Gays, lesbians and transgendered: What the hell did the Democrats ever do for you??

[JustAnotherGuy]

*Originally posted by Freyr *

The point is that Dubya’s promised tax cut will be meaningless to people who can be fired from their job simply by being GLBT. If you don’t believe this can happen, I suggest you’re woefully ignorant of the realities of society.

And my point is that one has nothing to do with the other.

Are there employers out there that discriminate against gays? race? sex? You bet your ass there are.

Is it because of the Republican Party? No.

Can my boss fire me tomorrow without cause?
Yes.

I see that the Republican National Committee says, “we do not believe sexual preference should be given special legal
protection or standing in law.”

That sentence was pretty easy to copy. Why should you, as a homosexual enjoy legal protections that I, as a heterosexual do not have? Please name any singular example where the same thing that could happen to you because of your homosexuality could not equally happen to me because of my heterosexuality.

Yes, Cheney’s daughter is a lesbian. Yet, when asked to recouncil the Bush/Cheney/Republican position on civil rights for GLBTs with their daughter’s homosexuality, they either change the subject or refuse talk about it. Apparently it’s okay for their close family to be “that way” but everyone else is the country is condemned.

Cite please? I mean if you are going to put words in people’s mouths, at least back it up.

The republican party <> to the religious right. They want the votes of the religious right, but they are not the religious right.

I assume you’re <> symbol means NOT. For all practical purposes, they are the same.

If you really believe that, I suggest that… what was your quote?

you’re woefully ignorant of the realities of

The Republican Party, GW Bush and the Religious Right.

The religious right, if they controlled GW Bush and the RNC, would have them screaming out their message of pro-life, of the great sins of homosexuality, there would be federal ‘blue’ laws on the books, prayer back in the schools as a marching flag. Just because a group helps to finance and lobbies a party does not give them ownership of that party. Otherwise the Unions would own the Democratic Party, they don’t. They get some of their requests, but never all. To give them everything would remove the ‘need’ for their funding. It would also remove that Party from any hopes of control of the houses of Congress or the office of President.

For what seems like the millionth time, I’m not asking for “special rights” I’m saying that I have the same civil rights that any other citizen enjoys. Heterosexuals don’t have to worry about losing their jobs if their employer finds who they sleep with, homosexuals do.

Why not? If my employer believes my sexual activites (which I do not discuss with him by the way, why would I ever?) were ‘kinky’ and disgusting, he could fire me with no work-related reason at all. I have no protections under the law against that. If he decided one day that he didn’t like the color of my skin, he could fire me with no repercussions.

Now, if he continually did not hire equally qualified people of one race over another, there may be legal coverage. However, once you are hired, you aren’t covered for discriminatory practices no matter who you are.

The same with public housing.

I’m not sure how public housing can/would discrimate based on homosexuality since it is administered at a local level and once approved, cannot be revoked by the landlord, …
But for housing in general:

1. No realtor in their right mind is going to turn down a sale because the money is ‘gay’, sellers and buyers never have to meet to complete a sale.
2. In my State, sexual preference is covered by housing laws; I suggest you call your Congressperson.
3. Why does anyone need to know you are gay to rent you an apartment or sell you a house? My current wife and I bought a house together before we were married. No insinuations were made that we were sleeping together. Two names on the contract, two incomes for qualification.

You have a right of privacy under the 4th admendment, I do not.

You don’t? Why not?

You can marry the person you love, I cannot.

Any willing man can marry any willing woman. Love has nothing to do with it. Can you force acknowledgement of a religious ritual between two people of the same sex? No.

Can you claim that SO on your tax return? on your insurance? Not always, depends on the State. All laws are not federal in nature, the State has jurisdiction over many things. Also, men and women who are in love and live together cannot get marriage treatment without the STATE license. Call your State legislators, it isn’t a federal issue.

When legislation is introduced to correct this, Republicans continually fight it, especially at the goading of conservative Chrisitians.

Yet with Democratic majorities in both houses and a Democratic President, it still wasn’t passed. Maybe it is just a bad law? Perhaps the only time the Democrats pull these laws out is when they know they won’t pass so they can keep their homosexual base without actually doing anything for them. Think about that for a second. Clinton had a Democratic House and Senate from 1992-1994. The DNC waited until 1997 to propose ENDA. Do you think sexually oriented discrimination got that much worse in 3 years that this law suddenly became necessary?

And please don’t bring up the idea that such legislation is unnecessary.

I don’t have to, you just did.

According to that logic, the 13th, 14th, 15th & 19th amendments to the US Constitution are uncessary, along with the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Black people are black, born, raised, day, night, all their lives. (with the possible exception of Michael Jackson) Women are women. (with the possible exception of Janet Reno) You cannot equate sexual preference with race or with sex. You may never understand that, but most people can.

I’m no homophobe. I think it would be idiotic to fire someone based upon their sexual preference. However, I nor the federal government can control the prejudices of others. I suppose, more than for any other reason, these laws have not passed based upon a lack of a preponderance of evidence that they are necessary.

You may find those who think homosexuals should be hung by their toes in public squares, but I don’t think that is representative of the majority of the population or the Republican Party’s members. The religious right, while they may wish to believe the contrary, does not hold the RNC in it’s control.

[jab1]

*Originally posted by RickJay *
As an outsider to the issue (not an American) I have to admit I’m amazed at the extent to which the Democratic party has succeeded in casting itself as being on the side of oppressed minorities - in this case gays and bisexuals - despite a complete and total absence of any evidence that the Democratic Party is actually helping gays and lesbians. Perhaps it’s that the perceived roles of the two parties are so ingrained in people’s minds that they cannot perceive anything else, but the Democrats have done nothing to earn this reputation, at least on a federal level.

There’s another factor: Americans tend to look at minor parties as “losers”, in that no third party has successfully run for high office in more than a century. (Name the last President who was neither Republican nor Democrat; I can’t remember.) Most people here don’t like to lose gracefully, they’d rather win. So, they’d rather back a party that’s kinda sorta pretty near to what they believe that stands a good chance of winning, rather than a party they totally agree with that has NO chance of winning. (BTW, I think that’s why the election was so close: Neither major-party candidate was clearly better or worse than the other.)

[Eve]

“Black people are black, born, raised, day, night, all their lives. (with the possible exception of Michael Jackson) Women are women. (with the possible exception of Janet Reno) You cannot equate sexual preference with race or with sex. You may never understand that, but most people can.”

—Hoo, boy. I hope most people can’t understand that, because it is flat-out wrong. Even many Christians now acknowledge that one is BORN straight or gay, and that cannot be changed. Low blow at Janet Reno, by the way—do all the female members of YOUR family look like Cameron Diaz?

“I’m no homophobe.”

. . . But you could play one on TV.

[Esprix]

Wow. I had no idea JustAnotherGuy was such a bigot. Huh.

It may very well be true that Clinton didn’t make any amazing strides in the name of LGTB rights, or maybe even any other minorities’ rights. But I still maintain the Democratic party is better overall for the disenfranchised than the Republican party, even if it is just lip service.

[ul][li]Clinton had more openly gay members of his administration than any other before him, and that included twelve years of Bush and Reagan and ultra liberals like Jimmy Carter. Dubya didn’t seem very open to continuing that trend (not that an entire administration has to be gay, but it seems obvious to me that the numbers would have dramatically decreased). Same goes for blacks, Hispanics and women, IIRC.[/li]
[li]Speaking of Reagan, how long did it take him to even utter the word “AIDS” during the worst of the epidemic? Again, maybe it’s just lip service (as he has no control over funding), but Clinton and Gore have been out there fighting for the improvement of the lots of HIV and AIDS patients.[/li]
[li]“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is weak, of course. But it was a compromise. Is anyone seriously contemplating that Bush would ever have made such a compromise? Again, IIRC, he is strongly against gays in the military.[/ul][/li]
IMHO, when the Man At The Top says, hey, let’s keep everybody in the loop, rather than, well, there are some people we really don’t want in the loop, it trickles down and makes a difference in the attitude of this country. Again, I agree it may just be lip service, but I’d rather have someone saying, “We’re trying,” rather than, “We don’t care.”

Esprix

[JustAnotherGuy]

*Originally posted by Eve *
—Hoo, boy. I hope most people can’t understand that, because it is flat-out wrong. Even many Christians now acknowledge that one is BORN straight or gay, and that cannot be changed.

I knew that was coming right back…

What I meant was that blacks have to live with the prejudices of people who dislike blacks just at an observation. The prejudice is there whether the person knows them or not. The prejudice is not created out of some assumption that they are black or some knowledge by their actions or words that they are black, but by the fact that their skin is a particular color.

Women, are always seen as women as per above.

I may be able to guess at someone’s sexual orientation when I see them walking down the street, but there is no way for me to know whether someone is straight or gay short of their behavior or their telling me so. That is why sexual preference is a world of difference from race or sex.

Low blow at Janet Reno, by the way—do all the female members of YOUR family look like Cameron Diaz?

Lighten up. And of course not, but they don’t look like men either. hmmm… now, if I were related to Cameron Diaz would I commit incest?

“I’m no homophobe.”

. . . But you could play one on TV.

Ah ha! knee slapper

[Esprix]

Originally posted by JustAnotherGuy

I may be able to guess at someone’s sexual orientation when I see them walking down the street, but there is no way for me to know whether someone is straight or gay short of their behavior or their telling me so. That is why sexual preference is a world of difference from race or sex.

And the tacit implication there is, so as long as we shut up and act straight, we’ll be ok - otherwise, we get what we deserve. Yeah, that’s what freedom of expression is all about. God bless the USA! :rolleyes:

And I’m shocked at your naiveity, especially considering housing. Do you believe that two men renting a one-bedroom apartment together aren’t assumed to be gay? And if they’re discriminated against accordingly, that’s ok? And what if those men turned out to be straight? Anti-discrimination laws would protect them, having been perceived as gay, just as much as an actual gay couple.

Again, I stand astonished, although I suppose I shouldn’t be.

Esprix

[RickJay]

*Originally posted by Esprix *
Wow. I had no idea JustAnotherGuy was such a bigot. Huh.

He’s a bigot for posting an opposing opinion? You do realize, don’t you, that people who challenge your personal orthodoxies or vote Republican are not necessarily bigots, right?

[JustAnotherGuy]

Damned post eating boards…Take 2…

Esprix, the last thing I wanted to do was to offend you, my apologies.

1. No, I don’t believe you, as a homosexual, should have to hide your homosexuality. I think that is sad. I was simply differentiating the two, I hope you see that. I suppose it is harder for me to see the problems as I have never been on the other side of the fence. (You could equally argue I can never experience what it is like to be black or a woman, and I will get to that in a moment)

2. In retrospect, you are correct, a law against discriminatory practices alongside that of race and sex would protect me as it does by my being white and male, in being heterosexual. The problem that I see with the legislation as it has been introduced in the past is that sexual orientation can include alot more than gay or lesbian behavior. Gender certainly doesn’t cut it, that is an insult to gay men and women to insinuate they are afeminate men and masculine women. There is no way to fairly address just black prejudices without opening the protections to all races. How do we protect homosexuality as a sexual behavior without protecting pediphiles, beastiality, necrophiliacs, etc. I’m not comparing them, I hope you believe that, but you have to allow that such a law can and will open up such broad and inappropriate interpretations, as lawyers always do.

On the flip side, I don’t know that there are any of the above sexual orientations that would express such behavior to their employers. Food for thought I suppose.

Concerning the same sex marriages, that is entirely a State issue. If the DNC is so pro-gay, then why can’t the most Democratic controlled states push a simple same-sex marriage bill through their legislatures? I agree it isn’t fair, but I don’t think there is a damned thing that the federal government can do about it. Point being it isn’t a Republican/Democrat choice, the issue goes much deeper than Party lines.

I will definately submit that I am naive when it comes to discrimination against homosexuals. One, I am completely unaware of a preponderance of evidence of such discrimination, though I don’t doubt you for a moment when you say it exists. Two, I don’t have those prejudices in me, so it is hard to relate to either side of the coin.

I would have no qualms with a gay employee, I’m not sure how big the problem is, but I haven’t really seen it first hand anywhere I have ever worked. And yes I have worked with some quite flagrant and vocal homosexual men. (Lesbianism is more acceptable for some reason, I think it is due to egotistical heterosexual men who believe they can ‘convert’ them with their magical co…s and work in a 3-way, Tupid Men!)

Perhaps due to the size of the openly gay population, and maybe if these laws were in place, that would change, people would be coming out of closets all over the place, but again, I attest ignorance on the issue. Enlighten me.

[Esprix]

Originally posted by RickJay

He’s a bigot for posting an opposing opinion? You do realize, don’t you, that people who challenge your personal orthodoxies or vote Republican are not necessarily bigots, right?

Of course I realize that - why, some of my best friends… Perhaps “bigot” was too strong a word, but his whole post read rather knee-jerk Republican/homophobe party line to me. Perhaps “ignorant” would be a better term, but I would have thought that being on this board as long as he has some of that ignorance would have passed by now. I suppose I’m just surprised vestiges still remain, evidently firmly entrenched at that.

Esprix

[Esprix]

And lissener said the “ATGG” threads had run their course…

Originally posted by JustAnotherGuy

The problem that I see with the legislation as it has been introduced in the past is that sexual orientation can include alot more than gay or lesbian behavior… How do we protect homosexuality as a sexual behavior without protecting pediphiles, beastiality, necrophiliacs, etc. I’m not comparing them, I hope you believe that, but you have to allow that such a law can and will open up such broad and inappropriate interpretations, as lawyers always do.

This is one of the great fallacies of the conservative.

Homosexuality, bisexuality and heterosexuality all involve two consenting adults, “consenting” generally meaning mentally capable of making such a decision, and “adult” generally meaning of legal age to make such a decision. Pedophilia involves one adult and one minor, “minor” generally meaning not of legal age, and therefore unable to make such a decision. Beastiality involves one human being and one animal - an animal cannot give consent, and therefore it is abuse of said animal. (Yes, there are some that have argued that animals can give consent simply by humping your leg, but my opposition remains.) Necrophilia involves one live and one dead person, and the dead person, being dead, cannot give consent.

Any other fellonious parallels you’d like to draw?

And if we don’t include sexual orientation, what guarantees are there that I will be treated equally as you? As you said, race and gender don’t cut it, so what will, as there is a preponderance of evidence to suggest that gay men, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered people in this country are, indeed, discriminated against (and as many have said, we are one of the last remaining “acceptable” groups to discriminate so)?

On the flip side, I don’t know that there are any of the above sexual orientations that would express such behavior to their employers. Food for thought I suppose.

Indeed, whereas heterosexuals proclaim their sexual orientation every day - wedding rings, pictures of their spouses on their desks, discussions of weekend events with “the wife” or “the husband.” I really wish they would stop flaunting their sex life in public and just leave it in the bedroom where it belongs…

If the DNC is so pro-gay, then why can’t the most Democratic controlled states push a simple same-sex marriage bill through their legislatures? I agree it isn’t fair, but I don’t think there is a damned thing that the federal government can do about it. Point being it isn’t a Republican/Democrat choice, the issue goes much deeper than Party lines.

The Defense of Marriage Act is a sham and an embarassment (not to mention unconstitutional) for both political parties, of course. But Bush went on record saying he opposed same-sex marriages and civil unions; Gore said he opposed same-sex marriages but supported civil unions. I don’t care what you call it, I just want to be treated the same as anyone else. For that reason alone, the Democratic party is our friend.

I will definately submit that I am naive when it comes to discrimination against homosexuals. One, I am completely unaware of a preponderance of evidence of such discrimination, though I don’t doubt you for a moment when you say it exists. Two, I don’t have those prejudices in me, so it is hard to relate to either side of the coin.

You have prejudices, but the fact that you see that means you’re not an idiot, so I hereby retract my call of bigotry. My call of ignorance, however, remains, and yes, there are many, many stories to be told about discrimination, violence and terrorism against the gay and lesbian community, from snickers in the workplace to Matthew Sheppard.

Perhaps due to the size of the openly gay population, and maybe if these laws were in place, that would change, people would be coming out of closets all over the place, but again, I attest ignorance on the issue. Enlighten me.

Obviously if we lived in a more socially liberal society, more gay men and lesbians would come out. Why do you think there are no gay Republicans? Well, there are - they’re just not open about it, because their careers in the party would die. It’s not a cakewalk in the Democratic party, but at least there’s a party line that is more permissible for a diverse representation.

As I said before, it was sad and pitiful that the Republicans actually had to advertise that they had a Latino and gay speaker at the RNC - but of course they didn’t mention that it was Bush’s nephew, and the gay speaker did not address gay issues, plus the Texas delegation prayed during his speech. Yeah, there’s a party I want to be a part of… :rolleyes:

Esprix

[Polycarp]

Nice, measured response to JustAnotherGuy’s reasonably intelligent questions, Esprix. There is an old quote you and the other out gays might want to keep in mind: “Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance.” Guy (which I’m using rather than JAG since JAB is participating here too, and the grounds for confusion are ample already) admitted his lack of knowledge about gays as people, and you informed him. I’ll look forward to seeing his response.

A few quick comments: First, he’s right about the Republican Party not being the servants of the religious right. They’re just like the Democrats, attempting to put together a coalition of people who can agree on a common platform of views that will, hopefully (in their eyes), constitute a majority. Second, the “religious right” ought not be taken as equal to the Robertson-Falwell-Dobson contingent. Spend a little time on the Pizza Parlor and get to know what they think.

To wit, having argued with FoG where he was off the mark, let me suggest that in their opinion you, Freyr, and the rest, like themselves and all the rest of us are sinners in need of Christ’s redemption. Not that you’re specially marked as a sinner; we all are. And God in his mercy receives those who turn to him. They’re not interested in condemning you as gay; they want to convert you. Granted that the majority of them see gay sex acts as sins, their idea is that you would be foolish to trade sexual pleasure for an eternity of torment – just as they would be foolish to indulge their heterosexual lusts indiscriminately and reap Hell as a reward. Please note that the idea of love and commitment had not entered into their thinking about gays at this point; JAB, in a truly inspired move (why is it that God keeps working through atheists?;)), brought up the David and Jonathan story over there, and got them to agree that the love of two men is quite acceptable to Biblical Christianity. The one negative comment was that this does not necessarily “mean that they should get naked and crazy” (Navigator’s words).

Now, I think you and most other regulars know that the sin/salvation-or-Hell paradigm is not the one I buy into. But I trust that you can see from the way I’ve presented it that their idea is relatively care-filled, loving, not judgmental and condemnatory. The fact that this implies that you and all other gays are expected to be celibate under their terms, or to “change” (despite the low success rate of ex-gay programs – I wish somebody somewhere would come up with some objective statistics on them!) does not enter into their thinking – except that God’s way is hard and narrow for everybody, according to LBMB doctrine (based on Jesus’s teachings, BTW).

They despise Fred Phelps as much as any of the rest of us do – maybe more so, since he misrepresents the God that they (and I) see as a God of love, and are passionately committed to, as one of hate. And there are mixed feelings about the televangelist types – some like Dobson, Falwell doesn’t get much defense when anybody suggests he’s doing something evil, and Robertson just plain doesn’t get mentioned.

Enough of that aspect – I’m not out to preach any particular message there, just do my “translator” job and try to make the views make sense to people who don’t see them the same, even when I disagree with them.

Regarding at-will employment and the job protection laws: We had a rather extended presentation from the company’s lawyer, which everyone from CEO to receptionist was required to attend, on sexual harassment, employment statutes, and so on.

I work for an at-will company – everybody but the directors (who own stock) is employed “at will” and only the legal notice need be given – the company is not obliged to give reasons for dismissal, though they will, and do have standards that are normally followed. But the attorney made very clear the distinction: if you are not selling enough, producing reports at desired levels, and so on for every position’s principal duties, you may be dismissed at the choice of the company. That’s what “at will” means. It would also be within their prerogative to let people go if there were inadequate work to make their continued employment worthwhile. But even in a firm with these policies, they are forbidden by federal statute to let somebody go for the primary reason that he or she is black, disabled, etc. In such cases, the reasoning behind a dismissal is supposed to be documented to make clear that the federal law is not broken.

This, Guy, is what Esprix is talking about: that I am over 50, the shipping room man is black, and so on, must not be the grounds for dismissal. If we stole from the company, revealed proprietary information contrary to stated policy, etc., we could be let go immediately, and if we failed to produce at desired levels or the company fell on slack times, the same. But if one of us were gay, in North Carolina, we could be let go for that reason, and would have no legal recourse. And that is, IMHO, a fair addition to the law.

Is any of this useful?

[tracer]

Demise wrote:

*Originally posted by Freyr *
**I’m surprised that I haven’t gone and bought an automatic weapon and peppered the Governor’s Mansion here in Austin yet. **

Please, please do not post things like this. I don’t agree with you, but I would really hate for you to go through being questioned by the Secret Service. There’s also the fact that saying things like this do not add anything to your argument, and make you seem…kinda loopy.

Yeah, and worse, fully-automatic weapons are usually illegal.

[tracer]

Esprix wrote:

As I said before, it was sad and pitiful that the Republicans actually had to advertise that they had a Latino and gay speaker at the RNC - but of course they didn’t mention that it was Bush’s nephew, and the gay speaker did not address gay issues, plus the Texas delegation prayed during his speech.

Well, at least the delegation didn’t pray that Bush’s nephew would repent of his “sinful” lifestyle and become straight.

[Lemur866]

There are openly gay republican congressmen. Richard Kolby from IIRC Arizona is one, I think there is another, but the name escapes me. The point is that there are high-up gays in the republican party, they are not all closeted. Kolby was in the closet when he was first elected, he has been re-elected after coming out, or being forced out.

Polycarp: I work for an “at will” company as well. I could be let go for any particular reason or no reason. Why is a gay guy any different? Why would it be wrong to fire him, but OK to fire me? If I can be fired at will, so can my gay co-workers, of whom there are many (I assume).

This law is unneccesary. Hate crime laws are unneccesary. Yes, homosexuals are subject to violence. That violence is criminal. The people who killed Matthew Shepard are punished the same for killing him that they would have for killing me. Why should it me more of a crime to kill him than it would be to kill me? No, it should be the same crime.

Esprix: Um, that latino guy was Bush’s NEPHEW. Hello? Do you really think that he hates latinos when his own nephew and sister-in-law are latino? This is what I’m talking about. There are many many high-up republicans who have minority/gay family members, colleagues, staffers, friends, accquaintances, (or ARE minority/gay themselves) for this idea that the republicans are really secretly nazis to have any credibility. If they really secretly hated minorities/gays, they wouldn’t have these people around, they’d disown them.

But of course, opposing hate crimes laws or enumerated employment protection for gays MUST mean they hate you…after all, there couldn’t be any other reasons, could there? Wait, maybe there are other reasons…

I will give you that republicans are unlikely to speak out against against the religious right. I agree this is wrong. But what is happening is that the republicans are using the religious right, not the religious right using the republicans.

I totally support repealing sodomy laws, especially since I enjoy sodomy myself. I support making age-of-consent laws equal. I’m against censorship. Hell, I’ll even go so far as to support civil unions. But you can’t really fault the republicans for not getting behind gay marriage, since the vast majority of america is against it. They are wrongly against it, but they are against it. The democrats don’t support gay marriage either, for the same reason. When a majority of america favors gay marriage, there will be plenty of republicans who will do the same.

[JustAnotherGuy]

*Originally posted by Esprix *

This is one of the great fallacies of the conservative.

Homosexuality, bisexuality and heterosexuality all involve two consenting adults

Would the addition to the Civil Rights Acts then read ‘sexual orientation amongst consenting adults’? I concur, you’re right (as if you didn’t know that already). It certainly can’t hurt anything besides the sacred ground of the religious right, and would do a great deal of good.

I further thought out my opposition based on race and sex and drew a new comparison, religion. The knowledge of religion is no different from sexual orientation. It can be reserved and hidden, practiced with conservatism or flamboyantly thrust at the rest of the world depending on the individual. I’m convinced.

What is the civil union law? Is it treated as married for taxes, insurance, benefits and legal consent/estate purposes? I’m pro-same-sex marriages. It’s a State license, you aren’t forcing churches to accept the practice, it’s a legal matter. But I am sadly in the minority. They have actually ‘talked’ about same sex marriages a bit here in Maryland and I would support it. Don’t know why with 2:1 D:R they can’t just pass the damn thing. Paris Glendenning is lame duck for the next 2 years anyway.

The more I come here, the more liberal I seem to become.

Polycarp

This, Guy, is what Esprix is talking about: that I am over 50, the shipping room man is black, and so on, must not be the grounds for dismissal. … But if one of us were gay, in North Carolina, we could be let go for that reason, and would have no legal recourse.

Yes, a fair addition. Across the board of course, not the much berated ‘special rights’ for homosexuality, but to provide protection against any type of discrimination.

Sodomy laws … please local governments/States get this old Puritan garbage off the books. They still have these laws in liberal 2:1 Maryland. WTF!? and yes, I have actively broken these laws many a time.

I’ll never be a Republican President

[RTFirefly]

Polycarp: I work for an “at will” company as well. I could be let go for any particular reason or no reason. Why is a gay guy any different? Why would it be wrong to fire him, but OK to fire me? If I can be fired at will, so can my gay co-workers, of whom there are many (I assume).

While Poly can speak for himself, I’ll go ahead and beat him to it, if I may. You can be fired for any particular reason, except your race, sex, religion, or national origin, or for no reason. For instance, I can’t be fired for being a white male, though if I were working for an ‘at will’ company, I could be fired for an infinitude of reasons. But not for being white or male. (Not that I worry about that, but the protections that are more needed for others apply to me too.)

Many of us would like to see sexual orientation added to that short list of things you can’t be fired for. I would then be safe from being fired because I am straight, and gays would be safe from firing on the basis of being gay. Again, we and they could get fired for a jillion other reasons - but if the boss came into your office, congratulated you on your great work, and told you your next paycheck would be sweeter than usual, he couldn’t fire you on the spot for not being happy about the gender of your SO in the photo you keep on your desk.

It’s not an all-purpose shield against being fired if you’re gay; it only protects against being fired for being gay. Or for being straight, for that matter, but we straights really don’t have to worry about that. This would give gays that same peace of mind.

Hope that helps, Lemur.

[dixiechiq]

jag says:

Any willing man can marry any willing woman. Love has nothing to do with it. Can you force
acknowledgement of a religious ritual between two people of the same sex? No.

it has never been the position of gays or their supportors that any religion be required to perform marriage for same-sex couples. [in fact, religious organizations are generally exempted from laws that ban discrimination on sexual-preference.] marriage is a legal issue. religions frequently porvide the ceremony. but once a couple has a license it is up to them to find someone willing to do the ceremony. [btw, there are some religions that are willing to perfom same-sex unions.]

the catholic church, for example, will not perform ceremonies for couples if one of them is divorced. if you are atheist, and your spouse-to-be is catholic, you have to agree to raise any children catholic. i’m guessing they would refuse to perform same-sex weddings if they become legal. BUT the couple would still be able to get married, by a justice of the peace if nothing else.

my point is, is that the religious ritual is not what a marriage consists of. it is a legal document and some signatures. no religion or religious individual is required. i for example had a civil ceremony.

[Guinastasia]

Another thing: whenever the Cheneys are asked about their daughter being a lesbian, Mrs. Cheney denies it, I believe.
She’s like, no, that’s not true.
GREAT mom, huh! And Daddy’s president doesn’t think poor Mary should be allowed to marry, because she’s “abnormal”…
What a fuck.

[Polycarp]

RT did a great job on making my case, but, to answer the Lemur:

Polycarp: I work for an “at will” company as well. I could be let go for any particular reason or no reason. Why is a gay guy any different? Why would it be wrong to fire him, but OK to fire me? If I can be fired at will, so can my gay co-workers, of whom there are many (I assume).

It would not be “wrong” under the terms of at-will employment to fire either of you. For any non-discriminatory reason, or for no reason.

It would be wrong for your white manager to fire you because you’re black, or for your black manager to fire you because you’re white. Because race is considered a “protected classification” under the Federal employment statutes.

The distinction is that there are certain non-rational grounds that are used for discrimination and which the Federal government, in its putative wisdom, has seen fit to designate as invalid grounds for dismissal. If you and I choose to work for a company which adopts an at-will policy, we are still protected by that law, even though our employer can dismiss us for any other reason.

What the proposed change suggests is that sexual orientation (not gayness) be considered a protected classification as well. Which means that, after its passage, your straight manager could not fire you for being gay, nor your gay manager for being straight.

Or any other changes you care to ring on it.

Please note (and gay posters, don’t flame me for this) that the actual engaging in of sex acts, gay or straight, is not a protected classification. If somebody finds you bending somebody over the Xerox machine, you’re liable to dismissal on those grounds, whether it be the buxom secretary or the mail room boy.

Nobody has advocated anything but this. And, just for the record, I don’t see special rights spelled out here anywhere. There have been rare cases of gay bosses dismissing straight people, and those are equally prohibited under the suggested law.

Just Another Guy: Glad to see your point of view clarified. However there’s one question I have about what appears to be either complete fogginess or misapprehension of what’s being said: your line about “sexual orientation among consenting adults.”

WTF? I am a Christian when I’m filling in a spreadsheet or sleeping. Gaudere is a woman when she is designing a website or arguing cogently against some inanity in a thread. And SqrlCub is gay when he’s making music or doing whatever he does at DoE. Sexual orientation is a characteristic of one’s personality, not a behavior. It may result in behavior, or it may not. This is the whole point that offends gays by “it doesn’t matter as long as they don’t flaunt their gayness” – the rest of us “flaunt our straightness” all the time. “Wanna see pictures of my grandkids? When my wife and I were talking… Who’re you taking to the big game?” Now substitute in what a gay person might say – he’s flaunting his gayness!!

The point somebody was trying to make back then is that when two people of similar age choose to engage in a sexual, romantic, and/or marital relationship, they are making a free choice to do so. This applies to any two adults and to any two adolescents within their own age/peer group. As a society, we tend to frown on an adult and an adolescent engaging in any such behavior, and to discourage the forms of adolescent sexuality behavior that will lead to major consequences for them – don’t marry; don’t have sex until you’re older, or at minimum use some protection – and so on. Beyond these limits come all the “perversions” that are brought up, and they have in common the idea that someone or something incapable of consent, or so presumed, is involved. One could make a case for a necrophiliac who received the consent of his sex partner corpse before the partner’s death, but even for the far-reaching hypotheses this board sees, that’s stretching it. As to whether a well-informed young person in mid-adolescence is capable of informed consent, that’s a case-by-case basis question. I’ve known 19-year-olds who didn’t understand the emotional ramifications of their sexuality. I have known kids much younger who were fairly well clued in to their own feelings and, had they asked my advice, I would have called capable of informed consent. But on balance, setting an age of 16-18 with the right to deal with one’s own age group if younger seems to be a good age-of-consent figure.

Draw a line here. Sexual orientation is simply what you find attractive, in a romantic/sexual/potentially-marital sense. Sexual behavior is a whole different kettle of fish. And, as noted, orientation covers a far greater range of human activity than having sex. “Wanna meet for dinner, with your wife or girlfriend?” What if the person being asked that has a boyfriend instead, or a person he’s committed to in “civil union” (disgusting phrase – do members of a “civil union” form locals and picket the BSA HQ?).

[Esprix]

Originally posted by tracer

Well, at least the delegation didn’t pray that Bush’s nephew would repent of his “sinful” lifestyle and become straight.

{LOL!} I WISH! Two seperate speakers, I’m afraid - Dubya’s nephew, George P., spoke, and his mother is Mexican(his father is Jeb). The gay speaker was Jim Kolbe, who spoke on trade issues (IIRC) - it was during his speech the Texas delegation prayed, and I wouldn’t doubt for a moment they prayed for his “salvation.” :rolleyes: From about.com:

Then there was openly gay Congressman Jim Kolbe (R-AZ) who spoke on Tuesday, and Mary Cheney (the lesbian daughter of VP choice Dick Cheney) who was present throughout. The gays were there, and officially “embraced” by the party, but the party platform still slams gay people, the Texas delegation “prayed” for Kolbe’s salvation during his address, and House Majority Leader Dick Armey told an ant-gay joke about “dick.” Not to be outdone, Miss America 1999, Nicole Johnson, was there to warm up the crowd, then went on C-Span and informed the world that she supported diversity, though she wouldn’t be thrilled if a family member dated a black man.

If George were queer, I’d have moved to Florida by now - woo hoo! What a honey!

Esprix