"Gay rights" is a misnomer

[KittenKoder]

Actually, the people obsessing over sexuality are the homosexuals who insist they be allowed to flaunt their sexuality while serving in the military.

Um ... wow ... you really don't know many gay people do you, especially none who are or have served in the military. Here's a hint: most of the people who "act gay" are not, and most gay people you would NEVER notice.

 

[AllieBaba]

I'm not talking about them, then, am I? I'm talking about those who whine about the current policy, which actually allows gays in the military, because they aren't able to be "open" about their sexuality. The don't ask/don't tell thing was chugging along just fine, and the ones who keep hitting at it because they want to PUBLICLY display their homosexuality while in uniform are...guess who? The gays.

It's misleading to state we're the ones obsessed with sex, when we were fine with it the way it way. I think the ones obsessed with sex are the ones who want to be more and more open and in your face about it.

 

[AllieBaba]

And through the years, I've known lots of gay people, and lots of military. I haven't known any
gays in the military, though, that I've been aware of.

 

[chrismac]

With regards to DADT, I'm still waiting on the big benefit that the military will have by allowing gays to serve openly. I understand personal satisfaction for gays in letting people know they're gay, but...isn't the military supposed to be about conformity and doing what's good for your fellow soldiers? This just seems like agenda pushing with little analysis, and gays vying for personal glory in a situation where that's supposed to be secondary.

 

[AllieBaba]

Exactly.

 

[KittenKoder]

Allie ... that's the funny thing, the ones that whine are the straight people who think they are doing the "right thing" by publicizing and often using it as a partisan argument. As I said, you can not spot most gay people. The "openness" you talk about isn't really coming from gay people, most of whom just want to be treated equally and live by the same laws with the same respects and rights. They normally only come into the limelight when there is a clear "attack" on their rights, such as when they are denied benefits others receive based solely on what they do in their own homes. Walking down the city streets I see far more promiscuity from the straight people (typically very young adults and teens) and rarely see any actual PDAs from gays (hugs are impossible to tell if it's gay, friends, or family most times, and cheek kisses are even common among friends). Groping and face sucking is almost always a young straight couple. Many of the lesbians I knew in the shelters I only discovered their orientation because I met their significant others (living with people makes it more likely to discover this) but even then many are still unknown, while many of the straight ones will brag and rant about the "men" they are "sscrewing" (to keep it clean, they used far more descriptive language).

 

[Valerie]

Gay couples do not have the right to file joint tax returns. They may not be able to visit their spouse in the hospital or make medical decisions if the spouse is incapable. Gay people do not have the right to their spouse's Social Security or retirement. The list goes on and on.

The biggest difference is that gay people cannot serve in the military. Don't ask, don't tell is a joke. How can gay people be considered citizens of this country when they cannot have the honor of serving our military and our country?

The right to file a joint tax return is a tax privilege, not a civil and inalienable right. They are actually able to see their spouses in the hospital, so that's an erroneous example. Social Security and access to retirement: see above re: privileges not civil rights.

Gay people can't serve "openly" in the military. That's not a civil right, either, though.

Human rights are the issue.

I hate soundbites, and this one doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Your rights only exist to the extent they are enforced by the Courts and by the government.

And if the rights of gay people are not enforced, they do not exist.

So what don't *you* get?

What are you talking about?

It's about equality under the law. The law allows special tax privileges to married couples, the law provides social security benefits to married couples, the law provides automatic health benefits for spouses, the law provides automatic property & inheritance rights by virtue of marital status alone, the law provides health visitation by virtue of marital status alone. Homosexuals couples are denied this special status.

Granted, inheritance & property rights and hospital visitation can become "equal" for homosexuals by virtue of hiring a lawyer to make things equal, which costs money, therefore not really "equal" status.

It's true homosexual civil rights are already protected, but "equality under the law" does not exist for these couples.

You could find a Unitarian Universalist Church to "marry" a homosexual couple even if the state does not legally recognize the marriage. The states do not deny their "right", but it's a religious ceremony and nothing else.

In those states where gay marriage (or civil union) IS recognized by the state, the inheritance rights and the visitation equality are there, the health care coverage is there, but still no social security is provided and that is still inequality under the law.

 

[AllieBaba]

Allie ... that's the funny thing, the ones that whine are the straight people who think they are doing the "right thing" by publicizing and often using it as a partisan argument. As I said, you can not spot most gay people. The "openness" you talk about isn't really coming from gay people, most of whom just want to be treated equally and live by the same laws with the same respects and rights. They normally only come into the limelight when there is a clear "attack" on their rights, such as when they are denied benefits others receive based solely on what they do in their own homes. Walking down the city streets I see far more promiscuity from the straight people (typically very young adults and teens) and rarely see any actual PDAs from gays (hugs are impossible to tell if it's gay, friends, or family most times, and cheek kisses are even common among friends). Groping and face sucking is almost always a young straight couple. Many of the lesbians I knew in the shelters I only discovered their orientation because I met their significant others (living with people makes it more likely to discover this) but even then many are still unknown, while many of the straight ones will brag and rant about the "men" they are "sscrewing" (to keep it clean, they used far more descriptive language).

Ok, what we're discussing is whether or not gays should be openly gay during their service. The people pushing for that are gays.

Maybe not all the ones you know, but it's a gay agenda.

I know there are gays in the military that aren't flaunting it. But the people pushing this aren't the heteros, it's the gays. Who want more and more visibility.

 

[Luissa]

Allie ... that's the funny thing, the ones that whine are the straight people who think they are doing the "right thing" by publicizing and often using it as a partisan argument. As I said, you can not spot most gay people. The "openness" you talk about isn't really coming from gay people, most of whom just want to be treated equally and live by the same laws with the same respects and rights. They normally only come into the limelight when there is a clear "attack" on their rights, such as when they are denied benefits others receive based solely on what they do in their own homes. Walking down the city streets I see far more promiscuity from the straight people (typically very young adults and teens) and rarely see any actual PDAs from gays (hugs are impossible to tell if it's gay, friends, or family most times, and cheek kisses are even common among friends). Groping and face sucking is almost always a young straight couple. Many of the lesbians I knew in the shelters I only discovered their orientation because I met their significant others (living with people makes it more likely to discover this) but even then many are still unknown, while many of the straight ones will brag and rant about the "men" they are "sscrewing" (to keep it clean, they used far more descriptive language).

Ok, what we're discussing is whether or not gays should be openly gay during their service. The people pushing for that are gays.

Maybe not all the ones you know, but it's a gay agenda.

I know there are gays in the military that aren't flaunting it. But the people pushing this aren't the heteros, it's the gays. Who want more and more visibility.

here is a quote from the article I posted!

Navy Vice Adm. Jack Shanahan said he had no opinion on the issue when he joined the panel, having never confronted it in his 35-year military career. A self-described Republican who opposes the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq war, Shanahan said he was struck by the loss of personal integrity required by individuals to carry out "don't ask, don't tell."

"Everyone was living a big lie - the homosexuals were trying to hide their sexual orientation and the commanders were looking the other way because they didn't want to disrupt operations by trying to enforce the law," he said.


And by the way I have seen a few interviews of commanders from the Irag war who said they know usually if someone is gay and they don't care. They are all fighting over there together and it isn't really a big deal to them since they are fighting a war!

 

[AllieBaba]

Ok. Once again.

It is not a "right" to be treated the same as married couples.

It is not a "right" to be openly gay in the military.

Nobody is being hurt in any way by not being married, and if they don't like the policy of the military they can always NOT JOIN UP.

I get so sick of bleeding hearts who think that the military, or any organization, for that matter, should adjust itself to malcontents, misfits and deviants (and I'm not just talking about gays). If you don't like it, you don't join up. It's pretty simple. That's where your "rights" end on that issue.

If you want the alleged benefits of marriage, then find a wife and marry her.

But don't put your feet down the path and then decide you're going to restructure the path, so it's like you took the OTHER path instead...

 

[KittenKoder]

Allie ... define "openly gay" and this time stick to it ... okay. You keep changing up, so clarify this one point first.

 

[AllieBaba]

Ok, the complaint is that homosexuals in the military aren't supposed to shout their gayness from the rooftops.

So who's complaining? It's not the heteros, so they aren't the ones with the agenda.

It's the GAY COMMUNITY.

Your commentary about closeted gay military people you've known is interesting, but irrelevant because it doesn't change the fact that the gay community are the ones who are complaining, and who want gay military to be able to be openly gay while serving.

What that means is anybody's guess.

 

[necritan]

The 14th amendment is supposed to protect all of us....its supposed to give us all equal rights....however...our government has gotten away from us and we are all gonna be screwed real bad in the end.....no pun intended.

You're running your mouth and not making a ton of sense. What right do straight people have that gay people don't?

They dont....there are equal rights granted for all.....re-read my post. That doesnt mean its happening.

 

[necritan]

Is drinking out of a drinking fountain a right??? How bout usage of public restrooms??

 

[necritan]

Of course it is.

Human rights are the issue.

Exactamundo......

Unalieanable rights.......these arent granted....they are born with you.

 

[chrismac]

So what exactly is your point in this thread?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Gay couples do not have the right to file joint tax returns. They may not be able to visit their spouse in the hospital or make medical decisions if the spouse is incapable. Gay people do not have the right to their spouse's Social Security or retirement. The list goes on and on.

Can't visit people in the hospital? What hospital are YOU going to, that it has a maitre'd and a guest list? Personally, I can walk into any hospital in town and visit total strangers if I want to. Not make medical decisions? Um, ever hear of a living will? Handy little buggers. Everyone should have one. I do, and I'm heterosexual. And I could swear the government declared that Social Security benefits weren't a right, back when the news was all about "Ohmigod, Bush wants to revise Social Security!" Anyone else remember that?

Bottom line, if you're depending on a marriage license to take care of any and all legal issues that might arise in your relationship, you're a moron. Even hetero couples are advised to do a LOT more emergency planning than that.

The biggest difference is that gay people cannot serve in the military. Don't ask, don't tell is a joke. How can gay people be considered citizens of this country when they cannot have the honor of serving our military and our country?

They can't serve in the military? Really? Then how come they do? And by the way, when did serving in the military become a right? I thought the primary purpose of the military was to provide the best possible defense of the country, not to provide individuals with "the honor of serving". That would be why people are rejected for numerous reasons: because they do not serve that primary purpose as defined by the military itself. Would you say that the handicapped "cannot be considered citizens of this country" because they "cannot have the honor of serving our military"?

 

[Cecilie1200]

There's no such thing as a gay rights issue. We are endowed with rights by the constitution. Exactly what in our constitution do straight people get that gay people don't get?

Your rights only exist to the extent they are enforced by the Courts and by the government.

And if the rights of gay people are not enforced, they do not exist.

So what don't *you* get?

Since the question is, "What Constitutional rights do straights get that homosexuals don't", and you didn't even remotely answer it, I'd like to know what YOU don't get. Telling me that if gay rights aren't enforced, they don't exist doesn't tell me what Constitutional rights aren't being enforced. It's just a repetition of the premise that Chrismac was questioning in the first place.

 

[Cecilie1200]

There's no such thing as a gay rights issue. We are endowed with rights by the constitution. Exactly what in our constitution do straight people get that gay people don't get?

I know people think gay marriage is a right because of half of a sentence in a case concerning the criminalization of interracial marriage, but, quite simply, it's not. Marriage is a civil right...meaning the government should have nothing to do with it. And to a big extent, they don't. The legal benefits that married couples receive are based on the social and economic implications of men and women who live with each other, sleep in the same bed, and have kids. You need a home, you need transportation. You need more money to provide for your family. And it's mostly up to chance.

Some same-sex couples have children, and thus, have the same need for more of their money. But this is almost always deliberate, and this is never the cause of homosexual unions. So the economic impetus isn't there to endow same-sex couples with the same benefits heterosexual couples receive, because they don't function the same way. For tax purposes, anyone can file as having dependents, so there's no disparity in the moral compunction the government has in allowing parents to take care of their kids.

But seriously, what gay rights issue is there? People throw that word around, and I think they don't know what it means, or they use it too liberally to describe what they want, and not what they're promised by the Constitution.

no where in the constitution does it even define marriage either way, so I have never seen why the government has a say whether or not they are allowed to marry.

That's probably because the issue isn't really them being "allowed to marry". They already can. The issue is whether or not the government officially recognizes that relationship, and if the government doesn't have a say in what the government does, who would?

 

[Cecilie1200]

There's no such thing as a gay rights issue. We are endowed with rights by the constitution. Exactly what in our constitution do straight people get that gay people don't get?

Equal treament under the law, i.e. the right to enter into a specific legal contract with the person they love with no compelling reason to disallow them from doing so.

Oh, THIS old canard. "We're not getting equal treatment under the law, because we're not being allowed to do something that no one else is allowed to do, or ever has been."

There is no right to "enter a contract with someone you love". Please show us the phrase "someone you love" ANYWHERE in any codified law, or stop with the warm fuzzies. You sound like Danielle Steel.