Gay Rights

@ insideoutface
You know... if equality were legalized people might stop talking about it, but you do not earn equality by shutting up and equality is always a cause worth fighting for.

In Lincoln, NE, yesterday morning, a woman was attacked in her home “by three masked men who barged into her house, bound her wrists and ankles with zip ties, cut her all over her body and carved homophobic slurs into her skin before dumping gasoline on her floor and lighting it with a match.” They also spraypainted homophobic slurs on her home.

This happened one hour from where I live. I've seen concerts in that town, stayed in a hotel there, have friends there, and my boyfriend watches football games in the Huskers stadium down there.

Nothing like this has really happened close to home before and I'm kinda freaking out.

I think this whole concept of 'gay rights' is a little ridiculous. Like, it's 2012. We're STILL oppressing groups of people just because of a difference in something as petty as sexual orientation/identification?

There shouldn't even be an argument for gay rights, or lesbian rights, or bisexual rights, or transsexual rights, or pansexual rights, or etc etc etc. They should just BE.

Talking with my grandfather, a devote Christian, he believes that gays are equals and should have every single right that we have. He thinks they should marry; however, he doesn't think it should be called 'marriage', since the term is steeped in religious belief and most people take the whole 'God doesn't approve' stance when opposing gays marrying. He thinks it should be called a 'partnership', or 'union', or whatever - just simply not 'marriage'. They deserve the benefits of being married, and they deserved that commitment to one another if that is what they choose!

Homosexuality occurs in HOW many different species? And yet, we seem to be the only ones who are disgusted and afraid of it. I used to think that it was becoming less of a deal, especially since Canada legalized gay marriage. However, from the post above, it's clear that there are some of us who will go to great lengths to ensure that members of the LGBT are punished for their 'crimes' - the crime of being themselves. It's really a shame.

broken mirrors:

however, he doesn't think it should be called 'marriage', since the term is steeped in religious belief and most people take the whole 'God doesn't approve' stance when opposing gays marrying. He thinks it should be called a 'partnership', or 'union', or whatever - just simply not 'marriage'.

-sigh- I doubt God would approve of atheists and Satanists getting married, either - is anyone proposing they ought to be barred from marriage? And despite being "steeped" in a tradition (which is never a particularly good basis for argument) we ought to take into account firstly the high number of non-religious marriages occurring today (in Australia, the number is greater than 50%) and secondly that some form of our concept of marriage has existed in almost every society and actually the word marriage comes from the Latin maritare, a union under the auspices of the Goddess Aphrodite-Mari, and because the Goddess's patronage was "constantly invoked in every aspect of marriage" early Christianity was actually opposed to the union.

Origen: "Matrimony is impure and unholy, a means of sexual passion."
St Jerome: a man of God's purpose was to "cut down with an ax of Virginity the wood of Marriage"
St Ambrose: marriage was a crime against God which changed the state of virginity God gave every man and woman at birth, prostitution of the members of Christ, and "married people ought to blush at the state in which they are living."
Tertullian: marriage was a moral crime "more dreadful than any punishment or any death," spurcitiae - 'obscenity', 'filth'
St Augustine: marriage is a sin
Tatian: marriage is corruption
Syrian churches forbid married men from being baptised and only allowed celibate men to become Christians
St Bernard: easier for a man to bring the dead back to life than to live with a woman without endangering his soul
St Paul: to marry was only better than to burn

There was no Christian sacrament of marriage until the 16th century. Catholic scholars suggest the wedding ceremony was 'imposed' on a reluctant church. The Anglican marriage service arose from the need for men to seize their partner's property.

This is very different to contemporaneous Asian faiths, and the early Israelites, and elements of Grecian belief, which began to shift - Zeus replacing Rhea and her group marriages with 'monogamy' where he acted as he liked (cheated) - and when Brahmanism established monogamy in some areas of India, marriage altered again to: "No act is to be done according to her own will by a young girl, a young woman, though she be in her own house. In her childhood a girl should be under the will of her father; in her youth under that of her husband; her husband being dead, under the will of her sons. A woman should never enjoy her own will. Though of bad conduct or debauched, a husband must always be worshipped like a god by a good wife." Aspects of the Brahman model were adopted in western Europe by Christian authorities with some churches requiring women to "kneel and place her bridegroom's foot on her head in token of abject obedience... Christianity accepted marriage only on condition that the partners form a slave-and-master relationship." Since marriage had been historically conducted (in the west) by Juno's priestesses, it took centuries for Christianity to think of putting men in that role - so for that time period marriage had no place in canon law and remained under the common law jurisdiction. (I.e. as today was a civil matter.)

Medieval folk tales also suggested the Christian God opposed marriage; pure youths agree never to marry "for love of God" and their heathen parents force them into a wedding. (By God's grace, the ground opens up and swallows them instead; the priest who dared officiate is found dead the next day.) During the Middle Ages there was in fact no ecclesiastical definition of a valid marriage nor of any contract to validate one. Until the later 16th century, Roman (and barbarian) law held that a marriage "could be freely initiated and could be terminated without formality by either party and at any time" and was the system used by 'common folk' (until 1563 when the church decided that priestly blessing was indispensable to legal marriage.) Clerical blessing only became a requirement in England in 1753 (Lord Harwicke's Act) which, not applying to Scotland, made Scotland the go-to for elopement (legal marriages could be made by the pagan custom 'handfasting', which required witnesses but no clergy.) (Lovers could continue this - elopement across the Scottish border - until 1939.)

When Christian authorities revised the pagan marriage laws, the primary concern was "placing a wife's property in her husband's control and keeping it there." The pagan system held that women owned the land; husbands could acquire it only through marriage. "Christian marital morality amounted to taking the means of independence from women and turning it over to men." The church also encouraged 'disciplining' your wife, in accordance with e.g. St Paul's teachings; "A mild protest in the 13th-century Laws and Customs of Beauvais noted that an excessive number of women were dying of marital chastisement, so husbands were advised to beat their wives 'only within reason'." English jurisprudence applied Blackstone's 'Rule of Thumb': a husband could beat his wife with an implement (rod, whip) no thicker than his thumb "in order to enforce the salutary restraints of domestic discipline" - and as wives were legally classified with "minors and idiots... consigned to the custody of their husbands" there was little they could do about it. Until the mid-20th century in America they held the "doctrine of immunity" whereby "the sanctity of the home" could not be 'invaded' to stop a husband's violence.

I could go on but you get the idea (I hope) which is more or less that the "term steeped in religious belief" is neither historically or geographically consistent nor very positive even within the limited scope of more recent Judeo-Christian tradition that so many seek to 'protect' through things like the Defence of Marriage Act.

@ pravda.
I appreciate this, I really do.

But, since this is the 21st century, meaning that the 16th century marriage turn around has been taught in churches for the past 500 years, this is my grandfather's opinion; not mine.

As a nothing-ist, I do not believe in God, therefore I really don't give a shit about who gets married and who doesn't. Besides, weddings have become a massively commercialized product, much like Christmas or Valentine's Day. It's more about people spending money and putting on a good show. It's just one more thing that society subliminally tells you you need to do, what with all these stupid reality TV shows on finding the perfect (bank-breaking) dress, and being a complete piss-ant to everyone who is trying to help organize your "special day".

But, you never waited for my opinion on the matter. Since marriage has always, in one way or the other, good or bad, been affiliated with different beliefs, churches, religions, etc. then it's always had roots in religion, therefore me saying it's 'steeped' in religion wasn't wrong; just very general. Especially when I was mostly talking about North America, where if I'm not mistaken, modern-day Christianity seems to be the most common cult.

Again, I do appreciate this information though. It will make for better points when, if ever, I happen to find myself in a discussion about marriage and all it's 'holiness'. Just, please don't assume that I don't know any better, when I was clearly keeping my thoughts of the sanctity of marriage to my humble self.

Thank you.

broken mirrors:

Oh, sorry - I was replying to what you'd said, I wasn't actually directing the entire post at you (in any adversarial way); I apologise if it seemed rude, or didactic. Although, firstly, I disagree with your statement there, "marriage has always, in one way or the other, good or bad, been affiliated with different beliefs, churches, religions, etc" since - as I briefly mentioned a few times - much of the history of marriage, and especially our modern ideas of marriage, are rooted in civil/secular motivations, not religious ones; secondly, even if it were, historically, purely religious, that doesn't mean, today, religion is the only one who gets a (significant political listened/adhered to) say in the matter; and 3.1) there are gay religious people who would like a gay religious marriage, and 3.2) there are religious bodies - churches - who approve of same-sex marriage and would like to officiate same-sex weddings - I would consider it a gross breach of their religious rights, if we decided that marriage is religious, to forbid those people/churches from performing them; and it makes the secular side of the issue - the hundreds of legal rights associated with marriage, the individual, familial, social and community benefits of marriage, etc - even more absurd.

@ pravda.
Alright, so the point here is that marriage isn't sacred like everyone says it is.

Let's allow everyone to get married, regardless of what you believe. No form of love should be outlawed, whether you are a member of the LGBT community, or you don't hold a religious belief, or you do.

If you decide not to get married, but are with your partner (same-sex or not) for x amount of years, you deserve all the benefits that a married couple would receive.

If you want your marriage to religious, then have a religious ceremony in a church that will perform the ceremony for you.

If you don't want a gay marriage, or still believe it's wrong, then whatever; don't have one. It's that simple. But don't try to outlaw it simply because you feel it's wrong. Since this thread is supposed to be about gay rights, then let's give the LGBT community the right to do as they please, just as we do. Let them get married, let them love, let them live.

It's really that simple.

I wasn't intentionally being ignorant with any comments about religion and it's relation to marriage, I hope you realize. I guess it's just something I still don't understand. Mostly because a) I don't abide by any sort of beliefs or rules, other than the golden rule and b) I've never been that interested in marriage, therefore I never spent a lot of time researching it. The only time I've ever really talked about religion and marriage has been with my friends and family, who all believe that marriage is tied tightly with religion.

Again, I am happy that you cleared that up, and it just goes to show that we, as a society, need more education about the history of marriage, because most everyone that I have talked to - until now - has believed that it was merely a religious right and that's why some churches are so appalled by the idea of non-religious or gay people getting married. If more people realized that marriage is more of a civil thing, and less of a churchy thing, then perhaps it wouldn't be such a big deal who gets married and who doesn't.

Am I on the right track here?

(Just a side-note, isn't same-sex marriage legal in Canada?)

I disagree (I'm very sorry to be so disagreeable) that the point is that "marriage isn't sacred like everyone says it is" - I think, at least as it is viewed today, by many people, marriage is still quite sacred; I think even those who get married and divorced very quickly believe that marriage is a good and important thing - it's (some of) the people who choose not to get married who may hold a low opinion of it (or, perhaps, a very high one; refusing to 'cheapen' marriage by 'settling' perhaps.)

But the specific kind of 'sacred' being argued for is, I believe, inaccurate and unjust. I agree with your point of "don't like it, don't have one" - because we almost universally apply the same reasoning/logic to things like divorces and affairs.

I also agree that there's a lot of ignorance on the matter - personally, every 'argument' against gay rights that I have encountered has been based on incorrect information (e.g. "all gays are promiscuous and/or don't want to get married"), fallacious logic (e.g. "gay people cannot 'naturally' conceive children, so shouldn't be able to marry"), or has boiled down to pure prejudice (e.g. "gay people/relationships are just lesser.") But I still think it's good to hear out what people are saying; then you can tell them why, based on your experience or evidence, you believe their stance to be incorrect or unfair.

pravda.:

(Just a side-note, isn't same-sex marriage legal in Canada?)

Yep. Same-sex marriages have been recognized by the Canadian state since 2005.

From Wikipedia:

Court decisions, starting in 2003, each already legalized same-sex marriage in eight out of ten provinces and one of three territories, whose residents comprised about 90% of Canada's population. Before passage of the Act, more than 3,000 same-sex couples had already married in those areas.[1] Most legal benefits commonly associated with marriage had been extended to cohabiting same-sex couples since 1999.

Basically, the majority of the Conservatives don't like it, but that's not brand-new information anyway.

Also Wikipedia:

In 1999, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in M. v. H. [1999] 2 S.C.R. 3 that same-sex couples in Canada were entitled to receive many of the financial and legal benefits commonly associated with marriage. However this decision stopped short of giving them the right to full legal marriage. Most laws which affect couples are within provincial rather than federal jurisdiction. As a result, rights varied somewhat from province to province.
In 2002 and 2003, court decisions in the superior courts of three provinces then required the federal government to implement full same-sex marriage within the next two years:
in Ontario: Halpern et al. v. Canada 95 C.R.R. (2d) 1 (Ontario Superior Court, July 12, 2002)
in Quebec: Hendricks v. Quebec [2002] R.J.Q. 2506 (Quebec Superior Court, September 6, 2002)
Text of ruling (in French)
in British Columbia: Barbeau v. British Columbia 2003 BCCA 251 (Court of Appeal for BC, May 1, 2003)
Text of the ruling
The federal Liberal government had sought leave to appeal the constitutionality of these rulings to the Supreme Court of Canada, though as above the government in June 2003 indicated that they would stop appealing.

Yay for Canada. We rub it in everyone's faces, even though we were fourth to legalize. After The Netherlands, Belgium, and Spain. c:
(But we count as the first in the Americas so suck it jealous ones).

@ colibri

To be honest, I think being the third country to legalize gay marriage is the only thing that makes me proud about Spain.

...but what I absolutely cannot believe is that recently, and I mean something like a week ago, the government decided they were changing the law again. Thank God the highest court voted against that and it's now completely constitutional, because if it was banned again I really wouldn't know what I'd have done. Our current government is taking steps backwards instead of forwards - I can't believe this is what we're coming to.

Thankfully, it doesn't look like gay marriage will be banned again anytime soon, though.

i think that the gay rights should be looked at because it isn't fair that gay people get looked down upon just because they love someone. I'm not gay, but i know a bunch of people who are and they are the best people i know. What is the problem with america now we are supposed to be free, but some of us aren't

I don't normally post in here, but I thought I would share the news that there is now a death penalty in place in Uganda for homosexuals. There's an article here explaining the basics.

little motorkitty;:

I don't normally post in here, but I thought I would share the news that there is now a death penalty in place in Uganda for homosexuals. There's an article here explaining the basics.

That article is inaccurate because the Bill hasn't even been included on the Ugandan Parliament schedule yet - so it's very far from being passed, what that article quotes are the comments of a single politician - which are obviously not illustrative of the views and intentions of the whole Parliament. There have been attempts to pass the law before and they've failed. Also the Ugandan LGBT Coalition (made up of Ugandan LGBT rights activists) has sent an open letter to its Western supporters urging them not to issue any public press statements about the bill yet because most probably all that will do is cause more harm (source for letter).

I am a woman who likes men. In most religions and how most people see it, this should be the only thing allowed. I'm not a fan of that stand point at all because if I were a minority I would want to have complete legal right to marry whoever I'd like to. "Freedom and equality" has to stand true for everyone, whether they're black or white, girl or boy, and I feel if they outlaw gay marriage America would be losing it's freedom of choice. Choice. Choice. Choice. What this nation is built upon.

We as Americans say equality for everone, but telling someone they can't do something based on their sexual orientation? They can't get married? Adopt children? No one should be segregated just because of who they are. Is that really being a true American? I think not.

People are so provincial sometimes, they have a hard time stepping into another person's shoes and seeing just how unfair the world has been acting. Marriage is for love. Whether it be love to a man or a woman, it should completely be allowed.

@ dru saves the songs
Have you seen Boys Don't Cry, that was real and happened in Lincoln Nebraska. I read a book about what happened to her/him and it was completely disgusting.

Everyone is equal and should be treated as such. Marriage is a legal agreement and the churches and have to no say over what the government decide to do. I believe in a form of Christianity and I also believe that everyone has equal rights, which seems rare.

@ schrodinger's cat.
I know the case/situation, but I haven't read the book or seen the movie. I do agree that what happened was incredibly fucked up and we have a long way to go as far as transphobia in America.

@ dru saves the songs
Tbh, every country does, we've barely gotten complete rights for gays in the first world countries. It's depressing. And so is the film and book if you're going to read it, I had to for collage and I was furious for two whole days.

I was talking to my mum about why must rape exist and I was distraught (even though I've never been raped) and she told me about when she said the same thing about when people hurt children to a co-worker. He had told that bad things happen and that you have to accept that. And to some extent you have to, you can't sit there crying for everyone, but it just makes me feel dirty if that I'm not fighting for others at some level.

Happy news, the Marriage Equality Bill passed the other day in New Zealand!!! So proud of my country

it's not Obama that needs to do something...it's them. for women rights women didn't just sit around and do nothing...we did shit and look where that landed us...more damn work, but that's not the point...the point is if gay's want something to happen then they need to take a stand and be heard! they need to march their happy asses down to the white house and demand the law be changed. because this is not a dictatorship and that's what they are being healed in! we live in america and they have every right to stand up and say 'i may be a man/women that likes the same sex but i have the same right to love who i want to rather then have no love at all'
'No freedom till we're equal, damn right I support it' Macklemore-same love

Rae-Dene:

it's not Obama that needs to do something...it's them. for women rights women didn't just sit around and do nothing...we did shit and look where that landed us...more damn work, but that's not the point...the point is if gay's want something to happen then they need to take a stand and be heard! they need to march their happy asses down to the white house and demand the law be changed. because this is not a dictatorship and that's what they are being healed in! we live in america and they have every right to stand up and say 'i may be a man/women that likes the same sex but i have the same right to love who i want to rather then have no love at all'
'No freedom till we're equal, damn right I support it' Macklemore-same love

I kind of resent the idea that people aren't already doing that. While it's been working in countries like France and the UK, in the US it's considerably harder given the much more religious nature of the government. I think it is necessary that someone like Obama does something about it, to break the trend of presidents - even politicians in general - who have skirted around the issue or asserted that 'civil unions are enough' or that 'we need to protect our children from the promotion of homosexuality.'