Which rights are those exactly? "sep but equal" is nonsense. It has no legal standing. It is not allowed by anyone in the military. It is considered sexual harrassment. You can also be kicked out by having sex with another person in the military. Please show me where this is legal.
I really couldn't care less. My beef with you is that you consider the current situation to constitute equal rights. If I told you only people over 7 feet tall had certain rights but we were all free to enjoy those rights as long as we were over 7 feet tall, would those rights be equal? You're free to marry whomever you like, CaseyH, as long as you're 7 feet tall. You're free to talk openly to your friends and co-workers about your recent crush or your long term relationship or, sure, your sexual experiences as long as you're 7 feet tall. If you're 6'11" and do any of those things you're fired. If you're 6' tall you can't have the job you want. And you're evicted. Be taller if you want to stay in your apartment. But we're all equal to enjoy the same rights. You just have to agree to be 7' tall.
I know you don't care what I actually said or believe. You just like to call people names without making effort to read arguments or understand them. I mean what is the fun of asking accusatory rhetoric questions if you actually have to find out if that is actually their stance on the issue. It is a bully technique that trys to prevent the person from saying what their position is because they must constantly defend themselves. It also allows you to direct the discussion.
First of all, civil unions aren't currently the law of the land. They are not accepted in most states, though you're acting like they are. But even if they were, certain rights (such as tax stuff and child custody in the case of death) are or would still be denied. Google it if you're interested. I'm not an expert. The most egregious example I can think of off the top of my head is that if a gay man or woman has a child and wants to bestow custody in the event of his/her death to his/her lover, the lover will have no legal right to custody and will likely lose every time to a blood relative -- even if the gay couple has raised the child together from birth. There are various other rights not currently conveyed to gays that straight people enjoy wrt marriage, but again, I don't know them off the top of my head. And, again, civil unions are not the law of the land. What's not allowed? Any straight guy in the military can talk about his girlfriend. Can write love letters and not hide them under the mattress for fear of court martial. Can kiss a girl in a bar. Can **** a girl in front of his friend off base if he wants to. Can go to a strip club. Can wear a wedding ring. Can show wedding photos. Can say I miss my girlfriend. If a gay man in the military does anything similar, he's out on the curb. http://employment.findlaw.com/emplo...ment-employee-gay-lesbian-discrimination.html http://www.lambdalegal.org/our-work/publications/facts-backgrounds/page.jsp?itemID=31989154
A will takes care of any custody problems. paying a lower tax rate, or filing jointly is not a right. (the word that started this argument) It is a discount (or increase in some cases) given by the government to certain people. The only right I can see is the ability to fire based on sexuality. I would certainly consider that "pursuit". It is a problem for many people not just gays, but in any circumstance it isn't right. Gun owners can face similar situations. In any event I thought "sex" protected them here. I think they are only protected by civil suits.
My only problem with you Casey is that you think things are hunky dory for gays in America. They aren't. But I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt for now and assume, based on your last post where you asked for evidence of discrimination, that you just aren't up to date on the facts. I won't lob any more sass your way before seeing how you respond to my last post, which provides some small explanation of the discrimination they currently face in this country where you said they enjoy equal rights. I should say that that last post I made is by no means comprehensive. I'm not studied on this issue and everything I posted was off the top of my head except for the two links at the end which came from a one-second google search. But you seem to believe any gay person can enter into a civil union and enjoy all rights of marriage but the word "marriage." That the only right denied a gay in the military is talking explicitly about sex. And that no other right is denied to gays in this country. So I'm going to let you catch up and then we can talk some more if you want.
Okay, screw it. I thought you were honestly naive. But if you can read my whole last post and come up with this, I revert to my original opinion of you. You're relying on lawyerly talk to try to prove that discrimination against gays in this country either doesn't exist or isn't that bad. The links I provided show that only 15 states in this country protect against job discrimination and only 11 protect against housing discrimination. And you had nothing to say about the difference between gays and straights in the military, relying again on some kind of cold, rational, lawlerly thing again when that obviously has no place given what I posted. As for the custody thing, you can't "will" your children to someone and expect that to be a final word. If you try to will them to a domestic partner, who enjoys no rights under the law by virtue of being a domestic partner by the way, that partner has no more right to the child than a friend would if a grandparent comes along and wants to snatch the child based on disapproval of the gay lifestyle. Even if those two partners raised the child from birth. All of this can be googled if you're actually interested in understanding your own position.
The bottom line is this: Gays do NOT currently enjoy equal rights in this country. And equal rights for heterosexuals are no different than equal rights for whites. You want to debate the details to try to present some legal weasel argument, but meanwhile the laws are changing. The links I posted show that only 15 states currently protect against employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. Guess what? Soon it will be more. Then it will be all. Same goes for housing. Same goes for military service and same goes for marriage. Because the overwhelming majority of young people in this country understand that discrimination based on sexual orientation is WRONG. And people of my age (39) are almost evenly split. It is only people older than me that are keeping the gay civil rights movement from totally coming true. Soon they will be dead and gays actually will enjoy equal rights under the law. I am sorry again for your loss in this, but take heart. It has NOTHING to do with you. When gays actually do enjoy equal rights in this country it won't affect you at ALL. So, when it happens, and it will happen soon, try not to take it too bad.
Possibly you misunderstood. I conceded that the job discrimination is a violation under any measure. I didn't know, and it changes my opinion about equal rights. Also even a straight person has no promise that the will is a final word. Even under marriage. Custody battles are mean, I understand that a homosexual probably has less of a chance to win than a straight but this is just societly. Men lose these battles in hetero relationships. It is not a systematic issue that has a fix. It is a judges opinion.
Cool. You're not as bad as I thought on this. It's good to know that you favor increased protection against discrimination. Take heart: it's coming. Just please don't make the mistake again of saying equality already exists. It doesn't.
I know it has nothing to do with me. I am indifferent to the gay marriage issue. I am curious about the issue of the science of their brains because of my scientific nature. Until you told me about the job rights etc. I could logically not see any rights that were not equal, I still feel the previous "rights" are either not really rights or are basically equal. Personally if a "civil union" was cheaper I might have gone for it. I know not everyone feels this way. I am younger than you and I think that may explain why I am less apt to make race a part of this argument. You seem to channel some of the anger of racism into this issue. politically I think marriage being religious and legal is a big problem and goes directly into the face of church/state separation.
Well if you would have stated argument rather than skip over my actual arguments and called me a bigot you would have quickly found I think logically. Or atleast you would have found out what I was actually saying.
Okay, maybe I read you wrong. I think we're getting somewhere now. First off, if the state got out of the marriage business entirely I'd have no beef. If religion wanted to discriminate on gay marriage, I'd be fine with that. Religious institutions often discriminate and that's their right; there will always be another religious institution willing to correct for that. Being that I'm not a Catholic (or whatever - just using them as an example) I don't care if gays can't marry under the Catholic Church. I only care that they can marry in this country. I've raised this a couple times and for whatever reason I haven't seen a response from you, but you seem to believe that civil unions are currently the law of the land. They aren't. It is only in very rare municipalities that civil unions are currently anything more than an abstract proposal. You should look this up and get right with it before you answer again about the marriage issue. You're absolutely right to assume that I compare race and sexual orientation due to being a little older and having a chip on my shoulder about race. I learned about slavery in an elementary school class where, due to bussing, 9 out of 10 of my friends were black. And I thought then, good lord, if people used to think this was okay what are we doing now that we think is okay and totally isn't. That is responsible for at least half of my passion on this issue. The other half is due to the fact that many of my closest friends are gay and I know what they've been up against. It's not an abstract issue to me. They are good people in loving relationships and they deserve to be treated like everybody else. And if that means changing the laws, great. Fine. Change them. Tomorrow. At any rate, I'm glad you learned over the course of this discussion that gays do not currently enjoy equal rights in this country. And I'm glad I learned that you're not some kind of horrible bigot, though I still think you're dead wrong on the military.
It's definitely a little of both. Ancient Greek, Roman, and Japanese cultures engaged in homosexual behavior while their men kept traditional family norms. I highly doubt brain size had something to do with it. There is likely some mechanism that makes a man more effeminate and vice versa for a woman, but it doesn't necessarily amount to a definitive formula on a person's sexuality. In our culture of sexual repression, repressed thoughts more than often roars back with greater ferocity, and perhaps that's a significant factor on why some people are entirely gay instead of bi-curious. And the whole debate on choice v. genetic fatalism muddies up the social landscape even further. Pretty sad waste of time on an issue that isn't anyone's damn business.
Sorry dude, but that pedophilia/bestiality stuff is the first argument a bigot makes in these kinds of talks. Right after they talk about "special rights." So you're just going to have to forgive me my assumption. Your suggestion that gays in the military just want to talk about sex or equating their gayness to sexual harassment didn't help either when they're getting fired for sending private emails to lovers.
On civil unions: CaseyH, you keep saying that gays enjoy equal rights on marriage because they can just have civil unions. They can't. Currently only CT and VT allow civil unions. Just another fact you apparently didn't know when you were saying equal rights existed already. http://gaylife.about.com/od/samesexmarriage/a/civilunion.htm Google is your friend.
I know they are not federal but several of the securities ofered by them are possible through other means. If you re read my post I said I think civil unions are possible, meaning possible to be passed.
again that was to show that it does not matter to me if they are gay from biological or environment or genetic. It really makes little difference when talking about the morality of it.
Well there is obviously personality traits of varying degrees. Really nothing is nature is black and white or one or off or male or female. When I found out about Intersexuality and realized that nothing is nature is absolute, it is quite easy to see that is is possible that the mind could do the same thing. Although the occurance of ambiguous sexed babies is very small compared to homosexuals.
They don't have the same rights. You answered this before with what tests they have to take. That isn't really relevant. If two straight people love each other and take the tests, are of legal age they can marry. If two gay people love each other, take the tests etc. they can't. It isn't the same.
