What are your views on homosexual rights?
Homosexaul Rights
- Thread starter Anarcho Union
- Start date
If your view is not in the poll, please elaborate here
I am not a homophobe, I have sevral gay and bi friends. And I take what you said very offensive. From what you said about people that believe my way you are against the 'hate' homos get. But you just showed more hate towards anti-homo marrige activast then they show towards homo.
I didnt get on here and say 'all motherf**kin faggots should be hung and killed for being queer!" did I? So why would you say "homophobes deserve to have their throats cut out. Homophobes and rapists are the same breed of filth. They are lower than scum that infests a pond."
Can you tell me what a homophobe is?
The dictionary defintion is somone who has a fear of or being a homosexual. The common way soceity uses it is someone who is anti-gay rights or are biast of someone because they are gay
I have to admit I didnt understand what you said lol :b
I guess my vocab isnt as extent as it should be haha
It means that any "rights" are only available as a luxury. Just because people believe they should have rights doesn't mean they have them.
Can't you have a principled position against gay rights, say based on a religious view?
cf Iranian protesters and Chinese political dissidents.
I think we're limiting our discussion to the West?
yes
I was asking Alien Cockroach, who doesn't seem to make the distinction.
1) I believe that gay people should have the same individual rights as every other American. They should have the right to marry another consenting adult of either gender, since peoples' personal relationships shouldn't be the concern of the government. I also have no objection to gay couples adopting kids.
2) As far as jobs go; I don't believe that anyone has a right to a job. Private businesses should be able to hire whomever they wish for any reason(s) they wish. I wouldn't have any problem hiring a gay person, but I wouldn't be surprised if some churches did object. As private organizations/employers, churches shouldn't be forced into this, just as I wouldn't expect a gay rights organization to hire an outspoken homophobe.
3) As far as being "socially acceptable"; I have no problem with gay people, so they're "socially acceptable" to me. But what we're talking about here is peoples' opinions. And I don't think that we should try to force one person or group of people to like or "accept" another. As long as everyone is respecting the individual rights of others, who people choose to like or approve of is their own business.
2) As far as jobs go; I don't believe that anyone has a right to a job. Private businesses should be able to hire whomever they wish for any reason(s) they wish. I wouldn't have any problem hiring a gay person, but I wouldn't be surprised if some churches did object. As private organizations/employers, churches shouldn't be forced into this, just as I wouldn't expect a gay rights organization to hire an outspoken homophobe.
3) As far as being "socially acceptable"; I have no problem with gay people, so they're "socially acceptable" to me. But what we're talking about here is peoples' opinions. And I don't think that we should try to force one person or group of people to like or "accept" another. As long as everyone is respecting the individual rights of others, who people choose to like or approve of is their own business.
ok playing devils advocate give me 3 good reasons they shouldnt have equal rights
I believe that everyone should be viewed the same. That is not to ask what their political, religious or sexual preferences are but they should accept everyone as equal. Why should one group of people be treated any differently than all of the rest? Unless those that want the distinction of standing out just to be different is all they seek in order to raise themselves above everyone else as elitists always do.
Last edited:
From the Indian perspective we had homosexuality illegal until last year when some jurists finally woke up to the fact that the British have left, making their Victorian laws redundant. Now we're debating gay marriage and are all embarrassed about it. Meanwhile priests have been conducting gay marriages since as far back as 1983. And we still have hijras [eunuchs] begging at street corners because they cannot get jobs. Since no one will hire eunuchs. The fact that we have hijras is bad enough since it means boys are still being castrated for some godforsaken reason.
What rights are we talking about?
aww ok just random number i pulled out lol sounded good
Err...Gay Rights?
Maybe I should have said ``We're limiting the discussion to places where such rights can be seen as a luxury.'' Obviously there are places where sexuality is much more open than in the West...ask draqon about his Thai Lady Boy video collection if you don't believe me.
I like keeping the institutions separate, just because I think the inherent nature of the interaction between genders creates a lot of the things marriage laws are meant to address. In effect, women have different rights than men in this institution, and often with good reason.
In my home state, for example, the female partner is much more likely to end up with the kids, if there are any. Domestic violence almost always (not absolutely always) starts with the male partner and is directed toward the female partner. I think keeping a clear distinction about which partner is which in our laws would help curtail a lot of dangerous situations so that fewer women have to live in fear of their former partners.
If gay marriage uses the same laws, then the gender distinction about which partner gets what rights could very quickly dematerialize. It would take a number of court decisions, but it would happen.
So, I disapprove of using the same legal institution for both groups, and nearly 100% of my objection is just my sincere and deeply rooted hatred of domestic violence. I think our laws are way too lax already in this area, and already offer way to little protection to battered women. We can't afford to do anything that would undermine that situation further.
In my home state, for example, the female partner is much more likely to end up with the kids, if there are any. Domestic violence almost always (not absolutely always) starts with the male partner and is directed toward the female partner. I think keeping a clear distinction about which partner is which in our laws would help curtail a lot of dangerous situations so that fewer women have to live in fear of their former partners.
If gay marriage uses the same laws, then the gender distinction about which partner gets what rights could very quickly dematerialize. It would take a number of court decisions, but it would happen.
So, I disapprove of using the same legal institution for both groups, and nearly 100% of my objection is just my sincere and deeply rooted hatred of domestic violence. I think our laws are way too lax already in this area, and already offer way to little protection to battered women. We can't afford to do anything that would undermine that situation further.