Do Homosexuals Have The Equal Rights in the USA?

[estesbob]

I am not assuming that is the way it works. Wives, homosexuals, and single men are generally freer to walk away from bad deals, excessive deals, and bad bosses, however married men with families have to adjust the decisions based on family needs, and should not focus on their personal needs and desires.

The other problem with these statistics is that Homosexuals have a much lower life expectancy and miss more work because of illness-both of which skew the statistics. Its not just AIDS that is the probpem-anal sex is inherently unhealthy from a medical standpoint

 

[drewbybear]

I think that they have equal rights in the sense that they can have a job, have health insurance, vote, buy a house, a car, get an education, etc. In other words, they have equal rights to do all those things that everyone else does. What they don’t have a right to is to be treated differently or treated with kid gloves and be pandered to just because they didn’t get their way at the courts. I know that not all homosexuals are this way. Most live fairly normal lives. However, there are some that are very loud and obnoxious. They act like whiny brats who want their way and when they don’t get it, they whine and cry to mommy or daddy who wears black robes. This is what I don’t like. I also think that they do tend to shove their lifestyles down everyone’s throat.

Do you realize how many “scholarly” dissertations, articles, books, etc are on the subject of everything homosexual? Do you realize that in an scholarly journal on the subject of human sexuality, 95% of the articles are on some aspect of homosexuality? Do you not further realize how much it has seeped into literary theory, historical topics, psychology, etc? Argh, its everywhere. This is what I find most disturbing. Apparently we are supposed to read literature, plays, poetry, history, art, etc in light of queer theory now .

I work at a university library in the interlibrary loan department so I have a good gauge as to what is being studied right now . UGH!

I agree with you 100%. Homosexuality has def seeped into our culture. Everyone seems to be open to thinking that it (homosexuality) is ok. It is not! While I do think that having certain feelings is completely ok, I do not think it is ok to act on them. I have these feelings but do not act on them. Being homosexual is not a choice. But acting on the feelings is a choice. Anyway that is my two cents. Treat it however you want.

 

[estesbob]

I wanted to also point out that discrimination against homosexual persons extends much further than the workplace. There has been disproportionate violence directed toward homosexual persons.

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

“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.”

Again evidence that people dislike homosexuals does not translate into a need to provide homosexual beahvior the same protected status as race, creed, gender or country of national origin.

You are aware that a large amount of violence against homosexuals is by other homosexuals? Often from their “partner”?

 

[buffalo]

This is a horrible assumption. It baffles me that you seem to actually think that any person who tells another person that he or she experiences SSA is doing so “to advance the homosexual act.”

I don’t want to go on making a list, but a chaste homosexual may have very good reasons for revealing to another person that he or she experiences SSA. James seems to encourage openness among Christians is a good thing in James 5:16, although it’s talking about sin (and experiencing SSA isn’t a sin).

I’ve seen a chaste Catholic, who experiences SSA, reveal to others that he has SSA when he gave a talk on homosexuality from a Catholic perspective. He was doing this in part so that the audience could further understand how he knows what he’s talking about in this regard. Do you honestly think he did this “to advance the homosexual act?”

It is one thing to tell your confidant about your struggle, it is quite another to announce it publicly. You are failing to recognize the difference.

 

[edwest2]

Homosexuals do sort of have equal rights in the US. Depending on state. Because different states have different laws. In theory, everyone has equal rights. But not being able to get “married” (civil partnership ect) or show affection in public does seem to be unequal to the heterosexual population.

There’s also a lot of prejudice regarding homosexuals. And stereotypes. There’s a lack of positive homosexual characters/people in media, instead a lot of homosexual men are seen as predators and women as someone “going through a phase” before settling down and getting married and having kids.

I believe homosexuals are born that way. Who would choose to be a part of a minority?

To my Brothers and Sisters in Christ –

If you have the truth, would you trade it for an opinion?

narth.com/docs/hope.html

Do not listen to what others think they know or what opinion they have. We are to be led into all truth. All truth.

God bless,
Ed

 

[BobObob]

BobObob;6859575:

buffalo;6857686:

A chaste homosexual has no need to reveal their struggle with anyone. If they do it is to advance the homosexual act.

This is a horrible assumption. It baffles me that you seem to actually think that any person who tells another person that he or she experiences SSA is doing so “to advance the homosexual act.”

I don’t want to go on making a list, but a chaste homosexual may have very good reasons for revealing to another person that he or she experiences SSA. James seems to encourage openness among Christians is a good thing in James 5:16, although it’s talking about sin (and experiencing SSA isn’t a sin).

I’ve seen a chaste Catholic, who experiences SSA, reveal to others that he has SSA when he gave a talk on homosexuality from a Catholic perspective. He was doing this in part so that the audience could further understand how he knows what he’s talking about in this regard. Do you honestly think he did this “to advance the homosexual act?”

It is one thing to tell your confidant about your struggle, it is quite another to announce it publicly. You are failing to recognize the difference.

Actually, I didn’t fail to recognize the difference. I was rather responding to your comment (quoted above) that “a chaste homosexual has no need to reveal their struggle with anyone” and “if they do it is to advance the homosexual act.”

Also, even telling more than very close confidant isn’t necessarily advancing the homosexual act. Do you seriously think that the chaste Catholic, who, during a talk on homosexuality, revealed to others that he had SSA in order to make his talk effective, was advancing the homosexual act?

 

[BobObob]

Again evidence that people dislike homosexuals does not translate into a need to provide homosexual beahvior the same protected status as race, creed, gender or country of national origin.

Lets put aside the issue of protected groups and consider:

Is it morally acceptable to treat a person different for having a homosexual orientation (with the exception of cases in which treating them the same is to encourage sin)?

You are aware that a large amount of violence against homosexuals is by other homosexuals? Often from their “partner”?

This may be. However, 3% of the population typically wouldn’t account for all the more violence homosexual persons have been subject to.

 

[HauntedJame]

To my Brothers and Sisters in Christ –

If you have the truth, would you trade it for an opinion?

narth.com/docs/hope.html

Do not listen to what others think they know or what opinion they have. We are to be led into all truth. All truth.

I had a read of that thing. Now, I’m gay, and I can safely say I have no mental instabilities or suffered abuse as a child, or had an overprotective or needy mother. I don’t fit into that. Also, same-sex attraction (as it keeps saying) is really just an old scholarly way of saying homosexual. Why use it in a supposed medical journal?

I’ve studied extensively on the subject. Queer Theory, the history of homosexuality, the development of sexology. The reason why homosexuality is so studied at universities is that only since the 90s has it been acceptable to study it openly, and only in the last years have courses opening where people can study it. Some study it out of academic interest, others to find out why they are gay.

I disagree with the statement of the Catholic Medical Association. It’s not my truth. But then again, my truth is that I am a gay man, who owns a flat, is in a relationship and provide for my household. I don’t go out partying, I’ve never done drugs, I don’t really drink because in truth I see no reason to. Perhaps I am abnormal as what the Catholic Medical Association sees as a homosexual. All I really know is this.

God loves me. If I love others, respect others (although sometimes you can’t, and it is my own flaw that I cannot find what is good about the person I do not respect) and do my best to live a life where I give both to society and others, then I must please Him somehow. That is my truth. I know it won’t be everyone’s truth, I know a lot of people will disagree. But in my heart I feel it is right.

James
*I find some of what you teach suspect because I am used to relying on intellect but I try to open up to what I don’t know
*

 

[estesbob]

Lets put aside the issue of protected groups and consider:

Is it morally acceptable to treat a person different for having a homosexual orientation (with the exception of cases in which treating them the same is to encourage sin)?

Of course not-and i have seen nobody suggesting it is.

.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I had a read of that thing. Now, I’m gay, and I can safely say I have no mental instabilities or suffered abuse as a child, or had an overprotective or needy mother. I don’t fit into that. Also, same-sex attraction (as it keeps saying) is really just an old scholarly way of saying homosexual. Why use it in a supposed medical journal?

I’ve studied extensively on the subject. Queer Theory, the history of homosexuality, the development of sexology. The reason why homosexuality is so studied at universities is that only since the 90s has it been acceptable to study it openly, and only in the last years have courses opening where people can study it. Some study it out of academic interest, others to find out why they are gay.

I disagree with the statement of the Catholic Medical Association. It’s not my truth. But then again, my truth is that I am a gay man, who owns a flat, is in a relationship and provide for my household. I don’t go out partying, I’ve never done drugs, I don’t really drink because in truth I see no reason to. Perhaps I am abnormal as what the Catholic Medical Association sees as a homosexual. All I really know is this.

God loves me. If I love others, respect others (although sometimes you can’t, and it is my own flaw that I cannot find what is good about the person I do not respect) and do my best to live a life where I give both to society and others, then I must please Him somehow. That is my truth. I know it won’t be everyone’s truth, I know a lot of people will disagree. But in my heart I feel it is right.

James
*I find some of what you teach suspect because I am used to relying on intellect but I try to open up to what I don’t know
*

I agree completely. Where is the link of men raised by women only households? They should be highly likely to be gay, so what is the problem… their not gay. To look at identical twins makes sense but to dismiss opposing data is leave the science out.

 

[V_GINY]

Are you people entirely serious? I am stunned at the amount of flat out ignorant people on this forum, and involved with catholicism in general. Many of you say things that are so out in left field that I thought you HAD to be joking, but unfortunately you are not.
I can’t fathom the mindset of these people at ALL, I imagine it might be akin to living in a bubble while the rest of the world progresses.

 

[MariaTS]

I agree with rapunzel. They can live normal lives in society as long as they do 4 things:

1. don’t look at me
2. don’t touch me
3. stay away from my children
4. keep their sexual orientation to themselves

Being gay is nothing to be proud of. But if I were to start a “straight pride” rally, I would be automatically labeled as a “nazi” and “intolerant”. The obnoxious gays and lesbians don’t seem to understand the difference between “equal rights” and “silencing any views contrary to their own”.

How would me looking at you harm you? How are we a threat to your children? Why should we hide our sexuality when you do not have to?

 

[V_GINY]

How would looking at you harm me? How are we a threat to your children? Why should we hide our sexuality when you do not have to?

Maria,

Unfortunately it is futile to ask these questions. Whoever wrote that ridiculous post that you are responding to is so far beyond any kind of logic and reason that they will NEVER return. They will never, ever understand.
I truly pity them and all those who think as they do. The world must be a very scary place for these kinds of people.

 

[estesbob]

How would me looking at you harm you? How are we a threat to your children? Why should we hide our sexuality when you do not have to?

It is pretty hard to hide what sex one is. Ones sexual beahvior, however, only becomes apparant if one chooses to make it so.

 

[Aboveallbereal]

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

Thanks,
Ed

Ed makes a good point. That the orientation is involuntary and thus morally neutral is the Politically Correct assumption and is used to close down debate.

I feel it just a possible that the orientation is rooted in psychological issues grounding fear of women, narcissism etc. and closing down debate closes down any possibility that these men locked into regressive barren sexuality may escape into a full awakening of their real and true desire for and apppreciation of women without the fear and narcissism.

 

[MariaTS]

It is pretty hard to hide what sex one is. Ones sexual behavior, however, only becomes apparant if one chooses to make it so.

I know when someone is heterosexual or not, because most heterosexual women talk about the man they like and want to marry and most heterosexual men talk about the woman they like and want to marry. It gets so irritating. Why can’t I talk about the man or the woman I like and want to marry? There is no difference, really. Just a double standard.

 

[estesbob]

I know when someone is heterosexual or not, because most heterosexual women talk about the man they like and want to marry and most heterosexual men talk about the woman they like and want to marry. It gets so irritating. Why can’t I talk about the man or the woman I like and want to marry? There is no difference, really. Just a double standard.

There is no law that says a person who enages in homosexual behavior cant talk about who they like and who they would like to marry. There is also no law that people cant show public afection to members of the same sex.

 

[MariaTS]

There is no law that says a person who enages in homosexual behavior cant talk about who they like and who they would like to marry. There is also no law that people cant show public afection to members of the same sex.

I wasn’t talking about laws, I was talking about people saying I could be any sexuality as long as I didn’t express it and about people thinking that I am a danger to their children in some way.

 

[BobObob]

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

Ed makes a good point. That the orientation is involuntary and thus morally neutral is the Politically Correct assumption and is used to close down debate.

It is not pandering to political correctness to say that the homosexual orientation is involuntary (and in a certain sense morally neutral).

Strictly speaking, passions themselves are morally neutral, while the reaction to them by our will is not (see CCC 1767 scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a5.htm).

I have looked into homosexuality a bit from a psychological perspective, and have never seen a single case where a person had their sexual orientation as a result of choice.

 

[estesbob]

It is not pandering to political correctness to say that the homosexual orientation is involuntary (and in a certain sense morally neutral).

Strictly speaking, passions themselves are morally neutral, while the reaction to them by our will is not (see CCC 1767 scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a5.htm).

I have looked into homosexuality a bit from a psychological perspective, and have never seen a single case where a person had their sexual orientation as a result of choice.

Actually the very term"sexual orientation" is born of poltical correctness. You dont see this term ever used until the campaign to “normalize” homosexual behavior began. We dont have a sexual orientation-we have a gender. What is refered to as sexual orientation is really sexual attraction. The former is a biologic fact-the latter comes into play only when it is acted upon. One may claim that they have no control over who they are attracted to-but they have total control as whether to act upon that attraction.