Whenever I’ve compared the civil rights movement of gays to that of women or blacks, someone inevitably says that sexual orientation is somehow different, and that gays are not entitled to equal rights in the same way that women or blacks are entitled to equal rights.
I found it refreshing to see Obama’s speech to the NAACP yesterday, in which he said:
Link to entire speech:
Speech on youtube:
More positive news this morning, from the Associated Press:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hmxKiiSIsM-k7nX2yECb7kGw1qhwD99FUMJG0
[quote]forlife wrote:
More positive news this morning, from the Associated Press:
The Senate has approved the most sweeping expansion of federal hate crimes protections since the original law was enacted after the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. The legislation broadens federal reach to protect those physically attacked because of their gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or a disability. Current law is limited to crimes motivated by race, ethnicity or religion…
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hmxKiiSIsM-k7nX2yECb7kGw1qhwD99FUMJG0[/quote]
You won’t find many here who agree that this is “positive”. The important question that was brushed aside during debate over this legislature was whether anyone had any real evidence that crimes against homosexuals and other groups covered by this were systematically being under prosecuted. The answer given by the attorney general was no, there is no real evidence for this. Besides, most states have their own hate crime legislation, why was federal legislation needed?
I’m sure almost no one here will disagree that people in these groups deserve equal rights and shouldn’t be discriminated against. Nonetheless, the idea that a crime’s motivation can warrant extra prosecution is hard to defend, especially when such “hate” oriented crimes are not systematically under prosecuted in the first place.
You’re not born gay, so how can you have ‘Civil Rights’ for something you made a choice about. That is like giving murders ‘Civil Rights’ to treat them extra special and put into legislation things that common society does not want them to have.
Have homosexuals ever NOT had the right to vote or own property? Or been forced to take substandard paying jobs for which they are over-qualified? Riddle me that, batman.
It’s not a question of whether this is necessary or not. This is purely about Politics ( being popular ). Now the Gay groups can feel like the president did “something” for them. You know, something was done to validate their sexual choice.
I wonder if oral sex only people will someday form groups of non penetrative sexers that will seek all kinds of privileges and protections from the Fed too. Why not.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
You’re not born gay, [/quote]
How exactly do you know this?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
You’re not born gay, so how can you have ‘Civil Rights’ for something you made a choice about. That is like giving murders ‘Civil Rights’ to treat them extra special and put into legislation things that common society does not want them to have. [/quote]
You just live in your own little world, huh?
[quote]stokedporcupine8 wrote:
I’m sure almost no one here will disagree that people in these groups deserve equal rights and shouldn’t be discriminated against. Nonetheless, the idea that a crime’s motivation can warrant extra prosecution is hard to defend, especially when such “hate” oriented crimes are not systematically under prosecuted in the first place. [/quote]
In the GOP Blowjob Barn, yes, you will find people that will actively discriminate against gays, and will tell them that they are damned by the Magical Space God and all kinds of other crap.
However, hate crimes are still fucking stupid, and F congress for doing this one.
If you are applauding Obama for making these statements, I would advise you to be more careful than you are. I don’t know what his motives are, whether to help the cause or not, but he has not lived up to previous statements he spoke during his '08 campaign.
I sometimes wonder if he said what he did to get elected, and now that he is in office, is acting out his own agenda. Who woulda thought, a politician now elected president who lies…
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
If you are applauding Obama for making these statements, I would advise you to be more careful than you are. I don’t know what his motives are, whether to help the cause or not, but he has not lived up to previous statements he spoke during his '08 campaign.
I sometimes wonder if he said what he did to get elected, and now that he is in office, is acting out his own agenda. Who woulda thought, a politician now elected president who lies…[/quote]
I am not exactly seeing him do things he said he wouldn’t do.
A liberal president is doing liberal things. Why does this surprise you? What’s he lying about?
There are distinct differences between race and gender discrimination and that of gays. Right or wrong, deserving or not, they are different circumstances.
Being gay describes an activity, being black or female does not.
There are open outward indicators of being black or female that are beyond the control of the person and permanent. This allows anyone to discriminate against you knowing your race and gender status on sight.
Indication of being gay requires either verbal conformation or somehow being caught in the act. Unless you are contending â??gaydarâ?? based on how a person acts in which case you are now arguing â??how a person actsâ?? discrimination, not gay discrimination.
Even assuming there is a genetic link to a tendency toward homosexuality, being gay requires voluntary action. Being female of black does not.
There is (supposedly, I havenâ??t really studied it) a genetic link to alcoholism. However, having that gene and a tendency to alcohol abuse doesnâ??t label one an alcoholic. Actually drinking too much makes you an alcoholic with or without the gene. A baby born with the gene isnâ??t alcoholic.
Even with a genetic link it requires a conscious decision. I donâ??t buy being born gay any more than being born alcoholic.
Now, Iâ??m not arguing against homosexuals, or fair treatment under the law (though hate crime legislation is a crock). All Iâ??m arguing against is the comparison to race/gender discrimination. The gay rights campaign is itâ??s own unique struggle to protect a conscious choice and conscious act.
And before you attack me over it, with the alcohol comparison, I’m comparing one the genetic predisposition to a choice, not relating homosexuality to a disease.
[quote]OBoile wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
You’re not born gay,
How exactly do you know this?[/quote]
It’s a choice. I guess if you are hyper masculine and have an over whelming urge to dominate males or you are so submissive you wish to be dominated by all males than I guess you’re born with the ghey.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
You’re not born gay, so how can you have ‘Civil Rights’ for something you made a choice about. That is like giving murders ‘Civil Rights’ to treat them extra special and put into legislation things that common society does not want them to have.
You just live in your own little world, huh?[/quote]
No, but I am glad I do not live in your world of ass backwards.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
OBoile wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
You’re not born gay,
How exactly do you know this?
It’s a choice. I guess if you are hyper masculine and have an over whelming urge to dominate males or you are so submissive you wish to be dominated by all males than I guess you’re born with the ghey.[/quote]
This is fuckin retarded.
It’s like saying that a guy chooses to be attracted to blondes. They don’t- it’s just something that they dig. Ask them why they like blondes, and they’ll just say, “I don’t know, they’re hot.”
If some guy says the same shit about other dudes, why is he choosing it but the dude who likes blondes isn’t?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
You’re not born gay, so how can you have ‘Civil Rights’ for something you made a choice about. That is like giving murders ‘Civil Rights’ to treat them extra special and put into legislation things that common society does not want them to have.
You just live in your own little world, huh?
No, but I am glad I do not live in your world of ass backwards.[/quote]
Hoho. That’s a funny one. The broads must flock to you with that sense of humor.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
You’re not born gay, so how can you have ‘Civil Rights’ for something you made a choice about. That is like giving murders ‘Civil Rights’ to treat them extra special and put into legislation things that common society does not want them to have. [/quote]
Because I choose to be descriminated against? Choose to not have the same legal rights if my partner (whenever I do happen to find that special someone) dies? Choose to worry about being ambushed when leaving a leaving gay bar (all of the gay clubs in Richmond have cops posted outside between midnight and 2:30am so no one gets jumped after closing)? Right. I live my life as a proud homosexual, I have accepted who I am, and am lucky enough to have friends and family that support me (to include a very devout southern baptist sister and her husband). I dream of having the loving husband, the 3 kids and a dog, and the white picket fence, and hopefully having the exact same rights as every straight person in this country.
Unless you have lived it, you will never know how much of a choice this wasn’t. It’s a part of me, just like my eyes are blue and my hair is brown. Just like with those, I could choose to cover it up and live my life as a blonde haired, brown eyed straight man, it wouldn’t be who I was born to be and would just be lieing to myself. I pride myself on living a very honest life, I vowed once I came out that I would never have to lie about any part of my life to anyone for their acceptance, and until I was completely honest to myself as well as to others about how I felt and towards whom, I was in a state of constant inner turmoil. Now I live with a sense of inner peace that I never dreamed possible.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
OBoile wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
You’re not born gay,
How exactly do you know this?
It’s a choice. I guess if you are hyper masculine and have an over whelming urge to dominate males or you are so submissive you wish to be dominated by all males than I guess you’re born with the gay.
This is fucking retarded.
It’s like saying that a guy chooses to be attracted to blonds. They don’t- it’s just something that they dig. Ask them why they like blonds, and they’ll just say, “I don’t know, they’re hot.”
If some guy says the same shit about other dudes, why is he choosing it but the dude who likes blonds isn’t?
[/quote]
There is a variety of reasons why a guy would like a woman, mostly because I don’t know that is how all men are born. Second, specifics and abnormalities come from external factors not internal. The guy does choose it on both accounts. You just assume that the guy that likes blonds and doesn’t know why he likes blonds doesn’t choose to like blonds.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
You’re not born gay, so how can you have ‘Civil Rights’ for something you made a choice about. That is like giving murders ‘Civil Rights’ to treat them extra special and put into legislation things that common society does not want them to have.
You just live in your own little world, huh?
No, but I am glad I do not live in your world of ass backwards.
Hoho. That’s a funny one. The broads must flock to you with that sense of humor. [/quote]
That wasn’t humour, sorry if you couldn’t understand that I really believe you live in a backwards world.