The civil rights of homosexuals

[alan1]

Name the civil rights violations specifically targeted at homosexuals.

I’ll give you the military’s decision to kick out homosexuals as a first shot, so let’s just ignore that one.

Other than that, name one civil right that is different for homosexuals than it is for heterosexuals. (United States laws only please) Use caution when you reply, this has to be a civil right that only affects homosexuals and not anybody else.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Does liberty and the pursuit of happiness count?

 

[alan1]

Sure does.

 

[alan1]

Still waiting.

name one civil right that is different for homosexuals than it is for heterosexuals.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Well, if marrying the person you love falls under the pursuit of happiness, then that would be how their civil rights are being violated.

 

[alan1]

Well, if marrying the person you love falls under the pursuit of happiness, then that would be how their civil rights are being violated.

How so?
The pursuit of happiness is granted, not happiness itself.
Even heterosexuals cannot marry somebody of the same sex, regardless of how happy it might make them.

 

[KittenKoder]

Well, if marrying the person you love falls under the pursuit of happiness, then that would be how their civil rights are being violated.

How so?
The pursuit of happiness is granted, not happiness itself.
Even heterosexuals cannot marry somebody of the same sex, regardless of how happy it might make them.

I disagree with that, and this is the only one they need to have complete equal rights. Marriage has been trampled on for decades by straight people, and no one ever complained, many do not even marry for love at all now (heard a few admit it, and a couple on here as well). The contract should be completely unique to the religious aspect, and once that is done then it would be a civil right. What I find funny is so many people are so against this for some reason, and yet more than half marriages end in divorce, often to the detriment of the children, and they think that allowing people to marry who they love would do any harm to their "sanctity". I see it as fear, fear that the gay couples will show them up with a much lower divorce rate, fewer uses of children as "bargaining chips" in said divorces, and fewer custody battles. If however marriage maintains the religious aspect then there should be no legal rights or obligations to all those in it. Either way I would be happy and drop the whole issue.

Yes, I am selfishly using the fight for gay equal rights to prove a point, but it's an important one that will ultimately improve our country no matter how it is resolved if it is resolved properly.

 

[ItsFairmont]

Pursuit of happiness is not a right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. It's a line from the Declaration of Independence, which is not a list of laws.

It's a divorce letter to Britain.


There is no law that says you have the right to pursue happiness, unless you consider the 9th Amendment. It states, essentially, that you have other rights that are not specifically mentioned by the Bill of Rights.


I think gays should be allowed to marry if they can prove it's biologically normal for homosexuality to occur. Personally, I actually have friends who are gay, but I think it's a birth defect of some kind. It's a bummer, but that's what I think it is.

Hey, nobody's perfect. I grew up with athsma, a condition so bad it's even hard to spell. And then I also suffer from anxiety, which of course can be lessened with medication, exercise, proper nutrition, and comedy.

Can homosexuality, if genetic, be cured? If it's a genetic thing (like most gays assert), then perhaps it can be fixed in vitro. That may sound arrogant to say, but what if it could be treated in vitro?

If the OB/GYN said, "Mr. and Mrs. Jacobs" (remember, all gays are born from a man and woman), "your son has a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality, but we can treat it in vitro and he will most likely be heterosexual."

What would most couples choose to do?

I think they would choose straight. It's the normal biological way.


That said, anyone who mistreats another person because of sexual orientation is a bigot and is, perhaps, compensating for the fact that he or she may be gay as well. This has been shown in a study, the most recent from the University of Georgia.

 

[alan1]

Well, if marrying the person you love falls under the pursuit of happiness, then that would be how their civil rights are being violated.

How so?
The pursuit of happiness is granted, not happiness itself.
Even heterosexuals cannot marry somebody of the same sex, regardless of how happy it might make them.

I disagree with that, and this is the only one they need to have complete equal rights. Marriage has been trampled on for decades by straight people, and no one ever complained, many do not even marry for love at all now (heard a few admit it, and a couple on here as well). The contract should be completely unique to the religious aspect, and once that is done then it would be a civil right. What I find funny is so many people are so against this for some reason, and yet more than half marriages end in divorce, often to the detriment of the children, and they think that allowing people to marry who they love would do any harm to their "sanctity". I see it as fear, fear that the gay couples will show them up with a much lower divorce rate, fewer uses of children as "bargaining chips" in said divorces, and fewer custody battles. If however marriage maintains the religious aspect then there should be no legal rights or obligations to all those in it. Either way I would be happy and drop the whole issue.

Yes, I am selfishly using the fight for gay equal rights to prove a point, but it's an important one that will ultimately improve our country no matter how it is resolved if it is resolved properly.

What part of my statement are you disagreeing with?

 

[KittenKoder]

How so?
The pursuit of happiness is granted, not happiness itself.
Even heterosexuals cannot marry somebody of the same sex, regardless of how happy it might make them.

I disagree with that, and this is the only one they need to have complete equal rights. Marriage has been trampled on for decades by straight people, and no one ever complained, many do not even marry for love at all now (heard a few admit it, and a couple on here as well). The contract should be completely unique to the religious aspect, and once that is done then it would be a civil right. What I find funny is so many people are so against this for some reason, and yet more than half marriages end in divorce, often to the detriment of the children, and they think that allowing people to marry who they love would do any harm to their "sanctity". I see it as fear, fear that the gay couples will show them up with a much lower divorce rate, fewer uses of children as "bargaining chips" in said divorces, and fewer custody battles. If however marriage maintains the religious aspect then there should be no legal rights or obligations to all those in it. Either way I would be happy and drop the whole issue.

Yes, I am selfishly using the fight for gay equal rights to prove a point, but it's an important one that will ultimately improve our country no matter how it is resolved if it is resolved properly.

What part of my statement are you disagreeing with?

Sorry, the last part.

 

[alan1]

I disagree with that, and this is the only one they need to have complete equal rights. Marriage has been trampled on for decades by straight people, and no one ever complained, many do not even marry for love at all now (heard a few admit it, and a couple on here as well). The contract should be completely unique to the religious aspect, and once that is done then it would be a civil right. What I find funny is so many people are so against this for some reason, and yet more than half marriages end in divorce, often to the detriment of the children, and they think that allowing people to marry who they love would do any harm to their "sanctity". I see it as fear, fear that the gay couples will show them up with a much lower divorce rate, fewer uses of children as "bargaining chips" in said divorces, and fewer custody battles. If however marriage maintains the religious aspect then there should be no legal rights or obligations to all those in it. Either way I would be happy and drop the whole issue.

Yes, I am selfishly using the fight for gay equal rights to prove a point, but it's an important one that will ultimately improve our country no matter how it is resolved if it is resolved properly.

What part of my statement are you disagreeing with?

Sorry, the last part.

Are you saying that heterosexuals can marry somebody of the same sex?

 

[KittenKoder]

What part of my statement are you disagreeing with?

Sorry, the last part.

Are you saying that heterosexuals can marry somebody of the same sex?

Saying they should be awarded that right if they so choose, but then it should extend to gay couples as well.

 

[alan1]

Sorry, the last part.

Are you saying that heterosexuals can marry somebody of the same sex?

Saying they should be awarded that right if they so choose, but then it should extend to gay couples as well.

So, as of right now, the civil rights of homosexuals are not being violated, since the (marriage) laws are being applied equally?

 

[KittenKoder]

Are you saying that heterosexuals can marry somebody of the same sex?

Saying they should be awarded that right if they so choose, but then it should extend to gay couples as well.

So, as of right now, the civil rights of homosexuals are not being violated, since the (marriage) laws are being applied equally?

Aaah ... but that depends on the definition of such, is marriage about love, the contract, or just something people get into in order to gain special privileges?

 

[alan1]

Saying they should be awarded that right if they so choose, but then it should extend to gay couples as well.

So, as of right now, the civil rights of homosexuals are not being violated, since the (marriage) laws are being applied equally?

Aaah ... but that depends on the definition of such, is marriage about love, the contract, or just something people get into in order to gain special privileges?

I think it can be all of the above.

 

[KittenKoder]

So, as of right now, the civil rights of homosexuals are not being violated, since the (marriage) laws are being applied equally?

Aaah ... but that depends on the definition of such, is marriage about love, the contract, or just something people get into in order to gain special privileges?

I think it can be all of the above.

Then restricting the gender of the two who sign into the contract breaks one of those completely as rights (love), also it defeats the third completely since most of those privileges are specifically for loved ones, taking those with someone the person does not love would defeat their purpose completely.

 

[alan1]

Aaah ... but that depends on the definition of such, is marriage about love, the contract, or just something people get into in order to gain special privileges?

I think it can be all of the above.

Then restricting the gender of the two who sign into the contract breaks one of those completely as rights (love), also it defeats the third completely since most of those privileges are specifically for loved ones, taking those with someone the person does not love would defeat their purpose completely.

As long as everybody is treated the same in the law, it's not a civil rights violation.
I love my children, I can't marry either them.
I love my brother, I can't marry him.
I love my sister, I can't marry her.
I love my parents, I can't marry either of them.
A marriage between me and any of the above falls into all three categories you mentioned.
Me not being allowed to marry any of them is not a violation of my civil rights.

There is another that I love deeply and passionately, and she loves me the same way. We can't get married either. But it's for different reasons that I cannot share here.

 

[KittenKoder]

I think it can be all of the above.

Then restricting the gender of the two who sign into the contract breaks one of those completely as rights (love), also it defeats the third completely since most of those privileges are specifically for loved ones, taking those with someone the person does not love would defeat their purpose completely.

As long as everybody is treated the same in the law, it's not a civil rights violation.
I love my children, I can't marry either them.
I love my brother, I can't marry him.
I love my sister, I can't marry her.
I love my parents, I can't marry either of them.
A marriage between me and any of the above falls into all three categories you mentioned.
Me not being allowed to marry any of them is not a violation of my civil rights.

There is another that I love deeply and passionately, and she loves me the same way. We can't get married either. But it's for different reasons that I cannot share here.

Aaah ... but the rights offered by marriage are already afforded by default to them due to blood relations. Hospital decisions, insurance, etc..

 

[alan1]

Then restricting the gender of the two who sign into the contract breaks one of those completely as rights (love), also it defeats the third completely since most of those privileges are specifically for loved ones, taking those with someone the person does not love would defeat their purpose completely.

As long as everybody is treated the same in the law, it's not a civil rights violation.
I love my children, I can't marry either them.
I love my brother, I can't marry him.
I love my sister, I can't marry her.
I love my parents, I can't marry either of them.
A marriage between me and any of the above falls into all three categories you mentioned.
Me not being allowed to marry any of them is not a violation of my civil rights.

There is another that I love deeply and passionately, and she loves me the same way. We can't get married either. But it's for different reasons that I cannot share here.

Aaah ... but the rights offered by marriage are already afforded by default to them due to blood relations. Hospital decisions, insurance, etc..

Hospital decisions, insurance, etc are rights/decisions I specified in a legal document drafted by my attorney. Homosexuals can do the same.

 

[KittenKoder]

As long as everybody is treated the same in the law, it's not a civil rights violation.
I love my children, I can't marry either them.
I love my brother, I can't marry him.
I love my sister, I can't marry her.
I love my parents, I can't marry either of them.
A marriage between me and any of the above falls into all three categories you mentioned.
Me not being allowed to marry any of them is not a violation of my civil rights.

There is another that I love deeply and passionately, and she loves me the same way. We can't get married either. But it's for different reasons that I cannot share here.

Aaah ... but the rights offered by marriage are already afforded by default to them due to blood relations. Hospital decisions, insurance, etc..

Hospital decisions, insurance, etc are rights/decisions I specified in a legal document drafted by my attorney. Homosexuals can do the same.

However, after all that the costs and red tape you have to cut to get it, and even then they are not as binding and strong as those afforded through marriage. Marriage is affordable to all, while not all can afford the getting the documents unbreakable. Too many legal battles are waged in which the partner is often weasled out by those with blood relations.