Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Gay Rights- Thoughts?
Stormer
Explorer
Just for some background on the subject, America is currently in a heated debate over whether or not to allow same-sex partners to legally marry each other. The main opposition comes from staunch Christians who believe it is not ethical because it says so in the Bible. I personally think that they should be allowed because it really doesn't make a difference in my life if the gay couple next door (metaphorically) is married or not. Anyway, I just wanted the opinions of some fellow Buddhists.
1
Comments
Exactly.
Unless you are that couple. Then it makes a big difference.
Buddhism = mind your business, not other people's . . . :clap:
But it is not true that "Buddhism = mind your business, not other people's". Please show me that in Buddhist scripture.
Marriage is an expression of intimate love between two (consenting) people--people. That's about it, really, in my opinion. Why should I not be happy to see two people in love with one another? Again, I stress that word: People.
As far as Christians (or at least people who refer to themselves as such), the Bible is only used as an ideological justification after the fact of what they really just feel icky about. Just as others before them felt icky about interracial marriage. In reality, it isn't that it is sinful--its just icky to them. They don't see people, just ickiness. Using the Bible to prop that ickiness up is just a way to avoid facing the obvious prejudice. If they truly believed the Bible were the real reason for their opposition, they would be just as vehement about adultery and a host of other "abominations."
It is blissful to be able to attend to your own affairs without entertaining doubts about others.
Here is the Buddha's advice:
"Let none find fault with others; let none see the omissions and commissions of others, but let one see one's own acts, done and undone."
"He who is always observant of others' faults, and irritable, increases his own defilements. He is far from the destruction of defilements."
"The faults of others are easily seen, but one's own is difficult to see. One winnows others' faults like chaff, but hides one's own as a crafty fowler covers himself."
No one is free from blame and criticism. The Buddha said,
"People blame others for their silence. They blame those who talk much and those who talk in moderation. There is, therefore, no one in this world who is not blamed." He further said, "There never was, there never will be, nor is there now, anyone who is wholly blamed or wholly praised."
Not all who criticize you are your enemies. You can use their remarks to find out the weaknesses in yourself which you cannot see.
"The noble ones swerve not from the right path, let happen what may and no longer crave after worldly joys. The wise ones remain calm and constant in mind, alike in joy and in sorrow."
Ironically, I think this is a perfect example of the 'tyranny of the majority' conservatives so often criticize these days when giving sermons on the virtues of limited government and the inherent superiority of a constitutionally limited republic vs. a democracy; and who'd wholeheartedly agree with Thomas Jefferson in any other circumstance that "the majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society" (Letter to Dupont de Nemours, April 24, 1816).
Essentially, the Constitution is supposed to prevent a majority of citizens who are united and motivated by a common interest from taking away the rights of the minority of other citizens, as James Madison argued in Federalist No. 10. Marriage is a civil right that should be available to all adult citizens equally; and as such, it shouldn't be subject to the whims of the majority (or anyone else for that matter) according to the founding principles of the Constitution.
But as I've already mentioned, marriage isn't just a civil right, it's also a legal contract that confers certain privileges, immunities, rights, and benefits to committed couples; and in my mind, denying same-sex couples equal access to those privileges, immunities, rights, and benefits merely because of their sexual orientation and/or gender is as ridiculous and as unconstitutional as denying interracial couples the same thing. (And when it comes to marriage vs. civil unions, I think the unconstitutionality of 'separate but equal' applies.)
In my opinion, sexual orientation should be considered a 'suspect category' in equal protection jurisprudence along with race because they're similar in that they're both 'minorities' that have at one time or another been unable to effectively use the political process to insure fair treatment from the majority. As Kenneth D. Wald notes in his review of The Constitutional Underclass: Gays, Lesbians, and the Failure of Class-Based Equal Protection: Considering the amount of discrimination and unfair legal treatment that gays and lesbians have endured throughout the years, I think sexual orientation deserves to be placed in the same classification as race; and I wholeheartedly believe that laws targeting gays and lesbians should be subject to the same rigorous review under 'strict scrutiny' as those targeting race.
While I could personally care less about marriage in and of itself, I think it's worth fighting for anything that chips away at bigotry and discrimination in our society, and against people like Scalia, who'd rather impose their bigotry onto others through the legal system.
All the available evidence suggests that gay parents are good parents, and that dissolution rates for same-sex couples are slightly lower on average than divorce rates of different-sex couples. Couple that with the equal-protection clause of the 14th Amendment, and I honestly don't see how anyone can say that their opposition to same-sex marriage is based on anything but bigotry—a prejudice that more often than not arises out of religious beliefs that, in my opinion, have no place being imposed onto the rest of a secular society, especially when the First Amendment has historically been understood to provide a 'wall of separation between church and state,' protecting the former from the authority of the latter and vice versa.
I believe that a person should have the freedom to practice their religion as they see fit as long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights and freedoms of others. In this instance, making same-sex marriage legal and/or getting rid of DOMA wouldn't force churches to conduct/officiate said marriages, and it most certainly wouldn't force opponents from entering into a same-sex union; but upholding DOMA and/or making same-sex marriages illegal affects all same-sex couples and denies them equal rights under the law, which I'd argue is not only unconstitutional but unconscionable. It not even 'separate but equal'; it's 'separate and unequal.'
And the same goes for laws that target and discriminate against transgendered individuals, who often get overlooked in these kinds of debates.
The government should sanction only civil unions between any two partners.
Why do people oppose gay marriage? It doesn't affect you at all. Why do you care? It's not like every gay person is just going to say "Well I can't marry my partner so I guess I should just be straight." Honestly if they want to get married, let them get married. Who are you to stop them anyway? Just some food for thought.
No one is trying to force Christian churches, temples, synagogues or any other religious institution into changing their own rules or religious laws.
They are certainly free to discriminate as they see fit.
I don't understand the "you can't make me change my morals!!" line. Sigh. No one is asking anyone to change their morals. It's not like someone is asking them to be gay, lol. It doesn't help that not only is it a hot topic because of the SCOTUS cases, but the state I live in is in heated debated over it. Last fall we shot down an amendment to name marriage between men and women, and then we elected a fully democratic state government, so they are pushing to legalize gay marriage right now in our state legislature. Which is good, of course, it's just stressful. I get emails and texts and phone calls on almost a daily basis from people in my life asking why so many people dislike them, why they can't just let them live their lives and so on, including a good friend who is a lesbian and whose father is a deacon in the Catholic church. They voted against their own daughter having equal rights. I don't think some people realize how hard it is on some people to go through that. Pretty hard to realize that such a huge chunk of society thinks you aren't deserving of the same rights as them just because of who you happen to love. I don't want to make it sounds like they are all whiners or something, they aren't that way at all.
Parking lots don't have special slots for straight/gay people, there is no 'gay' lane on the highway, and door handles are used by everyone.... It's just ridiculous to suddenly decide there are certain social areas gays may not be allowed to go because they're.... well... gay, of course.
I would go and park there and see if they could guess which category I came under . . .
It is part of a large ' Inclusivist ' movement within the Anglican Church in the UK.
It easy to assume that the mores of The Bible Belt are the norm in Christianity.
They aint.
@TheEccentric,
I'm inclined to believe that you object specifically to this blinkered and narrow-minded opinion, held by some so-called Christians.
If Jesus could apparently hold love and compassion for Tax Collectors, Prostitutes and Lepers, I'm pretty darned sure he would similarly have embraced homosexuals - and in a good way.
So it's 'certain people' - not Christianity - I'm certain you have contempt for, with regard to this resentment.....
In the UK gay marriage isn't yet legal, but we have civil partnerships which provides the same legal status as a marriage, but the UK is progressing laws to legalise same-sex marriage.
The only people it seems to upset is the religious.
If they had been made on a British website she and the owner would have risked prosecution.
And I strongly suspect that her remarks were a naive glimpse into the thinking among some Thai Buddhists.
Do you mean "Only some religious people are upset by this",
or
"Huh, 'some' religious people they are!"
Either way - you're right.....
:rolleyes:
:eek2:
I fear that Dhamma Wheel does no service to your gender Fede..
Just because some people yell the loudest doesn't necessarily mean they are the most common representative of Christianity (though they may also like to think they are).
And just because they have a well-oiled political machine in operation in the US doesn't make them the most representative either. Fundamentalism is a reactionary movement that is largely politically motivated.
So I fail to see that one person would be the epitome, or general voice of widespread opinion, in Thailand.....
(She could be male, and actually hail from Bromley.....
There is nothing wrong with an attachment to a Significant Other.
There is something wrong with an unhealthy attachment to a Significant Other.
However...
I've noticed two things this past week when it came to the two supreme court cases:
1.) I didn't change my profile pic to the red equal sign, while (almost quite literally) virtually everyone else I know did. What does this mean? Are they more passionate than I am about the issue or are they simply jumping on the latest bandwagon? How many changed it because they were truly passionate about the issue and how many others were like "Oh that 's right, the case is today. Better change my pic so people notice. I don't want to go unnoticed".
And 2.) Spring-boarding from #1, I've discovered something about myself. I do support the right for others to be married, but deep down, perhaps I don't really support any marriage at all? It seems that marriage is a dying "institution" across the board. More and more couples (gay and straight) are co-habiting or getting civil unions. To me, it seems more beneficial if everyone (gay and straight) got civil unions and not the financial hassle of marriage (the wedding and, if need be, the divorce cost). But, my view is probably in the minority and therefore, I support the legalization of marriage for the LGBT community. Why should my personal views get in the way of someones happiness?
And if you look at this map, very few countries in the world where SSM is recognized. Also it looks those getting on board are the Christian/Catholics countries.... interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_marriage-equality_laws.svg
As for the equal sign graphic, I didn't see anyone using it for attention whoring. I of course don't know every person who used it. But I know a lot of people I did, virtually every person on my friends had it changed, and they are all very supportive and outspoken on marriage equality, they make door to door visits, phone calls, they write politicians, they go to rallies and so on. On various discussions on pages and walls, a LOT of people had the equal sign up, and all of them were very vocal in their support. I personally don't think that a significant # of them just willy nilly put it up because everyone else did. I also see nothing wrong with people who didn't put it up. It was still nice to see the consolidated support.
You're Buddhist. If you were an elected official would you see things through your perceived Buddhist lens? I think so.