Your Opinions on Dealing With Homosexual People

Correct. If they aren't victimizing others in their actions, then there should be no protest against them.

 

There should also be no discrimination against them under the laws of the United States. Same-sex couples should be able to file joint tax returns, they should be able to receive the identical Social Security benefits, they should have the same legal protections as opposite-sex couples when it comes to inheritance and medical matters. There are something like 1600 different matters where same-sex couples are not treated identically to opposite-sex couples and the key issue in these statutes is "marriage" so same-sex couples should be allowed to legally marry under the law to eliminate this statutory discrimination.

 

You are correct. And anyone who thinks that homosexual people/couples should NOT fight for all of those "matters", simply isn't paying attention to reality nor the overall human condition.

 

You mean eliminate this statutory discrimination for those "Same-sex couples" who happen to be homosexual.

 

The 14th Amendment requires equal protection under the law for all individuals in the United States and that would include individuals involved opposite-sex relationships as well as individuals involved in same-sex relationships. Discrimination under the law is not acceptable and is unconstitutional.

Of note in theory the laws that create the estimated 1400 (I've never "counted" these but have read that they do exist) or more discriminatory practices by the state and federal government could be individually addressed but since simply allowing same-sex marriages resolves the vast majority of this discrimination it is the pragmatic solution as the discrimination predominately exists based upon the legal status of "marriage" for a couple.

 

I would go one step further as I see legal discrimination against couples of the opposite-sex that choose not to marry under statutory law. They're basically living in a common law marriage but are not entitled to the identical benefits afforded to a couple that has established a statutory marriage. Why do we continue to discriminate when it violates the 14th Amendment to do so?

 

Pretty simplistic understanding of discrimination. Most all laws discriminate between people.

 

Well, if they allowed "same sex marriage" in the 6 states with gay marriage, it would resolves the vast majority of this discrimination. But they didnt. The california case working its way through appeals also, only seeks marriage rights for same sex couples who happen to be gay.

ABSURD to argue that marriages limitation to heterosexual couples, the only couples who procreate, is unconstitutional while marriage limited to sexual couples, the only couples who have sex, is perfectly acceptable.

 

This is incorrect as the lawsuit before the 9th Curcuit Court of Appeals challenges California Proposition 8 which added the statement to Section 7.5 that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." This case is applicable to both gays and lesbians and is not limited to gay men only.

There are no legal requirements in any state that require procreation or even sexual relations as a condition of statutory marriage. Some religions do hold the criteria that sex between the partners is mandatory to establish that a marriage exists but that is not a condition under statutory law.

I have never argued that marriage is unconsitutional but have argued that denial of marriage can be. The denial of marriage was actually addressed in the Supreme Court decision of Loving v Virginia where the Supreme Court ruled that marriage was a fundamental right of the individual. While that decision was specifically related to interracial marriages the establishment of marriage as a Right of the Individual is universal in application.

 

Use the term homosexual, in place of my use of "gay" since it only seems to further confuse you.....or provide an irrelevant tangent for you to chase after.

Marriage to someone of the opposite sex is a fundamental right because procreation is a fundamental right.

 

If i understand you correctly you want to know how we as individuals deal with homosexuals in our own lives. Is that right? REGARDLESS of whether we disagree with the practice or not, this is our OWN dealings with homosexuals.

If I don't know they're homosexual and they chose not to tell me which is what i hope they do, then it is not an issue.

If I KNOW that they are homosexual but they still choose to keep their private sex life a private matter i am okay with that and it is not an issue.

IF there is a flaming homo who is IN my face and overtly homo and militant then i avoid them. like the plague. They're nuts.

If there is a guy and he is mildly open about it and it is obvious from his life style that he is a....homo then it is not an issue in my dealing with him but i do laugh about them behind their backs.

If she is a lesbian but is discreet and is in my circle of friends, as long as she does not bring it up at her leisure and doesn't involve me, I still love her as a friend. I just pity her for her screwiness.

 

I would challenge this statement and if a case can be presented where it does exist it certainly provides Constitutional grounds for changing the law.

 

So let's see if this can be summarized.

If it's a gay man and they're nuts then they are avoided. I would say that I avoid all kinds of nuts and don't see anything special here. A nutcase is a nutcase. I would avoid a religious nutcase, political nutcase and environmental nutcase as well as any other type of nutcase because being nuts is being nuts.

If it's a woman then she's quiet about being a lesbian then it's accepted but there is pity for her because she's living the life she chooses and which brings her happiness. Interesting.

 

There is a vast body of case law defining what is constitutional discriminnation and what is not. Distinctions made in the law, discriminating between people must at a minimum be rationally related to serving some legitimate governmental interest. Laws against interracial marriage were rationally related to the interest in purifying the white race, but that wasnt a legitimate governmental interest. The legitimate governmental interest in reducing the #s of single mothers unable to provide and care for themselves and their children, and the distinction of heterosexual couples are rationally related. Only heterosexual couples have the potential of creating another single mother.
The distinction between sexual couples and non sexual couples has no rational relation to this new stated governmental interest in creating stable households. Stable households are beneficial to society regardless of whether any sex is going on in the household.
Nest building isnt beneficial to bird species because birds have sex. It is, because when a male and a female bird have sex, a fertilized egg dropping from the female is the frequent result. Need a nest to catch the egg, otherwise it crashes to the ground. Our human civilization has decided to subsidize this nest building process. If we are going to subsidize nest building in the case of two people of the same sex who want to mimick the heterosexual breeding process, like two gay penguins who build a nest to sit upon an egg shaped rock, you no longer have any justification for denying the subsidy to any two people who join together to build a nest to perch upon.

 

Some around here view pity for homosexuals as fear of homosexuals. Im not sure why. labeling such pity as both a phobia and an example of bigotry.

 

We're not discussing other nuts. We're only discussing homosexuals and how we personally deal with them. I have a live and let live attitude and do no less than hollywood does....make sport of them behind their backs meaning ON the particular entertainment venue but it's out there for the world to see. And still you find fault with my honest response. Well crayon me surprised.

 

This was an interesting read but the only valid statement made was that "stable households are beneficial to society" as the rest is mostly irrelevant.

I looked into marriage without children and found this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kristen-houghton/raising-kids-a-marriage-w_b_610612.html

Of course having a child is secondary to raising a child. Raising a child in a stable household is a valid issue but it doesn't really matter if the "parents" raising the child are the blood parents, if one is a step-parent, or adoptive parents, opposite-sex parents or same-sex parents and roughly 30% of same-sex couples are raising children. Under the current laws the "parents" raising children are discriminated against if they aren't legally married whether by choice or by legal prohibition.

Also of note is the fact that many of the benefits of "marriage" which are denied to same-sex couples have absolutely nothing to do with being parents. Social Security retirement benefits where the spouse in a marriage has a financial benefit certainly can't be tied to child raising. Virtually no one is raising a child at 65 years old. Even legally married same-sex couples are denied this federal benefit of marriage.

Inheritance is also affected under US law where discrimination exists of same-sex couples that have shared their personal finances for decades in the identical manner as opposite-sex couples that are allowed to legally marry.

The list of discriminatory laws goes on and on and none of it to my knowledge actually relates to the ability to "give birth" for the couple. Some relate to raising children but same-sex couple raise children at about the same percentage rate as opposite-sex couples.

So if we fall back to "Stable households are beneficial to society" then same-sex marriage supports that benefit to society as much as opposite-sex marriage supports that benefit. There is no difference between the two.

BTW the matter of "children" has been addressed in court related to the prohibitions against same-sex marriages and the court threw the argument out as being irrelevant because there is no difference between a same-sex couple raising a child and an opposite-sex couple raising a child.

 

Children are endangered in opposite sex households if the mother is with boyfriend, not the father of her children.

But i don't believe for a moment that same sex couples are no threat to the well being of children. Not for a moment.

 

My intent was not to make fun of anyone and I certainly appreciate honest replies but there is relevance. A nutcase really is a nutcase regardless of the reasons behind why they're a nutcase. My point being that treating a nutcase like a nutcase merely means that there isn't any difference in treating a gay man that's a nutcase or someone else that's a nutcase for a different reason. There is no special treatment going on.

I did find the statement about having "pity" on a lesbian rather silly though. Why would anyone have pity on a person that is living the life in the manner that is best for them? It is up to each individual to choose their own lifestyle and so long as the relationships are consentual and based upon love we should probably envy them and certainly not pity them. What is wrong with being in love has to be the ultimate question from my perspective.

 

How do we deal with homosexual people? We grant them civil unions. The State of Queensland has just decided to allow them this. I imagine the religious right to be outraged at the mere idea of treating gay people like human beings.

 

This is false. A child can be in equal endangered from any adult regardless of whether they're related to the child or not. While anacdotal I've know several women that confided in me that their father molested them for example. Yes, I've also had women confide in me that their step-father molested them as well but in the end I don't believe there is any difference.

 

Civil unions in the United State still deny equality to same-sex couples in the United States. We have way too many laws based upon the word "marriage" and trying to revise these thousands of laws at both the state and federal level is pragmatically impossible. It might work in Australia but it simply wouldn't work here for pragmatic reasons.

 

They don't have al the same rights yet but it is a start. A big step in a direction the religious right never wanted to see. They are losing and they are getting desperate.

 

You asked for our opinions. What you really wanted was for someone to be honest with you so that you could criticize their opinion in an attempt to shut down dissenting opinions. Ain't gonna happen. I referred to militant homos and in my opinion they are nutz. I don't think i'm alone in my opinion.

If you ultimate question was WHAT IS WRONG WITH BEING IN LOVE then why didn't you just say that? we all know the answer to that now don't we.

 

There is a valid argument that homosexuals already have equal rights. We have already discussed that on this forum ad naseum, so no need to repeat that here.

However , I would like to point out that many heterosexual couples live together without being married yet they are not suffering.Why is it that only homosexuals are suffering ?