Gay rights

Bigmouth1 · #1 (**permalink**) 04-13-2008, 09:57 AM

ok, someone define for me the meaning of Gay Rights.

Does it mean they want special treatment from the gov. because they have a different sexual preference? I'm at a loss here.

Ristaron · 04-13-2008, 11:45 AM

It means equal treatment. It started as a movement in the 70's when gay marriage was illegal in most of North America. The Gay Rights movement has continued into the modern day defending the rights of the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transsexual) community as assholes like Bush move to officially restrict them to second-class citizenship.

Here are a few links for you to check out.

Why Gays Are Second-Class Citizens In Repair
Marriage Benefits
Benefits of Civil Unions

I hope they answer your question.

WillyBubba · 04-13-2008, 02:29 PM

It's a civil rights movement. I strongly feel that my rights are closely intertwined in the rights of my fellow man. It just doesn't make sense to allow some people these inalienable rights and deny them to others. It creates the worse sort of slippery slope and is only a matter of time before government begins to expand its power by denying the rights of even more people.

**Brother of Yeshua** · 04-13-2008, 06:26 PM

And in the same way Bubba, giving certain people "extra special privliges" is just as wrong.

Which is why I have a major problem with any law that tells me I have to let someone do something simply BECAUSE they are part of a certain group.

Those who are part of this movement claim it is not a choice. If that's so, then it's no different than gender, race, or nationality. No one has any control over any of these things, so it's senseless to be "proud" of the fact that you are something that was dictated to you, other than "proud" in the sense that you are at peace with yourself and accept who you are.

Anyway, this is why I oppose "hate crimes" and that kind of stuff. I am in wholehearted support of equal treatment in regards to heterosexual couples and homosexual couples, and also on an individual level, whatever that may mean.

Neither side, however, should be getting any special exemptions.

Period.

JumpInTheFire · 04-13-2008, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillyBubba

It's a civil rights movement. I strongly feel that my rights are closely intertwined in the rights of my fellow man. It just doesn't make sense to allow some people these inalienable rights and deny them to others. It creates the worse sort of slippery slope and is only a matter of time before government begins to expand its power by denying the rights of even more people.

Indeed. we should all feel "connected" to one another. And in the situation that one person's rights are violated, we should feel just as offended as them

SpicedSugar · 04-13-2008, 08:38 PM

eh, well, i can always just send you my essay...

but in short,

check those links. they're helpful.

also, it's not so much to be "special exemptions"; it's too give equality.

although, i don't see how they'll ever be equal b/c discrimination in all its forms still exists.

**Brother of Yeshua** · 04-13-2008, 09:35 PM

Because you can't legalize equality. There will always be people who are prejudice. It's life. Learn to deal with it. We are all prejudiced in some way, even if it's against other people who are prejudiced!

But in the same token, there will always be someone who wants you for who you are. Those are the only people that matter anyway.

Why waste time with the assholes?

Now, government policy and public policy is different than private affairs, and there should be the same guidelines for everyone no matter what.

But you're not going to stop prejudice by all this PC bullshit. If anything, that just adds fuel to the fire.

Lead by example, defend the persecuted, and stop expecting government legislation to fix all your problems.

Ristaron · 04-13-2008, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother of Yeshua

And in the same way Bubba, giving certain people "extra special privliges" is just as wrong.

Which is why I have a major problem with any law that tells me I have to let someone do something simply BECAUSE they are part of a certain group.

Those who are part of this movement claim it is not a choice. If that's so, then it's no different than gender, race, or nationality. No one has any control over any of these things, so it's senseless to be "proud" of the fact that you are something that was dictated to you, other than "proud" in the sense that you are at peace with yourself and accept who you are.

Anyway, this is why I oppose "hate crimes" and that kind of stuff. I am in wholehearted support of equal treatment in regards to heterosexual couples and homosexual couples, and also on an individual level, whatever that may mean.

Neither side, however, should be getting any special exemptions.

Period.

Did you, like, read my mind?
When my friends originally invited me to the Gay Pride Parade, I was a little put-off by the idea. I personally believe that it isn't something you choose; so, then, why be proud of it? I wouldn't be "proud" to be straight if I happened to be of that orientation. What I am proud of is my honesty with myself, but that mostly stems from my belief that life's too short for lies, especially to yourself. If you don't live as who you are, then you might as well not be living.
And that's why I marched with the Pride Parade that year, because I wanted to live as who I was.

As for your other post, though, I have to disagree with your overall point. Yes, government can't fix bigotry, because people are stupid and asinine. What it can do, however, is provide a legally equal society. There's no reason at all that the government shouldn't provide the same benefits to a gay couple as a straight couple. I can understand religious groups, but not a secular government that is constructed to defend the rights of the people. The rights of the people, in case you didn't catch that part (not specifically talking to you, BOY). Gays are people, too.

Bigmouth1 · 04-14-2008, 04:05 AM

I know everyone has a different view on and thanks for all the input but for me, I could careless if you're gay or whatever, but I believe in my heart that marriage is to be between a man and a woman. that is my opinion, i have hung out with gays i have 2 that are good friends of mine. im not a hypocrite, i see them as regular human beings with another way of thinking, i dont try to offend anyone but my beliefs are mine.

**Brother of Yeshua** · 04-14-2008, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ristaron

Did you, like, read my mind?
When my friends originally invited me to the Gay Pride Parade, I was a little put-off by the idea. I personally believe that it isn't something you choose; so, then, why be proud of it? I wouldn't be "proud" to be straight if I happened to be of that orientation. What I am proud of is my honesty with myself, but that mostly stems from my belief that life's too short for lies, especially to yourself. If you don't live as who you are, then you might as well not be living.
And that's why I marched with the Pride Parade that year, because I wanted to live as who I was.

As for your other post, though, I have to disagree with your overall point. Yes, government can't fix bigotry, because people are stupid and asinine. What it can do, however, is provide a legally equal society. There's no reason at all that the government shouldn't provide the same benefits to a gay couple as a straight couple. I can understand religious groups, but not a secular government that is constructed to defend the rights of the people. The rights of the people, in case you didn't catch that part (not specifically talking to you, BOY). Gays are people, too.

You misunderstood Rist, that's what I mean. Government should provide equal benefits. If a straight couple gets a tax write off, a gay couple should be able to have legal status to get the same write off. I would argue that being married shouldn't give you special exemptions on taxes though. There needs to be legal status for homosexuals to share health benefits and gain access to beneficiary rights and such easier than it is now.

I'm talking about invading private matters, like affirmative action, or things that prevent free speech, like hate crime legislation. As far as hate crimes go, ideally the judge should be able to determine motive and use the intent of the accused to determine an appropriate sentence. If I were a judge, I wouldn't give the same sentence to someone who murdered their abusive husband and the kids who killed Matthew Shepherd. IMO it doesn't make rational sense to equate the two, even though they both involved murder.

I don't know if I made that any clearer, or perhaps you still disagree.