|
LosingOrbit wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Darkphoenix3450 wrote: digs wrote: Gay "rights" and civil rights are not the same thing. You are born into a race, homosexuality is a choice. People aren't against homosexual marriage because they believe gays are racially inferior, people are against it because homosexuality is immoral and destructive to the image of the family and marriage. The gay "rights" movement wants to parade around as these poor discriminated people, when in reality homosexuals are on average more wealthy and have special protection under certain laws. Just because someone doesn't support the homosexual agenda and believes it's immoral/sinful doesn't imply or mean that they are a homophobe or discriminate against gay people. The same principal would apply to people who oppose the drug agenda. They don't hate the potheads (or other druggies), but they hate the pot (and other drugs) and don't want it legalized. The gay "rights" movement and the civil rights movement also campaign(ed) for different things. Civil Rights: Equal human rights for everyone of every race and nationality. Gay "Rights": Homosexual unions should be treated equally as heterosexual unions and homosexual acts should be accepted. One deals with rights based on human race, the other deals with immorality based on sexual perversion. Homosexual unions are not equal with heterosexual (altho the PEOPLE who are homosexuals are equal with heterosexuals). DIGs! 1, Society dictates what is moral or not. 2, Being gay is something you do not have any power over, the same as you skin color, so in this there the same. 3. Where is the evidence for what you said about gays being more wealthy and have special protection under the law? Last time I looked they had no such thing. 4. Pot is Illegal do to prejudice against it, do to miss representation of it from authority figures, who them selves had discrimination agents it by implying illogical correlation with crime and pot without evidence, do to this over time the prejudices and discrimination against it has gotten to the point that even the evidence showing that it is not the case will not aid in its legalization. There is more but I really need to walk my stupid dog! Being gay is something you do not have any power over. This is something I do not agree with. I know plenty of homosexuals do to the fact that my aunt is a lesbian. About 5 out of 8 of them went back to being heterosexual, while the others are still dating men, women, or both. By those five people changing sexuality I can assume that they do have control over what they choose to be, while skin color is something that you are born with. Well like I said so before, sexual orientation is a genetic variant that can be affected either through genetic, the environment, or both. Therefore your aunts might even be themselves experimenting homosexuality, before they readjusted back to straight heterosexuality. |
|
|
Strong enough for men, made for women. Anything less will be uncivilized.
|
|
|
Forum Moderator
|
Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Darkphoenix3450 wrote: LosingOrbit wrote: Darkphoenix3450 wrote: digs wrote: Gay "rights" and civil rights are not the same thing. You are born into a race, homosexuality is a choice. People aren't against homosexual marriage because they believe gays are racially inferior, people are against it because homosexuality is immoral and destructive to the image of the family and marriage. The gay "rights" movement wants to parade around as these poor discriminated people, when in reality homosexuals are on average more wealthy and have special protection under certain laws. Just because someone doesn't support the homosexual agenda and believes it's immoral/sinful doesn't imply or mean that they are a homophobe or discriminate against gay people. The same principal would apply to people who oppose the drug agenda. They don't hate the potheads (or other druggies), but they hate the pot (and other drugs) and don't want it legalized. The gay "rights" movement and the civil rights movement also campaign(ed) for different things. Civil Rights: Equal human rights for everyone of every race and nationality. Gay "Rights": Homosexual unions should be treated equally as heterosexual unions and homosexual acts should be accepted. One deals with rights based on human race, the other deals with immorality based on sexual perversion. Homosexual unions are not equal with heterosexual (altho the PEOPLE who are homosexuals are equal with heterosexuals). DIGs! 1, Society dictates what is moral or not. 2, Being gay is something you do not have any power over, the same as you skin color, so in this there the same. 3. Where is the evidence for what you said about gays being more wealthy and have special protection under the law? Last time I looked they had no such thing. 4. Pot is Illegal do to prejudice against it, do to miss representation of it from authority figures, who them selves had discrimination agents it by implying illogical correlation with crime and pot without evidence, do to this over time the prejudices and discrimination against it has gotten to the point that even the evidence showing that it is not the case will not aid in its legalization. There is more but I really need to walk my stupid dog! Being gay is something you do not have any power over. This is something I do not agree with. I know plenty of homosexuals do to the fact that my aunt is a lesbian. About 5 out of 8 of them went back to being heterosexual, while the others are still dating men, women, or both. By those five people changing sexuality I can assume that they do have control over what they choose to be, while skin color is something that you are born with. As he said... Yei Let's imagine that the millions of homosexuals in the world along with all the doctors, professors and scientists at the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychoanalytic Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the National Association of Social Workers are all not lying when they say homosexuality is not a choice and sexual orientation cannot be changed. If they were all actually telling the truth and not just part of some sort of giant global conspiracy, then that means sexual orientation is something people have no control over, like race. So if someone is a homosexual they can't change it the same way a black person can't change their race. I'm not saying this is true, but if it were true, wouldn't that make gay rights a civil rights issue then? NEW EVIDENCE OF A GAY GENE! http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,983713,00.html Scientists Make Fruit Flies Gay, Then Straight Again by messing with there genes http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316316,00.html I'm confused. What about bi-sexual? They both go out with men and women. And heterosexuals that have dated one sex their whole lives and suddenly decide to switch over. Are you telling me that's not a choice? |
|
I have this thing for chocolate. I think I may have a problem...don't judge me.
|
|
|
LosingOrbit wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Darkphoenix3450 wrote: LosingOrbit wrote: Darkphoenix3450 wrote: digs wrote: Gay "rights" and civil rights are not the same thing. You are born into a race, homosexuality is a choice. People aren't against homosexual marriage because they believe gays are racially inferior, people are against it because homosexuality is immoral and destructive to the image of the family and marriage. The gay "rights" movement wants to parade around as these poor discriminated people, when in reality homosexuals are on average more wealthy and have special protection under certain laws. Just because someone doesn't support the homosexual agenda and believes it's immoral/sinful doesn't imply or mean that they are a homophobe or discriminate against gay people. The same principal would apply to people who oppose the drug agenda. They don't hate the potheads (or other druggies), but they hate the pot (and other drugs) and don't want it legalized. The gay "rights" movement and the civil rights movement also campaign(ed) for different things. Civil Rights: Equal human rights for everyone of every race and nationality. Gay "Rights": Homosexual unions should be treated equally as heterosexual unions and homosexual acts should be accepted. One deals with rights based on human race, the other deals with immorality based on sexual perversion. Homosexual unions are not equal with heterosexual (altho the PEOPLE who are homosexuals are equal with heterosexuals). DIGs! 1, Society dictates what is moral or not. 2, Being gay is something you do not have any power over, the same as you skin color, so in this there the same. 3. Where is the evidence for what you said about gays being more wealthy and have special protection under the law? Last time I looked they had no such thing. 4. Pot is Illegal do to prejudice against it, do to miss representation of it from authority figures, who them selves had discrimination agents it by implying illogical correlation with crime and pot without evidence, do to this over time the prejudices and discrimination against it has gotten to the point that even the evidence showing that it is not the case will not aid in its legalization. There is more but I really need to walk my stupid dog! Being gay is something you do not have any power over. This is something I do not agree with. I know plenty of homosexuals do to the fact that my aunt is a lesbian. About 5 out of 8 of them went back to being heterosexual, while the others are still dating men, women, or both. By those five people changing sexuality I can assume that they do have control over what they choose to be, while skin color is something that you are born with. As he said... Yei Let's imagine that the millions of homosexuals in the world along with all the doctors, professors and scientists at the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychoanalytic Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the National Association of Social Workers are all not lying when they say homosexuality is not a choice and sexual orientation cannot be changed. If they were all actually telling the truth and not just part of some sort of giant global conspiracy, then that means sexual orientation is something people have no control over, like race. So if someone is a homosexual they can't change it the same way a black person can't change their race. I'm not saying this is true, but if it were true, wouldn't that make gay rights a civil rights issue then? NEW EVIDENCE OF A GAY GENE! http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,983713,00.html Scientists Make Fruit Flies Gay, Then Straight Again by messing with there genes http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316316,00.html I'm confused. What about bi-sexual? They both go out with men and women. And heterosexuals that have dated one sex their whole lives and suddenly decide to switch over. Are you telling me that's not a choice? Bisexuality are also common among the animal kingdom, especially the more socially active one like dolphins. Therefore we can see a direct correlation by how socially active we are, the more sexual we'll get. However this could have lifestyle changing effect on our values, when our pleasure-seeking instinct undermine our higher brain function of us being content of who we are. Besides, do you honestly think that we're in control of our decision 100% of the time? When we can be fooled just by subjecting ourselves with simple optical illusions. |
|
|
Strong enough for men, made for women. Anything less will be uncivilized.
|
|
|
Forum Moderator
|
DomFortress wrote: LosingOrbit wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Darkphoenix3450 wrote: LosingOrbit wrote: Darkphoenix3450 wrote: digs wrote: Gay "rights" and civil rights are not the same thing. You are born into a race, homosexuality is a choice. People aren't against homosexual marriage because they believe gays are racially inferior, people are against it because homosexuality is immoral and destructive to the image of the family and marriage. The gay "rights" movement wants to parade around as these poor discriminated people, when in reality homosexuals are on average more wealthy and have special protection under certain laws. Just because someone doesn't support the homosexual agenda and believes it's immoral/sinful doesn't imply or mean that they are a homophobe or discriminate against gay people. The same principal would apply to people who oppose the drug agenda. They don't hate the potheads (or other druggies), but they hate the pot (and other drugs) and don't want it legalized. The gay "rights" movement and the civil rights movement also campaign(ed) for different things. Civil Rights: Equal human rights for everyone of every race and nationality. Gay "Rights": Homosexual unions should be treated equally as heterosexual unions and homosexual acts should be accepted. One deals with rights based on human race, the other deals with immorality based on sexual perversion. Homosexual unions are not equal with heterosexual (altho the PEOPLE who are homosexuals are equal with heterosexuals). DIGs! 1, Society dictates what is moral or not. 2, Being gay is something you do not have any power over, the same as you skin color, so in this there the same. 3. Where is the evidence for what you said about gays being more wealthy and have special protection under the law? Last time I looked they had no such thing. 4. Pot is Illegal do to prejudice against it, do to miss representation of it from authority figures, who them selves had discrimination agents it by implying illogical correlation with crime and pot without evidence, do to this over time the prejudices and discrimination against it has gotten to the point that even the evidence showing that it is not the case will not aid in its legalization. There is more but I really need to walk my stupid dog! Being gay is something you do not have any power over. This is something I do not agree with. I know plenty of homosexuals do to the fact that my aunt is a lesbian. About 5 out of 8 of them went back to being heterosexual, while the others are still dating men, women, or both. By those five people changing sexuality I can assume that they do have control over what they choose to be, while skin color is something that you are born with. As he said... Yei Let's imagine that the millions of homosexuals in the world along with all the doctors, professors and scientists at the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychoanalytic Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the National Association of Social Workers are all not lying when they say homosexuality is not a choice and sexual orientation cannot be changed. If they were all actually telling the truth and not just part of some sort of giant global conspiracy, then that means sexual orientation is something people have no control over, like race. So if someone is a homosexual they can't change it the same way a black person can't change their race. I'm not saying this is true, but if it were true, wouldn't that make gay rights a civil rights issue then? NEW EVIDENCE OF A GAY GENE! http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,983713,00.html Scientists Make Fruit Flies Gay, Then Straight Again by messing with there genes http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316316,00.html I'm confused. What about bi-sexual? They both go out with men and women. And heterosexuals that have dated one sex their whole lives and suddenly decide to switch over. Are you telling me that's not a choice? Bisexuality are also common among the animal kingdom, especially the more socially active one like dolphins. Therefore we can see a direct correlation by how socially active we are, the more sexual we'll get. However this could have lifestyle changing effect on our values, when our pleasure-seeking instinct undermine our higher brain function of us being content of who we are. Besides, do you honestly think that we're in control of our decision 100% of the time? When we can be fooled just by subjecting ourselves with simple optical illusions. I guess you're right. Is just that I've always been raised to believe that homosexuality is a sin, so it's hard to except it in a day and age where it's becoming more common. I don't want to be a hateful or ignorant person, but I will not compare the two with each other. And no, I'm not homophobic. |
|
I have this thing for chocolate. I think I may have a problem...don't judge me.
|
|
|
LosingOrbit wrote: DomFortress wrote: LosingOrbit wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Darkphoenix3450 wrote: LosingOrbit wrote: Darkphoenix3450 wrote: digs wrote: Gay "rights" and civil rights are not the same thing. You are born into a race, homosexuality is a choice. People aren't against homosexual marriage because they believe gays are racially inferior, people are against it because homosexuality is immoral and destructive to the image of the family and marriage. The gay "rights" movement wants to parade around as these poor discriminated people, when in reality homosexuals are on average more wealthy and have special protection under certain laws. Just because someone doesn't support the homosexual agenda and believes it's immoral/sinful doesn't imply or mean that they are a homophobe or discriminate against gay people. The same principal would apply to people who oppose the drug agenda. They don't hate the potheads (or other druggies), but they hate the pot (and other drugs) and don't want it legalized. The gay "rights" movement and the civil rights movement also campaign(ed) for different things. Civil Rights: Equal human rights for everyone of every race and nationality. Gay "Rights": Homosexual unions should be treated equally as heterosexual unions and homosexual acts should be accepted. One deals with rights based on human race, the other deals with immorality based on sexual perversion. Homosexual unions are not equal with heterosexual (altho the PEOPLE who are homosexuals are equal with heterosexuals). DIGs! 1, Society dictates what is moral or not. 2, Being gay is something you do not have any power over, the same as you skin color, so in this there the same. 3. Where is the evidence for what you said about gays being more wealthy and have special protection under the law? Last time I looked they had no such thing. 4. Pot is Illegal do to prejudice against it, do to miss representation of it from authority figures, who them selves had discrimination agents it by implying illogical correlation with crime and pot without evidence, do to this over time the prejudices and discrimination against it has gotten to the point that even the evidence showing that it is not the case will not aid in its legalization. There is more but I really need to walk my stupid dog! Being gay is something you do not have any power over. This is something I do not agree with. I know plenty of homosexuals do to the fact that my aunt is a lesbian. About 5 out of 8 of them went back to being heterosexual, while the others are still dating men, women, or both. By those five people changing sexuality I can assume that they do have control over what they choose to be, while skin color is something that you are born with. As he said... Yei Let's imagine that the millions of homosexuals in the world along with all the doctors, professors and scientists at the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychoanalytic Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the National Association of Social Workers are all not lying when they say homosexuality is not a choice and sexual orientation cannot be changed. If they were all actually telling the truth and not just part of some sort of giant global conspiracy, then that means sexual orientation is something people have no control over, like race. So if someone is a homosexual they can't change it the same way a black person can't change their race. I'm not saying this is true, but if it were true, wouldn't that make gay rights a civil rights issue then? NEW EVIDENCE OF A GAY GENE! http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,983713,00.html Scientists Make Fruit Flies Gay, Then Straight Again by messing with there genes http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316316,00.html I'm confused. What about bi-sexual? They both go out with men and women. And heterosexuals that have dated one sex their whole lives and suddenly decide to switch over. Are you telling me that's not a choice? Bisexuality are also common among the animal kingdom, especially the more socially active one like dolphins. Therefore we can see a direct correlation by how socially active we are, the more sexual we'll get. However this could have lifestyle changing effect on our values, when our pleasure-seeking instinct undermine our higher brain function of us being content of who we are. Besides, do you honestly think that we're in control of our decision 100% of the time? When we can be fooled just by subjecting ourselves with simple optical illusions. I guess you're right. Is just that I've always been raised to believe that homosexuality is a sin, so it's hard to except it in a day and age where it's becoming more common. I don't want to be a hateful or ignorant person, but I will not compare the two with each other. And no, I'm not homophobic. Well myself being a heterosexual ethnic minority(me being Chinese), I'm not offended by this comparison. Just as long as the homosexuals can also behave with civility and respect my sexual orientation, I'll party with them. |
|
|
Strong enough for men, made for women. Anything less will be uncivilized.
|
|
|
What about gay brothas?
|
|
|
Woooo!
|
|
|
Comparing Gay Rights Movement to (Black) Civil Rights Movement is a bad bloody comparison whether the minority is offended or not. As the matter of fact, the whole Gay Right Movement is such a total bullsh--, even Gay marriage; its a flawed analogy.
I honestly don't understand the whole 'Gay Rights' stuff. As far as I know gay couples have all the rights like straight married couple had, its called a Domestic Partnership, it means a couple of the same sex. Marriage means a couple (a man and a woman) unite as husband and wife. Even though gay couples could love each other the gay definition of marriage is not equal to heterosexual marriage. The argument of gay marriage is not about civil rights as in within' bond or loving each other, its about whether the law that now defines marriage is itself good or bad, right or wrong, and about the nature of reality and construction of the reality that usher the law. Simple as that, its really not that hard to figure that out. |
|
|
Jesus loves you, everyone else think you an asshole.
|
|
|
Hubba hubba zute zute. Ahutha ahutha anum num! (can not get that song out of my head.)
as for the topic, yes there comparable in many ways, that has already been listed.. damn song will not go away... stuck in head... must sing..it. Bahhh.. if it stuck in my head I going to get it stuck in your head.......... 'Listen and get it stuck in your head. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ileMBlAqKw&feature=PlayList&p=783E0085429F56D5&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=94&shuffle=213 |
|
Just Became A Boss. Scientist in charge of a lab and three teams of research...
|
|
|
StephyKot87 wrote: Comparing Gay Rights Movement to (Black) Civil Rights Movement is a bad bloody comparison whether the minority is offended or not. As the matter of fact, the whole Gay Right Movement is such a total bullsh--, even Gay marriage; its a flawed analogy. I honestly don't understand the whole 'Gay Rights' stuff. As far as I know gay couples have all the rights like straight married couple had, its called a Domestic Partnership, it means a couple of the same sex. Marriage means a couple (a man and a woman) unite as husband and wife. Even though gay couples could love each other the gay definition of marriage is not equal to heterosexual marriage. The argument of gay marriage is not about civil rights as in within' bond or loving each other, its about whether the law that now defines marriage is itself good or bad, right or wrong, and about the nature of reality and construction of the reality that usher the law. Simple as that, its really not that hard to figure that out. And we have a law that ban homosexual "marriage", whereas us heterosexuals getting married is OK. Therefore what makes homosexuals so bloody special that they can only have "domestic partnership" or "civil union"? When law constructed both as different than marriage, because they each have different civil rights and freedoms, AKA benefits than marriage under law: Domestic partnerships are a form of union under which gay couples in some states or regions can formalize their partnerships. However, the benefits awarded to domestic partners fall short of the benefits of full legal marriage.(citation) In most cases, civil unions and domestic partnership laws only offer a fraction of the 1,049 benefits the United States government provides for couples in a heterosexual marriage.(citation) Myth busted, honestly. |
|
|
Strong enough for men, made for women. Anything less will be uncivilized.
|
|
|
DomFortress wrote: StephyKot87 wrote: Comparing Gay Rights Movement to (Black) Civil Rights Movement is a bad bloody comparison whether the minority is offended or not. As the matter of fact, the whole Gay Right Movement is such a total bullsh--, even Gay marriage; its a flawed analogy. I honestly don't understand the whole 'Gay Rights' stuff. As far as I know gay couples have all the rights like straight married couple had, its called a Domestic Partnership, it means a couple of the same sex. Marriage means a couple (a man and a woman) unite as husband and wife. Even though gay couples could love each other the gay definition of marriage is not equal to heterosexual marriage. The argument of gay marriage is not about civil rights as in within' bond or loving each other, its about whether the law that now defines marriage is itself good or bad, right or wrong, and about the nature of reality and construction of the reality that usher the law. Simple as that, its really not that hard to figure that out. And we have a law that ban homosexual "marriage", whereas us heterosexuals getting married is OK. Therefore what makes homosexuals so bloody special that they can only have "domestic partnership" or "civil union"? When law constructed both as different than marriage, because they each have different civil rights and freedoms, AKA benefits than marriage under law: Domestic partnerships are a form of union under which gay couples in some states or regions can formalize their partnerships. However, the benefits awarded to domestic partners fall short of the benefits of full legal marriage.(citation) In most cases, civil unions and domestic partnership laws only offer a fraction of the 1,049 benefits the United States government provides for couples in a heterosexual marriage.(citation) Myth busted, honestly. You don't get it what I mean. Domestic Partnership or not as you claimed, a gay couple can still live together like a married couple without identified as marriage. Simple as that. Two friends of the same gender, who not sexually involved, but share a life in the same house; or siblings (brothers and sisters) who live together and take care to one another such as fiances. Gay couples did not suffer any discrimination by not being identified as marriage Nobody is not stopping gays living together. I |
|
|
Jesus loves you, everyone else think you an asshole.
|
|
|
StephyKot87 wrote: DomFortress wrote: StephyKot87 wrote: Comparing Gay Rights Movement to (Black) Civil Rights Movement is a bad bloody comparison whether the minority is offended or not. As the matter of fact, the whole Gay Right Movement is such a total bullsh--, even Gay marriage; its a flawed analogy. I honestly don't understand the whole 'Gay Rights' stuff. As far as I know gay couples have all the rights like straight married couple had, its called a Domestic Partnership, it means a couple of the same sex. Marriage means a couple (a man and a woman) unite as husband and wife. Even though gay couples could love each other the gay definition of marriage is not equal to heterosexual marriage. The argument of gay marriage is not about civil rights as in within' bond or loving each other, its about whether the law that now defines marriage is itself good or bad, right or wrong, and about the nature of reality and construction of the reality that usher the law. Simple as that, its really not that hard to figure that out. And we have a law that ban homosexual "marriage", whereas us heterosexuals getting married is OK. Therefore what makes homosexuals so bloody special that they can only have "domestic partnership" or "civil union"? When law constructed both as different than marriage, because they each have different civil rights and freedoms, AKA benefits than marriage under law: Domestic partnerships are a form of union under which gay couples in some states or regions can formalize their partnerships. However, the benefits awarded to domestic partners fall short of the benefits of full legal marriage.(citation) In most cases, civil unions and domestic partnership laws only offer a fraction of the 1,049 benefits the United States government provides for couples in a heterosexual marriage.(citation) Myth busted, honestly. You don't get it what I mean. Domestic Partnership or not as you claimed, a gay couple can still live together like a married couple without identified as marriage. Simple as that. Two friends of the same gender, who not sexually involved, but share a life in the same house; or siblings (brothers and sisters) who live together and take care to one another such as fiances. Gay couples did not suffer any discrimination by not being identified as marriage. Nobody is not stopping gays living together. I When the fact is that homosexual couples don't have the same civil rights and freedoms(AKA 1,138 benefits under the lawful "marriage status" to be exact) than heterosexual couples do, simply because they can't get married while us can. That's plain inequality, regardless of the homosexual couples' living arrangement. Therefore answer the damn question: just what makes homosexuals so bloody special that they can only have "domestic partnership" or "civil union"? |
|
|
Strong enough for men, made for women. Anything less will be uncivilized.
|
|
|
y do ppl make a big fuss bout this? if two ppl of the same gender want to b together then y shouldnt they b able to? its not like someone is forcing another into marriage. hell my aunt and uncle recently divorced and each have partnered up with another person within their respective genders i dont see any problem with it. i dont know much bout these types of things but isnt this some how violating the whole "Pursuit of Happiness" thing
|
|
my buddy list never felt so empty...
|
|
|
DomFortress wrote: StephyKot87 wrote: DomFortress wrote: StephyKot87 wrote: Comparing Gay Rights Movement to (Black) Civil Rights Movement is a bad bloody comparison whether the minority is offended or not. As the matter of fact, the whole Gay Right Movement is such a total bullsh--, even Gay marriage; its a flawed analogy. I honestly don't understand the whole 'Gay Rights' stuff. As far as I know gay couples have all the rights like straight married couple had, its called a Domestic Partnership, it means a couple of the same sex. Marriage means a couple (a man and a woman) unite as husband and wife. Even though gay couples could love each other the gay definition of marriage is not equal to heterosexual marriage. The argument of gay marriage is not about civil rights as in within' bond or loving each other, its about whether the law that now defines marriage is itself good or bad, right or wrong, and about the nature of reality and construction of the reality that usher the law. Simple as that, its really not that hard to figure that out. And we have a law that ban homosexual "marriage", whereas us heterosexuals getting married is OK. Therefore what makes homosexuals so bloody special that they can only have "domestic partnership" or "civil union"? When law constructed both as different than marriage, because they each have different civil rights and freedoms, AKA benefits than marriage under law: Domestic partnerships are a form of union under which gay couples in some states or regions can formalize their partnerships. However, the benefits awarded to domestic partners fall short of the benefits of full legal marriage.(citation) In most cases, civil unions and domestic partnership laws only offer a fraction of the 1,049 benefits the United States government provides for couples in a heterosexual marriage.(citation) Myth busted, honestly. You don't get it what I mean. Domestic Partnership or not as you claimed, a gay couple can still live together like a married couple without identified as marriage. Simple as that. Two friends of the same gender, who not sexually involved, but share a life in the same house; or siblings (brothers and sisters) who live together and take care to one another such as fiances. Gay couples did not suffer any discrimination by not being identified as marriage. Nobody is not stopping gays living together. I When the fact is that homosexual couples don't have the same civil rights and freedoms(AKA 1,138 benefits under the lawful "marriage status" to be exact) than heterosexual couples do, simply because they can't get married while us can. That's plain inequality, regardless of the homosexual couples' living arrangement. Therefore answer the damn question: just what makes homosexuals so bloody special that they can only have "domestic partnership" or "civil union"? For your question: "Because gays could live together like Married couple" I never said they are "special." As for Gay civil rights and freedom, again same replied as the first, is absoutle a flawed. Gays are not the new Black. No one is going around and burn there house down and lyching Gays. |
|
|
Jesus loves you, everyone else think you an asshole.
|
|
|
Well, actually, there is an awful lot of hate crime against gays. A lot. And many homosexual people face discrimination every single day of their lives. While I don't think the gay rights movement can really be compared with the sheer scope of the black rights movement, I think they can still be compared a little. The way people here are saying that homosexual people are 'immoral' is in the same vein that people can say black people are racially inferior. You're still claiming that there is something wrong with homosexual people. Saying that homosexuality is a choice -- fine, that's your decision, your opinion, whatever, even though most scientists would agree that it is genetic, or a mix of both. What I don't understand is how people can suggest that some gay people 'choose' to be gay when it would be so, so much easier if they just went through their life being straight. If it's so easy as 'choosing', and you wouldn't feel wrong having sex with someone of an opposite gender, then why on earth wouldn't every gay person do this? A life without discrimination and difficulty. Why would they choose to make their lives so much more difficult? Gays want marriage because of the social aspect. A gay man wants to say he has a husband if he does, a lesbian wants to say she has a wife if she does. Saying you're in a 'civil partnership' just isn't the same as saying you're married. We're all socialised to believe that marriage is something to aspire to, something normal and accepted. We're socialised that gay people don't exist; or alternatively, are sinful and horrible. What about countries where if you are caught 'being gay' then you get the life sentence? And again, what about hate crime even in developed, relatively secular countries? These two movements are very different, though, I do agree with that. And hearing 'gay is the new black' makes me feel a bit uncomfortable, said so casually and jokingly, like it's a fashion statement. I know it wasn't said totally seriously, but still... |
|
|
|
|
ngomez09lfc wrote: Blacl Civil Rights Movement is something that should be fought for but gay rights is something that is just immoral and is obviously someting that our founding fathers didn't had in mind for this country. 1) The statement "gay rights is something that is just immoral" is an opinion of yours, and one which I disagree with. Why is it that you believe that it's immoral? 2) It's actually pretty funny that you made that comparison, because according to the founding fathers of America, the slaves of America, in other words, essentially all of the blacks of America at the time, were not considered free people. The most power they got was counting as 3/5 of a person (see Constitution Article 1 Section 2), and even that was to determine the population of each state in order to determine how many representatives each state could have - representatives which blacks were not allowed to vote for. And although many of the founding fathers were personally against slavery, they were the ones who allowed this system to exist long past their lifetimes. |
|
|
|
Popular Shows |
Platforms and Devices |
Premium MembershipsLanguage
|
Support |
Crunchyroll |