so you're suggesting it takes a lil longer (as in after three months of going to his rehab bed every night for three months ted haggard woke up hetrosexual)?



are you basing this on personal experience?

no one's rights are a farce. if you want to rant you should rant at a bar, if you want to write something intelligent and thoughtful, then post it joe user.

OMGYOURULE POSTS:

"So what", you ask?

Well, why does the government confer rights upon 2 indivicudals in the first place? What possible vested interest does the state have in promoting lawful marriage? How does lawful marriage promote and serve the common good?

The State is not in the business of making people feel good or subsidizing personal happiness.

It's becasue lawful marriage goes far beyond mutual affection of the parties that makes it an irreplaceable social good. Lawful Marriage isn't about individuals but about families and the State extends benefits for the children's upbringing...it's ultimately children that makes marriage an ultimate social common good.

The same can't be said for homo-sex relationships which developed from a lack of moral restraint toward social norms and fidelity. Not all, but generally this sector of the population suffer from abnormally high levels of physical and mental health problems, repeated sexual diseases, alcoholism and drug use, suicide rates, domestic abuse, decreased life spans, child abuse and molestation. Legitimizing homo-sex unions of any kind fulfill none of the requirements that would make them a social good necessitating state benefits. Nor should the State show support for a union that cannot perpetuate society. By doing so, the State becomes its active promoter and works against the common good.

You don't like my subject matter, you're free to not comment, ennarath.

Did I say the rights of gays were a farce? Only if you read it from a bigotted, prejudiced point of view.

I think I will now place you on my blacklist (even though it doesn't work; it makes me feel better). You frankly do not have the right to instruct me what I may and may not write about on my blog anymore than I have the right to on yours.

Please show me the respect of not patronizing my blog again. I will return the courtesy.

Gideon (oh and Hi everybody, long time no see), I'm quite a bit disappointed with this post. Generally your posts reflect a well thought out argument and try to offer both sides of the story, this however doesn't seem to do that in the least.

If this post is simply a way for you to vent some frustrations you feel towards certain vocal members of the gay-rights movement then please feel free not to respond to my comments, however, if this is meant to be an open dialogue on the validity of whether gays are denied certain rights then I would like to take issue with your post.

I just don't really understand how the gay rights movement is affecting you personally. What is the agenda that you feel the gay-rights movement is trying to push? What is the "certain deference and priority that outlaws the thoughts and action of those who oppose them" that you feel THEY are asking for?

Does this really just boil down to marriage and all the rights that our country affords you once you are married?

First of all, suspeckted, good to see you.

The issue is, as I said, treating gay rights as "civil rights" Homosexuals have no different rights than heterosexuals, and the idea of affording someone rights based on their sexual preference is absurd to say the least.

Please tell me all the "rights" the country affords you once you are married, suspeckted. Please tell me how married people have more rights than single people. We don't, and it's absurd to say we do. In fact, there are some drawbacks. Half our estate is forfeit upon dissolution of the union unless we have a contract stating otherwise. Those of us in marriages where one spouse stays home pay extra in taxes because the stay at home spouse doesn't count as a deduction.

Guess what? Homosexuals CAN adopt children in many states. They can write wills, they can sign power of attorney over to their partner. They can do just about everything a married couple can except legally claim the title of marriage. And even then, they can claim it, it's just that many states refuse to recognize it.

What they are asking for is EXTRA rights. What they are asking for is the right to have a "special" status conferred upon them, a status that renders them immune to criticism or condemnation because the state labels it "hate speech". A status that denied the rights of the majority for a decided minority. And the worst thing of all is that they compare their plight to that of slaves, who were stolen from their homeland, shipped across the ocean in cargo containers stacked like cordwood where many died, and treated like property in many cases for much of their lives.

If the gay rights movement wants the government to butt out, hey I'm cool. I'm game with that. However, that's not what they want. They want the government to give them the legal status of a minority because of their sexual preferences. And that IS offensive.

Gideon, I don't see why you think gays shouldn't be protected from abuse they may suffer just because they're gay. Let's go from the premise that being homosexual, or heterosexual for that matter is a choice and therefore shouldn't be protected under the "hate crime" laws. Shouldn't those who may be persecuted for their religions (a choice) be protected from abuse they may suffer? This is America Gideon, shouldn't ones personal choices be protected from the persecution of others?

They don't expect to be immune from criticism or condemnation completely anymore than a Green Bay Packers fan living here in Minnesota would. The comarison to slavery is a stretch, and I doubt all homosexual apart of this so-called movement draw the parallel, but you can't deny that plenty of queers (using this term as has been deemed appropriate by gay friends) have been harassed, threatened, beaten, and killed just because they were gay. If a particular group of people seem prone to any of those things it seems there is an interest in protecting them.

OK, so we should make it LEGAL to hit straight people? I'm confused, suspeckted, I was under the impression that assault is against the law. I don't agree with the hate crime laws, suspeckted, because it says one person is worth another. You hit a black person, you hit a white person, the penalty should be the same. And it should be strict enough to make you think twice about doing it again.

Oh wait, it IS.

As for disagreement, that falls under freedom of speech. I can state my disagreement with someone all I want.



Yes, and people BROKE THE LAW in harassing, threatening, beating, and killing them, suspeckted. And they should pay the SAME PRICE as if they hit a straight person.



Yes, but making gay rights out to be a civil rights issue IS making that stretch, suspeckted. Evoking the image of MLK standing up for the rights of an oppressed race is commonly done and at the core of the entire argument. My point was and is that it is not a civil rights issue.

If gay murders and beatings were still being overlooked by small town sherrifs, I would be right with the gay community in calling for action. I DID call for action where Matthew Sheppard was concerned, and I also condemned the animals that protested the funeral (the then little known Fred Phelps). I will stand up for injustice when I see it, suspeckted, it's just that being created EQUAL means exactly that.

Here's something ironic to consider.
As an employee I can not make a comment about another persons sexual orientation.
It could be considered harassment.
The fact is, if an employee makes their sexual orientation known, that is harassment.
You can not talk about your sexuality in the work place.
You may offend someone and find yourself with a lawsuit on your hands.
So how can I harass someone about their orientation unless they have first made know their orientation, which in turn would be harassment in itself?
(I wonder how you would file a sexual harassment lawsuit in the porno industry?)

I agree with you 100% Gideon.

GIDEON WRITES:



Like others, I'm with you 100%.

Everyone should get justice in America, but we cannot allow special interest groups to receive special privileges, especially those that come under the realm of cofifying aberrant sexual behavior, at the expense of another group of Americans.

This is the crux of the whole debate. In my state, 'gay rights' was shot down by the people for 20 years sometimes by a people's veto after collecting 1,000's of signatures in a referendum vote. The homosexualists couldn't codify aberrant sexual behavior by the state and started the momentum town ordinance by town ordinance. But the homosexual lobby and their advocates are pushing their agenda through no matter what(and now it's in all public schools). All it took was a Leftist governor to hand "special rights" over on a silver platter essentially giving the people the back of his hand. Btw, we asked for bona fide cases/instances to be shown where unjust discrimination had occurred and the State did/has not provided one.

Although many, not all, homosexual people like to paint themselves as victims, this is artificial. Homosexuals are undetectable unless they want to be detected..thus the rainbow stickers on their bumpers.


So, Suspeckted, I willing to be enlightened to the difference between homosexual rights and the rights of everyone else in the community. Under the Constitution, we all have the same rights as human beings. We are all citizens under the US and State Constitutions, we are all human beings, homosexuals already get the same rights as all the rest of us do.

I now understand the constant push for special rights and codifying aberrant sexual behavior, (not innate, immutable characteristics as ethnic groups) which started out as under the guise of "tolerance" and "diversity". It's about full acceptance and respectability of their deathstyle, even praising it calling it good. It's the State calling evil behavior good and forcing compliance upon the people.

The Progressive and Libertine forces welcome any occasion to police us more, so the only way to prevail is for us people who truly have the power in government to call our legislatures and educate those others of our neighbors at every opportunity.

And this is horrendous and most deplore violence of any kind
to all people. Having said that, there are sufficient laws already on the books that address these violent acts.

GIDEON POSTS:


Those two men who murdered Matthew SHepherd got their just desserts--they are imprisoned for the rest of their lives. Justice was meted out. But for a moment and your consideration, I would like to turn the tables using this same case. It is said that Matthew Shepherd had AIDS at the time this crime occurred. Had he had sodomitical sex with these two and infected them with the deadly disease, would that be a crime? Would we even care?

From what I understand some (of course not all, but the part that I personally find most convincing) of the argument for gay marriage lies in the injustice of death for many long-term gay couples.

If a gay man or woman is hospitalised their partner doesn't necessarily count as family; they may never be able to say goodbye. They may not be able to make decisions on life support or organ transplant. They may not be able to contribute to decisions on nursing homes or indeed any form of treatment.

Surely one of the great securities of legal marriage is that you and I know someone will be there for us through thick and thin, sickness and health (or however it goes).

Gays don't have that right everywhere. What good is all the other rights if at your dying moment you are forbidden the sight of your spouse simply because they don't count as family from the point of view of the state and the hospital?

Is that fair? Is that just? What does it really cost you to provide that equality to queers?

Now granted there are ways and means of getting around this sort of thing in many jurisdictions; Tasmania in Australia, for example, has a civil unions registry which provides certain protections and a certain degree of recognition which is seen by the health system. Other jurisdictions allow certain powers of attorney to mimic that level of access. But that is not true everywhere. This is a gay (or polygamous if you must) right that needs to be fought for. No one should have to die alone simply because their relationship can never be recognised.

For this reason I think gay marriage is a civil rights issue. Give it a different name if you must, but I seriously doubt fags love any less than straights. Don't make them die alone just because you disapprove of their 'unnatural' behaviour. You don't do it to wife-beaters or child-molesters - if they can keep a spouse that partner can be there at the end. But a gay? Not always. And that's not right.

There may be no justice, there may be only us, but we have to strive for something. And if minorities can't have equality (and it seems gays aren't going to be allowed to get 'married') then at least give them equivalency. There's just no need to be so cruel.

I can't say I have a huge amount of contact with the gay movement, but I've never heard them argue for a Dildo Bill. Does the US gay movement really focus on the legislation of sexual position over the legislation of equality?

From my understanding most gays just want what straights have - the right to adoption, the right to be married (with the right I outlined above) and the opportunity to live as they are.

Let's face it - there are practically no social mores confining the behaviour of straights these days. Why should expect gays to act according to rules that don't even exist for the majority of the population?

Many arguments are made in which discrimination based upon race color or creed is compared to that of homosexuality and the idea that while race color and creed are not chosen, homosexuality is (or is at least mutable). A more valid comparison would be to that of religion. What if Utah disallowed marriage between Catholic or Muslim individuals because Mormonism is the approved religion of the state? What if any other state disallowed marriage (or other rights) to Muslims, Baptists or Protestants?

CACTO POSTS:

It seems to me that this is where some kind of end-of life-advanced directive, living wills and power of attorney comes into play.