The Homosexuals Of Alderaan Want Your Children

[darkendless]

like I said, it is already banned in most places anyway.

Only because of narrow-minded bigots and religious induced fear.

I agree that those examples are not valid legal reasons and are only factors in the overall debate.

They're nothing but statements of absolute nonsense, you can't debate with nothing.

 

[9Westy9]

Isn't banning single people or those with low incomes a form of discrimination too though?

:yes:

edit: Unless it can be shown that the individual(s) cannot look after a child for one reason or another

 

[McBell]

But same sex marriage is already banned in
many places and I would say that the legal angle needs to be looked at the other way round.

ie: those wishing to legalise it need to come up with the reasons.

right, wrong?

Actually, the fact that it is banned in some states and allowed in others means that it is only a matter of time before the US Supreme Court will have to make an official ruling over it.

Now, since there is not a single legitimate legal reason to ban same sex marriage, the US Supreme Court will have no choice but to declare all bans on same sex marriage unconstitutional.

 

[Draka]

But same sex marriage is already banned in many places and I would say that the legal angle needs to be looked at the other way round.

ie: those wishing to legalise it need to come up with the reasons.

right, wrong?

Wrong. You said gay marriage and adoption has to be proven as viable. It has been. It is. This is already evidenced in the places where they are legal and accepted practices. Banning something doesn't even give opportunity for something to be proven, it shuts it down even if it is viable. It is therefore upon the anti-legalization crowd to prove why banning is warranted.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to nnmartin: Do you oppose homosexuality? If so, why?

The following organizations have offerred a good deal of support to homosexuals:

American Psychiatric Association
American Psychological Association
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Medical Association
American Academy of Family Physicians
American Anthropological Association
Americaion Sociological Association

 

[Drolefille]

Message to nnmartin: Do you oppose homosexuality? If so, why?

The following organizations have offerred a good deal of support to homosexuals:

American Psychiatric Association
American Psychological Association
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Medical Association
American Academy of Family Physicians
American Anthropological Association
Americaion Sociological Association

Predicted response including reality having a well known liberal bias and the word liberofascist because he hasn't used it in a while.

 

[PolyHedral]

But same sex marriage is already banned in many places and I would say that the legal angle needs to be looked at the other way round.

ie: those wishing to legalise it need to come up with the reasons.

right, wrong?

Wrong. It is the legal system's default to outlaw things, not permit them.

 

[Viker]

I got my light saber and blaster ready. Which one of you fellas are feeling lucky or maybe a little frisky?

 

[Skwim]

Actually, the fact that it is banned in some states and allowed in others means that it is only a matter of time before the US Supreme Court will have to make an official ruling over it.

Now, since there is not a single legitimate legal reason to ban same sex marriage, the US Supreme Court will have no choice but to declare all bans on same sex marriage unconstitutional.

You're forgetting the "ick factor."

 

[nnmartin]

Originally Posted by nnmartin
Isn't banning single people or those with low incomes a form of discrimination too though?

edit::yes: Unless it can be shown that the individual(s) cannot look after a child for one reason or another

Let's have a look at this situation briefly then.

Now what is really stopping a single person or one on a low income adopting a child?

or in the eyes of the law at least.

 

[Meow Mix]

I got my light saber and blaster ready. Which one of you fellas are feeling lucky or maybe a little frisky?

*Turns on deep red light saber* You think you have any power against the Dark Side?

 

[-Peacemaker-]

I was talking with one of my spiritual mentors today about some of the discussions I'd been having on this issue and I was really challenged about my bs self-righteous attitude that I've displayed in this thread. I wanted to apologize to all the people I've offended here. Please know I love you all and I realize I just have some issues to work out in my heart. Trying to mold yourself into gentle Jesus isn't quite as easy as it may look. Peace.

edit: Drofille, I especially take back all the judgmental comments I've made about your life, your job, and your judgment. Plz don't hate me for the rest of your life.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to nnmartin: Do you oppose homosexuality? If so, why?

The following organizations have offerred a good deal of support to homosexuals:

American Psychiatric Association
American Psychological Association
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Medical Association
American Academy of Family Physicians
American Anthropological Association
Americaion Sociological Association

 

[Agnostic75]

But same sex marriage is already banned in many places.......

Things are changing. Only ten years ago, same-sex marriage was not legal in any state. Today, it is legal in six states, and in the District of Columbia. If the recent ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in favor of banning Proposition 8 in California stands, that will mean that over 20% of Americans will live in states where same-sex marriage is legal.

Support for homosexuals continues to grow in many parts of the world, even in some predominantly Roman Catholic countries like Spain, and Argentina, where same-sex marriage is legal. Same-sex marriage is also legal in Canada. Many countries allow openly gay people to join the military, including Britain, and Israel. The majority of Americans favor allowing opening gay people to join the military.

When Proposition 8 was passed in California several years ago, the vote was 52% - 48% in favor. Today, I think that over 50% of Californians favor legalizing same-sex marriage.

It is interesting to note that in Denmark, where same-sex marriage is legal, heterosexuals have a much higher divorce rate than homosexuals do. As a side note, in the U.S., Baptists have a higher divorce rate than atheists do.

.......and I would say that the legal angle needs to be looked at the other way round,

ie: those wishing to legalise it need to come up with the reasons.

No, that is not the way that laws work. For example, smokers do not have to provide reasonable proof that smoking cigarettes in public places is healthy. Rather, opponents of smoking cigarettes have to provide reasonable proof that smoking cigarettes in public places is unhealthy. There is not reasonable proof that homosexuality, and/or same-sex marriage, are generally unhealthy for homosexuals, and for society.

Consider the following:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/07/justice/california-proposition-8/index.html

A federal appeals court ruled against California's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage Tuesday, arguing the ban unconstitutionally singles out gays and lesbians for discrimination.In a split decision, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found the state's Proposition 8 "works a meaningful harm to gays and lesbians" by denying their right to civil marriage in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Tuesday's ruling affirms a 2010 decision by a U.S. district judge in San Francisco. In the majority opinion, Circuit Judges Stephen Reinhardt and Michael Daly Hawkins noted that they were speaking only to Proposition 8, and that other states would have to decide the issue of marriage themselves.

"For now, it suffices to conclude that the people of California may not, consistent with the federal Constitution, add to their state constitution a provision that has no more practical effect than to strip gays and lesbians of the right to use the official designation that the state and society give to committed relationships, thereby adversely affecting the status and dignity of the members of a disfavored class," the opinion states.

Some legal experts have said that the Proposition 8 court case may not be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court since it only deals with California.

 

[Agnostic75]

Consider the following:


http://www.shmoop.com/equal-protection/same-sex-marriage.html

Key legal question: Does equal protection clause of 14th Amendment guarantee gays and lesbians the right to marry?


On 12 February 2004, San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom ordered the city clerk to issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples. Overnight, an issue that had simmered in the background for years was moved toward the front of the nation's political agenda. Supporters of more traditional conceptions of marriage fought Newsom in the courts; when they failed there, they placed an initiative on California's 2008 ballot that would restrict marriage to heterosexual couples only. The measure passed by a relatively narrow 52%-48% margin, stopping (at least for the moment) gay marriage in its tracks in the nation's most populous state. Still, a nationwide push for gay marriage continues. Prior to the 2008 election, Massachusetts and Connecticut had already legalized same-sex marriage, and soon after California's vote, Vermont and Iowa joined the ranks of those states allowing gay couples to marry.


While many supporters of gay marriage have focused on winning state approval through the political process—by passing new laws to legalize the practice—that strategy has succeeded, thus far, only in New England. In the other states, gay marriage has been established instead through the court system. Many activists believe that state judges, looking more dispassionately at state constitutions than many ordinary voters, will continue to be more likely to extend protection to same-sex marriage than state legislatures or the general electorate. (Opponents of gay marriage decry these tactics as "judicial activism," the antidemocratic practice of appointed judges deciding political matters that should rightly be left to elected officials or the voters themselves to decide.) While most of the legal fighting over gay marriage has unfolded, to date, in the various state courts, many gay-rights advocates suggest that soon the battle needs to be taken to the next level and fought out in the federal courts; total victory will come only, they argue, when gays and lesbians possess a nationally protected right to marry, and they contend that the Fourteenth Amendment suggests a constitutional right to marry for all persons.

But are they correct? As a legal and constitutional question, do gays and lesbians have a right to marry under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?


Opponents of gay marriage argue that there is a legitimate rational basis for limiting marriage to heterosexual couples.


Currently legal classifications based on sexual orientation are subjected only to the rational basis test, not to strict scrutiny.


On the surface, the answer might seem simple (to advocates of gay marriage, at least). Marriage is, after all, a civil as well as a religious institution. People enter marriage by obtaining a license from local authorities and—in about half of all marriages these days—they later end it by securing a divorce decree from a local civil court. In between, the United States Government Accounting Office has identified more than a thousand federal benefits and responsibilities (such as homebuyer programs and educational assistance) affected by marital status. In other words, there are thousands of laws touching upon marriage and, consequently, the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection under the laws suggests—to some—that all people, regardless of sexual orientation, should be protected in their right to marry.


But as a question of constitutional law, it's not quite that easy. For starters, the Supreme Court has made it clear that the guarantee of equal treatment within the equal protection clause does not mean that governments cannot ever treat different people differently. States need not permit children to drive cars, for example, nor must they allow senior citizens to enroll in grammar school. As a basic rule, the Court has said that it is reasonable for states to build categories or classifications into the laws that they pass, and in fact, the "rational basis test" is one of the standards used by the courts to determine whether these classifications are fair. Also known as the Lindsley test, this standard says that if the reasons for treating people differently are reasonable and logically related to the law's purpose, then they are constitutional. Opponents of gay marriage insist that there is a rational basis (usually, they argue, rooted in cultural or religious tradition) for restricting marriage to a relationship between a man and a woman.


But the Court has also held that certain types of laws need to pass a tougher standard than the Lindsley test; certain types of classifications within the law are more suspicious and require closer scrutiny. In particular, the Court has said that America's history of racial oppression requires that all laws employing racial classifications must be more rigorously examined by the courts. Consequently, it is far less likely that these sorts of laws will survive judicial scrutiny. On occasion, the Court has also applied this heightened level of scrutiny to state laws using classifications based not only on race but also on citizenship. And in recent decades, the Court has developed an intermediate standard for evaluating laws employing gender classifications. Statutes that treat men and women differently must be more than merely reasonable, they "must serve important governmental objectives," and the differing treatments of men and women "must be substantially related to achievement of those objectives."


In terms of gay marriage, the critical issue thus becomes the level of scrutiny that laws affecting gays and lesbians should receive. Are gays, like racial minorities, considered a "suspect" class in terms of constitutional law? Does the court rigorously scrutinize laws impacting them? Or do laws that create classifications based on sexual orientation receive a lesser degree of vigilance, like those based on age? Should the courts then apply the lowest level of scrutiny, the rational basis test? Or do they impose an intermediate standard like the one used to examine laws incorporating gender classifications?


The short answer is that, thus far, gays and lesbians have not been considered a suspect class by the Supreme Court; laws impacting them are today subject only to the lowest level of scrutiny. But since the Court has addressed these questions only very recently, it is hard to predict whether this approach will persist too much farther into the future.

I am particularly interested in the following part of the quotes:


“As a basic rule, the Court has said that it is reasonable for states to build categories or classifications into the laws that they pass, and in fact, the ‘rational basis test’ is one of the standards used by the courts to determine whether these classifications are fair. Also known as the Lindsley test, this standard says that if the reasons for treating people differently are reasonable and logically related to the law's purpose, then they are constitutional. Opponents of gay marriage insist that there is a rational basis (usually, they argue, rooted in cultural or religious tradition) for restricting marriage to a relationship between a man and a woman.”

Regarding “culture,” and “religious tradition,” centuries ago, it was largely culturally acceptable for Christians to endorse colonization, slavery, and the subjugation of women. In addition, in the U.S., as recently as 120 years ago, it was generally considered to be culturally unacceptable, and even immoral, for men and women to wear skimpy bathing suits at public beaches. Obviously, history has shown that culture and religion alone do not provide a rational basis for the passage of laws, and for societal behavior.

 

[9Westy9]

Let's have a look at this situation briefly then.

Now what is really stopping a single person or one on a low income adopting a child?

or in the eyes of the law at least.

uh.... nothing? For low income possibly because they don't have the financial ability to support a child, although the government could always help them out with that. And for the single parent it could be a lack of time as they need to work full time. Although there are always exceptions. A single parent could be perfectly capable of raising a child as could someone on a low income. Unless you have an argument that they can't?

 

[9Westy9]

I was talking with one of my spiritual mentors today about some of the discussions I'd been having on this issue and I was really challenged about my bs self-righteous attitude that I've displayed in this thread. I wanted to apologize to all the people I've offended here. Please know I love you all and I realize I just have some issues to work out in my heart. Trying to mold yourself into gentle Jesus isn't quite as easy as it may look. Peace.

edit: Drofille, I especially take back all the judgmental comments I've made about your life, your job, and your judgment. Plz don't hate me for the rest of your life.

Apology accepted. I also apologise if I've come across as rude during this, or any other thread I've posted in.

 

[Meow Mix]

Obviously, history has shown that culture and religion alone do not provide a rational basis for the passage of laws, and for societal behavior.

Also, I note that at least in American and Western history, wherever there is an issue of rights and equality in history you can almost be completely assured that some sort of religious folk were behind the oppressive side of the issue -- and used their religion as a justification for said oppression.

(Please note I'm not saying "all religious people are oppressive" or "religion is oppressive.")

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Also, I note that at least in American and Western history, wherever there is an issue of rights and equality in history you can almost be completely assured that some sort of religious folk were behind the oppressive side of the issue -- and used their religion as a justification for said oppression.

(Please note I'm not saying "all religious people are oppressive" or "religion is oppressive.")

Religion is a wonderfully flexible tool that way. It's good for everything from pancake breakfasts to slow, painful death by torture - and everything in between.

And, if someone else does something terrible in the name of your religion, you can simply say that you're not practicing the same religion. Voila!

 

[Duck]

ok, thanks - I've had a quick look at that list.

The three churches in North America that seem to have no issue with homosexuality seem to be:

Metopolitan Community Church Metropolitan Community Church - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

United Church of Canada United Church of Canada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unity School of Christianity Unity Church - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


(There are a few obscure European ones that I have not included here though none from the UK)

I've had a quick skim through those links and , well , not sure how 'Chrisitan' you could really call these establishments.

However, I will do some research and come back with findings or even discuss in a separate thread.

So now you are the arbiter of who is and isn't a christian? Here I thought it was profession of belief in christ, and that was pretty much what mattered...apparently there is some super secret handshake or something.