Please list the "special rights"

Great Debates
21

Yes, and if you read the list, in a handful of states it doesn’t apply to heterosexual couples.

I am well aware that sodomy laws don’t keep people from being gay. They do, however, make it a crime to be gay in practice. What are gay people going to do, be celibate? Heterosexuals can always have vanilla sex in those states and be perfectly within the law. I really can’t see any way that homosexuals can have sex without breaking sodomy laws. If you’re both gay and unfortunate enough to live in a state that still has them, you basically can’t have sex and be a law-abiding citizen.

And that sucks.

22

Illegally. :smiley:

23

[quote]
I agree. The State of Israel, IMHO, should treat them the same as Bethelehemites, Tel Avivites, and so on.[/q]

Bethlehem isn’t in the State of Israel, it’s in the West Bank.

I agree with Polycarp and Drain Bead. Californians, please vote no on Prop. 22 this Tuesday.

~Harborina

“Don’t Do It.”

24

Tomndeb:

These would constitute ‘special rights’:

  1. Encouragement and support for sex education courses, prepared and taught by gay
    men and women, presenting homosexuality as a valid, healthy preference and lifestyle
    as a viable alternative to heterosexuality.
    Presumably with public funding. How would you feel about encouragement and support for education courses against abortion, for example, prepared and taught by women who had abortions, presenting adoption as a viable alternative to abortion?
  2. [Public] funding of all programs of gay men’s and women’s organizations designed to
    alleviate [discrimination]…

See my remarks above.
8. Enactment of legislation prohibiting insurance companies and any other state
regulated enterprises from discriminating …
Insurance companies do not discriminate against homosexuals or any other group for that matter on the basis of anything except risk. If homosexual behaviour places one in a high risk category, it is no different than drug addiction from the insurance companie’s standpoint.
11. Repeal all laws governing age of sexual consent.

You really don’t need help with this one, do you?

25

Polycarp:

Just how does a landlord or a boss KNOW about someone’s sex life?

26

Mr. Boomer has apparently never heard of rumor or innuendo being used against anyone. Tell me, sir, have you lived under that bridge long?

27

Polycarp:

Well let me tell 'ya a little story about rumor and innuendo. It’s a true story and it happened to me. I was working for a mutual water company in a podunk town in California.
It happened that I had for a supervisor an older redneck woman who had been there for years. You see where this is going? When I didn’t go along with her demands for attention, she started the rumor that I was gay. I’m single, neat and somwhat boyish looking, so it caught on. Made life miserable for me until I left less than a year later. Now if that is not unfair, what is?

28

Polycarp:

Well let me tell 'ya a little story about rumor and innuendo. It’s a true story and it happened to me. I was working for a mutual water company in a podunk town in California.
It happened that I had for a supervisor an older redneck woman who had been there for years. You see where this is going? When I didn’t go along with her demands for attention, she started the rumor that I was gay. I’m single, neat and somewhat boyish looking, so it caught on. Made life miserable for me until I left less than a year later. Now if that is not unfair, what is?

29

I think that would be wonderful, and it should definitely be a part of every sex-ed curriculum. It was certainly part of mine (minus the women who had abortions part–it was just the health teacher talking about it). I also think that birth control should be taught in sex-ed, as well as abstinence and alternatives to sex, such as masturbation or oral sex. I’m pro-choice, but I’m not pro-abortion. Hell, I want to be an adoption attorney. I’d like to make certain that as few abortions as possible are performed. This should be done through education, not legislation.

Sorry about the hijack. You may now continue your regularly scheduled gay rights debate.

30

That is absolutely unfair. So it amazes me that you are in favor of continuing the process where such stuff can be used against one, whether it be false or true.

I apologize for the “you’re a troll” remarks. However, you seem to alternate between vehement anti-gay posts that seem somewhat trollish and reasoned argument, and I’m confused. What exactly is your stance vis-a-vis the 12-point thing you posted? And how much of what’s been responded to it do you accept?

I was not being polemic when I said that I thought it was the product of some anti-gay group. I’ve read a fair amount on both sides of the issue, and this does not sound like anything any gay group has advanced. Much of the language sounds like what people who believe themselves to be defending public morality from the Homosexual Lobby believe that the gays are advocating.

I refer in particular to point 11. The only gay persons on the planet I’ve ever seen call for abolition of the age of consent was NAMBLA. And every other gay organization in existence has distanced themselves from them. The only gays I’ve ever seen call for a reduction in the age of consent were (1) gay teenagers under the age of consent, (2) Matt_mcl who posts here, who is 18, and therefore just over the age of consent, and (3) the 30-year-old editor of a magazine for gay teens, speaking in behalf of his readership. But every right-wing rabble-rouser on the planet “knows that gays want the age of consent lowered, so they can seduce our boys.”

Get the facts. Then argue your view. I know you thought you had them. I think I can guarantee you didn’t.

31

Needless to say, my first sentence was in reference to CalifBoomer’s being victimized by innuendo, not to DrainBead’s intervening post! :slight_smile:

32

I’m sorry, Boomer, but you have failed to make your case.

#2 asks that homosexuality be presented in schools in the same manner as heterosexuality. That is not special.

#4 comes the closest in asking for funds to ameliorate existing discrimination, but it still does not ask for “special rights.”

#8 simply asks that no state-regulated agency be allowed to act in a discriminatory fashion. This is not a “special” right but a plea for equal rights. (If the insurance companies do not use sexual orientation, per se to set rates, there is no issue. If someone trots out the association of AIDS and high risk activity, I will point out that in 1972 AIDS was over 11 years in the future and is unlikely to have been considered in this point–unless the document is a forgery.)

#11 is orientation-neutral. There is nothing in it that indicates that homosexual relations should be treated differently than heterosexual relations. (Pointing at NAMBLA does not make the case. NAMBLA is generally disdained by the homosexual community and it remains a fact that the overwhelming number of pedrasts are heterosexual–so why should it be on a homosexual agenda?)

In other words, even though I would not support several of the original 12 points as you have presented them, only one of the 12 comes close to seeking rights or priveleges that are not already guaranteed to heterosexuals.
Thus, I see no “special rights.”

This goes beyond the fact that I smell a forgery along the lines of the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, the Adolf Hitler “Law and Order” quote, and Thomas Barber’s Rules for Revolution. This ellipsis-filled “agenda” has all the earmarks of something written to raise the hackles of good “straight” people everywhere–and it still does not demand “special” treatment for homosexuals.

Tom~

33

Tomndebb:

Once again, if no special rights are being demanded by the homosexual contingent, please explain why special legislation is required.

It would seem that our definition of ‘rights’ is substantially different. You seem to view ‘rights’ as something either granted or withheld by government. My view is that ‘rights’ are, as the Declaration of Independence states, inalienable and endowed to us individually by our creator.

#2 automatically assumes that homosexuality is a legitimate alternative to heterosexuality. Given the statistic that 10% of the population is homosexual, 90% of us would disagree with that presumption. Further, if the demand were actually met, the public school system would be evacuated. The majority of parents simply would not allow homosexual indoctrination of their children.

#4 demands public funding for a unique group; unique due to behavioral patterns.
You don’t consider this a special right?

#8 your point about AIDS not being relevent in 1972 is well taken. Since insurance ‘discrimination’ seems to have been an issue back then, you can bet there were other risk factors shown by their actuarial charts. I’m not defending insurance companies per se (they are probably the coldest bloodsuckers on the planet), but only point out they operate purely on a profit motive. If it were profitable to take homosexual premium dollars, they would do it.

#11 is most assuredly NOT orientation neutral. Homosexual activists proposed it.

Oh, and your remark about Hitler–so typical of you indoctrinated leftists.

34

My “remark about Hitler” was included as one of three notorious hoaxes that are “reliably” quoted by people falsely ascribing agendas to people they oppose: one ethnic/religious, one Fascist, one Marxist. I have ascribed no specific view to you.

For you to lay claim to a “remark about Hitler” as some sort of “typical leftist” tactic in this instance indicates only that you have not actually read or comprehended what I wrote.

The reference has no association with Hitler, himself. The “Law and Order” quote is an often reprinted speech attributed to Hitler that uses (Nixon and Agnew’s) catchphrase “law and order” repeatedly. Hitler never made any such speech. I have not equated any opponents of homosexual rights with Hitler. The point is simply that the “agenda” you have reprinted (without provenance) does not appear to be an actual document produced by any gay group. Hitler (the “victim” of the spurious quote), his views, or his actions are not part of this discussion. Please do not introduce them, here.

Why would you rashly assume that 100% of the 90% of straight people would oppose homosexuality as “legitimate”. There is ample evidence on this very thread that many straight people consider homosexuality legitimate. Different is not the same as wrong. Do you accept this statement? “Given the statistic that 10% of the population is black, 90% of us would disagree with the presumption that blacks are entitled to be citizens.” Regardless of your answer, you originally drew a very strange conclusion in your statement.

It may be true that a majority of parents would not want homosexuality discussed on an equal footing with heterosexuality. It is certainly true that a majority of white parents did not want blacks educated on an equal footing with their children at one time. This is a civil rights issue–equal treatment, not special treatment.

[quote]
unique due to behavioral patterns*
Try “unique due to inherent orientation.” My onetime boss, my neighbor, my several classmates, and the owner of a nearby riding stable demonstrated no public behavior that differed from anyone else I knew. They were attracted to people of the same sex in a romantic way. The only behavior patterns I saw that distinguished them was a reticence to discuss their love lives for fear of abuse.

The proposed law of #11 is orientation neutral. It does not distinguish hetero- or homo- relationships. If it was actually proposed by a gay group (and not inserted into a hoax document) then it still did not seek special treatment; it sought uniform laws. This is certainly one of the 12 proposals I would oppose, but it still does not seek special rights.

Tom~

35

Look, who you’re attracted to is who you’re attracted to. I don’t CHOOSE to be attacted to large breasted, long-legged women. I just am! It’s not like I’m going to wake up tomorrow and say “Hey, you know I feel like nuzzling up against some guy’s hairy ass today.” It just doesn’t work that way.

Do you think homosexuals would CHOOSE a lifestyle that offers them fewer rights and constant belittlement by bigots like you? Who on earth would CHOOSE this?

Another example : do you think a child molester would CHOOSE to ruin little kids lives forever and risk jail and social ostricization in the process? Does this seem like an attractive lifestyle CHOICE to you? They do it because it’s very hard for them to resist. Whether they were born that way or whether they were molested themselves, children are who they are attracted to, and that’s that.

Of course this isn’t an even comparison since gay people aren’t ruining anyone’s lives, but I’m just trying to impart to you an idea of the sheer power of sexual attraction.

I am the user formerly known as puffington.

36

tomndebb:

You continue to hammer on the theme that those who are not in agreement with the extension of special rights for homosexuals are somehow against equal rights. Could it be possible, even in your reality, that this is not the case?

Again, you attempt to equate homosexual behaviour with the condition of blacks. Let me say, again, THERE IS NO CORRELATION HERE!

This is exploitation on the part of homosexual activists and part of their strategy to make their deviancy acceptable by the public at large. Here are the steps in detail:
http://www.sphi.com/the_gay_agenda.htm

37

neutron star:

Right, fine, ok -just keep it to yourself. I don’t care what you do in private, so don’t get in my face about it and demand special rights for your deviancy.

and:

Here we have three recurring themes:

  1. victimization (of homosexuals),
  2. demonization (of those who will not accede to their demands)
  3. desensitization (of fools like you)

All part of the plan. And you bought it, sucker.

38

I continue to hammer the theme that people should not be discriminated against on the basis of aspects of their lives over which they have no control (or which it would be morally repugnant to ask them to change).

In the last category is religious affiliation.

In the former category are skin color, sex, place of national origin, and, yes, sexual orientation. If a citizen cannot change an aspect of their person, I consider it discriminatory to allow other people to deny them jobs, housing, or any other normal rights of citizenship. That is the correlation.

Firing a teacher merely because they are homosexual is simply stupid, but it should also be illegal. At this time it is not necessarily illegal in all states, therefore those citizens are fighting for their equal (not special) rights.

Making statements referring to them as deviant does not make them deviant–it displays a prejudicial mindset on your part. Claiming that the only thing that separates homosexuals and heterosexuals is the choice that homosexuals make in their behavior is ludicrous. As was mentioned on another thread: If it is a choice, why don’t you go out and choose to be a (celibate) homosexual for a day? If you cannot do it, then I think we have a problem with your “behavior” claim.

Quoting and linking to anti-homosexual propaganda that purports to show what “they really want” while never actually exploring what they, themselves, say is hardly indicative of exploring the issue.

(Yes, I went to the SPHI site. So what? A bunch of people put together a web site that mis-quoted some gay activists, quoted others out of context, and quite possibly made up other quotes as complete fabrications. It is hardly the sort of place I use to form my opinions. My opinions have been formed by interacting with actual people and deciding that they were being treated unfairly for no better reason than that some other people were unreasonably afraid of them. I have almost no contact with any advocacy groups. I do not know a single member of Act-Up. I do know a number of homosexuals who simply want to be left alone. However, several of them are aware that they will endager their jobs if they place photos of their loved ones on their desks or bring them to company parties, that they will be evicted if they choose to live with their loved ones, and that they will be subject to harassment if they give each other hugs in public (never mind kissing). These folks have no agenda; they just want to get by. They want equal rights.)

Tom~

39

Once again, because gays and lesbians do not currently have equal rights. Do you understand the distinction? You can be denied housing for being gay. You can lose your job for being gay. You do not get to marry the person you love, because you are gay. You can be denied visitation rights for your significant other in the hospital, because you are gay. Your child can be taken away from you in a custody battle on the basis of your being gay.

On the other hand: People are not denied housing for being straight. People do not get fired because they “flaunted” their heterosexuality. Straight people can marry, straight people can visit their sick spouses, straight people are not told that they must give up their child because they might raise that child to think that heterosexuality is okay.

With what part of this, pray tell, do you disagree? In what way are the rights of gays and lesbians equal to those of heterosexuals in these areas?

40

tomndebb:

I agree.

I totally agree. I do not advocate discrimination solely on the basis of race, religion, gender, marital status, physical/mental/emotional disability, or sexual orientation against anyone. Never have, never will. I object to fundamentalist Christian activism as much as homosexual activism. Neither group has any business attempting to hijack the power of government in order to force the rest of us to accept their views.

The entire point of my dissertation has been to point out the disingenuousness of the entire homosexual movement. I disagree completely that homosexuality is the same as being black or Jewish or handicapped. It my view that those who make that argument are either gullible or are willfully exploiting those groups for their own purposes.

Homosexuality is a behaviour. No ‘homosexual gene’ has ever been discovered. It is a conscious choice made mostly out of rebellion. It is, by nature, a self-destructive lifestyle. I believe it is a flaw. But many of us have flaws of various kinds and we manage to deal with them without government intervention brought about through
deceit and exploitation of those even less fortunate.