News Homosexual Rights: What Should They Be?

[rachmaninoff]

I voted for the first two, since there are quite a few elements with the last three that requires modification, IMO:
3. "Showing love in public":
Totally depends on the act one wishes to consummate in public
(Holding hands OK, 69 no-no, for example)
4. "Getting married":
In as much as one grants religious communities the right to perform marriage rites, it would, IMO, be a violation of the free exercise of religion to demand of such communities that they should perform rites contrary what they have thought up as their own standards.
5. "Right to adopt children":
No one, IMO, has the RIGHT to adopt kids; that is quite different from opposing the AUTOMATIC disbarment of gay couples from adopting kids.

I thought it was implicit that "right" in this context meant identical rights with those of heterosexuals, meaning the same rights are applied uniformly without a particular discrimination. So that (5) the "right to adoption" actually meant "right to be eligible for adoption", or "right to be free from discrimination in adoption"; likewise (4) "right to marriage" meant right to the legal benefits of marriage, not endorsement by a specific church (which isn't a legal right at all).

I think this is how most of you also interpreted this?

 

[EL]

Last place I would expect to find a fellow norrlänning What part?

Well I'll give you a hint. I'm from the city with the hockey team which everyone here every year expect to make it to Elitserien, but which always fails due to nervous breakdown.

Yeah we swedes are pretty damn stiff in general. But what is quite odd is that even though we are stiff we don't have a problem with homosexuals in general(except the hillbilly villages offcourse). The most politicaly correct people in the known universe...

Well, It's just on the outside we're stiff (could it be due to the climate?). On the inside however, we are soft as cotton!

 

[arildno]

Well, my stance on 4 is closely concerned with Norwegian concerns, in which we have a State Church. It is no secret that several politicians are eager to foist upon the state church the obligation to marry off gays in a religious context, if that is the couple's wish (we already got a secular version of marriage).
I disagree with that trend (and for that matter, with the institution of a state church).

 

[Jelfish]

4. "Getting married":
In as much as one grants religious communities the right to perform marriage rites, it would, IMO, be a violation of the free exercise of religion to demand of such communities that they should perform rites contrary what they have thought up as their own standards.
5. "Right to adopt children":
No one, IMO, has the RIGHT to adopt kids; that is quite different from opposing the AUTOMATIC disbarment of gay couples from adopting kids.

IMO, the "right" to get married would imply the state benefits of marriage, since religious marriage by itself doesn't have any legal ramifications.

For #5, I would say that the "right" to adopt a child is the same thing as opposing automatic disbarment. For example, a person has the right to get a job without him/her being discriminated based on race, religion, sex, and national origin (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964). Is that not the same as opposing the automatic disbarment of people based on the previously mentioned criteria? No one is saying that homosexuals automatically make perfect parents. I think that point should be obvious. Therefore, the "right" must imply protection against descrimination based on sexual orientation.

 

[Jelfish]

I thought it was implicit that "right" in this context meant identical rights with those of heterosexuals, meaning the same rights are applied uniformly without a particular discrimination. So that (5) the "right to adoption" actually meant "right to be eligible for adoption", or "right to be free from discrimination in adoption"; likewise (4) "right to marriage" meant right to the legal benefits of marriage, not endorsement by a specific church (which isn't a legal right at all).
I think this is how most of you also interpreted this?

Right, what rach said.

 

[arildno]

As for "right", we have the concept of "violation of a person's right" if the content of that right is not realized when a person wants it so (as in everybody has a right to a lawyer). That was the sort of right I was thinking of.

Note that this is the type of right most would say that biological parents have with respect to the rearing of their own children.
(Only in extreme cases is it considered allowable to deprive parents of this right).

I see your point, though.

 

[fargoth]

that letter was great EVO!

i think homosexual couples should be treated like any other couple from society.
they should have every right other people have in their country.

getting married by the church though, is not a right... you can't make them do it againt their belief.

maybe some homosexual will make his own stream of cristianity and solve the whole problem

id suggest though that he tries the flying spaggheti monster.

 

[arildno]

Letter??
Evo letters? Where??
What are you hiding from me?

 

[EL]

See Evo's first post in this thread.

 

[arildno]

See Evo's first post in this thread.

Oh dear...

 

[Moonbear]

IMO, the "right" to get married would imply the state benefits of marriage, since religious marriage by itself doesn't have any legal ramifications.
For #5, I would say that the "right" to adopt a child is the same thing as opposing automatic disbarment. For example, a person has the right to get a job without him/her being discriminated based on race, religion, sex, and national origin (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964). Is that not the same as opposing the automatic disbarment of people based on the previously mentioned criteria? No one is saying that homosexuals automatically make perfect parents. I think that point should be obvious. Therefore, the "right" must imply protection against descrimination based on sexual orientation.

This is how I interpreted the poll choices too. I don't really factor church weddings into my opinions of the right to get married. There are already plenty of restrictions on who can get married in a church, such as needing to be a member of the church, or not allowing it if you've previously been divorced, etc., but that doesn't block them from getting married at all.

For the right to adopt, I don't take these polls too literally. It would mean the same rights as anyone else has, in terms of not having your sexual orientation matter in the approval process...you still need to show you're a fit parent in every other way that anyone is evaluated.

I have also earlier pointed out that showing love does not mean the same thing as making out or having sex in public. I don't want to see ANYONE doing that. But, things like holding hands or walking with your arms around each other, or the ability to choose a public location to get down on bent knee and propose marriage, or just to utter the words "I love you," while in public are all perfectly acceptable things that any couple should be allowed to do.

 

[arildno]

This is how I interpreted the poll choices too. I don't really factor church weddings into my opinions of the right to get married. There are already plenty of restrictions on who can get married in a church, such as needing to be a member of the church, or not allowing it if you've previously been divorced, etc., but that doesn't block them from getting married at all.
For the right to adopt, I don't take these polls too literally. It would mean the same rights as anyone else has, in terms of not having your sexual orientation matter in the approval process...you still need to show you're a fit parent in every other way that anyone is evaluated.
I have also earlier pointed out that showing love does not mean the same thing as making out or having sex in public. I don't want to see ANYONE doing that. But, things like holding hands or walking with your arms around each other, or the ability to choose a public location to get down on bent knee and propose marriage, or just to utter the words "I love you," while in public are all perfectly acceptable things that any couple should be allowed to do.

These are issues I would support.

 

[fargoth]

yep, i support these too.

 

[Evo]

Well, my stance on 4 is closely concerned with Norwegian concerns, in which we have a State Church. It is no secret that several politicians are eager to foist upon the state church the obligation to marry off gays in a religious context, if that is the couple's wish (we already got a secular version of marriage).
I disagree with that trend (and for that matter, with the institution of a state church).

Being a State Church is something I hadn't considered. So this is, perhaps, more of a political move than a decision on reform within the church itself. That would explain the conflict Hurkyl brought up with their decision to bless people they still consider as sinners.

 

[arildno]

Being a State Church is something I hadn't considered. So this is, perhaps, more of a political move than a decision on reform within the church itself.

Precisely.
I understand that such issues are rather peripheral to Americans, who have made a very sensible division between political and religious life.

 

[ek]

Gay people are still people.

This really should be a non-issue.

Only socially-regressive fascists think otherwise.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I've never had a problem with displays of affection between members of the same sex in public. I always hug my best friends. I have an online friend who is gay and when we met with a bunch of other people from the same internet community he gave me a hearty slap on the back and said "Hey there buddy!" all masculine like after giving everyone else hugs. I poked fun at him for it and told him that I don't have a problem with hugs.
I actually saw a commercial on television for a men's only phone dating line for the first time yesterday. I thought that was a bit odd.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I feel it necessary to point out a clear fundamental difference between these:
Stoning or burning people was a punishment for a sin.
Homosexuality is, itself, a sin. (as I understand it)
The main tenant of Christianity, as I understand it, is that the law of the New Testament has supplanted that of the Old -- we are no longer obligated to stone people for their sins, nor to sacrifice animals to atone for our own.
To restate: while we're not supposed to stone people for adultery anymore, it is still a sin.
I know of nothing that has suggested that things that were once a sin had become non-sins.

Try telling that to a fundementalist, they won't listen trust me. Some believe the Old testament is just as valid as the new and frankly they ignore anything that is upsetting or irrelevant or contradicts itself. It's a sort of inditement of the illogical reasoning that faith can spawn.