Social "equality" for gays

[Fitswimmer]

But what’s to say this cannot happen between any number of consenting adults, regardless of sexual orientation? People pair up or all the time to defray costs of living, yet are not in some sort of sexual relationship with each other. Or you can go it alone, if you can. Again, I don’t see how this infringes on anyones rights.

The system in the US already does that. You cannot deduct children on your taxes if you don’t have any.

There is a reasonable assumption that heterosexual marriage can provide offspring. And even if a couple tries to thwart this, by contracepting, it still may happen.

I agree that’s what I meant when I said you didn’t need marriage for all that. I really couldn’t think of a societal benefit for marriage at all once you take the kids out of the equation.

 

[GratefulDad]

Excuse me, but I have not been at all rude to anyone-not even to you.

I am not angry with anyone-not even you.

I say the Rosary frequently, thank you. I find it a wonderful devotion.

Are you the moderator of this site? If not, I do not believe you have the authority to ask anyone to leave.

Rrrreeeeeerrr!!!

You just seem so fussy about everything people suggest. Not telling you have to leave.

 

[hasikelee]

I think that you bring up an interesting point–but, I have many friends who are heterosexual, married, but have no kids–and they have a lot more in savings, than many of my married friends who have kids–us included. I don’t think that homosexual men/women fall into a higher bracket because of anything other than many of them not having children, and devoting all of their attention to a career…and being able to spend money exclusively on themselves. I think that for some homosexual couples who adopt, they have a parent who stays at home, and thus the financial playing field becomes leveled if you will, but again, I don’t think it has anything to do with being homosexual…it has more to do with not being able to have children, and for many who don’t adopt…they have a lot of time to devote to climbing the corporate ladder. I see the same thing for couples who are heterosexual and have no kids, or single heterosexual men and women.

This is a good example of the overall changes we are dealing with in regards to marriage as governed in a society.

The idea of benefits for married couples is a historical change due to women staying at home with children and men working to support a large family.

Since this is not the norm, the benefits are now desired by a lot of people, who perhaps see a married couple without kids getting ahead “just because of a marriage license.”

I can definitely empathize, even if I don’t agree with gay marriage. I know several women who cohabitate and have children with their partners. They don’t get married because the financial aid and tax breaks are super. Heck, one couple has two kids and splits 'em on their tax returns so they each have a dependent. Meanwhile, here I am with hubby, bumped into the next tax bracket.

What I question is since marriages are not solely focused on having and raising kids with a mother in the home as in the last century, why the government is willing to extend benefits to everyone, instead of eliminating the program.

What’s to stop two college girls from moving in together under the guise of homosexual union? Why should those living together now even bother to get married, or bother to have kids?

 

[ComputerGeek25]

I agree that’s what I meant when I said you didn’t need marriage for all that. I really couldn’t think of a societal benefit for marriage at all once you take the kids out of the equation.

Then why all the hoop-la about gay marriages being somehow discrimiated against?

There is a clear benefit of heterosexual marriage (raising of children) for the good of all, and society orients itself towards that, how is it discrimination? The arguement for this line of thinking is to have the population replenished and to help keep the economy stable by having new workers and consumers (in theory anyways).

If the arguement is that if it feels good do it, than that’s not much of an arguement at all. I didn’t feel like rolling out of bed this morning at some early hour and coming into work, but obviously there is a benefit for me doing so.

The other arguement that I have refuted is that the ease of how property and visitiation rights are handled. Marriage doesn’t necissarily cover all of these fringe cases of “in case of death…” Also, any good lawyer will tell you to draw up these documents whether you are gay or straight, all at your expense, regardless of orientation. Again, where’s the discrimination in that?

 

[Gaurdian]

I wasn’t the one calling folks trolls. I’m actually enjoying the discussion. Having my opinions challenged helps me think.

The only benefits I’ve seen described are those to the couple themselves, not to society as a whole. I could say stable relationships, couples are more likely to buy homes, keep their jobs, pay their taxes…but they don’t need to be married to do that.

If the sole purpose and benefit of marriage is children, then nobody who either can’t or chooses not to have children should receive any incentives then. Other than children, what benefit does heterosexual marriage provide-I’m not trying to be snarky, I really can’t think of any.

In any legitimate democracy the majority of people’s views should be the law of the land. And no Gays, are not victims or abused in the US, no one is being thrown in jail or given 130 lashes or hung, like so many other places in the world.

With only about 2% of the population being homosexual the majority have aright to what laws they pass. In addition it will be our children that pay for the gays Medicare, Medicaid, SS, roads and all the government infrastructure when the gays retire. That is why tax breaks make sense for families and children.

 

[Fitswimmer]

In any legitimate democracy the majority of people’s views should be the law of the land. And no Gays, are not victims or abused in the US, no one is being thrown in jail or given 130 lashes or hung, like so many other places in the world.

With only about 2% of the population being homosexual the majority have aright to what laws they pass. In addition it will be our children that pay for the gays Medicare, Medicaid, SS, roads and all the government infrastructure when the gays retire. That is why tax breaks make sense for families and children.

I was under the impression that the US was a representative republic and not a true democracy.

Gays have been beaten and killed in this country, not by the government, but by plenty of hateful citizens.

News flash: Gay people pay taxes too.

 

[pathia]

And no Gays, are not victims or abused in the US, no one is being thrown in jail or given 130 lashes or hung, like so many other places in the world.

We are assaulted, killed and raped to ‘make us straight’. It happens, I have experienced it personally, and when I tried to get the police to arrest the men responsible, they laughed at me and said I deserved it.

Does it happen as often as other lesser countries? No, of course not, but don’t ever try to say it doesn’t happen, because it does, sometimes police themselves are the perpetrators.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

I was under the impression that the US was a representative republic and not a true democracy.

Gays have been beaten and killed in this country, not by the government, but by plenty of hateful citizens.

Then those people who administer the beatings should be thrown in jail.

This is the type of discrimination we should be addressing, not whether gay marriage and the benefist thereof are a right.

News flash: Gay people pay taxes too.

However, gay marriage, doesn’t produce offspring by normal means, which the obvious way to maintain and grow the tax base. This is one of the reasons why SS could be broke by the time I retire.

 

[estesbob]

I was under the impression that the US was a representative republic and not a true democracy.

Gays have been beaten and killed in this country, not by thegovernment, but by plenty of hateful citizens.

Many more heterosexauls have been killed and beaten becuase of their sexual behavior than those who enage in homosexual behavior have. The majority of homosexuals who are beaten are, BTW, beaten by other homosexuals.

News flash: Gay people pay taxes too.

News Flash: so what?

 

[pathia]

Many more heterosexauls have been killed and beaten becuase of their sexual behavior than those who enage in homosexual behavior have. The majority of homosexuals who are beaten are, BTW, beaten by other homosexuals.
News Flash: so what?

False.

fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/hate_crime/index.html

Despite being 2-4% of the population, 15.6% of hate crimes are sexual orientation based. If it is gay on gay crime, it does not get recorded as a hate crime. This number is actually lower than the actual amount of hate crimes too, because the FBI does not mandate that hate crimes be collected as statistics. IE: In Virginia, there is no hate crime law involving crimes against homosexuals, so there are no statistics, and they are not included in the statistics (unless there are local ordinances involved).

 

[estesbob]

False.

fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/hate_crime/index.html

Despite being 2-4% of the population, 15.6% of hate crimes are sexual orientation based. If it is gay on gay crime, it does not get recorded as a hate crime. This number is actually lower than the actual amount of hate crimes too, because the FBI does not mandate that hate crimes be collected as statistics. IE: In Virginia, there is no hate crime law involving crimes against homosexuals, so there are no statistics, and they are not included in the statistics (unless there are local ordinances involved).

Of course the difference is if I get beaten in a bar for hitting on a guys girlfreind it is not classified as a hate crime. “Hate crime” is a totally subjective classification used to try and advance political agendas. IMO all crimes are hate crimes.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

False.

fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/hate_crime/index.html

Despite being 2-4% of the population, 15.6% of hate crimes are sexual orientation based. If it is gay on gay crime, it does not get recorded as a hate crime. This number is actually lower than the actual amount of hate crimes too, because the FBI does not mandate that hate crimes be collected as statistics. IE: In Virginia, there is no hate crime law involving crimes against homosexuals, so there are no statistics, and they are not included in the statistics (unless there are local ordinances involved).

Again, what estesbob said. It’s a case of lies, darned lies and statistics.

What if my girlfriend/wife stabs me if I’m making unwanted sexual advances or am giving her a hard time on her sexualitiy. What does that get counted as?

 

[Fitswimmer]

Of course the difference is if I get beaten in a bar for hitting on a guys girlfreind it is not classified as a hate crime. “Hate crime” is a totally subjective classification used to try and advance political agendas. IMO all crimes are hate crimes.

If someone who has never met you beats you up because they see you walking out of a Catholic church, that’s a hate crime. They’ve done it because they hate Catholics.

If someone beats you up because you hit on his girlfriend, that’s because they hate you as an individual for hitting on their girlfriend.

I’m not entirely comfortable with existing hate crimes legislation, but there are crimes that are motiviated by hate for a group as opposed to an individual and those crimes do need to be addressed differently.

 

[pathia]

Of course the difference is if I get beaten in a bar for hitting on a guys girlfreind it is not classified as a hate crime. “Hate crime” is a totally subjective classification used to try and advance political agendas. IMO all crimes are hate crimes.

There is a difference in the law, because there is a thing known as a ‘motive’.

If you get beat on for flirting with someone’s girlfriend, you were beat on for flirting with someone’s girlfriend.

When I was beat on for being what I am, the individuals assaulting me were assaulting me because of the class of person I was, for no other reason than I existed. This means they are at a high liklihood of being a repeat offender and doing it again.

It’s the same reason that we lock up child molesters, we know for a fact they tend to repeat their crimes over and over.

 

[pathia]

Again, what estesbob said. It’s a case of lies, darned lies and statistics.

What if my girlfriend/wife stabs me if I’m making unwanted sexual advances or am giving her a hard time on her sexualitiy. What does that get counted as?

That’s a domestic dispute. Now if she had gone psychotic and started to stab lots of men, then it would classify as a hate crime because she is targeting men for being men.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

If someone who has never met you beats you up because they see you walking out of a Catholic church, that’s a hate crime. They’ve done it because they hate Catholics.

If someone beats you up because you hit on his girlfriend, that’s because they hate you as an individual for hitting on their girlfriend.

I’m not entirely comfortable with existing hate crimes legislation, but there are crimes that are motiviated by hate for a group as opposed to an individual and those crimes do need to be addressed differently.

Thanks for the clarification - it make some sense to me at least

However, I’d like to see more of the data broken out. What happens if a gay man was making unwanted sexual advances at me, I feel threatened and punch him in the face, then he cries “Hate Crime” because he’s gay. I could also make a case that this is sexual harassment. How would this consistantly be tabluated? I know this is a lame example, but it’s the easiest one I could think of?

 

[pathia]

Thanks for the clarification - it make some sense to me at least

However, I’d like to see more of the data broken out. What happens if a gay man was making unwanted sexual advances at me, I feel threatened and punch him in the face, then he cries “Hate Crime” because he’s gay. I could also make a case that this is sexual harassment. How would this consistantly be tabluated? I know this is a lame example, but it’s the easiest one I could think of?

This would be the ‘gay panic’ defense. There is no excuse to punch someone just for talking/flirting with you, really. What happened to turning the other cheek?

This is of course unless you’re saying he was making physical contact which you could then say self defense and you could charge him with sexual assault, which is an accepted line of argument in just about any court in this country even still

 

[buffalo]

If someone who has never met you beats you up because they see you walking out of a Catholic church, that’s a hate crime. They’ve done it because they hate Catholics.

If someone beats you up because you hit on his girlfriend, that’s because they hate you as an individual for hitting on their girlfriend.

I’m not entirely comfortable with existing hate crimes legislation, but there are crimes that are motiviated by hate for a group as opposed to an individual and those crimes do need to be addressed differently.

Hate crime legislation is very subjective.

 

[estesbob]

There is a difference in the law, because there is a thing known as a ‘motive’.

If you get beat on for flirting with someone’s girlfriend, you were beat on for flirting with someone’s girlfriend.

When I was beat on for being what I am, the individuals assaulting me were assaulting me because of the class of person I was, for no other reason than I existed. This means they are at a high liklihood of being a repeat offender and doing it again.

It’s the same reason that we lock up child molesters, we know for a fact they tend to repeat their crimes over and over.

I am going to save your post for the next time someone says that homosexuals dont want special rights. Yet you and the homosexual rights community want people to be punished more severely becuase they disaprove of ones homnosexual behavior than those who are beaten for any other type of behavior.

Whether a person who beats a homosexual is more likely to do so again is debatable but the usual way to handle this is to have stiffer penalties for repeat offenders.

 

[estesbob]

This would be the ‘gay panic’ defense. There is no excuse to punch someone just for talking/flirting with you, really. What happened to turning the other cheek?

This is of course unless you’re saying he was making physical contact which you could then say self defense and you could charge him with sexual assault, which is an accepted line of argument in just about any court in this country even still

And no excuse for punching someone for flirting with your girlfriend yet in one case we have simple battery and the other a felony hate crime. Why is punching a man who flirts with my girflriend less of a crime than punhcing a man who flirts with me?