The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[Joel]

It sounds like that man's family had their own moral obligation to honor their son but failed to do that. Why can't they take responsibility for their own actions and be a loving parent/family?

What?

Everything they did was legal, his parents are legally allowed to be assholes and cut out their son's boyfriend (of 6 years) because they thought it was icky.

 

[nobuffalo]

Seriously... voting against equal rights by portraying them as gay rights?

Voting "against gay rights" is voting against equal treatment for law-abiding humans by the body that's supposed to represent them equally.

I like these comments and is what I was trying to get at with my own.

By voting against gay rights you are.

People need to stop looking at it as "gay rights" and instead, as Famine said, human rights. I'm not gay but voting against their right to marriage it a vote against my right and everyone else's for that matter.

 

[Danny]

We will be getting into definitions again, but the state's definition of marriage is the union between a man and a woman, not between two consenting adults.

Gay rights would have the definition changed. They will lobby for it and it will be voted on.

Aside from the fact you apparently don't recognise it as an equal rights issue, now explain why 'the union between a man and a woman' is more deserving of having their union recognised in all states and countries, then explain to me why 'the union between a man and a woman' deserves 1,138 more legal protections than a civil union does.

Oh and the semantics approach is pretty much just 'it's ours, you can't have it'.

 

[Pako]

What?

Everything they did was legal, his parents are legally allowed to be assholes and cut out their son's boyfriend (of 6 years) because they thought it was icky.

One issue with this country, you are not accountable for anything until you are proven accountable in a court of law. Hardly any one takes accountability for their own actions. If they can get away with it, they will. They should have had a will drawn up. It is their obligation to themselves to protect themselves to the full extent of the law. To not have a will drawn up and then cry about spilled milk is of no concern to me.

I like these comments and is what I was trying to get at with my own.

By voting against gay rights you are.[/QUOTE

People need to stop looking at it as "gay rights" and instead, as Famine said, human rights. I'm not gay but voting against their right to marriage it a vote against my right and everyone else's for that matter.

They should call them Human Rights then. I didn't make up "gay rights".

Aside from the fact you apparently don't recognise it as an equal rights issue, now explain why 'the union between a man and a woman' is more deserving of having their union recognized in all states and countries, then explain to me why 'the union between a man and a woman' deserves 1,138 more legal protections than a civil union does.

Oh and the semantics approach is pretty much just 'it's ours, you can't have it'.

If they want the law changed, great! All power to them. They can go through the channels just like everyone else, equally.

Again, why is it assumed that "hate" is motivating my decision to not support or condone their lifestyle? I am allowed my own beliefs and opinions, just as they are. The fact that there is a "Us" and "Them" show's that there is still a distinction between two different groups. As long as there is a distinction, there will be differences. Apparently what they do with their genitalia does make a difference in social categorizing of two distinct groups.

 

[Famine]

The fact that there is a "Us" and "Them" show's that there is still a distinction between two different groups. As long as there is a distinction, there will be differences. Apparently what they do with their genitalia does make a difference in social categorizing of two distinct groups.

So does skin colour. And gender.

We stopped pretending there should be different treatment from the state because of that long enough ago that this shouldn't even be a discussion.


There's always an "us" and a "them". And since government is supposed to treat all the humans the same, there should never be any differing treatment from government on the basis of it.

 

[DK]

One issue with this country, you are not accountable for anything until you are proven accountable in a court of law. Hardly any one takes accountability for their own actions. If they can get away with it, they will. They should have had a will drawn up. It is their obligation to themselves to protect themselves to the full extent of the law. To not have a will drawn up and then cry about spilled milk is of no concern to me.

How was this couple supposed to plan for such a freak accident? Chances are, the deceased was probably of the age where a will is the last thing on their mind, regardless of sexuality.

 

[Danny]

The fact that there is a "Us" and "Them" show's that there is still a distinction between two different groups. As long as there is a distinction, there will be differences. Apparently what they do with their genitalia does make a difference in social categorizing of two distinct groups.

...and who makes these social distinctions and social categorising? The people who want to make sure people aren't treated equally. The people who seem to think heterosexuality is 'normal' and anything else isn't. Classic othering.

When people are treated equally and without prejudice, the 'us and them' mentality will become less of an issue.

 

[Exorcet]

If they want the law changed, great! All power to them. They can go through the channels just like everyone else, equally.

Only the law isn't equal. Laws that violate rights should be null immediately.

I am allowed my own beliefs and opinions, just as they are.

True. That still doesn't give you power over other people's business.

 

[Pako]

If we are all the same, there should be no "us" and "them" but yet everyone in this thread has referred to "them" or "us".

Marriage does not discriminate against consenting age, race, gender or religion. What the law does scrutinized is what a marriage is, and by definition is the union between a man and a woman. There are some other requirements as well such as not being a close blood relative, etc.

 

[Joel]

Again, why is it assumed that "hate" is motivating my decision to not support or condone their lifestyle? I am allowed my own beliefs and opinions, just as they are. The fact that there is a "Us" and "Them" show's that there is still a distinction between two different groups. As long as there is a distinction, there will be differences. Apparently what they do with their genitalia does make a difference in social categorizing of two distinct groups.

Of course there's a distinction. The question is whether or not the treatment under the law should be different, and if you look at logically and without imposing religious or personal beliefs on anyone then the clear answer is equality and human rights.

If we are all the same, there should be no "us" and "them" but yet everyone in this thread has referred to "them" or "us".

Marriage does not discriminate against consenting age, race, gender or religion. What the law does scrutinized is what a marriage is, and by definition is the union between a man and a woman. There are some other requirements as well such as not being a close blood relative, etc.

When laws are discriminatory, they should be changed. Shocking, I know.

 

[Danny]

Marriage does not discriminate against consenting age, race, gender or religion.

That's an interesting word, discrimination.

And again I'm having to reiterate points that you're deliberately avoiding addressing.

Aside from the fact you apparently don't recognise it as an equal rights issue, now explain why 'the union between a man and a woman' is more deserving of having their union recognised in all states and countries, then explain to me why 'the union between a man and a woman' deserves 1,138 more legal protections than a civil union does.

 

[Exorcet]

Marriage does not discriminate against consenting age, race, gender or religion.

But it discriminates against sexuality and did discriminate against race. Was the latter OK?

What the law does scrutinized is what a marriage is, and by definition is the union between a man and a woman.

Which is discrimination. Even leaving out sexuality, it forbids men from marrying men and women from marrying women for no reason.

 

[Pako]

I am here to say that not every one is equal. Oh my goodness, there I said it. Can you believe I just said that? And on a public board no less. Ok, let the stone tossing begin.

If we are all equal, where is my EIC credit? If we are all equal, where is my Social Security check? If we are all equal, why don't I drive a brand new car? If we are all equal, why am I getting paid less than someone else half as skilled? If we are all equal, why am I nice enough to hold the door open for someone, when the next guy is not? Sorry folks, we are not all equal and to think that we are all treated or should be treated equally is unrealistic. This is not to say that we should be humane and continue to protect the "basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled, often held to include the right to life and liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and equality before the law."

You all hate me for not supporting gay rights, but I don't hate you for hating me.

 

[Exorcet]

I can't remember posting the word hate recently. I also don't agree with your post except for a very small part of it.

People certainly aren't treated equally, just see this thread. However that is a reason to seek equal treatment, not accept what we have now. Honestly, your post is terrible. You are basically saying that we can't be perfect so we should be as imperfect as possible. Does that make sense at all?

Also half of the things you mentioned don't have to do with equality at all.

 

[nobuffalo]

You all hate me for not supporting gay rights, but I don't hate you for hating me.

Pako we don't hate you, or at least I don't. We just strongly disagree with the role you feel you should play in other people's lives. It's not your decision whether I can enter into a "marriage"-like agreement with someone else.

 

[Pako]

Tell me, for what gain does a homosexual couple have to get married and recognized by the state other than being financially motivated? There is NOTHING that says a gay couple can't get married in front of their peers. There is NOTHING that is stopping them from introducing their "partner" as their husband, or wife. They don't need a law to do those things.

 

[Danny]

I am here to say that not every one is equal. Oh my goodness, there I said it. Can you believe I just said that? And on a public board no less. Ok, let the stone tossing begin.

At least it's finally a straight answer out of you. Shame it was like pulling teeth to get it, though.

And of course being a straight answer, it deserves more rights because you say so.

If we are all equal, where is my EIC credit? If we are all equal, where is my Social Security check? If we are all equal, why don't I drive a brand new car? If we are all equal, why am I getting paid less than someone else half as skilled? If we are all equal, why am I nice enough to hold the door open for someone, when the next guy is not?

...aaaand right back to you thinking you're some kind of victim. It's interesting to note that you apparently feel like you've been mistreated in some way, and you're dealing with that by trying your hardest to make sure that other people are mistreated too. Such a role model.

Sorry folks, we are not all equal and to think that we are all treated or should be treated equally is unrealistic.

Not with a piss-poor attitude like yours. So let's not even bother, right?

This is not to say that we should be humane and continue to protect the "basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled, often held to include the right to life and liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and equality before the law."

We shouldn't protect the freedoms of anyone?

You all hate me for not supporting gay rights, but I don't hate you for hating me.

And ending on moral highground. Well aren't you just the matyr.

Tell me, for what gain does a homosexual couple have to get married and recognized by the state other than being financially motivated?

Fine. I get that you're only reading what you want to read. Can't say I'm surprised you're picking and choosing the bits that suit you. Doesn't make it less valid.

Aside from the fact you apparently don't recognise it as an equal rights issue, now explain why 'the union between a man and a woman' is more deserving of having their union recognised in all states and countries, then explain to me why 'the union between a man and a woman' deserves 1,138 more legal protections than a civil union does.

 

[McLaren]

I am here to say that not every one is equal. Oh my goodness, there I said it. Can you believe I just said that? And on a public board no less. Ok, let the stone tossing begin.

If we are all equal, where is my EIC credit? If we are all equal, where is my Social Security check? If we are all equal, why don't I drive a brand new car? If we are all equal, why am I getting paid less than someone else half as skilled? If we are all equal, why am I nice enough to hold the door open for someone, when the next guy is not? Sorry folks, we are not all equal and to think that we are all treated or should be treated equally is unrealistic. This is not to say that we should be humane and continue to protect the "basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled, often held to include the right to life and liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and equality before the law."

You all hate me for not supporting gay rights, but I don't hate you for hating me.

I don't think these are particular good examples, mate.

You can change all that at will. I don't believe you can just up & change your race & sexuality to be equal to someone else.

 

[Pako]

@Danny,

Why even have this thread other than to pounce on any poor soul who might accidentally say something that disagrees with the mob. Other than a few replies, any disagreement is meet with the force of a 2-ton gorilla.

 

[Famine]

If we are all the same, there should be no "us" and "them" but yet everyone in this thread has referred to "them" or "us".

There's always an "us" and a "them". And since government is supposed to treat all the humans the same, there should never be any differing treatment from government on the basis of it.

Marriage does not discriminate against consenting age, race, gender or religion. What the law does scrutinized is what a marriage is, and by definition is the union between a man and a woman.

Which is an incorrect definition.

I am here to say that not every one is equal. Oh my goodness, there I said it. Can you believe I just said that? And on a public board no less. Ok, let the stone tossing begin.

If we are all equal, where is my EIC credit? If we are all equal, where is my Social Security check?

You are now arguing that because the government doesn't treat you equally, you should get to vote for some other humans being treated worse. What you should be doing, of course, is voting for all humans to be treated the same.

If we are all equal, why don't I drive a brand new car? If we are all equal, why am I getting paid less than someone else half as skilled? If we are all equal, why am I nice enough to hold the door open for someone, when the next guy is not?

And now you have, for some reason, mutated the point from a government that is supposed to represent all people equally and treat the equally to "everyone is equal".

Which isn't the point, because they aren't. If they were, we wouldn't have this whole "gay marriage" issue, because you'd look exactly like everyone else and only have sex with someone identical to you. Ironic, huh?


The point is that the law cannot be rational and discriminate. Government cannot be legitimate and treat some citizens as less human than others. And by voting against equal rights, that's exactly what you're voting for - treating some citizens as less human.

Your US citizens are all taught about a period of time in US history (which is like real history but shorter) when your government treated some citizens as less human than others - 40% less human. Why anyone would look at that period of history and think they had a point escapes me. Bewilderingly so. I simply cannot believe anyone would look at another person and think "That person isn't human" with that shameful era as a backdrop.

This is not to say that we should be humane and continue to protect the "basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled, often held to include the right to life and liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and equality before the law."

Nice quote. Put it into action.

 

[Pako]

I don't think these are particular good examples, mate.

You can change all that at will. I don't believe you can just up & change your race & sexuality to be equal to someone else.

You know, good point. Didn't think of it that way.

 

[Danny]

@Danny,

Why even have this thread other than to pounce on any poor soul who might accidentally say something that disagrees with the mob. Other than a few replies, any disagreement is meet with the force of a 2-ton gorilla.

Maybe if you actually addressed the points and questions, this would be more productive.

Hell, maybe even reading them would help.

 

[Danoff]

Tell me, for what gain does a homosexual couple have to get married and recognized by the state other than being financially motivated? There is NOTHING that says a gay couple can't get married in front of their peers. There is NOTHING that is stopping them from introducing their "partner" as their husband, or wife. They don't need a law to do those things.

Guardianship
Next of kin
Adoption and/or custody
Access to divorce law (very important)

And of course the big financial motivator:
Joint credit, for getting a joint mortgage on your house, that'd both like to be on the title of.

There is a vast array of law is easy and straightforward for married folks that unmarried folks have to do the hard way (if there is a way at all). Let's say a gay couple has kids. They want joint custody of the kids and for the death of one of the couple to result in sole custody for the other. Sounds easy? It is for heterosexual people.

Gay person wants his/her spouse to be able to make medical decisions in the event that he/she is incapacitated. Sounds easy? It is for heterosexual people.

Gay person wants to initiate a divorce and fight in court for possession of half of the co-owned assets. Sounds easy? It is for heterosexual people (well, easier anyway, divorce is always messy).

Point is... think about it for a few seconds. These legal avenues are built upon the legal structure of marriage.

 

[FoolKiller]

I am saying that there wasn't a problem with our laws until they pointed it out as being a problem.

Kind of like there wasnt a problem with our laws until Dr Martin Luther King Jr had a dream or Harriett Tubman switched seats on the bus?

Or perhaps the problem was there all along and it just now became small enough that those affected by it could say something without losing their job, getting kicked out of an apartment, or even killed.

The laws do not affect me, I'm married with tax deductions. It affects them and it becomes a problem because they say, "Hey, we've got a problem here...."

"...and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew homosexual."

I don't mean to invoke Godwin's law here, but the quote is from a pastor who pointed out that intelligent and moral men can be slow to react to injustice if it does not affect them directly. I don't remotely believe we are headed toward a gay holocaust, in fact it is going the opposite way, but I believe that any example of saying that a law that treats some differently but doesn't affect you is not your concern is dangerous.

Now the follow up question is that if the legal definition excluded another group that you didn't associate with, would you still be ambivalent?

"Breeders"? Never heard that.

I was usually called that jokingly by my gay friend whenever I complained about women. Or bragged about my successes with women.

Not directed at you, but I find it alarming that if I don't agree with gay rights, that I am immediately flagged as a bad person.

I don't flag you as a bad person. I would point out that no one who is disagreeing in this thread even react in different ways to each other in other threads. There is the exception for the most insane members who act similarly in other threads, but then they tend to eventually get flagged by your banhammer.

But trying to change hearts and minds is not a bad thing, is it? Some get more passionate, but what can you do? Let's be honest though, as a mod is this thread better or worse behaved than some of the threads in car or game topics?

I can choose to not agree with someone's lifestyle but still like them as a person. I see no reason in having to adopted every habit, every religious, every social flavor to be a good person.

And how does allowing someone you disagree with to have the same legal protections affect your ability to not agree with how they live? Or how does it make you have to adopt any of their lifestyle? I mean, I don't think people should drive a Prius and I won't start driving one because my brother does, but I won't tell him he can't buy one because his choice of vehicle doesn't affect how I drive a car.

I go back to what I just said, just because I don't support their lifestyle, doesn't mean I hate them. Not supporting them, and hating them are two different things. Supporting their lifestyle is condoning their lifestyle and my morals will not allow me to do that. I do, however, support their right to fight for what they believe.

I get this, but do understand that the arguments used by those opposed to homosexual marriage are the same as those used by those opposed to the civil rights movement in the 60s?

To put it into context, I was showing that the moral line of what is acceptable is shifting, and will continue to shift. Where do you want that moral line to stop?

When one party is not a consenting adult.

Since when does the government have any say of intervening between consenting adults?

Are familiar with our president, Michael Bloomberg, or most of California? They do it all the time.

Since when is it against the law to have homosexual relations with consenting adults? I know of no law in the US, do you?

It used to be, but then they changed the definition of legitimate relations...just ten years ago.

We will be getting into definitions again, but the state's definition of marriage is the union between a man and a woman, not between two consenting adults.

Gay rights would have the definition changed. They will lobby for it and it will be voted on.

The argument is that the definition is wrong. And you may want to double check how a Constitutional Republic works. The definition will likely be changed without a vote.

It sounds like that man's family had their own moral obligation to honor their son but failed to do that. Why can't they take responsibility for their own actions and be a loving parent/family?

Because they don't want to condone his lifestyle.

One issue with this country, you are not accountable for anything until you are proven accountable in a court of law. Hardly any one takes accountability for their own actions. If they can get away with it, they will. They should have had a will drawn up. It is their obligation to themselves to protect themselves to the full extent of the law. To not have a will drawn up and then cry about spilled milk is of no concern to me.

Wait, why should they have to jump through special legal hoops and pay multiple legal fees in the area of hundreds or thousands of dollars to have the same legal protections I got by signing a $15 certificate with my wife that they are not allowed to sign together?

If we are all the same, there should be no "us" and "them" but yet everyone in this thread has referred to "them" or "us".

I guess because saying, "people can't get married to each other like people," would be a very confusing conversation. But you make a good point now that I typed it out. I think it defines the situation well.

Marriage does not discriminate against consenting age, race, gender or religion. What the law does scrutinized is what a marriage is, and by definition is the union between a man and a woman. There are some other requirements as well such as not being a close blood relative, etc.

So the definition discriminates. Guess what people are trying to change.

I am here to say that not every one is equal.

I agree, but the law must treat them equally in a society that claims to be free.

If we are all equal, where is my EIC credit? If we are all equal, where is my Social Security check? If we are all equal, why don't I drive a brand new car? If we are all equal, why am I getting paid less than someone else half as skilled? If we are all equal, why am I nice enough to hold the door open for someone, when the next guy is not?

The law screws up in one area so we shoud support it screwing up in other areas?

Sorry folks, we are not all equal and to think that we are all treated or should be treated equally is unrealistic. This is not to say that we should be humane and continue to protect the "basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled, often held to include the right to life and liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and equality before the law."

Oops, you forgot pursuit of happiness. Convenient.

You all hate me for not supporting gay rights, but I don't hate you for hating me.

Who hates you?

Tell me, for what gain does a homosexual couple have to get married and recognized by the state other than being financially motivated? There is NOTHING that says a gay couple can't get married in front of their peers. There is NOTHING that is stopping them from introducing their "partner" as their husband, or wife. They don't need a law to do those things.

Danoff covered this, but I don't know how the notion that marriage only has financial motivations got spread. It never crossed my mind when I got married.

 

[Pako]

I have to thank you, Danoff, and Famine for your responses. All are very good points and I understand what you guys are saying.

 

[Joel]

I'll just add that I'm with FK in that I don't hate you or have a bad opinion of you or anything, it's just a very personal subject to me. A few close friends of mine came out during high school and they never really did feel truly comfortable and accepted, everywhere they went people whispered, teachers went off about how gays were sinners (Ontario has publicly funded Catholic schools), and I saw first hand how people who claim "I don't hate, I just don't condone" can be so hurtful.

 

[Villain]

I have to thank you, Danoff, and Famine for your responses. All are very good points and I understand what you guys are saying.

Come here, you open-minded hercules!

 

[Pako]

I get it. Not being accepted for who you are hurts. It doesn't sound very loving does it?

@Villain,
I'm all about the bro hugs!

 

[Danny]

That's a weird story.

 

[BobK]

Rapper Busta Rhymes allegedly threw a slur-filled tantrum in Miami Beach early Wednesday morning

Isn't that, like, what rappers do?