8 Things Gay People Can't Do

[Faux]

If gays had every legal ability that straights have, then we would be having a different discussion. But they dont.

 

this never made sense to me. just because someone is gay doesn't take away their rights that i have

[Romy]

If gays had every legal ability that straights have, then we would be having a different discussion. But they dont.

 

this never made sense to me. just because someone is gay doesn't take away their rights that i have

 

It does though. Read the link in the first post.

[Saru Inc]

If gays had every legal ability that straights have, then we would be having a different discussion. But they dont.

 

this never made sense to me. just because someone is gay doesn't take away their rights that i have

 

It does though. Read the link in the first post.

 

Heh very trueeeeeeeeeeeeeee.

 

Also, being gay raises more problems than just legal. Gay teens (such as myself >.>) face extreme social isolation during their high school years, when most teens learn social skills. And as posted somewhere else, unlike racism, where lets say a black teen is called the N word, he can go home and unload his/her feelings on their parents, and they will understand. But unless a gay kid is extremely blessed to have gay parents as well, they either cannot go home and mention any of it, or even if they do, and the parents are ok with gays, they themselves will never fully understand. And communication is vital to the human race, and it's hard when we cannot fully communicate our feelings to the general populace because they simply cannot comprehend. Also, just two neighborhoods away, a gay young adult had his car smashed in, all the windows etc, with a flaccid penis and the word [bleep] spray painted all over it. Though I didn't know him personally, this is an outrage. And to be honest, THIS needs to be taken care of before the legal rights, because dehumanizing gay men and women is an egregious outrage. And many don't care, even some gay men and lesbian women don't realize how bad it is.

 

Just my twenty cents

[Faux]

If gays had every legal ability that straights have, then we would be having a different discussion. But they dont.

 

this never made sense to me. just because someone is gay doesn't take away their rights that i have

 

It does though. Read the link in the first post.

 

oh sorry, that was my canadian perspective speaking. we dont treat gays too differently here

[Skully]

I'm inclined to agree with Saru on this one - people do have a right to stand up for something they believe in.

Society is built around the heterosexual, as society has been largely heterosexual to this point. I don't know what the future holds, but I doubt that homosexuality will ever carry the same weight in society as heterosexuality does.

 

At the same time, I think it's undeniable that the overly flamboyant attitude displayed by some homosexuals is a turn off to many who might otherwise be inclined to revisit their beliefs.

 

People have a right to stand up against something they (and the way nature works, actually) disagree with too.

[obfuscator]

I'm inclined to agree with Saru on this one - people do have a right to stand up for something they believe in.

Society is built around the heterosexual, as society has been largely heterosexual to this point. I don't know what the future holds, but I doubt that homosexuality will ever carry the same weight in society as heterosexuality does.

 

At the same time, I think it's undeniable that the overly flamboyant attitude displayed by some homosexuals is a turn off to many who might otherwise be inclined to revisit their beliefs.

 

People have a right to stand up against something they (and the way nature works, actually) disagree with too.

Of course they do - right to protest is ingrained into a democratic society and I wouldn't dream of restricting it for anyone.

[EmEss]

Reading those made me Rage for a little while...

Seriously, it's ridiculous some of those... Those... Urk. <_< Catholic Churches, Urk.

[obfuscator]

Reading those made me Rage for a little while...

Seriously, it's ridiculous some of those... Those... Urk. <_< Catholic Churches, Urk.

I agree, it is pretty ridiculous that private religious institutions have the right to practice their beliefs :rolleyes:

[meol]

Then Quakers should have a right to marry two gay men if that's part of their beliefs, no? Then, for the sake of religious liberty, homosexual marriages should be allowed by the state on the same level (and with the same name) as heterosexual marriages. It's the only logical conclusion as far as I can see.

[Saru Inc]

Then Quakers should have a right to marry two gay men if that's part of their beliefs, no? Then, for the sake of religious liberty, homosexual marriages should be allowed by the state on the same level (and with the same name) as heterosexual marriages. It's the only logical conclusion as far as I can see.

 

 

heh heh that caught me off guard XD

 

But I agree hehe

[obfuscator]

Then Quakers should have a right to marry two gay men if that's part of their beliefs, no? Then, for the sake of religious liberty, homosexual marriages should be allowed by the state on the same level (and with the same name) as heterosexual marriages. It's the only logical conclusion as far as I can see.

I believe they already are, although its an unheard of case.

[TTanT]

Then Quakers should have a right to marry two gay men if that's part of their beliefs, no? Then, for the sake of religious liberty, homosexual marriages should be allowed by the state on the same level (and with the same name) as heterosexual marriages. It's the only logical conclusion as far as I can see.

I believe they already are, although its an unheard of case.

The state will not recognize a marriage consisting of two people of the same gender. I thought we'd established this. If the government allowed it, there wouldn't be all of these issues.

 

 

Inetrestign question: If you live with someone of the opposite gender, she/he can claim you were a couple, correct?

 

Could this happen with roommates of the same gender...?

[magekillr]

Then Quakers should have a right to marry two gay men if that's part of their beliefs, no? Then, for the sake of religious liberty, homosexual marriages should be allowed by the state on the same level (and with the same name) as heterosexual marriages. It's the only logical conclusion as far as I can see.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0dKMhYSX20

 

Today was a great day for progress:

 

The federal law banning gay marriage is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right of a state to define the institution and therefore denies married gay couples some federal benefits, a federal judge ruled Thursday in Boston.

 

U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro ruled in favor of gay couples' rights in two separate challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA, a 1996 law that the Obama administration has argued for repealing. The rulings apply to Massachusetts but could have broader implications if they're upheld on appeal.

 

The state had argued the law denied benefits such as Medicaid to gay married couples in Massachusetts, where same-sex unions have been legal since 2004.

 

Tauro agreed and said the act forces Massachusetts to discriminate against its own citizens in order to be eligible for federal funding in federal-state partnerships.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100708/ap_on_re_us/us_gay_marriage_benefits

 

So, now all federal benefits apply to married gay couples.

[TTanT]

Today was a great day for progress:

 

The federal law banning gay marriage is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right of a state to define the institution and therefore denies married gay couples some federal benefits, a federal judge ruled Thursday in Boston.

 

U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro ruled in favor of gay couples' rights in two separate challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA, a 1996 law that the Obama administration has argued for repealing. The rulings apply to Massachusetts but could have broader implications if they're upheld on appeal.

 

The state had argued the law denied benefits such as Medicaid to gay married couples in Massachusetts, where same-sex unions have been legal since 2004.

 

Tauro agreed and said the act forces Massachusetts to discriminate against its own citizens in order to be eligible for federal funding in federal-state partnerships.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100708/ap_on_re_us/us_gay_marriage_benefits

 

So, now all federal benefits apply to married gay couples.

 

 

 

YES! :thumbsup:

[Saru Inc]

yay.

[Saru Inc]

Cuz Asians make good pets?

 

 

Or because getting a surrogate can actually be even harder than adoption.

[Alg]

Well, there's the whole wanting kids but not being able to have them with their spouse thing. That may have something to do with it.

[meol]

You'd suppose Republicans would cheer for the court ruling in favour of the states' rights. :mellow:

 

 

Why do gay people want to adopt so bad?

Most adults want to have children of their own. I guess it's just a deeply ingrained instinct.

[Giordano]

Your kidding, right? Gay couples aren't true families, sure, but living in a HOUSE is better than an ophanage.

[fakeitormakeit2]

Your kidding, right? Gay couples aren't true families, sure, but living in a HOUSE is better than an ophanage.

Or we can just kill all the children we don't want by ripping them limb from limb... brilliant, I'll make millions! What's that you say? Already allowed?!

 

But yes in all seriousness since there hasn't been a conclusive study showing that gays cannot raise children normally it would be the right thing for society to allow them to adopt. However if some federally led report concluded that they are incapable of raising them to the same standards as heterosexually headed families, then I would support a ban on gay adoption. But until then I think it would be best if gay couples were not only allowed but encouraged to adopt children, then perhaps people won't use the excuse they're aborting their child because they'll just have a sad life in an orphanage [although to be honest when I was on vacation in Italy I went to La Citta Dei Ragazzi and it was actually pretty cool, the orphans even elected and ran their own government and had their own legal currency, each boy getting an allowance + more for the jobs they do + more if they are a government official. My immediate thought was its pretty cool, not sure if I would want to live their long term though, I spoke with one of the kids who couldn't even speak Italian yet as he recently came from Iraq and he said its nice to have all the people around but he wanted his parents who were dead. Obivously its instinctual to generally desire parental figures, but do genders truly matter?]

[JulyRed]

If I were children I would not want me to be educated by dad and...........another dad

[Alg]

It also isn't like there's a shortage of adoptable children either. No matter what their gender is, two parents are probably going to be better than none.

[Saru Inc]

If I were children I would not want me to be educated by dad and...........another dad

 

 

No comment.

 

 

 

Actually.... yh I'll comment.

 

Whats wrong with being educated by a dad and another dad? You'll always have someone to go play sports with :D And talk about troubles. And theres no 50 minutes to get hair and make up ready to go on a 5 min errand. I think it would be a lot of fun tbh :D

[fakeitormakeit2]

It just occurred to me, supposed research appears to show homosexual couples have the same capacity as heterosexual couples, but I wonder how it psychologically affects their children, i.e. are they more incline to be gay, incline to low self-esteem due to constant badgering, etc.

[Saru Inc]

Well they'll either be pro gay, or anti gay if they hate their parents. I assume there will be some social awkwardness though. But being gay is determined by the age of 3 or 4 research shows. So I'm not sure if parenting from gays can affect that.