Do Homosexuals Have The Equal Rights in the USA?

  • Thread starter Thread starter lynx
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
estesbob said:
Only 4 groups have this protected status. Objecting to your desire to see homosexual behavior accorded this protected status(a status no other sexual behavior enjoys) is neither unjust discrimination or bigotry.

You didnt point out a law that was designed to strip those who engage in homosexual behavior of any rights as the law applies equally to all regardless of race, creed, gender or country of national origin
Click to expand...
Yes, there are no laws protecting left-handed blondes from discrimination, but they is not a lot of left-blond discrimination being reported in the US. Your suggestion that a law that was specifically designed to strip homosexuals of the right to contract with one another is not targeted at anyone is a bit disingenuous.

I normally enjoy your posts and occasionally sparring with you, but its seems our views on this issue are so far apart that our conversation is not going to get us anywhere good.
 
TMC said:
Yes, there are no laws protecting left-handed blondes from discrimination, but they is not a lot of left-blond discrimination being reported in the US. Your suggestion that a law that was specifically designed to strip homosexuals of the right to contract with one another is not targeted at anyone is a bit disingenuous.

I normally enjoy your posts and occasionally sparring with you, but its seems our views on this issue are so far apart that our conversation is not going to get us anywhere good.
Click to expand...
A landlord can refuse to rent to me for any rerason he wants as long as it is not based on my race, creed, gender or country of national origin. The same applies to people who engage in homosexual behavior.

People who enage in homosexual behavior are allowed to enter into contracts with each other subject to the exact same restrictions that apply to all Amercians regardless of race , creed, gender or country of national origin.
 
TMC said:
Yes, there are no laws protecting left-handed blondes from discrimination, but they is not a lot of left-blond discrimination being reported in the US. Your suggestion that a law that was specifically designed to strip homosexuals of the right to contract with one another is not targeted at anyone is a bit disingenuous.

I normally enjoy your posts and occasionally sparring with you, but its seems our views on this issue are so far apart that our conversation is not going to get us anywhere good.
Click to expand...
TMC

There has been no homosexual discrimination proven nor even shown in this thread. The refusal to list homosexual marriages as civil marriages is not discrimination. The band which bands many desired marriage conditions as brother and sister, also bands same sex, same sex is one of the banded conditions, and rightly so. On the HUD issues it is a straw agreement for example owners are exempt for renting out their houses, and even in rare cases of prosecution little to nothing occurs. It is straw not just a because it has no real meaning but because the SSA have to communicate the SSA status FIRST otherwise the landlord would not know.
 
estesbob said:
I am sorry you don’t like to discuss this in the context of homosexual behavior but it the behavior that defines the group we are discussing.
Click to expand...
Homosexual persons are defined as such by their sexual orientation, not sexual behavior.
 
Texas_Roofer said:
…SSA have to communicate the SSA status FIRST otherwise the landlord would not know.
Click to expand...
“SSA” stands for “same-sex attraction”, or homosexual attraction. A homosexual person experiences SSA.

Some people ho experience SSA may have good reasons for telling some others about their SSA (see forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=457358&page=6 ).

Also, individuals can, and often do, discriminate against those who they think are homosexual, regardless of whether or not the person they think is homosexual has said so. I’m talking about not just things like renting, but rather referring more to “every-day” things.
Texas_Roofer said:
There has been no homosexual discrimination proven nor even shown in this thread
Click to expand...
I’ll fix that:

For discrimination towards homosexual persons by average practicing Catholics, see post 35 and beyond in this thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=457358&page=3

For discrimination from others in general:

uwlax.edu/faculty/giddings/ECO336/Week_6/Berg_Lien.pdf

“Homosexual men earn 16% to 28% less than non-homosexual men with similar demographic characteristics.”

ideas.repec.org/a/ilr/articl/v48y1995i4p726-739.html

“[T]he author finds that gay and bisexual male workers earned from 11% to 27% less than heterosexual male workers with the same experience, education, occupation, marital status, and region of residence…”

citeulike.org/user/tfuist/article/4004094

“[G]ay and lesbian communities have brought attention to the scope and consequences of anti-gay and lesbian violence in the United States, which ‘has taken its place among such societal concerns as violence against women, children and ethnic and racial groups’ (Comstock 1991:1)”

books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ZWT4I2cTCFIC&oi=fnd&pg=PA19&dq=gays+violence&ots=GNPqYbL6Rm&sig=LswRIWRs5sJdUR0pGgL2Fqisdug#v=onepage&q=gays%20violence&f=false (page 19)

“Since the birth of the gay liberation movement in the 1960s, a large body of data on anti-gay violence and other victimization has developed. Thousands of episodes—including defimation, harassment, intimidation, assault, murder, vandalism, and othe abuse—have been reported to police departments and local and national organizations (Berrill, 1986; NGLTF, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990; NGLTF Policy Institute, 1991). Many thousands more incidents have gone unreported (see Chapter 18 of this volume by Berrill & Herek). Numerous empirical studies, many of them unpublished, also have shown the problem of anti-gay violence to be widespread.”

These are things that I found by simply doing a few minutes of online research. I’m sure I could find much more if I wanted to…
 
buffalo said:
BobObob;6845386:
Homosexual persons are defined as such by their sexual orientation
Click to expand...
, not sexual behavior.

What is the difference between Same Sex Attracted and the homosexual act?
Click to expand...
The difference between experiencing an attraction to the same sex and having sex with another person of the same sex is HUGE.

It’s the same difference between liking someone of the opposite sex versus fornicating with them.

One’s sexual attraction is not consciously controlled and is rarely (if ever) chosen. Even if it were, one’s sexual attraction, which is a passion, is neither morally good nor bad in itself (see CCC 1767). On the other hand, one’s sexual behavior is consciously controlled.
 
BobObob said:
“SSA” stands for “same-sex attraction”, or homosexual attraction. A homosexual person experiences SSA.

Some people ho experience SSA may have good reasons for telling some others about their SSA (see forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=457358&page=6 ).

Also, individuals can, and often do, discriminate against those who they think are homosexual, regardless of whether or not the person they think is homosexual has said so. I’m talking about not just things like renting, but rather referring more to “every-day” things.

I’ll fix that:

For discrimination towards homosexual persons by average practicing Catholics, see post 35 and beyond in this thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=457358&page=3

For discrimination from others in general:

uwlax.edu/faculty/giddings/ECO336/Week_6/Berg_Lien.pdf

“Homosexual men earn 16% to 28% less than non-homosexual men with similar demographic characteristics.”

ideas.repec.org/a/ilr/articl/v48y1995i4p726-739.html

“[T]he author finds that gay and bisexual male workers earned from 11% to 27% less than heterosexual male workers with the same experience, education, occupation, marital status, and region of residence…”

citeulike.org/user/tfuist/article/4004094

“[G]ay and lesbian communities have brought attention to the scope and consequences of anti-gay and lesbian violence in the United States, which ‘has taken its place among such societal concerns as violence against women, children and ethnic and racial groups’ (Comstock 1991:1)”

books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ZWT4I2cTCFIC&oi=fnd&pg=PA19&dq=gays+violence&ots=GNPqYbL6Rm&sig=LswRIWRs5sJdUR0pGgL2Fqisdug#v=onepage&q=gays%20violence&f=false (page 19)

“Since the birth of the gay liberation movement in the 1960s, a large body of data on anti-gay violence and other victimization has developed. Thousands of episodes—including defimation, harassment, intimidation, assault, murder, vandalism, and othe abuse—have been reported to police departments and local and national organizations (Berrill, 1986; NGLTF, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990; NGLTF Policy Institute, 1991). Many thousands more incidents have gone unreported (see Chapter 18 of this volume by Berrill & Herek). Numerous empirical studies, many of them unpublished, also have shown the problem of anti-gay violence to be widespread.”

These are things that I found by simply doing a few minutes of online research. I’m sure I could find much more if I wanted to…
Click to expand...
Thieves may earn less money too. I wouldn’t hire a convicted one. Am I discriminating?
 
buffalo said:
Thieves may earn less money too. I wouldn’t hire a convicted one. Am I discriminating?
Click to expand...
Technically, yes. However, it is perfectly legal and natural to discriminate against thieves because they are criminals. They shouldn’t get hired. Homosexuality, on the other hand, is not a crime.
 
bibleguy180 said:
Technically, yes. However, it is perfectly legal and natural to discriminate against thieves because they are criminals. They shouldn’t get hired. Homosexuality, on the other hand, is not a crime.
Click to expand...
If I won’t hire someone because they cheat am I discriminating? Do I have the right not to hire a cheater? How about a liar?
 
If you won’t hire somebody because _________ , then yes, you are discriminating. It is okay to discriminate to people with bad morals (i.e. liars, cheaters, thieves) but it is not okay to discriminate against people because you or the Church doesn’t think it’s right. You couldn’t not hire somebody because you found out they had a tattoo. Likewise, you couldn’t not hire or discriminate against somebody because you found out they are homosexual.
 
bibleguy180 said:
If you won’t hire somebody because _________ , then yes, you are discriminating. It is okay to discriminate to people with bad morals (i.e. liars, cheaters, thieves) but it is not okay to discriminate against people because you or the Church doesn’t think it’s right. You couldn’t not hire somebody because you found out they had a tattoo. Likewise, you couldn’t not hire or discriminate against somebody because you found out they are homosexual.
Click to expand...
I will not hire someone who is unabashedly deviant in behavior.
 
Wait, so your referring to homosexuals as “unabashedly deviant in behavior”? That’s a new one, even for you haters.
 
Show me where in the Bible it says that. And don’t use Leviticus.
 
bibleguy180 said:
Show me where in the Bible it says that. And don’t use Leviticus.
Click to expand...
Chastity and homosexuality
[2357](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/2357.htm’)😉 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
[2359](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/2359.htm’)😉 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
 
Use the Bible please. Because I’m arguing that the Church is wrong on this, then the catechism is also wrong on this.
 
Gn 1:27 - complementarity of sexes reflects God’s inner unity
Gn 2:21-24 - transmission of life through total self-donation - one flesh
Gn 19 - original sin deteriorates to Sodom’s sin, destroyed
Lv18:22 - called abomination, cut off from people (v.29)
Lv 20:13 - both shall be put to death for abominable deed
Rom 1:27 - called unnatural, shameful, and a perversity
1Cor 6:9 - active homosexuals won’t inherit kingdom of God
1Tim 1:9-10 - those who engage in such acts called sinners
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top