News Homosexual Rights: What Should They Be?

[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.