# Damn it! (yet another gay marriage rant) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 19, 2004, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-it-yet-another-gay-marriage-rant/269950 "2004-10-19T01:16:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![vanilla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f19dbf/32.png) [@vanilla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vanilla)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2004, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-it-yet-another-gay-marriage-rant/269950/41 "2004-10-20T02:21:47Z")
> [@Priam](#): > > Oh and “deviant” is hardly what I’d call my sexual practices. What _would_ I call them? Utterly boring. A blowjob every now and again . You, sir, are a _sick_ freak. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![SolGrundy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bbce88/32.png) [@SolGrundy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SolGrundy)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2004, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-it-yet-another-gay-marriage-rant/269950/42 "2004-10-20T02:30:16Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > I guess someone needs to ask this question, and it might as well be me. > > Leaving all references to religion out (as it should be), why is this provision such a bad thing? Why should anyone receive special treatment or favoritism or preferential treatment simply because they choose to engage in deviant sexual practices? **Priam** already responded effectively, but just to add: It’s not “special treatment” and it’s not “favoritism” and it’s not “preferential treatment.” I don’t want my boss to treat me any differently because I’m gay – that’s the whole fucking _point_. Without state recognition of sexual **orientation** as a protected status, then my boss could come in one day, decide that he doesn’t want any “deviants” or “perverts” (as you described homosexuals in a previous thread) working at his company, and fire everyone who’s openly gay. I wouldn’t want that to happen. Does that mean I’m looking for special treatment? Imagine your boss decides that doing it up the butt is the only way to have sex, and anyone who sticks to missionary style is “choosing to engage in deviant sexual practices” is a pervert and should be fired. What do you do, **clothahump**? Do you say, “okay boss” and stick to doggie-style from now on? Or do you tell your boss that it’s none of his damn business what you do when you’re not at work? ---
**Author:** ![Priam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/77aa72/32.png) [@Priam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Priam)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2004, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-it-yet-another-gay-marriage-rant/269950/43 "2004-10-20T04:15:04Z")
> [@vanilla](#): > > You, sir, are a _sick_ freak. 😉 :o (note the double-meaning) ---
**Author:** ![Cinnamon\_Girl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9d8465/32.png) [@Cinnamon\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cinnamon_Girl)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2004, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-it-yet-another-gay-marriage-rant/269950/44 "2004-10-20T04:16:06Z")
> [@photopat](#): > > Priam, I hope it works out for you. I had to read this: three times to figure out exactly what it meant and I like to think I have good reading comprehension. I _hate_ the way laws and referenda are written (and yes, I know there are reasons why they’re written that way) because often it makes it so difficult to tell exactly what one is supposed to vote on. Imagine what it’s like for somebody who hasn’t done their homework, walks into a polling place and is trying to sort out all the jargon and vote. It’s good that you’re working to educate people now. **Photopat** , don’t be embarrassed. I had similar difficulties with it and had to seriously read and re-read everything I could on the issue to fully comprehend it. Thank goodness I did. It’s hard to wrap my mind around voting yes on any referendum that applies to gays right now, because I’m afraid that by doing so, I might be saying ‘Yes, we should stop them disgusting varmints.’ Of course, I don’t want to do that! And, on face, Article XII is written to give you the exact impression **Miller** mentioned. No, I don’t want people treated _specially_, I want them treated _equally_. However, by no accident I’m sure, the word ‘equal’ appears not once in the language of the Article, but ‘preference’ and its variation occur twice. Sneaky bastards, aren’t they? :mad: ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Death](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ecccb3/32.png) [@Evil\_Death](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Death)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2004, 9:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-it-yet-another-gay-marriage-rant/269950/45 "2004-10-20T09:32:36Z")
> [@Priam](#): > > It defuses the threat that their ministers, their politicians have built up in their minds about how evil gay people must be. No, it doesn’t. You’re obviously sent by Satan to test their faith, you insidious pervert weirdo you. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2004, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-it-yet-another-gay-marriage-rant/269950/46 "2004-10-20T11:53:12Z")
> [@SolGrundy](#): > > **Priam** already responded effectively, but just to add: > > It’s not “special treatment” and it’s not “favoritism” and it’s not “preferential treatment.” I don’t want my boss to treat me any differently because I’m gay – that’s the whole fucking _point_. Without state recognition of sexual **orientation** as a protected status, then my boss could come in one day, decide that he doesn’t want any “deviants” or “perverts” (as you described homosexuals in a previous thread) working at his company, and fire everyone who’s openly gay. I wouldn’t want that to happen. Does that mean I’m looking for special treatment? > > Imagine your boss decides that doing it up the butt is the only way to have sex, and anyone who sticks to missionary style is “choosing to engage in deviant sexual practices” is a pervert and should be fired. What do you do, **clothahump**? Do you say, “okay boss” and stick to doggie-style from now on? Or do you tell your boss that it’s none of his damn business what you do when you’re not at work? Sexual orientation does not need to be a “protected” status. Under existing labor laws, the scenario you describe could not occur unless the boss is an idiot who is willing to expose himself and his company to massive legal action for unfair labor practices. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2004, 12:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-it-yet-another-gay-marriage-rant/269950/47 "2004-10-20T12:05:28Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > Sexual orientation does not need to be a “protected” status. I’m so very glad that you have seen fit to declaim this to be Fact. I’ll just sit down and shut up now, because **Clothahump** has convinced me that sexual orientation does not need to be a “protected” status. Who knew he was a public policy expert? :eek: ---
**Author:** ![look\_ninjas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/b2d939/32.png) [@look\_ninjas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/look_ninjas)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2004, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-it-yet-another-gay-marriage-rant/269950/48 "2004-10-20T12:47:37Z")
> [@Genghis Bob](#): > > From what I read, it’s going to pass with a wide majority. Driving around, I’m starting to see “No on 2” signs on a few (very few) lawns. But, I don’t see \*any \* “Yes on 2” signs. I’m not naive enough to think that all the polls must be wrong; I figure that many of the people who plan to vote for it are embarassed to come out publicly as bigots. > > In our own grand futile gesture - which as we all know, is the best kind of gesture to make - we’ve ordered a “No on 2” sign for our lawn. Thanks for that. I think to a certain extent, Proposal 2 has sort of slid under the radar. At least it has up here, where the big issue is Proposal 1, which is supposed to allow Michigan residents to vote on gambling-related issues. As I understand it, it would basically require a ballot initiative every time they want to change to a new scratch-off ticket. I mean, you’ve gotta love those priorities. Tramping all over someone else’s rights? Not a big deal. But we can’t let them change the lotto tickets without a vote! ---
**Author:** ![Priam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/77aa72/32.png) [@Priam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Priam)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2004, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-it-yet-another-gay-marriage-rant/269950/49 "2004-10-20T12:50:00Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > Sexual orientation does not need to be a “protected” status. Under existing labor laws, the scenario you describe could not occur unless the boss is an idiot who is willing to expose himself and his company to massive legal action for unfair labor practices. Actually, depending on state, you’re pretty well wrong. If one is working in an “at will” state, as many are, then you absolutely have no recourse. ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2004, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-it-yet-another-gay-marriage-rant/269950/50 "2004-10-20T15:18:31Z")
From one of the [student newspapers](http://www.mcgilltribune.com/news/772086.html?mkey=1110998) at my alma mater: > [@](#): > > Today, heterosexuality suckles all the more ferociously at the teat of marriage, trying to shove off the newborn babe homosexuality as it struggles to get a taste of the nuptial knockers. Before, it had lackadaisically swilled the connubial milk without tenacity or passion. But now, with the looming threat of homosexuality eager to share the teats of matrimony, heterosexuality has had its latent zeal for marriage jarringly awakened, shaken-baby syndrome style. Sure, the gay babe can settle for the nonfunctional third-nipple of civil unions… for now. But queer desire to enjoy the institution of marriage will not be staved off or placated. A hetero-exclusivity contract with the milky marital jugs will not stand, despite persistence to prohibit queer access to the mammaries of matrimony. We can handle our milk. Now move your proud ass over and pass us a tit, damn it. ---
**Author:** ![Kythereia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e8c25b/32.png) [@Kythereia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kythereia)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2004, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-it-yet-another-gay-marriage-rant/269950/51 "2004-10-20T15:43:06Z")
> [@matt\_mcl](#): > > From one of the [student newspapers](http://www.mcgilltribune.com/news/772086.html?mkey=1110998) at my alma mater: Dammit, **matt\_mcl** , you’re trying to make me switch universities again, aren’t you? 😉 _many hugs and loads of support for_\* Priam\*\*\* ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2004, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-it-yet-another-gay-marriage-rant/269950/52 "2004-10-20T17:43:52Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > Sexual orientation does not need to be a “protected” status. Under existing labor laws, the scenario you describe could not occur unless the boss is an idiot who is willing to expose himself and his company to massive legal action for unfair labor practices. As **Priam** said, you are wrong. In virtually every city and state in the U.S., a boss who fires somebody solely for being homosexual exposes himself to precisely jack shit. And that’s the point, you ignorant fool. ---
**Author:** ![Siege](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dbc845/32.png) [@Siege](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siege)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2004, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-it-yet-another-gay-marriage-rant/269950/53 "2004-10-20T22:17:33Z")
**Priam** , my lad, I feel for you. I’ve fallen in love with a wonderful fellow. Because we’re both straight, I can talk about him at work or keep a picture of him on my desk, go with him to check out a new apartment, even hug and kiss him good-bye in a public parking lot, and all I have to worry about is inducing saccharine poisoning in innocent bystanders. If the _only_ thing that were different about our relationship is that we were both gay, this behaviour we take for granted could endanger my job, his chance of getting the apartment, or it could lead to our being accused of being gross, disgusting, perverted, etc. or even being physically attacked. When he’s come to church with me, it’s been sweet and charming, rather than immoral, and I haven’t had to worry about anyone disapproving of us. It’s not right that you, **gobear. matt mcl** , and others should have to be careful about the things I’ve been taking for granted. I’ve got friends in the Cincinnati area, and a very close friend who’s bisexual and living in Dayton. I’ll be down in Cincy myself in December. I’m pretty sure which way they’ll be voting, and, if I could, I’d vote the same way myself. What you and others face may not be right, but _it can be changed_. And it will be, at least if this straight, besotted woman has any say in it. CJ ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2004, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-it-yet-another-gay-marriage-rant/269950/54 "2004-10-20T22:22:01Z")
> [@Siege](#): > > If the _only_ thing that were different about our relationship is that we were both gay Well, if that were the _only_ thing, y’all wouldn’t be together . . . see, 'cos he’d be a gay guy and you’d be a gay chick . . . I’ll shut up now. (Love ya, Ceej.) ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-it-yet-another-gay-marriage-rant/269950/55 "2004-10-21T00:31:26Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > I’m so very glad that you have seen fit to declaim this to be Fact. I’ll just sit down and shut up now, because **Clothahump** has convinced me that sexual orientation does not need to be a “protected” status. > > Who knew he was a public policy expert? :eek: Never claimed to be one. Any posts like that which are made without a cite are nothing more than an expression of personal opinion. You know that as well as I do. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-it-yet-another-gay-marriage-rant/269950/56 "2004-10-21T00:33:37Z")
> [@Cervaise](#): > > As **Priam** said, you are wrong. In virtually every city and state in the U.S., a boss who fires somebody solely for being homosexual exposes himself to precisely jack shit. And that’s the point, you ignorant fool. No, I am not wrong, you ignorant fool. I do contract work. Three jobs ago, I was brought in to replace a manager who had fired someone for being gay. The employee sued for wrongful termination and got a good settlement out of it. I got a job out of it because the dork that fired him lost his job as a result. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-it-yet-another-gay-marriage-rant/269950/57 "2004-10-21T00:43:09Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > Never claimed to be one. Any posts like that which are made without a cite are nothing more than an expression of personal opinion. You know that as well as I do. Let’s look at that post again: > [@Clothahump](#): > > Sexual orientation does not need to be a “protected” status. Under existing labor laws, the scenario you describe could not occur unless the boss is an idiot who is willing to expose himself and his company to massive legal action for unfair labor practices. Sorry, my fine shelled friend. The above paragraph is NOT a statement of opinion, unless one of the defining marks of a statement of opinion is a total absence of the word “opinion” or any other synonym thereof within the relevant text. And then there’s the post directly above this one: > [@Clothahump](#): > > No, I am not wrong, you ignorant fool. > > I do contract work. Three jobs ago, I was brought in to replace a manager who had fired someone for being gay. The employee sued for wrongful termination and got a good settlement out of it. I got a job out of it because the dork that fired him lost his job as a result. …in which you HARDLY sound like someone offering an opinion, humble or not. Yes, in _that instance_, the person who fired someone for being gay got slammed. Did the courts declare the termination actually wrongful? Or did the company settle? Companies settle lawsuits for many, many reasons, only some of which involve the belief that they will not win in court. If the company thought that public opinion would turn against them or they’d get bad publicity from it, they’d settle. If the company merely thought they’d spend too much money on legal defense if they went to trial, they’d settle. Settlement doesn’t necessarily mean the law is on your side. On the other side of the coin, there are precious few places where you seriously cannot legally be fired simply for being gay. I don’t think ANY states actually have a non-discrimination statute that includes orientation. Mostly what you have is larger cities and counties, scattered like poorly-fired birdshot across the map of the US. ---
**Author:** ![Priam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/77aa72/32.png) [@Priam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Priam)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-it-yet-another-gay-marriage-rant/269950/58 "2004-10-21T00:45:01Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > No, I am not wrong, you ignorant fool. > > I do contract work. Three jobs ago, I was brought in to replace a manager who had fired someone for being gay. The employee sued for wrongful termination and got a good settlement out of it. I got a job out of it because the dork that fired him lost his job as a result. OK doing the breakdown here. 1. It’s quite possible your municipality had an anti-discrimination law that included sexual orientation. 2. Some states do not operate under “at will” employment. At will basically breaks down to meaning you can fire anyone for any reason not contrary to discrimination laws. Others hold by different standards that are not so free. I took a course in this as part of my management degree, but some of the details have escaped me. ---
**Author:** ![Priam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/77aa72/32.png) [@Priam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Priam)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-it-yet-another-gay-marriage-rant/269950/59 "2004-10-21T00:50:55Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > On the other side of the coin, there are precious few places where you seriously cannot legally be fired simply for being gay. I don’t think ANY states actually have a non-discrimination statute that includes orientation. Mostly what you have is larger cities and counties, scattered like poorly-fired birdshot across the map of the US. California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin and District of Columbia. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2004, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-it-yet-another-gay-marriage-rant/269950/60 "2004-10-21T00:53:12Z")
> [@Priam](#): > > California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin and District of Columbia. Really?! I’m shamefully behind on NDA passages then. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-it-yet-another-gay-marriage-rant/269950.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-it-yet-another-gay-marriage-rant/269950.md?page=4)