I had no idea (caution gay thread)

[1pointofview]

What is a civil right?

[Links2k]

when the percentage affects middle aged white guys.

That's usually it.

[Chucktshoes]

when the percentage affects middle aged white guys.

And we have a winner!

[56FordGuy]

I just finding it interesting that the number is so small.

You can't really trust anyone's numbers when it comes to the number of gay folks in America. The liberal organizations report higher numbers than the conservative organizations, and they both use some funny survey practices to get there. If you go to the extremes, the number of gay people could range anywhere from 2% to 14%.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Yeah, I'd say making policy for 6.2 million people is pretty important.

"more important" than what? I guess I really don't understand what the argument is. The whole thing effects me exactly 0% and I suspect it's the same for 98% of the population.

I don't personally have a problem with gays. I actually like one aspect of them: I love watching people get worked up over their existance. It reminds me not to take things so seriously all the time. I've got enough grey hair...I don't need to add to it by being stressed out over someone else's passive lifestyle.

No problem with them at all, except the fact that

they are everywhere when they aren't that large

of a group. Kinda like Caster said is how I feel

about them.

I'm not sure what argument there is, anyway.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Although I'm not "pushing" for anything, I believe a gay person should have the same exact rights and opportunities as us regular folk. With that being said, I don't fit into any of your above mentioned generalities.

So what are they missing out on, or are we

on that gay marriage thing, again?

[gregintenn]

So what's the cut-off percentage before someone is allowed certain rights?

What rights do gays not have already?

[kieefer]

Well, I guess the Gov. could put in place all those wonderful policies that has helped black families out so much?

I don't care what they do, just do it in private like everyone else.

Let the States and voters decide on marriage or civil unions.

There's also a report that says that a percentage of people who had sexual interaction with animals at some point in their lives as 8% for men and 3.6% for women. Seems we also have a potential situation here.

Lighten up folks.

[Erik88]

What rights do gays not have already?

uh, perhaps you haven't heard. The can't get married in most states.

[Guest Razz]

The same people pushing for "equality for gays" are the same people that want to restrict gun ownership , taxing the rich because they are the minority or setting up affirmative action policies that restriction one group based on skin color and entitles another based on skin color.

Freedom and equality can not be legislated. If you want freedom and equality take government out of the equation.

Nope. That's Fox News talking right there.

People are actually much more complex than the television would have you believe.

I don't believe in gun control but I think all Americans should have the same pool of rights. I don't believe in affirmative action but I think the "rich" should be held to the same tax laws that the rest of us are.

Are my ideas infallible? Nope. But I can tell you that they don't fit neatly into one side of our two-party system.

If pushed, I would fight for the rights of any group so don't pigeon hole me, or we'll have words

[56FordGuy]

What rights do gays not have already?

In most states, it's the ability to marry and have the benefits that go along with that. The ability to file taxes jointly, hospital visitation, being notified as 'next of kin' in the event of an emergency. There's also Social Security benefits, military support for a spouse, and employer's pensions that can be left to a spouse.

The problem is, America has gotten too focused for a variety of reasons on the wrong question. Instead of asking "Why does this group not get those benefits," the better question for the majority of these issues is "Why is the government involved in these 'benefits' to begin with?"

[gregintenn]

Can't get married? The definition of marriage is a union between one man and one woman. I am unaware of any law that prevents a gay man from marrying a woman. As far as I know, he's legally able to marry a gay woman!

As far as two dudes marrying each other, that isn't what marriage is. Can three people marry? Can you marry your goat?

What needs to happen is for the government to quit offering tax incentives for crap such as this. A married guy and a single guy should pay the same tax on the same income. The same could be said for deductions for children, mortgage interest, etc.

Edited September 3, 2012 by gregintenn

[Oh Shoot]

uh, perhaps you haven't heard. The can't get married in most states.

And those marriages aren't recognized by the federal government. So there are lots of federal benefits that are denied to even those "married" couples, which is why there will have to eventually be federal legislation one way or the other.

I'm on dialup this week, so takes forever to read a link like first posted, but like 56FordGuy, I'd take the 2% figure with a grain of salt. Most polls seem to indicate more of a 7-10% demographic.

But, as has been said, at just what % of the population is it okay to deny equal benefits?

The "right" involved is that "all are created equal". The state does not concern itself with the religious aspect of marriage, only the secular/legal aspect. I'd opine it will eventually have to honor that legal contract between any two persons regardless of gender.

- OS

[Oh Shoot]

....

What needs to happen is for the government to quit offering tax incentives for crap such as this. A married guy and a single guy should pay the same tax on the same income. The same could be said for deductions for children, mortgage interest, etc.

Federal spousal bennies go way beyond taxes.

- OS

[TripleDigitRide]

It's strange to me how some of you automatically sexualize gay relationships. All this talk about them keeping it "private" and "in their bedroom" is odd, because shouldn't that automatically go for all people?

Honestly, I can't remember the last time I saw a gay couple doing anything inappropriate while in public. I can't say the same for some heterosexual couples. Then again, what's inappropriate to one may not be to another.

Just like there are a few of those flamboyant and in-your-face gay couples (can't remember the last time I saw one that wasn't on TV), there are those heterosexuals that find it perfectly acceptable to suck face and play grab-ass in the middle of a crowded mall.

[G27]

[quote name='

gregintenn']What rights do gays not have already?

uh, perhaps you haven't heard. The can't get married in most states.

Nor are they allowed spousal rights we folks enjoy, such as certain tax benefits for being married or their partner receiving many 'survivor benefits'.

[TripleDigitRide]

Why are civil unions not enough for gay rights activists? The federal government accords 1,138 benefits and responsibilities based on marital status, not on civil union status. A few of those benefits are unpaid leave to care for an ill spouse, social security survivor benefits and spousal benefits, and the right not to testify against one’s spouse, among others.

[Oh Shoot]

Why are civil unions not enough for gay rights activists?

I didn't know they weren't. What's in a word, "marriage" vs "union" as long as all governments and private companies have to honor it equally?

- OS

[Guest 6.8 AR]

In most states, it's the ability to marry and have the benefits that go along with that. The ability to file taxes jointly, hospital visitation, being notified as 'next of kin' in the event of an emergency. There's also Social Security benefits, military support for a spouse, and employer's pensions that can be left to a spouse.

The problem is, America has gotten too focused for a variety of reasons on the wrong question. Instead of asking "Why does this group not get those benefits," the better question for the majority of these issues is "Why is the government involved in these 'benefits' to begin with?"

Well, then I guess we have to redefine the word "rights", because what you say are not "rights".

Funny how this thread "evolved" the way it did. I'm wondering how PC one has to be to get to this point? I don't recall Kieffer making much

of a statement than observing a percentage, but I did expect it.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Nope. That's Fox News talking right there.

People are actually much more complex than the television would have you believe.

I don't believe in gun control but I think all Americans should have the same pool of rights. I don't believe in affirmative action but I think the "rich" should be held to the same tax laws that the rest of us are.

Are my ideas infallible? Nope. But I can tell you that they don't fit neatly into one side of our two-party system.

If pushed, I would fight for the rights of any group so don't pigeon hole me, or we'll have words

Sorry, not Fox News talking. This thing about gay rights has been going on since way before this forum existed and before Fox News existed.

I guess late seventies? And, yes, those very people who have been pushing gun control are in the same group who have been pushing

gay "rights" and several other types of rights. It's very PC, I guess, to defend some "group" whether or not one has a stake in it or a right

to share. The "gay"movement is very heavily associated with the left side of the political spectrum. Go out and do your own head count

and see. I'm not saying there aren't any gay Republicans because I know there are, but they aren't the ones screaming for a particular "right",

that isn't a right.

Why don't we just escalate this garbage further and have a discussion one on the "living and breathing document"?

Words have meaning.

[Guest Razz]

Well, then I guess we have to redefine the word "rights", because what you say are not "rights".

Funny how this thread "evolved" the way it did. I'm wondering how PC one has to be to get to this point? I don't recall Kieffer making much

of a statement than observing a percentage, but I did expect it.

One of the reasons I frequent forums is because of the evolution of conversation that isn't face to face. It's fascinating.

People will often show you more cards than they would in a face to face debate but it's lost on the group due to projecting our own emotions and opinions on the words of others.

I have to say, I'm glad the conversation headed

In the direction it did. It humanized a lot of people, to me, that were otherwise just avatars. Pretty cool.

[56FordGuy]

Well, then I guess we have to redefine the word "rights", because what you say are not "rights".

Funny how this thread "evolved" the way it did. I'm wondering how PC one has to be to get to this point? I don't recall Kieffer making much

of a statement than observing a percentage, but I did expect it.

Maybe, because I didn't reference 'rights' anywhere. The biggest thing gay couples have to gain from 'marriage' or civil unions or whatever you want to call it is equal access to government benefits. In my opinion, most of those benefits should be done away with entirely, regardless of one's sexual preference or relationship status, but that's a different issue.

I commented on the percentage. I believe it's wrong. I would say that 2% is a very low estimate, just like I would say 14-15% is a very high estimate. The problem is most of the groups that have done surveys are heavily biased in one direction or the other, and equally unreliable.

Edited September 3, 2012 by 56FordGuy

[Smith]

It's strange to me how some of you automatically sexualize gay relationships. All this talk about them keeping it "private" and "in their bedroom" is odd, because shouldn't that automatically go for all people?

Honestly, I can't remember the last time I saw a gay couple doing anything inappropriate while in public. I can't say the same for some heterosexual couples. Then again, what's inappropriate to one may not be to another.

Just like there are a few of those flamboyant and in-your-face gay couples (can't remember the last time I saw one that wasn't on TV), there are those heterosexuals that find it perfectly acceptable to suck face and play grab-ass in the middle of a crowded mall.

Gay relationships are entirely about sexualization. Otherwise what is there? You do realize the whole "homosexual" identity is about who they have sex with right? I don't think I ever heard of a heterosexual movement.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

The whole problem is when people get this minority/ majority thing going. This is a trick to play one group against the other.

It has been going on for a very long time and it seems to flourish around here. We are Americans, not a bunch of minority

groups to play against each other. If there are certain needs to a certain group, please don't go and call them some kind

of infringement of rights unless you can justify it with something other than being oppressed. Oppression is a bad thing,

but it doesn't apply here.

Blacks were oppressed for years and some would say they still are. I don't. I agree with the statement saying a large portion

of laws were enacted that actually hurt blacks, rather than help them, so laws can be double edged. Be careful what you wish

for. You could very easily displace your pity for one group and cause much more harm than good, to that very group.

[Guest Razz]

Well said, 6.8