What rights are the gays missing?

[manu1959]

Gays aren't missing any rights at all. Civil unions are are the exact same thing as marriage and are allowed in many states.

Where "marriage" comes in is this. Since marriage is associated with religion and there is a separation of church and state, the gay community which is vehemently anti-religion wants this specific term "marriage" to replace the term "civil union" in their bid to further their anti-religion stance.

They already have common law protection in many States and civil union laws. I think there should be a civil union law in every state. As far as marriage...that should remain as it is...a union between man and woman.

they gay community is not vehemently anti-religion....in the sense they do not want to eliminate it.....how do see them as anti religon....

 

[Ravi]

Loaded question.
I expect everybody to stand up for their rights. I grow weary of people claiming their rights are violated or missing when they just happen to have the exact same rights everybody else has.

You either believe the government grants us rights or you believe we have a right to do whatever we want unless there is a compelling reason against our actions.

You fall into the former camp, I fall into the latter.

As long as you believe the government grants us rights you will always believe the government can regulate marriage, and therefore you will be able to justify refusing gays the ability to marry.

But you don't really care, of course, you just think big government is okay in this case.

ROFLMNAO...

Now this is some seriously convoluted reasoning...

So Homosexuality is a natural right? Well my goodness... that is just adorable!

Well that's quite a theory... so let's get right to work testing it.

For Homosexuality to be a Right, what would be the responsibility which would sustain that right?

I mean the right to life is sustained by the responsibility to not exercise one's life to the detriment of another's right to their life... The Right own and use a firearm is sustained by the same responsibility... The right to speak freely... the very same.

So I wonder Ravi, what responsibility does the right to succumb to the devient cravings for abnormal sexual behavior bear?

And FTR: a right cannot exist absent a sustaining responsibility; and failure to recognize such does not excuse one from their failure to adequately bear those responsibilities...

Now one could argue that the right to such is sustained by the responsibility to not exercise that right to the detriment of another's right... maybe bearing that responsibility would be KEEPING IT TO YOURSELF! Not forcing you decadence upon others... I mean that would follow the whole "its a private matter!" reasoning... Keeping it private, would go a long way towards sustaining the right.

Sorry, there are no litmus tests for rights no matter how you wish it.

 

[rdean]

ok....got a link to your scientist claim.....is your assertion now that only scientist have intellect.....are you a scientist?

No but it's a good start.

so all scientist have high intellect and all others don't....people such as doctors....philosophers...architects.....writers....are all of low intellect.....

btw ..are you a scientist....

Doctors ARE scientists. Probably the greatest architect of the last century was Philip Johnson, a gay man who also designed many famous Christian buildings, including, the Chrystal Cathedral.

Philip Johnson Alan Ritchie Architects - Home Page

Some of the most famous writers in American history were gay:
Walt Whitman, Henry James, Henry David Thoreau, H.D., Herman Melville, Elizabeth Bishop, James Baldwin, Countee Cullen, Langston Hughes, Tennessee Williams, Edward Albee, Hart Crane, Allen Ginsberg, Gertrude Stein, Audre Lorde, and Adrienne Rich.

oops.

 

[manu1959]

What you all want to have is AMERICAN RIGHT WING VALUES mrriage wg=hich has virtually NOTHING to do with "Traditional" marriage. Remind me what thw DIVORCE RATE is in our country of "TRADITIONAL marriage.

not to sure what the divorce rate has to do with this issue.....traditional marriage has been between a man and a woman....why the marriage took place is a different issue.....

why should the term marriage be changed to define something other than its traditional meaning....

gays have all the same rights as straights.....the term used for gays is civil union .... the term used for straights is marriage.....

even the whacked out california supreme court stated this ..... they said no rights are being denied .....

see the gays want to take the starights word away from them ..... just as the took the rainbow from those poor little leprechans.....i guess greenpeace is too busy chasing whales to care.....

 

[Ravi]

What you all want to have is AMERICAN RIGHT WING VALUES mrriage wg=hich has virtually NOTHING to do with "Traditional" marriage. Remind me what thw DIVORCE RATE is in our country of "TRADITIONAL marriage.

not to sure what the divorce rate has to do with this issue.....traditional marriage has been between a man and a woman....why the marriage took place is a different issue.....

why should the term marriage be changed to define something other than its traditional meaning....

gays have all the same rights as straights.....the term used for gays is civil union .... the term used for straights is marriage.....

even the whacked out california supreme court stated this ..... they said no rights are being denied .....

see the gays want to take the starights word away from them ..... just as the took the rainbow from those poor little leprechans.....i guess greenpeace is too busy chasing whales to care.....

Why do you care what some people choose to call themselves? That's something that I've never understood...do we need a law that makes it criminal for a couple to call themselves married if they don't conform to societal norms? I hope not.

 

[manu1959]

What you all want to have is AMERICAN RIGHT WING VALUES mrriage wg=hich has virtually NOTHING to do with "Traditional" marriage. Remind me what thw DIVORCE RATE is in our country of "TRADITIONAL marriage.

not to sure what the divorce rate has to do with this issue.....traditional marriage has been between a man and a woman....why the marriage took place is a different issue.....

why should the term marriage be changed to define something other than its traditional meaning....

gays have all the same rights as straights.....the term used for gays is civil union .... the term used for straights is marriage.....

even the whacked out california supreme court stated this ..... they said no rights are being denied .....

see the gays want to take the starights word away from them ..... just as the took the rainbow from those poor little leprechans.....i guess greenpeace is too busy chasing whales to care.....

Why do you care what some people choose to call themselves? That's something that I've never understood...do we need a law that makes it criminal for a couple to call themselves married if they don't conform to societal norms? I hope not.

i don't care ...... i do wonder why it is so import for the gay community to change the word to mean what they want it to mean ..... they already have the rights ...... read the california supreme court ruling .....

 

[Ravi]

not to sure what the divorce rate has to do with this issue.....traditional marriage has been between a man and a woman....why the marriage took place is a different issue.....

why should the term marriage be changed to define something other than its traditional meaning....

gays have all the same rights as straights.....the term used for gays is civil union .... the term used for straights is marriage.....

even the whacked out california supreme court stated this ..... they said no rights are being denied .....

see the gays want to take the starights word away from them ..... just as the took the rainbow from those poor little leprechans.....i guess greenpeace is too busy chasing whales to care.....

Why do you care what some people choose to call themselves? That's something that I've never understood...do we need a law that makes it criminal for a couple to call themselves married if they don't conform to societal norms? I hope not.

i don't care ...... i do wonder why it is so import for the gay community to change the word to mean what they want it to mean ..... they already have the rights ...... read the california supreme court ruling .....

No, actually they don't. They don't have the same rights as straight couples...no social security benefits, for example. IMO, any two consenting adults should be able to choose a relationship, no matter what you call it, that any other two are allowed to enjoy. What they call it really doesn't matter...except to people that are afraid they'll turn gay somehow.

 

[rdean]

Gays aren't missing any rights at all. Civil unions are are the exact same thing as marriage and are allowed in many states.

Where "marriage" comes in is this. Since marriage is associated with religion and there is a separation of church and state, the gay community which is vehemently anti-religion wants this specific term "marriage" to replace the term "civil union" in their bid to further their anti-religion stance.

They already have common law protection in many States and civil union laws. I think there should be a civil union law in every state. As far as marriage...that should remain as it is...a union between man and woman.

they gay community is not vehemently anti-religion....in the sense they do not want to eliminate it.....how do see them as anti religon....

I'm very anti religion. It's the religious right that took over the Republican Party, and as well know conservative, Kathleen Parker said, "They turned it into the party of Ooga Booga".

The right is against science, against education, against women's rights, against the middle class, against gay rights, racist, pro war, pro big business and pro torture. I believe it comes from their "religious base".

Sure, you can find some that aren't, but not many. Not in the Republican Party.

 

[rdean]

What you all want to have is AMERICAN RIGHT WING VALUES mrriage wg=hich has virtually NOTHING to do with "Traditional" marriage. Remind me what thw DIVORCE RATE is in our country of "TRADITIONAL marriage.

not to sure what the divorce rate has to do with this issue.....traditional marriage has been between a man and a woman....why the marriage took place is a different issue.....

why should the term marriage be changed to define something other than its traditional meaning....

gays have all the same rights as straights.....the term used for gays is civil union .... the term used for straights is marriage.....

even the whacked out california supreme court stated this ..... they said no rights are being denied .....

see the gays want to take the starights word away from them ..... just as the took the rainbow from those poor little leprechans.....i guess greenpeace is too busy chasing whales to care.....

Because people being married five times shouldn't be telling gays that marriage is just too "sacred" for them.

gays have all the same rights as straights.....Sure, right.

Gays want to take the word "marriage" and replace it with the word "marriage". Now it all makes sense. It would be something completely different. It would be "marriage". Between two people as opposed to "marriage" between two people. I get it.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

I am pretty sure "seperate but equal" was struck down by the supreme court.

 

[manu1959]

What you all want to have is AMERICAN RIGHT WING VALUES mrriage wg=hich has virtually NOTHING to do with "Traditional" marriage. Remind me what thw DIVORCE RATE is in our country of "TRADITIONAL marriage.

not to sure what the divorce rate has to do with this issue.....traditional marriage has been between a man and a woman....why the marriage took place is a different issue.....

why should the term marriage be changed to define something other than its traditional meaning....

gays have all the same rights as straights.....the term used for gays is civil union .... the term used for straights is marriage.....

even the whacked out california supreme court stated this ..... they said no rights are being denied .....

see the gays want to take the starights word away from them ..... just as the took the rainbow from those poor little leprechans.....i guess greenpeace is too busy chasing whales to care.....

Because people being married five times shouldn't be telling gays that marriage is just too "sacred" for them.

gays have all the same rights as straights.....Sure, right.

Gays want to take the word "marriage" and replace it with the word "marriage". Now it all makes sense. It would be something completely different. It would be "marriage". Between two people as opposed to "marriage" between two people. I get it.

why is that....if one gets divorced do they then lose their rights to an opinion....how about if gays that have had more than one life partner give up the right to ask that the term marriage be applied to them......

they do have all the same rights.....read the california supreme court decision....

gays want the definition of a word changed to suit them ok......when they get that and i am pretty sure they will.....will it make more or less people accept them ....

i have long said they are making a tactical mistake which has only made the backlash against them worse and after they win ..... it will only get worse ......

and no you don't get it because you only see the argument from one side..... but that's ok ... as i learned in another thread it is probably because you are not a scientist ......

 

[alan1]

I don't think so. The conservative right is an odd bunch.

They insist they don't want to be told what to do by "big government" yet have leaders that tell them the most outrageous and nonsensical things, yet they eat it up like pablum.

They want government out of the bedroom, yet have this lurid fascination with gays and "what they must be doing".

And once they have "decided" something must be true, it "must be true". They believed that Iraq was either behind 9/11 or deeply connected. Even after Bush said there was NO connection, they decided there was a connection and will defend it, period.

They have decided Obama is not an American. Even is name is "funny". All the birth certificates and newspaper announcements in the world won't change that. It's been "decided".

Evolution is a "faith". It's been "decided".

Rich people make jobs. It's been "decided".

It's why Bush was the "decider".

Gays are all evil. It's been "decided".

Iraq is now a free and open democracy. It's been "decided".

That's it. Debate over. It's been "decided". No evidence needed.

And the Emmy for ignoring the Bill of Rights discussion goes to...................................
rdean

Congratulations on ignoring the subject matter and trying to act like your personal opinions are facts.

The problem is you are a fool.

The bill of rights doesn't say insurance companies can skim billions off insurance policies and offer nothing in return.

The bill of rights doesn't say blacks can marry whites.

The bill of rights doesn't say that you have a right to discriminate against the gays.

What the constitution DOES say is that all men are created equal. Only the screwy Republicans say "Some are MORE equal than others".

Don't play that bull hockey with me.

And the Bill of Rights hasn't restricted the rights of any person because of their sexual orientation.
You keep failing to prove that homosexuals are having their rights restricted.
Step up your game.

 

[alan1]

Well, MM...I guess you at least care enough to spend your Saturday thinking about it.



What other rights are you willing to give up because someone thinks it's icky?

Loaded question.
I expect everybody to stand up for their rights. I grow weary of people claiming their rights are violated or missing when they just happen to have the exact same rights everybody else has.

You either believe the government grants us rights or you believe we have a right to do whatever we want unless there is a compelling reason against our actions.

You fall into the former camp, I fall into the latter.

As long as you believe the government grants us rights you will always believe the government can regulate marriage, and therefore you will be able to justify refusing gays the ability to marry.

But you don't really care, of course, you just think big government is okay in this case.

You have no clue, do you?
If you look hard enough, you will find posts on this board, made by me, that say the government has no business in marriage whatsoever. Regardless of sexual orientation.
Now, tell me, what rights are homosexuals not getting that heterosexuals are getting?

 

[alan1]

Frank says D.C. gay rights march misses mark - Yahoo! News

snip,

Many gay rights advocates have criticized President Barack Obama for not moving faster to keep his campaign promises to extend gay rights, and Congress has also drawn flak for not doing more.

I just re-read The Bill of Rights, I'm curious, which rights outlined in that document do not apply to gays?

Interesting question.

Hmmmm, blacks (and others) in America had their rights violated even though there were laws protecting them....and...just that a document grants or acknowledges rights means diddly squat if those rights are not somehow protected.

I guess some people think what the bible says trumps what the Bill of Rights says.

Care to answer the question in the OP you quoted?
As law exists today, what rights are homosexuals not getting that heterosexuals are?

 

[alan1]

There is nothing intellectual based on discrimination. Discrimination is synonymous with ignorance.

Well as dissemblence goes... that was fairly lame...

But it's out there, so what the hell?

Actually discrimination is based in the biological imperative to survive... Where one chooses to avoid exposure to that which represent harm, discomfort, or to that which is to be avoided.

Can discrimination be based upon ignorance? Sure... But as a general rule, those who fail to discriminate, suffer severe and often catastrophic results from such follishness.

I love it when the right tries to bring up some "biological" reason, yet they don't believe in "evolution.

Actually, since gays seem to pop up in just about every species of mammal, then they may very well be an "evolutionary" or "biological" reason for such behavior. Most of the time, the right simply looks at what they consider the "obvious" without going any deeper. Simple thoughts for simple people. What can you expect? I never met someone on the right who didn't have "mystical" beliefs. Beliefs without a shred of evidence. Why do they demand evidence about real things that they can "see" and "touch", yet have total conviction in things invisible and "unknown"? Guess we leave that for another time.

It's highly possible that gays are born to help raise young without the competition that comes from every male attempting to pass on their genes. For creatures that live in groups, extra adult hands gathering food, hunting, and raising young without engaging in this competition, would certainly benefit the well being of the group and ensure the survival of the young.

Then I must be your first.
I'm glad I could break that stereotype for you.
You have lived a sheltered life.

 

[alan1]

What you all want to have is AMERICAN RIGHT WING VALUES mrriage wg=hich has virtually NOTHING to do with "Traditional" marriage. Remind me what thw DIVORCE RATE is in our country of "TRADITIONAL marriage.

What I want is for somebody to tell me what rights the homosexuals don't have that the heterosexuals do have.
That was my question in the OP and so far, only military service has been proven to be one of those elusive rights.

 

[alan1]

What you all want to have is AMERICAN RIGHT WING VALUES mrriage wg=hich has virtually NOTHING to do with "Traditional" marriage. Remind me what thw DIVORCE RATE is in our country of "TRADITIONAL marriage.

not to sure what the divorce rate has to do with this issue.....traditional marriage has been between a man and a woman....why the marriage took place is a different issue.....

why should the term marriage be changed to define something other than its traditional meaning....

gays have all the same rights as straights.....the term used for gays is civil union .... the term used for straights is marriage.....

even the whacked out california supreme court stated this ..... they said no rights are being denied .....

see the gays want to take the starights word away from them ..... just as the took the rainbow from those poor little leprechans.....i guess greenpeace is too busy chasing whales to care.....

Which is what this thread is about.

All the bleating from people saying otherwise is simply that, bleating. Not one of them (aside from Rightwinger pointing out the military service), has proven anything else.

 

[Sunni Man]

It's highly possible that gays are born to help raise young without the competition that comes from every male attempting to pass on their genes. For creatures that live in groups, extra adult hands gathering food, hunting, and raising young without engaging in this competition, would certainly benefit the well being of the group and ensure the survival of the young.

Man I have heard some idiotic nonsense from you before rdean.

But this has to be the the most stupidest post I have ever read. Bar none

You are saying that homos are basically born to be some kind of non competitive worker drones for the good of society.

A kind of subhuman eunuch that has evolved into a biological nanny for our young.

 

[alan1]

As opposed to the right where intellectual prowess is completely absent.

And you have yet to prove that homosexuals are lacking any rights that are granted to heterosexuals.
What is it, 13-14 pages into the thread and you haven't addressed the OP.
So much for your "intellectual prowess".

 

[Ravi]

Loaded question.
I expect everybody to stand up for their rights. I grow weary of people claiming their rights are violated or missing when they just happen to have the exact same rights everybody else has.

You either believe the government grants us rights or you believe we have a right to do whatever we want unless there is a compelling reason against our actions.

You fall into the former camp, I fall into the latter.

As long as you believe the government grants us rights you will always believe the government can regulate marriage, and therefore you will be able to justify refusing gays the ability to marry.

But you don't really care, of course, you just think big government is okay in this case.

You have no clue, do you?
If you look hard enough, you will find posts on this board, made by me, that say the government has no business in marriage whatsoever. Regardless of sexual orientation.
Now, tell me, what rights are homosexuals not getting that heterosexuals are getting?

Actually, I have a clue. You are okay with big government as long as it supports your moral values. None of us miss your point.