Straight questions to those who are not.

Firstly, I don't want to insult anybody and don't want to be insulted. But I would better tolerate an insult rather than make You fell so. I really don't understand this unbelievable hysteria about a very personal question which is the way the people find their sexual pleasure. It is now coming to Russia, so my question is from "backward" country in this aspect to those who originate from countries that are advanced in this particular sphere of life.

There will be straight questions. And I want to get straight answers. Not the characterictic of a question and the person who asked it. Of course it is not a rule but just what I want. So feel free to comment as you like, but, your answers would be more important for me.

1. Why are we speaking about specific gay and lesbian rights at all?
I only know of the civil rights which are given to any person not regarding his age, gender, nationality, religion or anything else. If we just think that gays have some special specific rights apart from straight or straight people have anything which the gays don't have - than it is a violation against the very concept of human rights.

2. What kind of civil rights can gay and lesbians receive of which they haven't had before their fight for these rights?
Some rights are rectricted because it is impossible for some people to benefit because of these rights. Thus kids cannot vote. Even if they are smarter than some adults. As a rule, kids are not independent in their likes and by nature they can be easily affected and deceived. That is why they won't benefit from the right. But there is a chance for every kid that once he grows up (hopefully noone is hurt that the pronoun used was "he" - it is not because of sexism) - he will get the right to vote. Unless he is put to jail of course. So the question is about the sort of rights which might not bring gays and lesbians anything but harm and still which they will be able to obtain remaining gays and lesbians but obeying the law. So the question can be read not only as which rights they can receive but also which right they will not be able to benefit. I still don't know which type of question would better lead to a proper answer.

3. What is a normal inborn (if so) sexual orientation?
Every human being once born has a given number of characteristics which makes him a normal human being. Being abnormal however doesn't take any of the civil rights and even adds one more. The right for medical care. Of course the question of normality is debatable as itself, but in case of inborn normality its a must. Only a given pattern must be normal. And there is no right to leave a child with a cleft palate just because they will not die because of it and will be able to result in a great pharaoph of Egypt.

4. Can a gay or a lesbian have a family in terms of a previous version of the law?
To my mind any gay or lesbian, who comes of age can make a family with any adult representative of another gender. Making a family in terms of previous law didn't restrict gay or lesbian rights for it. Straight people also couldn't marry same gender or kids. And now it seems that russian idea of a family is totally different of what is supposed to be a family in terms of... English. Then a family should get a different meaning in vocabularies and be translated differently.
Please mind that I didn't ask if two gays couldn't make a family with each other. The question was about the very civil right.

5. Do straight people have a right to go for a parade demonstrating nothing else but their sexual orientation?
Parades as they are to my knowledge of English are celebration as marching of military people in a kind of formation. Throughout the history armies of different nations were helding parades in different streets, but there has never been any parade of straight sex of which I have known and which would have anything to harm feelings of homosexuals.

That's it for now. So again, I wouldn't object of being called a homophobe. Although I have never been afraid of homosexuals and have never thought that their civil rights should be restricted. Anyway thanks for the reading to this point.

 

Right, it is about basic human rights. Gay rights is a termed used to highlight the fact that gays are denied those basic rights. Nobody is arguing gays should get special rights nobody else gets.

Its more about an equal application of rights already given to straight couples, such as social security benefits. Also, if a gay man dies, his husband may lose rights to the child they shared because such rights are granted in marriage.

Homosexuality is one example.

Government should not define what constitutes a family. Laws that are dependent on some definition of family are likely not very good laws.

Sure. But straight people are not treated unequally under the law because they are straight, hence why such parades are uncommon.

I'm not really sure what your underlying point was. Here is a good video that may provide you better answers to the questions above than I did.

[video=youtube_share;DWp79jvy9aA]http://youtu.be/DWp79jvy9aA[/video]

 

I am straight but I feel like responding anyway

 

1. Why are we speaking about specific gay and lesbian rights at all?

Then these basic rights should already be listed in the bill of rights or in a program UN documents that enumerates all the basic human rights. And in order to give it to gays and lesbians (if already proved that they as a group don't have these rights) they shouldn't have it by law in some countries.

2. What kind of civil rights can gay and lesbians receive of which they haven't had before their fight for these rights?

It's more an obligation rather than a right. If a person wants to cover another person with his social security - there should be a procedure which I know is available in the USA. Besides a society can rather aim at equal and free health care for everyone without any social security nonsense. A man has a basic human right for life, which means that this right doesn't depend on his ability to earn the money!
Once a person dies he can write his will and this documentary evidence is enough to give the money to a gay-husband, kids in Africa or cats of the neighborhood. If gay-people want that the family doesn't have an easier procedure than they - it is also fine. But we cannot call enforcement of every gay who lives with the other gay to give his money to him rather than to his parents or brothers. This is an obligation and reduce of rights and it doesn't bring any basic human rights to the gays, just because they have it already. If they want to treat their gay-partner as husband or wife - they can do it. If they need a procedure from the bureacracy - they should get it simple and clear. And not only them. I also would like to cover with my social security my grandmother, because I and my wife don't fall ill that often. But she really needs it. Well, I am not a gay but suppose that it is a fair wish. So, if in the US or Russia I have such a possibility - that is just exactly a better implementation of human right for life. But making a gay-family is just an easy way for the bureacracy not to work and earn cheap political image.

3. What is a normal inborn (if so) sexual orientation?

Sorry but there is only way. Norm under the circumstances is what the human body is made for. If you have a given number of chromosomes than one more is out of the norm. If your penis is made by God or nature for multiple reason one of which is giving a birth to next next generation - that is the norm. If it is made for the anal sex - than homosexuality is the only norm. If penis is made for climbing the trees, than any sexual orientation is abnormal as it is. So, there should be only one norm. Change any you really consider a norm for you. If I don't have a problem with the answer I would accept it. If I don't know what is the scientific or any other basis of it - I would ask. It's that easy.

4. Can a gay or a lesbian have a family in terms of a previous version of the law?

This is nonsense. Every law starts with the definitions of the main terms. Otherwise it will be interpreted twisted and will never do anything but bring a lot of money for the lawers.

5. Do straight people have a right to go for a parade demonstrating nothing else but their sexual orientation?

No. If homosexuals have a right for something that straight people have never done, then they have less rights..

PS

None.I just want to discuss the issue in terms of common sense and no insults.

 

1. Why are we speaking about specific gay and lesbian rights at all?

This is a definite violations again human rights. But you don't need to be a gay to lose these rights and it shouldn't take any extra laws to identify gays and lesbians as humans. Humans who have all the rights that all the other people. So, I see the violation. Don't deny it. But it will never make sense to discuss it under the gay rights issue. It's basic human rights and nothing else. Police should work better. Schools should work better. Under the existing law.

2. What kind of civil rights can gay and lesbians receive of which they haven't had before their fight for these rights?

That was not an answer. As I said human rights is something that needs to protected with everyone and not only gays or lesbians.

3. What is a normal inborn (if so) sexual orientation?

I didn't blame anyone in 'sins' here, did I? I just received no answer for a straight question.

4. Can a gay or a lesbian have a family in terms of a previous version of the law?

Then the law doesn't permit americans to utilise their money on their wish. Or there was no will of the person who died that the money will be received by her spouse. Apart from this you have taken an obligation to give your money in case of your death to your wife. This is your decision and risks. If You had a marriage contract you could have avoided that. So I don't see the 'rights' issues here again.

5. Do straight people have a right to go for a parade demonstrating nothing else but their sexual orientation?

It is not an arguement. It is a question.

This is also as strange as gay parades, but the question was different

PS.Look. There can be no conversation if two persons speak of different things simultaneously. I never concealed my strong rejection of gay-propaganda. But I do it in other places, which we have here in abundancy. Let's skip it here for a change. Thanks.

 

I am not offended

1) Good question. The only reason it is called gay rights is because people think it is okay to deny people rights based on their sexual orientation. Should never have to fight for things like womens rights, black rights, gay rights, and so on.

2) no civil rights, there are no rights even being discussed. It is a petition to the states to recognize same sex marriage. Frankly I don't know why we are talking about rights.

3) in the USA there is no right to medical care. A child born with a cleft pallet is dysfunctional. Gay people are not. There is no way to "fix" a gay person, (make them straight) no research has ever given a conclusion, as to why or how a person is gay. They just are. Gay people spends years trying to understand that, until they give up and accept it.

4) nothing is different. Most kids have a mother and a father. Whether they are in their lives or not that makes them family. Gay people can adopt children who would otherwise nit have any family. Marriage simply allows them to hold joint custody. Nothing changed. Don't worry.

5) of course straight people can have a straight pride parade. There has never been a case of straight pride parade because straight people have never felt the need. Gay putrid parades are, um, lets just say bizarre. They started in the 60s during a time when gays were treated as second class citizens. And they were being deprived of civil rights. By use of the sodomy laws. Straight people commit sodomy way more than gay people. Keep in mind oral sex is sodomy. But police targeted homosexuals. They had a bar that really was the focal point of the push for equality. The parade was in protest of the actions taken against thus bar. Currently it is just am excuse to celebrate.

 

You are exactly right. That can happen to anyone. Gay people are human therefore untitled to all rights given to others based on the same status. Out shouldn't be "gay rights" but I believe it was hereto that coined the notion that these rights are specifically for gays.

I Agree 100% such rights are for everyone.

The only issue here is that people are not allowed to marry the same sex. It dies discriminate against gay couples. Awarding privileges to heterosexual couples but not to homosexual couples. It is discrimination based on gender.

 

.

Not all rights are listed in the Bill of Rights but can be derived from rights both Constitutional and by statute. Can you make an argument that the Constitution gives you the right to make gay people second class citizens.

\

Cite you assertion that I can decide who gets my survivor benefits.

Pipe dreams are fun but they tend not to solve real world problems.

But the case before the court is about how the taxes on this work. Meaning if you are gay there is a governmental penalty for being legally married that the Federal government thinks is icky.

I need a translation.

Actually no they can't in the current environment...that is the point.

.

Okay I know realize you have no idea what you are talking about here.

What cheap political image?

]

Yes but people with Downs Syndrome are still human.

Actually what is normal is not natural, it is part of a social construct.

No because normal is a social construct there can be more than one norm. Is masturbation normal?

no because a penis is also used for waste elimination. So is that the only norm?

Again that is only an opinion. Many many body parts have more than one use and some have none.

No your logic is wrong. But in fact straight Irish people have worked to keep gays out of St. Patrick's Day parades, was the a straight pride parade? But not exercising a right doesn't mean you don't have it. I know people who have never bought a gun, that doesn't mean they are not covered by the 2nd amendment. That is a silly argument.

PS

Great, then stop making statements of opinion as fact.

 

Because homosexuals specifically have been and still are denied rights in most places, right up to the right to life. The push for gay rights is really about a push for homosexuals to be treated as human beings (though it hasn't always been presented very well in that context).

Beyond the basic right to exist without being locked-up or executed, the core issue is the legal recognition of relationships.

A classic example is as next of kin in an emergency medical situation, where homosexuals in long-term relationships have been denied access to their partner in hospital and not involved in medical decisions in the event of the patient not being able to make decisions themselves. Even unmarried heterosexual couples are often given more flexibility in such situations.

Who knows? I'm not sure it really matters. Physical disabilities aren't "normal" and the disabled were often treated as sub-human in the past but (generally!) this is no longer the case.

Not the family of their choice. Would you be happy if the state said that you couldn't marry and have children with the person you'd fallen in love with but could only choose from their list of people, none of whom you're attracted to?

Family does mean different things in different contexts and there are already all sorts of families which don't match the traditional image (and always have) and many which don't fit within existing legal structures. I see no reasons not to reassess those legal structures in that context. That doesn't mean they should automatically be changed but it also doesn't mean they should automatically remain the same for ever.

Yes as if happens, but why would we need to. The Gay Pride parades you're talking about are (at least initially were) about challenging the social and legal situations which said homosexuals should be at best hidden away, at worst locked away. It was about forcing society to accept homosexuality existed and actually address it, not try to sweep it under the carpet.

In a lot of places, Gay Pride parades have turned in to something completely different, something I'm not personally a huge fan of but I've no more objection to that Mardi Gras.

I will make the same suggestion to you as I do to anyone else making similar points. You need to stop thinking of homosexuals and start thinking of people who happen to be homosexual. We all have thousands of different characteristics, good, bad and indifferent. There should be anything special about homosexuality.

- - - Updated - - -

Because homosexuals specifically have been and still are denied rights in most places, right up to the right to life. The push for gay rights is really about a push for homosexuals to be treated as human beings (though it hasn't always been presented very well in that context).

Beyond the basic right to exist without being locked-up or executed, the core issue is the legal recognition of relationships.

A classic example is as next of kin in an emergency medical situation, where homosexuals in long-term relationships have been denied access to their partner in hospital and not involved in medical decisions in the event of the patient not being able to make decisions themselves. Even unmarried heterosexual couples are often given more flexibility in such situations.

Who knows? I'm not sure it really matters. Physical disabilities aren't "normal" and the disabled were often treated as sub-human in the past but (generally!) this is no longer the case.

Not the family of their choice. Would you be happy if the state said that you couldn't marry and have children with the person you'd fallen in love with but could only choose from their list of people, none of whom you're attracted to?

Family does mean different things in different contexts and there are already all sorts of families which don't match the traditional image (and always have) and many which don't fit within existing legal structures. I see no reasons not to reassess those legal structures in that context. That doesn't mean they should automatically be changed but it also doesn't mean they should automatically remain the same for ever.

Yes as if happens, but why would we need to. The Gay Pride parades you're talking about are (at least initially were) about challenging the social and legal situations which said homosexuals should be at best hidden away, at worst locked away. It was about forcing society to accept homosexuality existed and actually address it, not try to sweep it under the carpet.

In a lot of places, Gay Pride parades have turned in to something completely different, something I'm not personally a huge fan of but I've no more objection to that Mardi Gras.

I will make the same suggestion to you as I do to anyone else making similar points. You need to stop thinking of homosexuals and start thinking of people who happen to be homosexual. We all have thousands of different characteristics, good, bad and indifferent. There should be anything special about homosexuality.

 

This is the important part: "I only know of the civil rights which are given to any person not regarding..." Add same-sex orientation to the list. "Gay rights" is a misnomer; it's not about rights specific to gay people; it's about providing them equality instead of using their same-sex orientation as an excuse to discriminate against them.

Some history is required here. Up until 2003, same-sex behavior between consenting adults acting in private was prosecutable as a felony or misdemeanor (depending on the state), sometimes with stiff fines and jail time. That's a little less than 10 years ago - not very long, and many of us are old enough to remember this infringement upon rights. As for specifics of what rights are being withheld, the big one is the equal protection of the laws, as without it gay people are denied access to their government in such things as legal recognition of a marriage and all that flows from it. Bear in mind that marriage encompasses a great deal of personal choice, and the choice of one's partner is most often a product of one's orientation. The government shouldn't use that choice of partner as an excuse to withhold legal marriage without due cause. I can think of no right that gay people would not benefit from equally enjoying.

Sorry, I'm not seeing the relevance of this question. Statistical norms are not necessarily a guide to who gets rights or who doesn't. We don't discriminate against people for having genius-level IQs, for example, though they certainly are not a statistical norm. The trouble with arguing normality is that it is all too often used as a proxy for demanding conformance with another's subjective moral values, and to denigrate the existence of those who fail to conform to statistical norms.

For a person who is gay, it is 'normal' (as in expected, usual, typical) that they would conform the aspects of their lives related to attraction, sexuality, coupling, etc. with their same-sex orientaion.

We cannot point to any one thing with scientific certainty as a cause for differences in orientation. Why is one person straight? Why is another gay? Why are some people bisexual? We don't know. What we do know is that it's not a product of someone making a conscience decision making to feel these attractions. We also know that trying to suppress them doesn't last, and just plain doesn't work for most people.If anyone straight person doubts that, I suggest they try feeling attracted to people of the same sex while suppressing feelings of attraction to the opposite sex for a day/week/month/year, and see where that gets you. I predict you'll remain heterosexual and be unable to carry out the exercise. Remember - we're talking about the attraction here, not just acting on it with sexual behavior. It's much easier to refrain from sex or pursue it with someone you don't find attractive than to make yourself attracted to someone of the sex to which you aren't usually attracted; even harder to sustain the latter if you can do it at all.

In sum, I don't think talking about "normal inborn sexual orientation" is informative or helpful to the discussion.

Why should the government get to define the parameters of what constitutes a family? My nephew and his wife have two biological children and five adopted children. Do they not all comprise a family, regardless of biological/non-biological relationships? And why should same-sex couples be regarded any differently in the law - especially in light of straight couples marrying, divorcing, remarrying and as a result forming blended families where the children are "yours, mine, and ours". The idea of the word 'family' applying exclusively to one man, one woman, and their biological offspring, while still well represented in modern society, is far from the only configuration a family can take in terms of living together, caring for each other, providing for the care of any children raised by the adult members, forming an economic union, forming a social unit, etc. etc. etc. The laws involvement with families should facilitate the formation of stable family units, not reward some and punish others based on the gender of the spouses.

There used to be a saying that "you can choose your friends, but not your relatives". It should be noted that in the case of adults, we do in fact choose with whom to form a familial relationship. So one might not be able to choose who they are related to by blood, but it is one's choice - and should be one's liberty to choose - with whom one forms a family, barring some specific circumstance that would cause real harm to the rights of others. I have seen many invalid claims about the "harm" that is imagined to result from same-sex couples forming familial units, but none that ring true.

Bottom line, language evolves right along with societies. Words like 'family' and 'marriage' are no exception.

Sure, straight people could have a parade to celebrate their 'straightness' if they want. Why not? While parades can have militaristic themes, it's not a requirement.

The thing to understand about this in terms of gay vs. straight is that every day is "straight day", since they form the overwhelming majority of the population and have not faced any historical criminalization of their sexual behavior based on the sex of their partner alone, nor have they faced marginalization within society because of their heterosexuality. There's no real reason to celebrate straightness in and of itself, as we regularly celebrate the importance of family (heterosexually-headed families, that is) on a regular basis as part of many of our other celebrations.

By way of contrast, the family units formed by gay people have not been celebrated in our society, but actually made subject to criminal prosecution in the not-so-distant past. "Gay pride" parades aren't about celebrating homosexuality (or at least they didn't used to be). "Pride" is a misnomer here. It's not about being proud of being gay (since it's not some kind of accomplishment). It's about refusing to own the shame that a hostile society has tried to pile on gay people. It's about refusing to be passive participants in our their marginalization. It's about drawing attention to the issues of institutionalized discrimination that they still face.

That said, I don't really have much use for the "gay pride" celebrations of today. Too many have become big parties and an excuse to engage in outrageous behavior in public (kinda like Mardi Gras). That kind of thing doesn't hold any appeal for me.

 

One additional observation:

There are over 1400 links to marriage in the federal laws of the USA. These cannot all be approximated by agreements between individuals.

What's more, my state has a constitutional amendment that bans such agreements between persons of the same sex.

 

I like the answer. Thanks for it.

Just the same.

3. What is a normal inborn (if so) sexual orientation?

Frankly speaking you avoided answering the question and rather commented on it.
The acceptance of a given fact is not necessarily a solution of task. So are people with a cleft palate who hasn't received the medical care on time or when medicine was not ready for that. But it doesn't change the abnormality of cleft palate. Yes, it is not deadly. But what would happen if people some day refused to help the dysfunctional people and just "accept" it. A person with a cleft palate? He is normal. He doesn't need a surgery. A person dying of a light flue? It's okay. Why should we invent antibiotics if it's okay. I am ready to speak further of normality and dysfunction. But would be grateful if you mention the borders which is not acceptable for you or if you try to formulate a better answer for the given question.

4. Can a gay or a lesbian have a family in terms of a previous version of the law?

I said, that a gay family is not a subject at the moment. Rewind it one turn back. Obama hasn't had his bright speech, there was no hysteria in mass media, Nebraska lady hasn't received her fame as a mightest fighter for the right-wing. Imagine? So. A gay or a lesbian wants to have a family. Can they go to a place of marriage registration and make a family with the opposite-sex adult person like any other straight person has a right to?

Accepted as an answer. I also like it. Not that I am content with the assumption that straight people never felt a need to protect their rights though. Just content that you think so.
But the one thing feels strange. For this world is cruel to everyone quite equally. Women are still raped not regarding their political views, people still get killed in the cinemas and schools without real difference in their sexual orientation or sport they go for. And of all these people only gay and lesbians feel a need for parade. It just doesn't click.
OK. I am an Orthodox christian. My boss is adventist of the 7th day. Sometimes he really takes my brain out. But I would never report him as a religious hater, because he behaves the same towards atheists and protestants and muslims. Once gays had their human rights violated there should have been a reaction to protect human rights and not the gay rights, which are quite difficult to be found. And at the moment gays rights are protected in a strange exceptional manner that makes them really unequal to other human with regular human rights.

But thanks for the answers anyway. Even if I failed to understand something - you really tried to be structural and logical which is a very rare thing.

 

If its true then gays and lesbians were just forced to ctake all the obligations of a family and give up their freedom of personal choices?!! Amazing.

 

That's something what I drive to. I know a family as husband, wife and kid(s). If I am to paint a picture of the word family, I would paint a father with a daughter and a mother with a son all holding hands of each other. This concept is international and this is what family is. Sometimes there are more kids and the family is "bigger" Sometimes, there is one kid, which makes it a family, but it doesn't fulfil it's purpose though. But a gay couple for me whether they call themselves a family or not - just cannot be a family. A group of men and women for me is not a football team. There is football and the team should consist of men. There can be women football, but if I see it on the program it should be called "women football" just for me not to waste time for it.
But noone is obliged to have a family and two kids. People can choose safe sex and no kids. It's their choice. They can practice a sex that is traditional as anthem but still they will not make a family. It doesn't mean however that gays or these people are worse. Of course not. They just make their own choices. It's their rights.

This is why I ask if a gay CAN make a family and is not questioned by a state official about his sexual preferences while registering a family, a marriage.

 

Two people of the same sex are not questioned about sexual orientation in order to gain a marriage license.

 

I agree that equal rights under the law is a human rights issue. You asked why gay and lesbian rights are being discussed, and I tried to address that- they were and are a minority who has historically not had equal rights based upon their sexual orientation.

This is the controversy before the U.S. Supreme Court right now- addressing something like DOMA which specifically discriminates against Federal recogntion of gay marriages.

Federal law provides benefits to spouses that are not available otherwise- and the Federal government discriminates of those legal spouses are not heterosexual.

I answered your question about 'straight parades'- you apparently just don't like my response. But here in the U.S. you can organize 'straight parades' celebrating your sexuality to your hearts content.

 

Frankly that is purely your opinion. A married couple is a family, even if they dont' have children- ever. A single mother with 3 children is a family. A grandmother living with her married daughter and her kids is a family also. I disagree with your rather narrow definition.

There are lots of people who feel that way- but I don't. Let me ask frame this in another way- living next door to you are a couple with 2 children, a dog and cat. How does it make them less of a family of the couple consists of two women? The children consider them all their family the same way- why wouldn't you? If they lived next door- what would you call them other than 'family'?

I agree.

We don't register families here in the U.S., nor are sexual preferences asked. Gay couples do make families on a regular basis, and according to Supreme Court testimony, there are approximately 40,000 children of same sex couples living in California.

Would you tell those children that they don't live in a family?

 

I agree. There start to be a consensus. So there are no specific gay rights. People should just respect human rights. Fair enough I would say. If everyone agrees that there are only human rights then we can move on and take the most mutual misunderstanding and brings the conversation to the common ground - texts, laws, common terms.

I would say that such a law in a democratic country is too hard. Russia decriminalised homosexual sex in 90s and it didn't result in any public scandals. So to take a homosexual from his bed to jail - is a violation against his rights.

This is too fast. We spend some years of debates without any result, right? Let's drive carefully. There was a question about a family already. And we still have some questions that still have difficulties. As the one below for instance.

3. What is a normal inborn (if so) sexual orientation?

There was no reference to rights in this question. Do you see any reference to the rights? No. And there was no moral values. We might come to it, if there would be a straight answer to the question. Or might not. I just asked what is a normal sexual orientation. You can use statistics, biology, psycology, common sense, newspaper articles, blog entries. Anything. But there need to be a straight answer.

You define a term by the same term. For gay it is normal to be gay... Well. But is it normal for A person?
Like I said that for a person with cleft palate it is normal to mispronounce words and experience constant problems with breathing and eating at the same time. But for A person it is abnormal. It is not necessarily that being a gay is abnormal. I don't want to push you to this idea. I just ask.

Science can surely answer these question. If it is a question of course. They can investigate the brain or pass psycological tests. When there is a will - there is a way.

I think answering is more important than talking. Yes, I think differently. Hopefullly I have a right for that?

4. Can a gay or a lesbian have a family in terms of a previous version of the law?

This is also not an answer. The state needs to reproduce itself. The developing countries have an age pyramid of increasing population. That means that the people of working age have to feed the pensioners, which number is fewer and a greater number of kids which will replace this generation once they move to a pension. Under this rule a state can plan for a steady increase of demand, production, growing economy etc. Even if the state is not doing anything else. Because it is just natural. But when the population is declining or stays stable - people in the middle have to earn more and to spend more. I know a country which added a problem of unemplyment to this and possessing the best science potential and existing military fails to pay off its debts.
Under a circumstances state and society is not really interested in what happens under the curtains of two adult people. It just needs new people. Because the potential for adopting is very limited.
The family of your nephew is truely a family. My best regards. And there is no difference between adopted kids and biological kids (Phew! Sounds like no-GM!)

Because new kids would never appear there. A family of heterosexuals who failed to have kids will also be dysfunctional. As dysfunctional as same-sex. But they have at least an opportunity.

State needs only one thing from a family - kids. Everything else is none of the states business. People can swing their wifes, keep as many spouses as lubricant permits etc. State and society should not even care, because there is no moral in modern society. It only left with individuals as it was forseen. But state needs kids. And that is why same-sex concubinate will never be a family even if the whole world is forced to call it like that.

But not the concept.

Hm. So, you can imagine girls and boys with the erotic moves parading the streets of the cities? And what happens with the rules that reduce sex and violence demonstration to the kids? I am not an expert in american laws, but all the movies and even previews are rated and most of them is "parent guided". So frankly speaking I expected that this parade would be illegal as it is.

 

Obviously you have never been to Mardi Gras. Heterosexuality on parade. And no- it's not illegal. Here's a page of photos:

http://www.google.com/search?q=obsc...HAyQGCmoDYAQ&ved=0CAoQ_AUoAQ&biw=1117&bih=595

 

Not entirely sure what you mean; perhaps you've misunderstood my post?

Basically what I'm saying is that same-sex couples in my state get nothing - none of the protections, benefits, or obligations of a legal marriage. In a way, that gives us more freedom of personal choice - we can just walk away from a bad relationship with no interference from government. On the other hand, not having legal marriage recognition in every state means we may have to give up economic opportunities. (like not taking a promotion that involves a transfer to another state for fear of losing health insurance coverage for our spouse, etc.).

And yes, we can't make contracts that try to approximate the benefits of marriage in my state. It even calls into question things like wills and power of attorney. Not that it's being enforced that way, but we never know when the state may decide that those things fall under the category of what is banned from us. At one point they even talked about having a law that would allow only a blood relative to make funeral arrangements. Since we're considered legal strangers, I wouldn't be able to make funeral arrangements for my same-sex spouse. At least that never became law.

 

gays are not able to be have survivor benefits from their spouses

 

1. Why are we speaking about specific gay and lesbian rights at all?

The argument is that if the US government by failing to legally recognize gay marriage is violating the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

2. What kind of civil rights can gay and lesbians receive of which they haven't had before their fight for these rights?

If you die, you cannot give your social security benefits away to whoever you want in your will. That is not how the system works. Both wills and marriage licenses are legal documents recognized by the US government. The fact that the government does not issue marriage licenses to gay couples is an example of the law being applied unequally. Saying gay couples can find some other way to get the benefits of a marriage license is silly, especially considering you cannot transfer most of the benefits over through a will because there are benefits to marriage that exist while both spouses are living (such as tax benefits, health benefits, etc).

3. What is a normal inborn (if so) sexual orientation?

Homosexuality is not just about putting a penis in someone's ass. This talk about the purpose of a penis is silly. Even if such an argument were valid, it is not true that only homosexuality or heterosexuality is natural. Both can both exist naturally, so your argument is unsound.

4. Can a gay or a lesbian have a family in terms of a previous version of the law?

Of course laws must define the main terms. But that does not at all refute my point that the government should not define family. You didn't actually respond to the argument.

5. Do straight people have a right to go for a parade demonstrating nothing else but their sexual orientation?

What? Straight people have every right to go march in a straight parade. They just don't, because there is really no reason for straight people to do that...the fact that they don't go on some straight parade doesn't mean they are prohibited from doing so.

I asked what your point was, and your answer is none? Really?

 

Slavery used to be an international concept too. Perhaps we should think outside of the box, especially when the box contains the wrong information.

 

You can't see it.. So what?

- - - Updated - - -

You can't see it.. So what?

 

Perhaps it’s happening too fast for some people, but at least try to consider the perspective of people who have made long term commitments to their partners and have blended households and assets. My partner and I have been together for 12 years. How long do we have to wait? Is it until everyone catches up? Or just a majority? What measurement do we use in order to evaluate whether society is ready to provide equality to people who, from their own perspective, believe they are deserving of it not in terms of some future decade or several years, but right now (or rather from the beginning of their union). We can’t wait forever. We can’t wait for all of society to evolve on this issue, and there are many who never will.

There comes a point where calls for further discussion are just a delaying tactic that will produce nothing new.

Same sex couples will never reach their destination if they’re forced to remain parked in the garage.

A question that has been sufficiently answered in my view.

I am not your student, so don’t become condescending. If you expect to have a civil discussion, then you’re going to have to tolerate answers that may not conform to your expectations. I answered in a way that seemed relevant to me. I don’t see what the purpose of the question was. What kind of information did you hope to obtain by asking it? Frankly, it seems like a baiting rhetorical question to which you don’t really want an answer.

I’m not going to provide you with a different answer. Take it or leave it. Or explain what you hope to gain from asking that question in the first place. I am suspicious of your motives and as my previous answer indicated, I have good reason for that.

A gay person is still a person, so generalizations won’t work here because they don’t apply to everyone’s circumstances or experiences. Again, what is the purpose of this question about what is normal, if not to classify gay people as abnormal and then use that as an excuse to pronounce some moral judgment against them.

It’s exactly the idea you seem to be pushing. What is the purpose of asking us what is normal? Just because something is a statistical norm, that fact isn’t necessarily informative unless we know the context in which to place it. You haven’t provided us with that context, which makes me very suspicious.

I regard it as obvious that science hasn’t provided us with the answer to these questions. The plain fact is that science is limited by the need to build on what knowledge has been acquired before. You can’t erect a stable building without a solid foundation. We don’t yet have sufficient knowledge forming a foundation on which to build conclusions in answer to these questions. The science just isn’t there yet. It’s progressing, but our knowledge remains incomplete.

Explain. What makes you think there is no question as to what causes some people to experience same-sex attraction? Now I’m even more suspicious of your motives. You are eroding whatever trust you sought to build in your original post when you make vague statements like the above. It requires us to read “between the lines”, and I don’t like what I’m seeing there.

Ridiculous. Scientific questions are not answered by sheer force of will. You are grossly overestimating our current scientific capabilities.

We’ve answered you – it’s your turn to answer us. If you want a one-way discussion in which you quiz us but never have to respond to our questions and concerns, then I’m going to refuse to participate further.

You have a right to think whatever you want, but no one is obligated to agree with you, or be controlled by your opinion, or refrain from expressing their disagreement with it.

We are at an impasse. Government should serve the needs of the people who consent to be governed. If people are instead viewed as serving the needs of government, then we have a much bigger disagreement well beyond the scope of the discussion taking place here.

You seem to be approaching this as if government gets to dictate who may or may not form a family. Certainly some oppressive governments do. That is not how things work in a free country. Government may try to influence the formation of families, but when it overreaches, invading people’s private, intimate decisions, they will object and use the political process to limit government’s power over them.

Now you’ve directly insulted me and a lot of other people. I am done with being civil. Having or not having children is not a measure of whether or not a marriage is functional. To call those that don’t produce children “dysfunctional” shows deep prejudice.

1. Same sex couples, while not producing children that are the biological offspring of both partners, can and do undertake alternative methods to create more children. In this they are no different from many heterosexual couples who must also use alternative methods. To pretend otherwise is to blind oneself to reality.
2. There is no shortage of heterosexual people who choose not to reproduce, yet they are provided recognition of their marriage and the family unit it forms. There is no shortage of heterosexuals who marry knowing full well they will never have an opportunity to reproduce.

So here’s what I see going on: You are apparently content to let opposite-sex couples marry based on the fact that some of them will reproduce, while calling those that don’t “dysfunctional”. You also label all same-sex couples similarly “dysfunctional” even though many of them will take actions that produce new children via the methods available to them. That’s a double standard, revealing your prejudice toward same-sex couples.

Now you’ve become downright combative. Obviously this thread was not about getting answers. You are using us as tools to give you a place to spew your bile.

I absolutely disagree. The concept has changed many times throughout history, and it is changing again as society evolves. You’re welcome not to like it, but you can’t stop it – only delay it. The only way to stop it is to apply force and revoke liberty. Don’t expect to succeed in that without a fight.

I don’t have to ‘imagine’ it: Mardi Gras. As for children, parents are responsible for deciding what their children will be exposed to, and for explaining their values to their children in the instance that they’re exposed to something unexpectedly. You don’t get to control everyone else who behaves in a way that doesn’t fit your values. None of which should be read as implying that I support public displays of violence and sexual behavior.

And with that I’m done. I’m unsubscribing and returning to my practice of ignoring you, because it’s clear to me you were never interested in a discussion, but in conducting an interrogation for your own suspect purposes.