The Ethical Boundaries of the Gay Agenda: A New Millenium of Free Speech

[Cecilie1200]

What I don't understand is . . . . we're supposed to accept the gay lifestyle regardless . . . but they do not have to accept that there are people who disagree with their lifestyle. They MUST be accepted and push this every instance they can.

I don't care who you (collective you) sleep with, stop telling me who you sleep with, stop shoving it in my face, and stop making a big deal about it. Just shut up and live your life.

You don't have to accept them. You just have to accept that they want equal rights. Just like racists don't have to accept black people, but they DO have to accept that black people have equal rights.

We don't have a problem with accepting that they want them. YOU have a problem with accepting that we don't want to give them, or even to misname them as "equal rights". All the intolerance here is actually on YOUR end, Spanky.

Perhaps they're sick of us telling them who we sleep with, and shoving it in their faces, and making a big deal out of it: romance movies and novels, tv shows, books, magazines, billboards, ads of any type, walking down the street holding hands, etc. etc.

Who is this "we" who's been telling them who to sleep with? Maybe you and the mouse in your pocket have been, because you seem to be the only one obsessed with such things. I can assure you that WE don't give a damn. We didn't bring up the argument, and would be happy to forget the whole thing if they did.

Oh, and by the way, as for "shoving it in their faces", how about all the depictions of homosexuals WE get to have shoved in OUR faces by your compatriots in Hollywood and the publishing world? Portraying people as heterosexual when 95%+ of the world is has nothing to do with sending any messages to homosexuals (pretty frigging conceited to think that it is), but don't even try to tell me there's not a deliberate effort to put gay characters EVERYWHERE in an attempt to normalize them in everyone's mind. In fact, you can't tell me that, because the activists and writers and producers have already admitted it.

Did you ever stop to see it from their point of view, Zoom? Everywhere a homosexual looks or goes, there are men and women together. Most movies, most books, most everything. They've been oppressed for millenia. This is what happens. After so many centuries of suppression, repression, oppression with the potential of death and torture for being who they are and there is no choice about it, they are now exploding out.

Oh, let me get out my violin so I can play "My Heart Pumps Purple Piss For You" to accompany this heartwringing sob story. It's so AWFUL to be a minority and see the majority all around you. We're so oppressed and mistreated by the sheer numerical reality of the world that it justifies ANY sort of oppression we want to inflict on everyone else. Someone get me a hanky.

Why don't you just shut up and live your life? Why does it have to be them? Because you're right and they're wrong?

Like I said, all the intolerance around here is on YOUR part, Spanky. WE can accept that they have differing opinions and let them fight to achieve their goals legally. Only YOU are trying to win by bludgeoning your opponents into silence and denying people their legal rights.

Shame on you, you freaking hypocrite.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Accept in this instance, a beauty contest, they're SUPPOSED TO BE IMPARTIAL. So much for that aye... in your world impartiality just shoots the hell otta free speech with BIGOTRY... real nice ass wad.

Feedom of speech is just becoming an illusion. Less God and rights, more fags, abortion, and prosicution of the true americans that still believe in what this country was founded on... All these people want is everything for nothing. Blind to the fact of how chaotic their vision of the world is. It's rediculous...

This country was founded in an attempt to escape religious totalitarianism, so GOD really shouldn't even be in the discussion.

No, it really wasn't, and I'm sure you'd love to cut God out of the equation, since it allows you to simply cut your political opponents out of public life. What's a little loss of rights when it's someone you don't agree with, right?

 

[Cecilie1200]

You have free speech. Just as your employer has the right to fire your ass if they don't like that speech. Freedom of speech doesn't guarantee you the right to say whatever you want with no consequences, it guarantees the right of no government sponsored consequences.

Prejean has her beliefs, and her boss doesn't like them. She needs to take personal responsibility for her own actions.

Accept in this instance, a beauty contest, they're SUPPOSED TO BE IMPARTIAL. So much for that aye... in your world impartiality just shoots the hell otta free speech with BIGOTRY... real nice ass wad.

Who is supposed to be impartial? And beauty contests come with rules, one of which is not making unapproved appearances. She did. So, she got fired. Personal responsibility.

Judges are, dummy. Like I've already said, I know this is a concept that's completely alien to leftists.

 

[sidneyworld]

9Volt,

Depends on the state. At-will employment means that your employer can terminate you for any reason at any time.

Actually at-will employment has strick guidelines which if not followed will indeed result in civil suits for discrimination. I've worked on many cases involving this issues. Wrongful dismissal is usually the defense predicated on Age, Religious Beliefs, even, believe it or not, substance abuse. While the company does not have to pay the employee, it has been successfully challenged that this employee as a "disease" and because he was not tested or tested negatively of any substance abuse prior to his hiring, or before his trial employment period, they can sued to not be fired before the company pays for treatment or whatever is prescribed by their insurance company.

At will-employment does not cover these issues. Many folks just leave, as it was years ago, without filing a lawsuit, in this case equal rights did well to become so universally discussed in open forums such as the media. We've won many cases involving these issues. Some might have been by a thread, others were blatant prejudice and discrimination.

Anne Marie

Out of the nearly 100 folks I've seen terminated at-will, only one won a racial discrimination suit, and her award was deserved.

I can tell you that there were at least three cases, actually four that were successfully tried: One involved a senior legal secretary who was fired after 10 years of employment because she was given a computer proficiency test by new management within a days notice which included programs she would never use for her general practioner senior partner. She did not pass the graphics portion and was fired with a good compensation package but nonetheless, was fired. She won full medical for the remaining year, (it was February) full compensation for the remaining year, and had the option of staying which at that point she did not elect to do. Her boss, near retirement advised her well. He left the firm two months after the settlement.

Another case involved an elderly woman who was fired after a management change after she observed Good Friday and took that day off as she had done for 15 years without fail at this trucking company. Aside a perfect attendance record and absolutely no write ups in her personal file, (once we were able to obtain it), it was clear that this was a dual action: Age and religious discrimination. She was awarded five years salary, the balance in the event she died to be carried out in her will, medical benefits (Cobra) and also the right to alternatively continue to work. She also elected to leave. Who wouldn't.

Other cases involved a mailroom worker who was drinking on the job. He was fired, rehired under a medical leave of absence with pay up to six months. I left that firm before the six months so I have no idea what happened after he returned if he did. That was a short lived assignment.

And one other case involved a gambling problem which was uncovered, or at least successfully argued involving a legal secretary who was beginning to miss every monday and friday of the week for several weeks. I don't believe it was exclusive to gambling because there were other people involved such as a new boyfriend, but in any case she could prove that she had spent nearly 10 thousand dollars of her savings in a month's time and that she became hooked. Her compensation was also a medical leave of absence for psychiatric observation also for six months. She went back to work. I think she probably also dumped the boyfriend who worked at the club. lol

Anne Marie

 

[Cecilie1200]

Religious discrimination is the issue here. Her belief system involves the belief and dedication to the sanctity of marriage which to billions of Christians in the world is a religious sacrament. This is blatant religious discrimination the disclosure of which was solicited by a judge on the pageant panel. What's more, if she had been a lesbian and said that she believes in same sex marriages, and she got fired, would you argue the same point, on a religious standpoint or simply qualify her statement as her choice and civil right? How would you defending her?

The gay judge went on his blog and said that she was fired because she was a stupid bitch among other things, and Wayne Besen on the Hannity interview said that she was being politically incorrect in her response because she was a spokesperson for the pageant and not her own belief system. If that was a condition of qualifying, that she was to believe if not endorse same sex marriages to compete, then certainly she should have been notified. She was asked the question by a judge. Obviously it was part of his personal agenda considering her later firing. It was deliberate, and another opportunity to further the Gay Agenda. When the boyscouts were challenged regarding such policies at the onset of a scout troop leader coming out of the closet and disclosing his sexuality, the organization was asserted the constitutional right to make policies as they see fit. And rightfully so.

Also, Donald Trump backed her up completely, initially, and was later bombarded with strife from the Gay Community. If the perception here is that she is to represent the United States then how it that any different from a President representing a country who does not believe in same sex marriages? Must we now relegate the moral integrity of presidents as well? There is no diferent in terms of how public figures represent themselves.

If anything, I applaud her sense of conviction in terms of such a controversial/unpopular subject. She started with diplomacy and ended with complete honesty. Had she been a lesbian who endorsed same sex marriages, and was fired, it would have caused massive protests nationwide.

Homosexuality represents one percent of the population in this country and far less than that agree with same sex marriages. That includes the majority in California no doubt. So essentially, on a broader perspective, she is correctly representing the majority in this country and in her state.

am

Don't know if that number is accurate but homosexuals are the minority in this country. So, why all the cow-towing to them? Because that's what this country has become, a country that favors the minority and the majority be damned.

Because lots of straight people believe in equality for people other than themselves. Sad that you can't see this.

Well, if you're going with strength of numbers, the votes say most people DON'T agree with you. Sad that YOU can't see THAT.

 

[Father Time]

When the Supreme Court made it’s general determination of pro-abortion, not only did it legalize the capacity by which a woman can deal with her unwanted pregnancy, but it legally corrupted the general moral standard of this county, by furthering, perhaps even encouraging the irresponsible and reckless selfishness of unprotected sexual intercourse when pregnancy is not intended. They opened Pandora’s box. Literally.

Do you have any proof that this led to the decline of western civilization? I ask because it has been blamed on many many things going back to Elvis, and then crime novels before that. None of them have been proven, ever.

 

[Cecilie1200]

This doesn't just pertain to gays, it pertains to the way this country treats the majority vs. the minority.

Oh I didn't just mean gays... I'm talking everyone that don't want to conform to what this country was founded on and what it took to get freedom in the first place. Just a bunch of chaotic morons running around puking thoughts out of their ass they call a face.

Wasn't the country founded on blacks being 3/5 of a person? Do you have a problem with me because I don't want to conform to that?

Glad the "I flunked history class" contingent has chimed in.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You're right; this works both ways, WHEN it comes to the Freedom of Speech. However, if you are speaking of Freedom of Religion and not Freedom of Speech, that also works both ways and not in the way in which you'd like. My religious beliefs are that anyone can marry anyone and to prevent that happening goes against my religious beliefs. So, now whose religion gets the law? Yours? That we stop people from marrying eachother just because it doesn't fall in with your religious beliefs (although it doesn't directly affect you), or mine: let's not have laws stopping people from marrying eachother at all?

If she were a lesbian, and said she supported same-sex marriages and was kicked off the pageant, I would've though: "Duh! Whattaya expect from beauty pageant judges?" I have been surprised that the judges didn't fit my preconceived notion.



Well, that's a matter of opinion. I also think she's an idiot and a stuck in the mud traditionalist in denial of the most fundamental truth of the Universe: change. And since he was a judge, his opinion really counts in this matter.



Who cares about Hannity? That sounds like bullshit to me.



It wasn't to further the Gay Agenda. This is how people who regard homosexuality as dangerous or subversive or unhealthy for society perceive it. He just didn't like her and being a judge, he had the right to "fire" her ass. Even if it is because she opposes gay marriage. Not every homosexual is furthering the mythical "gay agenda". All they want is acceptance, and is that so wrong?



Exactly.



Apples and oranges. She is a beauty pageant contestant, not a world leader.



That is because homosexuals are oppressed in this country unlike the Moral Majority. I'm not saying that makes it right, I'm just explaining why. I'm not saying that its wrong either.



Those are assumptions and inaccurate ones at that.

You have an obvious bias against homosexuality as much as you attempted to be open to it. I applaud your attempt and admire that you somewhat succeeded. However, I would guess that you probably haven't been exposed to many homosexuals.

There are many more homosexuals percentage-wise than you assume above. 10% is the current consensus. 30% for bi-sexuality. I don't know just how accurate those figures are (nobody does), but that's the current consensus among mental health, social work professionals, and cultural anthropologists. I think that if you base your opinion about how many people in this country support or oppose same-sex marriages solely on California's voting records, you could support your opinion. I don't think it reflects what most people (including those who didn't vote) think. That also doesn't make it right. Its called mob rule. The Founding Fathers set up the Constitution and the system of government to try to avoid that happening, and its mostly worked unless you consider Suffrage, Civil Rights, etc. where the voting majority didn't want to extend equal rights to the disenfranchised or the oppressed.

Homosexuality isn't generally a chosen life-style. If you aren't gay, or bi-sexual, then you're straight and if you're straight and in a sexual relationship with someone of the same-sex, you aren't happy. Period. Does that mean that people never do that? No. But the vast majority of homosexuals are gay, not straight people choosing to be in a homosexual relationship. If your children are straight, then they are straight and there is a .001% chance they'll engage in a homosexual relationship. What if your children are gay, so what? It happens and there isn't anything wrong with it because it doesn't hurt anybody.

If they teach that homosexuality is ok in school, its like teaching that black people were equal in school 50 years ago. I don't think anyone is telling your children that they SHOULD be homosexuals.

Maybe not in all, but in this matter you are conservative. You resist change and social progress. It doesn't fit in with your world view, but its inevitable. Best broaden your perspective and get with the times, cause "Times, they are a changin'."

This country was founded in an attempt to escape religious totalitarianism, so GOD really shouldn't even be in the discussion.

What? Have you ever said the Plede Of Allegiance? "One Nation Under God"..... or looked at money for that matter... "In God We Trust" WTF are you talking about that God "has no place in the discussion of our country"... We are all christians, just not ruled by a king side by side a church. We have a republic under God. Can't fight facts. We started as a christian based country blessed by God.

WRONG. Most of the founding fathers were either Deists or Masons. "Under God" was added to The Pledge of Allegiance in 1954, proposed by a Chicago-area chaplain, and championed by The Knights of Columbus. "In God we trust" was passed as an act of congress in 1956. So you see, NONE of this can be traced back to our founders. We were founded by a bunch of guys ,many of whom in today's terms would be called Atheists. Some believed in "God" but as a deity, not as Jesus Christ.

"Mason" isn't a religion, and "most" of the Founding Fathers assuredly were NOT Deists, and I think everyone is heartily sick of hearing this canard parroted by the "I know nothing of history, therefore I'm an expert on it" wing of the Leftist Loonies. I wouldn't even touch your ignorant line of "atheists" to spit on it, let alone dignify it with response.

What a complete pack of utter, reeking horseshit.

 

[Cecilie1200]

OMFG you are SOO full of shit!!

Judeo-Christian Values in America have a basis in the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..."

Here, do you know how to fucking read?...

American Thinker: Judeo-Christian Values

Doesn't sound Atheist to me. Get your facts right moron...

Anyway, lets stick to the thread, aye.... Quit derailing the conversation with your gas...

Its says Creator, jblue, not the Christian God, Father of Jesus Christ. That means ANY religion.

You are right. It says THEIR creator. Doesn't sound Christian to me. Do some research jblue.

Don't be more of a dumbass than nature requires of you. Just because someone believes in another god doesn't make that god his Creator. Christians believe that everyone's Creator is the Judeo-Christian God. So if someone who holds that belief says, ". . . endowed by their Creator . . .", he's not talking about whichever god they subscribe to. He's talking about the deity he believes actually created them. Obviously.

And like it or not, the people who wrote, agreed on, and signed the Declaration of Independence DID believe the Judeo-Christian God was the Creator of humanity.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Wrong, I have no problem with equality. I have problem with a minority shoving their view and their lifestyle into the face of others and insisting that it be accepted.

Whats wrong with a group of people trying to attain the same rights and benefits that are presently available to you? Just because they are comprised of a minority of the society doesnt make their conquest unjust. In fact I would argue that fighting for equal rights is a very just battle.

I don't believe anyone has said there's anything wrong with them trying to attain what they want, so long as they do it legally and within the accepted procedural bounds. Get your asses out, beat the bushes for votes, and exercise your right as citizens to try to convince other citizens to agree with you. More power to you.

What you CAN'T do, and what people object to, is doing an end run around the law and the political process and the people to get what you want imposed on people by activist judges. It's cheating, and you're damned right there's something wrong with it.

The fact that they are a "minority" is in and of itself of little consequence. James Madison warns of the "tyranny of the majority" or as he called it "the violence of the majority faction" in Federalist 10. Our Republic is not a true democratic state and has build in mechanisms to ensure that the rights of minority groups are not oppressed by an unjust majority.

Oh, spare me. You're worried about the tyranny of the majority expressed through the legal and Constitutional process of voting, and using it as an excuse for the more literal tyranny of the minority, expressed through saying, "I want it, and I'm taking it, and you can all just shut up because you can't stop me."

Whine to us about tyranny AFTER you stop trying to impose it, hypocrite.

 

[9 Volt]

Its says Creator, jblue, not the Christian God, Father of Jesus Christ. That means ANY religion.

You are right. It says THEIR creator. Doesn't sound Christian to me. Do some research jblue.

Don't be more of a dumbass than nature requires of you. Just because someone believes in another god doesn't make that god his Creator. Christians believe that everyone's Creator is the Judeo-Christian God. So if someone who holds that belief says, ". . . endowed by their Creator . . .", he's not talking about whichever god they subscribe to. He's talking about the deity he believes actually created them. Obviously.

And like it or not, the people who wrote, agreed on, and signed the Declaration of Independence DID believe the Judeo-Christian God was the Creator of humanity.

Bullshit. Take a histroy lesson. You show me the words Christian or Judeo-Christian anywhere in the founding documents, and you have an argument. Otherwise it's just hot air driven by extreme, guilt-driven, emotion.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You have free speech. Just as your employer has the right to fire your ass if they don't like that speech. Freedom of speech doesn't guarantee you the right to say whatever you want with no consequences, it guarantees the right of no government sponsored consequences.

Prejean has her beliefs, and her boss doesn't like them. She needs to take personal responsibility for her own actions.

As a matter of fact, your employer does NOT have the right to fire you for your political beliefs, nor does he have the right to fire you for expressing them politely when he asks you about them.

Ask yourself this: would you be so blase about "your employer has the right to fire your ass" if YOUR employer was a conservative who fired you for espousing liberal beliefs? Yeah, that's what I thought.

Depends on the state. At-will employment means that your employer can terminate you for any reason at any time.

I don't know of any state where you can't get your ass sued for firing someone for things like race, ethnicity, religion, and political ideology.

 

[Cecilie1200]

9Volt,

Depends on the state. At-will employment means that your employer can terminate you for any reason at any time.

Actually at-will employment has strick guidelines which if not followed will indeed result in civil suits for discrimination. I've worked on many cases involving this issues. Wrongful dismissal is usually the defense predicated on Age, Religious Beliefs, even, believe it or not, substance abuse. While the company does not have to pay the employee, it has been successfully challenged that this employee as a "disease" and because he was not tested or tested negatively of any substance abuse prior to his hiring, or before his trial employment period, they can sued to not be fired before the company pays for treatment or whatever is prescribed by their insurance company.

At will-employment does not cover these issues. Many folks just leave, as it was years ago, without filing a lawsuit, in this case equal rights did well to become so universally discussed in open forums such as the media. We've won many cases involving these issues. Some might have been by a thread, others were blatant prejudice and discrimination.

Anne Marie

Out of the nearly 100 folks I've seen terminated at-will, only one won a racial discrimination suit, and her award was deserved.

No one said it was easy, just that it can be done.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You are right. It says THEIR creator. Doesn't sound Christian to me. Do some research jblue.

Don't be more of a dumbass than nature requires of you. Just because someone believes in another god doesn't make that god his Creator. Christians believe that everyone's Creator is the Judeo-Christian God. So if someone who holds that belief says, ". . . endowed by their Creator . . .", he's not talking about whichever god they subscribe to. He's talking about the deity he believes actually created them. Obviously.

And like it or not, the people who wrote, agreed on, and signed the Declaration of Independence DID believe the Judeo-Christian God was the Creator of humanity.

Bullshit. Take a histroy lesson. You show me the words Christian or Judeo-Christian anywhere in the founding documents, and you have an argument. Otherwise it's just hot air driven by extreme, guilt-driven, emotion.

Oh, GIVE me a fucking break. "The words don't appear, therefore no one believed in any of that stuff and they were all atheists!" Shut the fuck up until you have something to say worth hearing.

 

[9 Volt]

Don't be more of a dumbass than nature requires of you. Just because someone believes in another god doesn't make that god his Creator. Christians believe that everyone's Creator is the Judeo-Christian God. So if someone who holds that belief says, ". . . endowed by their Creator . . .", he's not talking about whichever god they subscribe to. He's talking about the deity he believes actually created them. Obviously.

And like it or not, the people who wrote, agreed on, and signed the Declaration of Independence DID believe the Judeo-Christian God was the Creator of humanity.

Bullshit. Take a histroy lesson. You show me the words Christian or Judeo-Christian anywhere in the founding documents, and you have an argument. Otherwise it's just hot air driven by extreme, guilt-driven, emotion.

Oh, GIVE me a fucking break. "The words don't appear, therefore no one believed in any of that stuff and they were all atheists!" Shut the fuck up until you have something to say worth hearing.

Is that all you've got? And it IS debatable as to whether Free Masonry is or is not a religion.

You do realize that their efforts in founding this country were to escape CHRISTIAN totalitarianism right? I'm sorry, but it's true.

Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.
-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

Grow Up

 

[Bill O'Olberman]

I don't believe anyone has said there's anything wrong with them trying to attain what they want, so long as they do it legally and within the accepted procedural bounds. Get your asses out, beat the bushes for votes, and exercise your right as citizens to try to convince other citizens to agree with you. More power to you.

What you CAN'T do, and what people object to, is doing an end run around the law and the political process and the people to get what you want imposed on people by activist judges. It's cheating, and you're damned right there's something wrong with it.

Oh, spare me. You're worried about the tyranny of the majority expressed through the legal and Constitutional process of voting, and using it as an excuse for the more literal tyranny of the minority, expressed through saying, "I want it, and I'm taking it, and you can all just shut up because you can't stop me."

Whine to us about tyranny AFTER you stop trying to impose it, hypocrite.

How is the minority attempting to attain rights equal to those already granted to the majority tyranny?

We are not a truly democratic nation. Courts in the system crafted by our founding fathers are one of the mechanisms that check the majority and state judges are well within their authority to determine the legal meaning of state constitutions and federal judges and the SCOTUS to interpret the Constitution. I think gays have an extremely good case under the equal protection clause and the due process clause that should afford them the same rights under marriage as heterosexual couples.

And on a side note judicial activism does not equate to liberal. A shining example of judicial activism that I could scarcely imagine Republicans objecting to is the SCOTUS overturning the D.C. gun ban. I guess judicial activism is okay only if you agree with its outcome eh? (which in that case I agreed with the court)

 

[Zoom-boing]

Wrong, I have no problem with equality. I have problem with a minority shoving their view and their lifestyle into the face of others and insisting that it be accepted.

Whats wrong with a group of people trying to attain the same rights and benefits that are presently available to you? Just because they are comprised of a minority of the society doesnt make their conquest unjust. In fact I would argue that fighting for equal rights is a very just battle.

The fact that they are a "minority" is in and of itself of little consequence. James Madison warns of the "tyranny of the majority" or as he called it "the violence of the majority faction" in Federalist 10. Our Republic is not a true democratic state and has build in mechanisms to ensure that the rights of minority groups are not oppressed by an unjust majority.

Aside from the marriage thing, what rights do gays not have? Can they not vote, can they not adopt, can they not work, can they not have a dog?

 

[Bill O'Olberman]

Wrong, I have no problem with equality. I have problem with a minority shoving their view and their lifestyle into the face of others and insisting that it be accepted.

Whats wrong with a group of people trying to attain the same rights and benefits that are presently available to you? Just because they are comprised of a minority of the society doesnt make their conquest unjust. In fact I would argue that fighting for equal rights is a very just battle.

The fact that they are a "minority" is in and of itself of little consequence. James Madison warns of the "tyranny of the majority" or as he called it "the violence of the majority faction" in Federalist 10. Our Republic is not a true democratic state and has build in mechanisms to ensure that the rights of minority groups are not oppressed by an unjust majority.

Aside from the marriage thing, what rights do gays not have? Can they not vote, can they not adopt, can they not work, can they not have a dog?

There are numerous rights and benefits... the property rights associated with marriage such as automatic inheritance in the absence of a will. There is also immigration and residency for partners from other countries and the citizenship rights that can come with it marriage. Thats just a couple. There is a large umbrella of rights granted to people through marriage.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Aside from the marriage thing, what rights do gays not have? Can they not vote, can they not adopt, can they not work, can they not have a dog?

They can do all of those things, except have that if they marry the person they love it isn't recognized by the government. Therefore, they do not have equality under the law in this country. PERIOD. Do you not believe in equality, Zoom? Because I do, and I think everyone should be equal in the eyes of the law. I think everyone should be able to love and marry the person the wish unless it causes someone harm. If you can prove that homosexuality causes its practitioners harm, or anyone else, then you'll convince me. Until then, I stand for equality under the law.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Gays do not accept this and want to change it. The majority of this country does not agree with them and want the definition to remain as is.

Civil union, same rights/different name. Separate but equal. Works for me.