[karibear]

Originally Posted by stiffnecked

Gay people have civil rights. They just want special rights that should be reserved for those in heterosexual relationships. Since Gay people can't procreate there is really no need whatsoever to grant them the same rights. Some <mod cut> people just don't understand basic biology.

It's not a matter of biology, it's personal economy. A hetero couple can live together for 30 years, have children, joint property, family health benefits from one or both employers, and inherit as a surviving 'spouse' when one dies. A gay couple living together for the same amount of time gets nothing, in most states. And if one dies, after the other cares for him or her for literally years, unless there is a specific will written, the remaining one gets nothing. In fact, often the family of the deceased can and does contest such a will and win - the same family who had nothing to do with the gay offspring during his or her life, having disowned them for their 'choice' of lifestyle.

As for having children - considering some of the biological parents I've seen, and tried to put together the pieces of their children's shattered lives, now THAT is basic biology, and nothing to be proud of. It still amazes me how some of those children survived childhood, let alone became decent adults. What good is 'biology' to a child who is molested and/or beaten by a parent, or sold to the highest bidder? Or outright killed by neglect or abuse? They'd have been infinitely better off being raised by a loving gay couple.

[StillwaterTownie]

So in a just society marriage should only be limited to two straight people of the opposite sex who are not too old to reproduce?

[karibear]

Originally Posted by StillwaterTownie

So in a just society marriage should only be limited to two straight people of the opposite sex who are not too old to reproduce?

It hasn't been all that many years ago since retirees had to get a divorce in order to both collect their full social security benefits. They could continue to live together while doing so, and file separate tax returns. Then some bright young thing figured out it was costing the government money, and a lot of the loopholes were closed. Now they can still collect full benefits if they divorce, but the catch is that they have to prove they are living separately as well. What they'd gain in social security benefits as individuals isn't as much as they'd also lose in having to pay for two residences. And they can't 'divorce' and take a roommate to supplement the benefits, because ALL residents are counted for income purposes, and benefits - at least in some states, are reduced due to the 'income' they get from a roommate. Now, also, a lot of widowed people can't afford to remarry or even have a live-in to share expenses, because, again, all residents at a single address are counted, married or not. It's a lose-lose proposition, no matter how it's figured.

[colleeng47]

Originally Posted by stiffnecked

Gay people have civil rights. They just want special rights that should be reserved for those in heterosexual relationships. Since Gay people can't procreate there is really no need whatsoever to grant them the same rights. Some <mod cut> people just don't understand basic biology.

The rights granted in heterosexual relationships have nothing "special" about them. They are basic human rights to love and live with the person of your choice, to share your lives, including money and possessions. It's the right to be with the person you love when they're sick or dying. It's the right to raise a family if that is your desire. It's the right to protect the person of your choice by providing health and other benefits. What's so wrong about that being applied to everyone? I have seen the most hateful, violent, degrading heterosexual relationships (some with, unfortunately, children). To my way of thinking love means a heck of a lot more than what should be "reserved" for certain groups of people.

[_redbird_]

Originally Posted by stiffnecked

Gay people have civil rights. They just want special rights that should be reserved for those in heterosexual relationships. Since Gay people can't procreate there is really no need whatsoever to grant them the same rights. Some <mod cut> people just don't understand basic biology.

What special rights, and why is it such an issue to you? (Dr. Phil, where are you when we need you?) You seem to have a lot more animosity going towards gay people than your OP.

You fail to understand the flaming, flamboyant nelly queens that the media loves to portray are only one segment of the gay population. Many gay/bi men and women do not fit the stereotype, do not attend gay pride events, and many are in heterosexual marriages with sons and daughters just like you. Ok, maybe not quite just like you. Sorry.

Its called basic biology. The number of people who are strictly gay or straight is probably outnumbered by those who fall somewhere in between.

The Oklahoma thread is for topics that relate to Oklahoma. Your quote above is nothing more than your personal beliefs aimed at gay issues. And sadly, its nothing that hasn't been said before.

As for the procreation 101 lesson, can you say adoption?

You greatly underestimate the intelligence of a great number of people that you obviously don't have any idea about.

If you need a thread to air out your personal feelings on gay issues, you can start a new thread on the P&OC forum and make lots of new friends. Its called preaching to the choir. Now, go out there and have fun! Life is too short to not go roller blading in a nun's outfit~! (That was a joke.) Have a good one.

Civil rights or special rights

Gay rights activists say it’s a matter of equality: They suggest that homosexuals should have the same rights and protections as heterosexuals, including:

* Protection against discrimination in employment, housing and immigration.
* An expansion of hate crime laws to specifically include sexual orientation.
* Domestic partner benefits similar to those granted to married couples.
* The right to marry or have their relationships recognized in “civil unions.”
* The ability to serve in the military without hiding their sexuality.

Others, though, say special rights shouldn’t be granted on the basis of behavior -- particularly one that many Americans find offensive. And some say that current laws are adequate to protect all Americans, regardless of their sexual orientation.

Snippet from:
Gay Rights: Overview (broken link)

[Annemieke Roell]

Originally Posted by stiffnecked

Gay people have civil rights. They just want special rights that should be reserved for those in heterosexual relationships. Since Gay people can't procreate there is really no need whatsoever to grant them the same rights. Some <mod cut> people just don't understand basic biology.

OK, let me see. Gay people want "special rights". The same special rights that should be reserved for hetero sexual relationships. So hetero couples are entitled to "special rights" but gay couples aren't.

Moderator cut: Please, no personal attacks

As far as being able to procreate ....... I can't procreate. Should I just hand in MY "special" rights too?

Good grief

[gdblauvelt]

Originally Posted by stiffnecked

Gay people have civil rights. They just want special rights that should be reserved for those in heterosexual relationships. Since Gay people can't procreate there is really no need whatsoever to grant them the same rights. Some <mod cut> people just don't understand basic biology.

I don't know which is worse: that you believe that, or you expect others to...

[StillwaterTownie]

Well, if you listened to Sally Kern this morning on Channel 4's Flashpoint, she said that gays can't have the same civil rights as blacks because blacks can't change the color of their skin. Since she says people choose to be gay, I guess she thinks gays can have the same rights as everyone else, but only if they change their minds and choose to become heterosexuals.

It's just plain wrong to think you can choose your sexual orientation. It's something that naturally comes over you beyond your control and possibly early in life like when a little boy sees a certain little girl and for the first time falls in love with a girl. It's a funny feeling he can not explain and it's not about choosing.

[colleeng47]

Originally Posted by StillwaterTownie

Since she says people choose to be gay, I guess she thinks gays can have the same rights as everyone else, but only if they change their minds and choose to become heterosexuals.

Does she honestly believe that someone would CHOOSE to be different than the mainstream, be held up for brutal ridicule in high school, be alienated and in some cases shunned by family and friends, be laughed at behind his or her back, stereotyped, and in general ignored or held in distain by a large population of the general public? Someone would choose this? If she believes this, I have a very nice bridge in Brooklyn she may be interested in buying.

[karibear]

Originally Posted by StillwaterTownie

Well, if you listened to Sally Kern this morning on Channel 4's Flashpoint, she said that gays can't have the same civil rights as blacks because blacks can't change the color of their skin. Since she says people choose to be gay, I guess she thinks gays can have the same rights as everyone else, but only if they change their minds and choose to become heterosexuals.

It's just plain wrong to think you can choose your sexual orientation. It's something that naturally comes over you beyond your control and possibly early in life like when a little boy sees a certain little girl and for the first time falls in love with a girl. It's a funny feeling he can not explain and it's not about choosing.

Color me boggled. For a minister's wife, she sure doesn't show much in the way of Christian charity - or anything other than intolerance, for that matter.