Re: Religion, gay artists and homophobia

by Papaumau Tue Feb 21, 2012 1:55 pm

I have found that the stance against homosexuality - and in many other "biblical sins" - in almost all of the religions of the world is based on writings in their holy books.

As the word that is accepted as the word of their Gods is either said to be spoken directly to the humans that report it, ( and in many of these cases these "conduits" from the Gods are found to simply be schizophrenic ), then the word that is written by the fallible human scribes of old into these holy books is at risk of being seen as the flawed interpretation of what these scribes and prophets said they know and found to be true.

The faithful - as in all of the details surrounding faith - believe in their faith because faith requires no proof and when they act on what they find in their holy books, ( although none of the contents of these books has ever been proven to be right or accurate in fact ), their behaviour, as a result, is based on myth rather than even on secular laws. In other words, because their faith dictates that everything that is in these holy books must be true, what they find there that connects to "sin" must also be true.

I have always felt that as far as the laws of the land that I live in should never be based on religious faith, I can only take the stance that if these laws ARE in any way influenced by religion then they are not laws that can apply to everybody or that can be applied to any kind of secular rules or regulations.

Regards.....

Papaumau.

by AwfulTruth Tue Feb 21, 2012 2:41 pm

Well stated: totally agree with your slant here.

by oftenwrong Tue Feb 21, 2012 4:56 pm

Homophobia is a useful shibboleth when it comes to weeding-out Political Candidates.

(The Latin phrase sanctum sanctorum is a Latin translation of the biblical term: "Holy of Holies" which generally refers in Latin texts to the Holiest place of the Tabernacle.)

by Shirina Wed Mar 14, 2012 2:41 am

You're expecting religion to be consistent. Shocked

by trevorw2539 Wed Mar 14, 2012 3:07 pm

Shirina Today at 2:41 am

You're expecting religion to be consistent. Shocked

Of course religions are consistent. Consistently right Embarassed

by trevorw2539 Wed Mar 14, 2012 3:29 pm

Awfultruth wrote:-
So, where is the doctrine of Jesus Christ in all this? Where are the tenets of Christ's word?

Haven't quoted all your post to save room. I agree with you.

By the way, after what you have posted, don't have a meal with anyone named Borgia:lol:

I would like to just add that the above you mention have become clouded by ritual and ceremony in other churches too. Its when you dispense with the clouds you can see the basics Christ taught.

Old Henry VIII did us good, for the wrong reasons, when he separated from the RC. Smile

by **Ivan** Wed Mar 14, 2012 4:14 pm

Haven't quoted all your post.

trevorw2539. Well done, it isn’t necessary. I wish that others would follow your example.

Old Henry VIII did us good, for the wrong reasons, when he separated from the RC

Not sure that it’s so different; Henry in effect created the English Catholic Church, and it’s still too keen on cosying up to the Pope. Luther’s split from Rome was far more significant.

It’s when you dispense with the clouds you can see the basics Christ taught.

Can you? How do you know what Christ taught? The gospels were written long after his death by people who probably never met him and couldn’t even agree as to when and where he was born. For example, John’s gospel remarks that Christ’s followers were surprised that he wasn’t born in Bethlehem (John 7:41-42), Matthew has Mary and Joseph in Bethlehem all along, and Luke sends them there for a census. Yet the census (called by the governor Quirinius) happened in 6 AD, long after Herod’s death.

by oftenwrong Wed Mar 14, 2012 5:24 pm

Things may become clearer when we experience The Second Coming.

by trevorw2539 Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:35 pm

Religion, gay artists and homophobia Empty

Quote Ivan.

Can you? How do you know what Christ taught? The gospels were written long after his death by people who probably never met him and couldn’t even agree as to when and where he was born. For example, John’s gospel remarks that Christ’s followers were surprised that he wasn’t born in Bethlehem (John 7:41-42), Matthew has Mary and Joseph in Bethlehem all along, and Luke sends them there for a census. Yet the census (called by the governor Quirinius) happened in 6 AD, long after Herod’s death.

In Johns Gospel it is the people, not Christs followers.

Micah has a reference to Bethlehem-Ephratah and a ruler that shall............ you obviously know it, so I leave it there. Personally I am not convinced this referred to Christ. But that is me.

Matthew starts his story at Christs birth. Luke way before. Luke is wrong in his chronology, that is certain.

Quirinius did not order the census. Caesar Augustus did. Quirinius was 'Governor' of Syria as Legate Governor. Legates dealt with financial etc matters, Prefects with military matters. There was a Prefect 'Governor' in the south. Samaria, Judea etc. These 2 would have 'interacted'.

Quirinius was probably appointed to tax assess the area of Samaria, Judea etc. after the exile of Archelaus for being 'a bad boy'. Archelaus - worse than his father Herod the Great for infamy.

We do not know if there were any earlier writings. A scrap has been found but no substantial amount.

This is not surprising. When you think that the earliest copy we have of Plato's writing is several hundred years after his death, as are the writings of many others that we accept as true, you - as they say - pays your money and takes your choice.

Censuses were not uncommon, but usually just covered a specific area, and often caused riots.

If I've missed anything it's because my notes are packed away somewhere. Was hoping to move.

by AwfulTruth Thu Mar 15, 2012 4:30 am

Trevor

So where does all this homophobia fit in? Where is the gospel references that prove that the Pope is right to persecute gay people?

With regards to biblical evidence, I cannot find anything substantial, irrefutable, and cannot even identify a reference that supports the bizarre Catholic and Anglican assertion that their church's both own the fundamental semantics of the word 'marriage. Once again there is absolutely no New or Old Testament scripture that backs up the notion that the church owns or controls marriage. Semantics aside, Jesus Christ did not make any homophobic statements, judgements or condemnations, (he overtly supported sexual abstinence) and he certainly did not proclaim that 'marriage', as we know it, was the preserve of his faith.

We know for sure that what we see as a state codified and registered act of formal commitment, as in 'marriage', was put in place during William the Conqueror's time, in this country, exclusively for the benefit, initially anyway, of the landed and upper social order. During a patriarchal time when powerless females were bought and sold on the marriage market like meat, the act of marriage, as codified, was primarily an act of law that protected in law the area of financial assets such as dowry, inheritance and chattels so as to help prevent fraud and loss of wealth.

Marriage is not and never has been, the sole preserve of the religious, and the idea that gay people are incapable of having a partnership that involved a loving commitment, is ludicrous. Whether we call that commitment a marriage, a partnership, or a dance down the road of happy families, is simply just the discourse of the intellectually pedantic and a fruitless exercise in empty semantics that support a rather pointless lesson in persecution and intolerant religious fascism.

by trevorw2539 Thu Mar 15, 2012 10:23 am

by AwfulTruth Today at 4:30 am

Trevor

So where does all this homophobia fit in? Where is the gospel
references that prove that the Pope is right to persecute gay people.

Not sure why you posted above.

There are 2 references in the Bible - 1 disputed - to homosexuality.

However my own personal view is that provided I am not expected to join in, each has a right to their own way of life.It has been this way for time immemorial. From earliest records we have this relationship is noted and in most cases it has been accepted as long as it was kept in private. First written reference to marriage is in the Code of Hammurabi circa 1800BC. But marriage was recognised before that. Your property and meat market comes to mind, women being 'property' at the time.
Nothing new under the sun
The main exception to that being the Jewish faith and the Torah.
Though now it is recognised by all but the Orthodox Jews.(Generalisation).

I have a friend who is in a longterm Lesbian relationship. We accept each others views.

As I don't accept much of the RC faith as being 'Christian', and certainly don't recognise the Pope as 'the vicar of Christ' I personally don't think he has any right to persecute anyone.

by AwfulTruth Thu Mar 15, 2012 10:53 am

Trevor

Very interesting and thought-provoking reply: your knowledge of the bible is useful and unusual/laudable.

My own view, as an atheist, 'cultural Christian' (I wear a small silver framed cross made from 320 million year old amber to remind me that I accept that the basic tenets of modern basic human rights were drawn partly from the doctrine of Jesus Christ and are an ancient ethos) and someone with a compulsive interest in human psychology and socio-religious study, is that human nature is far too complex to label people as gay, straight or bisexual - or even transsexual (whatever!). Human sexuality is but a small exaggerated part of us human beings and none of us (of any sexual proclivity) actually fits the primary tropes of obsessive, aggressive, stereotyping. That people have been forced, without their consent, to fit within the parameters of other people's artificial constructs by those who do not know them personally, or wish to know them, is a sign of a common, aggressive manifestation of prejudice, the scapegoat obsession, and a sociologically imprinted compulsion to invade other people's bedrooms and, of course, the privacy of a personal sex life.

That sex and sexuality are a private issue, is swept aside by obsessional discourse that creates a dangerous sociological landscape where gay people are not only ostracised, but made into 'other', with their identity and nomenclature removed/discarded. It is in this state that gay people become fair game and the victims of a metaphorical 'open season' as far as condemnation, homophobia and aggressive rejection, as human beings, is concerned.

This process of dehumanisation, much lauded by the Pope, for example, has led to, for example, a steep increase in Italy of physical and verbal abuse, in the streets, of gay people. That the Pope offers absolutely no moral support to the vulnerable gay populace is yet more irrefutable proof that he has saliently failed to accept the doctrine of Jesus Christ and the fundamental rights that all people should enjoy.

by trevorw2539 Thu Mar 15, 2012 11:45 am

AwfulTruth

I would agree with what you say, if I could understand it. Wink

Human sexuality is but a small exaggerated part of us human beings and none of us (of any sexual proclivity) actually fits the primary tropes of obsessive, aggressive, stereotyping

We are all different thank heavens. I don't fancy living next to another me:)

Dehumanisation. Hard one. A man that has pride in himself, and I don't mean that he thinks he is above all others, will never be demeaned, except in the eyes of others. The very fact that the 'gay' movement is fighting back means that they know their 'self-worth' despite what others think.

I accept that in 'RC controlled' countries things are more difficult. But I also believe that many people, particularly the young, are seeing through the mists that surround the RC, and even other traditional churches.

The benefit is to the 'free churches' 'black churches' (apologies if I offend anyone) who offer a simple message without ritualism and 'mumbo jumbo' - ooops now I'm excomunicated:lol:

by AwfulTruth Thu Mar 15, 2012 1:46 pm

I agree with you, but sadly there is much work to be done to finally convince the Anglican (I give up with the fascistic RCC) church, if it is to finally embrace the doctrine of their own saviour - without any clauses. After that, human rights tenets become easily accepted and expressed as the best possible way, partly, to celebrate the fundamental truth of Christ's teaching and the better part of human nature.

You are astute in alluding to self-worth, and that self-confidence is linked to a refusal or rebuttal of chimeric forms of pseudo-Christian gay persecution, and the raft of misinformation and lies that form the basis of such errant nonsense.

I wager that it is this 'mumbo jumbo' in the white and black churches that is essentially pagan in origin, and also that it is inextricably imbued with a strange, extreme view of what it is to be straight - an unholy alliance between the ideal of manhood and the nonsensical, reactionary ethos that has infected Christian thinking.

So, what we are really talking about here is a palpable corruption of true Christian doctrine, in that it has been cynically hijacked by fascistic extremists, who have made themselves and their aggressive mantra sound like the true Word, thereby recruiting so many naive minds. Minds that need re-educating!

by witchfinder Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:44 pm

I do not agree with the Catholic churches stance on this issue, the so called "Holy Roman Catholic Church" is completely out of touch with modern society.

But it dosent realy matter what the Catholic Church believes, because the Catholic Church is a minority organisation in which only 9% of the UK population belong to; The Catholic Church does not run the country, they have no say, they are irelevant to modern Britain and are riddled from top to bottom with hypocracy.

by AwfulTruth Thu Mar 15, 2012 9:34 pm

witchfinder wrote:I do not agree with the Catholic churches stance on this issue, the so called "Holy Roman Catholic Church" is completely out of touch with modern society.

But it doesn't really matter what the Catholic Church believes, because the Catholic Church is a minority organisation in which only 9% of the UK population belong to; The Catholic Church does not run the country, they have no say, they are irrelevant to modern Britain and are riddled from top to bottom with hypocrisy.

An incisive observation that I agree with. There is something repellently ugly, bizarre and grotesque about an organization that dresses its leaders in fancy lace and red skirts whilst protecting paedophiles. They remind me of an attack of the killer clowns: something horrible en route to the forum that really does scare the children.

It's a strange world where ex Nazi Brown Shirts can become popes; where paedophile protectors can pontificate and preach condemnation in the most disingenuous manner whilst submerged in cant, misinformation and the politics of ruthless suppression. Enough said...

by trevorw2539 Thu Mar 15, 2012 11:02 pm

AwfulTruth:
An incisive observation that I agree with. There is something repellently ugly, bizarre and grotesque about an organization that dresses its leaders in fancy lace and red skirts whilst protecting paedophiles. They remind me of an attack of the killer clowns: something horrible en route to the forum that really does scare the children.

I actually find it sad. You know when you look at a house and see all the pebbledash or cladding you wonder why it's there, what it may be hiding.

Rather like a woman with garish makeup. Ooops I'm in trouble now. Embarassed

Like you, I wonder why.

What are they hiding? Why the show? To detract from what? And all the other questions I ask. And Holy water that is full of fluoride.

At least incense can cover the smell of sweat if the priest was late up and didn't have time to shower before Mass. Embarassed

By the way. I'm not RC and never been to Mass. In fact I used to think it was something in the US. Smile

How do you make water holy? Boil the hell out of it.

by AwfulTruth Fri Mar 16, 2012 8:44 am

My own opinion is, looking at the history of the RCC, in particular, that the RCC was actually founded by the ancient Roman powers (equivalent to the modern Mafia but on steroids) and was intended to replace the original pagan gods with pseudo-Christian models. Bearing in mind that the new RCC, whatever it then called itself, was in effect a pagan religious body masquerading as a Christian church, it was crucial that the pagan gods and goddesses were replaced with some kind of equivalent, in order to placate and instil further discipline and members committed to compliance to the RCC. It was crucial that the RCC be seen as the ultimate authority and the direct link to God.

Thus the king of the gods, Jupiter, became Jesus, Juno became mother Mary; and all the other major and minor gods were replaced with the church's wholly pagan based power to create 'saints' - aka minor gods. All these 'gods' could then be prayed and worshipped by the masses of pagan followers, all conditioned to believe that the church was wholly a Christian institution - which it certainly was not. None of this ethos was bible-based, of course.

Throughout the history of the RCC there is a marked absence of the doctrine of Jesus Christ being realistically and truthfully promulgated/preached. In fact, the exact opposite has been the case, with very few exceptions. Evidence clearly shows that those who wished to preach the actual doctrine of Jesus Christ, were either excommunicated, tortured or killed off. This sounds far-fetched but is a depressingly 'de facto' reality of how the RCC has historically suppressed the truth of Christ's doctrine, in order to further the goals of it's pagan criteria.

The RCC was, is and has always been, a monumental behemoth of economic power and represents the greatest of deceptions based on fiction; submersion; propaganda; fiscal extortion via threats of damnation and the direct earthly condemnation of the RCC - something that from the early days made people quake with fear.

The huge, massive power-base of the RCC is inherently linked to its ability to extract allegiance and funds from its members (however poor) - which is why the Vatican is so deeply embroiled, at this present time, in enlarging a shrinking membership, via a ruthless anti-contraception and anti-abortion campaign that is quite shocking in its ruthless, unfeeling, anti-Christian nature.

I rest by case for now...

[youtube][/youtube]

[youtube][/youtube]

Something funny...

[youtube][/youtube]

by polyglide Fri Mar 16, 2012 12:05 pm

Most people I find have an open mind regarding most things and are willing to consider the opinions of others whilst obviously prefering their own ideas and morals etc;

Homosexuality is a perversion choose how you try to explain it, and to some is abhorant and no law will change a persons opinion if they are of that opinion.

We are I am afraid going towards dictatorship in what we can express and what we cannot regarding feelings and opinions etc;

It is surely the right of everyone to be able to express an opinion on anything even if that opinion is not shared by others, it may upset some but that should not deny the right to do so.

If both sides are able to have their say then what is the problem ?

by Papaumau Fri Mar 16, 2012 1:45 pm

Yes Polyglide, there is no doubt that every individual is welcome to their opinion but when that opinion is forced upon the rest of us by the use of political or religious pressure then our individual opinions are liable to get brushed aside.

What we do to try to ameliorate that situation is to make laws that are enforcible by the police and while these laws have to take into account many opinions and religious and ethnic values, as well as the standard ones in any community, they have to be followed by all of the citizens of any country that lives within that rule of law.

What I am trying to say is that even although homosexuality is despised by many people, in any free society, so long as that practice does not harm any innocents and it is practiced in private by consenting adults it does no damage to the society it exists within.

As we do not live under religious law, ( Sharia law comes to mind ), we then must behave in ways that the civil and criminal laws dictate we should live. Because of this, I think that the religions - all of them - that are practiced in this country - while they too can have an opinion - must not be allowed to dictate how people should live their lives if these people do not subscribe to any of those religions.

Regards.....

Papaumau.

by astra Fri Mar 16, 2012 1:55 pm

Anglican and the Catholic faithful are also, mainly homophobic,

And yet, even in the earliest writings, the Vatican always had it's Catemites.

"Do as I SAY, NOT as I do!"

by ROB Fri Mar 16, 2012 1:56 pm

polyglide wrote:
We are I am afraid going towards dictatorship in what we can express and what we cannot regarding feelings and opinions etc;

It is surely the right of everyone to be able to express an opinion on anything even if that opinion is not shared by others, it may upset some but that should not deny the right to do so.

If both sides are able to have their say then what is the problem ?

Bill of Rights 1689
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Bill of Rights or the Bill of Rights 1688 is an Act of the Parliament of England.

The Bill of Rights was passed by Parliament on 16 December 1689.

Along with the Act of Settlement (1700 or 1701), the Bill of Rights is still in effect.

Provisions of the Act

The Bill of Rights laid out certain basic rights… These rights continue to apply today, not only in England and Wales, but in each of the jurisdictions of the Commonwealth realms as well.[citation needed] The Act set out that there should be:

the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689
__________________________________________________________________________________________

United States Constitution, Amendment 1

Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech…

by ROB Fri Mar 16, 2012 2:28 pm

Papaumau wrote:
… there is no doubt that every individual is welcome to their opinion…

This is no longer true in the US. Any person who dares to publicly state her/his “politically incorrect” opinions on this topic faces almost certain substantive retribution, including several cases in which the retribution negatively affected the person’s financial well being.

I posted provisions of the English and US Bills of Rights, the former of which seems to imply that citizens posses the right to freedom of speech, and thus freedom of thought and expression, and the latter of which specifically forbids Congress (and according to Amendment 14, state legislatures) from passing any laws abridging freedom of speech, and thus freedom of thought and expression.

Politically incorrect speech seems to have somehow been deemed exempt from these protections. As Polyglide points out, the inevitable result of such “exemptions” can only be dictatorship.

Papaumau wrote:
… but when that opinion is forced upon the rest of us by the use of political or religious pressure then our individual opinions are liable to get brushed aside.

Unfortunately, “that opinion is forced upon” me regularly. I have been required to state “that opinion” in a document that implicitly promised punitive action should I fail to so.

by AwfulTruth Fri Mar 16, 2012 4:20 pm

polyglide wrote:Most people I find have an open mind regarding most things and are willing to consider the opinions of others whilst obviously prefering their own ideas and morals etc;

Homosexuality is a perversion choose how you try to explain it, and to some is abhorant and no law will change a persons opinion if they are of that opinion.

We are I am afraid going towards dictatorship in what we can express and what we cannot regarding feelings and opinions etc;

It is surely the right of everyone to be able to express an opinion on anything even if that opinion is not shared by others, it may upset some but that should not deny the right to do so.

If both sides are able to have their say then what is the problem ?

Polyglide, with respect to you as a free thinker, I think you have missed the point of this thread, slightly.

For the record, I defend everyone, including you, to have the right to free expression of any view and I would certainly decry any attempt to throttle free speech. I may not agree with an opinion but I really, really do defend anyone the right to say it.

However, barring me from expressing a view that, for the sake of argument, preached hatred and violence upon people with ginger hair, then the law would be perfectly in order. Hate crimes are quite a different matter.

Anyone thinking or stating that gay people are sinful or out of kilter, morally, is not guilty of a hate crime - do you not see that?

However, people once thought women's right to vote was a perversion and that men had a right to rape their wives: I think morality changes and develops for the better, sometimes, don't you? Personally, I think it is immoral to classify gay people as perverts because it is not a fair adjective neither is it bereft of offence, on a personal level.

Live and let live is a maxim I always follow, unless someone expresses a view I find offensive, at which point I am at liberty to take issue and express by own counter-view! Very Happy

by oftenwrong Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:11 pm

A contributor to this thread may wish to consult a Solicitor before publicly repeating the comment concerning homosexuality.

by Shirina Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:35 pm

If I don't like peas, which I don't, then I should have the right to say I don't like peas. I should also have the right to refuse to eat them.

However, if I start trying to pass laws banning peas or heavily restricting when peas can be eaten and by whom, I have crossed the line. This is where many anti-gay people run afoul of what freedom really entails. You can dislike something all you wish to, and let everyone know how much you dislike it, but when you begin trying to force everyone else to live by your opinions, then we have tyranny. Is there really much of a difference between tyranny and a dictatorship?

In addition, freedom is never absolute, not even the 1st Amendment. Absolute freedom is synonymous with anarchy. Sometimes, regardless of your freedoms, biting your tongue is just the courteous thing to do. I don't need to start a religious argument with my grandmother every time she mentions God, and people don't need to start preaching about perversion and abominations every time someone mentions being gay.

by Penderyn Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:34 pm

'Religions' are conservative and retain earlier thought patterns, but reality working by contradictions they also contains the seeds of reaction against religion and reactionary thought patterns. If sensible people walk off and set up as counter-fundamentalists, just aimlessly reacting, it becomes more difficult for the dialectic to function.

by polyglide Sat Mar 17, 2012 11:03 am

It would maybe of help to some people to look at the meaning of perversion in any dictionary.

If a person plays football he/ she is a footballer, if someone plays in anything that the dictionary says is a perversion then they are perverts.

That does not alter the fact that the practice is legal nor that they should not be persecuted it is just a fact.

What some people may find distasteful is the use of Gay being used.

It takes all sorts to make up our present state of the world and there are far more important things than homosexuality, I feel that homosexuals should just get on with life and stop making such a fuss.

by oftenwrong Sat Mar 17, 2012 11:42 am

polyglide wrote:.... I feel that homosexuals should just get on with life and stop making such a fuss.

Same as Jews, Romany, lunatics and non-Aryans polyglide? What about albinos - they're a bit disturbing, eh?

by polyglide Sat Mar 17, 2012 11:52 am

It is an unfortunate fact that homosexuals have brought a lot of their problems on themselves, instead of accepting the fact that they are now protected by the law and getting on with their lives, they are constantly celebrating what to many is abhorant and this is doing their case no favours.

by oftenwrong Sat Mar 17, 2012 12:00 pm

If you can't beat 'em, why not join 'em?

by AwfulTruth Sat Mar 17, 2012 12:31 pm

Penderyn wrote:'Religions' are conservative and retain earlier thought patterns, but reality working by contradictions they also contains the seeds of reaction against religion and reactionary thought patterns. If sensible people walk off and set up as counter-fundamentalists, just aimlessly reacting, it becomes more difficult for the dialectic to function.

Good point - by the way is that photo of you as a nipper? Cute.

by Shirina Sat Mar 17, 2012 2:07 pm

It is an unfortunate fact that homosexuals have brought a lot of their problems on themselves, instead of accepting the fact that they are now protected by the law and getting on with their lives

They are not protected by law ... not in this country, at any rate.

they are constantly celebrating what to many is abhorant and this is doing their case no favours.

Why would this be any different than the Irish celebrating their Irish-ness on St. Patty's Day? I think, perhaps, it is those who find homosexuality abhorant who should be getting on with their lives instead of writing laws and constitutional amendments banning or restricting the rights of gays.

by **Ivan** Sat Mar 17, 2012 2:26 pm

What some people may find distasteful is the use of Gay being used.

I believe the word 'gay' was adopted by homosexuals as an abbreviation for 'good as you'; if I'm wrong, perhaps someone can correct me. Apart from the word being a description of 'happy' or 'jolly' in the past, it was also used to describe a prostitute in nineteenth century England.

(In order to prevent any misunderstandings about laws relating to homosexuals, let me remind posters that Shirina is writing from the USA.)

by trevorw2539 Sat Mar 17, 2012 2:33 pm

Quote Shirina.

Why would this be any different than the Irish celebrating their Irish-ness on St. Patty's Day? I think, perhaps, it is those who find homosexuality abhorant who should be getting on with their lives instead of writing laws and constitutional amendments banning or restricting the rights of gays

Despite our much vaunted 'special relationship' proclaimed by our leaders there is a vast difference in our attitudes to some things. In the UK we are passing laws for gay rights.

Personally I put it down to temperament. We in the UK are more tolerant. Those in the US are bonkers. Shocked

Ooops. Where's my tin hat. silent

But then, what do I know.

by AwfulTruth Sat Mar 17, 2012 2:55 pm

America is indeed a land of extremes like any other country but the historical religious and secular topography is quite unlike anywhere else. This has led to a quasi-fundamentalist, fascistic dogma-centred bible belt, which incidentally has an extraordinary high level of incest and child abuse cases, within bible-thumping territory; which kind of surprises one!

These fascistic reactionary, condemnatory, fire and brimstones spewing religious behemoths, are the fearful bane of 'difference' including gay, black and other 'others' who are the object of their base hatred and often abject disingenuous cant.

This is where once again a low intelligence can render some people subject to the sentiments of the mob and the politics of death and recrimination based on an inability to accept difference, full stop.

by Papaumau Sat Mar 17, 2012 3:02 pm

While Britain is not perfect about human-rights or the right to free speech I do think that it seems that because of these rights many groups in America seem able to form up in large numbers and preach extreme views under these rights.

The allowing of free-speech, that is an important part of your constitution in America, ( we in Britain don't have a constitution as such ), seems to mean that if enough people feel one way about any subject - including the practice of despising homosexuality - and they get together to make these opinions felt, very quickly the minorities that are within the hearing range of these groups start to feel intimidated.

I am sure that, even in "free" America if these freedoms are not enforced well enough for all, especially when the minority view is liable to be howled down by the people who are looking for "free-speech" in large numbers, not everybody is going to feel that they can safely speak freely.

Regards....

Papaumau.

by Guest Sun Mar 18, 2012 3:51 am

Shirina wrote:

It is an unfortunate fact that homosexuals have brought a lot of their problems on themselves, instead of accepting the fact that they are now protected by the law and getting on with their lives
They are not protected by law ... not in this country, at any rate.

Yes they are.

Shirina wrote:

they are constantly celebrating what to many is abhorant and this is doing their case no favours.
Why would this be any different than the Irish celebrating their Irish-ness on St. Patty's Day?

Because Irish are an ethnic/cultural group.

Shirina wrote:
I think, perhaps, it is those who find homosexuality abhorant who should be getting on with their lives instead of writing laws and constitutional amendments banning or restricting the rights of gays.

No one in the United States of America is “writing laws and constitutional amendments banning or restricting the rights of gays.”

Moreover, Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America are not merely written; in order to become the Law of the Land, amendments (usual procedure) must be proposed by two thirds vote of each house of congress and ratified by three fourths vote of the several sovereign states, as described below:

__________________________________________________________________________________________

United States Constitution, Article V - Amendment

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided… that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Posted below are all Amendments to the United States Constitution passed within the 20th Century, including Amendment 27, the last Amendment to the United States Constitution.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

United States Constitution, Amendment 17-27

Amendment 17

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

Amendment 18

1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

Amendment 19

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment 20

1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

4. The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.

5. Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article.

6. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission.

Amendment 21

1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

3. The article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

Amendment 22

1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President, when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.

Amendment 23

1. The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct: A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.

2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment 24

1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment 25

1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

Amendment 26

1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment 27

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

I see no text within any of these 20th Century Amendments to the United States Constitution “banning or restricting the rights of gays.”

by Shirina Sun Mar 18, 2012 6:37 am

Because Irish are an ethnic/cultural group.

It could easily be argued that homosexuality is a cultural group ... regardless of how others feel about their culture.

No one in the United States of America is “writing laws and constitutional amendments banning or restricting the rights of gays.”

The Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) (also referred to by proponents as the Marriage Protection Amendment) was a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution which would have limited marriage in the United States to unions of one man and one woman.

Thirty states have passed state constitutional amendments defining marriage as being between one man and one woman.

And let's not pretend that these amendments are not restricting the rights of gays. Just because gays are not specifically mentioned in these amendments doesn't mean anyone should be fooled as to what the true intent of these fascistic amendments actually is.

by Papaumau Sun Mar 18, 2012 12:46 pm

Yes, this is certainly a "hot" topic in and out of America and even although it might be right and proper for individuals to have and to hold their "anti-homosexual" stance I think that it is totally wrong that large religious bodies should be allowed to use their churches and temples to amplify this "hate cause" against people who do what they need to do in privacy and as consenting adults.

I think that the use of the word "marriage", in this context, is where it all starts to go wrong, both here in Britain and over in The States. I also think that the people of faith, who normally support that faith by what they read in their holy books - backed up by their priests, ministers and mullahs - are pressurised to carry out these teachings and in so-doing actually commit prejudices against minority groups like this.

I personally see nothing wrong in a same-sex couple feeling the need to "marry" so that they can celebrate their love for one-another in public and I see no good reason for the "antis" to terrorise people who follow a life-style that is just different from their own.

I do not know how the laws in America work, to this end, by allowing - or not - these ceremonies in churches or temples but I do know that in Britain we allow such marriages in some of the more enlightened churches and that civil marriages between same-gender couples have been allowed, carried out and enjoyed like any other marriages, with few difficulties here for quite some time now.

Regards.....

Papaumau.

by Sponsored content