Gay law: Equal protection or Special treatment?

[DiamondDave]

What exactly does a queer "choose" in your opinion?

Do you think they "choose" to be attracted to people of the same sex? Or are you simply offended because they choose to act upon their attraction to people of the same sex? The difference is subtle, but very important.

Just as you choose or learn to like someone tickling your balls, or being attracted to asians, or liking hot wax dripped on your neck, or whatever else...

Again.. you have learned behavior and conditioning (such as foot fetishism being a result of genitalia stimulation while crawling and seeing mommy's feet) and you also have choice for acceptance or want.... much like children who are not accepted by the larger popular group, still want acceptance... and if they can find acceptance in an "outcast" group such as the punks, bi-sexuals, cutters, or whatever else they will indeed choose to embrace that behavior for the acceptance they receive from that group, even if they receive ridicule from the masses or family

Many things can cause or affect the choice... and it is not always the same for each person... but the one thing is that it is indeed NOT genetic

What do you base that surety on?

Show the gay gene

 

[NYcarbineer]

Also, any laws about homosexuality don't infringe on their rights... for instance marriage.

I cannot marry a man either, and I am straight.

That argument was eliminated by the overturning of laws against interracial marriage. When interracial marriage was illegal in some states, everyone in those states still had the same rights, i.e., to marry someone of their own race.

The laws were struck down anyway. The argument has no merit.

 

[NYcarbineer]

1st amendment is the freedom to have your religion.. not the freedom from ridicule or someone else not to hire you because of it.... I.E. no government forced religion

2nd amendment gives you the right to bear arms if you so choose to... not protecting you against discrimination from being hired because you refuse to work without carrying your gun

You have every right to pursue your gay lifestyle... the government will not take it away just as it won't take away your religion or your legal weaponry... but you do not have the right to force people to accept your choice and go against their beliefs or wants when hiring you

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin



You are wrong. You cannot be discriminated against in employment because of your religion,

but religion is a CHOICE; you are not born that way.

So much for your fallacious argument.

And I have already stated that I do not agree with the anti-discrimination laws pertaining to anything behavioral or choice... and I would go along with repealing such touchy-feely bullshit

But you mentioned the 1st and second amendment specifically

I am merely pointing out that there is no merit whatsoever to the argument that being born that way has anything to do with the establishment of what are or aren't rights in this country.

It is irrelevant.

 

[DiamondDave]

Also, any laws about homosexuality don't infringe on their rights... for instance marriage.

I cannot marry a man either, and I am straight.

That argument was eliminated by the overturning of laws against interracial marriage. When interracial marriage was illegal in some states, everyone in those states still had the same rights, i.e., to marry someone of their own race.

The laws were struck down anyway. The argument has no merit.

Hell.. I am against the government being involved in marriage anyway... have civil adult family unions purely for the use of taxation, legal decision making for medical reasons, etc...

I don't care if gays have a family unit and file joint taxes....

 

[Nonelitist]

Also, any laws about homosexuality don't infringe on their rights... for instance marriage.

I cannot marry a man either, and I am straight.

That argument was eliminated by the overturning of laws against interracial marriage. When interracial marriage was illegal in some states, everyone in those states still had the same rights, i.e., to marry someone of their own race.

The laws were struck down anyway. The argument has no merit.

You can't compare race and sex. Men of one race aren't any different than a man of another race. Same with women.

Men are completely different than women. Different races are not. Laws seperating races are never moral. Laws seperating genders sometimes are... different bathrooms, dressing rooms. Different bathrooms for whites and blacks isn't ethical.

Not allowing different races to marry isn't the normal progression of man. Not allowing men to marry men and women to marry women is the moral norm... to the betterment of society.

Religions and societies have been in favor of interracial marriage, but have never been an advocate of gay marriage.. throughout history of man.

 

[DiamondDave]

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin



You are wrong. You cannot be discriminated against in employment because of your religion,

but religion is a CHOICE; you are not born that way.

So much for your fallacious argument.

And I have already stated that I do not agree with the anti-discrimination laws pertaining to anything behavioral or choice... and I would go along with repealing such touchy-feely bullshit

But you mentioned the 1st and second amendment specifically

I am merely pointing out that there is no merit whatsoever to the argument that being born that way has anything to do with the establishment of what are or aren't rights in this country.

It is irrelevant.

What is irrelevant is you thinking you have the right to have people accept your choice.... your rights are based for you as a citizen and a human... not on your preferences or choices.. while you have the right to choose, you do not have the right to force your choice to be accepted by others...

 

[manifold]

Just as you choose or learn to like someone tickling your balls, or being attracted to asians, or liking hot wax dripped on your neck, or whatever else...

Again.. you have learned behavior and conditioning (such as foot fetishism being a result of genitalia stimulation while crawling and seeing mommy's feet) and you also have choice for acceptance or want.... much like children who are not accepted by the larger popular group, still want acceptance... and if they can find acceptance in an "outcast" group such as the punks, bi-sexuals, cutters, or whatever else they will indeed choose to embrace that behavior for the acceptance they receive from that group, even if they receive ridicule from the masses or family

Many things can cause or affect the choice... and it is not always the same for each person... but the one thing is that it is indeed NOT genetic

You seemed to have gone out of your way to avoid answering what should have been a very simple question.

btw: I didn't need to learn to like having my balls tickled, my cock sucked, eating pussy, sucking on tits, or sticking my schlong into a nice warm, wet, tight pussy. If you had to learn to like any of those things then you might benefit from some serious soul searching.

You are making it appear to be a simple question... but it is not a simple question.. as stated... every choice is not black and white, every learned behavior is not black and white... there are many reasons, conscious decision or subconscious reaction, that can feed into the choice

Ok, maybe I can simplify it for you.

When exactly did you "choose" to be attracted to women?

 

[bodecea]

Just as you choose or learn to like someone tickling your balls, or being attracted to asians, or liking hot wax dripped on your neck, or whatever else...

Again.. you have learned behavior and conditioning (such as foot fetishism being a result of genitalia stimulation while crawling and seeing mommy's feet) and you also have choice for acceptance or want.... much like children who are not accepted by the larger popular group, still want acceptance... and if they can find acceptance in an "outcast" group such as the punks, bi-sexuals, cutters, or whatever else they will indeed choose to embrace that behavior for the acceptance they receive from that group, even if they receive ridicule from the masses or family

Many things can cause or affect the choice... and it is not always the same for each person... but the one thing is that it is indeed NOT genetic

What do you base that surety on?

Show the gay gene

Wait, a minute....are you saying THAT is your proof? Have all genes been found and completely explained yet?

Remember you are the one who made the assertion that "it is indeed NOT genetic"...prove your assertion.

 

[bodecea]

Also, any laws about homosexuality don't infringe on their rights... for instance marriage.

I cannot marry a man either, and I am straight.

That argument was eliminated by the overturning of laws against interracial marriage. When interracial marriage was illegal in some states, everyone in those states still had the same rights, i.e., to marry someone of their own race.

The laws were struck down anyway. The argument has no merit.

In fact, if you read the arguments given by the state of Virginia in Loving v Virginia...they made that same assertion....the Supreme Court Justices laughed right in their lawyer's face.

 

[Nonelitist]

Also, any laws about homosexuality don't infringe on their rights... for instance marriage.

I cannot marry a man either, and I am straight.

That argument was eliminated by the overturning of laws against interracial marriage. When interracial marriage was illegal in some states, everyone in those states still had the same rights, i.e., to marry someone of their own race.

The laws were struck down anyway. The argument has no merit.

In fact, if you read the arguments given by the state of Virginia in Loving v Virginia...they made that same assertion....the Supreme Court Justices laughed right in their lawyer's face.

Link?

 

[bodecea]

Also, any laws about homosexuality don't infringe on their rights... for instance marriage.

I cannot marry a man either, and I am straight.

That argument was eliminated by the overturning of laws against interracial marriage. When interracial marriage was illegal in some states, everyone in those states still had the same rights, i.e., to marry someone of their own race.

The laws were struck down anyway. The argument has no merit.

You can't compare race and sex. Men of one race aren't any different than a man of another race. Same with women.

Men are completely different than women. Different races are not. Laws seperating races are never moral. Laws seperating genders sometimes are... different bathrooms, dressing rooms. Different bathrooms for whites and blacks isn't ethical.

Not allowing different races to marry isn't the normal progression of man. Not allowing men to marry men and women to marry women is the moral norm... to the betterment of society.

Religions and societies have been in favor of interracial marriage, but have never been an advocate of gay marriage.. throughout history of man.

Not true. But, since you made that claim...prove that no society has ever, ever been advocates of gay marriage. Seems to me you have your work cut out for you.

 

[Nonelitist]

That argument was eliminated by the overturning of laws against interracial marriage. When interracial marriage was illegal in some states, everyone in those states still had the same rights, i.e., to marry someone of their own race.

The laws were struck down anyway. The argument has no merit.

You can't compare race and sex. Men of one race aren't any different than a man of another race. Same with women.

Men are completely different than women. Different races are not. Laws seperating races are never moral. Laws seperating genders sometimes are... different bathrooms, dressing rooms. Different bathrooms for whites and blacks isn't ethical.

Not allowing different races to marry isn't the normal progression of man. Not allowing men to marry men and women to marry women is the moral norm... to the betterment of society.

Religions and societies have been in favor of interracial marriage, but have never been an advocate of gay marriage.. throughout history of man.

Not true. But, since you made that claim...prove that no society has ever, ever been advocates of gay marriage. Seems to me you have your work cut out for you.

You are the one asking for change.

CHANGE from what? The norm you stupid jackass.

So the burden of proof is on you.

 

[bodecea]

And I have already stated that I do not agree with the anti-discrimination laws pertaining to anything behavioral or choice... and I would go along with repealing such touchy-feely bullshit

But you mentioned the 1st and second amendment specifically

I am merely pointing out that there is no merit whatsoever to the argument that being born that way has anything to do with the establishment of what are or aren't rights in this country.

It is irrelevant.

What is irrelevant is you thinking you have the right to have people accept your choice.... your rights are based for you as a citizen and a human... not on your preferences or choices.. while you have the right to choose, you do not have the right to force your choice to be accepted by others...

Who says my sexuality has to be accepte by YOU? You don't have to associate with me at all. You see me on the street, you can walk away.

But you don't have the right to have the government treat me in some way less than you either.

 

[bodecea]

That argument was eliminated by the overturning of laws against interracial marriage. When interracial marriage was illegal in some states, everyone in those states still had the same rights, i.e., to marry someone of their own race.

The laws were struck down anyway. The argument has no merit.

In fact, if you read the arguments given by the state of Virginia in Loving v Virginia...they made that same assertion....the Supreme Court Justices laughed right in their lawyer's face.

Link?

I can get it for you...but if you want to avoid me doing your link work....I suggest googling "Loving v Virginia arguments"....worked just fine for me....but you have a lot of reading to get thru all the arguments. Enjoy.

 

[bodecea]

You can't compare race and sex. Men of one race aren't any different than a man of another race. Same with women.

Men are completely different than women. Different races are not. Laws seperating races are never moral. Laws seperating genders sometimes are... different bathrooms, dressing rooms. Different bathrooms for whites and blacks isn't ethical.

Not allowing different races to marry isn't the normal progression of man. Not allowing men to marry men and women to marry women is the moral norm... to the betterment of society.

Religions and societies have been in favor of interracial marriage, but have never been an advocate of gay marriage.. throughout history of man.

Not true. But, since you made that claim...prove that no society has ever, ever been advocates of gay marriage. Seems to me you have your work cut out for you.

You are the one asking for change.

CHANGE from what? The norm you stupid jackass.

So the burden of proof is on you.

Wrong...you made the claim that no society ever has been advocates for gay marriage. Show us that to be the fact you claim it to be.


And I fail to understand why you would start calling me rude names....have I done that to you? Or are you resorting to rudeness because you have no facts to back your assertions?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Also, any laws about homosexuality don't infringe on their rights... for instance marriage.

I cannot marry a man either, and I am straight.

That argument was eliminated by the overturning of laws against interracial marriage. When interracial marriage was illegal in some states, everyone in those states still had the same rights, i.e., to marry someone of their own race.

The laws were struck down anyway. The argument has no merit.

You can't compare race and sex. Men of one race aren't any different than a man of another race. Same with women.

Men are completely different than women. Different races are not. Laws seperating races are never moral. Laws seperating genders sometimes are... different bathrooms, dressing rooms. Different bathrooms for whites and blacks isn't ethical.

Not allowing different races to marry isn't the normal progression of man. Not allowing men to marry men and women to marry women is the moral norm... to the betterment of society.

Religions and societies have been in favor of interracial marriage, but have never been an advocate of gay marriage.. throughout history of man.

What a crock of shit.

You said that gays have the same rights as you because they can marry someone of the opposite sex. That is no argument. It would be as if someone said it was okay to take away your right to speak out against the government because you'd still all have the right to speak in support of the government. It's idiocy.

And saying that societies have never been for gay marriage is nonsensical in the face of all the countries around the world that have legalized gay marriage.

 

[DiamondDave]

I am merely pointing out that there is no merit whatsoever to the argument that being born that way has anything to do with the establishment of what are or aren't rights in this country.

It is irrelevant.

What is irrelevant is you thinking you have the right to have people accept your choice.... your rights are based for you as a citizen and a human... not on your preferences or choices.. while you have the right to choose, you do not have the right to force your choice to be accepted by others...

Who says my sexuality has to be accepte by YOU? You don't have to associate with me at all. You see me on the street, you can walk away.

But you don't have the right to have the government treat me in some way less than you either.

You are the one asking for it to be accepted and not a criteria of refusal... much like any other chosen behavior, it may be against what an employer is looking for.. whether that be a history of theft, a ghastly appearance that customers my find offensive and out of the scheme of the business, a continual use of vulgarity, a belief in satanism when the jobs is dealing with a religion diametrically opposed to that, being a person insensitive to feelings when applying for a job in a rape crisis clinic, etc....

For the most part, I do not care if an applicant would be homosexual for the jobs I hire for... but that is not saying that there are indeed such situations where it would not fit in with the culture of the place of employment, the situations in that job, etc... and that is what this comes down to.... and if you take away someone else's right to choose just to have your choices protected is absolute bullshit... and why I do not support any anti-discrimination law based on choice.. whether it be for sexuality or religion or body art or whatever

 

[DiamondDave]

What do you base that surety on?

Show the gay gene

Wait, a minute....are you saying THAT is your proof? Have all genes been found and completely explained yet?

Remember you are the one who made the assertion that "it is indeed NOT genetic"...prove your assertion.

They have been searching for it for a LONG time.. have found left handed genes, obesity genes, bald genes, etc... and still no gay gene....

It has not been shown to be genetic in the least, with ALL the research.... it is the gays who assert it to be genetic, when they have zero proof of the sort...

As stated... you show a proven gay gene, I will change my position on this issue.... and treat it like any other genetic abnormality

 

[bodecea]

Show the gay gene

Wait, a minute....are you saying THAT is your proof? Have all genes been found and completely explained yet?

Remember you are the one who made the assertion that "it is indeed NOT genetic"...prove your assertion.

They have been searching for it for a LONG time.. have found left handed genes, obesity genes, bald genes, etc... and still no gay gene....

It has not been shown to be genetic in the least, with ALL the research.... it is the gays who assert it to be genetic, when they have zero proof of the sort...

As stated... you show a proven gay gene, I will change my position on this issue.... and treat it like any other genetic abnormality

You stated that there was no genetic connection...prove it. (I am not the one who has to prove their assertion here....cause I didn't make one....you did.)

 

[Gadawg73]

My religion believes green eyed humans are an abomination. Any law that allows equal protection under the law to those people I oppose.
Freedom of religion. I oppose green eyed people getting equal rights because of my religion.

Again.. that is genetic.. your choice of lifestyle is not

Wrong, sexual orientation is not a choice. Sexual orientation you R born with. I believe it is genetic. But we will play your gay boogeyman game.
If green eyes was NOT genetic, would you stand against them getting equal rights if that was a choice?
See how stupod all this gay boogeyman deal is. They deserve equal protection under tha law.
Even if it was a choice, which I believe it isn't, does the government discriminate against those that take cream with their coffee over those that do not?
No,so what does it matter who someone FALLS IN LOVE WITH?
You do know that gay folks fall in love with people of the same sex, don't you?
What is wrong with loving someone else and living that love?
But it really doesn't matter. True patriots and lovers of FREEDOM seek toprotect the rights of everyone, no matter who they are.
Religous arguments are not valid in America. If you like that and want it done that way I am OK with it. They do it that way in Iran.
Delta is ready when you are.