LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transexual) anyone?

[FreakyLocz14]

Here in Califonia we do have gay marriage just under a different name. Domestic Partnership grants all state level rights of marriage to same sex couples that marriage. Do appreciate that in states like Iowa and other states that allow gay marriage those couples still only get state level rights not federal rights. In this state homosexuals are allowed to supress a persons 1st Amendment rights under so-called Hate Crime laws. Under these laws a person can be sentenced to a harsher sentence because of their belief system.

 

[Feign]

It makes you wonder why America (in general) doesn't want equal rights for everyone... They might preport to be a democracy, but that doesn't seem like to be one.

 

[Esper]

Here in Califonia we do have gay marriage just under a different name. Domestic Partnership grants all state level rights of marriage to same sex couples that marriage. Do appreciate that in states like Iowa and other states that allow gay marriage those couples still only get state level rights not federal rights. In this state homosexuals are allowed to supress a persons 1st Amendment rights under so-called Hate Crime laws. Under these laws a person can be sentenced to a harsher sentence because of their belief system.

If your belief system says that it's OK to discriminate against some group of people for no other reason than they're what they are then that part of your belief system is wrong. It just is.

Hate crimes are just saying that you did two things wrong with one act: 1) you attacked someone and 2) you discriminated against someone. That's fair if you ask me.

 

[Harmonie]

It makes you wonder why America (in general) doesn't want equal rights for everyone... They might preport to be a democracy, but that doesn't seem like to be one.

More like a Theocracy. >_> lol

I wonder what happened to the Separation Of Church and State?

 

[Feign]

Well obviously the fundamentalists will brainwash themselves saying that the forefathers believed in Christianity and such :s

Or however they go about defending their conservatism anyway.

 

[Shiny]

Out of my group of friends, there are three bi guys and myself. Only one is openly bi, the rest ain't so we're always wandering off to talk about boys <3

 

[Harmonie]

Well obviously the fundamentalists will brainwash themselves saying that the forefathers believed in Christianity and such :s

Or however they go about defending their conservatism anyway.

It's so stupid. The forefathers were Deists, IIRC. Whatever they were they were they founded the country strongly on the separation of church and state.

Now that the fundamentalists have been successful in banning gay marriage in several states, what are they going to force upon us next?

Even conservatives should be for the separation of church and state. It brings freedom of religion.

 

[Feign]

Makes sense, then again, there are quite a few generalizations about conservatives to begin with (some of which seemed to be present in that political compass questionnaire.

Soon probably they'll want to control your thoughts all together.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

It makes you wonder why America (in general) doesn't want equal rights for everyone... They might preport to be a democracy, but that doesn't seem like to be one.

The Prop 8 case actually proves that California is a democracy. Remember that a democracy is a government ruled by the people. With Prop 8 we have the common people unhappy with the governments decision so they overrule it. that's very democratic.

If your belief system says that it's OK to discriminate against some group of people for no other reason than they're what they are then that part of your belief system is wrong. It just is.

Hate crimes are just saying that you did two things wrong with one act: 1) you attacked someone and 2) you discriminated against someone. That's fair if you ask me.

The US Supreme Court would have to disagree with you. The Court has ruled that hate speech is protected by the 1st Amendment. You can hate anyone you want for what ever reason you want and you can tell them you hate them and why. It's when you commit a crime based on that hate that is currently being debated.

 

[Harmonie]

The Prop 8 case actually proves that California is a democracy. Remember that a democracy is a government ruled by the people. With Prop 8 we have the common people unhappy with the governments decision so they overrule it. that's very democratic.

Yes, but that really shouldn't have been voted on in the first place.

The US Supreme Court would have to disagree with you. The Court has ruled that hate speech is protected by the 1st Amendment. You can hate anyone you want for what ever reason you want and you can tell them you hate them and why. It's when you commit a crime based on that hate that is currently being debated.

Why is it even being debated? >_> Shouldn't it be common sense to make it illegal. Or are LGBT people something less valuable than straight gender binary people?

 

[Esper]

The Prop 8 case actually proves that California is a democracy. Remember that a democracy is a government ruled by the people. With Prop 8 we have the common people unhappy with the governments decision so they overrule it. that's very democratic.

Yes, but that really shouldn't have been voted on in the first place.

It really shouldn't have been. It wasn't very democratic with groups like the Mormon church getting way too involved and all the fear-mongering that went on.

And "the common people" weren't exactly all unhappy. If I recall, the vote was something like 52%/48%. Big changes should need more than a simple majority vote, not that this should have ever been up for a vote. There are basic rights that shouldn't be up for such easy changes.

The US Supreme Court would have to disagree with you. The Court has ruled that hate speech is protected by the 1st Amendment. You can hate anyone you want for what ever reason you want and you can tell them you hate them and why. It's when you commit a crime based on that hate that is currently being debated.

Of course it's legal, but it's still wrong. Hateful, discriminating people are a scourge on society and the sooner they change their ways the better.

And committing a crime based on hate was what I was talking about. If someone attacks another person, let's say it's for being gay, they're not just hurting society in a general way (which is all they would be if they attacked a random person), but they're also physically trying to stop gays specifically from enjoying the same rights as everyone else, ie., trying to make them second class citizens, which is worse than a random attack.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Yes, but that really shouldn't have been voted on in the first place.



Why is it even being debated? >_> Shouldn't it be common sense to make it illegal. Or are LGBT people something less valuable than straight gender binary people?

It really shouldn't have been. It wasn't very democratic with groups like the Mormon church getting way too involved and all the fear-mongering that went on.

And "the common people" weren't exactly all unhappy. If I recall, the vote was something like 52%/48%. Big changes should need more than a simple majority vote, not that this should have ever been up for a vote. There are basic rights that shouldn't be up for such easy changes.


Of course it's legal, but it's still wrong. Hateful, discriminating people are a scourge on society and the sooner they change their ways the better.

And committing a crime based on hate was what I was talking about. If someone attacks another person, let's say it's for being gay, they're not just hurting society in a general way (which is all they would be if they attacked a random person), but they're also physically trying to stop gays specifically from enjoying the same rights as everyone else, ie., trying to make them second class citizens, which is worse than a random attack.

Our friend I quoted in my last post claimed that California isn't democratic I was just stating that was wrong. Whether you agree with Prop 8 or not (I don't agree with it) or even if you think average citizens shouldn't be able to pass laws is a whole other issue.

On the note of campaign contributions, the US Supreme Court ruled earlier this year that limiting political contributions by organizations (including the Mormon or any other church) is unconstitutional. The majority opinion said that corporations and individuals alike have a constitutional right to voice their opinions by participated in the electoral process and that by limiting contributions, the government is opressing that organizations' 1st Amendment right to voice its political opinion.

Now regarding ballot initiatives and Prop 8. First, in order to prove that same-sex marriage is a fundamental right, you would have to prove that marriage in general is a fundamental right. Homosexuals aren't the only group that are barred from marriage (take the aforementioned Mormons and their polygamy for example). By that point of view, bans on polygamy are unconstitutional because they deny certain group the freedom to practice their religion and deny them the basic right of marriage. Many argue that marriage isn't a right but rather a privelege the government grants you in order to advance a compelling interest they have.

If we begin saying that certain issues shouldn't be allowed on the ballot then we might as well do away with the initiative process altogether. If we did that any party who was simply bitter they lost an election could but restrictions on the initiative process to the point that it loses it's very democratic ideal.

 

[PokemonLeagueChamp]

Here in Califonia we do have gay marriage just under a different name. Domestic Partnership grants all state level rights of marriage to same sex couples that marriage. Do appreciate that in states like Iowa and other states that allow gay marriage those couples still only get state level rights not federal rights. In this state homosexuals are allowed to supress a persons 1st Amendment rights under so-called Hate Crime laws. Under these laws a person can be sentenced to a harsher sentence because of their belief system.

Important part emboldened.
If you believe that to be good, then you don't stand for equality. No, I am not encouraging straights to go beat the living **** out of LGBTs, or shoot them, but as was said before, laws can be passed about giving LGBTs equal rights, but nobody can be forced into acceptance of homosexuality if they don't want to be. Essentially, the fact that Californian LGBTs can have a straight person(or pretty much anyone who says something they don't like)locked up just for, I suppose calling them that "f" word, is frightening, at least to me. For one thing, it would most definitely give reason for straights to hate gays(assuming they didn't have a valid or bs reason beforehand), and it would also open the floodgates to where the 1st Amendment would be destroyed altogether, and there would be minority rule.
That is, if such a policy was implemented nation-wide. I'm not saying minorities shouldn't be held equal to everyone else, but they are the minority. They can't be given all power and freedoms just for the sake of that accursed political correctness.

Bottom line: Do you want to be accepted ever? Forcing people to accept you won't work, unless you take away all their rights. But then who'll be the hypocrites? Just consider that.

 

[kevcrash]

Our friend I quoted in my last post claimed that California isn't democratic I was just stating that was wrong. Whether you agree with Prop 8 or not (I don't agree with it) or even if you think average citizens shouldn't be able to pass laws is a whole other issue.

On the note of campaign contributions, the US Supreme Court ruled earlier this year that limiting political contributions by organizations (including the Mormon or any other church) is unconstitutional. The majority opinion said that corporations and individuals alike have a constitutional right to voice their opinions by participated in the electoral process and that by limiting contributions, the government is opressing that organizations' 1st Amendment right to voice its political opinion.

Now regarding ballot initiatives and Prop 8. First, in order to prove that same-sex marriage is a fundamental right, you would have to prove that marriage in general is a fundamental right. Homosexuals aren't the only group that are barred from marriage (take the aforementioned Mormons and their polygamy for example). By that point of view, bans on polygamy are unconstitutional because they deny certain group the freedom to practice their religion and deny them the basic right of marriage. Many argue that marriage isn't a right but rather a privelege the government grants you in order to advance a compelling interest they have.

If we begin saying that certain issues shouldn't be allowed on the ballot then we might as well do away with the initiative process altogether. If we did that any party who was simply bitter they lost an election could but restrictions on the initiative process to the point that it loses it's very democratic ideal.

Which brings me back to what you said earlier about hetero's having more rights than straights? You've just contradicted yourself, congratulations.

 

[Esper]

FreakyLocz14, the Supreme Court (which, by the way is a very non-democratic institution) made a big mistake and initiatives that try to take away people's rights should not be allowed. Other kinds are fine.

Important part emboldened.
If you believe that to be good, then you don't stand for equality. No, I am not encouraging straights to go beat the living **** out of LGBTs, or shoot them, but as was said before, laws can be passed about giving LGBTs equal rights, but nobody can be forced into acceptance of homosexuality if they don't want to be. Essentially, the fact that Californian LGBTs can have a straight person(or pretty much anyone who says something they don't like)locked up just for, I suppose calling them that "f" word, is frightening, at least to me. For one thing, it would most definitely give reason for straights to hate gays(assuming they didn't have a valid or bs reason beforehand), and it would also open the floodgates to where the 1st Amendment would be destroyed altogether, and there would be minority rule.
That is, if such a policy was implemented nation-wide. I'm not saying minorities shouldn't be held equal to everyone else, but they are the minority. They can't be given all power and freedoms just for the sake of that accursed political correctness.

Bottom line: Do you want to be accepted ever? Forcing people to accept you won't work, unless you take away all their rights. But then who'll be the hypocrites? Just consider that.

Wow. Just wow.

Is this the kind of misinformation that gets spread around? That doesn't happen. It can't happen. There are anti-discrimination laws, but they're the kind that say you can't fire someone just because they're queer. That sort of thing. No one gets put in jail for shouting out slurs.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Now who's to say what ballot initiatives are allowed and what is not? "Taking away rights" is a vauge limit that just leaves it open to all kinds of corruption. Many campaigns that fear losing an election will try and claim they election is unconstitutional so they can bypass the will of the people through the very Courts you said are not Democratic.

And yes, in California LGBTs do have more rights than heterosexuals. They already have all the same marriage rights at the state level so they effectively have the same rights same-sex couples in Mass and Iowa have. When have college campuses (publicly funded campuses mind you) enacted speech codes saying you can't call heterosexual "breeders" or any other derogatory name the same way the prohibit calling homosexuals the "f-word" (you know which f-word I mean)? If someone brings a lawsuit claiming they were fired from work for being a heterosexual the judge would laugh in their face. Also, why can we punish crime against homosexuals more severly than crime against heterosexuals?

Is it equality the want or is it special treatment they want? Equality is a two-way street. If you want to be treated equal then be prepared to deal with the same issues the majority deals with in the exact same matter.

 

[.little monster]

And yes, in California LGBTs do have more rights than heterosexuals. They already have all the same marriage rights at the state level so they effectively have the same rights same-sex couples in Mass and Iowa have. When have college (publicly funded campuses mind you) campuses enacted speech codes saying you can't call heterosexual "breeders" or any other derogatory name the same way the prohibit calling homosexuals the "f-word" (you know which f-word I mean)? If someone brings a lawsuit claiming they were fired from work for being a heterosexual the judge would laugh in their face. Also, why can we punish crime against homosexuals more severly than crime against heterosexuals?

You're an idiot. Really, just stop posting.

1. They don't have equal marriage.
2. There are no laws against heterosexuals, there are laws against homosexuals.
3. Lawyers would laugh in your face because you're the majority. Also, your work has to file a reason why you got fired. They either:
- Had a different reason and lied to you.
or
- Are actually stupid and you could sue them.

But seriously, you're retarded. Please, go away. Go far far away.

 

[Jesus oƒ Suburbia]

Now who's to say what ballot initiatives are allowed and what is not? "Taking away rights" is a vauge limit that just leaves it open to all kinds of corruption. Many campaigns that fear losing an election will try and claim they election is unconstitutional so they can bypass the will of the people through the very Courts you said are not Democratic.

And yes, in California LGBTs do have more rights than heterosexuals. They already have all the same marriage rights at the state level so they effectively have the same rights same-sex couples in Mass and Iowa have. When have college campuses (publicly funded campuses mind you) enacted speech codes saying you can't call heterosexual "breeders" or any other derogatory name the same way the prohibit calling homosexuals the "f-word" (you know which f-word I mean)? If someone brings a lawsuit claiming they were fired from work for being a heterosexual the judge would laugh in their face. Also, why can we punish crime against homosexuals more severely than crime against heterosexuals?

Is it equality the want or is it special treatment they want? Equality is a two-way street. If you want to be treated equal then be prepared to deal with the same issues the majority deals with in the exact same matter.

I think my IQ just dropped ten points.
Something is most definitely wrong here..could someone point it out?

If you want to be treated equal then be prepared to deal with the same issues the majority deals with in the exact same matter.

We, my friend are already ready for whatever it is that we're about to face; and I can assure you that what we have been facing is far worse than what the "majority" has been dealing with.

 

[Tox]

I'm straight but I have a few friends that have admitted to me that they're gay or bi. I don't see anything wrong with it. I'm all for gay rights. Everyone has their preferences and I don't see why sexuality should be any different. To me, discriminating against someone for being gay is like making fun of people for liking Pokémon, though I'm sure discriminating against the former can be a lot more extreme. That was probably a bad example anyway, but that's not the point. I think it's sad that some people just can't accept others. So yeah, I'm totally for gay rights and all that.

 

[shot571]

wow that took a long time to read O.O. personally im not gay but imo its not your choice but the things going around you that influence you. im a muslim from a pretty strict family in the uk and so im not allowed to be gay. but the school i go to has started taking this issue seriously. we recently had a drama production about gays and theyre trying to stop gay being used as an insult. just my opinion sorry if it offends anyone.