Thoughts on gay rights?

[Pointedstick]

https://youtu.be/79KzZ0YqLvo?t=1m15s

I've known a lot of gay people. Most of them are totally normal, average people who just want to quietly live their lives, same as you. A small number of them are exhibitionist rabble-rousers who give the rest a bad name to conservatives. I definitely take the libertarian position on marriage that it should be none of the state's business, but if the state is going to be involved, there's no reason not to allow any consenting adults to make use of of the institution.

Now that gay marriage is now the law of the land everywhere, I see no evidence that marriage is crumbling as a result. Mine is certainly fine. The chicken little opposition now has no clothes, and the whole thing looks like a mountain made out of a molehill, so it's back to the drawing board if they can't jump on the bandwagon.

[dualstow]

Pro gay rights, 100%.
When I was a teenager (long time ago), I thought the idea of same-sex couples raising children was a bit weird. None of my business, though, and it's increasingly common.

[Mountaineer]

Pro gay rights, 100%.
When I was a teenager (long time ago), I thought the idea of same-sex couples raising children was a bit weird. None of my business, though, and it's increasingly common.

How do you define "rights"?  I'm a bit confused why gay's should have any more or less "rights" than any other human.  How do you define "privilege"?  And lastly, where do "rights" come from?  Who establishes "rights"?  Are "rights" situational or absolute?  How do you know?

... M

gays should have rights.... they are called human rights just the same as the ones everyone else enjoys, hyphenated rights don't (or shouldn't) exist, it sets up an utterly unnecessary divisive separation between groups...

[Mountaineer]

I am a Lutheran.  So, I will give my answers in terms of the doctrine ot Two Kingdoms, Two Realms, and God rules both Kingdoms.

I think that most would respect that. I do. Except for what constitutes "sin" (unless you mean in its etymologic sense, "missing the mark" as opposed to evil or wrong).

But to make your belief policy is to create a theocracy. This country was founded on religious freedom and a separation of church and state. Are you saying you would change that?

I define sin as transgression against God's Law.  Sin is a Kingdom of the Right term. 

I am 100% for separation of church and state.  The state's role is to permit people to worship in their chosen religion with no interference from the state, even if that religion is secular, i.e. worship of the creature instead of the Creator.  The Kingdom of the Right will function in any type of Kingdom of the Left structure - democracy, republic, monarchy, theocracy, dictatorship, communist, etc., whether man would say it is moral or immoral.  The Kingdom of the Left is a construct of sinful man; the Kingdom of Right is a construct of the almighty God of righteousness, forgiveness, mercy, and justice.

... M

This is an interesting read that I just saw.  Separation of church and state by FDR?  Ha!

http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/20/doe ... the-state/

Also, note the reference to Martin Luther and his ideas which were subsequently incorporated into John Locke's views:

The Protestant Reformation is seminal in many of the ideas leading toward the American Revolution. Martin Luther’s interpretation of justification by faith in the book of Romans decoupled the traditional structures of the Roman Catholic Church from the formal power of the state. Ultimately, this would give rise to John Locke’s idea of religious toleration.

... M

[jafs]

Pro gay rights, 100%.
When I was a teenager (long time ago), I thought the idea of same-sex couples raising children was a bit weird. None of my business, though, and it's increasingly common.

How do you define "rights"?  I'm a bit confused why gay's should have any more or less "rights" than any other human.  How do you define "privilege"?  And lastly, where do "rights" come from?  Who establishes "rights"?  Are "rights" situational or absolute?  How do you know?

... M

Gay rights movements aren't about gays having "more" rights than straight people, they're about gay people having the same rights as straight people.

The rights we're discussing come from our society and legal structure.

[Mountaineer]

Pro gay rights, 100%.
When I was a teenager (long time ago), I thought the idea of same-sex couples raising children was a bit weird. None of my business, though, and it's increasingly common.

How do you define "rights"?  I'm a bit confused why gay's should have any more or less "rights" than any other human.  How do you define "privilege"?  And lastly, where do "rights" come from?  Who establishes "rights"?  Are "rights" situational or absolute?  How do you know?

... M

Gay rights movements aren't about gays having "more" rights than straight people, they're about gay people having the same rights as straight people.

The rights we're discussing come from our society and legal structure.

Then what is the issue?  We are all subject to the same laws and regulations of our country, state, county, city.  Don't like the current situation?  Change the laws within the boundaries of the relevant Constitution (or Amend the Constitution).

.. M

[Michellebell]

As far as marriage, what it the justification for discrimination (taxes, visitation, etc) if not religious beliefs?
Based on something like the ability to procreate instead of love? If it is it guised in "the best interest of the state," then at least be consistent. No marriage if older than, say, 50. Or if you are infertile in any way.
As far as adopting, should be also be rational and consistent. I feel the same about nuclear families, but should we outlaw divorce, which is more common? And probably more destructive, since it often involves anger and confusion for a child (I'm divorced, and I think it hurt my children).

I am a Lutheran.  So, I will give my answers in terms of the doctrine ot Two Kingdoms, Two Realms, and God rules both Kingdoms.

Kingdom of the Left (a.k.a. Civil Kingdom)
The purpose of this Kingdom is to promote order, reduce chaos, so man is free to worship God and love neighbor.
I think all people should be treated kindly, lovingly, and with respect - regardless of sexual orientation, skin color, economic status, or religion.
I think the nuclear family with a father and a mother who remain together for life in a loving relationship is the best place to raise children.
I think societies based on the nuclear family have the greatest potential for being long lasting and thus are the most stable environment.
In this Kingdom, all sins are not equal - i.e. murder is worse than shoplifting.

Kingdom of the Right (a.k.a. Kingdom of God)
A purpose of this Kingdom is to show us how to have eternal life, unseparated from God.
Homosexuality is a sin.  It does not matter if born that way (a manifestation of original sin) or if chosen (actual sin).
All sins should be acknowledged for what they are - call a thing what it is.
In God's eyes, all sins are not condoned and are equal as they separate us from God.
All sins should be repented of, then know that God forgives us for Jesus' sake.  Repentance means turning away from sin.
In this Kingdom, all who believe in the promises of God are forgiven and saved eternally.

... Mountaineer

So Mountaineer, you believe that people who are born homosexual should deny practicing it, just as a married person may view lust outside of marriage as sin and refuse to commit adultery?  Do you think their lives here will be more fulfilling by believing they are turning away from sin? 

I do feel sorry for those people.  How would you feel if you had a child who felt more attracted to the same sex?  Would you rather they still marry the opposite sex or be celibate? 

[Michellebell]

How do you define "rights"?  I'm a bit confused why gay's should have any more or less "rights" than any other human.  How do you define "privilege"?  And lastly, where do "rights" come from?  Who establishes "rights"?  Are "rights" situational or absolute?  How do you know?

... M

Gay rights movements aren't about gays having "more" rights than straight people, they're about gay people having the same rights as straight people.

The rights we're discussing come from our society and legal structure.

Then what is the issue?  We are all subject to the same laws and regulations of our country, state, county, city.  Don't like the current situation?  Change the laws within the boundaries of the relevant Constitution (or Amend the Constitution).

.. M

The rights I'm talking about are the recently granted right to marry, as well as the right to raise children without discrimination.  So a lot of it is cultural.  Gay men have a very hard time adopting, and the gay teacher I know faces a lot of judgment for raising her boys with a lesbian.  I want to be tolerant but see the nuclear family becoming less valued and never talk about these issues IRL so I was curious to know where everyone else stood on these issues, particularly people with more conservative beliefs.

[jafs]

How do you define "rights"?  I'm a bit confused why gay's should have any more or less "rights" than any other human.  How do you define "privilege"?  And lastly, where do "rights" come from?  Who establishes "rights"?  Are "rights" situational or absolute?  How do you know?

... M

Gay rights movements aren't about gays having "more" rights than straight people, they're about gay people having the same rights as straight people.

The rights we're discussing come from our society and legal structure.

Then what is the issue?  We are all subject to the same laws and regulations of our country, state, county, city.  Don't like the current situation?  Change the laws within the boundaries of the relevant Constitution (or Amend the Constitution).

.. M

The issue is that various laws exist that don't grant equal rights to gay people.

And, changing the laws is one option, but another option is to get cases before the SC and have the discriminatory laws found unconstitutional, as was just done with anti gay marriage laws.

[Mountaineer]

As far as marriage, what it the justification for discrimination (taxes, visitation, etc) if not religious beliefs?
Based on something like the ability to procreate instead of love? If it is it guised in "the best interest of the state," then at least be consistent. No marriage if older than, say, 50. Or if you are infertile in any way.
As far as adopting, should be also be rational and consistent. I feel the same about nuclear families, but should we outlaw divorce, which is more common? And probably more destructive, since it often involves anger and confusion for a child (I'm divorced, and I think it hurt my children).

I am a Lutheran.  So, I will give my answers in terms of the doctrine ot Two Kingdoms, Two Realms, and God rules both Kingdoms.

Kingdom of the Left (a.k.a. Civil Kingdom)
The purpose of this Kingdom is to promote order, reduce chaos, so man is free to worship God and love neighbor.
I think all people should be treated kindly, lovingly, and with respect - regardless of sexual orientation, skin color, economic status, or religion.
I think the nuclear family with a father and a mother who remain together for life in a loving relationship is the best place to raise children.
I think societies based on the nuclear family have the greatest potential for being long lasting and thus are the most stable environment.
In this Kingdom, all sins are not equal - i.e. murder is worse than shoplifting.

Kingdom of the Right (a.k.a. Kingdom of God)
A purpose of this Kingdom is to show us how to have eternal life, unseparated from God.
Homosexuality is a sin.  It does not matter if born that way (a manifestation of original sin) or if chosen (actual sin).
All sins should be acknowledged for what they are - call a thing what it is.
In God's eyes, all sins are not condoned and are equal as they separate us from God.
All sins should be repented of, then know that God forgives us for Jesus' sake.  Repentance means turning away from sin.
In this Kingdom, all who believe in the promises of God are forgiven and saved eternally.

... Mountaineer

1. So Mountaineer, you believe that people who are born homosexual should deny practicing it, just as a married person may view lust outside of marriage as sin and refuse to commit adultery?  2. Do you think their lives here will be more fulfilling by believing they are turning away from sin? 

I do feel sorry for those people.  3. How would you feel if you had a child who felt more attracted to the same sex?  4. Would you rather they still marry the opposite sex or be celibate?

I numbered your questions for ease of responding.

1. Yes.
2. Depends on whether they believe in God's promises.  If they are not Christian, I have no idea what their lives would be like while on this earth.  I'm pretty sure what it will be like after they expire.
3. Very sad.  Just like if they were attracted to another person's spouse.  Just like if they aborted their unborn child or murdered a neighbor.  Just like if they slanderers, liars, or thieves.  Just like if they abandoned God for the worship of self. 
4. Does not matter what I think.  I hope they would not fall from faith in Jesus and follow His wishes for Christians.

How do you answer your questions?

... M

[Mountaineer]

Gay rights movements aren't about gays having "more" rights than straight people, they're about gay people having the same rights as straight people.

The rights we're discussing come from our society and legal structure.

Then what is the issue?  We are all subject to the same laws and regulations of our country, state, county, city.  Don't like the current situation?  Change the laws within the boundaries of the relevant Constitution (or Amend the Constitution).

.. M

The issue is that various laws exist that don't grant equal rights to gay people.

And, changing the laws is one option, but another option is to get cases before the SC and have the discriminatory laws found unconstitutional, as was just done with anti gay marriage laws.

The SC does not make law (at least that it how is supposed to be).  Congress is tasked with making laws and having oversight of the (unmanageable) myriad of subsequent regulations.    So, what do you propose to get Congress to do its job?  Rhetorical question - no need to answer.  Actually, I am not 100% on this, but I think it is pretty much unlikely that anyone can legislate morality - sinful man by nature rebels.  If we all followed the "love your neighbor as you love yourself" rule this whole discussion becomes unnecessary.  Ain't going to happen on this side of the Last Day (based on what we know about recorded history).

... M

[Mountaineer]

I don't spend much time thinking about homosexuals.  As a Christian, I hear a LOT of discussion on the issue, and I have to admit that I think a lot of it is driven by the need for some Christians to feel superior to those "other" sinners.  In other words, I think a lot of us Christians are modern day pharisees, and homosexuals are the NT harlots of our day.  So while I agree that homosexuality is a sin, I don't spend a lot of calories worrying about it, because I've got enough sins of my own to contend with. 

In my previous life as an agnostic, I would argue that "homophobia" seems like a quite natural and logical position to hold, if morality is something that evolved along with humans.  While racism is illogical in a naturalistic worldview, because inbreeding can lead to genetic problems, homophobia should be the default moral position.  So I think that naturalists that worry a lot about homosexual rights are not necessarily thinking consistently.

Amen bro! 

... M

[Libertarian666]

Gay/lesbian/bisexual, etc. folks should have the same legal rights as straight people, in my view.

There's no compelling argument to deny that, and we're a country based on the notion that "all are created equal".

I think that the gay/lesbian/etc. population is something like 4%, so I'm not afraid at all if that might expand a little bit, and see no threat to our continuing to populate (over-populate) the planet.

The state has a legitimate interest in protecting children, and ensuring that they are safe/well cared for, but that interest doesn't break down along sexual orientation lines for me at all - there are many abusive straight parents, for example.

If I remember the Oregon bakery issue, the bakery violated an Oregon anti-discrimination law and were rightly found to be in the wrong.  They managed to quickly raise a lot of money, more than enough to pay the fine, and are still in business - I don't see how their lives have been ruined.

Currently, different cities/states have different laws about sexual orientation, and people can participate in the political process, and/or locate in a place that they find preferable, until the federal government steps up on the issue.

People are free to hold whatever religious beliefs they hold about homosexuality.

There is nothing "right" about forcing anyone to do business with anyone they don't want to do business with.

They were legally forced, not "rightly" forced.

Note: I don't have anything against gay people. They should have exactly the same rights as everyone else. However, those rights do not include the right to force anyone to do business with anyone else.

On a related note, I have stopped contributing to the ACLU. This is a paraphrase of what I tell them whenever they solicit me for money:

"You should divide up into two organizations. The first one, which should be called the ACLU, will defend rights found in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The second one, which should be called the TMURU (Totally Made Up Rights Union), will defend all the other made up "rights" like the "right to force people to bake cakes for people they don't want to bake cakes for". I'll donate to the first of these organizations, but not the second."

[Michellebell]

1. So Mountaineer, you believe that people who are born homosexual should deny practicing it, just as a married person may view lust outside of marriage as sin and refuse to commit adultery?  2. Do you think their lives here will be more fulfilling by believing they are turning away from sin? 

I do feel sorry for those people.  3. How would you feel if you had a child who felt more attracted to the same sex?  4. Would you rather they still marry the opposite sex or be celibate?

I numbered your questions for ease of responding.

1. Yes.
2. Depends on whether they believe in God's promises.  If they are not Christian, I have no idea what their lives would be like while on this earth.  I'm pretty sure what it will be like after they expire.
3. Very sad.  Just like if they were attracted to another person's spouse.  Just like if they aborted their unborn child or murdered a neighbor.  Just like if they slanderers, liars, or thieves.  Just like if they abandoned God for the worship of self. 
4. Does not matter what I think.  I hope they would not fall from faith in Jesus and follow His wishes for Christians.

How do you answer your questions?

... M

Oh wow, my own questions are hard for me to answer. 

1.  No, I believe they should feel free to practice it as it is something they can't help and I think they deserve to pursue their happiness.
2.  I think that if they are Christian they may feel confused about what they feel is their sinful nature.  Some may be proud for having the self control to follow the Bible and feel grateful they are saved.
3.  I would feel sad for them.  I do really hope all of my children will be heterosexual.  I think homosexuals are very judged by society, they do not make ideal parents, and they will grow up without any role models for having a healthy gay relationship.  If they end up being homosexual, I don't think I could blame them though.  I love my children immensely and want them to feel that I wouldn't judge them, just as I don't want my sister to feel that I am judging her.  If my children say they are bisexual, I would encourage them to stick with the opposite sex.  For example if my daughters have a few bad relationships with men and then decide to date women for a while (I've seen this a lot), I would discourage that. 
4.  I would want them to be happy and marry the person they love the most. If they want children, I'd want them to marry the opposite sex first.  Therefore, if they really are gay I'd probably discourage children.

[jafs]

Then what is the issue?  We are all subject to the same laws and regulations of our country, state, county, city.  Don't like the current situation?  Change the laws within the boundaries of the relevant Constitution (or Amend the Constitution).

.. M

The issue is that various laws exist that don't grant equal rights to gay people.

And, changing the laws is one option, but another option is to get cases before the SC and have the discriminatory laws found unconstitutional, as was just done with anti gay marriage laws.

The SC does not make law (at least that it how is supposed to be).  Congress is tasked with making laws and having oversight of the (unmanageable) myriad of subsequent regulations.    So, what do you propose to get Congress to do its job?  Rhetorical question - no need to answer.  Actually, I am not 100% on this, but I think it is pretty much unlikely that anyone can legislate morality - sinful man by nature rebels.  If we all followed the "love your neighbor as you love yourself" rule this whole discussion becomes unnecessary.  Ain't going to happen on this side of the Last Day (based on what we know about recorded history).

... M

The SC is tasked with deciding whether or not laws are constitutional, and that's just what they've done.

[dualstow]

In my previous life as an agnostic, I would argue that "homophobia" seems like a quite natural and logical position to hold, if morality is something that evolved along with humans.  While racism is illogical in a naturalistic worldview, because inbreeding can lead to genetic problems, homophobia should be the default moral position.  So I think that naturalists that worry a lot about homosexual rights are not necessarily thinking consistently.

I'm not sure exactly where you're coming from with this, but it seems like you have breeding and morality mixed up. Yes, racism is illogical. Luckily, in Yellowstone, young daughter wolf may sneak off with someone from another pack that daddy wolf does not approve of, so that trumps daddy wolf's "racist" feelings.

Homophobia is every bit as illogical as racism. If you woke up one day and the entire world were gay, it would be logical to fear that the human race would not reproduce and carry on. But that's got nothing to do with homophobia, or limiting a gay person's rights to marry, enjoy tax benefits, and do all the things straight people do. And, it's got nothing to do with morality. How is that a "default moral position?"

Pro gay rights, 100%.
When I was a teenager (long time ago), I thought the idea of same-sex couples raising children was a bit weird. None of my business, though, and it's increasingly common.

How do you define "rights"?  I'm a bit confused why gay's should have any more or less "rights" than any other human.  How do you define "privilege"?  And lastly, where do "rights" come from?  Who establishes "rights"?  Are "rights" situational or absolute?  How do you know?

... M

Gay rights movements aren't about gays having "more" rights than straight people, they're about gay people having the same rights as straight people.

The rights we're discussing come from our society and legal structure.

Yep, what jafs said.

[BearBones]

In my previous life as an agnostic, I would argue that "homophobia" seems like a quite natural and logical position to hold, if morality is something that evolved along with humans.  While racism is illogical in a naturalistic worldview, because inbreeding can lead to genetic problems, homophobia should be the default moral position.  So I think that naturalists that worry a lot about homosexual rights are not necessarily thinking consistently.

Really?

So what happens when the mallard ducks male pairs I see all over the place "mate?" Are they shunned by other birds? Have trouble finding food and shelter? Hmm. What happens to dogs that hump on stuffed animals or their owners legs? Bad dog!!! And, heaven forbid, I hope you all don't judge me for this, but I used a vibrator on my girlfriend the other day. Just for pleasure!   So embarrassing to admit. No offspring intended, forgive me God!

Homosexual (and other morally objectionable) behavior happens all of the time in the animal world, my friend. Even in the Catholic church.

[Maddy]

Wow, three pages in, and still no attempt to articulate what specific "rights" homosexuals do not enjoy. 

[Pointedstick]

Wow, three pages in, and still no attempt to articulate what specific "rights" homosexuals do not enjoy.

Up until recently, many lacked the right to marry, which was recently discovered by the supreme court. I don't believe anything else is lacking and I don't think many others do either, which is why homosexuality has all but disappeared from the public discourse and been replaced by leftists with the social acceptance of transsexuality.

For the most part, this ship has sailed.

[Libertarian666]

Wow, three pages in, and still no attempt to articulate what specific "rights" homosexuals do not enjoy.

Up until recently, many lacked the right to marry, which was recently discovered by the supreme court. I don't believe anything else is lacking and I don't think many others do either, which is why homosexuality has all but disappeared from the public discourse and been replaced by leftists with the social acceptance of transsexuality.

For the most part, this ship has sailed.

I wish I had known about this when I was a teenage boy.

Then I could have just "self-identified" as a girl and played girl's sports, where I would have been a champion. Not to mention the locker room access! 

[Michellebell]

Wow, three pages in, and still no attempt to articulate what specific "rights" homosexuals do not enjoy.

Up until recently, many lacked the right to marry, which was recently discovered by the supreme court. I don't believe anything else is lacking and I don't think many others do either, which is why homosexuality has all but disappeared from the public discourse and been replaced by leftists with the social acceptance of transsexuality.

For the most part, this ship has sailed.

Okay I definitely gave this thread the wrong title.  You guys are all so literal!  I'll have to remember that.  I know they have won their rights.  I'm interested in hearing your attitudes toward them.  The teacher I work with has been criticized by quite a few people in both families for "living in sin," she lied to her students about adopting a son, her wife lied to her boss and said she got knocked up by a man rather than got pregnant on purpose through a sperm donor and is in a committed relationship, her first son was made fun of by another boy his age for "not having a dad," (which he does- he sees him on visitations, but his little brother really doesn't), the male gay teacher I know won custody of a child for a year and then lost him because the biological family didn't want him raised by a gay man, etc.

Also, my sister was not "nurtured" to be gay.  I think it is biological, but if homosexuality exists in nature all the time, why do you think the trait hasn't the trait died out? 

[jafs]

I'm not at all sure that gay/lesbian/etc. folks have equal rights yet.

Foster parenting and adopting are probably not equalized yet, I'd think.

[Pointedstick]

I know a bunch of gay people. Their sexuality doesn't concern me since we're not in a romantic relationship. They are generally just regular, normal people. However I'll admit that none of them have children, which seems like it complicates things because the family unit wouldn't fit into one of the boxes that people expect it to. But straight couples can have plenty of crazy psychodrama with their kids too so I don't think there's anything especially weird there.

[jafs]

Some of my extended family are lesbians in committed relationships with kids.

They are in every way just like straight families - the same relationship dynamics, parental concerns, etc. - except for their sexuality.

The kids are smart, sweet and interesting.

[dualstow]

Wow, three pages in, and still no attempt to articulate what specific "rights" homosexuals do not enjoy.

Up until recently, many lacked the right to marry, which was recently discovered by the supreme court.
~

Some of this may run into debate, like the cake maker's right to refuse service or the specific rules of organizations and clubs, but I believe they could not openly join the US military before (Don't Ask, Don't Tell). My dad knew a guy who was court-martialed when found out. There's the boys scouts, being a Catholic priest...

A lot of these are very recent.