thinly-veiled "states' rights." Lower Federal courts have done so, though.

The Supreme Court didn't go for "states' rights" in Loving v. Virginia, so I hope they stay with that precedent. There's no way to know with this Court.

I know, that's why I'm not hopeful.

[New Israel and Pan-America]

The Constitution does not have to mention something explicitly in order for that something to be constitutional, nor is it required that there be a direct prohibition of something. You're requiring the writers of the document to be clairvoyant. Federal and Supreme Court rulings are made on the spirit of the Constitution all the time. After all, where is health insurance or female contraception mentioned in the Constitution? How could the Court even take the Hobby Lobby case and decide that they had a First Amendment right to freedom of religion if health insurance or female contraception is nowhere mentioned?

As for George Washington's views on homosexuality, they're his personal opinion and so irrelevant. Besides, the people he was punishing had different views and they fought bravely to throw off the British yoke.

You're absolutely right. The problem is, there is no definite reason to declare that homosexuality is by any means a constitutional principle, or, in your own words, 'in the spirit of the Constitution'.

The personal opinions of the founding fathers, moreover, those of the main founding father and our first President, George Washington, are by all means relevant. I cannot believe you think you have the right to pontificate on which founding father's view is relevant or not. We should take the sound opinions of our founding fathers into consideration always whenever we make a law or do anything in the conducting of our government.

[Geilinor]

The US is ever closer to having all 50 states recognize same-sex marriage.

We must begin preparations for the next developed country to work on. Italy, perhaps.

Australia, Finland, and Germany are also good candidates for recognizing it.

[Geilinor]

The Constitution does not have to mention something explicitly in order for that something to be constitutional, nor is it required that there be a direct prohibition of something. You're requiring the writers of the document to be clairvoyant. Federal and Supreme Court rulings are made on the spirit of the Constitution all the time. After all, where is health insurance or female contraception mentioned in the Constitution? How could the Court even take the Hobby Lobby case and decide that they had a First Amendment right to freedom of religion if health insurance or female contraception is nowhere mentioned?

As for George Washington's views on homosexuality, they're his personal opinion and so irrelevant. Besides, the people he was punishing had different views and they fought bravely to throw off the British yoke.

We should take the sound opinions of our founding fathers into consideration always whenever we make a law or do anything in the conducting of our government.

Why should we always consult them? The founding fathers are dead.

[Farnhamia]

The Constitution does not have to mention something explicitly in order for that something to be constitutional, nor is it required that there be a direct prohibition of something. You're requiring the writers of the document to be clairvoyant. Federal and Supreme Court rulings are made on the spirit of the Constitution all the time. After all, where is health insurance or female contraception mentioned in the Constitution? How could the Court even take the Hobby Lobby case and decide that they had a First Amendment right to freedom of religion if health insurance or female contraception is nowhere mentioned?

As for George Washington's views on homosexuality, they're his personal opinion and so irrelevant. Besides, the people he was punishing had different views and they fought bravely to throw off the British yoke.

You're absolutely right. The problem is, there is no definite reason to declare that homosexuality is by any means a constitutional principle, or, in your own words, 'in the spirit of the Constitution'.

The personal opinions of the founding fathers, moreover, those of the main founding father and our first President, George Washington, are by all means relevant. I cannot believe you think you have the right to pontificate on which founding father's view is relevant or not. We should take the sound opinions of our founding fathers into consideration always whenever we make a law or do anything in the conducting of our government.

We're not talking about homosexuality itself but the right of people who are homosexual to have the benefits and protections under the law that their heterosexual fellow citizens have, including the right to marry the person of their choice. George Washington probably didn't think women should vote or that slavery was necessarily a bad thing. He also thought, I imagine, that having your doctor draw a pint of your blood when you were sick was a good thing. Times change, people and nations evolve in their thoughts and actions. We should draw up our laws for the modern day and not wonder what George Washington would think.

[Pandeeria]

The Constitution does not have to mention something explicitly in order for that something to be constitutional, nor is it required that there be a direct prohibition of something. You're requiring the writers of the document to be clairvoyant. Federal and Supreme Court rulings are made on the spirit of the Constitution all the time. After all, where is health insurance or female contraception mentioned in the Constitution? How could the Court even take the Hobby Lobby case and decide that they had a First Amendment right to freedom of religion if health insurance or female contraception is nowhere mentioned?

As for George Washington's views on homosexuality, they're his personal opinion and so irrelevant. Besides, the people he was punishing had different views and they fought bravely to throw off the British yoke.

You're absolutely right. The problem is, there is no definite reason to declare that homosexuality is by any means a constitutional principle, or, in your own words, 'in the spirit of the Constitution'.

The personal opinions of the founding fathers, moreover, those of the main founding father and our first President, George Washington, are by all means relevant. I cannot believe you think you have the right to pontificate on which founding father's view is relevant or not. We should take the sound opinions of our founding fathers into consideration always whenever we make a law or do anything in the conducting of our government.

No. We should take the sound principals of logic, what the constitution laid out, and what advisors and people that know stuff are saying. The founding fathers lived in the 1700's. Their time is passed. Time to move on.

[New Israel and Pan-America]

We're not talking about homosexuality itself but the right of people who are homosexual to have the benefits and protections under the law that their heterosexual fellow citizens have, including the right to marry the person of their choice. George Washington probably didn't think women should vote or that slavery was necessarily a bad thing. He also thought, I imagine, that having your doctor draw a pint of your blood when you were sick was a good thing. Times change, people and nations evolve in their thoughts and actions. We should draw up our laws for the modern day and not wonder what George Washington would think.

Homosexuality, however, is offensive in both God's sight, George Washington's sight, the sight of most Americans, the sight of most state constitutions, the sight of most state laws, and the sight of most Christians and people of faith in general.

The founding fathers are way smarter and more intelligent than you and I or anyone in this day and age. The fact is this: these men were geniuses. They modeled this nation on Biblical Christian principles. Commissioned after the signing of the Declaration of Independence was the Liberty Bell, which was inscribed with a passage from Leviticus.

I will always listen to the founding fathers over the modern day Internet pontiff.

[New Israel and Pan-America]

You're absolutely right. The problem is, there is no definite reason to declare that homosexuality is by any means a constitutional principle, or, in your own words, 'in the spirit of the Constitution'.

The personal opinions of the founding fathers, moreover, those of the main founding father and our first President, George Washington, are by all means relevant. I cannot believe you think you have the right to pontificate on which founding father's view is relevant or not. We should take the sound opinions of our founding fathers into consideration always whenever we make a law or do anything in the conducting of our government.

No. We should take the sound principals of logic, what the constitution layer out, and what advisors and people that know stuff are saying. The founding fathers lived in the 1700's. Their time is passed. Time to move on.

In that case, the Constitution, written by these outdated gentlemen, ought to be abolished, and a new one, perhaps more politically correct and atheistic, ought to be made?

[Roski]

We're not talking about homosexuality itself but the right of people who are homosexual to have the benefits and protections under the law that their heterosexual fellow citizens have, including the right to marry the person of their choice. George Washington probably didn't think women should vote or that slavery was necessarily a bad thing. He also thought, I imagine, that having your doctor draw a pint of your blood when you were sick was a good thing. Times change, people and nations evolve in their thoughts and actions. We should draw up our laws for the modern day and not wonder what George Washington would think.

Homosexuality, however, is offensive in both God's sight, George Washington's sight, the sight of most Americans, the sight of most state constitutions, the sight of most state laws, and the sight of most Christians and people of faith in general.

The founding fathers are way smarter and more intelligent than you and I or anyone in this day and age. The fact is this: these men were geniuses. They modeled this nation on Biblical Christian principles. Commissioned after the signing of the Declaration of Independence was the Liberty Bell, which was inscribed with a passage from Leviticus.

I will always listen to the founding fathers over the modern day Internet pontiff.

The founding fathers said "Fuck the British", not "Fuck the queers".

History isn't that difficult, mate.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

We're not talking about homosexuality itself but the right of people who are homosexual to have the benefits and protections under the law that their heterosexual fellow citizens have, including the right to marry the person of their choice. George Washington probably didn't think women should vote or that slavery was necessarily a bad thing. He also thought, I imagine, that having your doctor draw a pint of your blood when you were sick was a good thing. Times change, people and nations evolve in their thoughts and actions. We should draw up our laws for the modern day and not wonder what George Washington would think.

Homosexuality, however, is offensive in both God's sight, George Washington's sight, the sight of most Americans, the sight of most state constitutions, the sight of most state laws, and the sight of most Christians and people of faith in general.

God does not exist, George Washington is dead, and those that find it disgusting are doing so irrationally, so none of what you said are of any validity.

The founding fathers are way smarter and more intelligent than you and I or anyone in this day and age. The fact is this: these men were geniuses. They modeled this nation on Biblical Christian principles. Commissioned after the signing of the Declaration of Independence was the Liberty Bell, which was inscribed with a passage from Leviticus.

They were geniuses, they started an ill thought out rebellion against the British government to get out of paying their taxes, ended with an even bigger debt, and then patched together a constitution and a bill of rights based on a series of compromises because their first government was an utter failure. They were deists, and Jefferson famously edited an edited an edition of the New Testament getting rid of all the miracle nonsense and only keeping what he percieved to be Jesus' moral teaching.

I will always listen to the founding fathers over the modern day Internet pontiff.

I tried listening to the ashes of my grandpa, no sound.

[Pandeeria]

No. We should take the sound principals of logic, what the constitution laid out, and what advisors and people that know stuff are saying. The founding fathers lived in the 1700's. Their time is passed. Time to move on.

In that case, the Constitution, written by these outdated gentlemen, ought to be abolished, and a new one, perhaps more politically correct and atheistic, ought to be made?

No, read my post again. I even said what the constitution laid out.

Though a complete secular constitution, removing phrases like "Under God", "In God we Trust," etc. Would be nice.

[New Israel and Pan-America]

Alright, I will have none of this. I will not hear this bigoted, anti-American, anti-Constitution, anti-Founders nonsense.

You can have your opinions, I will have mine.

[Roski]

Alright, I will have none of this. I will not hear this bigoted, anti-American, anti-Constitution, anti-Founders nonsense.

You can have your opinions, I will have mine.

Please give me an example of where these things are present.

[Pandeeria]

Homosexuality, however, is offensive in both God's sight, George Washington's sight, the sight of most Americans, the sight of most state constitutions, the sight of most state laws, and the sight of most Christians and people of faith in general.

The founding fathers are way smarter and more intelligent than you and I or anyone in this day and age. The fact is this: these men were geniuses. They modeled this nation on Biblical Christian principles. Commissioned after the signing of the Declaration of Independence was the Liberty Bell, which was inscribed with a passage from Leviticus.

I will always listen to the founding fathers over the modern day Internet pontiff.

The founding fathers said "Fuck the British", not "Fuck the queers".

History isn't that difficult, mate.

They probably did think though "fuck the queers" and not in the sexual sense, as it was the bloody 1700's.

[MERIZoC]

The US is ever closer to having all 50 states recognize same-sex marriage.

We must begin preparations for the next developed country to work on. Italy, perhaps.

Australia, Finland, and Germany are also good candidates for recognizing it.

Wait, what? Finland doesn't recognize gay marriage? I'm surprised.

[Benuty]

The US is ever closer to having all 50 states recognize same-sex marriage.

We must begin preparations for the next developed country to work on. Italy, perhaps.

This thread, so the OP seems to say, is open for carefully-written debate. I will say that I disagree that all 50 states will accept same-sex or "gay" marriage.

There are states that have constitutional prohibitions on it. Furthermore why should all states be forced to accept it? That does not seem fair. My state's constitution prohibits this sort of behavior outright.

I'm thinking about making an OP all about gay marriage in the United States.

Personally: against it, totally from a Biblical Christian standpoint. I don't hate "gay" people, I do hate their lifestyle. It is a Christian doctrine to love the sinner but hate the sin.

More info on this: http://www.gotquestions.org/love-sinner-hate-sin.html

By the way, if I'm not actually allowed to talk here and this is only for certain people, I apologize. Please let me know if this is the case.

Frankly temple prostitution is impossible to compare to homosexuals, marriage equality, or their so-called "lifestyles". These were hardly prostitutes who did it for the glory or financial necessity of it, they were sexual slaves in all meanings of the word. So comparing it to those suffering under the abusive system of temple prostitution is incredibly insulting.

[Roski]

The founding fathers said "Fuck the British", not "Fuck the queers".

History isn't that difficult, mate.

They probably did think though "fuck the queers" and not in the sexual sense, as it was the bloody 1700's.

They didn't write it down as law, though.

[Pandeeria]

Australia, Finland, and Germany are also good candidates for recognizing it.

Wait, what? Finland doesn't recognize gay marriage? I'm surprised.

I'm surprised Germany doesn't either.