Obama now President of USA.

[Baba O'Riley]

In short: if you love your gender, you also better fucking love coastlines!

Gay and on the bay.

That's all I've got.

[DackAttac]

In short: if you love your gender, you also better fucking love coastlines!

Gay and on the bay.

That's all I've got.

I'm borderline disappointed in you for passing up "queer and by the pier."

[Zeta]

Cocks at the docks.

[Crazy Penguin]

Once this democratic-majority congress gets seated, I'm seriously considering writing a very nice letter to the reps and senators for my area/state, expressing my interest and the constitutionality of an across-the-nation, equal-to-marriage (i.e., green on that map) civil union system, like the naïve little imp I am.

I can't fully get behind "equal but different". It leaves the door open for them to move the goal posts, and if truly was equal then it wouldn't need to go by a different name. It's like having white water fountains and black water fountains.

[Dr. Watson]

Of course in my glorious nation, we already have civil unions for the homos, althogh they are only able to met married before a secular authority, cause the church still stubornly refuses to wed them. But now, more and more politicians (right-wing as well as left-wing) are starting to suport a proposal that says we do away with this problem simply by taking away the church's legal right to wed people period. Then no one will ever be able to say that gay people are discriminated for not being able to get married in church, cause straight people wont be able do so either.

[DackAttac]

I can't fully get behind "equal but different". It leaves the door open for them to move the goal posts, and if truly was equal then it wouldn't need to go by a different name. It's like having white water fountains and black water fountains.

I totally agree that the goal should be gay marriage. And when the government it ready for it to happen, it'll happen. But coming off an election where a state as progressive as California voted to rewrite the state's constitution to ban gay marriage, Arizona did the same, and Florida rewrote theirs to ban marriage and civil unions, it's not going to happen for a damned long time, and I think getting a compromised system in the meantime, even if the goalposts can be wobbled some, is better than sitting on absolutely no rights whatsoever twiddling our thumbs. Awful as it is, I'm sure segregated water fountains are better than one fountain that's just whites-only.

But now, more and more politicians (right-wing as well as left-wing) are starting to suport a proposal that says we do away with this problem simply by taking away the church's legal right to wed people period. Then no one will ever be able to say that gay people are discriminated for not being able to get married in church, cause straight people wont be able do so either.

I assume they just mean they can't legally wed people. I'm sure the church can still consider them married. And then there's just be an extra form to fill out at town hall. My cousins all had to fill out a shitload of paperwork anyway when they got hitched (Canadian). One did it a good four months or so before the actual ceremony. Didn't make it any less special.

[Shadow Hog]

Equal but different?

Right, well, all people are created equal... but some people are more equal than others, clearly.

[Delphine]

But now, more and more politicians (right-wing as well as left-wing) are starting to suport a proposal that says we do away with this problem simply by taking away the church's legal right to wed people period. Then no one will ever be able to say that gay people are discriminated for not being able to get married in church, cause straight people wont be able do so either.

Wow, that's not a good thing, either. The church can have whatever rules it wants, I just don't want to be forced to follow them. As long as they leave me alone they can do what they like.

It's like having white water fountains and black water fountains.

These things don't happen overnight. Having to use a separate water fountain/sit at the back of the bus/unable to vote/etc., while really shitty, is better than being a slave. Having civil unions is better than having nothing. Once the poor little breeders get used to it, we can up the ante.

[MiraiTails]

For anyone who cares to answer:

Assuming those with civil unions have all the same legal rights as those who get married, why the need to get married? Is it the location (i.e. house of worship), or is it a matter of principle? (i.e. 'if they can do it, we should be able to also.')

I suppose, if I think about it, the second reason makes sense too. 'All [people] are created equal' and what not.

As an aside, I know my country doesn't have a monopoly on ignorance and intolerance, but it often seems that way.

[DackAttac]

Assuming those with civil unions have all the same legal rights as those who get married, why the need to get married? Is it the location (i.e. house of worship), or is it a matter of principle? (i.e. 'if they can do it, we should be able to also.')

Mainly the principle, like you said. The reason for all the ruckus all of the sudden is that there was gay marriage, then a bunch of straight people voted on banning it and now it's gone. The concept that people's rights can be taken away if they're unpopular enough. It's scary.

[G.Silver]

Wow, that's not a good thing, either. The church can have whatever rules it wants, I just don't want to be forced to follow them. As long as they leave me alone they can do what they like.

That's totally not the case. There's a tremendous difference between a by-invitation-only party dedicated to two people who love each other (no gays though) that just happens to take place in a church and I don't know, a fucking jihad. Anyone who wants the full wedding regalia can have it, and if they're gay they just won't have as many choices for the location and M.C.

In Montana, though I'm sure they don't do gay marriages, official marriages are all of the civil union variety. You don't even have to go anywhere, just mail in a form with a couple signatures on it. What you do to celebrate that marriage is totally up to you, you can have a wedding in a church, or you can do what my dad and stepmom did and climb a mountain.

[Dr. Watson]

Wow, that's not a good thing, either. The church can have whatever rules it wants, I just don't want to be forced to follow them. As long as they leave me alone they can do what they like.

Well, from what i can tell, Swedish politics in general often differ from American in the sense that they often seem to be based on a certain mentalety that goes "if there is something that not all people can have, then its better that no one can have it rather than that only some can have it". I guess you could say that while "freedom" is often considered a holier fundament than "equality" in America, its kinda vice-versa in Sweden. Of course the ideal is always to have both, but in practice you almost always have to choose just one of them. And in the particular case concerning gays vs church, i personaly suport the equality option.

[Crazy Penguin]

I don't understand why any gay couple would want to be married in a Christian church anyway. Homosexuality is only mentioned a scarce few times in the Bible, but every time it is they make it clear to be a very bad thing.

[gr4yJ4Y]

Believe it or not there are even gay people who find Jesus to be their Lord and Savior.


...Even though getting married to the same gender seems to go completely against what the Bible says.

[Crazy Penguin]

Maybe it was one of the parts that was retconned in Crisis on Infinite Gospels and is no longer part of New Testament canon? Gotta love it when the infallible creator of everything changes his mind!

[Delphine]

It's very, very easy to ignore something in the Bible, or any holy book, that doesn't mesh with what you like: God didn't write the Bible, people did. People can be wrong. What if they misinterpreted what God said? They could have gotten the gay thing wrong!

See? Easy.

[Zeta]

Believe it or not there are even gay people who find Jesus to be their Lord and Savior.


...Even though getting married to the same gender seems to go completely against what the Bible says.

It's very, very easy to ignore something in the Bible, or any holy book, that doesn't mesh with what you like: God didn't write the Bible, people did. People can be wrong. What if they misinterpreted what God said? They could have gotten the gay thing wrong!

See? Easy.

They're just picking and choosing their parts of the story differently than other people. Instead of ignoring the parts about shellfish and polycotton blends, sacrificing bulls, and stoning criminals, I guess.

[Baba O'Riley]

Maybe it was one of the parts that was retconned in Crisis on Infinite Gospels and is no longer part of New Testament canon? Gotta love it when the infallible creator of everything changes his mind!

On Earth 6 they let the gays get married and forbid everyone else.

Crazy, right?

[Crazy Penguin]

It's very, very easy to ignore something in the Bible, or any holy book, that doesn't mesh with what you like: God didn't write the Bible, people did. People can be wrong. What if they misinterpreted what God said? They could have gotten the gay thing wrong!

See? Easy.

The subsequent question would be, if they're going to ignore the parts of their religion that they don't like, then why follow that religion at all?

[Zeta]

The subsequent question would be, if they're going to ignore the parts of their religion that they don't like, then why follow that religion at all?

They were raised to believe in it by mommy and daddy and cling to it as a surrogate parental figure. They can't stop following it because their entire world-view is based on it and their perception of reality would be shattered if they questioned it. But most religions have rules and laws that are both contradictory or out of date for the modern world. However, they get around this by not actually reading the Holy Books of their religion and relying on preachers and other church folk to give them a Cliff Note's version in which the teacher picks and chooses whatever they think is the most important and discarding all the contradictory bits, or the ones that would greatly upset modern readers (if your brother dies, rape your sister-in-law).

[Baba O'Riley]

It's very, very easy to ignore something in the Bible, or any holy book, that doesn't mesh with what you like: God didn't write the Bible, people did. People can be wrong. What if they misinterpreted what God said? They could have gotten the gay thing wrong!

See? Easy.

The subsequent question would be, if they're going to ignore the parts of their religion that they don't like, then why follow that religion at all?

But with that course of logic, why should anything have any significance?

ubermensch, anyone?

Anyways, the only people that take the Bible literally are those cultish fundamentalists, and that's seen as a form of extremism by most.

I just don't get why that's extremism and basing prejudice off of a 2000 year old fad cult is not.

[Zeta]

I just don't get why that's extremism and basing prejudice off of a 2000 year old fad cult is not.

The "cult" has ruled most of the western world for the past several centuries.

[Crazy Penguin]

Anyways, the only people that take the Bible literally are those cultish fundamentalists, and that's seen as a form of extremism by most.

The Bible can either be taken literally as divine unquestionable truth or acknowledged as old fairy tales from less educated times. How can anyone, with a straight face, say that they believe in the parts about a guy turning water into wine and angels and shit but that the parts about God commanding to stone people to death for picking sticks on the Sabbath day aren't believable or convincing enough for them? It's like believing in Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck but dismissing the existence of Goofy as absurd.

[DackAttac]

Homosexuality is only mentioned a scarce few times in the Bible, but every time it is they make it clear to be a very bad thing.

Like Del said. This book is two millenniums old, translated to shambles, parts were carried on orally for a very long time before put to paper; it's not something Jesus emails to priests in installments through a weekly newsletter. I admit it's a tad short-sighted to say "Maybe it's mistranslated" and not look into how. But then I found this link:

http://www.otkenyer.hu/truluck/six_bible_passages.html

It's lengthy, but it uses the original text and Bible study to render all of the anti-gay parts of the bible circumstantial at best in their actual opposition to homosexuality. Even if I didn't have a vested interest, I'd have a pretty hard time believing that God has a direct, 100% explicit "sin status" on homosexual relations after reading it.

[Zeta]

Also, it really doesn't mention lesbianism at all.