Dallas May Make History, Not that there's anything wrong with that

I'm sort of confused. People keep stating that gays have no protections under the law. Don't they have some, I mean one can't just go and beat up a gay person because they don't like them. First of all it would be battery, attempted murder, or whatever charge fits the bill but if they specifically targeted them because of their sexual orientation don't hate crime laws come into effect then thereby giving them some protections? I really am confused.

 

I hate to bring it back up then but there are some protections, maybe not full ones but there are some. I just wish they would make them full.

 

WHAT???

WHAT?

uhm yea
So . . I I have to run up hill a mile
and
you run downhill a mile. . .. .

it is the same struggle?

again. . . WHAT?

You obviously have a comprehension problem
it is called Will-ful blindness

Laws don't say Gays cannot Marry .. .
Laws same Man cannot marry man and woman cannot marry woman . .
homosexual/gay/etc is not in there

There are laws that says you cannot discriminate against gays
IT IS CALL CIVIL RIGHTS LAW . . . people fought for that

Rocket River
Talking to you is a waste of time. . . you are not listening. .you are simply waiting to talk

 

One of the reasons I havve problems with hate crime bills overall is that if you think about it, more people get beat up because of how big or small they are than anything else. I don't think I'm going overboard when I say that small guys get picked on because well they're smaller. Why isn't that a hate crime? They've targeted exclusively because of the way he looks.

 

I agree
I think his Tail is showing

Rocket River

 

You could be the world's tallest midget but it's hard to tell. I stole that from the Ali G Show.

That's a relevant point but it's hard to prove.

 

RR:

About 40 years ago a black and a white couldn't marry. If a black person loved a white person and they wanted to spend their lives together, the law said no. The law said an official recognition of your love is against the law. You can only marry another black person and the love of your life can only marry another white person. That sounds okay to you, right?

 

Not true. Homosexuals are not a protected class under the case law surrounding the equal protection clause, etc. Race, religion, creed, and national origin are...but sexual orientation is not. Therefore, it does not violate federal law to discriminate against homosexuals.

 

Man marrying man, woman marrying woman, what's the point? If tommorrow Aliens land, should a woman be able to marry a predator, a bug, a slug, anything that owns property, has sexual organs and intelligence?

 

I'm only deducing the implications of the statement you make. By saying that the gay rights are not worthy of being a "Civil Rights Movement" you are saying what they strive for is not as valid.

And I don't need to prove anything. People have clearly demonstrated that Blacks have less favorable opinions of gays then other groups.

 

What's so fascinating is that you are actually trying to say one is greater then the other, and then say you aren't diminishing one by doing so.

Anyway, let's let it go, clearly there's no further point to rehasing the same thing.

 

Damn, I don't know what to think of this one.

 

Very Ironic for Mr. MEOWGI to speak on bigotry. Honestly I'm not sure what Dr. King would said on this. His closest advisor was homosexual though. I myself don't see the two being parallel though. I could go spiritual on you but rights should be given equally to all men and Dr. King preached that equality based on not discriminating race and religion.

My question is what do Gay rights entail?

 

The real issue here is the nature of race vs. the nature of homosexuality. One position is assuming that race and homosexuality are both genetic. The other position is assuming that race is genetic and homosexuality is an elective behavior. It is all about basic assumptions. The gay community is even divided on the issue of genetic homosexuality (the born gay thesis) vs. elective homosexuality. One side argues that assuming homosexuality is genetically determined has political advantages. The other side believes this thesis is "dehumanizing," and that every human being can ultimately make choices about their behavior. Just thought I would reframe the discussion a bit. Carry on.

My own view, incidently, is that sexual preference of any kind is not genetically determined. There may be predispositions, but humans ultimately choose what they want to do. Therefore, race and sexual orientation are not the same.

 

What happened here? Why is this in NBA Dish and why was this rehashed?