Gays have it made! Places in the world where it's actually not okay to be gay

[Dutch]

Given all the hullabaloo over gay rights in America, one should assume that America is the worst place in the world to be gay, right? Wrong. There are places in this world that will kill you, or imprison you for inordinate amounts of time for being gay. So why, homosexuals/liberals do you act as if America is the worst place for a gay person to be? They have it made here in America. You fight for rights, homosexuals around the world are fighting for their lives.

Surprising isn't it?

And what do those countrys have in common? They are either religious fundamentalist countires, third world countries, or countries with low education standards. The rest of the world has Progressed on the issue.

 

[bodecea]

Given all the hullabaloo over gay rights in America, one should assume that America is the worst place in the world to be gay, right? Wrong. There are places in this world that will kill you, or imprison you for inordinate amounts of time for being gay. So why, homosexuals/liberals do you act as if America is the worst place for a gay person to be? They have it made here in America. You fight for rights, homosexuals around the world are fighting for their lives.

Surprising isn't it?

Well then, we should thank our lucky stars that at least we don't get killed here.

 

[bodecea]

Next time a Christian bitches about some perceived persecution I'll just point out to them all the places in the world where it's not okay to be Christian. Bake that gay cake. At least you aren't being beheaded.

Aaron. That is a deflection, and a dodge.

Gays and liberals like you don't seem to notice that America isn't the obstacle to being gay, it never has been. You claim that homosexuals are being repressed in America, but they come nowhere close to being such.

I won't bake that gay cake, not if I have to put my religious rights into the mixing bowl. No sir.

He claimed that? Link, please.

 

[Bfgrn]

Other than marriage, what "equal rights" do gays not have that non-gays have?



Why is it that the left demands acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle from everyone but they refuse to show tolerance for a differing pov on homosexuality?

What makes anyone think that just because some people do not understand/approve of/believe homosexuality is moral that means they are afraid of homosexuals?

It would serve this country well if both sides would stfu with their ridiculous blathering nonsense and find some common ground.

OK, then start telling your ilk to grant equal marriage rights to gays and tell Republican legislators to stick new Jim Crow laws up their asses.

So the marriage thing is the only "right" that gays don't have. Is that correct? Then the whole "gays rights" meme is false, yet constantly repeated. Why is that?

My "ilk"? Sorry, I don't have an ilk. I knew an elk once, her name was Anne.

"Grant equal marriage rights". Well, no. Civil unions should be available to all, with all financial benefits of 'marriage'; 'marriage' should be left to the discretion of the religious. That seems fair, doesn't it?

Why are you ok with a very small minority of people telling the vast majority of people that they must redefine what the word "marriage" means? Why is it that, once again, the majority must bend to the will of the minority? Where is the middle ground from the gay side? Whenever someone disagrees with the homosexual lifestyle they are labeled "homophobes". Where is the tolerance?

My observation has been that for the most part, those who support homosexuality will tolerate nothing but full acceptance from those who view homosexuality differently. They need to change their mindset and accept tolerance.

It has nothing to do with a Church recognizing 'marriage'. Civil Unions do not equal marriage rights.

Benefits:

The General Accounting Office in 1997 released a list of 1,049 benefits and protections available to heterosexual married couples. These benefits range from federal benefits, such as survivor benefits through Social Security, sick leave to care for ailing partner, tax breaks, veterans benefits and insurance breaks. They also include things like family discounts, obtaining family insurance through your employer, visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to. Civil Unions protect some of these rights, but not all of them.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Other than marriage, what "equal rights" do gays not have that non-gays have?

That isn't enough? Of course, there are also 30 states in which I can be fired for being gay. Which one can you be fired in for being Christian?

Then it's "right" not "rights". By consistently stating "rights" you give the (false) impression that there are many which is a lie.

Homosexuality is a religion?

There are laws that prevent someone from being fired for being gay. They are increasing.

While the twenty-nine states shown in red above may currently lack statewide laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, it is not true that all employers in all of those states may freely fire employees "for being gay." Some of those red states have laws which protect public (i.e., government) employees from sexual orientation discrimination (but not those who work in the private sector), some of those states have laws passed at county or city levels which protect employees in those local areas from such discrimination, and some of those states protect public employees from employment discrimination through means other than laws (e.g., executive orders, administrative orders, personnel regulations).

Read more at snopes.com: Fired for Being Gay

Why is it that the left demands acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle from everyone but they refuse to show tolerance for a differing pov on homosexuality?

What sort of "intolerance" are we showing? Are we trying to get legislation passed that would make your POV illegal or anything? Are we not allowed to point out intolerance?

Intolerance of anything less that full acceptance. As an example, just on this board, anyone who shows a differing opinion of homosexuality is called a homophobe, which is false.

What makes anyone think that just because some people do not understand/approve of/believe homosexuality is moral that means they are afraid of homosexuals?

Nobody thinks anyone is "afraid" of gays. Homophobia isn't a fear of gays themselves, but the fear of being gay themselves. Regardless, the dictionary definition of homophobia is: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals.

Thank you for providing an example of the intolerance I was speaking about. Did you just make that up?

A phobia is a persistent fear of something. People who disagree with the homosexual lifestyle don't fear them/it (nor do they fear that they are gay, what a crock) and it's ridiculous to constantly say this. They do not accept it. However, their lack of acceptance does not mean that they are intolerant. Some? Of course and that will always be the case and the gay population needs to accept that. But to broad brush everyone is wrong.

It would serve this country well if both sides would stfu with their ridiculous blathering nonsense and find some common ground.

The common ground is equal rights for gays and lesbians.

You did it again.

.

 

[bodecea]

Given all the hullabaloo over gay rights in America, one should assume that America is the worst place in the world to be gay, right? Wrong. There are places in this world that will kill you, or imprison you for inordinate amounts of time for being gay. So why, homosexuals/liberals do you act as if America is the worst place for a gay person to be? They have it made here in America. You fight for rights, homosexuals around the world are fighting for their lives.

Surprising isn't it?

I have never heard anyone say the US is the worst place to be gay. This thread is useless.

You don't get out much do you?

Alabama: the worst place to be gay in Bush's America?

They even went as far as blaming Bush for it.

Well well...Let me clue you in...to say someplace is the "worst place in America to be gay" is slightly...ever so slightly...different than saying someplace is the "worst place in the world to be gay".

 

[Zoom-boing]

OK, then start telling your ilk to grant equal marriage rights to gays and tell Republican legislators to stick new Jim Crow laws up their asses.

So the marriage thing is the only "right" that gays don't have. Is that correct? Then the whole "gays rights" meme is false, yet constantly repeated. Why is that?

My "ilk"? Sorry, I don't have an ilk. I knew an elk once, her name was Anne.

"Grant equal marriage rights". Well, no. Civil unions should be available to all, with all financial benefits of 'marriage'; 'marriage' should be left to the discretion of the religious. That seems fair, doesn't it?

Why are you ok with a very small minority of people telling the vast majority of people that they must redefine what the word "marriage" means? Why is it that, once again, the majority must bend to the will of the minority? Where is the middle ground from the gay side? Whenever someone disagrees with the homosexual lifestyle they are labeled "homophobes". Where is the tolerance?

My observation has been that for the most part, those who support homosexuality will tolerate nothing but full acceptance from those who view homosexuality differently. They need to change their mindset and accept tolerance.

It has nothing to do with a Church recognizing 'marriage'. Civil Unions do not equal marriage rights.

Benefits:

The General Accounting Office in 1997 released a list of 1,049 benefits and protections available to heterosexual married couples. These benefits range from federal benefits, such as survivor benefits through Social Security, sick leave to care for ailing partner, tax breaks, veterans benefits and insurance breaks. They also include things like family discounts, obtaining family insurance through your employer, visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to. Civil Unions protect some of these rights, but not all of them.

You didn't read my post, did you?

"Grant equal marriage rights". Well, no. Civil unions should be available to all, with all financial benefits of 'marriage'; 'marriage' should be left to the discretion of the religious. That seems fair, doesn't it?

In other words, change what is included in civil unions.

What is wrong with this? It's a compromise from both sides. Gay people get the financial benefits (which is what they are seeking with 'gay marriage') and straight people do not have to lose the definition of 'marriage being between one man/one woman'. Both sides give, both sides win.

 

[Dutch]

Templar, I thought you said last night you were over the Gay issue? Are you finally losing your mind?

 

[rightwinger]

During slavery there were worse places to be a slave

What are you darkies complaining about? Get back to work

 

[Bfgrn]

So the marriage thing is the only "right" that gays don't have. Is that correct? Then the whole "gays rights" meme is false, yet constantly repeated. Why is that?

My "ilk"? Sorry, I don't have an ilk. I knew an elk once, her name was Anne.

"Grant equal marriage rights". Well, no. Civil unions should be available to all, with all financial benefits of 'marriage'; 'marriage' should be left to the discretion of the religious. That seems fair, doesn't it?

Why are you ok with a very small minority of people telling the vast majority of people that they must redefine what the word "marriage" means? Why is it that, once again, the majority must bend to the will of the minority? Where is the middle ground from the gay side? Whenever someone disagrees with the homosexual lifestyle they are labeled "homophobes". Where is the tolerance?

My observation has been that for the most part, those who support homosexuality will tolerate nothing but full acceptance from those who view homosexuality differently. They need to change their mindset and accept tolerance.

It has nothing to do with a Church recognizing 'marriage'. Civil Unions do not equal marriage rights.

Benefits:

The General Accounting Office in 1997 released a list of 1,049 benefits and protections available to heterosexual married couples. These benefits range from federal benefits, such as survivor benefits through Social Security, sick leave to care for ailing partner, tax breaks, veterans benefits and insurance breaks. They also include things like family discounts, obtaining family insurance through your employer, visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to. Civil Unions protect some of these rights, but not all of them.

You didn't read my post, did you?

"Grant equal marriage rights". Well, no. Civil unions should be available to all, with all financial benefits of 'marriage'; 'marriage' should be left to the discretion of the religious. That seems fair, doesn't it?

In other words, change what is included in civil unions.

What is wrong with this? It's a compromise from both sides. Gay people get the financial benefits (which is what they are seeking with 'gay marriage') and straight people do not have to lose the definition of 'marriage being between one man/one woman'. Both sides give, both sides win.

That would be fine, but it would have to be done at the Federal level.

Vermont was the first state to create civil unions in 2000 to provide legal protections to gays and lesbians in relationships in that state because gay marriage was not an option. The protections did not extend beyond the border of Vermont and no federal protections are included with a Civil Union. Civil Unions offer some of the same rights and responsibilities as marriage, but only on a state level.

Civil Unions are not recognized by the federal government, so couples would not be able to file joint-tax returns or be eligible for tax breaks or protections the government affords to married couples.

Recognition in other states: Even though each state has its own laws around marriage, if someone is married in one state and moves to another, their marriage is legally recognized. For example, Oregon marriage law applies to people 17 and over. In Washington state, the couple must be 18 to wed. However, Washington will recognize the marriage of two 17 year olds from Oregon who move there. This is not the case with Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships. If someone has a Domestic Partnership, that union is recognized by some states and not others. Some states have even ruled that they do not have to recognize civil unions performed in other states, because their states have no such legal category. As gay marriages become legal in other states, this status may change.

 

[Plasmaball]

Given all the hullabaloo over gay rights in America, one should assume that America is the worst place in the world to be gay, right? Wrong. There are places in this world that will kill you, or imprison you for inordinate amounts of time for being gay. So why, homosexuals/liberals do you act as if America is the worst place for a gay person to be? They have it made here in America. You fight for rights, homosexuals around the world are fighting for their lives.

Surprising isn't it?

I thought you didn't care about this issue? Took you less than a day to lie.

 

[Zoom-boing]

It has nothing to do with a Church recognizing 'marriage'. Civil Unions do not equal marriage rights.

Benefits:

The General Accounting Office in 1997 released a list of 1,049 benefits and protections available to heterosexual married couples. These benefits range from federal benefits, such as survivor benefits through Social Security, sick leave to care for ailing partner, tax breaks, veterans benefits and insurance breaks. They also include things like family discounts, obtaining family insurance through your employer, visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to. Civil Unions protect some of these rights, but not all of them.

You didn't read my post, did you?

"Grant equal marriage rights". Well, no. Civil unions should be available to all, with all financial benefits of 'marriage'; 'marriage' should be left to the discretion of the religious. That seems fair, doesn't it?

In other words, change what is included in civil unions.

What is wrong with this? It's a compromise from both sides. Gay people get the financial benefits (which is what they are seeking with 'gay marriage') and straight people do not have to lose the definition of 'marriage being between one man/one woman'. Both sides give, both sides win.

That would be fine, but it would have to be done at the Federal level.

Vermont was the first state to create civil unions in 2000 to provide legal protections to gays and lesbians in relationships in that state because gay marriage was not an option. The protections did not extend beyond the border of Vermont and no federal protections are included with a Civil Union. Civil Unions offer some of the same rights and responsibilities as marriage, but only on a state level.

Civil Unions are not recognized by the federal government, so couples would not be able to file joint-tax returns or be eligible for tax breaks or protections the government affords to married couples.

Recognition in other states: Even though each state has its own laws around marriage, if someone is married in one state and moves to another, their marriage is legally recognized. For example, Oregon marriage law applies to people 17 and over. In Washington state, the couple must be 18 to wed. However, Washington will recognize the marriage of two 17 year olds from Oregon who move there. This is not the case with Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships. If someone has a Domestic Partnership, that union is recognized by some states and not others. Some states have even ruled that they do not have to recognize civil unions performed in other states, because their states have no such legal category. As gay marriages become legal in other states, this status may change.

Why hasn't changing what is included in civil unions been the route taken, rather than redefining 'marriage'? Wouldn't this be much more likely (and less difficult?) to accomplish? To me it would be anyways.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

Not quite sure what the point is here - third world countries are the barometer by which we live our lives?

Why don't we not worry about the rest of the world and set our own standard of how we wish to live?

I chose freedom through living out the creed of the constitution and the glorious vision of our founding fathers wished for us.

 

[rightwinger]

Not quite sure what the point is here - third world countries are the barometer by which we live our lives?

Why don't we not worry about the rest of the world and set our own standard of how we wish to live?

I chose freedom through living out the creed of the constitution and the glorious vision of our founding fathers wished for us.

TK sets his goals on being better than a third world country

America used to claim to be leader of the free world, now TK is happy if we are better than a puppet dictatorship

 

[NYcarbineer]

Next time a Christian bitches about some perceived persecution I'll just point out to them all the places in the world where it's not okay to be Christian. Bake that gay cake. At least you aren't being beheaded.

And the same goes for the next hysterical outburst from the gun rights extremists.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Given all the hullabaloo over gay rights in America, one should assume that America is the worst place in the world to be gay, right? Wrong. There are places in this world that will kill you, or imprison you for inordinate amounts of time for being gay. So why, homosexuals/liberals do you act as if America is the worst place for a gay person to be? They have it made here in America. You fight for rights, homosexuals around the world are fighting for their lives.

Surprising isn't it?

Why don't you send an angry email to Jan Brewer?

 

[LeftofLeft]

During slavery there were worse places to be a slave

What are you darkies complaning about? Get back to work

Good point. Those worse places were the ones that started slave trade and many still engage today.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Given all the hullabaloo over gay rights in America, one should assume that America is the worst place in the world to be gay, right? Wrong. There are places in this world that will kill you, or imprison you for inordinate amounts of time for being gay. So why, homosexuals/liberals do you act as if America is the worst place for a gay person to be? They have it made here in America. You fight for rights, homosexuals around the world are fighting for their lives.

Surprising isn't it?

Looks to me like you've found plenty of places you can move to, and pursue your boyhood dreams of becoming a wedding planner,

without fear of molestation by the gays...

 

[Seawytch]

Other than marriage, what "equal rights" do gays not have that non-gays have?

That isn't enough? Of course, there are also 30 states in which I can be fired for being gay. Which one can you be fired in for being Christian?

Then it's "right" not "rights". By consistently stating "rights" you give the (false) impression that there are many which is a lie.

Homosexuality is a religion?

I guess it depends on whether you think workplace protections are "rights". You have the right to openly display your religion in all 50 states without fear of being fired. In 30 if I display a picture of my spouse I can be fired.

There are laws that prevent someone from being fired for being gay. They are increasing.


Read more at snopes.com: Fired for Being Gay

Good. Pass ENDA like the majority of Americans want and it will be all 50.

What sort of "intolerance" are we showing? Are we trying to get legislation passed that would make your POV illegal or anything? Are we not allowed to point out intolerance?

Intolerance of anything less that full acceptance. As an example, just on this board, anyone who shows a differing opinion of homosexuality is called a homophobe, which is false.

Not according to the dictionary it isn't false: "aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals."

If you don't think I should have equal access to the same marriage protections you have, you wish to discriminate. That is the dictionary definition of homophobia. Bigot works just fine for me though.

Nobody thinks anyone is "afraid" of gays. Homophobia isn't a fear of gays themselves, but the fear of being gay themselves. Regardless, the dictionary definition of homophobia is: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals.

Thank you for providing an example of the intolerance I was speaking about. Did you just make that up?

How is it intolerant to point out the "phobia" part comes from their fear of the gay in them? Studies have shown it to be true.

A phobia is a persistent fear of something. People who disagree with the homosexual lifestyle don't fear them/it (nor do they fear that they are gay, what a crock) and it's ridiculous to constantly say this. They do not accept it. However, their lack of acceptance does not mean that they are intolerant. Some? Of course and that will always be the case and the gay population needs to accept that. But to broad brush everyone is wrong.

Can you "disagree" with skin color? How do you "disagree" with the way I was born? You can "disagree" all you want to, when you try to keep me from equal access to this nations laws and protections, you've gone beyond "disagree".

It would serve this country well if both sides would stfu with their ridiculous blathering nonsense and find some common ground.

The common ground is equal rights for gays and lesbians.

You did it again.

Yes, I pointed out that gays want equal treatment. Where is the "common ground" in opposition?

 

[Dutch]

Slobs that sit on the internet all day with no job have it better in America than those countries too. Instead of going to the village pump for your water and eating beef maybe once a month, you can just order Domino's with a 2 liter of coke.