First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next  Last
Gay Rights Movement being compared to the Black Civil Rights Movement?
Posted 1/5/10

LosingOrbit wrote:


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.
Posted 1/5/10 , edited 1/5/10


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?


Posted 1/5/10

LosingOrbit wrote:



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.
Posted 1/5/10 , edited 1/5/10

DomFortress wrote:


LosingOrbit wrote:



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.
Posted 1/5/10

LosingOrbit wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


LosingOrbit wrote:



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.
Posted 1/8/10
What about gay brothas?
Posted 1/14/10
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.


18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 1/14/10 , edited 1/14/10
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

Posted 1/14/10 , edited 1/14/10

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.
Posted 1/14/10

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
Posted 1/14/10 , edited 1/14/10

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
OBJECTION!

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"?
114162 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / in a world where...
Offline
Posted 1/14/10 , edited 1/14/10
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
Posted 1/14/10

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
OBJECTION!

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.

32 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F
Offline
Posted 1/15/10

DomFortress wrote:
No one is going around and burn there house down and lyching Gays.


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...
571 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F
Offline
Posted 1/19/10

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.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.