YOUR OPINION ON GAY RIGHTS?

[blargh]

God just give them the rights of a legally married couple but call it something else. There's the compromise and should keep the gay community, Christians, fanatics whatever happy. Who really gives a {censored}. Even if you think its a sin and they're going to hell, why should that bother you? So long as you're going to heaven or whatever you call it, what happens to them is of no consequence. I mean if it were drugs or some {censored} I could understand the concern for your fellow human being, but homosexuality is hardly a disease. Unless of course they find the gay gene and its hereditary

I think I read at some point that in studies of seperated identical twins, there's a pretty big correlation between gayness. So I would imagine it is partially hereditary if it's got some genetic basis.

[Phishmonkey]

God just give them the rights of a legally married couple but call it something else. There's the compromise and should keep the gay community, Christians, fanatics whatever happy. Who really gives a {censored}. Even if you think its a sin and they're going to hell, why should that bother you? So long as you're going to heaven or whatever you call it, what happens to them is of no consequence. I mean if it were drugs or some {censored} I could understand the concern for your fellow human being, but homosexuality is hardly a disease. Unless of course they find the gay gene and its hereditary

 

Guys I've got it

 

Some people don't like the term marriage being used with gay couples. So how about we let gay people get married, but call it something else? You homosexuals will have all the exact same rights as married couples, but instead of referring to you as "married," you can be

[Dimebag666]

Some people don't like the term marriage being used with gay couples. So how about we let gay people get married, but call it something else? You homosexuals will have all the exact same rights as married couples, but instead of referring to you as "married," you can be

[BerkleeBill]

It really shouldn't be gay rights, black rights, women's rights....it should just be human rights. All equal in the eyes of the government. And all with the unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To this end the government should not be giving a tax break to one sector and refuse it to another. Marriage is not just a 'religious' act...it is also a binding legal agreement and is available through government by a justice of the peace. So any two people that agree to and sign this binding contract should have the same advantages and disadvantages (depending on your viewpoint) without regard to race, creed or sexual orientation.

First off, if you all can modify the thinking of your narrow minds for one second, let's just say -- for the sake of arguement -- that the concept of "marriage" is taken *completely* out of the equasion here, ok? (because, from early on in this thread, gay rights = right to marry?)


I'm kind of clued into this cuz my cousin, whom I'm really close with, has been in a relationship with the same woman for some 28 years now. They have two kids, one birthed by each mom. Now for years, I've seen all of the Legal hardships that they have faced trying to remain a "family" together:
- legally, neither woman was allowed into the hospital when the other was giving birth. Or god forbid, if something serious were to happen to either of them, they likewise wouldn't be allowed in to see one another.
- legally, the state doesn't see the children as brother and sister.
- legally, they can't (as a couple) draw up a will that covers their family (as to ensure the future for both kids).

Additionally...
- they don't get any tax benefits shared by other "families."
- they don't have access to health insurance coverage for one another, or the other's child.
- their family has limited protection under the law:
- there have been people in their town who've requsted DSS to take their kids taken away from them due to their opinion that they're being raised in an "abusive household."
- there is the ongoing harrassment of the kids in school by other kids who have been brainwashed by their homophobic parents.
- there is the occaisonal incident of vandilism where the house/cars are egged, spray painted with hate speech, threatening letters left in the mailbox, etc.

So, without even getting into the topic of 'Marriage,' how about stepping back and talking about Human Rights? That is, why these two women -- in a committed relationship -- can't simply be "left alone" by society at large to have a family and raise their kids together?

When I hear the term "gay rights," I think of all of the bullet items listed above. People ask "how come they need SPECIAL rights?" The answer seems simply "because they're not treated fairly nor equally by society at large," that's why. And if you ask me, the religous kooks use the whole concepts of "special rights" and "sanctity of marriage" as smoke screens to twart the civil issues at hand and allow them to keep on doin what they're doin (see bullet points).

Personally, I think my cousin and her partner are two tough broads for having faced the adversity and hardships they've had to endure. As hard as people try, none of it has rocked the core of their relationship. In today's age of instant divorces, I give them a lot of credit (cuz I see a lot of hetro couples split up their familes over far less 'hardships')

[lerxstcat]

The reason people oppose the term "marriage" regaqrding gays is that marriage is originally a religious sacrament that is specifically between a man and a woman. So you don't have to be a religious person, but you also don't have to go out of your way to blaspheme against the religion of others by calling it marriage.

"Civil union" is the term being used and I support civil unions for gays, so they can have the tax benefits, have their partner on their medical plan at work and share property, all those things. I would say that it should also be called a civil union if a heterosexual couple is united by a justice of the peace or a judge and not in a church, temple or mosque. But since it IS a religious term originally, let's leave it out of secular discussion.

Saying that, I think everyone should have EQUAL rights and no one should have EXTRA rights.

[BerkleeBill]

The reason people oppose the term "marriage" regaqrding gays is that marriage is originally a religious sacrament that is specifically between a man and a woman. So you don't have to be a religious person, but you also don't have to go out of your way to blaspheme against the religion of others by calling it marriage. "Civil union" is the term being used and I support civil unions for gays, so they can have the tax benefits, have their partner on their medical plan at work and share property, all those things. I would say that it should also be called a civil union if a heterosexual couple is united by a justice of the peace or a judge and not in a church, temple or mosque. But since it IS a religious term originally, let's leave it out of secular discussion. Saying that, I think everyone should have EQUAL rights and no one should have EXTRA rights.

Fair enough, but as I understand it, Civil Unions still do not equal the benefits offered by Marriage. If they did, I don't think gays would care. But they don't, so the issue pressed on. I asked the same question and was informed that CU's offer some, but not all benefits, and that "they have a long way to go..."

[Illuminatus]

STFU n00bs

[Dimebag666]

 

First off, if you all can modify the thinking of your narrow minds for one second, let's just say -- for the sake of arguement -- that the concept of "marriage" is taken *completely* out of the equasion here, ok? (because, from early on in this thread, gay rights = right to marry?) I'm kind of clued into this cuz my cousin, whom I'm really close with, has been in a relationship with the same woman for some 28 years now. They have two kids, one birthed by each mom. Now for years, I've seen all of the Legal hardships that they have faced trying to remain a "family" together: - legally, neither woman was allowed into the hospital when the other was giving birth. Or god forbid, if something serious were to happen to either of them, they likewise wouldn't be allowed in to see one another. - legally, the state doesn't see the children as brother and sister. - legally, they can't (as a couple) draw up a will that covers their family (as to ensure the future for both kids). Additionally... - they don't get any tax benefits shared by other "families." - they don't have access to health insurance coverage for one another, or the other's child. - their family has limited protection under the law: - there have been people in their town who've requsted DSS to take their kids taken away from them due to their opinion that they're being raised in an "abusive household." - there is the ongoing harrassment of the kids in school by other kids who have been brainwashed by their homophobic parents. - there is the occaisonal incident of vandilism where the house/cars are egged, spray painted with hate speech, threatening letters left in the mailbox, etc. So, without even getting into the topic of 'Marriage,' how about stepping back and talking about Human Rights? That is, why these two women -- in a committed relationship -- can't simply be "left alone" by society at large to have a family and raise their kids together? When I hear the term "gay rights," I think of all of the bullet items listed above. People ask "how come they need SPECIAL rights?" The answer seems simply "because they're not treated fairly nor equally by society at large," that's why. And if you ask me, the religous kooks use the whole concepts of "special rights" and "sanctity of marriage" as smoke screens to twart the civil issues at hand and allow them to keep on doin what they're doin (see bullet points). Personally, I think my cousin and her partner are two tough broads for having faced the adversity and hardships they've had to endure. As hard as people try, none of it has rocked the core of their relationship. In today's age of instant divorces, I give them a lot of credit (cuz I see a lot of hetro couples split up their familes over far less 'hardships')

 

 

Wow didn't think that some of it was that bad. I must say i agree, that should be rectified, but i still think they should call it something other than marriage to appease the religious sensibilities of some.

[Rear Naked]

Guys I've got it Some people don't like the term marriage being used with gay couples. So how about we let gay people get married, but call it something else? You homosexuals will have all the exact same rights as married couples, but instead of referring to you as "married," you can be

[anti-flag193]

thank you, you are to!

 

 

too*

[Rear Naked]

too*

"too* "

[ACLONERANGER]

god created man... then woman. not man...and another man

[septopus]

You know it's not a choice right? I didn't 'choose' to be straight. I just am.

 

 

Word.

[Ophidian]

Saying that, I think everyone should have EQUAL rights and no one should have EXTRA rights.

 

 

+100000000000000000

[LaPepi]

I've been a lesbian all my life. I freaking LOVE :love: women.

[zack]

My opinion on gay rights is the same as my opinion on women's rights. Everyone deserves the same rights and priveleges. THAT'S IT. In today's society, a homosexual, someone of a minority, and a woman have more legal rights, more college scholarship options, more academic priveleges, and more leeway than the average white male has had in 50 years. If someone of a minority gets picked on, or a homosexual gets turned down for a job, or a woman wants a divorce... They get reperations for it. White dudes don't have those benefits. I'm not racist or homophonic (though I can be a bit sexist), but this does bother me.

 

 

This {censored} pisses me off too...Not the "reparations" but the fact that straight white males think their lives are horrible and that everyone else is getting on this magical water-slide of good luck and benefits. First of all, saying that the last 50 years are like this is a joke. Blacks were being fire-hosed less than 50 years ago in the street for, guess what, being black. Look at the government. How many minorities are there in power? Ooh, there is a "Black" woman in the "White" house. Now all those poor people should shut up and go back to suffering.

 

I've seen people "get scholarships" that were better than mine based on different ethnicity but same merit and guess what, who cares? I've had the luxury of being a straight white male my whole life. When I was growing up, if I acted up in class teachers told my parents I had too much potential and was bored. Had I been a girl, they might have said I had a behavioral disorder, and had I been hispanic they would have said I need to go to a different school.

 

Don't even think that we live in the land of the free and of equal opportunity when the 2 (two) wealthiest people in our country have more money than all African Americans combined (including Oprah, Michael Jordan, everyone!). Think about that for a second.

[Zozobra]

The reason people oppose the term "marriage" regaqrding gays is that marriage is originally a religious sacrament that is specifically between a man and a woman. So you don't have to be a religious person, but you also don't have to go out of your way to blaspheme against the religion of others by calling it marriage.

 

 

No no no no no!

 

mar

[zack]

As far as gay rights go, I agree that "separate but equal" was already deemed unconstitutional and therefore "civil unions" would be unconstitutional. I know you might think "it's semantics" but as soon as you start labeling and classifying something as different, it starts becoming different. Plus, it streamlines the process. What if you had to create 1 million forms that were for marriage, and 1 million for civil unions. It would more efficient to have 2 million for marriage.

 

I don't give a {censored} if your church doesn't want to perform the ceremony, that is also their right as a religious institution. It is not, however, the right of your church to say what my church can do, nor my government.

[9ball]

people have the right to be gay all they want.
but being gay should not give them any special rights.

[johnfrusciante]

u find a constant must to state that you'd never be gay. ru that insecure about talking about the subject? and gay rights? what rights? a dude can {censored} a dude all he wants. marriage is a definition - a pact between MAN and WOMAN.

 

 

 

that definition is outdated.

don't like gay marriage? then don't get one and shut the {censored} up.

[johnfrusciante]

people have the right to be gay all they want. but being gay should not give them any special rights.

 

 

and they shouldn't lose any rights for it either.

[9ball]

nor should i lose any rights for being normal- i mean "straight"

[Scarlet_Worm]

IMO, I don't agree with the homosexual lifestyle, but I'm also an American and firmly believe in the separation of church and state, the Gov't has absolutely not right to dictate anything based on a religious moral stand point.

 

anything the Gov't decides should be based on the Constitution and the Constitution ONLY.

[Zozobra]

nor should i lose any rights for being normal- i mean "straight"

 

 

Could you explain to the audience how you would lose rights by not persecuting homosexuals?

[siberiankiss]

what is it about men being attracted to other men that gets people so angry

I dont know.....the thought of a big poopy cock shooting semen all over some girly dudes hairy ass crack? hahahaha eww........:p:confused: Gay dudes are so {censored}ing gross. But hey man....I say let em be. And Ill be your friend just dont tell me about your sex in da butt. Ever.