The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[FoolKiller]

All 3 of you want me to believe you guys know about the difference in life between an normal person and a homosexual. Which you obviously don't.

So, having a close friend and cousin, who is in a lesbian marriage (not legally in this state, but I refuse to call it otherwise) and is raising two foster kids that they are working to adopt means I have no clue? What if I told you I was willing to fight for their right to raise those two kids as their own, just as I would be willing fight for unfettered freedom of speech?

As for the differences between Obama and Romney, some simple facts:

1)Antidiscrimination legislation

Obama signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, expanding federal hate-crime law to include crimes motivated by gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity.

I am opposed to these laws myself. If a gay man is killed for being gay how is it any worse than a woman being killed by an angry husband who caught her cheating? Why do you assign more weight to the death of your preferred special interest? As someone who had a friend killed in a mugging I find it offensive that you say his murderer should be held less accountable than a gay man being killed by a bigot.

I oppose all hate crime laws because I believe a human life is a human life, no matter their race, gender, sexual preference, or religious beliefs.

Do you expect me to believe that you know about the difference in the value of life between a, as you put it, "normal person" and a homosexual when you support such inequality as this?

2) 2. Gay adoption

Obama has stated his unequivocal support for the rights of same-sex couples to adopt.
Romney said his position on gay adoption was integrally connected to his opposition to same-sex marriage. “Marriage is primarily not about adults, but about kids. A child and their development and nurturing is enhanced by access and by the nurturing of two parents of two different genders...

Good thing gay marriage and gay adoption is controlled on the state level, and not by the federal government or the president. Now you are worrying about an issue that isn't even his job.

You may want to understand how the US political system works before you go around accusing presidential candidates of intending to harm or oppress people.

Those are two things out of a long list, affecting homosexuals a LOT.

This I know, simply by knowing a bit about the homosexual community when I'm not even living in the same country. Romney would oppress homosexuals for who they are, no doubt about it. And it doesn't matter what it makes me, but I wont ever accept that, even though it doesn't affect me personally. I know it affects a lot of other people.

There is a doubt about it, since you claim he would do things not in the power of the president.

And this is another great example of why limiting freedom of speech the way you suggest is dangerous. Someone who knows nothing about what they are talking about can accuse a person of planning to do something they don't even have the ability to do. Thousands of innocents would be punished because people like you would quickly become offended and scream oppression where oppression cannot actually occur.

 

[Famine]

I am opposed to these laws myself. If a gay man is killed for being gay how is it any worse than a woman being killed by an angry husband who caught her cheating? Why do you assign more weight to the death of your preferred special interest? As someone who had a friend killed in a mugging I find it offensive that you say his murderer should be held less accountable than a gay man being killed by a bigot.

I oppose all hate crime laws because I believe a human life is a human life, no matter their race, gender, sexual preference, or religious beliefs.

Do you expect me to believe that you know about the difference in the value of life between a, as you put it, "normal person" and a homosexual when you support such inequality as this?

It is, frankly, amazing how many people think that equality for all groups means making laws favouring some groups.

 

[Callum B]

It is, frankly, amazing how many people think that equality for all groups means making laws favouring some groups.

Sounds remarkably like feminism does that.

(1000th Post Yay )

 

[arora]

What if I told you I was willing to fight for their right to raise those two kids as their own, just as I would be willing fight for unfettered freedom of speech?

http://[domain blocked due to malware]/instances/400x/31177139.jpg

It is, frankly, amazing how many people think that equality for all groups means making laws favouring some groups.

Not a direct response but my immediate thought.

I don't want the government in my bedroom, I don't want them in my marriage, I don't want them in my finances, I don't want them in my death, I don't want them in my private affairs what so ever. Funny to me the gays are fighting for these so called rights? If you wan't to be equally crapped on, more power to ya I suppose, I prefer a fight for freedom.

 

[Gonales]

Somebody I used to know once said the same thing as you guys:
True equality means no positive discrimination either...
So I asked him, what he wanted. He told me the perfect world would be consisting of meristocracies. (I hope this is translated right).

So, if not trying to stop homophobia this way, I'd liek to ask you guys, instead of making fun of other peoples ideas... What do you people suggest?

 

[Famine]

Remove all laws singling out any individual, group or groups for special treatment.

Public bodies - those that are funded by billing everybody equally (through taxation) and representing everybody - have no business discriminating against (which includes discriminating for, by dint of discriminating against those it isn't discriminating for) any individual, group or groups of its citizens.

Private bodies can, if they choose to. They'll ostracise themselves from those groups and limit their own size in the process, but if that's what they want to do it's up to them.

 

[Gonales]

Remove all laws singling out any individual, group or groups for special treatment.

Public bodies - those that are funded by billing everybody equally (through taxation) and representing everybody - have no business discriminating against (which includes discriminating for, by dint of discriminating against those it isn't discriminating for) any individual, group or groups of its citizens.

Private bodies can, if they choose to. They'll ostracise themselves from those groups and limit their own size in the process, but if that's what they want to do it's up to them.

But people are special. Everyone is different.
Billing everyone equally, is easier said than done. Because billing everyone equally, is unfair as well, in a way.

 

[Famine]

But people are special. Everyone is different.

It is not the function of government to treat people differently. It is the function of government - like law and justice - to treat everyone and protect everyone equally.

Billing everyone equally, is easier said than done. Because billing everyone equally, is unfair as well, in a way.

*sigh*

You know when you read a whole post then just look at a couple of words to respond to? Don't. Read the whole post and respond to it in context. That way you don't end up accusing me or GTPlanet of supporting homophobia - which you've still left on the table without any attempt at justification, clarification or retraction.


The point was that no government in the world cares how gay, black or disabled you are nor what your religion and gender are when it comes to taking your tax dollars. You're just a person. It's unreasonable for any government in the world to care how gay, black or disabled you are or what your religion and gender are when it comes to making laws about your conduct. You're just a person.

 

[Omnis]

I think he's saying that billing everyone equally is unfair because rich people should be billed more.

... which kind of brings everything back to square one.

 

[FoolKiller]

Somebody I used to know once said the same thing as you guys:
True equality means no positive discrimination either...
So I asked him, what he wanted. He told me the perfect world would be consisting of meristocracies. (I hope this is translated right).

So, if not trying to stop homophobia this way, I'd liek to ask you guys, instead of making fun of other peoples ideas... What do you people suggest?

How do you think hate crime laws prevent homophobia? A murder is a murder. If you commit a crime with a life sentence or an execution are you going to care if your motivation makes it life+5 years or death penalty + whatever?

See we already have degrees of different crimes based on the circumstances. A crime done with a violent intent is already given special added punishment. Whether I attack someone who is sleeping with my spouse or who I despise for being gay/black/female/Muslim/whatever makes no difference to the kind of crime it is. The intent and motivations are equally motivated by some form of emotional hate, and our laws already define that special circumstance.

If minority or special interst groups want full equality they need to quit asking their names be specifically stated in laws. All names should be removed. All rights, laws, and punishment should be equal for all citizens. No need for special compensations. The US was founded on the idea that all men are created equal. Unfortunately, we have failed to act as such from day one. Now that we get close and the minds to be changed are becoming the minority, we are going too far and granting special privileges.

Special privileges actually hurt minority causes on two levels. First, those who are close minded see it and react to it as an assault on them. It strengthens their bigotry. Forcing someone to act a certain way does not change their mind, but strengthens their convictions. Expecting a hate crime law to reduce homophobia is like expecting forcing gay people into straight marriages to end homosexuality.

Also, by granting special privilege to certain groups you are essentially saying that they cannot do as well as a straight, white man without a hand up from the government. As someone who has hired and managed Hispanics, African Americans, Asians, homosexuals, and more religious diversity than I can list, I can vouch that no one needs extra help. We just need to break down barriers. And that can only be done through information, not force. Minds change gradually over time, you cannot legislate that.

And as someone who grew up in a rural community with a strict religious background, I can tell you first hand what changes hearts and minds. Force creates anger and more hatred. Education creates change.

A case I am working on now is my own mother. She spent 50 yars being told homosexuality is wrong. If her favorite musician came out she would throw their music away. She didn't promote outward hateful acts, but she did not support equality. My mother always felt my cousin was like a daughter she never had. When my cousin came out my mother had a hard time with it, but never shut her out.

Today my mother still finds herself at odds with what she had been told for 50 years and what she sees in my cousin, but she now understands my cousin didn't choose this lifestyle and that homosexuality isn't something that you just decide to do. That is something that came about through understanding and personal experience. She opposed any laws challenging her beliefs, but when it came to someone she loved, she couldn't be opposed and had to open her heart to understanding.

Not everyone will be understanding, but no amount of laws will fix that. You can only wait for those people to fade into obscurity.

As for kids and bullying; the issue is the Internet and social media. Kids will make fun of any difference and when you are on sites like Facebook you reveal yourself to a much larger audience and expose yourself to their judgement. That is one of the many reasons I don't use Facebook much and why my daughter will only be on there when she has shown the emotional stability and maturity to handle that kind of interaction. And I will monitor her account, because good parenting is the only solution to bullying.

And that is why I enjoy GTPlanet. There are thousands of gaming communities out there and plenty of places to discuss cars, but GTPlanet works very well to be sure hateful attacks are not allowed. If you want online bullying to end encourage those you know to delete accounts on places like Facebook and Twitter and join well moderated sites like GTPlanet. If the unmoderated sites find they are only becoming a home to assholes and bigots and moderated sites have all the people then the rules will change.

 

[Gonales]

It is not the function of government to treat people differently. It is the function of government - like law and justice - to treat everyone and protect everyone equally.

Wrong, for example people with disabled family members get to pay less taxes.

*sigh*

You know when you read a whole post then just look at a couple of words to respond to? Don't. Read the whole post and respond to it in context. That way you don't end up accusing me or GTPlanet of supporting homophobia - which you've still left on the table without any attempt at justification, clarification or retraction.


The point was that no government in the world cares how gay, black or disabled you are nor what your religion and gender are when it comes to taking your tax dollars. You're just a person. It's unreasonable for any government in the world to care how gay, black or disabled you are or what your religion and gender are when it comes to making laws about your conduct. You're just a person.

1st part: Don't blame me for doing stuff that you're doing as well. I made a very simple request in my first post on here, which people couldn't react to respectfully. Instead of: You're right, people should be more forgiving to each other, you guys start talking about Freedom of Speech. To me, that seems you guys do not want to say supportive things. Only 2 people commented to my reactions and answers in a positive way...

2nd part: You do realize homosexual couples and marriages are not legal, and thus do not get ANY of the legal bonuses married couples do? Or what about the fact if one of the 2 passed away in service of their country? Do you think we would see any money then? We wouldn't! So don't tell me stuff is equal.

 

[Famine]

Wrong

No. It is NOT the function of goverment. That governments do things that are not their function isn't the question here.

1st part: Don't blame me for doing stuff that you're doing as well.

You invented two entirely irrelevant, unsupported things about my character and GTPlanet. Neither is true, neither is supported by anything I said and neither is relevant to the discussion. You did this for reasons that are your own and you have at no point provided evidence for their veracity (for which there is none) or retracted it. I suspect both occurred because you read three words, decided on their meanings independently of the context and felt insulted by them.

No-one else has done this.

If you want a civil discussion, try not to hurl unsupported insults. If you don't, you have no business here.

I made a very simple request in my first post on here, which people couldn't react to respectfully. Instead of: You're right, people should be more forgiving to each other, you guys start talking about Freedom of Speech.

You decided to insult everyone who holds freedom of speech as a basic human right when you determined they were "averagely intelligent". You then misrepresented freedom of speech by pretending it, in some way, didn't mean "freedom of speech", supposing that it was limited to only nice things. If that's "respectful" in your universe I dread to think what "offensive" is.

If you don't want your opinion discussed, don't give it. No-one is going to tell you that you are right if you are not right.

To me, that seems you guys do not want to say supportive things.

When you suggest that folk should be locked up for an opinion you can be damn sure very few people will support you.

2nd part: You do realize homosexual couples and marriages are not legal, and thus do not get ANY of the legal bonuses married couples do? Or what about the fact if one of the 2 passed away in service of their country? Do you think we would see any money then? We wouldn't! So don't tell me stuff is equal.

For crying out loud, READ THE FREAKING POSTS. Not bits you feel like reading and reacting to, or choosing your own versions of what people have said. Read what is written.

You asked what my solution would be. I told you it would be to remove all laws that drew distinctions between any individuals or groups - governments represent all of their people and they take money without discrimination so they should not make laws that discriminate.

I'm NOT telling you stuff is equal. I'm telling you IT SHOULD BE.

Read all of this. ALL of it:

The point was that no government in the world cares how gay, black or disabled you are nor what your religion and gender are when it comes to taking your tax dollars. You're just a person. It's unreasonable for any government in the world to care how gay, black or disabled you are or what your religion and gender are when it comes to making laws about your conduct. You're just a person.

Read it all again. ALL of it:

The point was that no government in the world cares how gay, black or disabled you are nor what your religion and gender are when it comes to taking your tax dollars. You're just a person. It's unreasonable for any government in the world to care how gay, black or disabled you are or what your religion and gender are when it comes to making laws about your conduct. You're just a person.

If you can read that and somehow come away with the impression I'm saying everything's equal, I have no idea what you're even reading.

 

[homeforsummer]

You do realize homosexual couples and marriages are not legal, and thus do not get ANY of the legal bonuses married couples do?

Apart from in Argentina, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, and Sweden. And parts of Mexico. And Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, Maine, Maryland, Washington and the DC in the U.S. And the country in which you live.

 

[Callum B]

Apart from in Argentina, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, and Sweden. And parts of Mexico. And Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, Maine, Maryland, Washington and the DC in the U.S. And the country in which you live.

Isn't it legal in the U.K? I'm sure I heard something about same sex marriages being made legal here, may just be thinking it though.

 

[FoolKiller]

Wrong, for example people with disabled family members get to pay less taxes.

While that may be a law in some places (definitely not one I get to take advantage of, despite needing a transplant) it doesn't make it right. Just because something is a law doesn't mean it should be. Case in point:

2nd part: You do realize homosexual couples and marriages are not legal, and thus do not get ANY of the legal bonuses married couples do? Or what about the fact if one of the 2 passed away in service of their country? Do you think we would see any money then? We wouldn't! So don't tell me stuff is equal.

This is the law in certain places. That does not make it right.

Do you know why you have to have your special group listed in the laws about marriage? Because other special groups, instead of just arguing that everyone is to be seen equal by current laws, requested new laws that name them specifically. By doing so it meant any group not specifically listed by the law wasn't protected under that law. It actually disenfranchises all other special interests. If you want true equality then propose all laws remove the names of any special groups and be applied to all citizens.

When it comes to marriage, here is my proposal; get government out of it completely. Why should government have any say in who can be married? Marriage is a personal thing and government has no role in that.

1st part: Don't blame me for doing stuff that you're doing as well. I made a very simple request in my first post on here, which people couldn't react to respectfully. Instead of: You're right, people should be more forgiving to each other, you guys start talking about Freedom of Speech. To me, that seems you guys do not want to say supportive things. Only 2 people commented to my reactions and answers in a positive way...

Your first post was non-controversial. There wasn't a lot to say other than showing agreement that people shouldn't say certain things because it is rude. I personally rarely post a simple "I agree" because it is mostly just filler, and I definitely have no need to boost my post count.

When someone mentioned freedom of speech in response you should have politely pointed out that you were just asking that people not use hurtful language. Instead you made a response that was a half veiled insult at those who defend freedom of speech. Everything since then has been in response to your statements in that post and since. I believe very strongly in freedom of speech and felt compelled to respond then.

Do notice that Famine and I did not say a word about freedom of speech until you and others did.

Personally, I'm glad we have had this exchange because I hope you have gained an understanding that some may support your rights but be opposed to your ideas for reasons completely unrelated to intolerance. I for one enjoy trying to understand the perspective of those I disagree with.

Also, you may want to look through this thread. You will find that Famine, myself, and others disagreeing with you on your ideas have adamantly defended equal rights for homosexuals. We recognize you don't have equality and want you to have equality. We do not agree on how you propose getting there. Keep that in mind and recognize that we are not the enemy.

 

[homeforsummer]

Isn't it legal in the U.K? I'm sure I heard something about same sex marriages being made legal here, may just be thinking it though.

To my knowledge, civil partnerships are legal, but I don't think it's legally termed "a marriage". Even though that's basically what it is, and what it should really be called.

 

[FoolKiller]

To my knowledge, civil partnerships are legal, but I don't think it's legally termed "a marriage". Even though that's basically what it is, and what it should really be called.

Thus why I think government should get out of it. We have lowered ourselves to having moral arguments over semantics.

All that really does is find a common ground between "protecting" the institution of marriage and intolerance. If your marriage can be harmed by gay people getting married then changing the name won't help. If you have to change the name to find it acceptable then you are still being intolerant.

 

[ItsHim]

It is not the function of government to treat people differently. It is the function of government - like law and justice - to treat everyone and protect everyone equally.

Quite the contrary: without discrimination, there would be no "justice" at all. "Justice" being a term which has to be defined by the society, which is an ongoing struggle and an important part in everyday political life.

Treat equal things equally, treat different things differently. The hard bit is to distinguish between what's different and what is not.

The point was that no government in the world cares how gay, black or disabled you are nor what your religion and gender are when it comes to taking your tax dollars. You're just a person. It's unreasonable for any government in the world to care how gay, black or disabled you are or what your religion and gender are when it comes to making laws about your conduct. You're just a person.[/color][/b]

Again, not quite true and ironically there's a heated debate right now in Germany, even amongst the conservative party of chancellor Merkel, as to whether offer the same tax discounts to married gay couples as are given to heterosexual married couples.

That's quite a tricky question, as marriage and family are under the special protection of our constitution, and imply raising children. So that's seen as the reason for tax discounts of married heterosexual couples. The tricky question is: do heterosexual married couples have an equal right to these tax discounts even if they are unwilling, or unable, to reproduce?

Furthermore, as a registered roman catholic, I'm having to pay a certain percentage on my income tax as "church tax". The government does care whether I'm a catholic, a protestant or don't have a registered confession. To make things even more complicated, the amount of tax even varies by state - it's a bit cheaper for me in Bavaria than my friends in Hessen.

If you look beyond the first page of the book, there's a whole lot stuff to it. Generations of philosophers and politicians have sought an answer to the question of "justice", they haven't found it yet, but a world complete free of discrimination is certainly the worst scenario of all. Though the world, society and morals do constantly move on, and I personally don't feel like the preference of either being home- or heterosexual or anything in between is a good discrimination factor come to citizen's rights, taxation or being the member of any public or private community.

 

[Famine]

Quite the contrary: without discrimination, there would be no "justice" at all.

WHAT?!

"Justice" being a term which has to be defined by the society, which is an ongoing struggle and an important part in everyday political life.

No. Justice is an objective absolute, not subjective rule of law. Justice is the preservation of rights.

There cannot be justice if governments representing all of their people without prejudice treat their people with prejudice.

Treat equal things equally, treat different things differently.

All people are different. Even identical twins are different. Government has no place treating them differently.

The function of government is to preserve and protect rights. People do not have different rights.

Again, not quite true and ironically there's a heated debate right now in Germany, even amongst the conservative party of chancellor Merkel, as to whether offer the same tax discounts to married gay couples as are given to heterosexual married couples.

Which is irrelevant.

The fact governments act beyond their remit is nothing to do with what their remit is. Their role is to preserve and protect the rights of their citizens. They may well have expanded their role but it's irrelevant - except for the fact we've let them get away with it.

 

[Gonales]

Famine, your plan, everyone equal is cool and stuff, but just like world peace... It will never be reality.
And the fact that some homosexuals (most i think, but I cant say that with certainty), won't get accepted by a lot of people can hurt. If people don't think it hurts they're being insensitive. The 'just ignore it' mantra doesn't go for everyone.
Should we just ignore it then? 13y old guys and girls who have to face their parents with one of the hardest choices they will make in years... Children getting bullied into suicidal behavior, just because they are different. Your utopia won't happen mate, and to get people to completely accept homosexuals things need to change.

 

[Famine]

Famine, your plan, everyone equal is cool and stuff, but just like world peace... It will never be reality.

Does that mean it's worth not pursuing? Of course not.

The problem is that we've let governments get too big and bloated. We've come to depend on them to provide stuff for us that it is simply not their job to provide. We've voted to give them more and more powers and more and more money (unless you're in Egypt, in which case bad luck guys) to fund those powers.

No government has any place making rules that treat its black citizens differently than its white ones, its gay ones differently from its straight ones (and all Kinsey Scale points in between), its female ones differently from its male ones (or TG or intersex ones,), but they do. All the time. Because they've gone well beyond their remit and we've let them get away with it.

And the fact that some homosexuals (most i think, but I cant say that with certainty), won't get accepted by a lot of people can hurt.

Why do they need to?

Some people won't accept straight, white males. Why do they need to?

If people don't think it hurts they're being insensitive.

Don't for one second think that just because [some people] like to insult [your chosen group] that you have a unique outlook. All of us are targets for someone.

Making laws to say you can't insult [this group] discriminates against the group more than some no mark using lowest common denominator language.

Your utopia won't happen mate, and to get people to completely accept homosexuals things need to change.

Why do people need to accept homosexuals? Why do governments need to get involved in making laws to force them to - bearing in mind Foolkiller's point that it doesn't get rid of those opinions, just makes them harder and more bitter?

There's no reason people need to accept you - or me, or anyone else. There's less reason to threaten them into doing so with laws and punishment. Please re-read Foolkiller's post about his mother.

 

[ItsHim]

No. Justice is an objective absolute, not subjective rule of law. Justice is the preservation of rights.

There cannot be justice if governments representing all of their people without prejudice treat their people with prejudice.

Is it justice if a first time offender is punished in the same way like a serial offender? If a mentally challenged person is measured by the same standards as a "sane" person? Neither me nor the law, which is by the way legitimated by the people, think so. We discriminate - I discriminate because the law tells me to do so.

All people are different. Even identical twins are different. Government has no place treating them differently.

The function of government is to preserve and protect rights. People do not have different rights.

There are some basic (human) rights which are protected by our constitution. There are further rights which are only granted to Germans. Though any member of the European Union must not suffer major disadvantages because he happens not to be German. But it's perfectly legitimate to offer social housing or health care only to German people while others get treated "only" to the lower standards of "European" rights. Treat equal things equally (everybody is entitled to a basic standard in social security and a life in dignity) but treat different things differently (Germany can offer further benefits to people of their own nationality but is not responsible to offer identical support for all members of the European Union).

Which is irrelevant.

Says who? That's your personal opinion, which you are perfectly entitled to. But stating "no government cares what sexual orientation or gender you have" is simply not true. Furthermore when it comes to taxation.

I think I'll leave it at that point and rather look at some internet pornography.

 

[FoolKiller]

Famine, your plan, everyone equal is cool and stuff, but just like world peace... It will never be reality.

Accepting this as a truth is giving up. And saying that since equality will never happen we should instead oppress the intolerant is the same as saying that since world peace will never happen we should just constantly be at war.

And the fact that some homosexuals (most i think, but I cant say that with certainty), won't get accepted by a lot of people can hurt. If people don't think it hurts they're being insensitive. The 'just ignore it' mantra doesn't go for everyone.

You think homosexuals are the only ones not being accepted by a lot of people? They aren't that special. I had to hide my medical condition while looking for a job. My political stance put me outside both political parties. I don't get to vote in certain elections because of it and since I work in government I can't say what my political affiliation is because it can hurt my career prospects.

Fact is, no one has said it doesn't hurt. We have said you need to learn how to handle it better. You can ask them to stop, report them to your employer or teacher or whatever, but making them a criminal is going overboard.

Should we just ignore it then?

This thread exists. There is your answer. No one has been able to come in here and say homosexuals deserve less or different rights without being challenged, and that includes a moderator.

13y old guys and girls who have to face their parents with one of the hardest choices they will make in years... Children getting bullied into suicidal behavior, just because they are different. Your utopia won't happen mate, and to get people to completely accept homosexuals things need to change.

How does creating change via legal force change how teens have to approach their parents? If parents aren't accepting you'll put them in jail? That's better than them rejecting their kids how?
And bullying does not cause suicidal behavior. It may reinforce some internal feelings that an already unstable teen may have, but it is not the primary cause. And homosexual teens are far from the only teens affected by bullying nor the first to commit suicide after bullying.

 

[Famine]

Is it justice if a first time offender is punished in the same way like a serial offender? If a mentally challenged person is measured by the same standards as a "sane" person?

The shortcomings of our legal systems in comparison to the quite clear path the logical application of rights gives us is evidence that our legal systems are flawed.

Neither me nor the law, which is by the way legitimated by the people, think so.

How many people think a law is fine is irrelevant to the nature of that law with respect to rights.

I discriminate because the law tells me to do so.

No law should tell you to discriminate. Moreover you should not do what you think is wrong because of a law that asks it of you. That's cowardice.

There are some basic (human) rights which are protected by our constitution. There are further rights which are only granted to Germans. Though any member of the European Union must not suffer major disadvantages because he happens not to be German. But it's perfectly legitimate to offer social housing or health care only to German people while others get treated "only" to the lower standards of "European" rights. Treat equal things equally (everybody is entitled to a basic standard in social security and a life in dignity) but treat different things differently (Germany can offer further benefits to people of their own nationality but is not responsible to offer identical support for all members of the European Union).

Codified rights are irrelevant.

Says who? That's your personal opinion, which you are perfectly entitled to. But stating "no government cares what sexual orientation or gender you have" is simply not true. Furthermore when it comes to taxation.

Really? Tell me what tax breaks are available to gay people that aren't available to straight ones. Or vice versa. They don't care where you want to put your willy - or someone else's - only how much you earn and spend.

Government's role is the protection of rights. It's no more than that. Part of the problem is that too many people think government's job is to rule, to tax and to provide services it has no business providing - too many people are invested in the government to do things they want it to do. We - particularly in Europe - are now conditioned into thinking that government's job is to provide for everyone. It isn't.

Everyone has the same rights, whether they are recognised in law or not, unless they have forfeit them by failure to observe others'. No-one has more or fewer rights than anyone else. Governments have no business making laws to deny anyone rights, but they keep on doing it because people think that they should and pretend it "legitimises" it.

For more, go to the Human Rights thread.

 

[arora]

Really? Tell me what tax breaks are available to gay people that aren't available to straight ones. Or vice versa. They don't care where you want to put your willy - or someone else's - only how much you earn and spend.

I'm pretty sure he is right about that, at least in the U.S. is it not one of the main points of the fight for gay marriage here, so they can file joint taxes?

I made a point of this in a round about way a few posts back, imo it's not a right anyone should aspire to have, I contend that if there were no laws that gave special or preferred treatment to those who where married, gays would not care to marry at all.

I could be wrong about that but my other theory is a tinfoil hat one which includes mocking the church lol.

 

[Gonales]

I'm pretty sure he is right about that, at least in the U.S. is it not one of the main points of the fight for gay marriage here, so they can file joint taxes?

I made a point of this in a round about way a few posts back, imo it's not a right anyone should aspire to have, I contend that if there were no laws that gave special or preferred treatment to those who where married, gays would not care to marry at all.

I could be wrong about that but my other theory is a tinfoil hat one which includes mocking the church lol.

DO you actually, sincerely believe that statement?
Gays would only marry (in your opinion) because of financial reasons?

 

[homeforsummer]

Gays would only marry (in your opinion) because of financial reasons?

I don't think anyone here really thinks that, but given the amount of times that you yourself have talked about tax breaks, it's not entirely unjustified to bring up such a concept.

 

[Gonales]

How many people think a law is fine is irrelevant to the nature of that law with respect to rights.

Maybe, but if nobody thinks the law should be passed through, there will be no law, right?

No law should tell you to discriminate. Moreover you should not do what you think is wrong because of a law that asks it of you. That's cowardice.

So, me thinking it is wrong to let people offend others, and reacting to that is good, you're saying? What do you want us to do then, to those offending? Smile at them?

Codified rights are irrelevant.

Not really, but nevermind that.

Really? Tell me what tax breaks are available to gay people that aren't available to straight ones. Or vice versa. They don't care where you want to put your willy - or someone else's - only how much you earn and spend.

Government's role is the protection of rights. It's no more than that. Part of the problem is that too many people think government's job is to rule, to tax and to provide services it has no business providing - too many people are invested in the government to do things they want it to do. We - particularly in Europe - are now conditioned into thinking that government's job is to provide for everyone. It isn't.

Everyone has the same rights, whether they are recognised in law or not, unless they have forfeit them by failure to observe others'. No-one has more or fewer rights than anyone else. Governments have no business making laws to deny anyone rights, but they keep on doing it because people think that they should and pretend it "legitimises" it.

For more, go to the Human Rights thread.

Within a couple of days I'm hoping to have a lot of proof of what I state, and what you're denying right here.
Homosexuals ARE being oppressed, not harshly but still.
There are a lot of support funds going to straight people that don't go to homosexual people. For example, if a Homosexual married person dies while serving in the war, there would be no reimbursement for the widowed partner. Yes, this fact is true.

 

[Famine]

I'm pretty sure he is right about that, at least in the U.S. is it not one of the main points of the fight for gay marriage here, so they can file joint taxes?

Well quite - but there the issue is not where the winkie goes but who gets to say what a marriage is.

Which is also something that's not a government's job. Of course several governments have got onto the rainbow band-wagon, as per homeforsummer's post.

I contend that if there were no laws that gave special or preferred treatment to those who where married, gays would not care to marry at all.

Although some posters in this thread have determined that homosexuals are not normal people, I don't really see that they are any different from the rest of us. Personally, I didn't get married because of any special rules that govern my wife and I or our family afterwards. I got married because I wanted to marry her. I don't have any particular evidence to assume Homosexual Famine would not want to marry his husband on any other basis.

Maybe, but if nobody thinks the law should be passed through, there will be no law, right?

In Europe, all that matters is that our representatives think a law should be passed. The rest of us have little say in anything. And whether no-one supports a law that is right or everyone supports a law that is wrong is irrelevant.

So, me thinking it is wrong to let people offend others, and reacting to that is good, you're saying?

Quick clue. "So, [your own words]" isn't directly equivalent to "[my words]". Don't seek to reinterpret. JUST. READ.

What do you want us to do then, to those offending? Smile at them?

If that pleases you.

Not really, but nevermind that.

No, really. NO law may deny rights nor grant them where they do not exist.

Within a couple of days I'm hoping to have a lot of proof of what I state, and what you're denying right here.

I. Haven't. Denied. Anything. Of. The. Sort.

You're inventing things again - and you've yet to retract your earlier claims that I and GTPlanet are tacit homophobes. This will stop.

Homosexuals ARE being oppressed

Of course they are. Because people keep making pointless, idiotic laws that discriminate between groups to appease idiots and ignore rights. The more of these pointless, idiotic laws they make, the worse it gets. If you support making more of these pointless, idiotic laws, you support making it worse.

Well done.

 

[Scaff]

I'm pretty sure he is right about that, at least in the U.S. is it not one of the main points of the fight for gay marriage here, so they can file joint taxes?

Why would a married gay couple not be allowed the same rights as a married straight couple?

I think that's the main point.

I made a point of this in a round about way a few posts back, imo it's not a right anyone should aspire to have, I contend that if there were no laws that gave special or preferred treatment to those who where married, gays would not care to marry at all.

I've known plenty of straight couples (when the tax law in the UK benefited it) who got married mainly for tax reasons.

Its totally inaccurate to say that one group would only do it for financial reasons and another wouldn't, people are people, some will marry for love and some will marry for the tax breaks, straight or gay doesn't come into that.



@Gonales - any chance you will actually reply to my post. You accused me inaccuracy of not understanding prejudice and of making assumptions. Neither were correct and I would appreciate you having the good manners to acknowledge that.