SHP Forums

DeadPoolX wrote: Maybe it is elsewhere in the world, but in the U.S., homosexuals are merely prohibited from marrying (in most states). Some states within the U.S. do allow civil unions and others even permit marriage. It's not common, however.

For example, in the vast majority of Muslim stases, like Iran. For the UN, depenalizing homosexuality seems also fight against these arcaic prejudices.

Usually I stay away from things like this but I just have to ask....

What effect is a statement from the Vatican going to have on how Islamic states treat homosexuals? The last time I checked Tehran really didn't take their marching orders from Rome....

What effect is a statement from the Vatican going to have on how Islamic states treat homosexuals? The last time I checked Tehran really didn't take their marching orders from Rome....

No they don't but the more conservative catcholic countries still do.

Vatican position is going to affect France providement. This should affect UN position on the subject. And if UN doesn't recognize the gravity of these situations, nothing will be done to correct these abominable crimes.

Ok, I can start to see that linkage. I'm not familiar with European to Middle Eastern politics so I didn't see the connection before.

I'm still a bit suspicious that anything from the U.N. is going to have any effect on what barbaric tin pot dictatorships do - it certainly hasn't done anything to stop Iran's steady march toward developing nuclear weapons - but I can certainly see the symbolic benefits and the possible more tangible benefits in less extreme countries that are closer to Catholic theocracies. Rome certainly would have a good bit of sway there.

While I'm certainly no world expert the whole homosexual/religion battle that is brewing gets me pretty irritated. I understand the complaint on both sides of the argument, understand why both sides deeply feel they are right and wish everyone would just agree to side step it rather than fan the flames. In America the battle has been over gay marriage and a small minority of people have been pointing toward the correct solution for a long time - the state shouldn't issue "marriage" licenses at all. There is a basic separation of church and state that should prohibit any recognition of a religious state (or which matrimony is one). States issue civil licenses that tie the two people (of any sexual combination) together legally and they can have whatever religious ceremony in whatever church they prefer (of which there are many that not only embrace but celebrate same sex marriages). When the state got in the business of condoning a religious ceremony it implied some level of governmental control of religion (we say you can get married, we say you can't get married) and that is clearly prohibited by our Constitution. It was done, quite simply, as a revenue generation scheme not unlike cops writing speeding tickets or yard sales having to have a permit but it has snowballed into a potentially ugly fight that will have no winners.

At this point there are many people in the states who may view the argument of homosexuals in a very sympathetic light (why shouldn't two people who love each other be married?) but who also view the ongoing political efforts to force "gay marriage" to be recognized as a civil right as a direct attempt to force a confrontation between government and religion. A state approves gay marriage, a couple gets a marriage license, they go to a church that does not condone gay marriage and request a ceremony and then the church that refuses to marry them on religious grounds is sued for discrimination. Neither side is doing anything to help themselves dissuade the vast middle they are doing anything OTHER than trying to get a governmental stamp of approval on their position. The church wants the state to recognize marriage as only between a man and a woman (thereby de-legitimatizing same sex couples) and the gay community wants the state to force a church to recognize their situation.

It's clear to anyone watching that both sides on this debate are trying very hard to force a confrontation. The church wants sway over the machinations of state (which it shouldn't have) and the homosexual community wants the state to have sway over the theology of church (which it shouldn't have). Those of us in the middle who aren't anti-homosexual but religious are being forced to "decide". It's childish, it's immature, it's petty and it's destructive and I, for one, am sick to death of the asinine actions of both sides.

Obviously in other parts of the world where the actions of the church still officially have more formal sway in the operations of government the groundwork around this debate will change radically. In those places (Iran, for example) it is very proper and right for those outside of the religion to attempt to change the religious framework as it has a direct and real impact on them through the actions of the state. America was designed to avoid this confrontation by separating the two and I get a lot more upset at both sides in their attempts to tear down that wall than I do with either of the two sides as to their respective positions.

AndreaDraco wrote:

DeadPoolX wrote: Maybe it is elsewhere in the world, but in the U.S., homosexuals are merely prohibited from marrying (in most states). Some states within the U.S. do allow civil unions and others even permit marriage. It's not common, however.

For example, in the vast majority of Muslim stases, like Iran. For the UN, depenalizing homosexuality seems also fight against these arcaic prejudices.

To be fair, Iran usually spouts out moronic and inflammatory BS, such as declaring the entire destruction of Israel and the United States. Apparently, they wish to be left alone in peace, so that they may construct nuclear weaponry or purchase it from terrorist factions around the world.

Then they'll inevitably attack Israel and later on, the U.S. and perhaps other western countries as well. Of course, the majority of the world demonizes Israel for its stance (i.e. if they try making nukes, we'll destroy their ability before it gets off the ground) on the issue.

Why not, right? Most of the world criticized Israel for blowing up Iraq's impending nuclear capability in the early 1980s. Looking back, it was a very smart move.

Andy Roark wrote:In America the battle has been over gay marriage and a small minority of people have been pointing toward the correct solution for a long time - the state shouldn't issue "marriage" licenses at all.

While this sound good, the problem is that there are legal issues involved with marriage. Rights of property, inheritance, to legally be next of kin, etc. This is one of the reasons that gays are pushing for the right to marry, to gain these legal rights. Our legal system in the past has been a kind of hybrid of Roman jurisprudence and common law. most states seem to be eliminating the common law elements. A common law marriage carries less legal weight than it use to.

Heh, I honestly don't understand why gay marriage has to be such a battle ground, in my country they just took out the gender out of the marriage laws and that was it. People get married before the law, if they want to get married before the church the priest can do the ceremony or not, that's a religious choice not a legal one. As long as churches and other locations who can perform wedding ceremonies in the religious sense do not receive government funding they can decide for themselves. I remember when they took out the gender wording in the marriage laws, the foreign press turned out in droves while the national press was mostly 'meh' and 'so?' *shrug* with offcourse some conservatives screaming bloody murder but those you'll always have unfortunately. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/922024.stm. Also, South Africa http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6159991.stm

In other news: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7762041.stm The protestors are leaving BKK Airport. Hopefully this means things will calm down with the forced stepping down of PM Somchai and not just a quiet few days because of the Kings birthday.

therogue wrote:People get married before the law, if they want to get married before the church the priest can do the ceremony or not, that's a religious choice not a legal one. As long as churches and other locations who can perform wedding ceremonies in the religious sense do not receive government funding they can decide for themselves.

I think that's part of the issue.

In the U.S., you can get married through a religious or a civil ceremony. It's the same in Canada, too. The reason many in the U.S. dislike the idea of homosexual marriage is because marriage, as it's currently viewed, is a religious contract. More people get married by a religious official than those who do not.

Even in mixed religious ceremonies, the couple will often opt for an official from both religions. Maia and I didn't, but neither of us are very religious. Most of the U.S. is in some way -- maybe some differ as to what degree they're religious, but the majority definitely have some interest in religion (generally their own).

Since "marriage" is seen as religious, the religious organizations can weigh in on the subject. Most religions view homosexuality as "wrong" in some manner. Those who devoutly follow their faith generally agree.

The religious view is that marriage is defined as "a union between a man and a woman." Some go so far as to state that a marriage isn't valid unless offspring are produced. Neither of those I think are correct, especially the last one. What if a man and a woman decided to forgo having children? Is their marriage suddenly a fraud? It seems to me that there are numerous holes in this so-called logic.

This is why the term "civil union" has been made. The idea behind it is that homosexual couples (and heterosexual couples, although it's generally assumed otherwise) can get a "civil union," but not a marriage.

The difference between a marriage and a civil union is that the former is considered religious while the latter is scene as orchestrated by the state government. This tends to satisfy all but the most outspoken members of different religious orders.

The problem is that many benefits afforded married couples do not work their way over to those who've had civil unions. Some of these benefits can include higher pay and a greater level of trust. The reason behind this is more monetary than religious. Many companies feel that someone who is married will probably be more level-headed and responsible than someone who's single. This isn't always true, but I can see some merit in it.

Regardless, the issue of homosexual marriage is a hot topic in the United States. The conservatives in the country (many of whom are from the "bible belt") refuse to budge on their decision. The more liberal groups can't understand why homosexual marriage is such an issue. Both sides are usually brought out and debated whenever an election is coming up. It's done that way to rally voters who're more in line with one party's viewpoint than another.

I should point out that not all conservatives are Republican and not all liberals are Democrats. Most are, however, so the term is applied without much thought given to it. Some people (like me) are in the middle of both parties on various issues.

DeadPoolX wrote:Since "marriage" is seen as religious, the religious organizations can weigh in on the subject. Most religions view homosexuality as "wrong" in some manner. Those who devoutly follow their faith generally agree.

The religious view is that marriage is defined as "a union between a man and a woman." Some go so far as to state that a marriage isn't valid unless offspring are produced. Neither of those I think are correct, especially the last one. What if a man and a woman decided to forgo having children? Is their marriage suddenly a fraud? It seems to me that there are numerous holes in this so-called logic.

I definitely agree, and I can certainly see some of the problems in this "argument". What about parents who physically abuse their children (seriously, not 'just' a slap on the rump)? What about male-female marriages that end in divorce, causing trauma not only for the parents but also for the child? What about parents who hate their children (or vice versa)? etc., etc. Do these kind of marriages count as wonderful, simply because a child had been conceived? *grumble*

DeadPoolX wrote:Regardless, the issue of homosexual marriage is a hot topic in the United States. The conservatives in the country (many of whom are from the "bible belt") refuse to budge on their decision. The more liberal groups can't understand why homosexual marriage is such an issue. Both sides are usually brought out and debated whenever an election is coming up. It's done that way to rally voters who're more in line with one party's viewpoint than another.

Heh. I suppose I sympathise with the more liberal groups, who can't understand why homosexual marriage is such an issue in the US. It has something in common with some of the other "hot-button" issues in the US for the past century, including Prohibition, the teaching of evolution, equal rights for blacks etc. As I understand it, the way many conservatives see it (particularly in the "Bible Belt") is this: this issue conflicts with the Bible/our way of life/the values that this country was founded on/the values of the Founding Fathers/etc., so I should be against it.

As for the conservatives refusing to budge... *G* It reminds me of a scene from the BBC show "Yes Minister", when the Minister, Jim Hacker, talks with his Private Secretary, Bernard Woolley, on the effect of client pressure groups on government policy:

Hacker: Bernard, I'm not happy about my meeting with the three Under-Secretaries for transport. They seem to be, in effect, briefed by the various transport interests to resist any aspect of government policy that might be unfavourable to their clients.

Bernard: That's right, Minister.

Hacker: No, that's wrong, Bernard!

Bernard: But that's how the Civil Service actually works in practice. In fact, all government departments - which in theory collectively represents the government to the outside world - in fact lobby the government on behalf of their own client pressure group. In other words, each Department of State is actually controlled by the people whom it is supposed to be controlling.

Hacker: Well, I don't think so...

Bernard: Why is it, for instance, that we have got Comprehensive Education throughout the UK? Who wanted it?

Hacker: Well, not the pupils or the parents...

Bernard: The National Union of Teachers wanted it, and they are the chief client of the Department of Education and Science. So the DES went Comprehensive.

Hacker: But...

Bernard: You see, each department acts for the powerful sectional interest with whom it has a permanent relationship. The Department of Employment lobbies for the workers, whereas the Department of Industry lobbies for the employers. It's actually a nice balance: Energy lobbies for the oil companies, Defence for the armed forces, the Home Office for the police, and so on.

Hacker: So the whole system is designed to prevent the Cabinet from carrying out its policy?

Bernard: Well, somebody's got to.

(from the episode "The Bed of Nails" - probably paraphrased a little bit, but the main gist of it is there). That whole thing would probably apply in the US as well - just substitute "client pressure groups" with "lobby groups". *grin*

By the way, what is the American equivalent of the British Civil Service? *wonders, curious*

This is the reason people don't "get" what conservatives think - they ignore what conservatives say, mischaracterize the statements and then play some silly sock puppet game to put words in their mouth that make them look bad. I'll try again.

I am a conservative, Republican christian who has voted against gay marriage every single time I've been given the chance. Here is why:

I do not recognize the state's power to dictate theology to the church. I will not endorse or allow any action that will further that control. I refuse to mandate (through a vote that endorses gay marriage) any movement toward strengthened state control over any religion except in cases where the religion is involved in something patently illegal.

At the same time I recognize the inherent human right that every person should have to legally be tied to the person they love - sex be damned. I have no problem with the state issuing licenses that carry the full legal benefits of currently existing "marriage" for same sex couples. I actually believe that to ensure equal rights my existing "marriage license" issued by the state is unconstitutional and should be reissued as a "civil union" license - just like the licenses they would issue for every other couple (same and opposite sex) from that point on. What I don't believe is that the state should ever issue a license that could or would be used to attempt to force any religious entity to perform a marriage ceremony between two people if it believes (based on it's theology) that the ceremony is sin. If after the issuing of a "civil union" license a couple gets married in a church that recognizes their arrangement, so be it. Religious freedom is religious freedom, period.

Andy Roark wrote:
I do not recognize the state's power to dictate theology to the church. I will not endorse or allow any action that will further that control. I refuse to mandate (through a vote that endorses gay marriage) any movement toward strengthened state control over any religion except in cases where the religion is involved in something patently illegal.

I can see what you're saying and quite often, I have sided with the Republican party (over financial issues, if nothing else). My problem here is that although the government shouldn't have a say in religion, the reverse is true as well. Why should any religion dictate what the government (state or federal) decides to do within the law?

Oh, I agree totally. The separation should work both ways. Sadly both sides are pushing to tear that down. The end result won't make either happy and the rest of us that aren't insane are going to be left with some ugly consequences.

Creationism in schools = dumb
Ten commandments in courtrooms = dumb

It's hard to say fired the first round on this one but I think they should both knock it off. I really think it's about 5% of people on the outer fringes of American politics that makes the minor differences the rest of the 90% have seem so big.

Well, it's typical of dogmatic factions to stick to their beliefs and never let anyone get a word in otherwise. This holds true for both sides of the debate.

By the way... it's come to my attention (via my wife) that I may have given the wrong impression in my post about conservatives. I don't think every conservative is -- as the news media likes to project -- a die-hard nutjob. There are plenty of liberals who fit that criteria very nicely.

I suppose my point was that the conservatives everyone hears are the ones who bring a bad name to the ideology. When it comes to keeping government out of our lives and financial issues, I am very much in the conservative camp. However, I tend to lean towards the liberal side of things on social issues.

In short, both sides hate me. I figure I'm doing something right if that's the case.

Oh no dude - not a problem. I certainly didn't take any offense. I enjoy a lively debate

There was a time when I would have described myself much the same as you just did: economically conservative but socially liberal. In recent years I've started to see a pseudo-religious bent begin to take over the "socially liberal" movement that reminds me a lot of the American puritan movement. Politically correct has become an almost religious devotion to certain "right thinking" concepts and in that time I've found myself moving more and more toward the conservatives - if only because they tolerate a little freedom of people having different opinions.