The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)

Corkfeen

From the child's perspective it would be a fairly massive deal to have both their parents recognised in law however you are objecting to this. 'Undermining marriage' is a term often thrown around but I've yet to see a way in which it has been undermined in the countries that currently allow same sex marriage . In fact it seems to have strengthened it.

There is no reputable study that indicates negative consequences of same sex adoption but apparently it'll ruin the very idea of families. These claims are vague and have no real world basis.

Stereomaniac

I think you need the influence of a man and a woman when you are developing. I don't mean to offend anyone, but that is just my opinion. However, I think that two men would be more than capable of rearing a child together as well. I just think that that child would need more interaction with women as well. I certainly noticed it as a small child when my mother was on the night shift for extended periods of time and I didn't see her. Different, I know.

MrPudding

Crystalium wrote: »

Equally, I don't believe same sex heterosexual marriages, polygamy etc. offer any sustainable future for humanity or society. Surely if equal rights are truly equal, they should be applied to all consensual relationships of every kind, not just a homosexual couple ?

Do you believe these equal rights should also be extended to these minorities and if not, why not ?

So what? Do you think that allowing same-sex marriage will suddenly turn everyone gay and prevent children form being born? Gay people are already gay, allowing same-sex marriage will not change that.

The rate of reproduction is society is what it is. Allowing same-sex marriage will not change that. Actually, it might increase it a little and some same-sex couples might have children once they are married.

With respect to polygamy, and I presume incestuous marriages as well, they will need to be assessed on their own terms. We can allow same-sex marriage on the grounds of equality without having to allow polygamy or incestuous marriages. There are no reasonable reason for not allowing same-sex marriage. There are no reasons that aren't based, in some respect, on a religious belief or simply some personal opposition. The state should not base laws on religious doctrine or personal bigotry.

So, is there an acceptable reason to continue the ban on polygamy whilst allowing same-sex marriage? Probably. Polygamous relationships are, by there very nature, unequal. If we take one man marrying multiple women for example. Women in society tend to be at a socio-economic disadvantage. Polygamy reinforced and increases this disadvantage. The women are lessor than the men, their dignity in undermines by the marriage itself, and the more wives the man has the more this increases. In more practical terms it could lead, ultimately, to a position were richer more powerful men would marry more women and poorer men could find difficulty in finding a wife. Which would not be good for society or its sustainability.

With respect to incestuous marriages. There is the old genetic abnormality chestnut. I am not 100% convinced that this is considered to be as much of a problem as it once was, but I do believe it is still an issue. So there is probably a case for restricting this type of marriage on that basis. That a particular couple might not be able to have children or pinky promise not to should not be enough to secure permission. This type of exception would be easy fake and difficult to administer.

In addition, there is an argument for a continued ban on those type of relationship for child protection and family stability reasons. it is generally considered that allowing incestuous relationships would be risky to vulnerable member of a family. As that type of relation would be considered ok, there would likely be increased pressure on those vulnerable members to take part in acts that they would not take part in of their own free will.

Let me know if you want me to give your reasons against bestiality as well.

twg73 wrote: »

Well Science Direct published it. Are you saying Science Direct is biased towards the one of other groups?

The journal that first published this "study" are actually investigating it as there are serious issues with it. This is not a good study to hang your views off.

You may also be interested in this, this and this.

Oh, and if you are thinking about trying to the the 2002 Child Trends study read this first.

twg73 wrote: »

A referendum it might pass. Gay couples should have the same protections. However adoption might be a stumbling block.

Going to be hard to convince some conservatives in Ireland that it would be ok to allow this couple adopt.

<snip>

A referendum will pass. Why would adoption be a stumbling block? You think it is acceptable to discriminate against children now as well?

MrP

MrPudding

lmaopml wrote: »

This is 'brief'..lol...I don't think you do brief Mr. P

I do try, but tend to fail.

lmaopml wrote: »

Oh, well please tell me why anybody inferred it so, because somebody posted with a different view? Anybody who doesn't think this way is a 'bigot' that's the way it comes across - I don't think that it does any favours to those who are genuine in posting when 'name calling' enters the occasion - and with respect, name calling does little justice to those more invested in this - and not merely this 'thread' on boards. Name calling doesn't help.

Whilst I agree that name calling does not help, I fully understand the reasons. It is slightly more subtle than simply because an opinion is different. It is more to do with a complete unwillingness to look at the subject objectively.

lmaopml wrote: »

I think your thought experiment is rather an emotional response Mr. P - In reality in this country we can celebrate very very strong women, and no not every single women decries their faith as something that held them back and didn't contribute vastly to their femininity, and allow women to be women. There is a certain freedom in allowing women to be women and not merely humans with different genitals.

Hmm, seems like preparing for a non-answer. It is a thought experiment. History is not relevant, and nor, to a certain extent is reality. The purpose of the thought experiment is help you to see a different perspective.

lmaopml wrote: »

I don't intend to give you the 'whole this will never happen..' It 'did' happen - we fought damned hard to be able to even practice our faith in public while paying taxes to a foreign government that outlawed us - but I guess you may have forgot that fact.

It did not quite happen, I think my example is a little more extreme. I find it interesting that you have not actually answered.

lmaopml wrote: »

Pardon me - I'm not the best at expressing myself clearly, it's not a gift of mine - what I meant was that I have no problem with equal rights for people who are dependent and living together in civil law - I have no problem with them also looking for legislation for to express the wish that a person who was more involved in the upbringing of a child is always involved in their life as a parent - this could be messy however if a father or mother gets involved too, and I think it's only fair that they too have a chance in court.

Ok, so nothing to do with same-sex marriage then.

lmaopml wrote: »

No, you think marriage is merely a legal contract no matter the participant - that's kind of obvious.

At it most basic civil marriage is a legal contract, it has to be. That does not mean that is all I think it is, and you would do well not to decide what I think about a particular subject. I do think marriage is very important, so important that I think it should be available for same-sex couples.

lmaopml wrote: »

Good luck with your little ones Mr. P - and I know you love them, I'm not trying to be mischievous with that at all - God knows we do our best.

We will have to agree to disagree on the bit in bold.

lmaopml wrote: »

However, there is a common sense element to the message that would be 'Fathers' are being sent today and also to the breakdown of marriages and attitudes towards sex etc. that contribute to a failing in fathers to be real men - that doesn't help attitudes towards marriage. I'm talking not merely about marriage as some kind of disney version, but marriage as regards self sacrifice for and with eachother where...'family' happens.

And this is relevant to same-sex marriage, or indeed anything, how exactly?

lmaopml wrote: »

Cheers Mr. P - You are always quoting others - digging for evidence, it's blatantly apparent for anybody who uses 'google' that these things are inconclusive and some very neatly rigged, as is widely recognised - Do I really need to 'google' and post alternate studies?? Studies where a child has been abandoned by their father and knows it?

So what are you saying? That the vast preponderance of evidence is a conspiracy and hundreds upon hundreds of professional academics and scientists are falsifying scientific studies in favour of same-sex couples? Seriously? And yes, you do need to post alternative studies. And I will, unlike yourself apparently, do you the courtesy of reading what you post.

lmaopml wrote: »

I'm not denying that gay couples can raise and love a child - the difference is that a married couple, a mother and father who bring up their own children is what 'marriage' is - it's not merely a legal contract. It's about the family, it's about the building blocks of any society and it's something that I don't understand the need to reduce, because that's illogical, and undermines the family and the child, and mother and father. God knows family law is already hard enough.

Two things here. First, are you saying that a same-sex couple raising children is not a family? That is pretty offensive, to be honest. Secondly, can you please explain for same sex marriage undermines the family?

MrP

MrPudding

lmaopml wrote: »

I'm sorry, but 'marriage' is not a 'right' of every individual no matter whom - it's not the right of a brother to marry a brother, or a sister to marry a brother or anything like it for a very good reason - it's not about just romance and sex, although it involves both.

I have dealt with this in another post. Yet another failed argument. The legalisation of same-sex marriage will lead to: same-sex marriage. End of.

lmaopml wrote: »

It's more important to promote good parents with a serious view of marriage than to promote it as merely a means to some notion of social awareness and fluffy thinking about who loves who.......It's a simple fact, that children do have a mum and dad. I don't agree and never will with the idea that marriage is merely a contract and that mum and dad are only 'carers' that don't effect a child ever so long as they are replaced adequately.

Terrible message.

I don't agree that marriage is merely a contract, as I have pointed out. I have said before that, the fact that all the evidence we have available shows that the whole role model "thing" that you cling to is incorrect does not cheapen any mother and father relationships. My role as a father is not lessened by the fact that I know a woman could raise my children as well as I can.

I do not feel like a lessor man or a lessor father. I happen to be the father of my four children and I happen to be raising them with their mother. I also happen to believe that two women or two men could raise them just as well as I could. That fact, that two men or two women could raise them just as well, is not an attempt to get rid of mother / father families, it is simply an answer to the charge that same-sex couples can't raise children. This is another of the points that you repeatedly miss. This does not undermine "traditional" families. It has nothing to do with them.

MrP

MrPudding

lmaopml wrote: »

I am not, certainly NOT, saying that gay couples have and do not love a child like any parent would, or that their children are somehow less etc. etc. that's a smoke and mirrors way of explaining oneself.

What I 'AM' saying is that 'marriage' is a commitment to eachother and that between an unrelated male and female they most likely have the ability of being a 'parent' to a child. This is a fact.

And how can that not apply to a same sex couple? That definition could apply to a same-sex couple just as easily as to an opposite-sex couple.

lmaopml wrote: »

That's the difference. Despite the notion that one hates 'gays' if they oppose anything at all - which is blatantly untrue, there is a terrible injustice to children as it is as regards 'their' right to a parent, which is the notion of 'marriage' and why it is so important - it's not about 'my' right to have a child but 'their' right to know their parents and be loved.

??? A child born in a same sex marriage, adopted by a same sex couple, or already born of a previous opposite-sex relationship does have parents. It might not match your parochial view, but that doe snot make it any less correct.

lmaopml wrote: »

Despite the idea that some people are cool parents etc. etc. and so on....quite simply, sending a message to parents that they are replaceable anytime is not a good message, especially when Fathers are already thought very little of in family law.

Meh, I just don't see the problem here.

lmaopml wrote: »

Marriage is not about just a legal contract for 'recognition' - even if some treat it that way, it's about more than just that, it's about real families with real fathers and mothers who live up to life and contribute to society providing stable homes that are promoted as such, because every child has a father and mother, and they know it.

I don't disagree, I would simply add that allowing same sex couples to marry does not take away form this. The make-up of the family might be different, but that does not undermine existing families and can only be good for children.

You problem here is you are hung up on kids having a father and a mother. You cling to this notion that it is essential, despite all evidence to the contrary. You are now moving into the realms of irrationality and responding to your posts appears pointless, aside from pointing out the errors of them to others that might be reading.

MrP

MrPudding

lmaopml wrote: »

I am not saying that they are not 'real' people, real families that contribute to a child and their well being - of course they do - nobody, and no couple is an island, the more input the better!

However, there IS a difference between promoting the nuclear family and saying it's inconsequential - in saying that 'marriage' is merely a representation of 'variety' and the message that sends to people...

Meh, bored responding to this now. Marriage is important, the family is important. The only issue if that your narrow view of what is good is wrong.

lmaopml wrote: »

As it stands, marriages break up, there is such a thing as dead beat dads etc. and mums who get spiteful, and children caught in the crossfire.

Marriage is about none of those things, it's about the 'united' family unit, where both mum and dad are important parents equally, and where their children most importantly are entitled to 'both' parents, not the other way around. It's a logical conclusion of sex within any society that a child is not merely something one is entitled to - but that 'the child' is entitled to their parents, and to know them to. Why undermine this? Even if ones marriage breaks down, or one is sexually attracted to the same sex, I don't understand why seeing things from a child's perspective is not paramount and always should be.

I have seen this argument a few times, it is not great either. If a child has a right to both its parents then why do we as a society allow single parents?

MrP

NuMarvel

lmaopml wrote: »

Marriage is about none of those things, it's about the 'united' family unit, where both mum and dad are important parents equally, and where their children most importantly are entitled to 'both' parents, not the other way around.

One last time: that is not what marriage is about. Marriage is the union of two people. Whether that couple can have, want to have, or are even suitable to have, children is irrelevant to their right to marry. We're going to keep going around in circles until you accept this most basic point.

lmaopml wrote: »

It's a logical conclusion of sex within any society that a child is not merely something one is entitled to - but that 'the child' is entitled to their parents, and to know them to. Why undermine this? Even if ones marriage breaks down, or one is sexually attracted to the same sex, I don't understand why seeing things from a child's perspective is not paramount and always should be.

What does this have to do with same sex marriage? Gay couples will continue to have children regardless of marriage. If you feel the child is losing out on something, the ban on same sex marriage won't fix that. If anything, the introduction of same sex marriage will give those children more stability, as well as more legal rights and protections.

aloyisious

@imaopml: I regret that you believe that marriage is all about the raising of children within what you see as an ideal setting, an opposite-sex Mummy and Daddy. Your argument against same-sex is because you believe marriage is solely for the procreation of children.

The direct inference from that is that you oppose any other form of marriage solely on the basis that you believe children cannot be born within any such marriage, as same-sex couples could not procreate without the help of a third, opposite-sex person, AI or by surrogacy.

If I'm correctly understanding your reasons for opposing same-sex marriage are the above, then I'd have to ask you if you think an opposite-sex marriage couple that used any/all of the three alternative forms of pregnancy to have a child have an invalid marriage?

Do you view any or all of the three alternative forms of pregnancy as un-natural, bearing in mind that opposite-sex couples have used all three to have children within marriage? Even further, do you think it should also rule out adaption of children by opposite-sex married couples and same-sex couples?

Zombrex

lmaopml wrote: »

Oh, well please tell me why anybody inferred it so, because somebody posted with a different view? Anybody who doesn't think this way is a 'bigot' that's the way it comes across - I don't think that it does any favours to those who are genuine in posting when 'name calling' enters the occasion - and with respect, name calling does little justice to those more invested in this - and not merely this 'thread' on boards. Name calling doesn't help.

The name you want to classify it as is rather irrelevant.

The point is that your "different view" is an negative stereotype of a group of people based on ignorant, outdated and discredited position.

The idea that you are been criticised simply for expressing a different view point, rather than expressing a damaging and discredited view point, is silly.

Saying it is just your opinion as well doesn't get a slide, because if it is your opinion on the matter then you are choosing to ignore all the evidence and instead indulge in your own ignorant views, rather than alter your own view point when presented with compelling evidence, which speaks badly towards you.

lmaopml wrote: »

Cheers Mr. P - You are always quoting others - digging for evidence, it's blatantly apparent for anybody who uses 'google' that these things are inconclusive and some very neatly rigged, as is widely recognised - Do I really need to 'google' and post alternate studies?? Studies where a child has been abandoned by their father and knows it?

You have been on the Creationism thread Imaopml, you really should know better.

The existences of counter studies is not evidence that things are "inconclusive". There is no area of any scientific study where there are no counter studies to an accepted position. You can find counter studies to anything. You can find a study that concludes the Earth is flat. Yes you actually can actually find that.

The point is that the counter studies are in the tiny minority to the studies demonstrating that children in homosexual families are not adversely effected. These studies have been going on for 30 years, certainly well enough to track a child in a homosexual family right through childhood.

Study after study finds that they are not negatively effected. And yes every once in a while you find a study with a different conclusion, if you didn't that would be odd. In fact if you didn't you would have more evidence of some sort of conspiracy or cover up. Scientific conclusions occur due to over whelming evidence, not the complete absence of any counter evidence.

Again having been on the Creationism thread you should already know this. The "I've found a counter study therefore there is its inconclusive, teach the controversy!!" is a silly tactic of Creationists, and really you should know better.

lmaopml wrote: »

I'm not denying that gay couples can raise and love a child - the difference is that a married couple, a mother and father who bring up their own children is what 'marriage' is - it's not merely a legal contract.

You say such ignorant things like that and then wonder (apparently genuinely) how any can take acception to your "different view"

Firstly, some very good friends of mine are raising two boys that they adopted because due to a car accident my friends wife is unable to have children. Your "their own children" clause in what makes a marriage would be deeply insulting to them, you are basically invalidating their marriage and their family because they didn't produce these children themselves. That is certainly a "different view point", but it is an ignorant and frankly ridiculous one.

Secondly gay couples do not think marriage is "merely a legal contract". They love each other exactly the same as heterosexual couples and want to have that love recognised by the State in exactly the same way. They want to have children, be it naturally or through adoption and they want the State to recognise that family.

If you want people to stop saying your views are discredited ignorant negative stereotypes stop making discredited ignorant statements.

aloyisious

Meantime on the marriage front, tomorrow may be the day that the US Supreme Court, even with dissenters, gives rulings overturning D.O.M.A and Prop 8 of California.

The Croatian Parliament has a problem. The Govt there is bringing in law changes that'll grant "Life -partner" status and rights to same-sex couples. There's a 750,000 signed-petition in parliament against Gay Marriage by making marriage "a man and woman only" affair, and it has to consider the petition. However, the Croatian Constitution does not have any definition of what makes a marriage. Croatian law bestow's any couple living together for more than three years with more rights, lesser but in line with those given to married couples. Deciding factors may be a fact that Croatia becomes a member-state (28th) of the EU on the 01st July, just a few days away, as distinct from the local RC Church's view as Croatia has a predominantly Christian populace.

tommy2bad

Another landmark! Supreme Court strikes down Defense of Marriage Act
http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/26/19151971-supreme-court-strikes-down-defense-of-marriage-act-paves-way-for-gay-marriage-to-resume-in-california?lite

aloyisious

I like the U.S.S.C telling the same-sex marriage opponents that they had no standing in the case before it, as they had not made a good prior case as to how legalized same-sex marriage would materially affect them. This should be seen as a precedent ruling and sink any chance of them getting a hearing in any Lower Federal Courts in any cases about same-sex marriage.

It might also make State Courts unlikely to accept similar cases against same-sex marriage as it's likely a decision against same-sex marriage would be appealed to a Federal Court by either Pro-marriage parties or DOJ Attorneys obliged to protect and defend the U.S.S.C rulings.

Edit: ta Mr P. I now have a better understanding of the U.S.S.C decision. I knew the Fed Govt was NOT going to court to defend DOMA, but didn't know the Californian legislature and State AG etc, had opted NOT to defend Prop 8 as well. Your quote: The SCoUS refusing the case was, I think, generally expected form the legal world. From a same-sex marriage perspective it is probably the best result as well. If they had there was a risk they would have found in favour of proposition 8. Not necessarily because they particularly agreed with it, but more because they might not be willing to set a precedent that bound all the states. Too much too soon.

.......................................................................................................................................................................

I was wondering whether there will be more individual cases to come before U.S.S.C about State laws barring same-sex marriages and declining to recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages.

MrPudding

aloyisious wrote: »

I like the U.S.S.C telling the same-sex marriage opponents that they had no standing in the case before it, as they had not made a good prior case as to how legalized same-sex marriage would materially affect them. This should be seen as a precedent ruling and sink any chance of them getting a hearing in any Lower Federal Courts in any cases about same-sex marriage.

It might also make State Courts unlikely to accept similar cases against same-sex marriage as it's likely a decision against same-sex marriage would be appealed to a Federal Court by either Pro-marriage parties or DOJ Attorneys obliged to protect and defend the U.S.S.C rulings.

The proposition 8 case was not, technically, an anti-same-sex marriage case. What I mean by that is, it was not a case where people were trying to ban same-sex marriage. Proposition 8 was used to change the Californian constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage, or even recognition of it. The case the SCoUS dismissed on the basis of standing was an appeal by the supporters of proposition 8 that the cases where proposition 8 was rules unconstitutional were wrongly decided.

I have not had a chance to read the judgment yet, but I would guess that the main issue, regarding standing, was that the case was attempting to support and defend a piece of state legislation, but no one from the state legislature chose to defend it. The people trying to defend it were people involved in the campaign for a yes vote to proposition 8. The Attorney General of California refused to defend proposition 8 in the district court were it was first overturned, the Californian Supreme Court where the district court decision was upheld or the SCoUS, which effectively dismissed the appeal. In fact, he is on record saying he believed proposition 8 to be unconstitutional. As no one from the legislature chose to support the proposition anyone that did want to defend it would have to show fairly strong evidence of their interest, which it is simply not possible to do.

The Californian Courts also wrangled with this issue, but decided that in the interests of justice they would hear the case. The idea being that it would give a loophole to the legislature to ignore legislation born of the initiative process, which is not really acceptable. The SCoUS refusing the case was, I think, generally expected form the legal world. From a same-sex marriage perspective it is probably the best result as well. If they had there was a risk they would have found in favour of proposition 8. Not necessarily because they particularly agreed with it, but more because they might not be willing to set a precedent that bound all the states. Too much too soon. Additionally, even if they dismissed the appeal, they could have done it in such a way that it would only have applied to California, which would have been of limited use.

All in all, it is a good result, but there will probably still be a bit of a battle.

MrP

aloyisious

The NI High Court has ruled that the NI Health Dept was wrong to deny LGBT couples adapt children. However it's yet to be seen whether Mr Poots, the same gent who does not like the Maria Stopes people operating at all in NI, will appeal the ruling to the UK Supreme Court, formerly known as the Law Lords. The ruling also covers unmarried couples. It was the NI Human Rights Commission (funded by the Govt but independent from it) that took the case against the Health Dept

From The Irish Times: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/court-rules-for-gay-adoption-in-north-1.1444905

MrPudding

aloyisious wrote: »

The NI High Court has ruled that the NI Health Dept was wrong to deny LGBT couples adapt children. However it's yet to be seen whether Mr Poots, the same gent who does not like the Maria Stopes Clinic operating at all in NI, will appeal the ruling to the UK Supreme Court, formerly known as the Law Lords.

I hope he does take it to the SC. I can't see there being a different verdict.

MrP

aloyisious

A part of an Irish Independent report on the USSC decision on DOMA and Prop 8.:

OPPOSED

The ruling was opposed by the court's conservatives, with Justice Antonin Scalia accusing the liberals of treating gay marriage opponents like "a wild-eyed lynch mob" and "enemies of the human race".

"To defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements," he wrote.

The rulings were met with outrage from some social conservatives. Bryan Fischer, of the American Family Association, said: "The ruling has now made the normalisation of polygamy, paedophilia, incest and bestiality inevitable."

Zombrex

aloyisious wrote: »

"To defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements," he wrote.

The rulings were met with outrage from some social conservatives. Bryan Fischer, of the American Family Association, said: "The ruling has now made the normalisation of polygamy, paedophilia, incest and bestiality inevitable."

Quimby: Are those morons getting dumber or just louder?
Assistant: [checks his clipboard] Dumber, sir.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z49voWvEZbw

JimiTime

Some good counsel for any Christians remaining in these parts in light of a the latest DOMA judgement and a changing world.

And here

We must continue to reach out with the love of the Gospel, and restore Christs reputation through us after years of spiritual malaise and hypocrisy. To turn around the damage caused by years of stagnant religiosity, and be beacons for the light of Christ. To be an example, to practice what we preach, and be unafraid. God is unchanging, and in an ever changing world of moral maleability and relativity, be sure in what is foundational and true, and pray for ourselves to be built up in the spirit, nailing our flesh to Jesus' cross, and rejecting the satanic. Then pray for those lost, that they be found, especially for our future generations as the world is making it harder and harder to be Godly. Pray that Gods mercy be poured out on all, that hearts will be stirred and shaken up. In the Words of Dr Michael Brown, we need a Jesus revolution! Now more than ever, we need to wake up from our spiritual slumber, as we are failing our neighbours.

aloyisious

Harping back to the D.O.M.A decision by the US Supreme Court, I read in this item: -http://www.care2.com/go/z/e/AhQiq/zNSb/bCBK1 - that section 3 of DOMA was the piece of legislation (stating that marriage was between a man and a woman only) struck down.

Section 2 of DOMA (referring to individual states recognition of same-sex marriages) still stands in law. It is important to note that United States v. Windsor only overturned Section 3 of DOMA, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Section 2 of DOMA, which allows states that do not recognize same-sex marriages to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed outside of said state, is still valid law. Therefore, employers may have to make different determinations for federal laws/benefits vs. state laws/benefits in states, such as Florida, which do not recognize same-sex marriages performed outside of the state.

....................................................................................................................................................................

Both sections seem to have effects on personal tax rights and obligations for US Citizens. The D.O.M.A decision referred to a same-sex marriage widow, who was being hit by high taxes on the estate of her deceased partner, due to DOMA's wording about tax breaks given to hetero marriages, as against same-sex marriages.

....................................................................................................................................................................

On RTE today, the lower Federal Court that made the ruling (appealed to and allowed stand by USSC) has affirmed it's ruling following on from the USSC decision. Marriages had beun again in California following on from the USSC ruling, but to dot the i and cross the t's, the lower court affirmed it's earlier ruling overturning Prop 8.

aloyisious

Following on from Russell Brand's remarks about Clare Balding, Jane Czyzselska, editor of Diva, has set up a blog page to tackle his type

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Feverydaylesbo.com%2F&ei=9IrOUcn7Fomv7AbE-oEY&usg=AFQjCNFaO046m28e9einBH8So473AMOIGA&bvm=bv.48572450,d.ZGU.

Morbert

Incidentally, what do Christians here think of the U.K.'s new program that allows the creation of babies with DNA from three parents? Surely that must jar with the "one man one woman" rhetoric usually employed when arguing against gay marriage.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-23079276

aloyisious

From the bizarre to the comedic-stupid:

PA Republicans Block Gay Legislator From Talking About DOMA Ruling

In Pennsylvania, free speech apparently doesn’t apply in the halls of democracy. When Pennsylvania State Rep. Brian Sims, who is openly gay, decide to talk on the House floor about the the Supreme Court ruling on marriage equality, Republicans objected and shut him down.
Sims, a Democrat and the state’s first out legislator, had just begin making his comments, when several Republicans took umbrage and stopped him. Two other Democrats tried to follow Sims and were also blocked from speaking. Under the legislature’s rules, a single member can stop another from talking if he or she objects. Rep. Daryl Metcalfe explained to WHYY that he objected to Sims comments for religious reasons. “I did not believe that as a member of that body that I should allow someone to make comments such as he was preparing to make that ultimately were just open rebellion against what the word of God has said, what God has said, and just open rebellion against God’s law,” said Metcalfe.

Full story here: http://www.queerty.com/pa-republicans-block-gay-legislator-from-talking-about-doma-ruling-20130628/#ixzz2XgfLcoEV

aloyisious

Edit. Getting the hang of things, just found the LGBT section in societies on top bar, transferred item into new thread.

Benny_Cake

Mod note: If you are linking to an article from a newspaper, one paragraph and a link only please - this is a site rule across Boards.

Also, I'd ask that people contribute something more than just a link / photographs, this is a discussion forum, not a noticeboard. Because of the nature of this thread, we've been pretty easygoing about what gets discussed here, but unless it has some kind of link to Christianity, then the LGBT forum might be more appropriate. Any questions, feel free to fire me a PM - thanks.

sherr1ngton

NuMarvel wrote: »

I don't see a problem with Christians who wish to frame their opinions on social issues in secular terms, instead of Biblical. In fact, in this thread, we've often asked Christian posters to do just that. If someone is able to convey their opinion in a manner that applies to everyone, and not just members of a particular faith, then I welcome it.

Nor do I but they aren't framing opinions, they are exhibiting attitudes that can only be justified in biblical terms.

When secular society copped on, caught up with the times and 'ratified' homosexuality, it began to change its attitude towards gay people and now that most of us have got used to it, it sees no reason to treat them as a sub-species with limited rights and reduced personhood.

Surely the Christian attitude should be to look at society and see how they can make it fairer and less punitive.

If they had been doing that all along then I suspect that the gay comminity would never have been pushed out to the fringes of society in the first place.

And let's face it, the biblical view of sex is that it is dirty. Any sex at all. It is so ironic; God gives us the ability to know joy and the bible says don't enjoy it.

Any sex!

Of course! If the bible is to comment on gay sex it is bound to do so negatively. It's a kind of sex and must not be enjoyed.

It's a kind of last bastion for religion. We can't be stoned for having consensual sex anymore. We can't marry children anymore. We can have lots of girlfriends before we get married, women can vote...

... and now people can get married to whoever they want to without being discriminated against by the state.

I think that when Jesus said, 'Love your neighbour as you love yourself', He was speaking of social justice, equality. He was reminding us that we each feel pain in the same way and for the same reasons. That we each have hopes and desires, a need to be happy. He was saying, 'Remember how it is to laugh and encourage it. But remember how it is to cry and try to help.'

There are many ways to fall along the path but Jesus says, 'Help your brother or sister up and let them lean on you. You may one day fall along the way.'

Help the sick, feed the hungry, and Jesus says these things without caveats.

Who are we to presume that Jesus meant, 'Except for gays, prostitutes and Muslims.'?

Are the gay couple who are living next door to be considered less than neighbours?

Do the terms 'brother', 'sister' and 'neighbour' engender heterosexuality?

Jesus did not tell us to seperate our communities into 'sheep' and 'goats'. Judgement is His alone and anyone who thinks that gay people should be considered as different to 'normal' people is putting themselves in the position of God.

The way I see it is, gay people are simply passengers on this planet...

... just like the rest of us.

Geomy

Didn't the Church change it's mind about slavery, and the fact that it was ok to have slaves in the Bible. ..

Im sure at some stage homosexuality will be accepted in Christianity when they go with the times again. ..

Cabaal

Geomy wrote: »

Didn't the Church change it's mind about slavery, and the fact that it was ok to have slaves in the Bible. ..

Im sure at some stage homosexuality will be accepted in Christianity when they go with the times again. ..

Undoubtedly, they will eventually change their stance. Just like they've done on other matters.
I wouldn't hold your breath though, might take awhile.

Thing is, as gay marriage becomes more and more accepted in country's around the world and gays are rightly given equal rights.

The church risks being marginalized in a massive way and people will start to insanely backward. Especially when they continue to view something as very wrong even though it could be legal in say 95% of the planet.

Could you imagine if the church still viewed slavery as ok in present day for example?

Geomy

Cabaal wrote: »

Undoubtedly, they will eventually change their stance. Just like they've done on other matters.
I wouldn't hold your breath though, might take awhile.

Thing is, as gay marriage becomes more and more accepted in country's around the world and gays are rightly given equal rights.

The church risks being marginalized in a massive way and people will start to insanely backward. Especially when they continue to view something as very wrong even though it could be legal in say 95% of the planet.

Could you imagine if the church still viewed slavery as ok in present day for example?

I couldn't imagine it really, I just don't get the Catholic Church and their negative slant on somethings.

Some of them think that spirituality is from the devil lol
I'm serious.

I f Jesus was around today he would be no part of the Catholic Church...

More than likely he'd be chilling out in some coffee shop in Galway listening to someone's plight and giving a suggestion of how to deal with it. ..

aloyisious

Ha ha. In today's Irish Indo World News section. Vlad Putin tell's audience in Moscow's Valdai Club that his friend Silvio Berlusconi wouldn't be in court if he was gay, but is because he lives with women.