I would think that homosexuals in general would not want a biological reason to be found. I am sure that pedophiles, and zoophilia have some similarities in brain chemistry or biology but this does not mean we should change any laws or definitions.
I'm curious what is the alternative to allowing gay men to use the same bathroom as straight men. Do you have a strictly "gay" bathroom? What does this solve? If a person feels uncomfortable sharing a bathroom with someone that might be sexually attracted to them, why would a gay man want to share a bathroom strictly with other gay men? Is that a "separate but equal" situation? I guess the only way to partially solve the problem is to have a special gay bathroom, but then only allow 1 occupant at a time. But still, I don't see how that would satisfy the "separate but equal" condition.
Yes, yes! Because same sex attraction is the same as wanting to have sex with children and animals! Great argument from the guy who's so far above equating homophobia to racism. I wonder if there a way to recognize an intolerant bigot from his brain. Things that make you go, "Hmmm."
"separate but equal" has no legal standing in anything. It was banished with the 60's civil rights laws. I share your same feelings on th gay bathrooms but another interesting idea is transgender bathroom usage. It is current policy in most places (workplaces) that whatever sex a person is "displaying" is the bathroom they will use. The idea is that it will cause less surprise. The actual sexual organs they have is irrelavant. So basically if a guy could shave really close, put on a dress and to a reasonable person create less surprise by going into a womens bathroom rather than a mans based on appearance, tht is totally fine.
I share your same feelings on tranny bathrooms, but what ever will we do when they start having sex with our children and pets???
If you followed the argument you would understand that I was going against trying to find a biological reason and that it does not matter because the finding of a significant biological link changes nothing, as it would change nothing in the case of pedophiles or zoophiliacs.
Right, I got it. Because gays are freaks and if there was a biological reason for it they could be linked to other, even less savory, freaks. But you're wrong. A lot of gays appreciate the biological evidence because it helps to combat all the bigots that suggest they are sinning against God by being the way God made them. I'll roll along with your argument that no one has a "right" to marry someone that isn't of the opposite sex. You're right. They don't. Because the law doesn't provide for that right. Just like the law used to not provide for blacks to marry whites or for blacks to enjoy freedom from discrimination based on their race. Or for women to enjoy freedom from discrimination based on gender. You're right. Gays have the same rights as anyone else -- to enjoy equal protection under the law and equal opportunity for the pursuit of happiness... as long as they're straight. Our laws in this country are still not perfect. And when we recognize discrimination based in bigotry and nothing else we change those laws. We are on the brink of doing that. I'm sorry for your loss.
Hey, whoa! What's the problem, lady? No need to get personal! I'm just trying to have a calm and reasoned discussion about your bigotry. Calm down, baby doll.
Lets have a discussion about your bigotry. This is a highly offensive term. Why do you need to use this language? To make yourself feel better? Or is it a deep seeded hate?
I didn't realize it was an offensive term. If it is, I apologize and I'll never use it again. I honestly thought it was acceptable slang but I don't know any transgendered people so it's entirely possible I got that wrong. My only deep "seeded" [sic] hate is toward bigots. And you seem to be one judging by your defense of deeply discriminatory laws. I'm curious as to why you would care at all if gays were allowed to marry the person they loved as straight people are or if they were allowed to serve in the military, as everyone else is, without lying about who they are. Why is that, CaseyH? What exactly is your problem?
Wow it is sad that you attacked me before you even read the thread. Please find one instance where I said either of these things. My problem is you don't read, and are loud mouthed.
I do read, actually. Quite a lot. And, yes, I am loud mouthed. I have a lot of faults. Thankfully, bigotry is not one of them. Too bad you can't say the same. I read the thread alright. It went like this: robbie380 posted a study that supports the idea that homosexuality is biological in nature and editorialized with the hope that it would lead to equal rights for gays. You said everyone already has equal rights. Several people questioned that assertion and said gays didn't have rights to marry the people they wanted or serve in the military without lying about who they were and you said those things weren't rights. Several people tried to reason with you by raising the metaphor of racial discrimination. You refused all those comparisons, refusing too to answer any of those questions, and took offense that people were comparing discrimination against gays to discrimination against blacks. And then, as predictably as it was unbelievably, having declared discrimination against blacks/gays to be totally unacceptable apples and oranges, YOU raised the comparison of pedophilia and bestiality. Look here, son. Blacks and gays have had a lot in common in this country. They have both suffered horrible discrimination, including much violence, for being the way they were born. If they had the poor sense to love someone they weren't supposed to before society and people like you accepted it, they suffered even worse. But in all those cases, they were the victims and only they. They did not, by virtue of their race or sexuality, visit violence or other bad behavior on other people by virtue of the simple fact of their race or sexuality. But that comparison was beyond the pale where you were concerned. So you, instead, compared gays to people whose preferences could only be visited upon innocent victims (kids, animals). When you said that you basically said being gay was the same as being a sick rapist. That is disgusting and it says a lot about you. So I ask again: What is your problem with gays? Why do you believe the law should not allow them to marry the person they love and serve in the military (and risk dying for their country) without lying about who they are? In other words, what's your damage?
WHERE did I say this? I answered all questions about race, please read again. Or just try to understand it this time.
You didn't say it. You're very cute that way. You just said that everyone already had equal rights and that gays that might want to serve openly in the military or marry the person they loved were seeking special, extra rights. Here's the quote: Or did I misread that?
I'd also love to hear all about why it's beyond the pale to compare blacks to gays, where discrimination is concerned, but it's totally cool to compare homosexuality to bestiality and pedophilia. Your bigotry is clear as day.
You call me a bigot again and I am done. I compared the ability to possibly find significant biological similarites among gays as being dangerous. It is beyond comparison because blacks and womens struggles were so much more than only being able to have a "domestic partnership" instead of a marriage, or not being able to talk about their sexual experiences that it marginalizes those struggles.
It was not too terribly long ago that the statement "everyone has the same rights" meant everyone has the right to marry within his or her race. But even then it was okay to fire someone or deny them housing based on their race. It's not anymore. Because we recognized as a society that that wasn't okay. When that argument was happening in real time, you can be sure there were plenty of CaseyH's who argued against extending equal protection to blacks. We are doing the exact same thing with gays now. Soon bigotry against them will become unacceptable as well. And I repeat, I'm so terribly sorry for your loss.
for the first time you did read it correct. They are specifically seeking expanded "rights". The have all the rights a straight person has. Is it not possible I didn;t say I am against gay marriage because actually I am not? Did you ever consider that?
Be done whenever you want. I don't care. I won't agree to terms of politeness with someone who argues that it's totally fine that the law says some of my best friends can't marry the person they love and that even goes so far as to compare the basic essence of who they are to child and animal rapists. Move on anytime you feel offended. I'm mightily offended by everything you've said in this thread. I'm still here. On marriage: A "domestic partnership" or civil union or whatever is "separate but equal." It also isn't guaranteed under the law today, and yet you say gays already have equal rights. The law also does not currently convey the right for them to treat their chosen spouses (under marriage, civil union, long term relationship, whatever) various other rights that straight spouses enjoy. If it was just a word I'd still be against it but it's not just a word. It's a whole variety of rights enjoyed by straight people and denied to gays. On military service: Don't ask, don't tell basically legalizes (and requires, under the law) closeting. Lying about the most basic facts of who you are. Explain to me how that constitutes "equal rights." This is not about the freedom to talk about "sexual experiences" as you said; it is about not having to hide a love letter. Or being able to say, "I'm in love" and when your co-worker asks about it not having to lie. Straight people in the military can do that; gays can't. They are required, by law, to lie. On general discrimination: It is currently legal in almost every part of this country to refuse to hire someone because they're gay, to fire them if you find out they are, to deny housing or kick someone out of housing they occupy. It is okay to deny them any number of rights enjoyed by non-gays. According to you that's equality. But God forbid I would ever call you a bigot.
