What rights are the gays missing?

[lawbuff]

I really don't give a crap if same sex couples marry each other. See the OP, I asked what rights were missing. So far, other than military service, nobody has shown that any rights are missing or violated based upon sexual orientation.

Unless the law was changed, sexual orientation was NOT a protected class in federal public accomodation laws. I have seen it in some states though.

The House just passed a bill that would include sexual orientation in HATE crimes. It goes to the Senate now!

Not sure about state housing laws including SO as they would race, etc.

 

[Setarcos]

I won't give you the one about marrying the person of their choice, because a non-homosexual can't marry a person of the same sex either if they choose to do so. That law applies equally to all sexual orientations.

Non-females couldn't vote if they weren't men, either. Nor could non-blacks vote if there skin was too dark. These laws applied equally to everybody

 

[Setarcos]

Fifty years ago, no American would have ever dreamed that there would be legal sodomite marriage, homos in the military, or faggot couples allowed to adopt children.

So it's not hard to imagine 50 years from now; legal pedophilia and legal beastuality.

Not long before that, noone could imagine ******* and females at the voting both Oh, for the good ol' days, eh?

 

[Setarcos]

They want the right to re-write the dictionary. A marriage is between a man and a woman. Now they want the word re-defined. From that point forward the word "pussy" will be a synonym for "cock".

You're really stupid aren't you?
Ask an anthropologist about marriage.
Ask a historian about marriage not long ago.

 

[mskafka]

Not long before that, noone could imagine ******* and females at the voting both Oh, for the good ol' days, eh?

OMG...I'm trying unsuccessfully not to laugh at this. Very witty.

 

[lawbuff]

Non-females couldn't vote if they weren't men, either.

Even before the 19th AM, some states permitted women to vote in local/state elections.

 

[Sunni Man]

The fact is that there is absolutely NO genetic, or biological distinction between those who claim to be homosexuals; which amounts to nothing more than one who chooses to obsess upon a sexual desire for those fo their own gender.

I want to make sure that I understand this correctly: you are saying that gays and lesbians choose to be this way? Fair enough. Many people believe this. I don't.

Why would anyone CHOOSE a lifestyle that is so difficult? Look up the statistics of gays and lesbians who drink or abuse drugs. It's HARD to live this way. Many of their families and friends reject them. Many of them will never have children. They have to deal with being reminded daily of how "different" or "odd" they are....the stares when they are together (even if they aren't showing affection, most people have "gaydar")...many religions condemn them to hell. There are so many reasons why gays and lesbians would not choose this lifestyle.

Homosexuality is a choice. Period.

There is NO scientific evidence otherwise. NO gay gene or DNA has been found.

Child molesters and rapists make a choice to molest and rape.,

Just like homosexuals, their lives are HARD and many friends and families members reject them.

But this is the perverted lifestyle they have CHOSEN to live.

They only have themselves to blame.

 

[Setarcos]

To be legally joined, so that they can visit each other in the hospital. Share benefits such as to be the life insurance beneficiery, health insurance, child custody, etc... I don't think that's unreasonable.

None of those are restricted based upon sexual orientation.
Try again.

Actually, they kinda are.

Straights can sign one contract and cover all their bases.

Homosexuals can file many many many pieces of paper and never get the same protections

 

[Setarcos]

Your kind owes a great debt to the gays. Even the computer you are using is based on Algorithms developed by Alen Turing.

So if Alan Turing hadn't been a fudge packer we wouldn't have computers???

Evidently, he had the same rights as everybody else, otherwise we wouldn't have computers.

That doesn't make sense

if it held up, we wouldn't have peanut butter

care to try again?

 

[Sunni Man]

So if Alan Turing hadn't been a fudge packer we wouldn't have computers???

Evidently, he had the same rights as everybody else, otherwise we wouldn't have computers.

That doesn't make sense

if it held up, we wouldn't have peanut butter

care to try again?

are you saying gays invented peanut butter????

 

[Setarcos]

Google it

 

[Qball]

Evidently, he had the same rights as everybody else, otherwise we wouldn't have computers.

That doesn't make sense

if it held up, we wouldn't have peanut butter

care to try again?

are you saying gays invented peanut butter????

 

[mskafka]

Homosexuality is a choice. Period.

I think the jury is still out on this subject. And I believe that eventually, it will be proven that it is NOT a choice. Just like at one time, people believed that grand mal seizures were demon possessions.

Child molesters and rapists make a choice to molest and rape.,

Just like homosexuals, their lives are HARD and many friends and families members reject them.

Apples and oranges. Gay and lesbian sex (unless both are underage)=two consenting adults, and is legal. Child molesters, rapists-one is not consenting...illegal. I don't see the connection.

 

[Setarcos]

Tell me when blacks got the same rights under the law

tell me when peanut butter, and pencil sharpeners were invented


MM's statement false apart- the possession of equal rights has nothing at all to do with the ability to uinvent

 

[mskafka]

I really don't give a crap if same sex couples marry each other. See the OP, I asked what rights were missing. So far, other than military service, nobody has shown that any rights are missing or violated based upon sexual orientation.

Unless the law was changed, sexual orientation was NOT a protected class in federal public accomodation laws. I have seen it in some states though.

The House just passed a bill that would include sexual orientation in HATE crimes. It goes to the Senate now!

Not sure about state housing laws including SO as they would race, etc.

It indeed is not. Most workplaces do not have laws that protect GLBT.

 

[alan1]

I won't give you the one about marrying the person of their choice, because a non-homosexual can't marry a person of the same sex either if they choose to do so. That law applies equally to all sexual orientations.

Non-females couldn't vote if they weren't men, either. Nor could non-blacks vote if there skin was too dark. These laws applied equally to everybody

And those laws no longer exist, do they?
Now tell me, can you identify somebody as homosexual just by looking at them? Can you or anybody else deny them a right just by looking at them?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

The fact is that there is absolutely NO genetic, or biological distinction between those who claim to be homosexuals; which amounts to nothing more than one who chooses to obsess upon a sexual desire for those fo their own gender.

I want to make sure that I understand this correctly: you are saying that gays and lesbians choose to be this way? Fair enough. Many people believe this. I don't.

You can believe that if you flap your arms you'll fly like an eagle... as long as you don't go to form coalitions to encourage congress to pass laws that promote the idea that flapping your arms will provide that you will fly like an eagle. Because the fact is, flapping your arms will result in many things... but flying like an eagle isn't one of them.

Like wise, believing that homosexuals have no choice in with whom they have sex... doesn't actually remove their choice; as is believing that the absence of a genetic distinction, that succumbing to an instinct, craving or any other influence is a result of a choice. You want to excuse the succumbing to the craving... Doesn't work for fags any more than it works for pedophiles, livestock fuckers or chronic masterbaters, mass murderers, klepto's, arsen's or any of the litanny of those who rationalize their needs supercede the rights and interests of another.

Why would anyone CHOOSE a lifestyle that is so difficult?

Weak moral character... It's the same for those who choose to enage in that which will certainly result in their being incarcerated for the rest of their lives; they failed to recognize and respect the responsibilities inherent in the human rights; thus set their 'need' to satisfy their cravings, or needs... over the well being of others.

Look up the statistics of gays and lesbians who drink or abuse drugs. It's HARD to live this way.

Yeah... they've made poor choices; that tends to result in hard lives.

Many of their families and friends reject them.

Yeah... I have a cousin who killed another cousin, who just happened to be his brother.

I've rejected him... and his queer brother. Again... poor decisions tend to result in rejection.

Many of them will never have children.

Wow... who could imagine that self absorbtion would result in such?

They have to deal with being reminded daily of how "different" or "odd" they are....the stares when they are together (even if they aren't showing affection, most people have "gaydar")...many religions condemn them to hell. There are so many reasons why gays and lesbians would not choose this lifestyle.

Yeah... that's the nature of being abnormal... it tends towards being 'different.'

Now imagine how people who can't help being what makes them different... A 7' tall person can't decide to not engage in tallness... A 3' tall midget can't decide to be of average height... A quadropolegic can't just decide to go for a walk and hug their children for a shame. In contrast to the lowly homosexual who decides to succumb to their abnormal cravings... thus deciding to be different; thus bringing upon themselves, their own problems.

 

[alan1]

Tell me when blacks got the same rights under the law

tell me when peanut butter, and pencil sharpeners were invented


MM's statement false apart- the possession of equal rights has nothing at all to do with the ability to uinvent

What statement are you referring to? So far, you haven't stated any rights that are specifically limited based upon sexual orientation.

 

[mskafka]

I won't give you the one about marrying the person of their choice, because a non-homosexual can't marry a person of the same sex either if they choose to do so. That law applies equally to all sexual orientations.

Non-females couldn't vote if they weren't men, either. Nor could non-blacks vote if there skin was too dark. These laws applied equally to everybody

And those laws no longer exist, do they?
Now tell me, can you identify somebody as homosexual just by looking at them? Can you or anybody else deny them a right just by looking at them?

One example that I can think of is a gay couple ("friends, partners, roommates") go to the emergency room at 3 AM for any illness. They are not legally related. They can't get married, because....2 men. So therefore, if a nurse or physician (and yes it does happen) is strongly anti-gay--they can have the person's significant other removed from the room, because most states...if not all....have no laws that protect the person's significant other. These 2 might have been together for 30 years, and it still doesn't matter.

There is something SERIOUSLY wrong with this.

 

[bodecea]

I won't give you the one about marrying the person of their choice, because a non-homosexual can't marry a person of the same sex either if they choose to do so. That law applies equally to all sexual orientations.

Non-females couldn't vote if they weren't men, either. Nor could non-blacks vote if there skin was too dark. These laws applied equally to everybody

And those laws no longer exist, do they?
Now tell me, can you identify somebody as homosexual just by looking at them? Can you or anybody else deny them a right just by looking at them?

What does how someone looks have to do with whether they get equal rights or not?