Gays & Marriage
- Thread starter Laurel
- Start date
Xander
Rekindled
- Joined
- Dec 20, 1999
- Posts
- 17,089
Laurel said:
Okay Laurel.
What's the big deal???
Two people in love. Wanna tie the knot and be together. Hetro or homo, shouldn't make any difference. Love is love.
Whats the big deal??
The answer should be obvious to those, not walking around with their head up their respective ass'.
CreamyLady
Uncompromising Visionary
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2000
- Posts
- 2,685
This will be splitting hairs, but:
I believe a great deal of the static about this issue comes because of the word "marriage" as opposed to "state sanctioned."
Marriage is considered a sacrament in the Catholic church, and a union blessed by God in many others. Many of the Christian denominations denounce homosexuality; they cannot condone "marriage" as it is the antithesis of their belief.
To allow a civil ceremony, sanctioning a union by the state, would satisfy the legal requirement while taking the spiritual element out of it. That might appease some of the religious right; not all, but some of it.
Personally, I'm all for it. Heck, I'm for the old style of handfasting, a pledge for a year and a day, or as long as love shall last. A loving, committed union should be acknowledged legally, as long as there are benefits bestowed by the state on such a union.
I believe a great deal of the static about this issue comes because of the word "marriage" as opposed to "state sanctioned."
Marriage is considered a sacrament in the Catholic church, and a union blessed by God in many others. Many of the Christian denominations denounce homosexuality; they cannot condone "marriage" as it is the antithesis of their belief.
To allow a civil ceremony, sanctioning a union by the state, would satisfy the legal requirement while taking the spiritual element out of it. That might appease some of the religious right; not all, but some of it.
Personally, I'm all for it. Heck, I'm for the old style of handfasting, a pledge for a year and a day, or as long as love shall last. A loving, committed union should be acknowledged legally, as long as there are benefits bestowed by the state on such a union.
Laurel
Kitty Mama
- Joined
- Aug 27, 1999
- Posts
- 20,693
Here's two points to ponder:
1) Should you force a moral code upon an organization? Should the Catholic Church be pressured into accepting gay marriages? Should the Boy Scouts be made to accept homosexuals? Should the KKK be made to accept blacks into their ranks? Should those who practice female circumcision of their infant children be pressured into abandoning the practice?
2) Would you back state-sponsored protection for gay couples, so that gay partners could enjoy the same legal rights as straight couples?
1) Should you force a moral code upon an organization? Should the Catholic Church be pressured into accepting gay marriages? Should the Boy Scouts be made to accept homosexuals? Should the KKK be made to accept blacks into their ranks? Should those who practice female circumcision of their infant children be pressured into abandoning the practice?
2) Would you back state-sponsored protection for gay couples, so that gay partners could enjoy the same legal rights as straight couples?
Stormystarr
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2000
- Posts
- 590
just my opinion
I think that since just about everyone complains about EQUAL rights, anyone should be able to join whatever orginization they want to, reguardless of age, race, sex, religion...etc.
But some of these same people complaining about equal rights are the ones who prevent others from joining certain groups.
I call them hypocrites!
I think that since just about everyone complains about EQUAL rights, anyone should be able to join whatever orginization they want to, reguardless of age, race, sex, religion...etc.
But some of these same people complaining about equal rights are the ones who prevent others from joining certain groups.
I call them hypocrites!
Ezzy
Insignificantly Important
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2000
- Posts
- 2,252
Laurel said:
Just turning things around a little:-
1) Should the Catholic Church, Boy Scouts, KKK, and those who practise female circumcision, be able to force their moral code on the rest of the world?
IMHO NO which must make the other answer YES
2) Should gay couples be persecuted and forced not be able to enjoy the same rights as all other humans in the land.
IMHO NO which must make the other answer YES
I apply this reverse logic to most questions, I find them ezzyer to give truthful answers that way.
EZ http://smilecwm.tripod.com/cwm2/sleep.gif
[Edited by Ezzy on 10-16-2000 at 12:26 AM]
Ezzy
Insignificantly Important
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2000
- Posts
- 2,252
The same way...
that all majority decisions are dealt with.
1) you legislate.
2) you then rigorously apply the letter of the law.
If there are laws in place that cover these issues they should be applied first.
I am sure some part of constitutional law would be being broken if nothing else.
EZ http://smilecwm.tripod.com/cwm2/sleep.gif
[Edited by Ezzy on 10-16-2000 at 12:39 AM]
that all majority decisions are dealt with.
1) you legislate.
2) you then rigorously apply the letter of the law.
If there are laws in place that cover these issues they should be applied first.
I am sure some part of constitutional law would be being broken if nothing else.
EZ http://smilecwm.tripod.com/cwm2/sleep.gif
[Edited by Ezzy on 10-16-2000 at 12:39 AM]
MinkSoul
Monkey
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2000
- Posts
- 4,878
nonono.....Please.....Not the government....
More laws?
They seem to be telling me what I can and cannot do from when I get up in the morning untell I go to bed at night...
In my opinion, the government is a necessary evil and the more necessary you make them..... the more Evil they become.
More laws?
They seem to be telling me what I can and cannot do from when I get up in the morning untell I go to bed at night...
In my opinion, the government is a necessary evil and the more necessary you make them..... the more Evil they become.
Ezzy
Insignificantly Important
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2000
- Posts
- 2,252
MinkSoul said:
I see MinkSoul, that you are not married, are self employed, and you are not married. LOL
EZ http://smilecwm.tripod.com/cwm2/sleep.gif
Ps THIS POST IS A JOKE, (POOR I KNOW BUT STILL ONLY A JOKE).
Here's an interesting anecdote:
A gay couple live happily together as a couple for over twenty years. Unfortunately one of them dies before making out a will. The deceased had had no contact with his immediate family in decades as he had been ostricised for his sexual preferences. As there was no will, all the possessions of the deceased were forwarded to his nearest of kin - on of the family members that had refused to acknowledge his existence when he had been alive. The surviving partner not only had to deal with the loss of his life lover but also had to witness the removal of all his partner's belongings.
If they had been man and woman, the law would have recognized that despite not being married the surviving partner would constitute nearest of kin.
True story. Fucked up world.
A gay couple live happily together as a couple for over twenty years. Unfortunately one of them dies before making out a will. The deceased had had no contact with his immediate family in decades as he had been ostricised for his sexual preferences. As there was no will, all the possessions of the deceased were forwarded to his nearest of kin - on of the family members that had refused to acknowledge his existence when he had been alive. The surviving partner not only had to deal with the loss of his life lover but also had to witness the removal of all his partner's belongings.
If they had been man and woman, the law would have recognized that despite not being married the surviving partner would constitute nearest of kin.
True story. Fucked up world.
Hecate
Lady Hecate will do
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2000
- Posts
- 1,657
I hope it is ok to not answer this point by point but in a rambling post as I "think along as I type" ....
Should gay couples be having the same treatment legally as are other couples?
I think Yes. I am refering to legal treatment in the sense of communal and state law - NOT in the religious sense of marriage (will cover that bit later).
I think it should be of no consequence if a couple is m/m, f/f, black, white, interracial or whatever else comes to mind as distinctions. As long as we are talking a supposed long term (how ever long relations last these days) relation in a "couple" sense of way I see no reason whatsoever to distinguish. So I would be in favour to allow an "official recognition" of gay couples equal to hetero couples when getting married, thus giving them the same tax and other ratings that apply to a "normal" couple.
Talking about church now is something different. I would never see the catholic church to be forced to accept gay marriage. Not that they would, but it simply is not in their books and if they changed those rules they wouldn't be "the catholic church" anymore. I don't know if I make sense with this... what I am trying to say is that those "societies", "clubs" and religious communities are what they are for the rules and beliefes they set for themselves as being valid. Some base more, some less on them, but the catcholich church for one is sure not adjusting basic believes just because we would want them to. But then again I must ask - what worth would have the ritual of marriage for a gay couple if sacred in the name of a god and church who is supposed to detest that form of relation and love? What can it be worth to force a priest to perform a ceremony when the whole idea of such a relation is not considered a possibility?
Since the topic is not religion I'll just leave it standing like this.
I am not sure if I found a way to express my attitude propperly *sighs* my concept is quite clear in my head but sure didn't make it to the keyboard as well.
So to sum it up: Is gay "marriage" ok my answer would be:
legally - yes
religiously - no
Should gay couples be having the same treatment legally as are other couples?
I think Yes. I am refering to legal treatment in the sense of communal and state law - NOT in the religious sense of marriage (will cover that bit later).
I think it should be of no consequence if a couple is m/m, f/f, black, white, interracial or whatever else comes to mind as distinctions. As long as we are talking a supposed long term (how ever long relations last these days) relation in a "couple" sense of way I see no reason whatsoever to distinguish. So I would be in favour to allow an "official recognition" of gay couples equal to hetero couples when getting married, thus giving them the same tax and other ratings that apply to a "normal" couple.
Talking about church now is something different. I would never see the catholic church to be forced to accept gay marriage. Not that they would, but it simply is not in their books and if they changed those rules they wouldn't be "the catholic church" anymore. I don't know if I make sense with this... what I am trying to say is that those "societies", "clubs" and religious communities are what they are for the rules and beliefes they set for themselves as being valid. Some base more, some less on them, but the catcholich church for one is sure not adjusting basic believes just because we would want them to. But then again I must ask - what worth would have the ritual of marriage for a gay couple if sacred in the name of a god and church who is supposed to detest that form of relation and love? What can it be worth to force a priest to perform a ceremony when the whole idea of such a relation is not considered a possibility?
Since the topic is not religion I'll just leave it standing like this.
I am not sure if I found a way to express my attitude propperly *sighs* my concept is quite clear in my head but sure didn't make it to the keyboard as well.
So to sum it up: Is gay "marriage" ok my answer would be:
legally - yes
religiously - no
Here's two points to ponder:
1) Should you force a moral code upon an organization? Should the Catholic Church be pressured into accepting gay marriages? Should the Boy Scouts be made to accept homosexuals? Should the KKK be made to accept blacks into their ranks? Should those who practice female circumcision of their infant children be pressured into abandoning the practice?
I most respectfully say that you're comparing apples and oranges here. Why should an orgazination (but must be private and receiving no state or federal monies) be forced to admit member that are opposed to their beliefs? They shouldn't. I would have said the same thing about the Citadel incident if they hadn't been recieving federal money. As for the female circumcision, nothing should be done to an infant that would negatively inpact the rest of their lives. Having said that, I realize what a hypocrit I am since I had my sons circumsized and the same thing could be said to me. Maybe it would be better to say that the aim of fc, chastity of the girl and faithfulness in marriage, is not the only way to accomplish such things and lazyness on the part of the parent. Chastity, modesty and faithfulness can be taught without mutilation.
2) Would you back state-sponsored protection for gay couples, so that gay partners could enjoy the same legal rights as straight couples?
Yes I would believe and support such a law, but it strikes me to be a difficult law to enforce.
teresafannin
One who hears the Music
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2000
- Posts
- 2,532
My answer to #1 is no.I personally don't see how you can force a moral code upon a group.It is too difficult to legislate morality. I don't think private organziations should be forced to admit members who don't adhere to their beliefs. I strongly disagree with many of the Catholic church's policies, so will not ever be a Catholic. If you don't believe in a group's rules, don't join that group, what is so hard about that? My son was in Scouts for 7 years. I am one of the most liberal people I know & I still believe the Scouts have a right to determine who will be the leaders of these boys.I don't know how it works in other areas, but the Scout Council here gets no federal or state money & the only United Way money it gets is from people like me who designate their contributions.I don't even want to think about how much of our Scout activities were paid for by me so that the boys could have a good program. Of course, if more parents wouldn't use groups like Scouts as baby sitting organizations, this wouldn't be as big an issue. My ex-husband & I became leaders, both in Cub Scouts & Boy Scouts for our son. This would also eliminate the problem of pedophiles in youth organizations, including church groups. If you want your child to participate, join with him/her & be a part of their activities. Enough of that rant for one day.
#2 answer is yes. Same sex couples should have the same tax benefits, insurance, etc as hetero couples. 2 of my favorite people are a gay couple who have been together for 10 years. They are lucky in that their families have totally accepted their relationship, but to be on the safe side, they have drawn up wills & set up their insurance policies so that the other will be the beneficiary. Tax laws need to be redrawn, anti-discrimination laws need to be enforced.
I realize some people will think that I am a hypocrite, but a private group is a private group.
#2 answer is yes. Same sex couples should have the same tax benefits, insurance, etc as hetero couples. 2 of my favorite people are a gay couple who have been together for 10 years. They are lucky in that their families have totally accepted their relationship, but to be on the safe side, they have drawn up wills & set up their insurance policies so that the other will be the beneficiary. Tax laws need to be redrawn, anti-discrimination laws need to be enforced.
I realize some people will think that I am a hypocrite, but a private group is a private group.
Ezzie
Unrequited Love Slave
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2000
- Posts
- 1,104
Amendment 416 in Nebraska
Amendment 416 is a bill that people want passed in Nebraska to ban gay and lesbian marriages. But let me explain a few things about this bill and maybe show people why I'm all for same sex marriages and unions.
Fact 1: Amendment 416 is nothing but a hate bill. It will not allow same sex marriages, and will NOT allow any kind of benefits (Health, 401k, Life insurance) for people of the same sex that are NOT life partners but rather partners in business only.
Fact 2: The people for Amendment 416 are allowed to run televised adds saying that "The only recongnized marriage in Nebraska should be between a man and a woman" Opponents of 416 are NOT allowed to run adds on their behalf because it's viewed as imoral. Can you say censorship?
Fact 3: This bill was written so poorly that most people that try to read and understand get confused. You think you're voting Against 416 (Which means you're in favor of same sex unions and business partners) when you're probably so mixed up by red tape and fine print that you'll probably vote in Favor of 416 which means you're against everything.
Now, me personally, I'm all for same sex marriages! Hell, I don't want the government in my bedroom and I don't think they should be in the bedroom of a gay or lesbian couple. This is the 21st Century, when will people stop trying to make everyone do what THEY think is the right thing? Last time I checked, we were all able to feel, act and think how we wanted. How long until someone tries to pass a bill against that?
Amendment 416 is a bill that people want passed in Nebraska to ban gay and lesbian marriages. But let me explain a few things about this bill and maybe show people why I'm all for same sex marriages and unions.
Fact 1: Amendment 416 is nothing but a hate bill. It will not allow same sex marriages, and will NOT allow any kind of benefits (Health, 401k, Life insurance) for people of the same sex that are NOT life partners but rather partners in business only.
Fact 2: The people for Amendment 416 are allowed to run televised adds saying that "The only recongnized marriage in Nebraska should be between a man and a woman" Opponents of 416 are NOT allowed to run adds on their behalf because it's viewed as imoral. Can you say censorship?
Fact 3: This bill was written so poorly that most people that try to read and understand get confused. You think you're voting Against 416 (Which means you're in favor of same sex unions and business partners) when you're probably so mixed up by red tape and fine print that you'll probably vote in Favor of 416 which means you're against everything.
Now, me personally, I'm all for same sex marriages! Hell, I don't want the government in my bedroom and I don't think they should be in the bedroom of a gay or lesbian couple. This is the 21st Century, when will people stop trying to make everyone do what THEY think is the right thing? Last time I checked, we were all able to feel, act and think how we wanted. How long until someone tries to pass a bill against that?
KillerMuffin
Seraphically Disinclined
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2000
- Posts
- 25,603
Interestingly enough, despite my supposedly Christian ideals (gawd the pastor yelled at me for two hours over this one), I think that gay couples should have the same rights as hetero couples. If they wanna get married and live together, well, it is not my job, or anyone elses, to set them on the religiously/morally/whateverly right path. If they want to do this, who am I to stop them?
I am not God.
My job, as defined by God, is to try to turn them to the Christian walk of life. I don't do that very well because I don't talk to people about God. They either see him workin in my life or they don't. I'ma bad Christian, prolly goin to hell, but whooooopee.
The Christian Coalition is so worried about the gay agenda that they are missing the whole point. They spout rhetoric about being ye kind one to another, tender hearted, forgiving one another, but they have turned homosexuals into "The Enemy." Christians have one "The Enemy" and gay people just don't qualify as the evillest critter around. We are supposed to love, forgive, and not judge. Sometimes being human is hard.
The primary concern is the issue of children. There are a large group of people out there, Christian and not, that don't want kids raised by gay couples. A parent is a parent and so many children out there need parents. California and Kansas have ads on TV begging people to adopt children. The laws on adoption have changed, you don't have to be married and financially perfect to do it, anyone, just about, can adopt a child. Yeah, you hear about how hard it is to adopt, only if you want a baby. Personally, I would prefer to see these kids raised by a pair of loving parents, gay or not, than to suffer being jounced from foster home to orphanage.
Discrimination is nasty. My personal religious beliefs have no place making government decisions. Sure, I wish our leaders would take a few of the 10 commandments to heart, but that isn't gonna happen. Power corrupts. Yes, gay people should be permitted to have the same legal rights that straight people do. We shouldn't be making their moral choices for them. I'm sorry to disappoint my fellow Christians, particularly Fallwell's people, but I love gay people.
I am not God.
My job, as defined by God, is to try to turn them to the Christian walk of life. I don't do that very well because I don't talk to people about God. They either see him workin in my life or they don't. I'ma bad Christian, prolly goin to hell, but whooooopee.
The Christian Coalition is so worried about the gay agenda that they are missing the whole point. They spout rhetoric about being ye kind one to another, tender hearted, forgiving one another, but they have turned homosexuals into "The Enemy." Christians have one "The Enemy" and gay people just don't qualify as the evillest critter around. We are supposed to love, forgive, and not judge. Sometimes being human is hard.
The primary concern is the issue of children. There are a large group of people out there, Christian and not, that don't want kids raised by gay couples. A parent is a parent and so many children out there need parents. California and Kansas have ads on TV begging people to adopt children. The laws on adoption have changed, you don't have to be married and financially perfect to do it, anyone, just about, can adopt a child. Yeah, you hear about how hard it is to adopt, only if you want a baby. Personally, I would prefer to see these kids raised by a pair of loving parents, gay or not, than to suffer being jounced from foster home to orphanage.
Discrimination is nasty. My personal religious beliefs have no place making government decisions. Sure, I wish our leaders would take a few of the 10 commandments to heart, but that isn't gonna happen. Power corrupts. Yes, gay people should be permitted to have the same legal rights that straight people do. We shouldn't be making their moral choices for them. I'm sorry to disappoint my fellow Christians, particularly Fallwell's people, but I love gay people.
Ezzy said:
Um. That was sarcastic, right? Otherwise it has the poorest reasoning I've seen since Bush took the podium first debate.
I thought Laurel's two questions were going to be duds since they were such givens.
1. Of course not. It's not government's place to tell people or orginizations what to believe or not to believe.
2. Yes, if opposite sex partnerships are recognized, then why not same sex partnerships?
Gaucho
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2000
- Posts
- 2,631
Here's two points to ponder:
1) Should you force a moral code upon an organization? Should the Catholic Church be pressured into accepting gay marriages? Should the Boy Scouts be made to accept homosexuals? Should the KKK be made to accept blacks into their ranks? Should those who practice female circumcision of their infant children be pressured into abandoning the practice?
Let's see now. That would be 4 no's and 1 yes. As much as I may not agree with the beliefs of an organization, I do believe that, provided that their stated rules do not break any known laws, an organization has the right to make its own rules and to ask its members to conform to those rules. One of the prime tenets of the Catholic faith (and most other Christian faiths) is that, while being a homosexual is not a sin, the act of homosexuality is, as stated in the Bible, inherently sinful. To stretch the point even further, the Catholic church believes that any sexual act outside of marriage is sinful, gay or not. This is one of the major reasons why the church cannot accept the idea of gay marriages, or, as we have here in Vermont, state approved civil unions. Now, even though I support civil unions for same-sex couples (and, for that matter, believe that same-sex couples should have the right to marry), I also support the church's right to do this. Or, put another way, it's their club, folks; if you want to join you gotta play by their rules. If not, find another religion that suits you better or feel free to skip organized religion entirely.
The truth is that, within the Catholic Church today (and also in a great many other religions, I suspect) there is a great deal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" going on. A lot of us parishioners (and priests) are having a hard time swallowing many of the traditional beliefs of the church - including, but not limited to, beliefs about abortion, women in the priesthood and, of course, same-sex marriages. All of this sets up and interesting and troubling dichotomy for those of us who call ourselves Catholic: If the road to salvation lies in accepting Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior and in accepting the primacy of the Catholic Church above all others, how many rules can you disobey or disagree with before you lose your seat on the Salvation Train? The answer is, as many as you want, as long as you don't tell anyone about it.
As for the Boy Scouts and the KKK, the same philosophy applies. As much as I think the Boy Scouts decision is based upon fear and ignorance and is incredibly shortsighted, it's still their club and if they want to exclude some of the best men and boys that are available to them, it's their choice. As for female circumcision, here's where that philosophy and I part company. Unlike male circumcision, which, whether you agree with it or not, has at least a modicum of medical and social reasoning behind it, the only purpose of female circumcision is to deny women any enjoyment from the sexual act and to make them more subservient to men. In fact, the term itself (female circumcision) is a misnomer. The proper term for this act is genital mutilation and if there were a similar procedure practiced upon male babies (or men) the practice would have been abolished centuries ago.
2) Would you back state-sponsored protection for gay couples, so that gay partners could enjoy the same legal rights as straight couples?
Yes, without question. While I have some philosophic qualms about the way the measure was enacted here in Vermont, I am wholeheartedly in support of Civil Unions. To deny same-sex couples the same rights and protections as straight couples is an injustice, pure and simple. In fact, I've yet to hear a coherent argument (except for people quoting scripture, which I don't accept as an authority in the matter) against granting these rights and protections to same-sex couples. Until I do, I will continue to support the law and I sincerely hope that it survives the coming election.
1) Should you force a moral code upon an organization? Should the Catholic Church be pressured into accepting gay marriages? Should the Boy Scouts be made to accept homosexuals? Should the KKK be made to accept blacks into their ranks? Should those who practice female circumcision of their infant children be pressured into abandoning the practice?
Let's see now. That would be 4 no's and 1 yes. As much as I may not agree with the beliefs of an organization, I do believe that, provided that their stated rules do not break any known laws, an organization has the right to make its own rules and to ask its members to conform to those rules. One of the prime tenets of the Catholic faith (and most other Christian faiths) is that, while being a homosexual is not a sin, the act of homosexuality is, as stated in the Bible, inherently sinful. To stretch the point even further, the Catholic church believes that any sexual act outside of marriage is sinful, gay or not. This is one of the major reasons why the church cannot accept the idea of gay marriages, or, as we have here in Vermont, state approved civil unions. Now, even though I support civil unions for same-sex couples (and, for that matter, believe that same-sex couples should have the right to marry), I also support the church's right to do this. Or, put another way, it's their club, folks; if you want to join you gotta play by their rules. If not, find another religion that suits you better or feel free to skip organized religion entirely.
The truth is that, within the Catholic Church today (and also in a great many other religions, I suspect) there is a great deal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" going on. A lot of us parishioners (and priests) are having a hard time swallowing many of the traditional beliefs of the church - including, but not limited to, beliefs about abortion, women in the priesthood and, of course, same-sex marriages. All of this sets up and interesting and troubling dichotomy for those of us who call ourselves Catholic: If the road to salvation lies in accepting Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior and in accepting the primacy of the Catholic Church above all others, how many rules can you disobey or disagree with before you lose your seat on the Salvation Train? The answer is, as many as you want, as long as you don't tell anyone about it.
As for the Boy Scouts and the KKK, the same philosophy applies. As much as I think the Boy Scouts decision is based upon fear and ignorance and is incredibly shortsighted, it's still their club and if they want to exclude some of the best men and boys that are available to them, it's their choice. As for female circumcision, here's where that philosophy and I part company. Unlike male circumcision, which, whether you agree with it or not, has at least a modicum of medical and social reasoning behind it, the only purpose of female circumcision is to deny women any enjoyment from the sexual act and to make them more subservient to men. In fact, the term itself (female circumcision) is a misnomer. The proper term for this act is genital mutilation and if there were a similar procedure practiced upon male babies (or men) the practice would have been abolished centuries ago.
2) Would you back state-sponsored protection for gay couples, so that gay partners could enjoy the same legal rights as straight couples?
Yes, without question. While I have some philosophic qualms about the way the measure was enacted here in Vermont, I am wholeheartedly in support of Civil Unions. To deny same-sex couples the same rights and protections as straight couples is an injustice, pure and simple. In fact, I've yet to hear a coherent argument (except for people quoting scripture, which I don't accept as an authority in the matter) against granting these rights and protections to same-sex couples. Until I do, I will continue to support the law and I sincerely hope that it survives the coming election.
teresafannin
One who hears the Music
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2000
- Posts
- 2,532
Excellent post, Gaucho. I didn't address the subject of female circumcision because I don't think it belongs in the same question. FC is a horrible torture & involves the mutilation of women. I agree that if this sort of practice had been used on men, it would have vanished. Most of the societies that practice these forms of torture are male dominated. Unfortunately, it is still a male dominated world & in too many places, women are still treated as expendable, second class citizens.
Gaucho said:
If people want to be castrated, have their eyes gouged out and their limbs cut off in the name of their religeon it's still no concern of the government. The problem lies where these practices are being excercised on unwilling participants or participants under an age suitable for making such a decision.
Gaucho
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2000
- Posts
- 2,631
Aranian said:
But you see, there's the problem. How many people, adult or otherwise, would willingly consent to such an operation? And if it's fine for an organization (or government) to mutilate its citizens, what's wrong with killing them? Of course, if you look at Clinton's response to what happened in Rwanda, then I guess we think there's nothing wrong with it.
Similar threads
