Doesn't it matter to you as a Muslim? The most patriarchal, traditionalist and restrictive religion. You take every opportunity to question Christian conservative values, and at the same time keep silent about your own bigoted religion. Why do many imams want to punish homosexuality with death, do you have any idea?
First off, it's highly disrespectful to come into this thread and presume to think what I believe or do not believe. I'm really fucking tired of you being judgmental on people like this and making broad strokes about people' religions and culture. Considering your time on this website and your position as a moderator, I would have expected you to be a lot more respectful of people.
Second off, I don't keep silent about my own "bigoted" religion- when did I ever say I'm a practicing Muslim anyways?- there's plenty of problems with some clerics who choose to impose terrible views they justify with texts. However I live in this country and I'm going to discuss things that affect me directly here, as opposed to what some random cleric in Saudi Arabia is doing in their country that doesn't affect me. This country bases itself on liberty, and it seems hypocritical to me that this is arbitrarily restricted from LGBT for no real reason beyond making people uncomfortable. It makes me more concerned that often the same people who are for restricting gay marriage often talk about how the government needs to stay out of their "private" affairs, but do not see the issue with that position.
I'm guessing what you're referring to is when I call you out on your lumping together all people who refer to themselves as "Muslims" as part of the same nutty fold that follow what ever religious cleric you- or some other part of the peanut gallery- chooses to highlight as representative of the whole religion, regardless of the fact where a particular Muslim comes from or how they have come to their own opinions. That doesn't mean that I'm defending conservative clerics or ignoring their actions, but rather wanting to put a more nuanced view on the region that doesn't owe itself to absolutes and narrow, judgmental position.
I could go on every day about how certain evangelical preachers here have supported certain groups in Africa to pass questionable legislation, most infamously the "kill the gays" bill in Uganda. However if all of my threads were just about religion, I'd be a broken record like Sedistix was here always droning on about how all people who aren't atheists are ignorant dickwads and trying to write off the world's problems like that, that we'd solve conflicts if we just didn't have religion to begin with.
Finally, I didn't criticize christian values in this thread at all either, so why bring it up? Where did I mention in my original post this was a result of Christians?
I don't believe people all think the same, which appears to be what you - there are practicing Christians of many denominations and variations in belief who have come to different positions on social matters. Same matter goes for politics. Here you can find Muslims who are really against any mention of homosexual marriage, while others are indifferent, and some who are in favor. This is not much different from their Christian, Jewish, or Hindu counterparts. Keith Ellison, a practicing Muslim in the US Congress, is one of those in favor of LGBT rights, and in this he joins many of his other fellow Congressmen and woman of different religions (or lack thereof). By your logic, Ellison should be frothing at the mouth against it. Andre Carson is another Congressman who is a practicing muslim, and holds similar positions. Likewise, I'm sure you can find Muslims in this country who are of the opposite position, and who are for it. Just like other citizens.
People have different opinions and do not think the same. Crazy concept, right?
Some religious groups are in support of gay rights, others are not. However I'm not going to go up to some random person wearing a crucifix and chastise them for "hating gays", because someone told me that all Christians or people of faith are all backwards dickwads. It's idiotic for me to be prejudiced on people like that, and is not a basis on which to build a platform on for change. This is something LGBT activists have learned and is, in part, why acceptance of gay rights has changed significantly in the past decade. This is why, despite what some parts of the bible may or may not say, some people who consider themselves Christian have no problem with gay marriage, because, as shocking as it may sound to you, people don't form their opinions completely on one source.
"Traditional values" aren't eroded by gay marriage and this position seems to come from the fact that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice as opposed to having biological basis. Religion has been used as a bastion for moral panics and perceived threats to the future generations as have things like music, movies, games, books, what ever as a slippery slope that'll doom the future. In each of these cases it has always proven to be overreaction in hindsight.
I don't know what "traditional values" mean because normal nuclear families aren't necessarily immune from the world's problems. Divorce, domestic violence, troubles raising children, and a whole host of other problems that gay marriage has not caused nor will exacerbate.
Moral panic has always been a useful tool to distract from real issues in any country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rikupsoni
For once that same-sex marriage is decided in a parliamentary vote usually, not in a court. The majority of the people can have one of these values for example: male-female marriage, sex-neutral marriage, polygamy, or hanging or outlawing gay people. Democracy, or authoritarian rule that has support, then reflects those views in the legislation. We don't deal only technical details by a vote, that's why it has to do with democracy.
Gay marriage has been voted on in state legislatures, I'm not sure what you are going on about. Proposition 8, while a reaction against a court's decision, is not the only way gay marriage has been decided upon here. In fact we've seen a case in New Jersey for example where while legislators have voted in favor of gay marriage, the governor refuses to sign the bill and instead wants a proposition, as it would produce similar results that California did. As the bill was only passed narrowly, they can't get the 2/3rds to override the veto there.
You seem to be conflating mob rule with all democracies. Some countries are more susceptible to it but ideally there safeguards around it. Had civil rights legislation been put to a vote as either a referendum or in state legislatures, it would have unlikely been able to pass, same thing goes for the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments.
Thanks for the extensive reply. I'm not sorry for my harsh attitude towards Islam or its adherents, as I don't think it deserves any special protection and should be attacked just like Christianity by, if you will "militant," Internet atheists. In my opinion there are even more reasons that.
You know how the Netherlands was the first country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage in 2001 and it can be described as a very liberal country. It just happens that it has changed: Moroccan Muslim immigrant bigots are assaulting homosexuals in broad daylight in the Netherlands these days and the statistics of anti-gay violence have multiplied. No one is taking it seriously, because it's not good to get branded as Islamophobic and Islam needs special protection unlike every other religion.
US conservatives are mostly Christians, it has to do with religion. That's why I think it's hypocritical to be a pro-Islam anti-conservative on the basis of their religious traditions.
Since you're keen on protecting Islamic policies on the basis that we can't be judgmental, it just makes me wonder what Islamic community is tolerant towards homosexuals. There's just no way around it that Islam is awful towards homosexuals. Not talking about single US Muslim politicians, but the popular religious currents. It's okay to say that aloud, no need to be denialist.
Can two men have a baby no can two women have a baby again no a marriage is and always should be between a man and a woman. Please forgive me for adding this. It is in the Bible.
My uncle and aunt are married and don't want children... Could you please write a letter to them informing them to get divorced? I'm sort of confused as to why they're married if they aren't having children.
By the way if you want to use the Bible as a reference as to why homosexuals can't marry, that's fine, go ahead. But in doing so, you must also support genocide, child sacrifice, drowning the Earth, the destruction of cities, and a plethora of other lovely things. If you don't support those things than the integrity of your book is now being questioned.
Words
Words
That
That
Kill
Kill
Disclaimer: Personal Opinions ARE endorsed by Filetrekker.
Last edited by Schofield; March 4th, 2013 at 04:10 PM.
It's obvious you're going to come in here and be a broken record and claim to know what I believe in, then accuse me baselessly of what I support or don't support. I'm not going to put the effort into writing another post because it's obvious that despite me repeatedly telling you otherwise, I'm apparently supporting these things, just because I don't share the same, absolute view on a whole population of people that you do. The fact that you keep pushing it repeatedly while contributing almost nothing else, honestly, this is no better than being a troll.
Anyways, for something actually related to the topic.
Hollingsworth v. Perry, which addresses proposition 8, is expected to be heard on March 26th, where both parties will give arguments to the Supreme Court Justices. Perry refers to the name of one of the plaintiffs who had tried to get a marriage certificate after she got married to her partner, while Hollingsworth is the leader of one of the groups that supported Proposition 8 after California's AG chose not to represent California citing he believed Prop 8 was unconstitutional.
The following day on March 27th, the parties in US v Windsor will give their case on DOMA. Windsor refers to the name of a woman who got married to her partner in Canada. After her partner died in 2009, she was required to pay estate tax from things she inherited from her partner. As DOMA does not recognize a same-sex marriage, she could have not been waived on paying the federal tax. The United States will be represented by Holder on behalf of the Department of Justice, and will focus on arguing that section three of DOMA, which defines marriage only as a union between a man and woman, as unconstitutional.
Today was the opening arguments for the Proposition 8 case. Tomorrow will cover DOMA.
There hasn't been attention on one or the other opening arguments which tells me that neither gave a weak case. Much like the healthcare law which was heard around the same time last year, a ruling will come in June. It'll come down to a 5-4 vote here probably, so what the "swing" vote Judge, Kennedy, reacts to the case will be watched carefully. Today he seemed to be more cautious, pointing out the Supreme Court's potential ramifications.
Today the court heard the case for DOMA, with opening arguments and questioning taking 2 hours. This time around the opinion of the majority of the judges (and again, by this I mean five) seemed to be against it, though they question if it's a legitimate case to be brought before the court as the representatives for DOMA come from the House of Representatives, rather than the government as a whole.
Still, unlike the ambiguity of the last hearing, this time around it seems more certain that the court does not believe the provisions of DOMA barring certain benefits to same-sex married couples are constitutional.
5 Justices Wary of Law Denying U.S. Benefits to Gay Spouses
By ADAM LIPTAK and PETER BAKER
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court appeared ready on Wednesday to strike down a central part of a federal law that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman as a majority of the justices expressed reservations about the Defense of Marriage Act on the second day of intense arguments over the volatile issue of same-sex marriage.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who most likely holds the decisive vote, returned again and again to the theme that deciding who is married is a matter for the states. The federal government, he said, should respect “the historic commitment of marriage and questions of the rights of children to the states.”
That suggests that he is prepared to vote with the court’s four liberal members to strike down the part of the 1996 law that recognizes only the marriage of opposite-sex couples for more than 1,000 federal laws and programs. Such a ruling would deliver federal benefits to married same-sex couples in the nine states, and the District of Columbia, that allow such unions.
If the 1996 law stands, Justice Kennedy said, “you are at real risk with running in conflict with what has always been the essence” of state power, which he said was to regulate marriage, divorce and custody.
All four members of the court’s liberal wing questioned the constitutionality of the law, though they largely focused on equal protection principles rather than on the limits of federal power.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, for instance, said the law effectively created “two kinds of marriage: the full marriage, and then this sort of skim milk marriage.”
Paul D. Clement, who served as solicitor general underPresident George W. Bush and is defending the law on behalf of House Republicans, argued that the federal government was entitled to use a uniform definition of marriage across the nation.
Mr. Clement said that countless laws over time had been enacted with the traditional definition of marriage in mind . When Congress approved the 1996 law, he said, it was worried that if one state extended the definition to include same-sex couples, it would effectively force other states and the federal government to recognize them, too. Lawmakers were concerned, he said, that “this is a redefinition of an age-old institution.”
Justice Elena Kagan said there was something else at work.
“Do we really think Congress was doing this for uniformity reasons or do we think the Congress’s judgment was infected by dislike, by animus, by fear?” she asked. She read a quote from the House record at the time the law was passed suggesting that lawmakers wanted to show “moral disapproval of homosexuality.”
Mr. Clement responded: “Of course the House report says that. I think if that’s enough to invalidate the statute you should invalidate the statute. But that’s never been enough.” He said that “just because a couple legislators may have had an improper motive” did not mean there was not a legitimate purpose to the law.
The arguments came a day after another gay-marriage case was debated before the court, a challenge to California’s Proposition 8, which bans such unions. That argument was murky and muddled, and many of the questions from the justices suggested that they were looking for a way to duck the central issue.
By comparison, Wednesday’s case was modest and the arguments clear. The court heard a preliminary 50-minute session on threshold issues, but they did not seem to threaten to send the case off the rails.
The court appointed Vicki C. Jackson, a law professor at Harvard, to argue a position not fully supported by any party: that the case’s odd procedural posture means the court lacks jurisdiction to decide it. The problem, she said, is that both sides want the same result. “There is not adversity,” she said. “They are in agreement.”
To be sure, there were some sharp questions.
“This is wholly unprecedented,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said of the odd way the case had reached the court. “You’re asking us to do something we’ve never done before to reach this case.”
“It’s unusual,” acknowledged Srikanth Srinivasan, a deputy solicitor general.
“No, it’s not unusual,” Chief Justice Roberts said. “It’s totally unprecedented.”
After an appeals court struck down the challenged part of the law, the outcome the administration had urged, the Justice Department nonetheless appealed, saying the issue warranted an authoritative decision from the Supreme Court.
Chief Justice Roberts and some of the other more conservative justices expressed irritation that the case was before them at all and said President Obama’s stance – to enforce the law but not defend it – contradicted itself.
“I don’t see why he doesn’t have the courage of his convictions” and not enforce the law if he thinks it is unconstitutional, the chief justice said.
There were also questions about whether House Republicans had standing to defend the law. “Nobody is suggesting,” Mr. Clement said, “that this is a best-practices situation.” But there did not seem to be a consensus on the bench to avoid deciding the constitutionality of the law.
Dismissing the case on standing grounds would probably have the effect of letting stand the appeals court ruling that threw out the law. But while the conservative justices expressed skepticism that the court should be deciding the matter, Justice Kennedy suggested there was an issue legitimately before them because “it seems to me there’s injury here.”
Nine states and the District of Columbia allow gay marriage, and about 18,000 same-sex couples married in California before voters there overturned a state Supreme Court decision that had established that right.
If the United States Supreme Court strikes down the challenged part of the 1996 law, married same-sex couples in those places would start to receive federal benefits. But such a decision would not require any state that does not allow same-sex marriage to permit it.
A ruling reaching that larger question would have to come from the case argued on Tuesday, Hollingsworth v. Perry, No. 12-144.
Wednesday’s case, United States v. Windsor, No. 12-307, concerns two New York City women, Edith Windsor and Thea Clara Spyer, who married in 2007 in Canada. Ms. Spyer died in 2009, and Ms. Windsor inherited her property.
The 1996 law did not allow the Internal Revenue Service to treat Ms. Windsor as a surviving spouse, and she faced a tax bill of about $360,000 that a spouse in an opposite-sex marriage would not have had to pay.
Ms. Windsor sued, and in October the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in New York, struck down the 1996 law. The decision was the second from a federal appeals court to do so, joining one last May from a court in Boston.
When the Supreme Court agreed in December to hear her case, Ms. Windsor, 83, said she was thrilled. “I wish Thea was here to see what is going on,” she said.
Until 2011, the federal government enforced and defended the law, as is customary for all federal laws.
But in February of that year, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. announced that he and President Obama had concluded that the law was unconstitutional and unworthy of defense in court. Mr. Holder added that the administration would continue to enforce the law.
The main argument on Wednesday, lasted an hour and featured a rematch between Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. and Mr. Clement, who were adversaries a year ago in arguments over Mr. Obama’s health care law.
Mr. Verrilli said the 1996 law violated equal protection and gave the example of “a soldier killed in the line of duty” who would not be entitled to “the dignity and solace of official notification to next of kin.”
Ms. Windsor is represented by Roberta A. Kaplan, a lawyer in New York with Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison. She said the 1996 law enacted a novel form of discrimination “for the first time in our country’s history.”
Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinions in the court’s two major gay rights cases, Lawrence v. Texas, a 2003 decision that struck down a Texas law making gay sex a crime, and in Romer v. Evans, a 1996 decision that struck down a Colorado constitutional amendment that banned the passage of laws protecting gay men and lesbians.
In the Windsor case, two of Justice Kennedy’s central concerns — states’ rights and gay rights — may be said to align, and his questions suggested that he will vote to strike down the law.
This site is part of the Defy Media Gaming network
The best serving of video game culture, since 2001. Whether you're looking for news, reviews, walkthroughs, or the biggest collection of PC gaming files on the planet, Game Front has you covered. We also make no illusions about gaming: it's supposed to be fun. Browse gaming galleries, humor lists, and honest, short-form reporting. Game on!
The Pub 
6Likes
Re: Supreme Court considering gay marriage cases 
Linear Mode
