Gay Rights

[Umbran]

Yes and no. If you'll pardon the pun, it divorces it from the religious institution of marriage. This, in my view at least, removes any objection on religious grounds.

Except that those who have religious objections don't seem to accept that.

We aren't talking about the right for gays to get married *in a church*, or in a religious ceremony. We are talking about their right to get married *at all*.

At the moment, in many states, a gay couple cannot go to the courthouse and get married - which is exactly the legal contract you speak of. It already exists, but is denied these people.

I submit that the issue is only tangential to religion. Some folks are homophobic. This is not directly related to their religious affiliations, as there are quite devout people of the same denominations who don't have these attitudes. Religion is being used as a rationalization and support to justify the inability to accept gay folks, and the social connections that often go with religion add to the social-pressure to not accept them.

 

[Ryujin]

You can have marriages without religion easily enough though. My marriage was non-religious (though it had Imperial Stormtroopers present). The marriage part (absent any ceremonial stuff you choose to surround it with) was a legal process.

Understood but, at least in North America, it always seems to come down to social conservative/religious folk talking about the "damage" to the "religious institution" of marriage. Remove the words and NewSpeak that problem away. Let the people involved call it whatever they want but, from a legal standpoint, it's just a government recognized contract.

Actually, that's been kinda the law on the USA for a while, but nobody noticed it until gays wanted to join the party and conservatives squawked in protest. I expect that's how the SCOTUS will rule, too.

I mean, try getting married in the USA without state permission in the form of licenses. Even (most of) the common law stuff doesn't mention gender.

< sarcasm >
Well OF COURSE! After all, marriage is between a consenting man and the woman he chooses, isn't it? So God says. Why would anyone ever think otherwise and make it necessary to codify the obvious truth in law?
< / sarcasm >

 

[Kramodlog]

There may be others in my immediate world that are gay and I just don’t know it. And really, that’s the way it should be; that’s the way normal people are. No normal person, heterosexual, homosexual, or asexual, lives their life with their sexuality printed on their shirt, as if the world just has to know it and accept it in their face. I’ve never personally met the stereotypical, flamboyant gay or butch lesbian, even when I spent a whole evening at a gay/lesbian night club.

I dispute this as the norm that no one talks about sex. I worked with heterosexual blue collar workers who talked about their sex lives and sexual prowess frequently. It wasn't that special to hear. Same with heterosexual male friends who talked about who they slept with recently and what they did to the woman they slept with or just discuss porn.

Sex talk might seem invisible because it is heterosexuals talking to heterosexuals about hetero sex. No one is wearing their sexuality on their sleave when doing that, right? Well, no.

It is a bit like questions of racism. Being white it might seems non-sensical to believe that racism is a big problem in this day and age, but it is just because they do not face it. It is invisible to them, but it is a real thing to black people trying to find housing or get more call-backs when trying to find jobs.

 

[Ryujin]

Except that those who have religious objections don't seem to accept that.

We aren't talking about the right for gays to get married *in a church*, or in a religious ceremony. We are talking about their right to get married *at all*.

At the moment, in many states, a gay couple cannot go to the courthouse and get married - which is exactly the legal contract you speak of. It already exists, but is denied these people.

I submit that the issue is only tangential to religion. Some folks are homophobic. This is not directly related to their religious affiliations, as there are quite devout people of the same denominations who don't have these attitudes. Religion is being used as a rationalization and support to justify the inability to accept gay folks, and the social connections that often go with religion add to the social-pressure to not accept them.

And yet that's the most common reason cited, when you get right down to brass tacks; they get all worked up over a word. Of course my solution would also require the removal of any sex related wording in law (and, incidentally, the subsequent removal of any government employee who refused to do his job under the law), but it should be eminently possible.

Remove as many of these rationalizations as possible and all that you have left is a bunch of people who want to stop others from living their lives as they see fit, but can only sputter while looking for a valid reason.

 

[Umbran]

Remove as many of these rationalizations as possible and all that you have left is a bunch of people who want to stop others from living their lives as they see fit, but can only sputter while looking for a valid reason.

I would say they are already sputtering for a valid reason.

Depending how the SCOTUS rules, it may shortly cease to be an issue in the US.

 

[Ryujin]

I would say they are already sputtering for a valid reason.

Depending how the SCOTUS rules, it may shortly cease to be an issue in the US.

I certainly hope so. For my part there are two things that I don't find palatable, that are political hot-button topics, but as I am unlikely to ever be in a homosexual relationship nor be in need of an abortion, I do not see any reason why my personal preferences should have an effect on the lives of others.

 

[Bullgrit]

I dispute this as the norm that no one talks about sex. I worked with heterosexual blue collar workers who talked about their sex lives and sexual prowess frequently. It wasn't that special to hear. Same with heterosexual male friends who talked about who they slept with recently and what they did to the woman they slept with or just discuss porn.

It's interesting how vastly different our cultural experiences can be even though we are generally in a very similar cultures (US and Canada, not France and Iran, for instance).

I worked retail and restaurant jobs in high school and college. After college, I've worked in white collar jobs for 20+ years. My circle of friends through the years have been in similar positions. Though sex talk did come up occasionally (rarely), it wasn't at all common or the norm. Not that we are all prudes, just we're more likely to talk about movies or books or games, (as kids, teens, adults, and parents). I wouldn't be comfortable in conversations like in the above quote, and I would, (and have, now that I remember a couple of times), probably actively avoid someone who regularly carried on about the subject.

Bullgrit

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

And yet that's the most common reason cited, when you get right down to brass tacks; they get all worked up over a word. Of course my solution would also require the removal of any sex related wording in law (and, incidentally, the subsequent removal of any government employee who refused to do his job under the law), but it should be eminently possible.

Remove as many of these rationalizations as possible and all that you have left is a bunch of people who want to stop others from living their lives as they see fit, but can only sputter while looking for a valid reason.

The problem is, there are literally tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of laws and regulations intersecting with the marriage laws.

Far easier from a legal drafting and cost-efficiency standpoint to define marriage in a gender-neutral fashion.

 

[KirayaTiDrekan]

It's interesting how vastly different our cultural experiences can be even though we are generally in a very similar cultures (US and Canada, not France and Iran, for instance).

I worked retail and restaurant jobs in high school and college. After college, I've worked in white collar jobs for 20+ years. My circle of friends through the years have been in similar positions. Though sex talk did come up occasionally (rarely), it wasn't at all common or the norm. Not that we are all prudes, just we're more likely to talk about movies or books or games, (as kids, teens, adults, and parents). I wouldn't be comfortable in conversations like in the above quote, and I would, (and have, now that I remember a couple of times), probably actively avoid someone who regularly carried on about the subject.

Bullgrit

I was in the Navy back when I was under the mistaken impression that I was a dude. Some of the stereotypes regarding the Navy (and the military in general) have basis in fact and one of them is rampant and casual homophobia, at least among submarine sailors. The sex-talk was near constant and overwhelmingly sexist. I avoided it as much as I could but there is pressure to "fit in" to such an extent that it can affect whether you get promoted.

 

[JamesonCourage]

What are your thoughts about "gay rights"?

That I can't believe it is still an issue. But it is one. And there's a lot of work to be done, apparently, with religious freedom laws (etc.) being enacted.

Would allowing gay marriage generally solve all the gay rights issues?

No, but it'd seal the change in society. The nation would undoubtedly move in a direction of dealing with other rights issues.

The link in the above post goes to the story* of my experience at a gay/lesbian night club, (when I was 21 years old, in 1988). How would you feel about going to such a club as a heterosexual?

I've done it. I've gone to gay clubs (the crowded dancing / drinking type) with my female friends. I'm hetero. It was fine, and I had fun. Would do again.

My marriage was non-religious (though it had Imperial Stormtroopers present).

Also: awesome.