Why shouldn't homosexuals receive equal rights?

I don't find the two issues comparable. For me, it comes down to whether the organization is taking from taxpayers. If it is, then it shouldn't get to discriminate against them in services it provides outside those restricted to church membership.

 

What is a 'right' or 'rights'? Basically it has 2 meanings:
1) rules of what is prohibited and what is allowed
2) opportunity to act or keep from makingan action.

And of course I want every man to have equal rights to the others. Which means that I have a right to be homosexual. Even if the nature or God haven't made me to feel homosexual. It will be difficult, because of the all-known problems but possible. I can start wearing and imitating a gay, listening to their music, watching their movies and making sex like they do. At the same time any homosexual can choose to become straight. They can start weating straight clothes, talk as men, behave like men and they can find it pleasant with a woman. Although it also can take some efforts from their side.
Only in these rules and oppportunities our rights can be different. All the rest should remain the same. A family is not sex. A family is a union of man and woman to bear children. Not to adopt, not for love, not for sex. So the right to have a family belongs only to those who plan to become parents. Everyone has the right for that. A Russian, a muslim, a woman, a pauper, afroamerican and certainly gays. Thei should have EQUAL rights. But nowadays in some countries some people are becoming just more equal than the others.

PS. In a couple of decades I will expect that animal-protection will come to the point of allowing 'families' between kittens and transsexuals. Just because they willbe able to make sex with each other and their relationship will remind someone of the so-called 'love'... And as a matter of a fact such unions will be much stronger than ordinary families. There will be no divorces because kittens will need some centuries of evolution to understand that they can make sex with someone else.

 

No they don't have to the Affordable Care Act lets them keep their own insurance just they have to also pay the $2000 fine for improper insurance OR they can opt not to provide insurance and pay the $2000 fine (or make all workers no more than 29.99 hours a week. They have options.

 

Want to exercise your first amendment rights? You still can, you just have to pay a $2000 fine for "improper speech."

 

Sounds like you need to move to a gayer state. The citizens of the state you are in have exercised their right to maintain a traditional family structure. If you just moved, then you could quit crying and live out your gay little life. Then everyone would be happy. And may God have mercy on your soul.

 

Their right to block others from enjoying basic legal protections for them and their families under the law? You consider that a right?

This is the thing that thoroughly confounds me - how it's oftentimes made out to be about people preserving their traditional marriage and traditional family structure - when it fact it's not about that at all. It's about being an (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) and telling OTHERS they don't deserve the same rights as you. It's a crazy world when people see that as a human right..

 

Being forced to move in order to enjoy one's "equal" rights isn't equality at all. I'll consider the assertion that "they already have equal rights" refuted then.

 

The power to amend the constitution isn't a "right" to make people unequal in citizenship based on bigotry or a desire to publicly express disapproval of homosexuality.

 

You have the right to structure your own family however you please. You do not have the right to structure anyone else's. Period.

 

Jeez, all you homos need to learn the concept of pragmatism. Instead of trying to ruin everyone else's world, just fix your own.In America, we have a little thing called democracy, and the <2% of gays are going to lose most elections. So do the pragmatic thing. Vote with your feet. That is an election you will always win. Instead of complaining, DO something to remedy your situation. It's simple: go somewhere where gay marriage is allowed. Just like if you want to legally smoke pot, go to Colorado. The fix is IMMEDIATE and DEFINITE. If you aren't going to take the simple steps necessary to accomplish your goals, then I have no sympathy for you. But some people prefer to be drama queens in a perpetual state of victimhood. The beauty of having 50 different states is that different people can choose to live differently. And if you don't like the choices of those around you, like-minded people are within driving distance.

 

People shouldn't have to move from their hometowns/states and leave their friends and family to get married. In the real world if you live in a deeply red state some people make take it upon themselves to do just that, but if they ALL do that who is going to help lead the fight to get these amendments overturned (and overturned they will be sooner or later, whether it be by the courts or the people).

It would be nice if DOMA got overturned, then you could fly out to another state, tie the knot, and still at least recieve the federal benefits...

 

And you think that, in the state of this world over population, and with the number of "waiting children" in foster home and orphanages, in the US and abroad. . .that's a bad thing?

I would say that is a great way to control population growth!.

Although, the same type of family planning is available for gay couples as of heterosexual couples who cannot conceive or carry a fetus to term: in-vitro fertilization, surrogate pregnancy, adoption, and children born from "prior" marriage in heterosexual relationships.

So. . . what's the problem?

 

If they ALL did that, why would you still be fighting? Just to (*)(*)(*)(*) people off? Why does everyone everywhere have to conform to your "new normal"? Why isn't it enough that you get to do what you want?

 

Because I think it's past crass moral relativism. Either same-sex marriage is right or it is wrong. Sure people may say they have good reasons for thinking it's wrong, but you can usually either condense them to "God" or "Ew". People don't want to run away, they want to change hearts and minds. And look where it worked - Maine. Texas still probably has 15-20 years to go but there are people there who want to stay to be part of that process. Why shouldn't they?

If you're pissed off about it, too bad. Gay flight isn't the answer for a long-term solution. The ultimate goal is same-sex marriage in every state, and I promise you that goal will never end. Ever. Rights related to an important aspect of one's very being shouldn't end at state lines.

 

I consider "homos" to be a slur. If you're going to be disrespectful and employ slurs, I will permanently ignore you because quite frankly, I don't have to put up with your (*)(*)(*)(*). Thin ice.

So if the marriage of two men or two women is recognized by government, that somehow "ruins everyone else' world"? How, exactly? Grow up and knock off the demonizing. You don't strike me as a run of the mill bigot, but I'm willing to change my mind about that if you keep this kind of hyperbole going.

Newsflash: We exist in the same world as everyone else.

In America, we have a republic with democratically elected representation and an ability for voters to amend constitutions through referenda - a power that should be exercised rarely and carefully, and most definitely not for the purpose of irrationally discriminating against disfavored groups.

Not when a critical mass of straight people join them at the ballot box, as illustrated by the recent votes in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington. The percentage of the population that any group forms doesn't determine whether or not they're entitled to the equal protection of the laws.

...until the voters in our new 'home' state decide to take away our rights. You're missing the point. I have rights, and they aren't contingent on my moving to another state.

We are, on many fronts. That you don't like the result of those actions (one of which includes arguing with people like you), tough (*)(*)(*)(*).

No, it's not simple. But thanks for illustrating that this proposal is the product of overly simplistic thinking. My life doesn't exist in some sort of vacuum where the only thing of importance is recognition of my marriage. We have two sets of elderly parents to look after. We've built careers that shouldn't become a casualty of someone else' prejudices. We're nearing retirement age. We've invested in a home. The selfish disapproval of bigoted voters is not reason enough for us to abandon all of that. We shouldn't have to, and we don't intend to.

Not even remotely comparable.

The fix is to provide people with the full equality they're entitled to as citizens. You can't fix inequality with more of the same.

I don't require your sympathy. I'm not going to give up the life I've built here just because you're laboring under the misconception that you can bully me into it.

And what I'd like to say in response to that would probably get me banned. If you don't want people to complain about victimization, then stop victimizing them.

No, I don't like other people choosing to deny me my rights. Fleeing to another state to accommodate their viciousness isn't an acceptable solution.

 

Whatever. Gays consider everything a slur except their chosen word of the month. They will also call themselves and others "queer", then get offended when others use the same terminology. Is calling someone "hetero" a slur? I wouldn't be offended by it. If the word filter allows it, I'll use the wording of my choice. There you go trying to conform everybody again.

"World" in this context was clearly not meant to mean "planet Earth", but rather, one's social sphere.

Agreed. No constitutional Amendment should be necessary to keep things they way they have always been. A simple lack of action will suffice.

That's why I said "most" elections. Unfortunately, television has propagandized many hetero people into joining the other team.

Are you afraid you're going to lose the states that you already won? I thought your victory in every state was an inevitability. At least, that's what I keep hearing.

Well, if you don't want it bad enough to go get it, then what are you worried about? It's there for the taking.

How is changing nothing "more inequality"? The problem is, you want to take away choice from 98% of the people, just to indulge in social engineering experimentaton. See, here's the real problem. You don't just want the "right" to get married. You want to force everybody else to recognize that marriage, removing their choice, and ignoring the fact that most people see gay marriage as a mockery, not a real marriage.

Sit there and endure it, then. And you might just die before any change happens in your state. And for your stubbornness, you will miss out on the marriage that is so important? to you. Instead of just going and getting it.

 

You were being intentionally provocative in your selection of the wording "you homos" regardless of whether or not it was actually intended in a homophobic way. You're fully aware that it has offensive connotations as a term employed by those seeking to demean and belittle gay people, even if you were only using it as an abbreviation for 'homosexuals'. You could have easily said "you guys" but went down the "Look I'm sticking it to political correctness go meeee!" route. Sad.

 

Now, why would I say "you guys" when I mean the women, too? Sticking it to political correctness is much more fun, anyway. Go meeee!

 

Your irrational animus is an indicator that you have almost nothing worthwhile to say.

 

So you admit you're baiting in the lesbian, gay, bisexual & transgender forum. If you can't show people a basic level of respect and civility by simply refraining from calling us something we find inherently offensive, I believe that makes you an immature ass. Good day.

 

You still dont understand. Heterosexual couples arent encouraged to marry so they will procreate but instead because they are going to procreate whether they are married or not. Marriage likely reduces procreation. Blacks in the US have HIGHER birth rates and LOWER marriage rates. Results being that now the majority of black children are born to single mothers.

 

They want tax breaks and governmental entitlements for doing what they want.

 

^ Which asks us to posit as true that gay people are incapable of having diverse opinions as individuals, and instead operate similar to the Borg collective. Or that you have mystical mindreading powers to know whats in the minds of all gay people. Either way, BS.

Context and intent matter. If the intent is to be insulting, then most any label can be used pejoratively. The tone and content of your posts is informative, and tells us that you likely meant to be insulting.

Feel free to use whatever words you want, and I'll feel free to continue pointing out that you're using slurs to insult, bait, etc.

Strawman. I quoted you - I didn't supply an interpretation of what you meant. Are you seriously going to claim that homosexuals operate in some wholly separate social sphere? I will ask it again, asking you to apply the context you've chosen above.

If the marriage of two men or two women is recognized by government, that somehow "ruins everyone else' world"? How, exactly?

Spin.

Pfft.

So television brainwashes people into thinking that they support equality? Is that really what you want to go with?

Yes.

Illustrating again the inability to consider us as individuals with diverse opinions. I do not share the opinion that marriage equality is inevitable in every state. That strikes me as a dangerous complacency.

Huff yores and cluck yew berry munch.

Nonsense. People who wish to marry someone of the opposite-sex will still be able to. There is no "social engineering experimentation" contained in marriage equality. Most people who are gay would not marry heterosexually, with or without the existence of marriage equality. What do you imagine is being engineered here? (emphasis on imagine). No one has to recognize a same-sex marriage or any other marriage outside a legal context. People don't get to pick and choose which laws apply to them; laws governing legally recognized marriages are no different.

No. I will not shut up and be passive just because you demand it.

I very much expect that to be true.

There would be no point to "going and getting it" when it won't be recognized in my home state or by the federal government. Like I said, moving isn't an option. I have other people to think about besides my self. Marriage is important, but it isn't my highest priority.