Homosexuality

[Judge Judy]

Ever heard of the free exercise clause? It's, "The freedom of religion and the exercise thereof." Unfortunately, any church has the right to exclude homosexuals from their practices on the grounds of, "That's how we do things around here." So that's one reason why things went down how they went down with prop 8.

I disagree.

Firstly, a religion is for an individual to follow. Not for the entire world. You are simply forcing people to follow religious laws, which they may disagree on.

If the church do not allow a gay couple to get married, then individuals really cannot do much because it is within the Church Jurisdiction.

However, with prop 8, it was combined with constitutional and religious content thus meaning it affected everyone. This is simply forcing everyone to abide by religious laws.

If a two homosexual couples want to get married in the church and a religious setting won't allow it, then of course they could get married else where. However, no, Prop 8 banned gay marriage everywhere within the area jurisdiction whether you are getting married in a church or not.

This I believe is wrong. Religion must accept the fact that there are other people in this world and you cannot discriminate them just purely based on things such as sexuality.

Edited January 19, 2009 by Judge Judy

[uguu]

You said that everyone should be allowed the same rights and everyone is, which is why prop 8 was able to pass legally.

Wait.

So what you're saying is, it should be allowed to be able to vote for gays to not be able to marry, but the opposite shouldn't be true? That's stupid.

Or are you saying that we should be able to vote away straight marriage as well?

[Liz]

Ever heard of the free exercise clause? It's, "The freedom of religion and the exercise thereof." Unfortunately, any church has the right to exclude homosexuals from their practices on the grounds of, "That's how we do things around here." So that's one reason why things went down how they went down with prop 8.

Also, your reference to a separation of church and state is valid, but there are links between the two that can't be broken. Churches can send lobbyists to try and convince members of Congress to pass legislation, but we shouldn't refuse anyone the right to do that. Also, the very line, "separation of church and state" is open to interpretation as well as the rest of the constitution. I believe when Congress proposed this bill, there were some homosexuals who took it to the Supreme Court thinking it is unconstitutional. As you may notice, there are no homosexuals in the Supreme Court, so they can and did interpret the separation of "church and state" irrelevent to a separation of "church and nation." This is bullshit but that's how it went down.

You said that everyone should be allowed the same rights and everyone is, which is why prop 8 was able to pass legally.

i know that religion still exercises a HUGE influence over what happens in our government. but does it justify it? nope, it doesn't. and that's the reason of my frustration. its not right that heterosexual couples get all of the benefits of marriage, while homosexuals are overlooked.

i find that not being able to marry someone of my same sex as a violation of my rights protected by the Bill of Rights. As you said "freedom of religion and the exercise thereof." what if i decided that i don't want to follow my religion? or what if my religion accepts homosexual unions? they're effectively forcing into me Christian ideas, ideas that I may simply not agree with. Why should I limit myself to religious ideas that, forgive me for saying this, are simply idiotic? Why should I be forced to live with ideas that were written thousands of years ago by some random people i didn't even know?

perhaps it may be that i'm a homosexual, or perhaps that i just plain hate the idea of religion, but I really believe that all this crap is just an abuse of power by people who do not understand and are ignorant of our situation.

[Judge Judy]

i know that religion still exercises a HUGE influence over what happens in our government. but does it justify it? nope, it doesn't. and that's the reason of my frustration.

Agreed. I think it is rather dangerous for a religious person to have so much influence over the government. Religion has a biased approach to matters. They never solve problems and must not have too much influence on statutory law making.

The only reason, there are other people out there with different views too and you must consider their opinion too whether they agree or disagree with what religion has to say.

Majority of laws stated in religious scripts are purely subjective and therefore it will always remain biased.

Edited January 19, 2009 by Judge Judy

[Media Junkie]

You do know the definition of the word bigot, right?

Yes, but I was thinking that religious people aren't bigots in a sense that it's part of their practice, but they way you put it, I guess it isn't doesn't matter how you sugar-coat it, bigotry is bigotry

Straight people did it too, everyone had plenty reason to be pissed off. Shit was completely made up, lies invented by religious groups, in order to blind the general population.

What violent shit did straight people do? Also, I don't think it was made up, I witness two gay guys run into a church in the middle of service and rip up hymn books and throw them in the air, screaming "IT'S OKAY TO BE GAY!" As for the demolition of churches, I don't think you can lie about that and get away with it since the broadcast and print media have to disclose their sources on demand if officials see it fit. We'd know by now if that shit was fake.

BTW, you're a smart guy, Death. You make some great points.

[Liz]

Government, in order to have the most people happy and to actually protect the rights everybody, should act completely neutral on matter concerning religion. There should be no influence from religious groups, but rather to try and protect the rights of the most people possible.

it is ridiculous that we're still being subject to something as a ban to homosexual marriages when other countries have already accepted them.

Edited January 20, 2009 by Aphrodite

[Judge Judy]

it is ridiculous that we're still being subject to something as a ban to homosexual marriages when other countries have already accepted them.

Thats because people in the government have religious views too. They are like:

''all gays will go hell'' bla bla bla bla

I am so tired of hearing this. Firstly who are they to decide who will go hell or not. Are they are god? Highly doubt it.

They should keep their views to themselves and must accept the fact that time is changing.

Edited January 20, 2009 by Judge Judy

[Media Junkie]

i know that religion still exercises a HUGE influence over what happens in our government. but does it justify it? nope, it doesn't. and that's the reason of my frustration. its not right that heterosexual couples get all of the benefits of marriage, while homosexuals are overlooked.

i find that not being able to marry someone of my same sex as a violation of my rights protected by the Bill of Rights. As you said "freedom of religion and the exercise thereof." what if i decided that i don't want to follow my religion? or what if my religion accepts homosexual unions? they're effectively forcing into me Christian ideas, ideas that I may simply not agree with. Why should I limit myself to religious ideas that, forgive me for saying this, are simply idiotic? Why should I be forced to live with ideas that were written thousands of years ago by some random people i didn't even know?

perhaps it may be that i'm a homosexual, or perhaps that i just plain hate the idea of religion, but I really believe that all this crap is just an abuse of power by people who do not understand and are ignorant of our situation.

Exactly! I'm suprised this shit was upheld as constitutional. I guarntee that if someone goes to the supreme court with a case based around the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause, the Supreme Court would have no choice but to rule that prop 8 is UNconstitutional.

[Liz]

Exactly! I'm suprised this shit was upheld as constitutional. I guarntee that if someone goes to the supreme court with a case based around the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause, the Supreme Court would have no choice but to rule that prop 8 is UNconstitutional.

if it was that easy, Prop 8 would already be unconstitutional nation-wise.

after all, people have been discussing this issue for QUITE a while.

<__<

i may not be as informed in all that legal mumbo-jumbo, but i'm sure that it won't be as easy as going into the supreme court and saying "hey fools, this law is unconstitutional"

[Media Junkie]

and the blacks weren't trying totake away white people's rights.

So you think that there is a justifiable reason to burn someone else's place of worhip down?

[yaoman]

So you think that there is a justifiable reason to burn someone else's place of worhip down?

In fact I don't

v v v

Wellllll I don't necessarily support their actions but...

I was just saying that it was an improper comparison

[Media Junkie]

if it was that easy, Prop 8 would already be unconstitutional nation-wise.

after all, people have been discussing this issue for QUITE a while.

<__<

i may not be as informed in all that legal mumbo-jumbo, but i'm sure that it won't be as easy as going into the supreme court and saying "hey fools, this law is unconstitutional"

That's not what I'm saying. I know it's not that easy. The reason is that it is hard to sway the religious members of the Supreme Court mto support anything they don't believe in. The fact is that the 14th Amendment arguement has helped win all of the big civil rights and civil liberties. If a good enough arguement is made based around that, prop 8 will be unconstitutional.

>__>

I know you've been talking about this for a while, but I wasn't lurking this are at the time. Don't get shitty with me because a point that was already been made is being referenced. It is relevant to the current arguement, and that's all that matters.

[Liz]

i wasn't being shitty.

if i sounded like it, it was completely unintentional.

[Media Junkie]

In fact I don't

v v v

I was just saying that it was an improper comparison

It is though. Black were voting to support their advancement, which pissed white southerners off because the luxury they had was deminishing. True, in retrospect those rights look like they had a right to be taken away, but they fought for their rights with the same anger that the homosexuals are. Maybe in the future, kids will look in their textbooks and say that homosexuals deserved to have their rights taken away, too. Why would they? Because they resorted to the same violence that racist fuck heads did when something they held dear was taken away from them. You see why I made the comparison now?

[Fox]

last time i checked, there had been a split between religion and government in the constitution.

For the record, that split was to protect the religious side of things, not the governmental.

[Media Junkie]

Indeeds.

[yaoman]

It is though. Black were voting to support their advancement, which pissed white southerners off because the luxury they had was deminishing. True, in retrospect those rights look like they had a right to be taken away, but they fought for their rights with the same anger that the homosexuals are. Maybe in the future, kids will look in their textbooks and say that homosexuals deserved to have their rights taken away, too. Why would they? Because they resorted to the same violence that racist fuck heads did when something they held dear was taken away from them. You see why I made the comparison now?

It isn't though. The only problem whites had was that blacks were voting at all. The whites aren't having any rights taken away, they are just losing their exclusivity, and if that is their beef then they should have taken it up with the Supreme Court. If there is a specific event you are referencing in which the blacks are voting to TAKE AWAY white men's rights then maybe it would be close, but so far you haven't provided one. The gays are angry that a majority group (heterosexuals) is allowed to take away their right to marriage recently awarded by a California Supreme Court.

The situations are only similar in that they include violence.

[Media Junkie]

It isn't though. The only problem whites had was that blacks were voting at all. The whites aren't having any rights taken away, they are just losing their exclusivity, and if that is their beef then they should have taken it up with the Supreme Court. If there is a specific event you are referencing in which the blacks are voting to TAKE AWAY white men's rights then maybe it would be close, but so far you haven't provided one. The gays are angry that a majority group (heterosexuals) is allowed to take away their right to marriage recently awarded by a California Supreme Court.

The situations are only similar in that they include violence.

Well my main point in comparing the two was the violence among two opposing factions, but I guess it really was an uneven comparison. Sorry about that.

[lolDeath]

What violent shit did straight people do? Also, I don't think it was made up, I witness two gay guys run into a church in the middle of service and rip up hymn books and throw them in the air, screaming "IT'S OKAY TO BE GAY!" As for the demolition of churches, I don't think you can lie about that and get away with it since the broadcast and print media have to disclose their sources on demand if officials see it fit. We'd know by now if that shit was fake.

It appears I have completely fucked up the context here, whoops. I am not saying that poor behavior was made up, I mean religious groups (mostly Mormon) actually made things up to scare people. I do not condone the disruptive behavior here, but you have to keep in mind that the minority that did that do not speak for the majority, gay people are plenty pissed at them just like Muslims are pissed at terrorists, they ruin things for the majority.

And there was destruction on the part of straight people everywhere, same for gays, it was not isolated to California. People were beaten, property was destroyed, but I feel I must restate that these few (and it is a few) people do not speak for the majority at -all-. There is no link between sexuality and behavior, people are people and people are stupid.

[Media Junkie]

I mean religious groups (mostly Mormon) actually made things up to scare people.

Like what?

[Kintenbo]

Thats because people in the government have religious views too. They are like:

''all gays will go hell'' bla bla bla bla

I am so tired of hearing this. Firstly who are they to decide who will go hell or not. Are they are god? Highly doubt it.

They should keep their views to themselves and must accept the fact that time is changing.

This is what I understand. Nowhere in the Bible did it say that gay folk are excluded from salvation. Unless someone can prove me wrong, I am highly positive there are absolutely no one excluded from being able to receive salvation. Just accept Jesus as your savior, accept that you are a sinner, and you're set. It matters not what you did, who you are, or what race you are. (really, if anybody thinks race affects God's view on a person, they are major fools) Those who say stuff like "God hates fags" and that "all gays will go to hell" are fools. That, or need to reread the Bible a lot more.

Edited January 20, 2009 by Kintenbo

[General Spoon]

This is what I understand. Nowhere in the Bible did it say that gay folk are excluded from salvation. Unless someone can prove me wrong, I am highly positive there are absolutely no one excluded from being able to receive salvation. Just accept Jesus as your savior, accept that you are a sinner, and you're set. It matters not what you did, who you are, or what race you are. (really, if anybody thinks race affects God's view on a person, they are major fools) Those who say stuff like "God hates fags" and that "all gays will go to hell" are fools. That, or need to reread the Bible a lot more.

I'm gonna have to call you out here.

While it doesn't say anywhere in the Bible that being gay is a sin, it most certainly says that gay acts are sinful. I'll go get the Bible verses.

[General Spoon]

Here's a verse.

Leviticus 18:22

“Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

[Kintenbo]

Here's a verse.

Leviticus 18:22

“Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

I knew about that. However, it is also written that God forgives all sins, if you sincerely repent.

Edited January 20, 2009 by Kintenbo

[Herr Wozzeck]

Except that, ya know, those people's religion is intolerant....

Again, I bring up the case of people not paying careful attention to the numerous mentions of love in the New Testament. Being a former Roman Catholic myself who barely even touched the books of Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and Numbers (since those books are the non-Exodus-Ten-Commandment-Verses books where the rules are laid down), I felt that Christianity was a super accepting religion; was it not Jesus Christ who himself said that 'may he who is perfect throw the first stone' when the people were going to do it to an adulterous woman because the Book of Moses said so? It's not that the religion is intolerant; it's that the people that pay attention to Leviticus and Deuteronomy and those books of the Bible choose not to pay attention to the New Testament (which, ironically enough, is the centerpoint of Catholicism and Christianity in general).

it is ridiculous that we're still being subject to something as a ban to homosexual marriages when other countries have already accepted them.

Actually, compared to some places, homosexuals are doing fairly well here. Homosexuals still get persecuted in the deeply Islamic nations of the Middle East (to the point that their heads get lopped off in Saudi Arabia). So in this regard, Islam is the more dangerous religion since it actually is a fundamentalist religion unlike Christianity.

Edited January 20, 2009 by Edgard Varése