Hair-splitting
• It bothers me how some gays and lesbians will go on the different media outlets and say something like "I'm gay so I deserve special laws to protect me and special rights so I can promote my life style", imo its the same as a straight white male doing the same thing, its absurd. (
Azrael)
• Reverse discrimination pisses me OFF! (
Cactus Jack)
To start here ....
Azrael, I'm sure you have som example of those special laws to provide?
Cactus Jack, same note?
• If I dislike someone, and they happened to be gay or a different skin color, and my dislike is not related to their "gayness" or their skin color, I think nearly everyone would accept and understand that. (
BustedCrutch)
See, this is really close to the central issue in American "gay-fights". Think of it this way, if you dislike someone, and they happen to be of a different gender, that's okay. But if you call that person a gender-specific name (e.g.
bitch) or use gender as your primary complaint about them, you're being bigoted against the gender. You don't get to call people
bitch, you don't get to call someone
Nigger.
Really, I know the guy pisses you off, but
just because he happens to be black, would you call him "Nigger"?
Do you show your disapproval of your friends by calling them Nigger, Spick, Chink, Dago, Kraut, Kike, or otherwise?
Why, then, is it that different to not use the word "Faggot" as a derogatory word?
And yes, heterosexuals
do flaunt it around the office. Sure, the faggot may have a funny voice or walk strange, but the bitch in the corner is talking about going man-hunting and
everyone in the office can see where her birthmark is ....
What it is, in the end, is that people don't want to go to the effort of making a very small change. Therefore, to equalize gays in society seems like a "special" measure to them.
There are nearly 300 million people in this damn country, and the best thing we can think of to aid poverty-stricken households is forced workplace diversity.
Well, we're going to war. The poor people can always enlist. You're really going to hold workplace diversity as part of the poverty issue? What about fair wages, working conditions, public education, and the fact that workplace diversity is only "forced" because prior to that forcing, only white people were "decent" enough to earn a living?
In the United States' history, it was morally wrong to teach a dark-skinned person to read. That dark skin was excuse to render that person, at best, only 60% human. And that was for taxation and apportionment purposes, not as a basis for legal rights. After we got that whole mess settled, there was still the issue of boxcars, bus seats, restrooms, textbooks, &c.
In Oregon, for instance, Lon Mabon pointed out, prior to the 2000 election, that homosexuality needed to be stopped because it was dangerous; homosexual teenagers have a devastating suicide rate. Of course, the thing is that that suicide rate comes almost entirely from alienation--rejection by family, friends, and community leaves no person anywhere to turn. Yet Mabon wanted to increase that rejection, codify it at the state level, and then take away whatever tools the schools had to deal with an alarming suicide rate. In other words, alienate the gays more, and take away as many devices of reconciliation as possible. In Mabon's ideal world, then, all the gay kids would kill themselves, and then we could all be equal. Well, once we fired all the gay teachers, firemen, police officers, typists, copy assistants, pages, librarians, and doctors, to say the least. It's just the same as before, when in denying equality to the African-descended American, the supremacists took the result of their tampering and held it up as genuine evidence. Try a '95 statistic toward that end. 2,400 people prosecuted under the "crack standard". By this standard, five grams of crack cocaine equals five years in prison. Crack and powder are no different. Yet it takes five-
hundred grams (half-pound) of powdered cocaine to earn a mandatory five-year sentence.
• 2,400 people prosecuted under this standard.
• 11 were not black.
• 3 were white.
Now then, this might seem reasonable. After all, the black community has a drug problem. Right? Right?
The same year's statistics told the story.
• 65% of crack users in the US are white.
How did we reach this disparity in justice?
Well, frankly, we got there because people don't have a problem with "anti-discrimination" rules, except that they do.
The only way to get rid of anti-discrimination laws is to get rid of discrimination.
Unless anyone would like to admit that they truly believe that the best society is the one that raises them and theirs above all others. And I don't expect that out of anyone, much less at this forum.
But the hair-splitting I hear is exceptionally finely-cut.
As you noted,
Crutch,
It makes you completely dependent on the (typically) uninformed whim of a random individual. Its not easy to get a job when you don't match someones religious/social preferences, or meet "comfortable" qualifications.
But, apparently, as some people have it, to show you that a gay individual is equal, yadda-yadda-yadda, is being interpreted as preference or "special rights".
You've pointed to a fine distinction. But it is an important one. And of those who make "special rights" arguments, well? I think they need to consider a couple of your points.
thanx much,
Tiassa