agree, no. accept, yes.

Nope...at least not for being homosexual. Just like I dont hate straight people for being straight.

I agree

Algren.

I think a more specific question would be in order. I doubt anyone here (on this board atleast) would hate someone for just being something. While even bkb here has his opinion on something, I doubt he hates someone just for being gay, he prolly has issues with just the act itself.

You mean you don't agree with homosexuality?

Call me a homophobe if you want, I don't care. I just don't think it is right. But does that mean that I have to hate anyone who is? No it doesn't. I just keep my opinions to myself at certain times.

Gotcha...can I still call you a commie? :wink:

Can I still burn your house for hippy lovin'?

I think a more relevant question at this point is not personal feelings. They clearly run the gamut.

Lets get this a bit more focused. Perhaps more along the lines of "Regardless of you personal comfort levels, how do you think the gay community should be handled as far as civic rights? Do you think their current approaches to reform are competent? And how do you see their position changing in the future?"

Seriously guys, no one is going to change their mind on if they are comfortable with it or not, and that's fine. There are plenty of people and lifestyles I'm not comfortable with either. The question isn't about how I feel personally, its about how as a society we should handle the issues.

That would bring us back to the original topic nicely. If anyone has cared to read the opening page and the discussions Eagle and I were having.

So i guess I WAS off target with the points and posts I made early on in the thread

Yes. Look I've never changed someone's mind about how they feel towards another group, may it be minorities, women, or homosexuals. I'd love to think I am that witty and intelligent of a debator that my mear words would cause someone to override their gut instinct. But I'm not. So the question is how to address the topic from points that are negotiable. Like or no like isn't particularly one of those points.

Better to talk about, even if you don't like, what do you feel is in the best interest as far as policy, etc.

Heaven and Hell can wait 'til I'm dead. Doesn't concern me, I don't even believe in them. What concerns me, and should concern all of you, is what is going on now as far as future civil liberties, economic advantage, and community policy.

That's stuff that can actually change and be affected through discussion.

I'll give ya some answers to those questions. It's a lot more complexe now then the general question that algren gave.

1) I think they should have the right to a civil union but I don't think that a church should have to do a marriage between a gay couple if they don't want too. I'm all for gay rights but the church has their own rights too and I don't want to be the one who infringes on their rights.


2) Who's current approach to reform are you talking about? The governments or the gay communities? For the government, I don't see the current american government changing their mind on the issue but isn't it a state thing that's going on for it. In Canada it's different and it's in the supreme court right now to see if they're gonna change the definition of marriage from man and woman to two people. I wouldn't like that to happend because the my definition of marriage is between a man and a woman but it's up to the courts right now to decide. As for the gay community, I think they need to teach more to the homophobic people first before they go into the scene with a bang (I'm having trouble explaining this).


3) Again, who's position changing in the future? The governments position on homosexuals?

Its so difficult to answer something along these lines?? civic rights? current approaches?? their position?? The??

Bodies of people, all around the world, are in different stages .... different rights are being fought for by the same groups in different places, different approachers are being taken, and theyre all definetely in different position? How is one to answer that?

I agree. And I stated in previous posts, which may have been overlooked ,I dont think its a good idea to "comprimise" or what have you. It seems like selling out to me. Yes i guess it would be good for the time being, but gays..ect deserve the same rights as heteros and shouldnt have to work their way in the system..have to comprimise their human rights, like your article is implying

That is correct. I think it is wrong. Im not going to say anymore.

Say it! Say "anymore!"

i share your view

ANYMORE!!!!!!

(good man hans )

Im not going to speak of this anymore

@ hans and Algren


Ok, you don't think its right...for whatever reason. What do you think should be done about equal protection, basic rights...ect. What do you think about the questions Dolce is proposing?

What question is she proposing? Explain it to me...

basically i dont think it is right, but i dont mind if some is gay, I wouldn't hate some for being gay. As for rights, what do you mean? Gay rights? We all have human rights, so they already have equal rights. . ?

Again not to get religion mixed with it is that the Christian (moreso Catholic) teaches that it is NOT a sin to be gay but to act upon it is. So I don't know where your from but getting marreid is acting upon your homosexuality and that is why most people dont like the fact of homosexual marrige.

Not all christian denomonations teach that...


Secondly...guys....read all the previous posts...ect. Thats what dolce is talking about. Read the article.

Thank-you Rusty.



I agree. A church shouldn't have to do it. Maybe its because I'm not from a Roman Catholic background, but in my view, they don't want you than take your religion elsewhere. There is a long history of schisms in the church. Joan? St. Francis? Constantinople? Lutheran? CHurch of England? Why the hell don't people just start their own. Meh. This for me is a very sticky point, which I clearly just don't understand because I did not grow up with Catholic liturgy in my life.

That being said, I know certain institutions that odn't mind it. They should do as they please as well, and I hope more people join them. Sueing the church is just giving it more power.

As to Civil Union, the original article I posted was an alternative even to that, which I don;t know how I feel about. I'd prefer they take the long slow battle out for civil unions, and not opt for this privitization thing which makes it just about money and not about altering their consideration under Civic law. How do you feel about the privitization suggestion?



Canadian Supreme court already ruled it was legal. Want me to post the article?

States rights is one alternative here. The one I am talking about is that the gov't suggested they would allow social security benefits to be extended to gay spouses if gays chose to endorse the privitazation of social security. In short, the Gov't said, "We won;t give you equal liberties under the federal law, but if you support us in shifting the responsibility of social security away from the government into private industry, the private industry might extend monetary benefits to you."

As to your suggestions on consitutional amendment. I feel it better to err in the direction of two people. Why? Because it doesn't say the Cathloic church (as an example) has to marry gay people. It says that if a reform Jewish synagogue (for example) does marry a gay couple, that the government will still acknowldge that marriage certificate. I think your earlier statement about not telling the church what to do can swing both ways. Hence the wording of an amendment is important. Well, you don't want to tell a church they have to marry a couple, but do you feel its okay to tell a different church that they can't marry a couple? Even if that church has no problem with it. Because that's telling a church what to do as well. I think as long as the amendment says "Its up to the whichever religious institution thinks, we'll just support all those decisions respectively" than its fine to include marriage as two people. Thats bit different than "Hey Church, you have to do it." Its just saying "Hey church, if you decide to do it, we won't over-rise your authity to decide what is best for your constituents."



The changing I was referring to (I think is the question) on how the government is kind of using the right they just denied homosexuals in the last election, and is now offering it to them with strongs attached (have to go private). Is that your question?

I dont think gays should have any rights! They should be stripped of theyre clothes and sent into the jungle to live with the beasts and monkeys, somewhat like... experimental cave men, then they can make as much noise as they like having or doing whatever they like.