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

[J.E.D]

Just yesterday....

Geez, you know it just hit me... all that arguing I did was pointless. I've come to the conclusion that there are bigger issues that gay marriage out there. Why are we so easily distracted by social issues? Same goes for legalizing pot. While I want that legalized, there are simply more serious issues on the table than these. Seriously folks, lets get our priorities straight here.

Is that why you started a few threads on gays and gay marriage a few days ago?

That was a few days ago. Then it hit me. This issue is superfluous. You have millions of people losing their healthcare, people not looking for work, you have serious shit going on in the Ukraine and Venezuela, and we're over here more worried about gay marriage? What was I thinking!? What are we thinking?!

Today...

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.

Dude, you're a joke

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

So, if America weren't an obstacle, why are liberals making gay rights an issue in America of all places?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Obviously you’re unaware of the idiocy that is this post.

You’re actually making the moronic ‘case’ that gay Americans should shut up, stay quite, and be grateful that they’re ‘only’ being denied their right to equal protection of the law, because gays in other parts of the world ‘have it worse.’

The ignorance and contempt for the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law exhibited by you and most others on the right is truly sad – not surprising – but sad nonetheless.

 

[J.E.D]

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.

So, if America weren't an obstacle, why are liberals making gay rights an issue in America of all places?

Because they're being banned from marrying each other; singled out from heterosexuals. Should they be happy that at least they're not being imprisoned or executed for their sexuality? Should pre-civil rights blacks have been satisfied with being segregated because at least they were allowed to walk down the street without being executed for the color of their skin (though in some cases they weren't even that lucky)?

Stop being obtuse.

 

[Pogo]

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?

Why would it mean that? Doesn't make sense.

Are we the worst country in the world? Or are we a country based on freedom of thought where such can be hashed out?

Weird thread dood.

 

[Pogo]

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.

This one makes even less sense, if that's possible.

What the **** do you expect people to do? We should all go invade Uganda and set them straight? So to speak?

Didn't work this logic out before you posted huh....

 

[Zoom-boing]

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?

"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.

You didn't answer my question. Why did homosexuals go after changing the definition of marriage rather than redefine what civil union is? If that had been the route taken much of this uproar wouldn't be taking place.

That you think it's 'just a word' is part of the problem. 65+% of the population believe that marriage is and should remain one man/one woman and that you and others don't even acknowledge what that 65% believe shows your intolerance.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Using the legal term "marriage" is punishing the church? Tell that to all the people over the years and years and years who got married no where near any church.

 

[Political Junky]

The countries that punish homosexuals are right wing theocracies, poorly educated, or both.

 

[Borillar]

Could someone help me understand the point of this thread? Is TK saying the gays should just be happy and STFU because nobody is beheading us or putting us in jail for life like Uganda? We should stop fighting for equal rights here because gays elsewhere may never have equal rights?

I think the op thinks gays have it too easy here. Probably wants the US to adopt stringent anti gay laws like Uganda, so gays will either go back in the closet or suffer dire consequences.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Could someone help me understand the point of this thread? Is TK saying the gays should just be happy and STFU because nobody is beheading us or putting us in jail for life like Uganda? We should stop fighting for equal rights here because gays elsewhere may never have equal rights?

I think the op thinks gays have it too easy here. Probably wants the US to adopt stringent anti gay laws like Uganda, so gays will either go back in the closet or suffer dire consequences.

What he wants is everyone to be like he is. One big happy planet, of morons.

 

[Seawytch]

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?

"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.

You didn't answer my question. Why did homosexuals go after changing the definition of marriage rather than redefine what civil union is? If that had been the route taken much of this uproar wouldn't be taking place.

We aren't changing the definition of anything. The definition of voting did not change when blacks and women could do it, marriage has not changed because in 17 states gays can do it.

Can you tell me in which of the 50 states gays have said "no" to Civil Unions? Don't bother trying to look, there aren't any. There are, however, quite a few states that have not only banned same sex marriage, but civil unions as well. Some states make their language so specific that same sex couples cannot enter into anything that vaguely resembles a civil union. States forbid localities from providing same sex partner benefits. Does that sound like it's "the gheys" turning down anything?

That you think it's 'just a word' is part of the problem. 65+% of the population believe that marriage is and should remain one man/one woman and that you and others don't even acknowledge what that 65% believe shows your intolerance.

You haven't checked the polls in a few years have you?

 

[Seawytch]

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.

This one makes even less sense, if that's possible.

What the **** do you expect people to do? We should all go invade Uganda and set them straight? So to speak?

Didn't work this logic out before you posted huh....

According to this guy, we don't have the "right" to tell Uganda their laws are bigoted.

He's wrong of course and with marriage equality an inevitability here, the gay community and their straight allies need to turn their attention and outrage to countries like Uganda and Russia...especially since American Evangelicals are the driving force behind these horrific laws.

 

[TheOldSchool]

It's amazing how obsessed TK is with gay people. Just thought I'd chime in for being negged

 

[Listening]

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.

Pretty much like all the threads you start.

 

[Zoom-boing]

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.

You didn't answer my question. Why did homosexuals go after changing the definition of marriage rather than redefine what civil union is? If that had been the route taken much of this uproar wouldn't be taking place.

We aren't changing the definition of anything. The definition of voting did not change when blacks and women could do it, marriage has not changed because in 17 states gays can do it.

Can you tell me in which of the 50 states gays have said "no" to Civil Unions? Don't bother trying to look, there aren't any. There are, however, quite a few states that have not only banned same sex marriage, but civil unions as well. Some states make their language so specific that same sex couples cannot enter into anything that vaguely resembles a civil union. States forbid localities from providing same sex partner benefits. Does that sound like it's "the gheys" turning down anything?

That you think it's 'just a word' is part of the problem. 65+% of the population believe that marriage is and should remain one man/one woman and that you and others don't even acknowledge what that 65% believe shows your intolerance.

You haven't checked the polls in a few years have you?

Marriage = one man/one woman. Now? Marriage redefined to be one man/one woman/ one man/one man/ one woman/one woman. The homosexual community most certainly is trying to change the definition.

Stop being obtuse. S/s marriage was pushed, state after state said no, and instead of going to route of changing what was included in civil unions the homosexual community went after marriage. A small minority insisted the large majority accommodate them but never bothered to try and to do the accommodating themselves. Typical progressive tactic. Like I said earlier, full acceptance is the goal rather than tolerance and the way marriage has been redefined by the gays shows that. Did the homosexual community ever look at how many states refused ssm and that the majority of people agree with the definition of marriage as one man/one woman, take that into consideration, and instead of forcing the change of marriage pursue changing what was included in civil unions instead? Never mind, we all know the answer and we all know why.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Could someone help me understand the point of this thread? Is TK saying the gays should just be happy and STFU because nobody is beheading us or putting us in jail for life like Uganda? We should stop fighting for equal rights here because gays elsewhere may never have equal rights?

Yep, that’s it.

Just when you thought the OP couldn’t be any more childish, ignorant, and idiotic, he comes up with this moronic gem.

 

[Seawytch]

You didn't answer my question. Why did homosexuals go after changing the definition of marriage rather than redefine what civil union is? If that had been the route taken much of this uproar wouldn't be taking place.

We aren't changing the definition of anything. The definition of voting did not change when blacks and women could do it, marriage has not changed because in 17 states gays can do it.

Can you tell me in which of the 50 states gays have said "no" to Civil Unions? Don't bother trying to look, there aren't any. There are, however, quite a few states that have not only banned same sex marriage, but civil unions as well. Some states make their language so specific that same sex couples cannot enter into anything that vaguely resembles a civil union. States forbid localities from providing same sex partner benefits. Does that sound like it's "the gheys" turning down anything?

That you think it's 'just a word' is part of the problem. 65+% of the population believe that marriage is and should remain one man/one woman and that you and others don't even acknowledge what that 65% believe shows your intolerance.

You haven't checked the polls in a few years have you?

Marriage = one man/one woman. Now? Marriage redefined to be one man/one woman/ one man/one man/ one woman/one woman. The homosexual community most certainly is trying to change the definition.

Stop being obtuse. S/s marriage was pushed, state after state said no, and instead of going to route of changing what was included in civil unions the homosexual community went after marriage. A small minority insisted the large majority accommodate them but never bothered to try and to do the accommodating themselves. Typical progressive tactic. Like I said earlier, full acceptance is the goal rather than tolerance and the way marriage has been redefined by the gays shows that. Did the homosexual community ever look at how many states refused ssm and that the majority of people agree with the definition of marriage as one man/one woman, take that into consideration, and instead of forcing the change of marriage pursue changing what was included in civil unions instead? Never mind, we all know the answer and we all know why.

No, that is the way you define marriage, it is not the definition of marriage. I would define it as the state of being united to a person in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law.

Full equality is the goal and nothing more. We really don't care if some homophobes don't "accept" us as long as we're treated equally under the law.

And no, the "majority" no longer think that marriage is only a man/woman thing. The majority thinks the men/men and the women/women should get to marry too. I showed you the polls.

 

[Zoom-boing]

We aren't changing the definition of anything. The definition of voting did not change when blacks and women could do it, marriage has not changed because in 17 states gays can do it.

Can you tell me in which of the 50 states gays have said "no" to Civil Unions? Don't bother trying to look, there aren't any. There are, however, quite a few states that have not only banned same sex marriage, but civil unions as well. Some states make their language so specific that same sex couples cannot enter into anything that vaguely resembles a civil union. States forbid localities from providing same sex partner benefits. Does that sound like it's "the gheys" turning down anything?



You haven't checked the polls in a few years have you?

Marriage = one man/one woman. Now? Marriage redefined to be one man/one woman/ one man/one man/ one woman/one woman. The homosexual community most certainly is trying to change the definition.

Stop being obtuse. S/s marriage was pushed, state after state said no, and instead of going to route of changing what was included in civil unions the homosexual community went after marriage. A small minority insisted the large majority accommodate them but never bothered to try and to do the accommodating themselves. Typical progressive tactic. Like I said earlier, full acceptance is the goal rather than tolerance and the way marriage has been redefined by the gays shows that. Did the homosexual community ever look at how many states refused ssm and that the majority of people agree with the definition of marriage as one man/one woman, take that into consideration, and instead of forcing the change of marriage pursue changing what was included in civil unions instead? Never mind, we all know the answer and we all know why.

No, that is the way you define marriage, it is not the definition of marriage. I would define it as the state of being united to a person in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law.

It isn't my definition, it's what has been the definition in this country since its inception, is correct and remains so. Marriage is defined as between man/woman. If it weren't then there wouldn't be an argument over it.


Full equality is the goal and nothing more. We really don't care if some homophobes don't "accept" us as long as we're treated equally under the law.

If equality was the goal - and taking advantage of the financial benefits of marriage is the equality being sought - then the gay community would have taken the no answer they received over and over and gone after changing civil unions. By not addressing this, you make it clear that nothing less than acceptance under the guise of equality is the true goal.

And no, the "majority" no longer think that marriage is only a man/woman thing. The majority thinks the men/men and the women/women should get to marry too. I showed you the polls.

Funny thing, when you beat someone over the head long enough they tend to submit ... just to stop the beating. What tolerance you (collective) display.

.

 

[protectionist]

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 homophobe, but ignore the extremist muslims in the middle east and Africa for murdering them. Don't play coy with me.

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

Again no one is saying gays have less rights here. Unfortunately that doesn't change the fact that repubs push laws to discriminate against gays such as what was vetoed in AZ. Obviously that is a problem even if it isn't the worst.

Why is it a problem ? And isn't it a problem that they are NOT pushing laws to discriminate ? (like the 1978 Briggs Initiative in California to ban queers from being teachers)