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

[Zoom-boing]

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.



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




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.




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.



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".



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?

Laws are changing re: fired for being gay.

Skin color is not a lifestyle. There are and always will be people who believe that homosexuality is wrong/a sin/immoral. The gay community would do well to accept that and move on, rather than trying to force acceptance from everyone. Tolerance from both sides is the answer.

I wonder who came up with the definition of homophobia because they missed the mark. They should have used a different word other than 'phobe/phobia', as phobia is a fear or dislike/loathing of something not discrimination of something.

pho·bia
noun \ˈfō-bē-ə\

: an extremely strong dislike or fear of someone or something

And no, people who are called 'homophobes' are not afraid that they themselves are gay nor are they afraid of gays. Sorry, not buying that. Ask anyone what a "phobia" is and they will say that it is "fear". Arachnophobia isn't a strong dislike of spiders and it sure isn't a discrimination against them, it is fear of them. No one fears the gay, no matter how much you say they do. Sorry.

Equal treatment. Same financial benefits that 'married' people get, right? Did you see my posts to Bfgrn?

"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.

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.

 

[AceRothstein]

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?

Great thread! Look at the company that right wing Americans want to join and then look at the company that left wing Americans want to join on this issue.

 

[aaronleland]

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.

Would you support not allowing atheists to use the term marriage? What about those who identify as non-religious? Why is it the word that bothers people so much in the first place? It's completely irrational.

 

[g5000]

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. No one has ever said that. Congratulations, you started your topic both with a false premise and a strawman fallacy!

 

[Moonglow]

and?

And? Do you not acknowledge your folly?

Liberals like you claim America is homophobic, yet the only thing they can't do is marry. Nobody is trying to stop them from being gay here. Elsewhere in the world is a different story. You lash out at Christians for being bigots and homophobes, but ignore the extremist Muslims in the middle east and Africa who are murdering and beheading them. Don't play coy with me.

I'm calling you out for being rank hypocrites on gay marriage.

Rome wasn't built in a day, one nation at a time...

 

[aaronleland]

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.

Nobody has claimed that America is an obstacle to being gay. The religious right is an obstacle to gays receiving the same marriage benefits as heterosexual couples.

 

[g5000]

Gays and liberals like you don't seem to notice that America isn't the obstacle to being gay, it never has been.

This is an expression of profound historical ignorance.

 

[jillian]

and?

And? Do you not acknowledge your folly?

what folly? i acknowledge the silliness of your premise…

Liberals like you claim America is homophobic

you don't know WHAT i claim. I don't think America is homophobic at all. America, largely, doesn't care about sexuality. That would be the purview of the radical right.

yet the only thing they can't do is marry

marriage is a fundamental right (See, Loving v Virginia). If it is fundamental to consenting adults (READ: CONSENTING ADULTS not children, not sheep

Nobody is trying to stop them from being gay here. Elsewhere in the world is a different story. You lash out at Christians for being bigots and homophobes, but ignore the extremist Muslims in the middle east and Africa who are murdering and beheading them. Don't play coy with me.

I'm calling you out for being rank hypocrites on gay marriage.

actually there ARE people here trying to keep them from being gay…. those loons go to places like russia and uganda because their idiocy doesn't fly in most parts of this country and won't pass constitutional muster. minimally, rightwing wackadooddles are making the same arguments the racists made when passing anti-miscegenation laws.

if you don't approve of gay marriage, don't get gay married. our constitution doesn't give a flying about your approval.

you call "me* out? lmao…

perhaps you should first devise a premise that passes the laugh test.

good luck with that.

 

[Zoom-boing]

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.

Would you support not allowing atheists to use the term marriage? What about those who identify as non-religious? Why is it the word that bothers people so much in the first place? It's completely irrational.

It's not about the term, per se, it's about what marriage is. Marriage is between one man/one woman. The objection is that the gay community wants to forcefully change what the majority of this country believes.

There is a compromise where both sides would win. Read the rest of my posts in this thread on this.

 

[aaronleland]

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.

Would you support not allowing atheists to use the term marriage? What about those who identify as non-religious? Why is it the word that bothers people so much in the first place? It's completely irrational.

It's not about the term, per se, it's about what marriage is. Marriage is between one man/one woman. The objection is that the gay community wants to forcefully change what the majority of this country believes.

There is a compromise where both sides would win. Read the rest of my posts in this thread on this.

Do you stand by the belief that marriage is a religious institution? If so, do you oppose atheists calling their unions marriage? If not, why should compromise be necessary over such an irrational belief?

 

[Newby]

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.

Then reform what a 'civil union' is.

 

[Zoom-boing]

and?

And? Do you not acknowledge your folly?

what folly? i acknowledge the silliness of your premise…



you don't know WHAT i claim. I don't think America is homophobic at all. America, largely, doesn't care about sexuality. That would be the purview of the radical right.

yet the only thing they can't do is marry

marriage is a fundamental right (See, Loving v Virginia). If it is fundamental to consenting adults (READ: CONSENTING ADULTS not children, not sheep

Nobody is trying to stop them from being gay here. Elsewhere in the world is a different story. You lash out at Christians for being bigots and homophobes, but ignore the extremist Muslims in the middle east and Africa who are murdering and beheading them. Don't play coy with me.

I'm calling you out for being rank hypocrites on gay marriage.

actually there ARE people here trying to keep them from being gay…. those loons go to places like russia and uganda because their idiocy doesn't fly in most parts of this country and won't pass constitutional muster. minimally, rightwing wackadooddles are making the same arguments the racists made when passing anti-miscegenation laws.

if you don't approve of gay marriage, don't get gay married. our constitution doesn't give a flying about your approval.

you call "me* out? lmao…

perhaps you should first devise a premise that passes the laugh test.

good luck with that.

L v V was about a black woman and a white man, not two men or two women. It was race-based not gender based.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Would you support not allowing atheists to use the term marriage? What about those who identify as non-religious? Why is it the word that bothers people so much in the first place? It's completely irrational.

It's not about the term, per se, it's about what marriage is. Marriage is between one man/one woman. The objection is that the gay community wants to forcefully change what the majority of this country believes.

There is a compromise where both sides would win. Read the rest of my posts in this thread on this.

lol, the author of this thread believes that polygamy is also a legitimate form of marriage. Go argue with him.

Same sex marriage is just as legitimate as opposite sex marriage. Same sex marriage is how two people of the same sex get married. It's no more complicated than that.

De facto same sex marriage has always been around. It happens to be a component of the so-called gay 'lifestyle', just like marriage is a component of the heterosexual 'lifestyle'.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Would you support not allowing atheists to use the term marriage? What about those who identify as non-religious? Why is it the word that bothers people so much in the first place? It's completely irrational.

It's not about the term, per se, it's about what marriage is. Marriage is between one man/one woman. The objection is that the gay community wants to forcefully change what the majority of this country believes.

There is a compromise where both sides would win. Read the rest of my posts in this thread on this.

Do you stand by the belief that marriage is a religious institution? If so, do you oppose atheists calling their unions marriage? If not, why should compromise be necessary over such an irrational belief?

Not today, no. Government is involved.

Not as long as they are one man, one woman.

Change what is included in civil unions and leave marriage as one man, one woman.

Everyone wins.

 

[Seawytch]

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

Laws are changing re: fired for being gay.

Skin color is not a lifestyle. There are and always will be people who believe that homosexuality is wrong/a sin/immoral. The gay community would do well to accept that and move on, rather than trying to force acceptance from everyone. Tolerance from both sides is the answer.

I wonder who came up with the definition of homophobia because they missed the mark. They should have used a different word other than 'phobe/phobia', as phobia is a fear or dislike/loathing of something not discrimination of something.

pho·bia
noun \ˈfō-bē-ə\

: an extremely strong dislike or fear of someone or something

And no, people who are called 'homophobes' are not afraid that they themselves are gay nor are they afraid of gays. Sorry, not buying that. Ask anyone what a "phobia" is and they will say that it is "fear". Arachnophobia isn't a strong dislike of spiders and it sure isn't a discrimination against them, it is fear of them. No one fears the gay, no matter how much you say they do. Sorry.

Equal treatment. Same financial benefits that 'married' people get, right? Did you see my posts to Bfgrn?

"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.

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.

Civil Unions for all would be fine. Civil Marriage for straights and Civil Unions for gays would be unconstitutional. Change it for everyone since you have a problem with the word.

 

[Kosh]

This whole thing boils down to two things and two things only.

Some in the gay community want to use the term "marriage" in order to punish the church and the other is so they can get at their partners Social Security money other than that, the whole gay "rights" fight is nothing more than an illusion.

 

[rightwinger]

This whole thing boils down to two things and two things only.

Some in the gay community want to use the term "marriage" in order to punish the church and the other is so they can get at their partners Social Security money other than that, the whole gay "rights" fight is nothing more than an illusion.

What's love got to do, got to do with it?
What's love but a second hand emotion?

 

[American4Americ]

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?

While I despise gay marriage, as it is not actually marriage, this argument isn't a good one


The way I am perceiving you: Because there are worse countries in the world to be gay, gays should feel perfectly content with the freedoms they have. Gays should NOT fight for their rights here, because there other people in the world who fight for their lives.





That is akin to saying that Americans should not protest for freedom, because countries like North Korea, or China do not even have freedom. Americans should be content with the freedom they have.

 

[J.E.D]

This thread is useless.

Well, it's a tk thread; so, its uselessness is a given.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Who care what the guy done the street chooses to marry? Do you want the government to force him not to?