Gay bashing versus christian bashing

Not false at all if you read what I said instead of read-into what I said.DOMA defines marriage and spouses as a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word spouse refers to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.Homosexuals and Heterosexuals BOTH can marry as per the definition of marriage, and spouses. What I posted was true, what you assumed I posted was false, though I never can stop you, kuresu, from trying to put words into my mouth. This is just another example of you trying and failing. CORRECT. Wow someone who can read on EVC I’m almost surprised. No you are just being you. I am speaking from the legal and in REALITY version of what marriage is. Why change the subject? Is the reality of the situation too much for you? We are not talking about black people, this is about gay people not having basic rights, except they DO HAVE the same basic rights. Its your topic and you cant even stay on it. :roll: Not true there are gay politicians who are open about it. Don’t be so specific, gay people are represented just about as well as everyone else. I am a Pagan, there are no pagan politicians, I have no rights, nor representation!?! Of course I do, I vote, I am represented. There has never been a female President, therefore females don’t have basic rights, they are not very well represent in this country. Are you serious? Get a grip. Every example there is on them, its their CHOICE. It is not illegal for them to be open and out, and freely express themselves. They do have the right, and therefore you are wrong, once again. I’m living in the legal reality of how things are. Per law they are equal. We have the same rights. I have no Idea where Zerus is, but we are much more diverse and accepting here in Northern Virginia, I work with a few gay men, and they are not hiding out like you think they should be, nor do they refrain from telling us thing that you say they will not. Oh wait am I ruining your propaganda, shit sry about that. Gee I’m sorry but I don’t operate or think under the same stereotypes that you do. What is typical. I work in a corporate office, so I guess that is my typical. Of wait there are gay men that work with me. Yeah, um I don’t think it is terrible here for them. And you know what they don’t act anything like you say they do around here, they are very gay, proud and open about it. And they have not gotten fired or beat up by the straight men. Wow, now that I think about it, I’m not sure your fantasy applies to my reality. It really depends on the company you work for, though I wouldn’t expect you to really know anything about that, considering how far off you have been this whole time, in your propaganda thread. I am talking about legally on the books. You cannot regulate society and tell people how to feel and treat each other, we have the same rights. If gays are afraid to come out, its not my fault. ROFLMFAOWhat part of PRIVATE school can you not wrap your brain around? You can get expelled from a private school just because the principal doesn’t like you, and that is a fact.This is the most horrible example you have come up with yet. It clearly shows you are trying desperately (and failing) to find examples. This shows nothing about lack of education and discrimination in a school, nice try. Wait . Actually it was a horrible try. TRANSLATION: I have no answer on topic so I will switch from apples to oranges, and give a counter point off topic.Edited by Artemis Entreri, : No reason given.

The seperate but equal bullshit? Come on man, get over that, and just admit you don't want gays to be happy in marriage like the heterosexuals because they make you feel icky. They most certainly DON'T. They can't marry the person they love, like heterosexuals can. No we don't. In my country they do, in yours, they certainly haven't. I always keep wondering how you Americans keep calling your country the "nation with the most freedom on Earth" when it's clear that there are countries where the citizens have much more personal freedoms than in the USA (yes I know, not all americans claim this, just making an example). Ask them what they think of the fact you don't want gay couples to marry.

---

I hunt for the truth

Well, he can be forgiven for thinking you were saying something that made sense. What you said was like saying that they had freedom of speech in the former Soviet Union -- anyone could voice an opinion on state policy as long as their opinions were within the bounds set by the state. That is true in a trivial sort of way, but makes no sense in a serious discussion about rights.

---

Speaking personally, I find few things more awesome than contemplating this vast and majestic process of evolution, the ebb and flow of successive biotas through geological time. Creationists and others who cannot for ideological or religious reasons accept the fact of evolution miss out a great deal, and are left with a claustrophobic little universe in which nothing happens and nothing changes.
-- M. Alan Kazlev

In the eyes of the law, marriage is just a legal contract that fails to incorporate love. People don't have the right to marry the one they love. Especially if the one they love doesn't want to marry them. Its not that they're separate but equal, its that they're not separate. Its not about feeling icky, asshole.

The RIA said that whites could not marry non-whites, not that interracial marriage was illegal. Could a brown have married a yellow? I dunno.But before it was repealed, it was the law and would have been rightly claimed as such.Currently, our law is that marriage has to be between opposite sexes but it doesn't prevent anyone from entering the contract (except kids).

Then tell me why two people that love each other are not allowed to marry. They can in my country, is my country wrong? Oh and thanks for calling me asshole, I love you too.

---

I hunt for the truth

You might as well say that a law stipulating that 'no two people who have a Christian name beginning with the letter C be allowed to marry' is not discriminatory.Everyone is subject to the same law.
If your name happens to begin with a C you can either find someone whose name does not begin with a C or change your own name.Completely fair, unbiased and equal to all. Obviously.Seriously - How exactly is a law restricting two consenting adults from legal union based on sex any different in terms of rationale or principle from the example above?

You might as well say that a law stipulating that 'no two people who both have a Christian name beginning with the letter C be allowed to marry' is not discriminatory.Everyone is subject to the same law.
If your name happens to begin with a C you can either find someone whose name does not begin with a C or change your own name.Completely fair, unbiased and equal to all. Obviously.Seriously - How exactly is a law restricting two consenting adults from legal union based on sex any different in terms of rationale or principle from the example above?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Segregation is segregation whether it is by skin color, sexual preference or religious belief. If you want a ROFLMAOTry this:Form 3 questions for demographicsRace: HumanSexual pref: AllReligion: NoneYou should have heard the silence and seen the discombobolated expression on the person's face. Me, I ROFLMAOEdited by bluescat48, : more typos

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

It's not changing the subject. Everytime a minority group wants to end unjust discrimination it has to convince society at large that such and such discrimination is unjust.During the civil rights movement, the biggest problem that civil rights groups had was convincing society at large that segregation and anti-interracial marriage laws were unjust discrimination. Civil rights leaders compared segregation to slavery as a way to try to convince society that segregation was unjust discrimination. There were people who pointed out that it was comparing apples and oranges because black people weren't working in cotton fields as slave laborers... kinda like how you refuse to see the parallel between interracial marriage and gay marriage. *Blink* You did not just say that did you?Pointing out one or two exceptions won't change the fact that they are not justly represented. For years now, I've been debating and trying to convince people that having a "right" means much more than being protected under the law. Having a "right" in our society also means being socially accepted.I attended a conference at a university some time back. There was a speaker who talked about an experience he had. He and his partner was looking for an apartment. When they told the agent (a black woman) they wanted a 1 bedroom apartment, she simply got up and told them to leave. She also said "we don't serve your kind here". Could they have sued? Sure. Would they have won? Most definitely. But the issue goes much deeper than that. Society at large still doesn't think demonizing gay people is unjust discrimination.Changing the law is just the first step toward equality. There are plenty of female congresswomen and female senators (although I still think women are underrepresented). The same cannot be said of gay people and many other minority groups. You know, telling people how you have gay friends or that you work with gay men is a sign of bigotry. Might as well say "I have a friend who works with a gay person, so I don't have a problem with them..." Have I mentioned they will get fired for it? Nope. What I have said is many still live in fear of reprisals from society at large. My profession is law related. I deal with a lot of people from all sectors of society. Because society at large still doesn't consider bigotry against gay people as unjust discrimination, gay people have to be careful with what they say in front of who. It's not exactly the ideal "free society" like we make it out to be.I wrote...

quote:

---

Gay people can't include their partners and adopted children in their medical insurance. Gay people often have to hide their identity out of fear of violence from their peers. At the work place, gay people have to hide who they are out of fear of bigots like you affecting their career. That's not cultural and economic equality.

---

To which you replied... I work for the government, which means my insurance policy is as liberal as the law would allow. So, yes, I would imagine I know at least something about it.It is their fault that they are afraid to come out? Is it possible that the reason they are afraid to come out is because we as a society at large still discriminate against them? I knew you'd miss the point of that example. Shut up, sit down, and think for a minute. Would society have allowed the decision to be made without a public outcry if the decision was about private school expelling students based on their religion or skin color? Actually, it shows that in a society that claims to be tolerant and free a private institution like that could discriminate against its students based on sexual orientation. This is hardly equal opportunity, socially speaking of course. Again, would this have been allowed to happen if the reason was something like race or religion? Of course you would play dumb and refuse to see the parallel, just like the people who refused to see a parallel between segregation and slavery.

Because, in the eyes of the law, marriage is a social contract that has nothing to do with love.It doesn't matter who loves who, only one man and one woman can enter the contract of marriage, by law. No. Your country has different laws. Right and wrong are subjective determinations of the people. Whether or not you're an asshole has nothing to do with whether or not I love you.

If that was the law, then claiming that the law was as such would not be erroneous.Whether or not that law was justified, or constitutional, or moral, wouldn't be relevant to whether that was the law or not.Arguing about what that the current law shouldn't be is different that arguing about what the current law is. Marriage, by law, is defined as a social contract between one man and one woman. In terms of rationale or principle, by law, I'm not in a position, at this time, to determine the difference.

I agree and I'm not convinced that gays are being unjustly discriminated against. Sure, but what we can see from the Japanese American internment is that you really don't have any rights that the government doesn't allow you to have. I find it to be an invented discrimination that has nothing to do with demonization. Your private school example is really poor. I went to private schools and they can pretty much get rid of you for any reason they want without public outcry. Can you not see that it is not people playing dumb and refusing to see the parallel but people who realize that its not parallel in the first place?

So, if the law determined that only people who have blue eyes can marry, you'd be fine with that too? Ok, so you WOULD agree with the law if it said only people with blue eyes can marry. Yeah, I should've put a smily there to make clear I didn't take it seriuously, call me whatever you want, I don't care.

---

I hunt for the truth

Hey asshole, Does that mean that you feel the disrimination is just? You feel they should be discriminated against? I agree with you there, the government controls our happyness as they see fit. But what was done with gay marriage - taking it to a vote(which included the votes of heterosexuals) - took it out of the hands of the government and into the hands of the people, with their own personal prejudice opinions. Why do you think the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" law was placed for the military? So they wouldn't be overwelmed with hugs when they arrived? Or so they wouldn't get their ass kicked? The public doesn't outcry about shit anymore. The public is subdued with crdit dept, video games and sports. But you must admit, if a private school expelled a kid specifically BECAUSE he was black or Muslim the news stations would go fuck'n bananas on that shit. It would be the only thing Jesse Jackson would talk about on tv for a fuck'n year. No one would hear the end of that shit. I performed recently at the Laugh Factory in LA and they're still talking about the Micheal Richards fiasco with the "N" word. The media and the public couldn't wait to rally behind a black kid who got expelled from a private school. There would be public outcry for that specific case. I agree with you that segregation and slavery hold a higher level of "discrimination" than what gays currently get but, the parallel can be draw in the fact that it's still a majority restricting a minority from taking part in a normal - by todays standards - process that should be for all humans, no restrictions*.* Of course given that both adults concent to the marriage.PS. Might be at the Kansas Improv sometime in summer. It's a bit far from St. Louis but if you want to check out a show let me know.Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky