THIS is "oppression" and "discrimination."

[Stella_Omega]

Well again, I'm not a religious expert and don't want to try to argue on thier behalf. I can only assume that as long as it is between a man and a woman it meets thier criteria? I don't know though to be honest. I understand your point though and I can see where it would be frustrating to you.

The seperation between church and state thing has been basterdized over the years. Its not in the constitution at all and it was originally intended to prevent states from dictating which religions were acceptable and which were not. I belive it was in massachusets (however you spell it) that there was at one time a state sponsored religion and that was the only religion allowed in that state. The seperation of church and state was to protect religious freedom not stifle it, which is the way it is being taught now days in school. Another example of history being re-written.

When the religions themselves want to pass laws that promote their religious believes over anyone else's that is exactly when we need to stifle them. Gay marriage has nothing to do with churches, when straight folk can be married at city hall.

The Christian religion truly believes and teaches its followers that ALL religions are inferior to it. So does Islam.

Those are real and genuine threats to everyone else's religious freedom.

 

[Safe_Bet]

You know we might as well stop arguing were not getting anywhere with it. I can get over it if you can. No need to carry on like a couple of school kids. I say we agree to disagree and move on. Kind of pointless to keep going at each other. Were on LIT to talk about sex not argue right? What do you say?

SURE!

I won't even hold it against you that you were calling me a racist and a bigot only a half hour ago.

 

[SubmissiveBrat]

Well again, I'm not a religious expert and don't want to try to argue on thier behalf. I can only assume that as long as it is between a man and a woman it meets thier criteria? I don't know though to be honest. I understand your point though and I can see where it would be frustrating to you

According to the Bible it is a sin for believers to marry non-believers

 

[RjThoughts]

According to the Bible it is a sin for believers to marry non-believers

And there are other things in the Bible worse, like men can beat their wives, sell their daughters in slavery, etc.

 

[SubmissiveBrat]

And there are other things in the Bible worse, like men can beat their wives, sell their daughters in slavery, etc.

That has no bearing on my statement.

 

[RjThoughts]

That has no bearing on my statement.

It shows how people pick and choose what they want in the Bible, especially when debating GLBT issues.

Hell, if those people truly believed EVERYTHING in the Bible, there'd be NO Red Lobster, NO bacon doublecheeseburgers....

 

[SubmissiveBrat]

It shows how people pick and choose what they want in the Bible, especially when debating GLBT issues.

Hell, if those people truly believed EVERYTHING in the Bible, there'd be NO Red Lobster, NO bacon doublecheeseburgers....

Stay on topic. We are talking marriage. Do not make me get physical. I cheat.

 

[RjThoughts]

Stay on topic. We are talking marriage. Do not make me get physical. I cheat.

Imagine that, ANOTHER woman that cheats in fights

I'm all in flavor of same sex marriages. Friend was married last week, unfortunatly we missed it due to being on vacation.

 

[JNaylor]

When the religions themselves want to pass laws that promote their religious believes over anyone else's that is exactly when we need to stifle them. Gay marriage has nothing to do with churches, when straight folk can be married at city hall.

The Christian religion truly believes and teaches its followers that ALL religions are inferior to it. So does Islam.

Those are real and genuine threats to everyone else's religious freedom.

Well let me ask you this. Why, if you could have a legal or civil union, would it be important to you that it be called marriage if that is in fact a religious term and you are not religious, or maybe you are I just assume your not. Would you be satisfied with a legal civil union?

 

[JNaylor]

SURE!

I won't even hold it against you that you were calling me a racist and a bigot only a half hour ago.

I apologise for calling you a racist and a bigot

 

[RjThoughts]

Well let me ask you this. Why, if you could have a legal or civil union, would it be important to you that it be called marriage if that is in fact a religious term and you are not religious, or maybe you are I just assume your not. Would you be satisfied with a legal civil union?

Because not all states or companies recognize them, they do recognized MARRIAGE.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Well let me ask you this. Why, if you could have a legal or civil union, would it be important to you that it be called marriage if that is in fact a religious term and you are not religious, or maybe you are I just assume your not. Would you be satisfied with a legal civil union?

What would be the difference?

Does my "civil union" include all of the over five hundred rights responsibilities and benefits, both legal, social, and communal, that your marriage does?

And if so, why should I not call it a marriage?

What will happen to me if I do? Will someone arrest me for making a false claim?

 

[SubmissiveBrat]

Well let me ask you this. Why, if you could have a legal or civil union, would it be important to you that it be called marriage if that is in fact a religious term and you are not religious, or maybe you are I just assume your not. Would you be satisfied with a legal civil union?

Which Religion does marriage belong too please?

 

[Safe_Bet]

Well let me ask you this. Why, if you could have a legal or civil union, would it be important to you that it be called marriage if that is in fact a religious term and you are not religious, or maybe you are I just assume your not. Would you be satisfied with a legal civil union?

No and NO, dude!

First of all, there were married homos WAY before the very recent history where fundie xians managed to pass restrictive marriage laws.

Secondly, legal marriages bestow THOUSANDS of financial and governmental benefits and priveleges that civil unions do not.

Lastly, and most importantly, as legally decided in cases such as Brown v. Board of Education "separate but equal" ain't equal!

BTW, ask some of your fundie Xian friends if they would be willing to give up the benefits of legal marriage in exchange for a civil union. Only the really stupid ones will say yes.

 

[CandiCame]

Marriage in the states has nothing to do with religion. If I find a chick I want to marry, I can go to the court house right now, pay $30 (the same amount for a name change) and get a marriage certificate, a LEGAL contract- no churches, no preachers, no religion involved. If your religion includes a marriage ceremony, that's great, but that doesn't mean that it has anything to do with marriage, it has to do with spiritual unity. There are plenty of spiritual aspects of marriage that have nothing to do with the legal system in the states.

For example, monogamy. There are very few religions that practice monogamy. Including Christianity- I've asked several Christians seriously, empathetically, where in the bible it defines marriage as between one man and one woman. There is no such verse- the one that they point to is the one that describes marriage as between a man and however many wives he can afford- that's why some sects of Christianity practice polygamy.

I can't tell you how it is in theocracies, but here in a democracy, where church and state are separated- it's great that marriage is spiritually fulfilling to you. It's equally great that I don't have to give a shit.

Having said that, I will totally go to your potluck dinners.

Spirituality is a very personal thing, and it is ILLEGAL to force one's spiritual beliefs on others here. It's right there in the constitution. In schools now, they even print it in bold- I'm looking at it (don't tell the other teachers that I'm looking at Literotica on my phone while we wait on the kids from the after-school art program to get picked up *looks around suspiciously- sees no one gives a shit, sticks phone in pocket and continues to pick up markers*)

I want to leave you with two words of parting. "Las Vegas".

 

[SubmissiveBrat]

I get tired of the term "Gay Agenda"

The "Gay Agenda" should be in fact "The Human Agenda". All we are asking for is to be treated equal. I do not see what the problem is other than bigotry. Do hetero really believe that we are somehow going to brainwash or corrupt others into becoming gay?

Got news for you, from the dawn of time we have been here and we are not going away. We have had major influence on every aspect of your life. From science to art to literature. Many of the greatest leaders of the world were GLBT from philosophers to conquerors.

You who are heterosexual have no clue of the hurt you cause. You hurt your friends, parents, siblings and children. Because we are everywhere. Many times hidden, feeling shame for what we are because people like you tell us we are bad and God condemns us. Children commit suicide because of the shame you make them feel. Every time you spout your vitriol against GLBT you are very possibly killing something inside of somebody whom you love and may never know are GBLT.

I AM HERE AND QUEER AND FUCK YOU

Sorry I get passionate sometimes

 

[JNaylor]

What would be the difference?

Does my "civil union" include all of the over five hundred rights responsibilities and benefits, both legal, social, and communal, that your marriage does?

And if so, why should I not call it a marriage?

What will happen to me if I do? Will someone arrest me for making a false claim?

I was just trying to determine what was more important to you, the rights associated with a legal marriage or being able to say your married, assuming all of the rights and benefits of a married couple were also given to a civil union couple.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Do hetero really believe that we are somehow going to brainwash or corrupt others into becoming gay?

yeah, a lot of them do.

This is because, despite all the milennia of brainwashing to the contrary-- many men and women do have sexual feelings for their own sex. No matter how much they believe that's wrong and impossible.

But they DO believe it's wrong and impossible.

So when -- not if-- they get a little twinge, they want to blame it on the person that they have just twinged over. Not on what's already inside them.

And then they can go on identifying as one hundred percent Red Blooded Heterosexual.

Identification is crucial to human happiness.

 

[Safe_Bet]

I was just trying to determine what was more important to you, the rights associated with a legal marriage or being able to say your married, assuming all of the rights and benefits of a married couple were also given to a civil union couple.

If both were identical I'd still want a marriage cuz separate yet equal, ain't equal.

 

[bad_dave]

Michelangelo was a painter in the Renaissance era. He is famous for creating some of the most brilliant, enduring and true depictions of religious love and piety in the history of Christianity. And frankly, his depictions of the male characters-- God, Christ, the male saints-- are hugely more immediate and appealing because men are what he loved. After the renaissance was when women began to lose status as human beings and as religious people.

That's pretty subtle for highschool students, of course. But Michelangelo's sexual preferences colored what he did. it would be pretty helpful to know that.

I've got to say that I hate this kind of thing, its pure speculation that Michelangelo was gay, it clearly states that in the article you linked. Its not just when the homosexual community (or equally when people try to use it as stick for beating peoples reputation, such as Field Marshall Montgomory who people tried to insist was gay as a way of distracting from his WW2 achievements) "claims" a historical figure with just the thinnest of "evidence" my partner works in the mental health sector and their just as bad for diagnosing the long dead with mental health conditions but with no real substance.

I am educated as an historian and I know if I turned in an essay saying Michelangelo was gay because he painted naked men and was sad when a guy died, I would be laughed out of room.

One other thing, I think it was safebet who said that we always hear about it when an historical figure was part of an ethnic minority but not a sexual minority, but it has to remembered that ethnic minorities are visibiliy minorities so it effects everything they do. Sexual minorities are not always obvious

Don't get me wrong I oppose the idea of this law, I just think something only needs to be taught if its relevant.

I know its not really relevant to the purpose of the this thread but it does annoy me.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Well yeah you would be laughed out of the room if you turned in an essay saying Michelangelo was gay. That's what people want to do about asservations like that one.

Because we don't know for sure, it must mean he was straight. Right? Got to be. No doubt about it.

Don't get me wrong I oppose the idea of this law, I just think something only needs to be taught if its relevant.

What is relevant to history lessons?

 

[bad_dave]

Well yeah you would be laughed out of the room if you turned in an essay saying Michelangelo was gay. That's what people want to do about asservations like that one.

Because we don't know for sure, it must mean he was straight. Right? Got to be. No doubt about it.


What is relevant to history lessons?

I'm from a military history background so I will stick with my monty example. His sexuality is in no way relevant to his choice of strategy for alemain nor did his alleged love of cock have any bearing on his preference to keep casualties low. That was a response to his experience of WW1.

What I'm trying to say is, that in the case of the gay icons you mentioned, their sexuality was the reason for they were murdered, so its relevant.

I hope thats clear.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Hmm...

There are two kinds of history, one is the kind where people are soldiers and kill each other and change the boundaries of nations.

And the other is where people live together, and influence each other and create the civilisations that those nations exist by.Michelangelo's art influenced that way people think-- about man's relationship to gods on the one hand, and about the relative importance of male beauty on the other hand, and those two things are important in somewhat subtle ways.


J. Edgar Hoover hated gay people as much as he hated commies. The fact that he was gay during a time that didn't allow gay people to be happy with themselves, might have something to do with his activities and policies, which certainly influenced history.

Allan Turing, the cryptologist, was refused military clearance after his conviction of being gay. He was a singular person whose work was crucial to the development of the computer as we know it-- but which might have been a different thing if he had been able to continue his own work. The internet might be a more secure place, for one thing.

Milk influenced the political reality of gay rights in San Fransisco, and that's why he was murdered, and both of those facts influence our history coming forward in time. Matthew Shepard was nothing at all, historically speaking-- except for the fact of his murder which made him into a political martyr. You could say that his murderer is equally important in the history books for making the fact of homophobia so incredibly impossible to ignore.

 

[Safe_Bet]

I'm from a military history background so I will stick with my monty example. His sexuality is in no way relevant to his choice of strategy for alemain nor did his alleged love of cock have any bearing on his preference to keep casualties low. That was a response to his experience of WW1.

What I'm trying to say is, that in the case of the gay icons you mentioned, their sexuality was the reason for they were murdered, so its relevant.

I hope thats clear.

Nope not clear at all. How do you KNOW Monty's sexuality had no bearing on his strategy? The same could be said about the Spartans and the strategies of Alexander the Great.

Or closer to home is the relationship between GENERAL George Washington and Alexander Hamilton. Don't you think that appointing an alleged lover as Secretary of the Treasury is relevant to history?

(Not to mention the impact of the sexuality of people like Florence Nightingale, Susan Anthony, Amelia Earhart and Eleanor Roosevelt - all alleged big 'ol dykes whose sexuality had an impact on history).

So you see dude, but REFUSING to revieal the WHOLE history we are just as ignorant as if it were ignored... and just as likely to repeat it!

 

[Stella_Omega]

I will also say that Montgomery's gayness, if true, puts a big fat lie to the constantly stated opinion of Faux News that faggots cannot be good soldiers. Talk about distracting from someone's achievements!

That's pretty damn important.