Iceland passes gay marriage law in unanimous vote

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Azure

And here we go with the 'religion' bashing.

I'm out. Good thread though.

Yes because we've had so many arguments, logical ones, that don't depend on a belief system based solely on a religious belief.

So I'm curious how can one have a debate about gay rights without speaking on religion's opposition to these rights?

[FlamesAddiction]

I know homophobes who never stepped foot in a church in their lives.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I know homophobes who never stepped foot in a church in their lives.

I know lots of Christians who've never stepped foot in a church.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Thor

I know lots of Christians who've never stepped foot in a church.

I also know a lot of Christians who don't care about gay marriage at all.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I know homophobes who never stepped foot in a church in their lives.

I know churchaphobes who have never stepped foot in a homo in their lives.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Sliver

If you're against gay marriage in 2010 you really are an a-hole. I haven't met any exceptions to this rule.

[MRCboicgy]

Well, as I think I have mentioned a few times, I'm the gay guy who thinks the pride parades are completely ridiculous, and I haven't attended since I was a teen. I ignore pride week as I think it's more about debauchery than pride - much like stampede has less to do with cowboys every year...


On a related note, check this out - the Texas GOP official platform...Dallas has the fourth largest gay population in the US behind SF, NY and Atlanta.
http://static.texastribune.org/media...Y_PLATFORM.pdf

We believe that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be
presented as an acceptable “alternative” lifestyle in our public education and policy, nor should “family” be redefined to include homosexual “couples.” We are opposed to any granting of special legal entitlements, refuse to recognize, or grant
special privileges including, but not limited to: marriage between persons of the same sex (regardless of state of origin), custody of children by homosexuals, homosexual partner insurance or retirement benefits. We oppose any criminal or civil
penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values.
Texas Sodomy Statutes – We oppose the legalization of sodomy. We demand that Congress exercise its authority
granted by the U.S. Constitution to withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy.

[HOZ]

Any gov't that is in that kind of deep financial crisis and takes time out for this kind of fluff.....is a joke.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Any gov't that is in that kind of deep financial crisis and takes time out for this kind of fluff.....is a joke.

Well....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...iks-mayor.html

The Best Party, who used Tina Turner's song "Simply The Best" for their campaign, called for clean politics, free towels in city swimming pools and a polar bear for the zoo and took 34.7 percent of Saturday's vote and six seats on the 15-seat city council.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

thats the point that I was getting at. I think that the biggest fear in the anti-marriage group was that it was going to force churches into doing the ceremonies or risk their tax free status.

I think that's what we call a red herring.

Churches don't (and never have had to) perform marriages for heterosexuals if they don't want to and their tax-free status has never been challenged on that basis.

Cardston ain't Vegas -- I can't stroll into the Temple with my blushing bride-to-be and get the full marriage treatment just because I ask for it. I don't have any repercussions if they turn me away.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Nope, it was fairly recent, I posted it in one of the bible debates pages befoer.

Fair enough--I misunderstood.

Its not up to you to decide what people should and shouldn't believe in. Besides, I think most moderate religious folks don't believe in biblical verse in a literal sense, but choose to take an interpretation of the lessons in each story or book.

Indeed not. I am, however, free to find certain excessively literal biblical interpretations ridiculous, and to describe them as idiotic. That's all I was doing. Some people choose biblical inerrancy. That's a perfectly acceptable "lifestyle choice" if you like. It tends, however, to be rank with obvious hypocrisy and predicated on useless and outdated principles. What you're describing is the use of the Bible as an exemplary moral guide. Biblical inerrancy holds that the Bible is a strict and literal moral code. That's a viewpoint that many people hold (some on this board, even) but it's ridiculous. I don't even think we disagree on that point.

The fact is, unless the Bible is a strict code, it's meaningless as a guide to an issue like gay marriage. And if it is a strict code, then you can't pick and choose the parts that you like and pretend that the others don't matter. That just makes you a hypocrite.

How about down with both of them. It takes a pretty awesome person to pull off a$$less chaps, and from the news stories that I saw last year on the GPP in Toronto, those weren't the ones wearin em. And of course I'm talking about hot chicks wearing them.

I am not a person who can pull off assless chaps. And, if I could, I wouldn't. But I'm no more about to tell people what they can and cannot wear than I am what they can and cannot believe, or who they can and cannot have consensual sex with. To those with the serenity, chutzpah and self confidence to pull off assless chaps, I say let those pasty cheeks hang out!

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I think that's what we call a red herring.

Churches don't (and never have had to) perform marriages for heterosexuals if they don't want to and their tax-free status has never been challenged on that basis.

Cardston ain't Vegas -- I can't stroll into the Temple with my blushing bride-to-be and get the full marriage treatment just because I ask for it. I don't have any repercussions if they turn me away.

Except that has never been the issue.

Issue has been if a gay Mormon couple wants to get married, and the Mormon church says no, that if they run and complain about their rights being violated the government might step in and force the church to marry the couple.

[GGG]

The problem in the US is that it is too democratic so they lose out on minority rights. I think the moderates in the US should focus more on getting the government out of the marriage buisness.

The biggest problem is the entire debate is that the word marriage is defined so differently by people. In the strictest government sense it is a contract between to people which defines certain rules for the treatment of assets and children.

For some religious people it is an unbreakable bond created by God. So when people are debating it is questionable whether they are even debating the same thing.

I think in the US especially the gay rights movement should focus on Separate but Equal legislation first similar to early imancipation in the civil rights movement then focus on true equality. We probably need a generation to die off to get rid of some of the prejudice.

I also think progressive governments should just quit marrying people rather than trying to push through gay marriage. Make the definition of marriage definable by each indiviual and have the government turn to a more contractual definition.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

Except that has never been the issue.

Yes, that has been the issue.

We all heard it. "They are going to force churches to perform gay marriages against their will". That was the argument.

They don't have to hold a wedding in their buildings if they don't want to and I've never heard of that being challenged. Have you?

The idea that two guys would try to force the issue of getting married in the Mormon Temple is laughable. They wouldn't even be Mormons if it got to that.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by MRCboicgy

Well, as I think I have mentioned a few times, I'm the gay guy who thinks the pride parades are completely ridiculous, and I haven't attended since I was a teen. I ignore pride week as I think it's more about debauchery than pride - much like stampede has less to do with cowboys every year...
[/URL]

I find it refreshing to see you say this.
I've always thought the pride parades miss the point with most of the actions/costumes/floats. They just perpetuate a lot of the negative stereotypes that people use to justify homophobia.

I think in this day and age, the parades should show and celebrate how normal the gay community is and how they're just like the rest of us. Why not lose the chaps, and have a parade showing the gay doctors, lawyers and teachers that are just as normal and deserve as much respect as their peers.

[MRCboicgy]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

I find it refreshing to see you say this.
I've always thought the pride parades miss the point with most of the actions/costumes/floats. They just perpetuate a lot of the negative stereotypes that people use to justify homophobia.

I think in this day and age, the parades should show and celebrate how normal the gay community is and how they're just like the rest of us. Why not lose the chaps, and have a parade showing the gay doctors, lawyers and teachers that are just as normal and deserve as much respect as their peers.

That's my thing, I mean no one remembers the gay parents group walking along. They remember the guy grinding up to the 6-ft dildo while wearing a jockstrap, being sprayed with supersoakers all while tossing rubbers to the 9-year-olds watching there in the crowd with their horrified parents (and there are a ton of kids at the parade).

[Bownesian]

Originally Posted by MRCboicgy

That's my thing, I mean no one remembers the gay parents group walking along. They remember the guy grinding up to the 6-ft dildo while wearing a jockstrap, being sprayed with supersoakers all while tossing rubbers to the 9-year-olds watching there in the crowd with their horrified parents (and there are a ton of kids at the parade).

Like I said above, I think that these parades will go the way of Universal Sufferage rallies, Civil Rights marches and May Day parades. I went to one a few years back with my sister-in-law (who is now a Mommy of a lovely girl with two mums), but it was because it was important to her and it was when the Gay Marriage debate was still on the front burner.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Well....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...iks-mayor.html

Considering the utter joke the city mayorship has been the last 4yrs (3 elections) and the frustration of the electorate with the political parties who all had a hand in allowing the banks to run wild and ruin the economy; can you blame them.

Since he took power he's done lots of things no other politician has, he posts a daily blog explaining everything he does, keeps things transparent, is about as honest as they get (remember Ralph Klein early years) and has made a coalition with other parties.

The joke promises were just that, jokes. He's now tackling the serious problems of the city of Reykjavik, starting by exposing the city's energy company which recently bought its top management expensive jeeps/luxury cars.

To say he's a refreshing change of pace from the norm is an understatement, all cities should shake things up once in a while and elect a comedian

[Thor]

and Hoz, time for this 'fluff' is a joke? You mean the 1hour it took to vote and pass it unanimously?

Yeah really hard work to pass a human rights bill, human rights sure is a fluff issue.

[peter12]

This book convinced me that gay marriage is not a human right and is indeed, probably detrimental to gay communities in jurisdictions where it has been permitted.

http://www.amazon.ca/Trouble-Normal-...7214063&sr=1-2

This isn't about human rights, it's about enforcing a code of bourgeois morality. It's okay to be gay, as long as you are monogamous and live in a house with a white picket fence. People who support it should think about how monolithic and "the same" our communities are becoming through the intervention of the State.