- Status
T
TotalFusionOne
I don't believe that a private company should be forced to allow benefits to anyone it doesn't want to. It doesn't seem right to me. THAT BEING SAID I believe that there needs to be a larger change to our insurance operations here in the states that would make this a non-issue. Inter-state competition between health care would change that. Also, inter-company competition with health care would change that too (Companies offering insurance plans from more than one provider). Both of these things will lead to lower rates, as well as a capitalist change leading to the company that provides the most benefits to the most amount of people for the least money wining the support of the majority.
Also, a name change DOES cost money for straight people as well. It's not automatic. And it's comparable to the cost of a name change for someone that ISN'T getting married, someone that just wants to change their name. Furthermore, these are the reasons I argue for the abolishment of marriage being recognized by the federal government.
As for the SS issue, I completely agree. THAT is outdated. The law needs to be changed so that the SS is given to whoever holds the majority of the estate for a SPECIFIC TIME PERIOD. Not for the remainer of their life as it is now. For instance, my grandfather passed away in March. My grandmother will now recieve SS benefits from him as well as her own til the day she dies even though her cost of living is decreased. That makes zero sense to me, although I am happy that she gets more money on a personal level.
Oh, and death benefits (The $250 the family gets when someone dies) CAN be willed away. I know that's stupid and unimportant, but the more you know right?
---------- Post added at 06:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:33 PM ----------
Completely false. All those documents can be CONTESTED by "real family." Not directly overridden. It's the same as a re-marriage, or one side of the family wanting one thing while the other side of the family wants another. It would have to be taken to court and decided there.
C
Chibibar
actually the name change does NOT cost any money for straight couple when they get married.
My wife TOTALLY change her name for FREE legally cause they are allow to. You just have to register at city hall with your new name at no charge.
Normal name change is 300$ in the city of Dallas.
edit: but the problem is that straight couple get these things automatically while same sex couple (this is proven when people married in other states that allowed and moved to Texas) they have to do all these things (that is how I know since I work with these people in the same office) just to get the same AUTOMATIC government rights that straight people get. to me, either make it equal (i.e. everyone need to get those documents and such) or include same sex couples as well (tax benefits and such)
but here is the problem. I don't think they will remove the benefits (government wise) these were institute to PROMOTE family of course the people who put them there are religious people. It is hard to separate church and state on senators, state reps and even president level. the separation is that government can't make laws to govern them (i.e. telling churches to marry gays if such rights were to pass) but a lot of laws are pass because of society, and the majority of the society thinks "the gays" are evil. Look at the 4 states that already allow same sex. They only get to pass it via court or legislation. Popular vote even "liberal" California gets shot down cause the general public fear getting "the gays"
Here in Texas, you be surprise when talking to people who are against the same sex marriage that they want to remove gays from their society. There are people who are tolerant of them and people who accepts them as equals (like me) but you be surprise (well maybe not) how prejudice people can be when it come to sexual orientation.
These people are as hard working, tax paying, law abiding citizen and yet just because of their sexual orientation (only difference) that they can't get the same benefits as straight married couple (we are talking about JP not even churches) without having to write up legal papers that cost them extra money?
You know how much money I spend toward the government to get these rights? 30$ for the marriage license and I think 50$ for the JP (I think my wife said we didn't have to pay) and we are fully wed legally and got all of our documents change (she did for her name) at no cost other than getting a new license (that is given) but didn't have to pay 300$ for her name to change to my last name at all. Heck, I was told I can change MY last name too to her last name and middle name so I could have her last name and she could have mine at no extra charge BUT same sex would have to pay 600$ total to do what I can do.
how fair is that?
I don't even have to pay any lawyers to draw up documents or take the time to fill out forms to ensure my wife can visit me in hospitals, I can add her to my insurance without questions, (this is important to many what if my wife doesn't work?) and no living will needed unless I want something different done to me in case I'm incapacitated.
My wife TOTALLY change her name for FREE legally cause they are allow to. You just have to register at city hall with your new name at no charge.
Normal name change is 300$ in the city of Dallas.
edit: but the problem is that straight couple get these things automatically while same sex couple (this is proven when people married in other states that allowed and moved to Texas) they have to do all these things (that is how I know since I work with these people in the same office) just to get the same AUTOMATIC government rights that straight people get. to me, either make it equal (i.e. everyone need to get those documents and such) or include same sex couples as well (tax benefits and such)
but here is the problem. I don't think they will remove the benefits (government wise) these were institute to PROMOTE family of course the people who put them there are religious people. It is hard to separate church and state on senators, state reps and even president level. the separation is that government can't make laws to govern them (i.e. telling churches to marry gays if such rights were to pass) but a lot of laws are pass because of society, and the majority of the society thinks "the gays" are evil. Look at the 4 states that already allow same sex. They only get to pass it via court or legislation. Popular vote even "liberal" California gets shot down cause the general public fear getting "the gays"
Here in Texas, you be surprise when talking to people who are against the same sex marriage that they want to remove gays from their society. There are people who are tolerant of them and people who accepts them as equals (like me) but you be surprise (well maybe not) how prejudice people can be when it come to sexual orientation.
These people are as hard working, tax paying, law abiding citizen and yet just because of their sexual orientation (only difference) that they can't get the same benefits as straight married couple (we are talking about JP not even churches) without having to write up legal papers that cost them extra money?
You know how much money I spend toward the government to get these rights? 30$ for the marriage license and I think 50$ for the JP (I think my wife said we didn't have to pay) and we are fully wed legally and got all of our documents change (she did for her name) at no cost other than getting a new license (that is given) but didn't have to pay 300$ for her name to change to my last name at all. Heck, I was told I can change MY last name too to her last name and middle name so I could have her last name and she could have mine at no extra charge BUT same sex would have to pay 600$ total to do what I can do.
how fair is that?
I don't even have to pay any lawyers to draw up documents or take the time to fill out forms to ensure my wife can visit me in hospitals, I can add her to my insurance without questions, (this is important to many what if my wife doesn't work?) and no living will needed unless I want something different done to me in case I'm incapacitated.
T
TotalFusionOne
Short version: Changing names is free. Forcing other people to follow with your name change is not.
And I'm glad that in YOUR state there is no fee, but in most states there IS a fee. Whether that fee be rolled into marriage license, or what have you is a different matter. Futhermore if your issue is with STATE fees for name changes, that's a different matter than anything I ever started in on. I'm talking about FEDERAL recognition. I don't give a shit what little laws states have, I can move.
C
Chibibar
right but most states (at least for New York, California, Oregon, Florida and Illinois these are the one I can spoken for since I have family and friend didn't charge for a name change when married.)
but that is just one aspect of something that straight couple gets. I'm sure many people on this forum can probably find out from their home state if there is a fee for a name change when they get married. (not just a name change just cause)
The problem is that each state can make their own rules but it is not equal due to sexual orientation. So how do we fix that?
either include the no discrimination for race, creed, color, ethic, religion, AND sexual orientation. or remove all couple benefits on the government level.
That means everyone will have to have their own benefits
everyone would need to make a will and living will
everyone would need to fill out their medical card
everyone need to make a power of attorney letter.
That is a lot of changes across the U.S. and a lot of documentation to change to remove "family" or "married couple" or "status:married" cause it doesn't matter anymore. everyone is single in the eye of the government.
If there is no marriage in the government level (you can still be married on religious and personal level) then technically you can't have adultry on the court level since marriage is not recognize anymore.
anyways: it seems that you are against same sex marriage since you believe the system is already in place and why even change it. You have your belief and I have mine so I will leave it at that. I still believe the system is broken since it exclude a group of citizen due to sexual orientation. It like not long ago a system exclude people cause of the skin of their color. While the history differs (slavery and oppression and such) the basic goal remains the same, equal rights across the board. I do thank the past heroes who have fought hard to have equal rights since many other ethic background (like Chinese slavery to the west) benefit from these movements. I thank them cause if it wasn't for them, I would have been 2nd class citizen still.
That is a lot of change. It would be simpler just include same sex couple than exclude everyone else.
T
TotalFusionOne
Did... you even read my first post? Wow. This is some forum here.
Yes, I'm against same sex marriage because I AM AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT ACKNOWLEDGING MARRIAGE AT ALL. This was my point in the beginning, it was my point in the middle, and goddamn it's still my point now. Marriage does not need to be recognized by the government. Everything is a civil union. The problem is gay rights groups don't really want that etc.. etc..
And why does this situation keep getting compared to the colour of someones skin? How is it in any way like racism? Racism is inherently about picking someone apart because of the way they look, not the way they act. Not the thoughts they have. The way they look. You're comparing it to a group of people that were treated horrifically over the period of two centuries. Do you understand that we haven't really been "Discriminated" against at all for our sexual orientation? That are complaints are so laughably inane compared to theirs? No, of course not. In my life I've seen very few people who have a sexual identity different to the norm and DON'T see themselves as some sort of martyr. Why is that?
Wow, I have to disagree with you SO HARD.
Your "they don't really care about marriage at all" argument is just plain laughable. Sure all groups have some people that are all in it for the ego stroking, but you will find that in every single movement out there, from Westburo Babtist, to Greenpeace, but saying that those few typify all who are lobbying for gay marriage is beyond assinine.
Your notion that there is no descrimination against gays is even more laughable.
C
Chibibar
ok. I have to answer this one
While you are against the whole government recognize marriage thing (yes I did read it all) you still come off as against it (at least that is how I read it) but, alas, the government DOES recognize marriage and WILL NOT change it anytime soon why? cause U.S. of A is trying to promote family unit... why? cause the society wants to have more family units and less divorces and less single parents (which technically same thing but you get the idea) so they vote senators and representative to promote this. This will not change
In order for government to totally not recognize marriages, they would have to remove all wording (government are like that) on marriage and benefits. We are talking from Tax benefits, laws that have built in protection of estate (like spouse dying), government medical benefits (Social security and medicare). that is a lot of changes just for the government to drop it. would it be right? maybe.
But also read Kissinger's post, this can be a bad thing if the above DID happen. Why? cause for the last 100 years, people have been enjoying these benefits and suddenly they are taken away...... guess who they are going to blame? the homosexuals cause "they wanted to be equals" you may not believe it, but hey, JCM can tell you all about how when people say Muslim people automatically think "Terrorist" while JCM educate us that not all Muslim are terrorist, but you know what? people are stupid and will think that.
Maybe in your life, you don't see homosexual getting treated differently. There are jobs like teachers that teaches children, parents are notorious of not wanting their kids to get "the gays" or even associate with them. Heck, you have seen rallies like prop 8 and all the ads and all the stupid thing about how "the gays" will rule their lives.
Now of course segregation has been "abolish" at least government side for awhile. If such things wasn't in place before, I can assure you there will probably be separate bathroom for "the gays" now like there was back in the early days for "non-white" bathrooms.
That is what I am getting at. Each fight open opportunity for a group of people that wasn't there before and prevent the stupid things that prevent them in the first place. This is why I personally references the past action of the heroes who fought equality.
Look at our government, look at your workplace. How many american base company/government seats are there for Latino? African Amercian? Asian? what about CEO? (that are not Asian starter company) not as many. I can almost assure you that any senator brave enough to be openly gay AND keep their position without being "force" to step down by their constituent. Heck, there was a whole debacle on Sen. Larry Craig on the bathroom incident and look how the people react to that.
While there isn't an open "war" against homosexual NOW because of all the rights and protection (like hate crime) are in place to keep that in check, but I can assure you, the general population does not approve of homosexual. Look at the popular vote that killed the bill for same sex marriage (government eyes)
Even in Texas, with a large homosexual population in Dallas, won't be able to pass such a law cause well, Texas really fear "the gays" you be surprise working with students and parents in community college and talking with people.
T
TotalFusionOne
I'm going to have to go through this piece by piece. Hang on to your butts.
Look, there are a ton of straight people who think the government should be out of marriage. There are a ton of gay people who want equal rights. There are a ton of Mormons who want the government to not deny their own rights. Why don't we all get together? You're never going to get the amount of people voting for "gay marriage" as you are voting for "No government recognition of marriage." Lets work TOGETHER in a way that leaves NO ONE any room to complain. Seriously, where is the logical argument any group can have AGAINST the idea that the government no longer recognizes marriage?
I spent my entire life hearing words thrown at me. Maybe it doesn't bother me because I got over it and realized that people are going to have their own ideas, AND THAT IS JUST FINE as long as they don't step on my rights. Which words do not.
Think about that for a second while you're comparing it to the racial segregations our grandparents generation endured. I don't sit in the back of the bus. I don't drink from a different water fountain. Hell, I get to have an amazing straight roomie and am not made to sleep with other "deviants."
I don't know what to tell you. At some point you gotta just grow some thicker skin.
I never said there wasn't discrimination. What I did say is it's nothing like what people of other races have had to go through in the past. Twisting what I said into what you want to mean just weakens your own argument.
Saying "This will not change" makes no sense, and is a horrible argument. Aren't YOU trying to change it to allow gay marriage?
Look, there are a ton of straight people who think the government should be out of marriage. There are a ton of gay people who want equal rights. There are a ton of Mormons who want the government to not deny their own rights. Why don't we all get together? You're never going to get the amount of people voting for "gay marriage" as you are voting for "No government recognition of marriage." Lets work TOGETHER in a way that leaves NO ONE any room to complain. Seriously, where is the logical argument any group can have AGAINST the idea that the government no longer recognizes marriage?
Again, I never said that. I said it wasn't on par with the prejudice of the African Americans or Chinese Immigrants that it was compared to in this thread. Why is the only form of argument you have to misquote me?
Kinda like the ones I see against republicans? Christians? "Cults?" Yeah, must be tough for the homosexual. Now try being a republican Christian bisexual. But you know what? It's just words. It's just all words written on a board. It's words being yelled. That's all it is.
I spent my entire life hearing words thrown at me. Maybe it doesn't bother me because I got over it and realized that people are going to have their own ideas, AND THAT IS JUST FINE as long as they don't step on my rights. Which words do not.
..... I can't... Even begin to tell you... Ugh. Yes. You're right. If homosexuality was as "Prevalent" as it was back in the days of segregation, there probably would be. Of course we'd be having this argument over telegraph and waiting to go see the talkies down at the Theatre as well. What the heck is your point?
NOTHING. IS PREVENTING. ANY SEXUALITY. AT ALL. You have NEVER been prevented as long as you have lived. That time was the time of our parents. You are NOT prevented by the federal government. You are NOT prevented by the state government. You know what? Tonight I can go to Legends here in NC and make out with a shit ton of guys. You know why? BECAUSE THERE IS NO PREJUDICE AT THE FEDERAL OR STATE LEVEL AGAINST ME BEING BISEXUAL. There is no law preventing it! The only thing, THE ONLY THING prevented is marriage.
Think about that for a second while you're comparing it to the racial segregations our grandparents generation endured. I don't sit in the back of the bus. I don't drink from a different water fountain. Hell, I get to have an amazing straight roomie and am not made to sleep with other "deviants."
Why... Should we be forced to have seats? The people who do the best work get promoted. Period. It's not economically feasible for a business owner to say "Hrm, that black guy is fucking smart and he'd make me bajillions. But I'll go with the white guy." As for Larry Craig? Dude had sex in the bathroom. Anonymous sex in the bathroom. Even my hardcore gayest friends went "ew." He got in trouble for breaking the law, not for being gay.
So the majority of Americans decided what was best for America and you're pissed off and want your way even though that's not how the majority of Americans want to live? Okay.
I don't know what to tell you. At some point you gotta just grow some thicker skin.
People who do the best work get promoted? Period? That I can't agree with. At all. Period. There's a lot of reasons that aren't logical that people get promoted over others. Friendship, related, bigotry, sexism, etc. To imply that the only thing that gets people promoted is their skill set is unrealistic.
As for Larry Craig, the uproar wasn't just tied to having sex with a man in a bathroom. It was that he spent years of his time working against gay rights.
Green_Lantern
Staff member
I am trying to keep myself out of this kind of threats because of the "Negativity" thread that Dave made sometime a go and the forum rules, but just for this I will make a exception.
You are completely right that the homosexuals don't face the same discrimination that others races do, people that suffer from racism learn to fear another race, homosexuals don't, because they learn to fear they own family and friends, besides any curious strangers or whatever people is spreading homophobia at the time, and through history of mankind homophobia is a far more omnipresent problem, probably only sexism was more widespread.
edit:
Also, I would like to compare "fear being discrimination from other races" with "fear to cause my father to have a heart attack, destroy my family, being hated by my friends, be killed because for looking at a guy for too long or never being able to find love because I can't even start to search for it anyway" and as a bonus include "at the age of 13" to that.
nitpick:
I'm actually pretty sure hate of other races is historically more prevalent, in one form or another. It's just that back then interaction between different races wasn't as common overall.
And there where plenty of times when homosexuality was accepted... the Victorians just pretended it wasn't when they started getting into archeology.
/nitpick
Otherwise, yeah, people suck...
Green_Lantern
Staff member
I was actually counting on that, if two races don't like each other there is a possibility of just living apart and ignoring that the other exist, not the best option, but is a option. Homosexuals don't have that luck, obviously, and we have to live under the str8 people feet while artificial gestation is not invented. At the moment it does I am going to propose to nuke you guys from orbit and go live in Uranus
"pretending" it is not the same thing as accepting.
I know there are times with less homophobia, but they aren't as common as they should, and rarely (or pretty much never) there was the same degree of acceptance that heteros get (well, difference and individuality is evil anyway).
As a gay man, I agree. o/
Dave
Staff member
When a couple who has been together for 20 years can't visit each other in the hospital when one of them is dying, something is wrong with the system.
Couple of gay friends of mine had this. When he died, his partner of 20+ years was cut out of a lot of the processes such as the hospital visitation, the estate reverted back to the parents and the widow was unable to make the funeral arrangements. Yes, most of this could have been taken care of had they done their wills correctly, but even if I die now without a will my wife gets everything and can make all of these decisions. My friend was unable to make none.
Something in that situation is fundamentally wrong. Yes, that's just one example and it's a personal one, but it is a telling one.
Couple of gay friends of mine had this. When he died, his partner of 20+ years was cut out of a lot of the processes such as the hospital visitation, the estate reverted back to the parents and the widow was unable to make the funeral arrangements. Yes, most of this could have been taken care of had they done their wills correctly, but even if I die now without a will my wife gets everything and can make all of these decisions. My friend was unable to make none.
Something in that situation is fundamentally wrong. Yes, that's just one example and it's a personal one, but it is a telling one.
I
Iaculus
You misunderstood. He meant that they deliberately ignored evidence of tolerance for homosexuality in ancient civilisations. The Greeks went for anything that moved, for a start.
Green_Lantern
Staff member
You misunderstood. He meant that they deliberately ignored evidence of tolerance for homosexuality in ancient civilisations. The Greeks went for anything that moved, for a start.[/QUOTE]
Oh thanks! I was confused about what he said and was going to research about it later.
C
Chibibar
exactly.
I talk with my wife on this matter and I have been relaying this topic (she doesn't like to post or even lurk cause of the drama with forums but that is anther story)
while society in history does accept (like Greeks and Romans) homosexuality with no issues.
In response on there is no discrimination against homosexuality in government, there is one that my wife mention this morning I totally forgot about (cause my brain is small and allow only couple thoughts at a time)
"Don't ask, don't tell" policy. A government institution, probably one of the largest government run institution don't want gays in the military.
I know that policy is going to be look at.
I know that some (like totalfusion "might" point out, but he can correct me if I'm wrong which I don't mind) oh, the rules was to protect the gays.
Why? If there is no "discrimination" or "fear" or "hatred" in the masses, why have such a rule? There was a story not long ago posted on this forum (before you came) about how some closet homosexual military was being harassed, hazed, and pretty much made his life miserable while in the military. Yes, it could be isolated incident, but as others have pointed out, there is fear from their own family, church group, and even society on some level.
(that was from my wife)
Also: I think it is nice to have a dicussion so far without name calling and such so I think we are still within the rules or we would have some notice by now
You misunderstood. He meant that they deliberately ignored evidence of tolerance for homosexuality in ancient civilisations. The Greeks went for anything that moved, for a start.[/quote]
This! Our view of history is skewed because the victorians where only interested in the nobility and even from that they removed anything that they didn't like...
Also, i recall the ancient greeks having a time or at least a subculture that saw wives as "the baby factory at home" while men where where one looked for actual romantic experiences. A pederast couple was even attributed with starting democracy by killing a tyrant.
Except that that's not how it worked, it just that the nation vs nation part tends to be more emphasised when they killed each other, which isn't necessarily untrue, but racial/genetic superiority was often used as an argument in plenty of conflicts.
T
TotalFusionOne
Yeah I guess that is just as bad as waking up to burning crosses on your lawn or being hung. I never thought of it that way.
No, I think the Don't Ask / Don't Tell policy was instituted for straight people.
The mass majority of straight men are not comfortable with homosexual men in close quarters with them. THIS IS NOT WRONG OF THEM. This is their own personal emotions, just as the feelings a homosexual has for their same gender are their personal emotions. The problem is when you're somewhere like the army and you're going to have to be in very close quarters for a long period of time you can't really escape those feelings of not being comfortable. So, what do we do? Don't ask, don't tell or you're gone. These is because the mass majority is not comfortable with it and everything will work out more smoothly if we just saunter on by the issue.
Yes, I realize that that's not why the rule was originally put in place. Originally homosexuals were considered mentally incompetent and kicked out of the military. But this is the logical explanation for don't ask don't tell, not the original rule. Also, I only got three hours sleep and I just found out my girlfriend isn't pregnant so I'm not in the greatest state of mind.
See, here again we've run into one of the big problems between being a Gay/Bisexual person and being a Gay/Bisexual rights group. You and I can argue this til we're blue in the face but what it comes down to is PEOPLE ARE ALLOWED TO FEEL WHAT THEY FEEL. You're arguing for gay "rights" because they're just trying to be who they are, right? Well so is every bigot and idiot out there who hates homosexuals. And they have just as much right to their opinion as you, as long as they don't step on your Life, Liberty, Pursuit etc.. etc.. You can't change their minds as a gay rights group, all you can do is FORCE them to change the laws. FORCE people who don't believe in something to change the rules. Never mind that they're completely ignoring the rights of everyone else out there who disagrees.
But as an individual you can change a lot of things. Yeah, my parents had a bit of a heart attack. But after awhile of seeing that I was no different than any other guy my age, they relaxed a little. They really accept my lifestyle. Sure I run into an asshole who pushes the "wrath of god" shit down my throat every now and then, so I sit down and tell them about my time in seminary and what I learned about love and acceptance. Forcing people to do things they don't want to do never works, but talking one on one?
Change the culture. The laws will change in time.
C
Chibibar
totalfusionone: I agree that I might try to "force" to change the rules, but history has shown sometimes, it is better for the society as a whole to force change, then wait for change.
I'm on this boat cause I am getting tired of seeing my friends being left out by government family benefits because the states said the marriage is between a man and a woman (yes some states DO have such laws)
I am not trying to change the people's mind at least not their religion or personal beliefs, but as citizens of the U.S. every citizens should gain access to the same benefits provided by the government on the same level.
you are right that practically everything else is available to them when you are single, but when you are married, you get more benefits which some groups are left out. Why? because of their sexuality.
So.... what we have?
We can either
Correct the rules and INCLUDE same sex couple which is easier on paper, since documentation doesn't need to be change. Marriage is marriage in government's eye regardless if you married via JP, church, mosque, whatever
OR
Get rid of the married benefits and in the government eyes, everyone is single and need to create the documents (that you have post which you said it was like 4) those rules are also in place and two strangers can take advantage of that and every married couple will have to fill out these document to get the benefit they "lost" above.
Kissinger pointed out that this can be a problem (even changing name to civil union) cause people are stupid and will blame "the gays" for them losing their marital benefits from the government...... then we might actually see some real life violence and persecution (like crosses on your lawn type)
I'm on this boat cause I am getting tired of seeing my friends being left out by government family benefits because the states said the marriage is between a man and a woman (yes some states DO have such laws)
I am not trying to change the people's mind at least not their religion or personal beliefs, but as citizens of the U.S. every citizens should gain access to the same benefits provided by the government on the same level.
you are right that practically everything else is available to them when you are single, but when you are married, you get more benefits which some groups are left out. Why? because of their sexuality.
So.... what we have?
We can either
Correct the rules and INCLUDE same sex couple which is easier on paper, since documentation doesn't need to be change. Marriage is marriage in government's eye regardless if you married via JP, church, mosque, whatever
OR
Get rid of the married benefits and in the government eyes, everyone is single and need to create the documents (that you have post which you said it was like 4) those rules are also in place and two strangers can take advantage of that and every married couple will have to fill out these document to get the benefit they "lost" above.
Kissinger pointed out that this can be a problem (even changing name to civil union) cause people are stupid and will blame "the gays" for them losing their marital benefits from the government...... then we might actually see some real life violence and persecution (like crosses on your lawn type)
For the most part, you raise valid points. This however, was just plain stupid. If we were to take that stance on anything, or had taken it in the past, I can't even begin to imagine what a racist/biggotist place this would be.
Green_Lantern
Staff member
And again, you are missing the point.
Yes, the blacks might fear the burning crosses on they lawns.
The gays fear what is already inside they homes, they own family the very people that are that are suppose to be fundamental for they safe.
about the "hung" part of your argument:
http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Security/?id=1.0.2506821385
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Iran#Male_homosexuality
C
Chibibar
but Shego, that stuff don't happen in the U.S! :eyeroll:
Fusionone does make some really good points, even though I may not agree with them. I also get what he's saying about racial hate vs sexual preference hate, I just don't think he really does understand the gravity of the latter to the extent of what it really is, not that there would be alot of way for him to, without experiencing it.
C
Chibibar
Yea. I do agree with him on many points (glad we can have a civil discussion here) I personally never experience that kind of hatred toward me, but I did experience 2nd hand from my friends and well, I get really upset when you start messing with my friends.
Of course I can relate cause being Asian I do get the racial hatred and that has gotten me into trouble in the past.
Green_Lantern
Staff member
Everyday I am surprised with human inability to think "in another person shoes" (or whatever is the expression).
I am not even really saying that racial hate is "better" or less important, or hell, I am not even sure if it is easier to be gay or black.
What I am really want to people to understand is:
Racial hate
-Can be identified by some phisical traits, cultural traits and family.
-Hate from strangers: people "outside" your race group, but unlikely to be from your own family.
+You have a family and a culture that gives you some ground or identity
+You can create your own family with your own kids that will belong partially or totally to your race and have your identity and culture
Gay Hate
+/-Can be identified by mannerism to a extent, and also behavior and "cultural" traits.
-Hate from strangers: people that don't belong to your sexual orientation
-Hate from your own family, and as well... cultural leaders. You can't trust your family or friends.
-You can't easily find other gays, even so you might not be able to trust them or being open about your relationship with them.
-Must fit in a cultural model of a family to create your own kids living with someone that you don't desire. Or trying to be alone for the rest your live. Or live with someone and hiding from everyone.
-Your (in the case you actually have them) kids aren't likely (and shouldn't) being gay as well, this trait won't pass to them and is impossible to create a actual a "gay race" that goes trough several generations, unless by very wrong/artificial methods.
edit: Sorry, I couldn't truly complete this post, I have to go to work. Also, I guess the short version is:
Racial Hate = Being hated.
Homophobia = Being hated and alone.
T
TotalFusionOne
Oh, are you talking about James Byrd? Who was drug under a truck by three white boys in 1998? The.. Black and straight man?
No, you probably mean Matthew Sheppard. Who was tied to a fence post and beaten to death. It's easy to confuse the two... They happened within three months of each other and the stories got so confused afterwards considering that they named the act the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Hate Crimes act. You may not know that name because everyone calls it the Matthew Shepard Act, leaving James Byrd to... I can't say it. It's damn funny, and morbid and I can't make that pun.
Do me a favour: Walk up to any black man or woman who was alive in the 40s and 50s. Ask them how many people they knew affected by it. How many people they knew PERSONALLY. That had physical violence directed at them. Just for being black. And then think back on your life and think, HONESTLY NOW, how many people do you know got beaten as adults for being a homosexual? How many people you know personally had mobs outside their houses?
I bet their number is higher. Quit hitching your wagon to their train.
Want to give my ex boyfriends a call and ask them? You can ask them how we did at Gay Days in Orlando when I was growing up. Ask them the shit that got yelled at me when I started college and immediately joined straight gay alliance at 16. How many times I've been screamed at outside of Parliament House.
Sorry, sister, but just because I discovered the psychology of my sexuality does not mean I was any less gay then. Or any less hated.
Gl, I don't know that either group could claim to have it worse off and I don't know that either group could put itself in the other's shoes.
Personally, I think we should leave the "this group has it so much worse" conversation to the side since in the minds of those being attacked its almost always them who have it worse and it's really impossible to prove.
Personally, I think we should leave the "this group has it so much worse" conversation to the side since in the minds of those being attacked its almost always them who have it worse and it's really impossible to prove.
I'm not trying to hitch a wagon to the train. I'm just saying, both groups were discriminated against legally in the same way. And I am hoping in the future, gay rights will be looked back on in the same way as civil rights. As in, seeing the people that fought and clawed against them as the horrible bigots they are.
A
Armadillo
*walks into room* Man, there's a lot of people nailed to crosses in here...
Anywho, I agree that too many people don't even try to see the other side's arguments or "walk a mile in their shoes," if you will. If we want to see doing so as a good trait (and I do), then the gay rights supporters (again, I am one myself) must look at the argument from the side that is against gay marriage. Try and see WHY they're against it; don't just label them all as intolerant bigots or stupid or what have you; that's no better than being a racist or a homophobe or a sexist. Practice what you preach, do unto others, etc.
Anywho, I agree that too many people don't even try to see the other side's arguments or "walk a mile in their shoes," if you will. If we want to see doing so as a good trait (and I do), then the gay rights supporters (again, I am one myself) must look at the argument from the side that is against gay marriage. Try and see WHY they're against it; don't just label them all as intolerant bigots or stupid or what have you; that's no better than being a racist or a homophobe or a sexist. Practice what you preach, do unto others, etc.
T
TotalFusionOne
1.3m slaves died enroute to America. Approx. 2500 African American people were lynched between emancipation and today. The numbers for slaves beaten to death during the legalization of slavery don't exist.
I'll take being hated and alone any day
At least then it's just words. Oh, and the estimated 3% of American Males who are full on hard-gay. I guess it's not that lonely, is it?Higher numbers mean that there were actual crimes committed against African Americans. The reason this point was brought up was because someone 30 posts back was trying to say that racism and homophobia are basically the same, when they're not similar at all except being one group of people doens't like another.
And yes, people hate us Jews.
Again, not what happened. But if that's what you wish to add to this conversation, by all means.
But legally it's not the same. There are no Gay bathrooms. There are no Gay drinking fountains. Gay people don't sit at the back of the bus. In fact, there are very few limitations that homosexuals have when compared to the daily life of an African American citizen in the early 1900s. While I agree that we will someday look back on this as LIKE the Civil Rights movement the day to day affairs of a homosexual man or woman is nothing like the day to day affairs of an African American.
A fucking men. This person knows what time it is.
At some point we need to stop trying to be accepted by everyone. The happiest times I've had is when I didn't worry about the things being said about me.
I can see nothing even approaching a rational argument from the anti-gay marriage people. There is absolutely no reason on their side other than hatred, and devotion to their religion.
- Status