Homosexaul Rights

[superstring01]

i totally agree string.

gay people are some of the nicest people you will ever meet.. they are great company too. not being sarcastic im being serious.

I happen to have a bit more. . . cynical view.

Gay people. . . Well. . . gay people are evil. Evil right down to their cold black hearts, which pump not blood like yours and mine, but rather a thick, vomitous oil that oozes through their rotten veins and clots in their pea-sized brains which becomes the cause of their Nazi-esque patterns of violent behavior.

Okay. Mr. Garrison said that, and I laugh every time I see that episode. Really, honestly, gay people are just as fucked up, rigid, annoying, kind, giving, loving, hateful, spiteful and undesirable as the rest of humanity. In my experience, I'd rather just be in the company of a good person of any proclivity than just a "gay guy". To wit, I've had better luck with straight guys as friends, than gay guys (though, I have my gay friends too). I don't really wrap myself up overly in my sexual identity (though, I don't avoid it either) and I try passionately not to let it be the focus of my social life.

~String

 

[Giambattista]

Yup thats how it goes. The only men who don't reproduce would be the ones who were impotent or sterile. Or castrated.

Might be quite a few platonic marriages there.

That's probably not far from the truth. I really wonder if 10% would be a low estimate for those who are strongly bisexual or predominantly homosexual. I have real trouble buying what the conservatives routinely say about it being no more than 1 or 2 percent. They always say that, but it's a tactic to marginalize or make trivial homosexuality in order to cement the idea of a small minority of weird, sexual deviancy. It helps to convince people that since there are so few people who actually do that, then it really is just psychological issue or wrong lifestyle fad.

Seriously, if we had a society where there were no true bias against homosexuality or no pressure to conform to heterosexuality, where no one batted an eyelid about it, and maybe even it was considered cool, I wonder what true numbers we would see.
Contrary to what conservative Christians might say, homosexuality is still not acceptable enough to the point where no pressure to conform exists, even in "open and modern" America.
Being labeled "gay" has the very real consequence of making someone into an "other". It puts people in the gay corner. The expectation that is put on men to embrace qualities considered manly is a strong incentive for anyone to suppress any desires or actions that would make them "gay". I think of them as masculinity's burning hoops.
Even in circles where people "don't have a problem" with it, it still carries the mark of being less than normal. Less than a real man. Real functioning men are into women. Humans need heterosexuality to reproduce, therefore those not sufficiently interested in the opposite sex are deficient. They don't work the way they should. That's because they're gay... jAnd the "gay" label makes a person into things that they really aren't. Again, it's the gay corner. It separates or categorizes more than it honestly should. You have men, women, and gays. Alot of people see it and treat it as if it is some great border that separates people.

There are a ton of things or preferences one can like, but they don't garner one a broad, catchall identity-defining label. I think one of the reasons people aren't always as open about homosexuality is gay. It's the identity. I don't think people really recognize it, but that is my honest observation, and a little bit of my own sociological theorizing thrown in.

 

[Giambattista]

I have been all of those so far. Surely there's no harm in my questions.

You can abstain from gay sexual ACTS, but not from being gay anymore than you can from being black. Or do you think you can abstain from being attracted to the same sex..? Are you one of the people who view sexual orientation as a choice..?

Gay denotes a preference. It denotes a state of mind. Something you fancy. It is even possible to call it an ideology. But it is possible for someone to argue that you aren't "gay" in the same way, physically, as being black, simply because it resides in the mind and can be acted upon or restrained. You can fantasize about murdering someone you truly hate, but does that make you a murderer in the truest sense of the word?

In another sense, if I like the color "red", in the spirit of my last post, what does that make me as a person? Is there a special label for people like me? Was I born that way? Do I truly have a physical trait? Is it something I AM, or just something I like? Surely, it is PART of who I am, but it doesn't define me.**

Again, this is the argument used by such people as Christian conservatives, especially those that argue that homosexually-oriented people CAN help themselves and CAN change. But I'm getting a little tired of this argument. You of course have a point. And I agree with your point, but on the other hand, there is in a sense a very valid argument in the "acting gay and being gay are two different things" idea, even though ultimately it is unrealistic and oppressive, or used for such purposes.


**One of the reasons I find the "gay" label not really to my liking. It is used to define a person, rather than just to define one of many traits that a person has.

 

[NECROSHADE 50]

y would u think that they should die they have a right like every one else

 

[Giambattista]

y would u think that they should die they have a right like every one else

Who? Me?

No.

 

[Asguard]

what a biased poll, where is the option that they should have the same rights as everyone else? finantial, the right to marry who they love, to be accepted in nursing homes as a couple ect ect

 

[Tiassa]

Um ....

I thought it was the first one.

Or did I miss something here?

 

[Asguard]

I thought it was the first one.

Or did I miss something here?

oh, it just reads like one of buffalo's comments. you know, "they already have the same rights, they can marry a women just like everyone else"

After all it says "They have the same rights as everyone else (Marrige, Socialy Accepted, Church Jobs ect.)" when it SHOULD say "They SHOULD have ..." because those rights ARNT currently avilable

 

[Tiassa]

Well, that makes sense

oh, it just reads like one of buffalo's comments. you know, "they already have the same rights, they can marry a women just like everyone else"

Ah, I see. I was reading it more idealistically, I suppose, than realistically. That would be what I missed. Thanks.

 

[Norsefire]

Marriage maybe
Civil Unions yes
Adoption absolutely not

 

[kororoti]

It is not due to any inherent fault in men that courts tend to discriminate against the father in child custody suits.

In the case of battered women and children, if the woman attempts to leave, the man will often try punishing her through the children. That's a lot of why it's usually good to favor the mother in custody cases.

So you think that men are inherently violent and dangerous? I am insulted.

Aggression is a natural byproduct of testosterone. That's been scientifically demonstrated. Among male populations, both human and primate, there's a strong statistical correlation between the individual's level of aggression and their level of testosterone. Women have 1/7 the testosterone of men. You can do the math.

Even beyond that, though. Most women do not have the physical size and strength to be able to violently abuse their partners, even if they wanted to, unless the partner were to voluntarily concede.

So you think that courts will be unable to tell the difference between men and women if men can marry men and women can marry women.

Yes, in a sense. Obviously, they'll be able to see their gender, but they won't be able to make a legal distinction between the "husband" and the "wife" without offending gay married couples.

I don't think you believe your own bullshit. You are just an asshole, and you deserve to have your head beaten in with a lead pipe.

..... back to what I was saying about testosterone and aggression.

Nothing of the sort has happened in countries and states where gay people have had the same rights that you have for a long time. I think you are just a jerk.

They haven't had it long enough. Give it time. Court decisions change slowly over time. You just have to wait long enough for some precedent to build up. Then lawyers will start citing cases where gay couples were abusive to each other during trials that involve heterosexual couples. It's a lawyer's job to obfuscate things. They'll always do it anytime we give them the ammunition.

 

[S.A.M.]

And it's not that the Old Testament is unimportant, but I find it quite ironic that Christians should choose to ignore Christ.

Indeed, how many Christians believe they should give their daughters to strangers who show up on the doorstep for a bit of tupping?

 

[Cowboy]

Marriage maybe
Civil Unions yes
Adoption absolutely not

Why the "maybe" for marriage? If you ignore all that crap about love, marriage is essentially a contract between individuals. As long as those individuals are consenting adults, why not allow same-sex marriage?

And why are you opposed to allowing same-sex couples to adopt?

 

[Cellar_Door]

They have human rights, but what more can they expect?

 

[pjdude1219]

They have human rights, but what more can they expect?

Yea um to marry and to not be dragged to death behind a truck you little things like that

 

[CutsieMarie89]

Marriage maybe
Civil Unions yes
Adoption absolutely not

Why no adoption? And why are you okay with civil unions and not marriage?

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Why no adoption? And why are you okay with civil unions and not marriage?

Considering the number of gay people who have children the old-fashioned way (more or less, but it's got their DNA), it's kind of ludicrous to insist that they can't be good parents. It's even more ludicrous when you start counting the number of straight people who are criminally awful parents. Just the ones you know personally! Maybe even just the ones in your own family.

 

[madanthonywayne]

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?

Wait a minute. What are you talking about? If eunichs are unemployable and looked down upon, why the hell is anyone getting castrated?

I just went on Wikipedia. HOLY FUCKIN' SHIT!

Becoming a hijra​

The process may culminate in a religious ritual that includes emasculation (total removal of the penis, testes and scrotum in men). Not all hijras undergo emasculation, and the percentage of hijras that are eunuchs is unknown. The operation—referred to by hijras as a nirvan ("rebirth") and carried out by a dai (traditional midwife)—involves removing the penis and scrotum with a knife without anesthesia. The cry and wail of the target is covered with loud trumpeting. In modern times, some hijras may undergo a vaginoplasty, allowing them to experience vaginal intercourse, but such cases are rare. The American transsexual activist Anne Ogborn became an initiated Hijra in 1993. She is thought to be the first Westerner to be a member of the Hijra community.[7]​

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijra_(South_Asia)

That is insane. Why would someone voluntarily do that?

 

[Norsefire]

Why the "maybe" for marriage? If you ignore all that crap about love, marriage is essentially a contract between individuals. As long as those individuals are consenting adults, why not allow same-sex marriage?

It's not that...it's just that you said it yourself: aside from the love aspect (and love isn't "crap"), the benefits to marriage are all contractual and legal and propertarian. These benefits can be enjoyed by people in Civil Unions, though. So there is no need to let them marry.

Civil Unions already let them enjoy the benefits of being recognized as a couple. So why is marriage necessary?

I oppose marriage because marriage isn't a government thing.....it's a ceremony and tradition, and a religious one at that. So it'd be quite rude of the government to tell the people that their traditions don't matter. Let the Church decide whom they want to marry. Civil Unions are fine for legalities and properties.

And why are you opposed to allowing same-sex couples to adopt?

Being raised by a gay couple could have side effects...you'll probably be exposed to homosexuality and be raised thinking that it's okay (not that I'm saying it isn't, but you need to learn about your own place too, being a man or a woman).

 

[madanthonywayne]

Why no adoption? And why are you okay with civil unions and not marriage?

I'd give preference to traditional male/female couples because I think it's best for the child to have a male an female influence. But if no such couples were available, better they be adopted by a homosexual couple than languish in foster care.