Pseudo-POL: "Gays and lesbians"
 

Not really looking to start anything here, as my tongue is firmly in its cheek (hence the "Psuedo"), but this is prompted by a quote I read from Senator Obama regarding today's judicial confirmation:


So, uh, does anybody here support equal rights for gays, but not for lesbians?

Or perhaps the other way around?

When a liberal says "equal rights,' what they really mean is 'special rights.'

the MPAA?

"How's this for a compromise: We allow gay marriage, but only for the lesbians. Marriage is really a chick thing anyways..." - Bill Maher

Like the "special right" to get married to the person you love?

What does it mean when a conservative says it? I guess I wasn't aware of all the 'special rights' gays and lesbians have. Except for the having sex with each other part that is.

In before the lock and banning. yes.

You put "gays" and "lesbians" in the title and thought it was not going to start something?

Are you new here?;)

Gays and lesbians in our society already have tolerance, what they are pushing for now is obviously acceptance. You cannot force someone to believe that a certain kind of lifestyle is acceptable, but apparently that is the new mission of government in our lives.

Probably a flurry of PMs going back and forth to seek bannination on me for not being part of the 'hive' mentality on this. Do your worst.

But.......what does any of that have to do with 'special rights'? Tolerance and acceptance don't have anything to do with law. Discrimination does however.

The English language seems to confuse you again Bubba. They couldn't give 2a damn what you and your ilk think - rather, they want the right to marry the person they love. I sincerely doubt the average gay person (or hell, anyone) gives a shit what you do in your bedroom, and couldn't figure out how you being married affects them - why do you care so much what they do?

Much like Bubba Wheels on this forum.

Never stops there. Heard on WOWO out of Ft. Wayne, In today that city employees are being forced by the city to 1. sign statements that they do not 'believe' that the homosexual lifestyle is wrong (clear violation of the individual's right to practice religion) and 2. City employees are being forced to attend 'sensitivity seminars and training' about the homosexual lifestyle or they lose their jobs. This is happening in a 'red state.' Clearly pushing acceptance with governmental authority and trampling on religious freedom.

I like to see some proof of this.


In before the lock.....

As interesting as that is (commie Ft. Wayne bastards will probably make them treat women equally next), I'm actually just trying to figure out what exactly these 'special rights' are that gays and lesbians are asking for.

Cmon, Duckman - didn't you read the World Net Daily special edition today? :D

Bat Boy is gay?

Well, if homosexuals were then forced to attend church and seminars on fudamental Christian's lifestyles (or orthodox religions in general, none accept the 'gay lifestyle"), then it would approach 'equal', no?

Seems to me right or wrong Bubba IS being pushed to accept this line (not by gays or lesbians directly, mind you) of thinking, if he doesn't want to be a) called stupid, b) shouted down, c) called to be banned or d) otherwise demonized. Now, Bubba admittedly does have a track record of being, well, you know...Bubba, but just sayin'.

So you're equating the 'gay lifestyle' with persecution of fundamentalist Christians?

I can see the similarities. I certainly hope you fundamentalists can someday get married.

Live and let live.

Oh, and the beatings. The fundamentalist drive by bashings everywhere just break my heart.

I've got no problem with his viewpoint, he's welcome to that. I'm just trying to understand. It's a liberal thing, I guess.

Don't leave out all the mysterious church burnings around the country. Who would be angry enough at Christians to do that?

Let me guess. Gays and lesbians? Or just liberals? Maybe BOTH!

Osama.

Well, as stated before in other threads, marriage is a Biblical thing. The state saw the benefit of marriage and sanctioned it for their benefit. To allow 'gay marriage' would be no different than taking, say, the Muslim event of Ramadan and using it to promote the pork industry.

lol. teh gays? lol. lol.

Yes, Osama is a much better friend to the homosexual. ;)

Yes, groups like ACT UP do spend their time handing out Teddy Bears to sick kids at the local hospitals. Silly me.

Noted. My real beef was that there was a call for a banning before Bubba much said anything. Track record I guess.

(of course now that he's gone into some of his theories....)

Other Christians?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/08/alabama.churches/

So, Bubba, to you, there is no distinction between the civil contract of marriage, and the religious ceremony of marriage?

Theories? Geez, its my religious beliefs that should be driving you up the wall!

God?

Well, the Methodists do look kind of cross-eyed at the Baptists sometimes.

Well, this is an amusing tangent, especially for my gay friends who go to church far more than I, but maybe we should get back to the original question.

You stated that liberals didn't believe in 'equal rights' for gays and lesbians but instead wanted them to have 'special rights'.

'Special rights' signifies some rights that go beyond equality (which I believe you defined as tolerance, which I don't get but that's a whole other thread right there). So what I'm trying to find out from you is this: What exactly are these 'special rights' that gays and lesbians are asking for that they should not have?

I think that banning comment was just a joke, not an actual call for him to be banned.

Except its not. The concept of marriage existed before Christianity did, from ancient Egypt, to the Greeks, and what not. If anything, Christianity (like other religions) co-opted a standard social contract.

Yes, one is called 'civil union', the other is called 'marriage.'

I think it's that only the gays are allowed to marry people of their own gender, while straight folk are not?

You know as well as I do that Hillary Clinton is behind it all! The damn liberal media won't say anything about it all.



In before the lock.

Yes, it did exist before Christianity did...they were called "the Jews' and its all recorded in the Old Testement. Thanks for clearing that up! :rolleyes:

Well, that's what I originally thought.....but that strikes me as an 'equal right' rather than a 'special right', though I could be wrong. I also thought that maybe it would involve being able to get information about a partner in the hospital or something like that......but that seems an 'equal right' also.

I'm just damn confused.

If gay people want to get married then they should be able. However if some church refuses to hold the ceremony then it is their right to do so.

Interesting. I was leaning Dumbledore.

I'm never quite sure with Flasch...

I was pretty much joking -- I mean, straight people aren't allowed to marry people of their own gender? You know, since they wouldn't want to do that, and if they did, then they'd be gay, thus having that right..eh.

Seems like most of the past few jobs that lurker and I have had allow you to insure a 'domestic partner' -- I don't think the gumment is forcing them to do that.

His point is that marriage existed outside the Judeo-Christian envelope long ago.