News Homosexual Rights: What Should They Be?

  • Thread starter Thread starter EL
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers around the rights of homosexual couples, particularly in light of recent decisions by the Church of Sweden to bless same-sex partnerships. This has sparked controversy among conservative clergy who argue that such blessings contradict biblical teachings. Participants express varied opinions on the role of religious institutions in sanctioning homosexual relationships, with some advocating for the autonomy of priests to choose whether to bless these unions based on their beliefs. The conversation also touches on broader societal attitudes towards homosexuality, public displays of affection, and the implications for child-rearing in environments where such behaviors are visible. There is a recognition of changing attitudes within religious communities, contrasting with traditional interpretations of scripture, and a debate over the balance between personal beliefs and societal acceptance. The discussion highlights the complexities of navigating faith, tradition, and evolving social norms regarding LGBTQ+ rights.

What rights do you think homosexual pairs should have?

  • Total voters
    26
  • #31
ukmicky said:
I would like to know why in today's society its deemed so wrong for me to be anti homosexual. i am anti homosexual because i find it repulsive and disgusting and i find it impossible to separate the disgusting part from the person. But I don't persecute or discriminate against them, but today's society and the media find my ideals as wrong. But what’s wrong with me not liking homosexuals if my opinions don't harm anybody.

Well you can pretty much hold any oppinion you want aslong as you don't act on it in a way that hurts others. Freedom of religion, freedom of speach ect allows that. But it works both ways. They are protected from your oppinions by the same rights that entitles you to have those oppinions.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
cyrusabdollahi said:
Were they kissing each cheek or were they kissing on the lips? Kissing each cheeck is done in many countries. (The guys)
No, women walking holding hands. Men walking or sitting with an arm around the other man's shoulders.

ukmicky said:
I would like to know why in today's society its deemed so wrong for me to be anti homosexual. i am anti homosexual because i find it repulsive and disgusting and i find it impossible to separate the disgusting part from the person. But I don't persecute or discriminate against them, but today's society and the media find my ideals as wrong. But what’s wrong with me not liking homosexuals if my opinions don't harm anybody.
It's because it is being realized that homosexual behavior isn't deviant, learned behavior.

If your religion or personal beliefs oppose it, as long as you don't do anything against others (verbally or physically) you are certainly entitled to your thoughts. Same goes for gay people, they should not be verbally or physically invasive of you either.

I don't think people should be deep throating or sexually groping each other in public either. To me, it's a sign of immaturity and insensitivity toward others.

Cyrus, I know many gay people from work that you would never guess were gay. My ex boss was married and had three kids when he "came out". He won full legal custody of his kids and they adore him. You can't stereotype people.
 
  • #33
Azael said:
Well you can pretty much hold any oppinion you want aslong as you don't act on it in a way that hurts others. Freedom of religion, freedom of speach ect allows that. But it works both ways. They are protected from your oppinions by the same rights that entitles you to have those oppinions.
I should just let you answer for me, you said it better than I did.
 
  • #34
No, women walking holding hands. Men walking or sitting with an arm around the other man's shoulders.
This is common in a lot of countries, especially the middle east.


Cyrus, I know many gay people from work that you would never guess were gay.
Thats better IMO. If he's gay he keeps it to himself. I don't go around saying I am hetero. You should come down to DC EVO, they way the gays talk around here, you can sniff them out by their 'dialect'
 
  • #35
cyrusabdollahi said:
This is common in a lot of countries, especially the middle east.
I lived a sheltered life. :blushing: Down in Texas, a guy could get shot for putting his arm around another in public. :wink:
 
  • #36
Heres the thing Evo, you will see man and man or woman and woman, but not so much man and woman. Did you notice that? For example, in the middle east you will never see a man and woman holding hands in public. But you will always see men with their arms around each others shoulders, and women holding hands.
 
  • #37
cyrusabdollahi said:
Heres the thing EVO, you will see men and men or women and women, but not so much men and women. Did you notice that?
It's because of what we're trained is acceptable. Like me thinking the behavior in Italy was so strange.
 
  • #38
Is your right to foster your child in the way you se fit(to the extent of preventing others actions) any more "basic" than peoples right to show affection towards each other in public.
I didn't know either of those were actually "rights" -- they surely don't appear in the constitution, do they?


Ignoring the technicalities, the answer is yes. Raising a child cannot (reasonably) be done without interaction with the environment. OTOH, showing affection can be done without being in the public environment.

And I would say one certainly doesn't have the right to force others to see their showing of affection. (In my eyes, this is a core part of the problem -- homosexuals... at least the vocal ones... seem not to just want the rights to do things, but the right to force it down everybody else's throat)
 
  • #39
cyrusabdollahi said:
A child does not have a full sense of right and wrong. Its the parents job to teach them right from wrong. And not everyone thinks homosexuality is right. Even if two straight people were making out, that's nothing a child should see.
The poll doesn't say "making out in public" it says "showing love in public." In my experience, making out in public does not necessarily indicate love between two people, and more often is a display of possessiveness or infatuation rather than love.
 
  • #40
cyrusabdollahi said:
Thats better IMO. If he's gay he keeps it to himself. I don't go around saying I am hetero. You should come down to DC EVO, they way the gays talk around here, you can sniff them out by their 'dialect'
This is sounding horribly homophobic to me. You're stereotyping entire groups of people based on the actions of a few. Interestingly, there are just as many heterosexual couples who make quite a spectacle of themselves in public, yet I don't hear you saying you can sniff out heterosexuals based on that behavior.
 
  • #41
It's pretty easy to sniff out a hetersexual male, as he will be turning slyly to check out the backside of every halfway decent-looking women that walks past him.

I don't see what's so bothersome about public homosexual behavior anyway. I practically spent all of my high school years hanging out in West Hollywood, and I was never once bothered. Even when I got hit on. I just realized that I knew what it was like to be a woman now, to always be hit on by people you have no interest in.
 
  • #42
Evo said:
I should just let you answer for me, you said it better than I did.

Thanks:approve:
 
  • #43
Evo said:
It's because of what we're trained is acceptable. Like me thinking the behavior in Italy was so strange.

Its funny how it can change so much betwen countries. If I compare my swedish friends with my friends form thailand its like night and day. The thai friends have no problem hugging each other, telling you they love you(in a friendly way:smile: ), use you as a pillow when watching tv ect. Because its so natural to them it becomes easy to act the same towards them. But I could never act like that with a swedish friend it would be so damn acward.

I can say for sure that I prefer the thai way though


Hurkyl said:
I didn't know either of those were actually "rights" -- they surely don't appear in the constitution, do they?
Ignoring the technicalities, the answer is yes. Raising a child cannot (reasonably) be done without interaction with the environment. OTOH, showing affection can be done without being in the public environment.
And I would say one certainly doesn't have the right to force others to see their showing of affection. (In my eyes, this is a core part of the problem -- homosexuals... at least the vocal ones... seem not to just want the rights to do things, but the right to force it down everybody else's throat)

Well I don't have the slightest clue what is in the constitution(Im not american). But I wasnt really speaking about legal rights. More about basic freedom to do what you want aslong as it doesn't hurt others(I know this isn't a law but it should be, go libertarians :-p )

Its very easy to turn your eyes away if 2 people is making out. I don't se the big deal:confused: Its not like they tie me down, force my eyes open and start to make out in front of me:bugeye: and if it is 2 girls you better believe I would enjoy it :biggrin:

I can agree that the "sissy" type of homosexuals. Those that really feel the need to flaunt it, is way over the top. Especialy transvestites. But it bothers me no more than to se wiggers, goth followers or women in burkha. If people want to express themself in a certain, way who am I to say that they cant? All kinds of different lifestyles have different way of expressing themself. Why just pic out gays?
 
  • #44
Azael said:
But I could never act like that with a swedish friend it would be so damn acward.

Really? I have no problems using my friends as pillows!:smile:
 
  • #45
EL said:
Really? I have no problems using my friends as pillows!:smile:

:) you must be less conservation than most swedes. or maby its just because I am from norrland:smile:
 
  • #46
So I can see this thread has aroused som feelings, that good.

What I would like to ask (especially those of you who are more conservative) is about this "making out in public"-thing:
Should homosexuals and heterosexuals have the same rights when it comes to making out, or should there be a difference due to that you find homosexual acts "more disgusting"? I.e. is this really a subject related to a discussion about homosexuals?

I would also like to ask if people should be allowed to choose their own accent when speaking? So is this really a subject related to a discussion about homosexuals?


Anyway, I thinks most of this anti-homo propaganda is based on fear of the unknown. Get to know some gays (well, you certainly already do without being aware of it), and you'll find the typical homosexual to be quite ordinary (whatever that now means...). In general they do not talk in a funny way, do not walk silly, etc.
And, anyway, those who do these things, why is it so hard to accept people for who they are? What the world need is more acceptance of differences!
 
Last edited:
  • #47
Azael said:
:) you must be less conservation than most swedes. or maby its just because I am from norrland:smile:

Haha, no I'm actually from Norrland too!
But I think you have a point in general...
 
  • #48
EL said:
Haha, no I'm actually from Norrland too!
But I think you have a point in general...

Last place I would expect to find a fellow norrlänning:-p What part? I am from Gällivare, the second worst place of misery in sweden except offcourse the number one Kiruna(my apologise if you are form kiruna :approve: )

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...
 
  • #49
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.
 
  • #50
Hurkyl said:
Ignoring the technicalities, the answer is yes. Raising a child cannot (reasonably) be done without interaction with the environment. OTOH, showing affection can be done without being in the public environment.

Also, fat and ugly people should opt to live as secluded of a life as possible, because god knows they're disgusting to look at. "Mothers! Shield your children's eyes, for their witness will lead them to a life of fat and ugliness!" :rolleyes: Personally, I'd be more protective of children seeing acts of violence than love, but hey, we're living in a culture where movies with murder are rated less sensitively than ones with a flash of nudity. Go figure.
 
  • #51
arildno said:
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?
 
  • #52
Azael said:
Last place I would expect to find a fellow norrlänning:-p What part?
:wink: 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!:wink:
 
  • #53
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).
 
  • #54
arildno said:
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.
 
  • #55
rachmaninoff said:
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. :biggrin:
 
  • #56
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.
 
  • #57
:smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: 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 :biggrin:

id suggest though that he tries the flying spaggheti monster.
 
  • #58
Letter??
Evo letters? Where??
What are you hiding from me?
 
  • #59
See Evo's first post in this thread.
 
  • #60
EL said:
See Evo's first post in this thread.
Oh dear...:blushing:
 

Similar threads

  • Poll Poll
News What say should the church have in politics?
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
News Europe's Economic Future: A Cause for Concern?
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K