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.
Like it or not we live in a heterosexual world and it is rather unfortunate that this arrangement fails to accommodate the homosexual outsider to the degree that he feels society owes him.
We live in a sighted world. Should we not accommodate the blind?
The U.S. is majority white--does that make discriminating against Black, Latino, and people of other races okay?
Just because someone is a minority, oppression is justified?
Yes, and I don't imagine they appreciate you hijacking their cause for your sexual perversion. Most blacks are religious and don't support the gay agenda.
Two of my black friends are gay - oh, AND they're Christian. Do you think they mind "hijacking" their own discrimination laws? Confusing, ain't it? One of my black/gay friends has said it's harder to be gay, and that he's faced more bullying & hate for his sexual orientation. There are still many racists in the world today, but for the most part they at least keep it to themselves & don't support institutional bigotry (unlike homophobes). So who are we to argue with somebody who experiences it from both perspectives? Also, while a good number of blacks are Christian, that doesn't necessarily mean they don't support gay rights... I can personally cite many who support them, and nationwide polls would say the same.
Regardless, they (Christians) can feel however they want, but it still doesn't excuse them from denying equal rights to others. I'm Jewish, so would it be fair for me to say Christians can't claim religious discrimination, even if it was a CLEAR case? No, it wouldn't, because nobody owns the laws of equality... and nobody deserves more rights than another group, despite your/their personal feelings on the issues. Jews and Muslims face more religious persecution than Christians, but I still wouldn't begrudge them equality under the law. I'm just not that kind of person, and I have trouble fathoming how others are of that mindset.
We live in a sighted world. Should we not accommodate the blind?
The U.S. is majority white--does that make discriminating against Black, Latino, and people of other races okay?
Just because someone is a minority, oppression is justified?
Apparently some of the posters here believe so... if you're not white, Christian and straight, you should just "suck it up" and deal with being persecuted. Boy, and then we wonder how something like the Holocaust could happen.
The majority of society is not wheelchair-bound, and yet all states have accessibility requirements for public buildings. I wonder if people here support that? You don't hear many complaints about handicapped parking & wheelchair ramps, so I'm guessing not.
Yea, right. I'm sure there's an avalance of hate crimes based on heterosexuality. And employment discrimination because of an employee's heterosexuality is running rampant--- at gay mags and gay cruises. 'Sexual orientation' laws were developed For the gay orientation. Special people.
You just debated yourself, LOL... if you understand these crimes (against heterosexuals) are rare, then why WOULDN'T you support including homosexuals in hate crimes & anti-discrimination laws? It's a moot point anyway, since even if an anti-straight crime never occurred, they still have the right to be protected if one ever did. Wow, this discussion always ends up going in circles - doesn't it?
Here in California, the anti-discrimination laws include sexual orientation, religion, gender, disability, HIV status, marital/familial status, nationality/origin, and I think even political persuasion and appearance... it doesn't specify under what sub-category you fit (i.e. straight vs gay, disabled vs able-bodied), so it really covers 100% of humanity. If you're discriminated against for being a straight, white male, these laws would still protect you if the case was proven. Thus, it is NOT providing "special" considerations for anyone, unless you are completely devoid of all categories - which would be logistically impossible.
The murder of Mathew Shepard was not about his being gay, so it really wasn't a hate crime. It was a robbery and murder, that got used for political purposes. A crime is a crime, all murders end up with somebody dead. Hate crimes are discriminatory on their face.
If you want to argue with the perpetrators, prove it was something other than what they say it was.
Oh, so you actually believe the word of murderers? Do you also believe Emmett Till's murder was an accident?
I wasn't there, so I can't say anything with 100% certainty... but I'd bet money that Mathew Shepard would still be alive today if he were straight. And even if I turned out to be wrong, does that nullify all of the PROVEN hate crimes against gays?
Now to lighten the mood & return to the original topic, all I can say about this video is "Thank GAWD it didn't take place in San Francisco!" I'm so sick of us being blamed & taunted over this stuff, my first thought went right to that... I was awfully relieved when I read the story, and saw it didn't happen here.
We live in a sighted world. Should we not accommodate the blind? The U.S. is majority white--does that make discriminating against Black, Latino, and people of other races okay? Just because someone is a minority, oppression is justified?
Homosexuals already have the same civil rights as everyone else. What the homosexual demands is additional rights and privileges i.e. the “right” to marry someone of the same sex in addition to the “right” already in existence to marry as everyone in [straight] society already does with normal opposite sex marriage. Homosexuality is a sexual preference, not a disease or race, with a so-called “protected class” status that they currently enjoy that the rest of regular, unprotected class society is excluded from.
Don't be dense. The fact that there aren't lots of prosecutions for hate crimes against heterosexuals by homosexuals does not speak to the neutrality of the law on its face.
All you have done is shown that there is little to no NEED for straight people to take advantage of sexual orientation protections in the workplace or in public?
Ever stop to think MAYBE there is little to no incidence of gay people beating up straight people for being straight? Ya know, because most gay people have straight family members, moms, dads, brothers, sisters who they love?
But wait, if sexual orientation discrimination laws are for "special" gay people, WHY are SOME STRAIGHT people using same when appropriate?!:
John Klassen recently represented three clients in discrimination, harassment and retaliation cases against the Minneapolis Fire Department and its former fire chief. These high-profile cases involved same-sex and reverse sexual discrimination, sexual harassment, and gender discrimination claims against the first openly lesbian fire chief in a major city. One of the cases is the first known reverse sexual orientation discrimination case in the United States against the head of a large public agency. All three cases were ultimately settled favorably for the plaintiffs, and the Minneapolis Fire Chief was demoted in part because of the alleged unlawful conduct which formed these cases.
Let's say it again: Laws and rights that protect EVERYONE on their face ARE NOT SPECIAL LAWS AND RIGHTS!
OK, you're right. Thinking back to when the federal and my state's sexual orientation hate crime laws passed, I now remember the celebrations and joy of all the heterosexual interest groups I belong to because we were being protected from hate crimes. Even though everyone thought the laws were Really for the protection of gay orientation, we saw through that charade. Knowing that our fellow citizens and legislators cared for our safety as heteresexuals warmed the cockles of our hearts.
We live in a sighted world. Should we not accommodate the blind?
The U.S. is majority white--does that make discriminating against Black, Latino, and people of other races okay?
Just because someone is a minority, oppression is justified?
Quote:
Originally Posted by gizmo980
The majority of society is not wheelchair-bound, and yet all states have accessibility requirements for public buildings. I wonder if people here support that? You don't hear many complaints about handicapped parking & wheelchair ramps, so I'm guessing not.
The Rand objectivists who infest this forum, believe that the handicapped, minorities for instance should NOT be accommodated, thus the many views expressed (they probably don't know who Ayn Rand is, but it's just a common mentality). This suits them because they are not in the minority. The powerless are the "useless" in their mind, and therefore need to go away. There is an element of "not my problem".
Quote:
Originally Posted by JobZombie
Homosexuals already have the same civil rights as everyone else. What the homosexual demands is additional rights and privileges i.e. the “right” to marry someone of the same sex in addition to the “right” already in existence to marry as everyone in [straight] society already does with normal opposite sex marriage. Homosexuality is a sexual preference, not a disease or race, with a so-called “protected class” status that they currently enjoy that the rest of regular, unprotected class society is excluded from.
The right to gain your acceptance by being "normal" and de-gaying. Right!
You duck and dodge a lot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by claudhopper
Yes, and I don't imagine they appreciate you hijacking their cause for your sexual perversion. Most blacks are religious and don't support the gay agenda.
You know all this? Really...
Quote:
Originally Posted by claudhopper
If I'm not a member of this special group, I receive no special protection. I can be prosecuted for a hate crime, but they cannot. Get it? Not equal!
You are wrong of course - but don't let that stop you. If someone commits a "hate crime" against you, they can be prosecuted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by claudhopper
The murder of Mathew Shepard was not about his being gay, so it really wasn't a hate crime.
If you want to argue with the perpetrators, prove it was something other than what they say it was.
How about some "proof" from you. To make a wild assertion then say "prove me wrong" is an easy game to play.
Try this: I might believe you are gay. Now prove me wrong! (Your word is not proof btw).
Like it or not we live in a heterosexual world and it is rather unfortunate that this arrangement fails to accommodate the homosexual outsider to the degree that he feels society owes him.
Equal protection under the law is a right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. Its very purpose is to protect certain rights against the whim, caprice and prejudice of the majority.
You fail American Civics 101. Please repeat the class, and pay attention this time.
equal protection under the law does not mean forcing gay marriage on a populace that doesn't want it. It's not about rights, when you reject civil unions, which provide for same. Why are liberals so hung up on changing our language? Marriage is an institution based on one man one woman - you don't have any RIGHT to redefine it.
Are you aware of recent polls, claud?
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.
