Do Homosexuals Have The Equal Rights in the USA?

[lynx]

To be honest about it, they seem to have more “rights” and “special attention” than “normal” people.

Uhm, how can you possibly think this is true? Example?

When was the last time you saw a “Straight Pride” parade? And, would such an event even get permission without enduring flak from the “Gay Rights” crowd?

I’d let you have a straight pride parade, i’d help set it up too. See all I would do is pay Victoria Secret models to carry me down the street I guess a few other guys could be carried to but i’d be right up front in my leopard thong displaying my pride

At the public university I recently attended, the LGBT group was quite large and forceful, enjoying a lot of backing by the university hierarchy; on “Gay Day” everyone was urged to wear a “rainbow button” to show acceptance, endorsement and support; if I were to have worn a “I hate queers” button when I was there doing my grad-level work, I probably would have failed a couple of classes.

As someone who has failed a class for differing opinions you have my sympathy. But, if you didn’t wear that pin you have only yourself to blame. My cross to bear was women’s studies and saying that drug users are responsible for their actions. For that, my friend and I received a D in the coursework in spite of actual performance. If you ever want to look her up her name was Amalia Cabezas, she was supposed to be an easy A but turned out to be a man-hating nazi.

Rather, they, by their actions and behaviors, marginalize themselves.

Right, as straight couples place themselves in the majority quite willingly.

Is there a law which protects heterosexuals from hate crimes? If not, why not?

No, because crimes of hate against an individual is a hate crime regardless of who you are. Hate crimes are stupid.

As a practical matter, the more emboldened any sinner becomes, the greater will be the backlash. How could ‘gay bashing’ exist if no one knew who was gay?

Probably the same way you know which of your friends are gay and straight, or do you not know?

The Catholic teaching is that SSA activity is a sin, just as the act of stealing or assaulting someone is a sin. Now, a thief may be inclined to steal, but if he does not, does he sin? No. Does a violent man sin if he does not assault another? No. The argument is about controlling our baser urges and disordered desires.

From a religious perspective this might be true. But doesn’t the bible also allow for slavery and the killing of disobedient children? People, luckily, are evolving to the point where they recognize that some items in the bible need to be taken with a grain of salt.

There are all sorts of rectrictions as to who can be in the military. Serving in the Militray is not a “right” People who enage in homsoexual behavior have the exact same right to get married as do all Anmercans regardless of race, creed, gender or sountry of national origin

Why can’t a gay man serve in the military? His/Her being gay does not impede their performance, but it might expose the mental weaknesses of others. I hope Al Qaida never learns America’s weakness, the gay. But, i’m sure we’re stronger for it making sure we remove able bodied men and women for the service because they 100% chose to be gay This position is silly.

“It’s essentially an involuntary orientation.”? It is? How do you know that? Can you provide scientific information to back that up?

I would think, using empathy, that I am gay people chose to be gay as I chose to be straight.

 

[lynx]

However being openly homosexual and taking it as a positive part of yourself is at least imprudent because it is sexually disordered.

Not according to the DSM IV Although, I am inclined to agree that it is probably a disorder. Not to say you can’t find that unique aspect of yourself positive. Having gay be a limiting factor is purely a societal issue, not a biological one.

 

[BobObob]

“It’s essentially an involuntary orientation.”? It is? How do you know that? Can you provide scientific information to back that up?

I know several people who experience SSA but don’t want to, and none of them chose their sexual orientation. Some have experienced certain degrees of decrease in their same-sex attraction through trying to change their orientation, others have not.

Here is a statement from the Catholic Medical Association regarding homosexuality:

narth.com/docs/hope.html

I have read and re-read this document many times in the past, and it in no way indicates that one’s sexual orientation is chosen. It does indicate that some people may be able to change their sexual orientation, but it doesn’t indicate that everyone who wants to can.

From a religious perspective this might be true. But doesn’t the bible also allow for slavery and the killing of disobedient children? People, luckily, are evolving to the point where they recognize that some items in the bible need to be taken with a grain of salt.

As a theology major at a Catholic school, I compensate for this, in a large part, by viewing a lot of the Bible, especially the OT, as allegorical or as rhetorical exaggerations.

 

[lynx]

Part 1

Homosexuals most certainly can serve in the military and, we are told, do. What they cannot do is openly express their homosexuality to their fellow soldiers.

Right, which is fine, but it’s not necessary or equal to the treatment of straight soldiers who can openly display their sexuality, be it through language or acts.

People argue (and have in here) that since heterosexuals can tell their fellow soldiers that they have, e.g., a girlfriend or wife, that the government (the armed forces in this case) should officially adopt the position that homosexuality and heterosexuality are equivalent.

Sounds like a winner of an idea.

I am personally persuaded that the latter argument is absurd on its face because they are quite obviously not equivalent. One is a sexual perversion and the other isn’t.

Yeah, God arbitrarily hates gay sex and as such powerful men have done a lot of work to make sure society hates them as well. If only he arbitrarily hated other things like crustaceans or clouds, but he doesn’t.

Of course, some argue that homosexuality is not a sexual perversion; that one’s belief that it is, is dictated by religion, etc, etc. But once one begins endorsing perversion from that which is natural, it seems to me there is no logical end to it.

The basis for hating gay sex is purely religious, no logic is needed or applied. Since homosexuality occurs in nature it is a tough position to take that homosexuality is somehow not natural.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg seems to have endorsed the idea that the age of consent to sexual activity ought to be 12. Well, that’s quite possibly her belief, but it’s regarded as a perversion by most. Should soldiers be able to bring their underage lovers to live in base housing with them? Should those who like sex with animals be entitled to put Lassie on their allotments, or take Lassie to social events for couples?

These are questions determined by society, biology, and logic. There are pros and cons for each, I suspect if you weigh them and think hard enough you will find the reason why they are generally banned. With homosexuality, there is no con, just different. Whether I cut my grass with a gas or electric mower the grass gets cut. Whether a gay couple artificially inseminates or adopts, they maintain society and foster tomorrow.

If a soldier happens to be a member of one of those Mormon sects that believe in plural marriages, should that be acceptable if he brings his eight wives to social events for couples? Should they all be accommodated on base housing?

Why not? Is it going to be to much of a distraction for other weak minded individuals? I should hope so, I thought our military was of stronger stuff.

 

[lynx]

Part 2

If a male soldier wants to be in drag all the time on base, should that be okay if it’s his sexual compulsion? Should that be his “right”, or should there be some semblance of societal standards applied?

He should dress as per the dress code. While working, you are subject to SOP as long as such policies are reasonable and just.

For that matter, if a soldier wants to inform others on a more or less constant basis, that he performs repulsive acts with his girlfriend; let’s say sadism or some extremely degrading thing, should that soldier be allowed to do that?

If she’s okay with it then why not? It’s none of my business.

Should he be allowed to bring her to social events in chains, perhaps, and smeared with filth, just because his sexual compulsions drive him to do and display such things?

Again, the dress code. I can see you’re trying to expand the line in the sand by a mile, aka the slippery slope, but their isn’t a downside to respectfully expressing one’s self as gay as much as another straight man on base.

Homosexual activists want the “normal” line to be moved to include their sexual proclivities, and, in wanting the abolition of “don’t ask, don’t tell”,

Lets be fair, DADT is already going to be removed, it’s just a matter of when

they want the government to endorse the normalcy of their perversion. But once done, (and this government will probably do it) it will actually push other people onto the other side of the line.

Do you mean make it publicly tolerable to be gay, if so then yes. But you’ll see few straight people playing the gay game.

Perhaps it’s okay with some if the more traditional-minded people in this country discourage their sons or daughters from joining the military (or simply pass it up themselves) because sexual perversion is officially endorsed there, and because they will, in the military, be obliged to pretend, against their own beliefs, and against the beliefs of most in society, that it’s normal themselves. It’s hard for me to think it’s okay.

If to serve your country you need to make sure you’re not working with gays then I don’t want you in it. You obviously have the wrong priorities.

And what, precisely, would civil unions in Hawaii do for homosexuals that they cannot do contractually? I guess it would depend on how one wrote the law. But that isn’t the point, though, is it?

That is 100% the point. You just had the point and let it go. This isn’t about pushing a turn everyone gay and let immorality take hold agenda. This isn’t about sexual posturing. This isn’t about political parties, righties or lefties. This is about guaranteeing that all men and women are treated with equality and that all laws be applied with equality to each group. That is the whole point, and if you think it isn’t then you’re wrong and I can’t express this any better.

Recognition of civil unions (or “gay marriage” for that matter) is, again, governmental endorsement of a sexual compulsion, of which there are many others. It is reasonably clear to me that “official sanction” in society is the objective, not the achievement of some kind of “right”.

Who cares what the government endorses as proper behavior as long as everyone is treated with equality and respect. Let me tell ya, if the government is pushing big taxes on the populace i’m still generally not for it.

 

[awatkins69]

Although wikipedia can be a good starting point for research, it cannot always be regarded as reliable.

There is serious concern in this country about orienting children toward certain sexual behaviors during a period in their lives where they are not yet physically or emotional or psychologically mature enough to fully comprehend.

catholicinsight.com/online/political/homosexuality/article_1001.shtml

Here is a statement from the Catholic Medical Association regarding homosexuality:

narth.com/docs/hope.html

God bless,
Ed

Hey Ed.

That’s my point. Environmental and psychological factors play a role. But all of that is involuntary on the child’s part. They cannot control their environment. All in all, when they hit puberty, they’re not making the decision of which way they feel. They just feel a certain way. For these feelings they hold no responsibility and should not feel guilty.

I agree, there is no reason to go around flaunting your sexual orientation as if it were something to be proud about. Neither should you feel guilty about it. Generally, you’re not responsible for it, and you deserve neither praise nor condemnation. That goes for straights or gays.

 

[awatkins69]

Interesting position. So, in short, to preserve existing marriage legal dogma gays can’t be married to each other because it would infringe on their right to also marry non gay partners. Perhaps, marriage, recognized by law, should be done away with and let civil unions replace it. In this instance, all individuals could be partnered and receive the same benefits as everyone else, while at the same time reserving marriage to the religious institutions. Currently, this is not the case, and gays cannot marry each other due to archaic religious dogma.

Hi Lynx. No. You’ve misunderstood what I’m saying. Rights flow from human nature. This is why they are called “natural” rights. Now, what is unnatural is immoral. Based on human nature, we can determine that homosexual acts are contrary to nature, and are thus immoral. Something that is against nature (immoral) cannot be a natural right.

The duties of the state are to promote the good, and to safeguard rights. States act contrary to their function when they make positive laws for “rights” that do not exist, and they promote immorality. But as I said, the function of the state is to promote the good. Now acting immorally is by definition contrary to the human good. By promoting gay marriage, the state promotes what is contrary to the human good. By contrast, by promoting true and natural marriage, the state promotes what is in accord with the human good.Notice that these truths can be concluded from human reason. I never even mentioned “archaic religious dogma”. Unfortunately, in our days, many people base their opinions off of feelings rather than reason (not that I’m saying you do personally).

 

[Ponyguy]

Uhm, how can you possibly think this is true? Example?

Have you read the newspaper lately? Say, the Chicago Tribune from the Midwest? Or maybe USAToday? Or any number of media articles about lawsuits, referenda and court challenges, all in the name of “Gay Rights” of some sort.

I’d let you have a straight pride parade, i’d help set it up too. See all I would do is pay Victoria Secret models to carry me down the street I guess a few other guys could be carried to but i’d be right up front in my leopard thong displaying my pride

Pride in what? Disgusting the parents of children who might wonder what kind of person would dress like that? They see Victoria Secret (et al.) models at the mall, on TV, in print media, and when they see mommy getting dressed in her bedroom… nothing to be ashamed or disgusted about there. But deviant sex, which played a majority role in the displays in the “Pride Parades,” to me, my family, and probably most other families with children, is utterly disgusting.

As someone who has failed a class for differing opinions you have my sympathy. But, if you didn’t wear that pin you have only yourself to blame. My cross to bear was women’s studies and saying that drug users are responsible for their actions. For that, my friend and I received a D in the coursework in spite of actual performance. If you ever want to look her up her name was Amalia Cabezas, she was supposed to be an easy A but turned out to be a man-hating nazi.

Well, pal, I’m an English Major, and there were several Professors who were blatantly lesbians, and seemed to hate anything that possessed a phallic shape. ***Dr. Ibis Gomez-Vega ***was the most egregious among the others; her CV mentioned AuntLute as the publisher of her books… 'nuff said. I didn’t fail, I didn’t even get a “D” or a “C” but I didn’t get the “A” that I felt I deserved for the work I put into the class. Other quite left-leaning Profs were Judy P. and Kathleen R. both of whom awarded me grades lower than I had expected.

I chose not to “wear a rainbow” that day because according to the proclamation, wearing a rainbow (pin, sticker, badge, suspenders, shirt, hat, or any other multi-hued article) showed “acceptance, endorsement and support” for the LGBT society’s objectives, which I certainly do not. I even drove my black pickup truck to school that day, and wore black pants and a white shirt. I simply could not outwardly support or even appear to support an idea or philosophy diametrically opposed to my views. Yes, I paid for defining my stance, but it’s the truth, not a false mask displayed for a grade.

This grade deflation (yours as well as mine) is another example of the whimsical behavior permitted and accorded the Professor with a personal agenda. My other Professors, mostly men, who remained neutral on the “gender question” seemed a lot easier to deal with and get along with. They never held The Fail Sword over a student’s head regarding the student’s acceptance (or even the appearance of acceptance) of some radical viewpoint.

I would think, using empathy, that I am gay people chose to be gay as I chose to be straight.

Empathy toward others implies the acceptance of others’ viewpoints, but not necessarily the agreement with them. If, for instance, you (or anyone else) happens to have a personal bent to being Homosexual and wish to cohabitate with one of your own gender, that’s not my business, and that’s all. Go on ahead, but don’t try to force the idea of a legal civil union into law against my will. What you do behind closed doors (as long as those doors stay shut) is not for me to observe or condemn; but I shouldn’t be required to change the structure of my country’s legal system or the structure of my company’s corporation articles and policies to suit your radical ideas and philosophies, and force me to not only accept but to assent to them. The present framework is already in place and operates efficiently. YOU who choose to follow a different social structure ought adapt your modified social structure to fit the present and existing societal norms.

Good luck to you! If the style suits you, fine for you. But it doesn’t suit me at all, so don’t try to make me accept it as “normal” or “ordinary.” It’s not.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Part 1

Right, which is fine, but it’s not necessary or equal to the treatment of straight soldiers who can openly display their sexuality, be it through language or acts.

Sounds like a winner of an idea.

Yeah, God arbitrarily hates gay sex and as such powerful men have done a lot of work to make sure society hates them as well. If only he arbitrarily hated other things like crustaceans or clouds, but he doesn’t.

The basis for hating gay sex is purely religious, no logic is needed or applied. Since homosexuality occurs in nature it is a tough position to take that homosexuality is somehow not natural.

These are questions determined by society, biology, and logic. There are pros and cons for each, I suspect if you weigh them and think hard enough you will find the reason why they are generally banned. With homosexuality, there is no con, just different. Whether I cut my grass with a gas or electric mower the grass gets cut. Whether a gay couple artificially inseminates or adopts, they maintain society and foster tomorrow.

Why not? Is it going to be to much of a distraction for other weak minded individuals? I should hope so, I thought our military was of stronger stuff.

I understand that you want to see the government force the populace to accept homosexuality as “normal” and “natural”, no matter what the populace thinks about it. That’s your view. Mine is otherwise.

And by the way, there is no evidence that animals are ever homosexual in the sense that people sometimes are. There have been threads about that in here, and the case for it is absolutely unproved.

And you think “dress codes” would prevent male soldiers from dressing as female soldiers? They do dress differently. You see, that would be another violation of the “right” to express one’s particular “sexual orientation”.

And I take it you’re fine with polygamy, and with the government endorsing it. The society pretty unanimously rejects that, and rightly so.

You seem to favor societal acceptance and governmental endorsement of any sexual perversion one has. Position noted.

 

[Orogeny]

Off the top of my head, homosexuals cannot serve in the military and have a civil union in Hawaii. Do you still believe the quoted statement is true?

I will answer your post in light of the question you posed in the thread.

Homosexuals have the same right to serve in the military as anyone else. If they violate the rules, they are excluded. The rules don’t allow anyone to ask anyone about sexual orientation. If a person is homosexual and doesn’t tell anyone about it or make it otherwise known, they can serve in the military.

Homosexuals have exactly the same rights to a civil union in Hawaii as do heterosexuals. I, as a heterosexual male, cannot have a civil union with another male.

So, in response to your questions, the statement you quoted is true.

Peace

Tim

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Homosexuals need to learn what “Rights” are. They marginalize themselves by defining desires as rights and then blaming others for their unfulfilled desires.

Sex in public is not a right

Nudity in public is not a right

Civil marriage is not a right, Natural marriage is inalienable.

Death benefits are not rights.

Etc. etc.

 

[buffalo]

Same Sex Attracted persons are no different in dignity than anyone else. They have equal rights in America.

Those that want the homosexual act to be embraced and promoted, now that is an entirely different story.

A chaste homosexual has no need to declare themselves to anyone. If they do it is to advance the agenda.

The same goes for anyone with deviant tendencies or weaknesses. I usually do not hear someone that has a weakness to steal always announcing “I am a thief, and proud of it”. I do not hear someone who has a weakness to rape announce “I am a rapist and I want you to support it”.

 

[Booklover]

Empathy toward others implies the acceptance of others’ viewpoints, but not necessarily the agreement with them. If, for instance, you (or anyone else) happens to have a personal bent to being Homosexual and wish to cohabitate with one of your own gender, that’s not my business, and that’s all. Go on ahead, but don’t try to force the idea of a legal civil union into law against my will. What you do behind closed doors (as long as those doors stay shut) is not for me to observe or condemn; but I shouldn’t be required to change the structure of my country’s legal system or the structure of my company’s corporation articles and policies to suit your radical ideas and philosophies, and force me to not only accept but to assent to them. The present framework is already in place and operates efficiently. YOU who choose to follow a different social structure ought adapt your modified social structure to fit the present and existing societal norms.

Good luck to you! If the style suits you, fine for you. But it doesn’t suit me at all, so don’t try to make me accept it as “normal” or “ordinary.” It’s not.

Vickie

 

[buffalo]

Love is not tolerance

BISHOP FULTON J. SHEEN****Christian love bears evil, but it does not tolerate it.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/images/authos/Sheen8.JPG  *Christian love  bears evil, but  it does not tolerate it. *

It does penance for the sins of others, but it is not broadminded about sin.
*The cry for tolerance never induces it to quench its hatred of the evil philosophies that have entered into contest with the Truth. *
It forgives the sinner, and it hates the sin; it is unmerciful to the error in his mind.
*The sinner it will always take back into the bosom of the Mystical Body;
but his lie will never be taken into the treasury of His Wisdom. *
*Real love involves real hatred:
whoever has lost the power of moral indignation and the urge to drive the buyers and sellers from the temples
has also lost a living, fervent love of Truth. *
*Charity, then, is not a mild philosophy of “live and let live”;
it is not a species of sloppy sentiment. *
Charity is the infusion of the Spirit of God,
which makes us love the beautiful and hate the morally ugly.

 

[Booklover]

Love is not tolerance

BISHOP FULTON J. SHEEN****Christian love bears evil, but it does not tolerate it.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/images/authos/Sheen8.JPG  *Christian love  bears evil, but  it does not tolerate it. *

It does penance for the sins of others, but it is not broadminded about sin.
*The cry for tolerance never induces it to quench its hatred of the evil philosophies that have entered into contest with the Truth. *
It forgives the sinner, and it hates the sin; it is unmerciful to the error in his mind.
*The sinner it will always take back into the bosom of the Mystical Body;
but his lie will never be taken into the treasury of His Wisdom. *
*Real love involves real hatred:
whoever has lost the power of moral indignation and the urge to drive the buyers and sellers from the temples
has also lost a living, fervent love of Truth. *
*Charity, then, is not a mild philosophy of “live and let live”;
it is not a species of sloppy sentiment. *
Charity is the infusion of the Spirit of God,
which makes us love the beautiful and hate the morally ugly.

This is one of my favorite quotes of his.

Vickie

 

[Lycorth]

Love is not tolerance

**BISHOP FULTON J. SHEEN **Christian love bears evil, but it does not tolerate it.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/images/authos/Sheen8.JPG  *Christian love  bears evil, but  it does not tolerate it. *

It does penance for the sins of others, but it is not broadminded about sin.
*The cry for tolerance never induces it to quench its hatred of the evil philosophies that have entered into contest with the Truth. *
It forgives the sinner, and it hates the sin; it is unmerciful to the error in his mind.
*The sinner it will always take back into the bosom of the Mystical Body;
but his lie will never be taken into the treasury of His Wisdom. *
*Real love involves real hatred:
whoever has lost the power of moral indignation and the urge to drive the buyers and sellers from the temples
has also lost a living, fervent love of Truth. *
*Charity, then, is not a mild philosophy of “live and let live”;
it is not a species of sloppy sentiment. *
Charity is the infusion of the Spirit of God,
which makes us love the beautiful and hate the morally ugly.

Amen! That man was an example to us all.

Homosexuals have equal rights in America; there are a few places where homosexuals’ sexual orientation is not totally ignored when considering them for certain kinds of employment, but by and large, it is illegal to cite their sexual orientation as grounds to refuse homosexuals anything.

And this is what is meant by “gay rights” - ignoring their sexual preferences, though it’s hard to do that when gays shove it in everyone’s faces whenever the issue of homosexuality comes up and then they complain that no one ignores their sexual preferences. Go figure.

It seems that most homosexuals will not be satisfied until everyone in America is not just forced to ignore their sexual preferences (no matter how often gays advertise them), but until everyone in America is forced into giving gays the right to advertise their sexuality without restriction, the same was oversexed heterosexuals oftentimes do.

 

[Newbie2]

I guess the answer to the title question hinges on what one considers “rights”. As defined by the Constitution? As defined by Natural law? As defined by…?

 

[Sherry_G]

Americans all have the same rights and responsibilities in this country regardless of race, creed, etc. The initial poster’s question has an agenda obviously. Looking for a platform to lobby for a position held is not the same thing as asking a question to gather information through poll results.

Unnatural acts, immoral acts are not protected under our Constitution. We all have sins and weaknesses, but asking for or demanding a rubber stamp of approval will not make those weaknesses or sins any less so.

Love the sinner but hate the sin.

 

[Newbie2]

Unnatural acts, immoral acts are not protected under our Constitution.

'tis not so.

Speaking of private, homosexual acts…actually they are protected, although not explicitly. Two consenting adults may have private, homosexual sex. There is no prohibition against such a thing in most (if not all states), nor are such actions prohibited by federal law.

Neither the state nor federal government nor any individual cannot legally keep them from doing so and whoever tried to stop them (other than perhaps by attempting to introduce legislation against such acts) would be guilty of an invasion of privacy.

All sorts of immoral acts are protected (again not necessarily explicitly) by the constitution. Fornication between two consenting adults, veiwing or making pornography, etc, etc. are all protected activities.

 

[edwest2]

Pornography is not protected.

attorneygeneral.utah.gov/851.html

God bless,
Ed