• Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.

    However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.

    We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure.
  • Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

Homosexuality & Politics in the 21st Century

BigLutz

Banned
You gotta feel terrible for those who have been married under the law but can find it overturned if the decision is over ruled. Honestly I wished when it came to marriage that it would only become available after all the legal challenges were sorted out to prevent harming completely innocent people.
 

LDSman

Well-Known Member
I think it's partly an attempt to force the issue. A "You can't take it away from me now!!!!" deal.
 

Maedar

Banned
I'd like to just see the anti-gay marriage crowd try to push for forcible annulment of marriages that have already taken place. (As Bachmann suggested.)

The whole idea that you can use the Constitution to take rights away from people is contradictory.
 

miles0624

Wrath of Fire
I'd like to just see the anti-gay marriage crowd try to push for forcible annulment of marriages that have already taken place. (As Bachmann suggested.)

The whole idea that you can use the Constitution to take rights away from people is contradictory.

However, the Supreme Court has used the Constitution to take away rights that couldn't be given out in the first place. So it could be held as legal.
 

Buttons

Mountain Trainer
Just my thinking here but I don't believe any government should recognize or participate in a practice that isnt available to all its citizens. Its like some states still have a 'Whites Only' church or resturant and the government can't see that states are actively discriminating against a part of the population. And the point that LGBTQ people CAN in fact get married to another person of the opposite gender misses the point. Domestic partnerships goes against the idea of the fourteenth amendment (from the amendment 'No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States').

Either the entire population gets to marry who they want by law or the law can't handle marrage and it should only be a religious act. Acting like a personal religious belief should inpact the laws of an entire nation (even if most of that nation believes in the teaching) is wrong and violates the seperation of church and state guarenteed by the first amendment.
 

Silver Soul

Well-Known Member
Again, as stated earlier, you can't take away rights when there was none to give.

However, it goes against the United States v. Windsor ruling that ruled Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional. Also, we can say the same before Loving v. Virginia when it was a jail sentence for interracial marriage in the certain states. Religion shouldn't play in these cases as it was considered religious freedom to deny interracial marriage and I'm not making that up. The point is, it's just discrimination to not recognize their marriages or at worst, attempt to annul them.
 
Last edited:

mapijs

Well-Known Member
i never understand why there is so much fuss about this "isue", if someone wants to marry someone of the same gender, who cares, let them do what they want! like it will give straight people problems or something, i can and prob will never be able to understand what people have agains gays



btw, i'm straight, just saying, counters the snappy respones like, well... you are just gay!
 

Steampunk

One Truth Prevails
Religion shouldn't play in these cases as it was considered religious freedom to deny interracial marriage and I'm not making that up.
There is a monumental difference between, something written in an ancient religious text such as the Bible and Quran, and the opinion of someone who claims these things to be wrong, and uses a position of power in an organization whose beliefs are founded on said ancient texts, as a way to make their opinions fact.

Nowhere in the Bible is interracial marriage condemned, or even mentioned on. I can't say the same for the Quran because I'm not as familiar with it. And actually, Homosexual marriage isn't mentioned in the Bible either, Homosexual actions yes, marriage no.
 

Silver Soul

Well-Known Member
There is a monumental difference between, something written in an ancient religious text such as the Bible and Quran, and the opinion of someone who claims these things to be wrong, and uses a position of power in an organization whose beliefs are founded on said ancient texts, as a way to make their opinions fact.

Nowhere in the Bible is interracial marriage condemned, or even mentioned on. I can't say the same for the Quran because I'm not as familiar with it. And actually, Homosexual marriage isn't mentioned in the Bible either, Homosexual actions yes, marriage no.

And that's not the most baffling part. There are actual Christian Conservatives that may not even read the Bible or even reading the New Testament. Then you got Cardinal Dolan saying how the Catholic Church are saying they are being outmarketed on same-sex marriage. Not to mention certain people being taken back by the Pope's distance from those issues.
 

Steampunk

One Truth Prevails
And that's not the most baffling part. There are actual Christian Conservatives that may not even read the Bible or even reading the New Testament. Then you got Cardinal Dolan saying how the Catholic Church are saying they are being outmarketed on same-sex marriage. Not to mention certain people being taken back by the Pope's distance from those issues.

Well, the Bible does condemn Homosexual acts- like intercourse- now, by that logic, Homosexual marriage where both members are sexually abstinent is technically not condemned. But if you are in a relationship that involves marriage (Homosexual or Heterosexual), intercourse is usually a given, so...
 
Last edited:

arized

#hsb
But if you are in a relationship that involves marriage (Homosexual or Heterosexual), intercourse is usually a given, so...

Actually, you can't logically say that. Even if someone has kids, you can't reasonably say that they had intercourse with their partner or intercourse at all considering alternate methods of conception. You can be married a virgin [for life]. You can also love someone and be a virgin [for life].

Considering some same-sex intercourse is a fetish (read: something not typically considered sexually arousing), I wouldn't be surprised to find same-sex couples that do not have sex.

Simply, intercourse is exclusive from marriage and thus doesn't even touch the topic. Condemning it based on intercourse is grasping at straws.
 

Steampunk

One Truth Prevails
Actually, you can't logically say that. Even if someone has kids, you can't reasonably say that they had intercourse with their partner or intercourse at all considering alternate methods of conception. You can be married a virgin [for life]. You can also love someone and be a virgin [for life].

Considering some same-sex intercourse is a fetish (read: something not typically considered sexually arousing), I wouldn't be surprised to find same-sex couples that do not have sex.

Simply, intercourse is exclusive from marriage and thus doesn't even touch the topic. Condemning it based on intercourse is grasping at straws.
As I have said before, I would not vote for or against Homosexual marriage. When it comes to politics and legality of actions, I simply tack a step back and spectate. But I will quip my opinion when I see an opening.

And to be fair, I did say "usually" I know that a lot of people have relationships that do not involve intercourse. But, as someone who has Homosexual and Heterosexual attractions, I know I would only chose a male partner for a long term relationship for the "benefits". But I chose the Heterosexual route, and as you said, same-sex intercourse is usually a fetish, so I find it easier to simply have close male friends instead of a partner.
 

miles0624

Wrath of Fire
However, it goes against the United States v. Windsor ruling that ruled Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional. Also, we can say the same before Loving v. Virginia when it was a jail sentence for interracial marriage in the certain states. Religion shouldn't play in these cases as it was considered religious freedom to deny interracial marriage and I'm not making that up. The point is, it's just discrimination to not recognize their marriages or at worst, attempt to annul them.

I may be wrong, but this case happened because a judge created the opening for homosexual marriage to happen in this state, correct? (If I'm wrong, then someone correct me.) If so, that means that if SCOTUS overturns the judges ruling, they are stating that there was no power to actually for the judge to create the right for gay marriage. (Now, this is assuming that it is overturned.) The reason that SCOTUS put a hold on marriages was only because if the ruling is overturned, then the people who were married during that time period will be invalidated anyways.

I'm not sure on the Windsor case because I believe that only applies to federal cases. I'm not really sure though. Let me read the case law and I'll get back to you.

I'm not sure what the Loving v. Virginia case has to do with my point though. Was that addressed to me or everyone. If just to me, could you please expand because I don't understand your argument.
 

Silver Soul

Well-Known Member
I may be wrong, but this case happened because a judge created the opening for homosexual marriage to happen in this state, correct? (If I'm wrong, then someone correct me.) If so, that means that if SCOTUS overturns the judges ruling, they are stating that there was no power to actually for the judge to create the right for gay marriage. (Now, this is assuming that it is overturned.) The reason that SCOTUS put a hold on marriages was only because if the ruling is overturned, then the people who were married during that time period will be invalidated anyways.

I'm not sure on the Windsor case because I believe that only applies to federal cases. I'm not really sure though. Let me read the case law and I'll get back to you.

I'm not sure what the Loving v. Virginia case has to do with my point though. Was that addressed to me or everyone. If just to me, could you please expand because I don't understand your argument.

The reasons that what the Utah Governor is doing in unconstitutional that it violates the Contract Clause, the 5th Amendment by giving less respect to those marriages and doing so without due process of law, and violates the 14th Amendment when it comes to equal protection under the federal Constitution. Let's not forget Strauss v. Horton that helped made marriages before Prop 8 in CA became active valid.

The fact that the AG can't find a legal conclusion to the marriages that had already became valid says something.

http://attorneygeneral.utah.gov/2014/01/08/utah-attorney-general-sean-d-reyes-official-statement/

We are unable to reach a legal conclusion as to the ultimate validity of marriage between persons of the same sex who completed their marriage ceremony in Utah between Dec 20, 2013 and Jan. 6, 2014. That question remains unanswered and the answer will depend on the result of the appeal process.
 

miles0624

Wrath of Fire
The reasons that what the Utah Governor is doing in unconstitutional that it violates the Contract Clause, the 5th Amendment by giving less respect to those marriages and doing so without due process of law, and violates the 14th Amendment when it comes to equal protection under the federal Constitution. Let's not forget Strauss v. Horton that helped made marriages before Prop 8 in CA became active valid.

The fact that the AG can't find a legal conclusion to the marriages that had already became valid says something.

http://attorneygeneral.utah.gov/2014/01/08/utah-attorney-general-sean-d-reyes-official-statement/

Hmm. Didn't know this. Thanks. Time to do some research.
 

LDSman

Well-Known Member

Sadib

Time Lord Victorious
Are homosexual men attracted to young boys? Males are not like females, because they barely change during puberty. I guess this question applies to women also.
 
Top