Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It ended protection not just for LGBT, but for straight people as well. The laws stated "based on gender identity or sexual orientation", straight people are included in that as well.
Heterosexuality is a behavior. The act of sex, hetero or homo is a behavior, right? Marriage is not conferred on people on the basis of their sexual behavior, it is based on their sex/gender.
That's the point. Homosexuals seek special treatment in that they want to redefine marriage and base it on the sexual behavior of the participants and not the sex/gender of the participants as has been defined since the Western civilization was created.
Do you think that a hetero couple must copulate in the clerk's office in order to get a license? It has nothing to do with behavior...and that what homosexuals want changed.
Sexual orientation is not about any behavior. It is about attraction.
I am homosexual when buying groceries, or watching TV, or cooking dinner, or running errands. I was homosexual before I ever had sex.
No one is going to have to copulate in front of the the clerk, just enter the sex of each person on the form. The government doesn't even care if married people ever have sex at all.
I am not rabidly against it. I voted in support of the everything but marriage laws in WA State. I think that gay couples should be afforded every protection under the laws that are afforded to anyone else.
My issue is with forcing a redefinition of marriage and seeking special treatment based on personal behaviors/preferences. And those terms are not meant to indicate that homosexuality is a "lifestyle choice."
Seeking equal treatment isn't the same thing as seeking "special treatment."
And, the "redefinition of marriage" argument is getting old. Since when did someone else's marriage define yours?
If someone was on their 12th marriage at age 75 and marrying a 21yo, did that make your marriage any different?
If someone married their cousin, did that mean you were married to yours?
If someone had a "open" marriage, did that make yours open?
Point being, your marriage is what you have decided (along with your spouse) that you want a marriage to be.
Extending equal rights to all citizens, regardless of their sexual orientation is really the humane, decent thing to do, and it doesn't affect the marriages of heterosexuals in the slightest.
I know plenty of gay people who are recently married and I've not felt any different about my own marriage because of it.
Why should I?
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
I'm not using the Biblical definition. I am using the definition that Western civilization has used since before the US was established.
The Constitution doesn't define marriage because the Government only got involved in marriage to extract revenue from what already existed.
Plenty of marriages in the Bible were between one man and (hundreds? you must be a graduate of common core math) several women, but I don't recall a single instance of a marriage in the bible between two men or two women.
Nope, I've just read the thing. King Solomon had 700 wives plus another 300 concubines.
Of course women did not have multiple spouses! Women were property.
In what way does government extract revenue from marriage? Do you mean the nominal fee for a marriage license?
@ loriinwa: I've read this entire thread (yes, I have really). For the record, as a gay man, I disagree with your position. But, I appreciate you removing exaggerations/emotions and attempting to logically present your agrument, to which I actually repped you for. Gays don't seek to be recognized by your religion, we just seek to be recognize by your government, which is a separate entity from your Church.
Thank you. I realize that you may disagree with me. And for the record, my son is gay and I don't belong to a church. I am not aware of any religion that does not recognize gays, but I do know that the act of homosexuality has been deemed a sin in all monotheist religions. I also know that everyone sins, myself included, so I am in no place to judge you or anyone else. I do understand the issues faced by gay couples when it comes to equal treatment under the law related to the privileges conferred on married couples and I believe that gay couples should be ensured those same privileges...just not at the expense of redefining marriage.
As I stated in another post, I voted in WA state for the Everything but Marriage law that was passed and enacted and provided for gay couples who registered their civil unions to receive all the benefits they seek with regard to property/medical/financial/etc. protections, as it should be.
I do not support "denying gay people of being with the one they love" or denying gay couples the legal protections they are entitled to under the law. I am not scared of gay people and I do not hate gay people. I just do not see where it benefits society as a whole to redefine a centuries old institution of 3% of the population, when such benefits can be provided legally and we can avoid issues like bullying certain religious businesses with the cudjel of the State.
There was no issue with regard to people being unable to eat ice cream. That was the point. Heterosexuals do not desire sex with the same sex. Homosexuals do not desire sex with the opposite sex... in the simplest terms it is a matter of taste.
If a heterosexual individual was on a desert island with only members of the same sex, they could either choose to remain abstinent or engage in same sex relations if there desires were so strong as to overcome their lack of desire.
In the analogy, people who don't desire free ice cream are free to abstain, or overcome their distaste and eat free ice cream. Instead, they seek the special privilege of free frozen yogurt by demanding that the receive something not offered to everyone else, based solely on their tastes/desires.
Said as only a member of the ice cream eating majority could say. When you can't eat ice cream but everyone else is getting some at tax payer expense, there's an issue. Why should they be forced to abstain yet support the ice cream eating of everyone else? They are tax paying members of the society and should be treated with fairness and equality.
[quote=TheCityTheBridge;38419252]It would protect gay people from being fired demoted, or otherwise discriminated against in employment for being gay, just like other employment discrimination protections.
Are you sure based on the legal wording of the law that is all it would protect ? And not open the door to taking things too far due the the transgender aspect of it?
I know it shouldn't, but it still amazes me that there are so many morons who think that gay people choose to be gay, that they deserve to be discriminated against, that they corrupt children, etc.
Are you sure based on the legal wording of the law that is all it would protect ? And not open the door to taking things too far due the the transgender aspect of it?
Why don't transgender people deserve the same protections?
Are you sure based on the legal wording of the law that is all it would protect ? And not open the door to taking things too far due the the transgender aspect of it?
It would also protect transgender people from being fired, demoted, or otherwise discriminated against on account of being transgender.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
