+- Makestation (https://makestation.net)
+-- Forum: Area 52 (https://makestation.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=58)
+--- Forum: Current Events (https://makestation.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=37)
+--- Thread: Homosexuality and the Constitution (/showthread.php?tid=787)
Pages:
1
2
Homosexuality and the Constitution - Darth-Apple - December 13th, 2013
So where do you stand on the issue of homosexuality in America? Do you support the idea of laws against it entering the American constitution, or are you generally for pro-choice for Americans today?
The subject has certainly become a very hot debate lately, and many concerns, both morally and politically, have come into play. Personally, I feel that there are some significant arguments on both sides of the issue. What is your opinion on the subject?
RE: Homosexuality and the Constitution - Acko - December 23rd, 2013
Well I don't think the Constitution is this document that it is imperative to stick to, and issues like this provide no exception. However, I refuse to support laws against homosexuality entering the Constitution.
RE: Homosexuality and the Constitution - zoldos - December 27th, 2013
(December 13th, 2013 at 7:57 PM)Darth-Apple Wrote: So where do you stand on the issue of homosexuality in America? Do you support the idea of laws against it entering the American constitution, or are you generally for pro-choice for Americans today?
The subject has certainly become a very hot debate lately, and many concerns, both morally and politically, have come into play. Personally, I feel that there are some significant arguments on both sides of the issue. What is your opinion on the subject?
Seeing as I'm pretty sure homosexuality is hereditary and not a "choice", I don't think the government should have any say in it at all. It's no one's business but those involved...
RE: Homosexuality and the Constitution - zingaling - April 21st, 2014
Nope.
Constitutional amendments are not the appropriate place for moral arguments, and as far as I can tell all anti-equality arguments eventually come down to a moral (and usually religious) stance.
Further, the trend has always been to use amendments to expand the rights of citizens, rather than restricting them.
RE: Homosexuality and the Constitution - DreekLass - April 22nd, 2014
Well since I, myself, am a homosexual, I want everyone to be able to have the same rights. Homosexuality doesn't effect anybody who is not a homosexual, as far as laws go. So why stick your nose in and tell people, who will fight for the country, what they can and can't do as far as something as simple as love goes? it is completely out of order.
RE: Homosexuality and the Constitution - Sabs - April 25th, 2014
(April 22nd, 2014 at 10:48 AM)DreekLass Wrote: Well since I, myself, am a homosexual, I want everyone to be able to have the same rights. Homosexuality doesn't effect anybody who is not a homosexual, as far as laws go. So why stick your nose in and tell people, who will fight for the country, what they can and can't do as far as something as simple as love goes? it is completely out of order.I'm not but yeah this shouldn't even be a debate. I can understand sometimes if people are uncomfortable around them but they shouldn't let that affect how they treat others. Luckily, homosexuality is more accepted these days though.
RE: Homosexuality and the Constitution - TRUE LIBERTY - April 27th, 2014
No, I dont want any such laws added to the Constitution. I dont even want government in marriage for any reason. No tax breaks or benefits of any kind. As much as I would prefer the word marriage stay with straight couples and gays pick another word for there union government should not decide this. Let society choose when churches and private businesses pick who they choose to give marriages and unions to when government is no longer involved. The only reason any of this is a debate is for the free stuff government gives out. Over night this would end with no government involvement on who people choose to be with.
RE: Homosexuality and the Constitution - Darth-Apple - April 27th, 2014
(April 27th, 2014 at 12:30 AM)TRUE LIBERTY Wrote: No, I dont want any such laws added to the Constitution. I dont even want government in marriage for any reason. No tax breaks or benefits of any kind. As much as I would prefer the word marriage stay with straight couples and gays pick another word for there union government should not decide this. Let society choose when churches and private businesses pick who they choose to give marriages and unions to when government is no longer involved. The only reason any of this is a debate is for the free stuff government gives out. Over night this would end with no government involvement on who people choose to be with.
Well said.
I guess my feeling is that it is alright to have a personal opinion regarding your views of marriage and homosexuality, but it's not really the government's job to try to force a moral viewpoint on people.
RE: Homosexuality and the Constitution - TRUE LIBERTY - April 28th, 2014
(April 27th, 2014 at 3:57 AM)Darth-Apple Wrote:(April 27th, 2014 at 12:30 AM)TRUE LIBERTY Wrote: No, I dont want any such laws added to the Constitution. I dont even want government in marriage for any reason. No tax breaks or benefits of any kind. As much as I would prefer the word marriage stay with straight couples and gays pick another word for there union government should not decide this. Let society choose when churches and private businesses pick who they choose to give marriages and unions to when government is no longer involved. The only reason any of this is a debate is for the free stuff government gives out. Over night this would end with no government involvement on who people choose to be with.
Well said.
I guess my feeling is that it is alright to have a personal opinion regarding your views of marriage and homosexuality, but it's not really the government's job to try to force a moral viewpoint on people.
Exactly. You want people more angry and divided then ever, things screwed up more, people poorer, health care worse, less freedom, less money then ask for government to help you.
RE: Homosexuality and the Constitution - Warwick - April 30th, 2014
I'm not American, so I don't really care either way. Gays should be allowed to get legally married, but not in Church though, cause it would go against Christianity.
RE: Homosexuality and the Constitution - Darth-Apple - May 3rd, 2014
America is a pretty prominently protestant country, so marriages aren't really managed by the churches. Most churches that hold more tightly to biblical teachings don't approve of homosexuality, but a lot of denominations have changed their views on that issue.
RE: Homosexuality and the Constitution - Gmdykfuiygh66476 - May 10th, 2014
(April 27th, 2014 at 12:30 AM)TRUE LIBERTY Wrote: No, I dont want any such laws added to the Constitution. I dont even want government in marriage for any reason. No tax breaks or benefits of any kind. As much as I would prefer the word marriage stay with straight couples and gays pick another word for there union government should not decide this. Let society choose when churches and private businesses pick who they choose to give marriages and unions to when government is no longer involved. The only reason any of this is a debate is for the free stuff government gives out. Over night this would end with no government involvement on who people choose to be with.
I couldn't possibly agree more. It's absolutely none of the government's business who gets married and who doesn't.
RE: Homosexuality and the Constitution - SpookyZalost - October 30th, 2017
honestly I think the founding fathers would balk at this idea. as odd as their ideals were their main goal was a nation where people could be free to be themselves without oppression... sadly I think we've kinda crapped all over that idea with slavery, racism, sexism, and all the other isms that go with it.
true equality is impossible without some kind of agreement on what is and is not okay and that's going to come with a lot of resentment from cultural groups who disagree and or who have long standing traditions which go against the personal freedoms of the various groups being oppressed.
for example I grew up christian, left Christianity as I got older and while I heavily disagreed with what the local church thought about women way back when I still went to avoid issues with the community, peer pressure being a powerful thing and the mob being dangerous to rile up.
I want to state for the record that I am completely against oppression of any kind against any group without good reason, and I don't mean social or economic reasons.
for example I'd be heavily biased against anyone who's a member of ISIS but if homosexuals want to go past simply dating then that's their business and it's no business of ours to tell them what they can and cannot do.
nobody has the right to tell someone else that they can or cannot do something simply because they act, think, feel, or look different than the visual and or economic majority, it's just not right.
furthermore I want you to think about what kinds of people actually wrote the constitution.
Benjamin franklin was an eccentric, nudist, recreational drug user with polygamist tendencies.
today he would be beaten up, his home vandalized, and himself forced into exile by a society that would deem him unclean.
however without his brilliance and helping hand in so many things america would not be what it is today.
and that's just ONE example, there's more but I won't go into it.
RE: Homosexuality and the Constitution - tc4me - April 23rd, 2020
The only thing that is annoying is that everything should be adjusted, stupid, and makes unnecessary costs, everyone should do what he / she wants, but not rebuild the whole world now, for example, Tollettes for gays, own for lesbians, and straight genders ..., pedestrian samples should now be a woman instead of a man, protection routes not only for mother with child, but also father with child, etc
RE: Homosexuality and the Constitution - Darvince - April 24th, 2020
It's strange seeing this and seeing how much the consensus has changed in the less than seven years between the first post and the present. Amending the constitution to make gay marriage permanently unconstitutional, to me at least, seems like a fringe idea that absolutely no one cares or talks about anymore. It's as if since the sky didn't fall after gay marriage was legalized in the USA, that it didn't actually matter to prevent it from happening in the first place.
tc4me: I think you are confused about what terms are used here. Currently in English, we use sexualities and genders separately, so "male" is not a sexuality, nor is "lesbian" a gender. The genders recognized by everyone are man and woman, and those are the bathrooms we have. Every man of every sexuality uses a men's bathroom, and every woman of every sexuality uses a women's bathroom; gay and lesbian has nothing to do with the bathroom debate. The bathroom debate is about whether people who have changed their gender should be required to use the bathroom of the gender they were born as, or whether they can use the bathroom of their current gender.
I am also confused by the terms you have used, though, what is a "protection route"?
RE: Homosexuality and the Constitution - tc4me - April 24th, 2020
(April 24th, 2020 at 4:10 AM)Darvince Wrote: It's strange seeing this and seeing how much the consensus has changed in the less than seven years between the first post and the present. Amending the constitution to make gay marriage permanently unconstitutional, to me at least, seems like a fringe idea that absolutely no one cares or talks about anymore. It's as if since the sky didn't fall after gay marriage was legalized in the USA, that it didn't actually matter to prevent it from happening in the first place.
tc4me: I think you are confused about what terms are used here. Currently in English, we use sexualities and genders separately, so "male" is not a sexuality, nor is "lesbian" a gender. The genders recognized by everyone are man and woman, and those are the bathrooms we have. Every man of every sexuality uses a men's bathroom, and every woman of every sexuality uses a women's bathroom; gay and lesbian has nothing to do with the bathroom debate. The bathroom debate is about whether people who have changed their gender should be required to use the bathroom of the gender they were born as, or whether they can use the bathroom of their current gender.
I am also confused by the terms you have used, though, what is a "protection route"?
Unfortunately, my English is too bad to deepen this topic further, when I use google translator, something completely wrong comes out as in the first post. So sorry but that makes no sense for me to continue writing here in the topic. Sexuality gay men marriage, protection path .. is translated incorrectly :-(
RE: Homosexuality and the Constitution - Darvince - April 24th, 2020
Ah, sad. I did not know you translated your posts here. I guess the confusion is all Google's fault then.
RE: Homosexuality and the Constitution - tc4me - April 24th, 2020
Yes, unfortunately it translates completely wrong, I come from Austria, near Vienna, I had English and Italian at school, which I had been doing for a long time, which is strange, I understand English very well, only when I want to write something do I feel the words , then I use online translators and they are really weak