Why shouldn't Homosexuals have the same rights?

[DaCougarMech]

It wasn't discrimination because nobody had the right to interracial marriage. If interracial marriage was allowed to one group of people, but not to another, I'd call that discrimination.

yeah, well that argument lost in Loving v. Virginia

[stealth_swimmer]

We're not asking permission, we're asking protection. A marriage is a contract that has no power without the law. Families can contest spousal rights without it, for example. Domestic partnerships just don't cut it, and as I said are a costly and time consuming process. It should be just as simple as saying "I do", like everybody else.

I didn't know you were gay. Anyways, yeah what he^^^said. Folks are upset cus they don't get the same privileges. It's not really about the partnership itself(there are already civil unions) but the special legal protections that come with it. I heard it also has to do with life insurance and stuff like that.

[Weightaholic]

Despite popular opinion, your not born gay or straight OP. As for right gays already have the same rights as any other individual. Nevertheless, people have every right to accept or reject any lifestyle or behavior they find objectionable so long as it doesn't violate the Constitution.

So, when did you decide to ingore the bum and go for the vag? When did you put aside your attraction for men to exclusively concentrate on women?

[jackal337]

yeah, well that argument lost in Loving v. Virginia

From what I understand the 'Racial Integrity Act of 1924', which is the law declared unconstitutional in Loving v. Virginia, was in fact discriminatory. It denied the right of marriage to mixed race couples if one of the races involved was white, while allowing the right of marriage to other mixed race couples. It was not a uniform ban on mixed race marriage, and was therefore discriminatory.

[Heavy_Beats]

So, when did you decide to ingore the bum and go for the vag? When did you put aside your attraction for men to exclusively concentrate on women?

That is what I would like to know.

[Guardian]

I didn't know you were gay. Anyways, yeah what he^^^said. Folks are upset cus they don't get the same privileges. It's not really about the partnership itself(there are already civil unions) but the special legal protections that come with it. I heard it also has to do with life insurance and stuff like that.

There are government benefits yes, but there are numerous laws and benefits out there that are not "equal" so to speak.

I don't complain that only some people get assitance for gas bills in the winter or that some people get the earned income credit. You could make the argument that those are discriminatory as well.

[SDMuscleBuddy]

There are government benefits yes, but there are numerous laws and benefits out there that are not "equal" so to speak.

I don't complain that only some people get assitance for gas bills in the winter or that some people get the earned income credit. You could make the argument that those are discriminatory as well.

And this is your justification for the continued ban on gay marriage?

[Gabriel Anton]

Leave R/P a few months and only one gay thread on the front page.

You guys are getting better, see, you CAN change

[MonsterG8r]

I too have seen examples of this including popular figures like the governor that had been married twice with a daughter from each marriage then all of a sudden proclaims he's gay? Was HE always?

note: be careful with your answer

Yes, they need to be VERY careful with their answer, and here's exactly why. According to people on this very board who defend homosexuality, they will tell you that when someone comes out of the closet after 20-30 years of heterosexual behavior, they were ALWAYS gay, in fact BORN that way but simply suppressed/repressed it for various reasons including social factors. Yet, when a "homosexual" gets delivered, perhaps in a Christian sense, and becomes heterosexual, they are STILL a homosexual but are just denying it and in no way were born heterosexual.

cliffs: Start getting attracted to same sex in your 40's after engaging in heterosexual behavior all one's life=born gay, just repressed it

Stop engaging in homosexual behavior and find the idea of sexual attraction to same sex repulsive in your 40's=still gay as ever and no possibility that you were born heterosexual....

[Guardian]

And this is your justification for the continued ban on gay marriage?

There is no "ban" I am aware of, the Bush proposal was never ratified.

[SDMuscleBuddy]

Yes, they need to be VERY careful with their answer, and here's exactly why. According to people on this very board who defend homosexuality, they will tell you that when someone comes out of the closet after 20-30 years of heterosexual behavior, they were ALWAYS gay, in fact BORN that way but simply suppressed/repressed it for various reasons including social factors. Yet, when a "homosexual" gets delivered, perhaps in a Christian sense, and becomes heterosexual, they are STILL a homosexual but are just denying it and in no way were born heterosexual.

cliffs: Start getting attracted to same sex in your 40's after engaging in heterosexual behavior all one's life=born gay, just repressed it

Stop engaging in homosexual behavior and find the idea of sexual attraction to same sex repulsive in your 40's=still gay as ever and no possibility that you were born heterosexual....

All you have to do is look at the recidivism rates of such "conversions" to know that, generally speaking, this is correct. Most who do "come out" late in life admit that they have been suppressing their natural tendencies all along. Religious conversions the other way usually don't stick and, more often than not, leave the individual with more problems than before.

Nevertheless, there still have been no responses to my question: How is it good for the nation to maintain the current ban on gay marriages?

[SDMuscleBuddy]

There is no "ban" I am aware of, the Bush proposal was never ratified.

If you are referring to DOMA, that was indeed signed into law. The Federal Government will not recognize any marriage that is not of opposite sex couples. What "good" does this ban do for the country? Can anyone give a clear answer to this?

[Weightaholic]

Yes, they need to be VERY careful with their answer, and here's exactly why. According to people on this very board who defend homosexuality, they will tell you that when someone comes out of the closet after 20-30 years of heterosexual behavior, they were ALWAYS gay, in fact BORN that way but simply suppressed/repressed it for various reasons including social factors. Yet, when a "homosexual" gets delivered, perhaps in a Christian sense, and becomes heterosexual, they are STILL a homosexual but are just denying it and in no way were born heterosexual.

o_O

So, when a 40+ comes out of the closet, "we" maintain he was always gay, and when a gay person gets "delivered" (how quaint), "we" maintain he is still gay, right? One denies his sexuality previously, and the other denies it in the future.






Um, yeah. They're both gay. Always have been gay. Always will be gay. Gay gay gay.

[stealth_swimmer]

There are government benefits yes, but there are numerous laws and benefits out there that are not "equal" so to speak.

I don't complain that only some people get assitance for gas bills in the winter or that some people get the earned income credit. You could make the argument that those are discriminatory as well.

They ARE discriminatory....

That being said, this has nothing to do with people that are at different levels of income or ability. It has to do with people whose only difference is their lifestyle.

At any rate, if you're argument is that "there are some benefits that go to some but not others, therefore all such things are ok" then that's a huge argument in favor of corporate welfare, protectionist tariffs and quotas, allowing politicians to be above the laws that apply to the rest of us, letting some people destroy property while others can't, etc. Such a system would be arbitrary rather than establishing a framework whereby people can mostly settle their disputes and get on with their lives.

However, the real point here is the moral one, if you wanna call it that. People should be offered equal protection under the law. For income credits and help with bills (assuming these people are not below the poverty line and it's not some sort of thing like farm price supports or whatever) these could be considered "equal protection" because everyone, hypothetically, is protected from certain low levels of living standards if they were to be put in such situations.

[stealth_swimmer]

If you are referring to DOMA, that was indeed signed into law. The Federal Government will not recognize any marriage that is not of opposite sex couples. What "good" does this ban do for the country? Can anyone give a clear answer to this?

They could, but they'd probably be lying or be spreading misinformation, at best.

[nitr0x2]

That's an interesting question. Why don't you tell me?

Unless you're an animal, most certainly yes!

So you could fall in love with me (a man) right now if you wanted to, you just choose not to?

I personally, could never fall in love with another man because I am a heterosexual male.

Just like I can't fall in love with a man, a homosexual man can not fall in love with a woman.

I don't understand why this is still even an issue. All we have to do is ask homosexuals whether or not it was a choice or if they were born gay. Actually, we have asked them these questions and they all say they were born gay. Who are we, as heterosexuals, to tell gays how they were born. You are not in their minds.

[Guardian]

They ARE discriminatory....

That being said, this has nothing to do with people that are at different levels of income or ability. It has to do with people whose only difference is their lifestyle.

At any rate, if you're argument is that "there are some benefits that go to some but not others, therefore all such things are ok" then that's a huge argument in favor of corporate welfare, protectionist tariffs and quotas, allowing politicians to be above the laws that apply to the rest of us, letting some people destroy property while others can't, etc. Such a system would be arbitrary rather than establishing a framework whereby people can mostly settle their disputes and get on with their lives.

However, the real point here is the moral one, if you wanna call it that. People should be offered equal protection under the law. For income credits and help with bills (assuming these people are not below the poverty line and it's not some sort of thing like farm price supports or whatever) these could be considered "equal protection" because everyone, hypothetically, is protected from certain low levels of living standards if they were to be put in such situations.

Everyone is protected from low living standards, just like everyone can get married.

Same as laws that govern gas bill assistance, I can't decide what the rules are for them, but I can decide to participate if I qualify.

If someone feels they do not qualify for marriage they can make an argument I am all for it, but there is nothing illegal or unconsitutional about it.

[GrokTheCube]

o_O

So, when a 40+ comes out of the closet, "we" maintain he was always gay, and when a gay person gets "delivered" (how quaint), "we" maintain he is still gay, right? One denies his sexuality previously, and the other denies it in the future.






Um, yeah. They're both gay. Always have been gay. Always will be gay. Gay gay gay.

There's someone on the forum you could talk to this about, he came out after many years. He even tried to be "cured" of his gayness through the church. Now that the vast majority of the new generations accept homosexuality, more people are coming out of the closet. Seems straight forward, but also ENTIRELY irrelevant to whether or not gays should get equal rights.

So, when did you decide to ingore the bum and go for the vag? When did you put aside your attraction for men to exclusively concentrate on women?

Never seen this answered, EVER. What's more, I've only seen it spouted by major homophobes. Given the STRONG statistical correlation between homophobia and homosexual urges, it is not surprising that they could believe this to be true, because they DID try to bury their homo urges. I don't think they realize that the majority of heteros don't have any, just as the majority of homos don't have hetero urges.

[Jack3DFibraz]

We're not asking permission, we're asking protection. A marriage is a contract that has no power without the law. Families can contest spousal rights without it, for example. Domestic partnerships just don't cut it, and as I said are a costly and time consuming process. It should be just as simple as saying "I do", like everybody else.

You're unable to enter into contractual agreements without being married? Name some.

[Guardian]

Bottom line is marriage is not a "right" guranteed by the constitution like speech and so forth, this whole debate is futile imo.

The best bet for the debate is to go through the court systems (like many similar issues) in which case the courts would set precedent, and if needed all the way up to the sc.

Where the constitution falls short the courts step in, many "rights" and so forth we live by today actually originated through court decisions carried out through the executive branch right down to the local level.

[southeastoz]

Despite popular opinion, your not born gay or straight OP. As for right gays already have the same rights as any other individual. Nevertheless, people have every right to accept or reject any lifestyle or behavior they find objectionable so long as it doesn't violate the Constitution.

Do you have any evidence at all to prove this? This is definitely one of the stupidest things I've heard on the forums. You can't be serious...

Brb changing my favourite colour
Brb completely choosing to cover up other natural impulses such as pain and defecation
Brb flipping a lightbulb in my head and suddenly being attracted to penor
Brb choosing to do something which is meant by a huge amount of homophobia, violence, prejudice, discrimination and all that jazz. Yeah, one would definitely choose that.

Take your bible study bs elsewhere you sick human being. Srsly this type of misinformation is terrible.

I have no idea how someone can come to that conclusion, I'm pretty sure I can't just flip a switch in my head and suddenly no longer be attracted to women...

[Blindead]

What many people fail to realize is that homosexuals can get married, it just won't be recognized by the government (if its same-sex). You marry someone because you love them and want to spend the rest of your life with them. Why should it matter if the government doesn't recognize it?

As for my opinion on the matter, I'm kind of in the middle. If same-sex marriages were recognized, then I wouldn't really care too much as long as I don't see any same-sex public displays of affection. Sometimes I lean to the side of the government not recognizing same-sex marriages though. I do think that same-sex marriages could cause some problems however.

Are you serious? Civil unions, which aren't even in every state, are in the exact same vein as segregation. Separate but "equal." Except they aren't equal, and the inherent separation makes the one inferior and is basically a government condemnation.

Despite popular opinion, your not born gay or straight OP. As for right gays already have the same rights as any other individual. Nevertheless, people have every right to accept or reject any lifestyle or behavior they find objectionable so long as it doesn't violate the Constitution.

thanks for your input Doctor. I love how you, our resident reverse racist, gets so upset about blacks being given too few extra rights over whites, but oh man, can't even give the gays the same rights! it's not the same! oppression is oppression.

There is no such thing as "interracial" marriage. Unless, that is, there is the human race, and some other "races". Therefore, your point fails miserably.

no, sorry, but the word you're looking for is species. race isn't a taxonomic rank, so your argument is unfortunately wrong and you have no knowledge of biology.

[Irezumi]

Despite popular opinion, your not born gay or straight OP. As for right gays already have the same rights as any other individual. Nevertheless, people have every right to accept or reject any lifestyle or behavior they find objectionable so long as it doesn't violate the Constitution.

[spol8910]

Bottom line is marriage is not a "right" guranteed by the constitution like speech and so forth, this whole debate is futile imo.

The best bet for the debate is to go through the court systems (like many similar issues) in which case the courts would set precedent, and if needed all the way up to the sc.

Where the constitution falls short the courts step in, many "rights" and so forth we live by today actually originated through court decisions carried out through the executive branch right down to the local level.

True, wrong or right, you are correct. Most of todays "civil rights" are grandted through superma court decisions.

I don't think gay rights should be secured through the same juncture. The younger generation is very understanding of gay rights. And in time gays will be treated equal to str8s.

[GrokTheCube]

True, wrong or right, you are correct. Most of todays "civil rights" are grandted through superma court decisions.

I don't think gay rights should be secured through the same juncture. The younger generation is very understanding of gay rights. And in time gays will be treated equal to str8s.

Yep. Give it 40 years and the vast majority of those who are anti-gay will be dead from old age.

[SDMuscleBuddy]

You're unable to enter into contractual agreements without being married? Name some.

Huh? Who said that? I said that marriage is a legal contract, and that's all it is in this context.

[RedSoxfan1978]

Its not that gay people shouldn't or might not have the same rights as straight people. Everyone in theory at least has the same rights. Which doesn't always hold true either of course.

Where the problem lies is when they have those "gay rights" that then supersede and transcend "normal" rights. For example. If you punch a straight guy, no matter the reason it is simple assualt and battery perhaps. Same situation, you punch a gay man. Its a hate crime. Period. You might not even have KNOWN he was gay, doesn't matter though cause its still a HATE crime. They will pin it on you as such.

I dont think people should be labled. Gay, straight, or bisexual. Who really gives a ****? I don't care what you do on your time, in the privacy of your own home or someone elses. It has absolutely no bearing on anything outside of the fact that you either like vagina or mens ass. Other than that, it holds no weight. It shouldn't either.

I think that people get much too tied up over "gay rights" and race anyway. Things are far from perfect. There will always be homophobes and bigots in the world. It has gone on since the dawn of time and will continue to do so. Things have gotten better Im sure but will never be RIGHT either for everyone.

There are some areas where you would STILL think segreation was in full swing. In 2009 we still have such nonsense propergating itself. It is no different than people hating someone else for the sole reason they prefer a mans ass to a womans vagina. It is assinine, immature and shows a lack of moral character and ones own sexual feelings and development.

So leave it alone it what I have always done. If you are gay, great, good for you. Just dont grab my ass and we have no issue between us. I have worked with openly gay people and they were some of the nicest and truest people I have ever known. I cant imagine somone hating them for the simple fact they are gay. With all the a**holes in this world, to find someone who is honest and sincere, you should be grateful. Regardless of how they choose to live their lives sexually or how they comport themselves in private.

Just sayin.

[user654415165]

For real, some people weren't even aware of the 9th amendment...

I meant something a little more nuanced than that. Something can abridge a right in the constitution so long as it falls within specific bounds. So just saying that the constitution provides this or that right and then saying a law that abridges it is unconstitutional is simply untrue.

[DaCougarMech]

Its not that gay people shouldn't or might not have the same rights as straight people. Everyone in theory at least has the same rights. Which doesn't always hold true either of course.

Where the problem lies is when they have those "gay rights" that then supersede and transcend "normal" rights. For example. If you punch a straight guy, no matter the reason it is simple assualt and battery perhaps. Same situation, you punch a gay man. Its a hate crime. Period. You might not even have KNOWN he was gay, doesn't matter though cause its still a HATE crime. They will pin it on you as such.

I dont think people should be labled. Gay, straight, or bisexual. Who really gives a ****? I don't care what you do on your time, in the privacy of your own home or someone elses. It has absolutely no bearing on anything outside of the fact that you either like vagina or mens ass. Other than that, it holds no weight. It shouldn't either.

I think that people get much too tied up over "gay rights" and race anyway. Things are far from perfect. There will always be homophobes and bigots in the world. It has gone on since the dawn of time and will continue to do so. Things have gotten better Im sure but will never be RIGHT either for everyone.

There are some areas where you would STILL think segreation was in full swing. In 2009 we still have such nonsense propergating itself. It is no different than people hating someone else for the sole reason they prefer a mans ass to a womans vagina. It is assinine, immature and shows a lack of moral character and ones own sexual feelings and development.

So leave it alone it what I have always done. If you are gay, great, good for you. Just dont grab my ass and we have no issue between us. I have worked with openly gay people and they were some of the nicest and truest people I have ever known. I cant imagine somone hating them for the simple fact they are gay. With all the a**holes in this world, to find someone who is honest and sincere, you should be grateful. Regardless of how they choose to live their lives sexually or how they comport themselves in private.

Just sayin.

as much as you dance around in this essay, the essence of what you've said is just to do nothing

how is that useful?

[bamagirl]

They should have identical rights. Two people who love each other have impacted no other individual in a negative way.