Legal alternatives to prop 8

[Elfdart]

1. To suggest that homosexuality is something you're 'born with' full stop is highly misleading. The consensus seems to be that at least some and possibly most (but certainly not all) male homosexual behavior has a biological component. However, even this consensus is typically expressed in terms of a predisposition toward homosexual orientation, rather than of mechanical determinism. So, at best, some gay men seem to be born with a heightened potential for homosexuality, rather than being "born gay." And there's really very little evidence that female homosexuality has much in the way of a biological component.

2. Biological component or not, homosexuality is a behavior: skin color, not so much...

Jesus Tittyfucking Christ but you are one dumb twat. Being gay can be 1% biological and 99% non-biological and it wouldn't matter. Everyone has a minority sexual preference. My preference is for redheaded girls, preferably with big tits and round, shapely asses. Others prefer skinny blonds. Or athletic brunettes. And there are some guys who love the cock. Human beings don't "decide" what arouses them. Calling something as spontaneous as sexual arousal conscious behavior is both stupid and dishonest. Depriving someone of a fundamental right based of what they are thinking when they pop a boner is one part bigotry and one part lunacy.

3. There isn't even the remotest comparison between the levels of discrimination and suffering faced by blacks and gays. There just isn't. Gays were never systematically denied the right to vote, to adequate education, to basic employment, to access to public facilities etc. And, of course, all of that was just a sad coda to hundreds of years of enslavement in which blacks were denied even the most basic elements of personhood. Gays have never faced the kind of systematic, government sponsored terrorism that blacks faced for a century and more in this country. They just haven't faced the same challenges, and it is intellectually insulting to suggest otherwise.

You can always find a group of people who are treated worse. Pro-slavery and pro-segregation advocates pointed out that blacks in Africa have it worse than blacks in America. It's a red herring, seasoned with cubed tu quoque. It's like claiming that at least battered wives in America aren't subject to Suttee.

Marriage is, at best, a peripheral "right," and not comparable to the franchise or any of the other fundamental rights long denied to blacks.

Marriage is very much a fundamental right, and you can tell just how vile a group is when it uses the power of the state to dissolve others' marriages against their will, or intervenes to stop two consenting adults from marrying. The Nazis, Slaveocrats, Segregationists and other creeps come to mind.

[Anguirus]

Rape is a behavior. Assault is a behavior. Theft is a behavior.

Did you have a point?

All of these behaviors cause harm, you worthless excuse for a human. All you have done is answer a good analogy with a terrible one.

[SirNitram]

You have to love the comparisons he keeps drawing. The 'action' of homosexuality is just like the 'action' of rape, assault, theft, not religion. The 'marketing' is as offensive as proclaiming non-humans have human rights.

[Ba'al's Thunderbolt]

First off, I was refering to the US. You know, the recent cases of gay people being beated to beat?

What, exactly, is that supposed to mean?

I can only assume you meant "beaten to death," which has certainly happened, albeit with nothing even remotely approaching the frequency or the systematic nature of violence directed at blacks. The most celebrated recent case was, of course, that of Matthew Shepard, who was killed 10 years ago. The case is worth looking at a little more closely, because it illustrates some fundamental differences in the historic handling of racially motivated violence as opposed to violence motivated by anti-gay bigotry. Thousands of blacks were lynched during the Jim Crow years - most with the active connivance and participation of community leaders and law enforcement. Very few of the perpetrators of these crimes were even so much as CHARGED, much less convicted or sentenced. Matthew Shepard's killers, in contrast, were quickly arrested and only avoided the needle because they plead out. Was the crime horrible? No doubt. Are these kind of isolated incidents involving private bigotry by private citizens equivalent to the systematic program of state sponsored terror carried out in the South over the century between 1865 and 1965? Of course not.

Or, on a closer note, a person who hard a hard time getting a job because they were a lesbian (just one reason of many though)... about 3 years ago. In Silicon Valley California.

Still nowhere near as pervasive as employment, educational and financial discrimination targeted at blacks. There's no redlining in Castro...

[Havok]

Well this went quickly. Anything more would just be unnecessary dogpiling. Needless to say, I doubt shit for brains will last past the weekend. See his lovely racist "joke" in the HOS. So, all that's left to say is good riddance.

You poor sorry bastard, you are going to get flamed to a crisp for this.

Damn man. You should get into fortune telling.

[Duckie]

Even if it is less bad, who cares? "It's not as bad as it was for the blacks, so fuck the gays now that the blacks' movement is done"? What a disgusting sentiment.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I can only assume you meant "beaten to death," which has certainly happened, albeit with nothing even remotely approaching the frequency or the systematic nature of violence directed at blacks. The most celebrated recent case was, of course, that of Matthew Shepard, who was killed 10 years ago. The case is worth looking at a little more closely, because it illustrates some fundamental differences in the historic handling of racially motivated violence as opposed to violence motivated by anti-gay bigotry. Thousands of blacks were lynched during the Jim Crow years - most with the active connivance and participation of community leaders and law enforcement. Very few of the perpetrators of these crimes were even so much as CHARGED, much less convicted or sentenced. Matthew Shepard's killers, in contrast, were quickly arrested and only avoided the needle because they plead out. Was the crime horrible? No doubt. Are these kind of isolated incidents involving private bigotry by private citizens equivalent to the systematic program of state sponsored terror carried out in the South over the century between 1865 and 1965? Of course not.

And again, you completely ignore my posts. Hey cunt face, I have already ripped your argument to shreds yet you keep insisting on repeating yourself. Either address my arguments or concede them.

[CaptJodan]

So in order for there to be a need for the protection of rights for gays and lesbians, you need first to have RAMPANT examples of discrimination and violence before the state should sponsor protecting rights?

I still haven't seen a single example here of what your base argument seems to be here, that blacks voting for prop 8 is not hypocritical. You haven't demonstrated that taking away a fundamental right from a minority group is not discrimination.

[Havok]

Oh what the hell...

What dick head doesn't realize when he is spouting out all his black deaths vs gay deaths, is that the only reason the numbers for gay persecution has not been historically higher is that they have the luxury (if you can even call it that) of hiding what other people would hunt them down for, where obviously a black person, and other ethnic and racial minorities, can not. It gives the advantage of saving ones life while having to live a life of lies and misery. A one time advantage at least.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Oh what the hell...

What dick head doesn't realize when he is spouting out all his black deaths vs gay deaths, is that the only reason the numbers for gay persecution has not been historically higher is that they have the luxury (if you can even call it that) of hiding what other people would hunt them down for, where obviously a black person, and other ethnic and racial minorities, can not. It gives the advantage of saving ones life while having to live a life of lies and misery. A one time advantage at least.

Even with that we were still executed, tortured, arrested and institutionalized, as well as systematically and spontaneously oppressed.

[Samuel]

First off, I was refering to the US. You know, the recent cases of gay people being beated to beat?

What, exactly, is that supposed to mean?

I can only assume you meant "beaten to death," which has certainly happened, albeit with nothing even remotely approaching the frequency or the systematic nature of violence directed at blacks. The most celebrated recent case was, of course, that of Matthew Shepard, who was killed 10 years ago. The case is worth looking at a little more closely, because it illustrates some fundamental differences in the historic handling of racially motivated violence as opposed to violence motivated by anti-gay bigotry. Thousands of blacks were lynched during the Jim Crow years - most with the active connivance and participation of community leaders and law enforcement. Very few of the perpetrators of these crimes were even so much as CHARGED, much less convicted or sentenced. Matthew Shepard's killers, in contrast, were quickly arrested and only avoided the needle because they plead out. Was the crime horrible? No doubt. Are these kind of isolated incidents involving private bigotry by private citizens equivalent to the systematic program of state sponsored terror carried out in the South over the century between 1865 and 1965? Of course not.

Or, on a closer note, a person who hard a hard time getting a job because they were a lesbian (just one reason of many though)... about 3 years ago. In Silicon Valley California.

Still nowhere near as pervasive as employment, educational and financial discrimination targeted at blacks. There's no redlining in Castro...

You do realize that the number of lynchings dropped over the time of segregation? There was a total of nine lynchings of blacks between 1950 and 1968 when blacks were visibly fighting for their rights:
http://faculty.berea.edu/browners/chesn ... _year.html

Lynching per year were in the single digits post 1935. They were only in the triple digits from 1891 to 1901 (although the table doesn't have years before 1884).

And the fact of the matter is that gays stand out less than blacks- hence they are harder to target. Let me guess- next you are going to say the US has never been very anti-semetic; we only had one well publisiced lynching of a Jew.

What are you talking about? Blacks may be discriminated against a bit in the US, but it is illegal and clamped down upon. More to the point, it is commonly considered wrong- something people won't fess up to. When Dennis did so to the Secret Service agents in the 90s, it was a big deal. They had to pay damages, make a public apology, etc. The GOP, despite having a good number of bigots does not openly endorse attacking blacks- unlike their position towards gays.

Homosexuals on the other hand are an acceptable target for bigots. You wouldn't get away with saying that the situation blacks were under was positiving stellar compared to the indians so they should stop complaining, but you feel okay to make the comment about gays. You beginning to see the hypocracy?

[Havok]

Oh what the hell...

What dick head doesn't realize when he is spouting out all his black deaths vs gay deaths, is that the only reason the numbers for gay persecution has not been historically higher is that they have the luxury (if you can even call it that) of hiding what other people would hunt them down for, where obviously a black person, and other ethnic and racial minorities, can not. It gives the advantage of saving ones life while having to live a life of lies and misery. A one time advantage at least.

Even with that we were still executed, tortured, arrested and institutionalized, as well as systematically and spontaneously oppressed.

Yeah, I meant to add that, but hit submit instead of preview. I was kinda hoping I said enough that it was implied.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Oh what the hell...

What dick head doesn't realize when he is spouting out all his black deaths vs gay deaths, is that the only reason the numbers for gay persecution has not been historically higher is that they have the luxury (if you can even call it that) of hiding what other people would hunt them down for, where obviously a black person, and other ethnic and racial minorities, can not. It gives the advantage of saving ones life while having to live a life of lies and misery. A one time advantage at least.

Even with that we were still executed, tortured, arrested and institutionalized, as well as systematically and spontaneously oppressed.

Yeah, I meant to add that, but hit submit instead of preview. I was kinda hoping I said enough that it was implied.

That's Ok. Just clarifying.

Oh, and I forgot... the reason we use a little pink Lambda as a symbol is because that is what the Nazis made us wear in the death camps. Not to Godwin myself or anything.

[Darth Wong]

2. Biological component or not, homosexuality is a behavior: skin color, not so much...

Religion is a behaviour. Association is a behaviour. Speech is a behaviour. Why are all of those behaviours protected from discrimination under the law, while homosexuality is not?

Rape is a behavior. Assault is a behavior. Theft is a behavior.

Did you have a point?

Yes I did, shit-for-brains. I was apparently too charitable and assumed that you would see it because it's blindingly obvious, without me needing to spell it out for you.

In any case, since you apparently have the logical skills of a hamster, I will spell it out for you: the fact that something is a behaviour does not mean it is OK to discriminate against it. My examples showed that. You need to show that we need to discriminate against it, as is the case with your examples. And that's a bare minimum. Even some things we could arguably discriminate against for reasons of social benefit are still immune, because we respect human rights. For example, religion is far more disruptive than homosexuality could ever be (just look at the way religious zealots can be used to back up bad government administrations by promising to humour their delusions), yet we do not discriminate on the basis of religion.

[The Yosemite Bear]

or look at civil rights activism from the 30s through the 1960s was a result of people working together and fighting together. The Jews, Irish, Blacks joined together.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Funny I find it interesting those who discount a biological link to same gender couples are entirely ignorant of basic animal relationships. Guess what, Wolves do it, primates do it, most social birds do it. Guess what the animal world is here and queer so get used to it.

[Knife]

Funny I find it interesting those who discount a biological link to same gender couples are entirely ignorant of basic animal relationships.

Usually I find it the same. Funny that.

[Coyote]

I hope I didn't miss this in a too-quick and cursory glance through the "homosexuality as behavior" argument, but with regards to legal challenge sot Prop-8... don't the Mormon and Catholic Churches violate their IRS tax-exempt 501(c)3 status by engaging in activity that would be aimed at influencing legislation? They're tax-exempt by being apolitical and not endorsing candidates or laws, right?

My apologies if this got brought up and I just didn't notice it.

[Coyote]

Also, boycott Utah. Go to their web page for the Utah State board of tourism or whatnot and state, in polite and mature terms, that there'll be no trips to Moab or Zion State Park for you or yours any time in the near future.

WTF does the Utah State government have to do with the Mormon Church? Realistically, technically, supposedly--nothing. But it's no secret that a certain religion that backed a lot of Prop-8 finances also happens t be the same certain religion that plays a very dominant role in society in Utah. And if the $6-million a year tourist industry there gets squeezed a bit because of backlash, well... these are hard times, you know.

[Knife]

Sure, but remember, while the church offices are in SLC, that town is pretty damn blue.

[Rahvin]

Gay marriage is not the Civil Rights Movement. It's not even on the same fucking planet of equivalency, and to pretend otherwise is to demean the suffering and sacrifice of millions for what is, in effect, a symbol and nothing more.

How many different kids of fucking stupid are you? A group of people are being denied a CIVIL right that everyone else has, on a federal and state level. What do you call that exactly? And news flash dick head, you don't have to be black to be denied your civil rights. You didn't have to be part of the world wide movements of the 60's and 70's to be denied your civil rights. It applies to any group that is being denied something everyone else has.

So you're suggesting that the right to marry - which really comes down to "the right to file taxes jointly and have the spouse inherit without specifically mentioning it in the will" - is equivalent to the right to vote, to have an education and not be systematically terrorized by organs of the state?

Exactly what part of "equal treatment under the law" do you not understand? No law can allow one group of citizens to be treated differently than any other group. This applies equally to the right to vote, and the right to not be treated differently with regards to being able to obtain a marriage license.

The value of teh specific right is irrelevant. That the right is granted to all individuals equally is what matters, and in this case, homosexuals are not being treated equally under marriage law.

[apocolypse]

I hope I didn't miss this in a too-quick and cursory glance through the "homosexuality as behavior" argument, but with regards to legal challenge sot Prop-8... don't the Mormon and Catholic Churches violate their IRS tax-exempt 501(c)3 status by engaging in activity that would be aimed at influencing legislation? They're tax-exempt by being apolitical and not endorsing candidates or laws, right?

My apologies if this got brought up and I just didn't notice it.

I saw on one of the websites that there's a petition being worked on to have the IRS look into current events wrt the Mormon church since they've used funds to influence a campaign to pass laws. However, I've also heard that churches do not violate any clauses in relation to propositions, so there may be nothing the IRS or gov't can do (assuming that they would anyway).

[Elfdart]

Also, boycott Utah. Go to their web page for the Utah State board of tourism or whatnot and state, in polite and mature terms, that there'll be no trips to Moab or Zion State Park for you or yours any time in the near future.

WTF does the Utah State government have to do with the Mormon Church? Realistically, technically, supposedly--nothing. But it's no secret that a certain religion that backed a lot of Prop-8 finances also happens t be the same certain religion that plays a very dominant role in society in Utah. And if the $6-million a year tourist industry there gets squeezed a bit because of backlash, well... these are hard times, you know.

Tourists go to Utah?

I hope I didn't miss this in a too-quick and cursory glance through the "homosexuality as behavior" argument, but with regards to legal challenge sot Prop-8... don't the Mormon and Catholic Churches violate their IRS tax-exempt 501(c)3 status by engaging in activity that would be aimed at influencing legislation? They're tax-exempt by being apolitical and not endorsing candidates or laws, right?

My apologies if this got brought up and I just didn't notice it.

They should lose their tax-exempt status, but as all right-thinking folk know, to mention the subject is "religious bigotry".

[Knife]

Tourists go to Utah?

Uhm, yeah. It's a major money maker for the state. Some really great skiing in the north, along with snowshoeing and snowmobiling up in the mountains. We have a shit load of ski resorts in the mountains and Park City is nothing but a tourist town now.

South and east is some very cherished red rock desert where people hike, off road and rock climb. Moab as a city gets most of it's yearly income by tourists. Zion's and such way south are a huge draw as well.

So yeah, wanna flip the bird at Utah, hurt the tourist dollars coming in.

[Kitsune]

There are few things which can be as profitable potentially as to form your own church for the amount of work you actually do. Did the math involved once and there is potentially a huge amount of profit in even a relatively small church. If only I was a bit more corrupt and two faced. Some of the biggest crooks I have met are clergy. Of course only Tithing members are to be saved.

I don't know if they still do it but there is this church locally known as the Rock Church. It you do not tithe as much as you are suppose to, they would garnish paychecks (apparently you had to sign a contract when you join the church) but don't know how successful that was.

All this and tax exempt....