Our language is sloppy, unfortunately. When people talk about "rights", sometimes they are talking about the inalienable kind that our founding fathers discussed (e.g. freedom of speech, free exercise of religion, etc.), but sometimes they are talking about a lesser kind of right granted by the legislature (e.g. the right to collect a social security check if you've reached a certain age and satisfy certain criteria). The former, at least theoretically, can't be taken away by government. The latter can.

This leads to a lot of confusion (and people talking past each other) on this issue with many supporters of same sex marriage conflating the two in an attempt to portray same sex marriage as the kind of inalienable right that it would be anti-American to deny (like it would be if we banned newspapers that print critical stories about our political leaders). But it's not that kind of right. Marriage is the kind of right that the legislature, in their wisdom, can fashion in any way that they rationally think is beneficial to society, just like they do with the criteria for collecting a SS check.

No, that's not true. In any state where "being gay" is a valid enough reason (which is to say, states that don't require a reason), being straight is also a valid enough reason.

king of the disingenuous argument ... even you know that you're full of shit, but you just don't care

name one time in the history of the world where someone was fired for being straight.

Are we talking about the law here or are we talking about whether people are assholes? Because when you used the phrase "it's legal to ..." and when other people were talking about "rights", I jumped to the conclusion that we were talking about the law.

more spin, more avoidance

Name one time in the history of the world were someone has been fired for being heterosexual. Other the other hand, it is legal and people have been fired for being homosexual.

you're wrong, just let it go.

No, I don't think I'm wrong. Moving the goalposts like you're doing sounds more like spin and avoidance than what I've done.

So you're tapping out on the "legal" part of this. Good, now we can all move on in agreement.


As to who gets fired for being gay, who got hired in the first place? If you don't like gays, you won't hire them then fire them later. Dumb point. I doubt even a handful of people have been fired in the past decade simply for being gay. Nope, no way.

:rolleyes:

rush would be so proud

What is he avoiding? He is completely correct. If it is your contention that the odds of a person being terminated due to their heterosexuality are so small as to be negligible, I would agree. I would also say the same for being fired due to being gay. It may happen, but it's incredibly rare.

So, no such thing as discrimination toward the LGBT community... wow. Hell it is legal in 29 states, I believe.

Yes, because an employer can totally tell off a resume or an interview if someone is gay or not. I suppose they could put a blank on the application to specify if one was gay or not, and then said employer would know not to hire them. That doesn't sound like discrimination at all though.

Wait a second - for your logic to work here, we have to assume (1) employee hired, (2) employee does good work, but (3) employee then discovered to be gay, fired only for that reason.


How often does that happen? 1 time per year? If that?

odds ... so you're playing odds on right and wrong?

so if something is a rare occurrence we don't need to worry about it?

There have been several links to examples were people have been fired for being gay and there is no know occurrence EVER of someone being fired for being straight. In fact, the idea of someone firing a person for being straight is so astoundingly absurd that has even occurred to someone to put those specific words into law.

tapping dancing with technicalities doesn't change reality

so if it doesn't happen often, then it's ok?

people acting like this a debate class and just trying to win an argument instead of worrying about right/wrong. Pathetic. :shake:

not really. You simply said that if someone doesn't like gay, don't hire them and problem solved...won't have to fire them. Your first post didn't equate for those factors, and neither did my reply. Not every gay person is obviously flaming gay.

There is some pretty...pretty...scientific stats being thrown around here. They may sound like complete conjecture or, simply, guesses... but they are the FACTS. Like one person has ever been fired for being homosexual... uhhh... cuz I guessed it hard in head thinker.

This point has already been made. And the response is that that puts gays on the same footing as heterosexuals legally, not a different one.

Of course discrimination exists. It also exists for unattractive people and people who don't have charming personalities.

Which is more morally acceptable, firing a person because they're

(a) gay
(b) straight
(c) unattractive

It must be exciting to never make two posts without changing the issue...makes for a lousy discussion, though.

The statement is that gays have the same rights as straights. In states where there are no laws that strictly prohibit gays from being fired due to their sexual orientation, there are no laws prohibiting straights from being fired due to their sexual orientation.

You then chose to argue something completely different...that it's incredibly rare for a straight person to be fired for being straight. When I agreed but pointed out that it's also extremely rare for a person to be fired just for being gay, you changed the topic again and tried to turn it into a value judgment.

I made no statement towards the value of the laws. I simply acknowledged their existence.

How about firing them based on none of those and only the work they do. Why would any of those options be acceptable?

that is a fun way to look at it. what is the point of this discussion? discrimination exists, so why do anything about it... is an apathetic response, that is usually the symptom of deeper fears. There are stupid people, lets close the schools! mostly i see people who are weary of a changing society, who want to justify not changing it.

Good idea. As soon as you start clamoring for laws protecting unattractive people, you can stop being a hypocrite.

Holy moly! Never thought I'd see the day you finally came out in opposition to affirmative action and quotas in the workplace. Kudos to you brother!

So your answer is that they're all equal in terms of moral acceptability?

The point of the discussion is to accurately define the issue before we start passing laws. As written, gays have every right that straights have. That doesn't mean that the laws are fair/just/adequate/etc. It's simply a matter of identifying what the current laws do and do not address.

I'm glad over-weight is not on that list.

We already have racially or disability based hiring practices and admission practices going on in the name of diversity or Affirmative Action. How is that really any different? That's considered acceptable in some places.

The point of that particular part of the discussion was that gays are already treated equally (relative to straights) when it comes to employment laws. What is it that you want to do about discrimination?

Did you mean to write this?

Yes.

Yes. Do you disagree?

So, all the people claiming that there are 29 (or whatever) states with laws on the books stating that it is legal to fire a homosexual just for being homosexual are wrong, correct?

Of course. There simply aren't laws that prohibit it just as there aren't laws that prohibit firing people for being straight.

Interesting, but not surprising. So, I guess I fail to see what all the wailing was about.

As someone said above, there is TONS of sloppy thinking and writing on this subject based on how this issue makes people FEEL. Get a grip and divorce your emotions from this a bit and engage some of the well-articulated legal arguments that are being made here. The legal discussion is actually fascinating...and worth having.

It's time we get these non existent laws off the books.

If people would do this before ramming poorly-written legislation down the pike, we might actually find that the unintended consequences aren't so severe. As it is, too many of our laws wind up giving us more of what we are trying to eliminate.

I agree. :toast:

I haven't read the thread at all, but am I correct in assuming Pat is employing the "gay people actually have the exact same rights as straight people" defense?

Defense against what?

I will take that as bullzeye.

http://i.imgur.com/Be0C6BV.gif

Is this the part where pat is 100% correct in his statement, supports gay marriage just as you do, yet is somehow still the bad guy in your universe?

Yes, he's saying that according to written law, gay people have the same rights. He is saying that the laws are not written to include situations that may benefit or determent the gay man. He is also saying that legal discrimination still goes on.

Is that a correct summary patt?

I'd rather you take it as a question.

Sounds right to me. I'm still curious what Direckshun thinks I'm defending though.

UP, if you have something to say to me, please do it here. Thanks.

uh oh, donger got ran over by the neg rep train

Hootie already said it best.

(A sentence I never imagined I'd say, but here we are.)

Also you're a miserable piece of shit and I hope the "beep boop I am a calculating hate robot" thing is an act. kthx

Actually, I'm a very happy person and I have no issues whatever with what I wrote. Because it's entirely accurate. If you think that makes me a sociopath, I'd suggest that it may be you who are miserable.

Sociopaths usually are, without that pesky "capacity for empathy" thing and whatnot.

No but seriously, **** you. NOT being an asshole to other people for no goddamn reason is SO ****ING EASY, but you steadfastly refuse to even test it out a little.

That applies to most of the people in this thread.

Let me ask you a question: do you think that homosexuals have "something wrong with them" based on the fact that they have are attracted to and typically copulate with the same sex?

I think it's a ****ing absurd concept and completely impossible to define anything of the sort. You're trying to pin down a totally arbitrary delineation.

I also think it's pathetic that people cling to shit like that to justify their insecurity over people who are different from them having any real input into the way our society operates.

How about "different wiring" or "not operating as nature intended wiring"? Would that make you happy?

a) NATURE IS INCAPABLE OF THOUGHT
b) everyone has "different wiring." People are color blind, people are left/right handed, people are born with red hair or hair that grays/balds in their 20s. people like music or are interested in science or math or art or monster trucks or all of the above. shit ****ing happens.

Errr, what is an absurd concept? Nature/God/whatever gave homosexuals the sexual organs to procreate with a member of the opposite sex (sperm & egg, penis & vagina), but the desire to only do so with members of their own sex.

Yes, I'd call that a rather obvious case of bad wiring. Then again, nature isn't 100%

hurrrrrdurrrrrr procreation is the only thing that matters, all sterile people are BROKEN HUMAN BEINGS and all people who fail to produce children were DEFECTIVE. i am the almighty label-maker and all of society shall be organized under my watch

I'm okay with your defining my acceptance of biological fact as clinging. Perfectly okay with it. I'm also perfectly fine with homosexuals having real input into the way our society operates. Babies excluded, of course.

(Collective) Your "bad wiring" is way more harmful to society than the wiring that makes people gay or straight or bi.

Again, I'm not shy about pointing out the biological facts. There is one, and only one, reason we have male and female... Feel free to dispute it.

Feel free to expound.

To what end are you attempting to make this distinction or point out specific "wiring" as "bad?" What makes it such an important topic?

No other point than pointing out a fact. You didn't know that already?

That's actually a pretty good argument. Who knows if nature has some sort of contingency plan built in that is, perhaps, stimulating homosexual behavior in an effort to stem wild population growth? In that case it's not faulty or defective at all, but intended. It's kind of like the frogs in Jurassic Park.

Why must you point out this "fact" (which is based completely on shit that you've thought up in your own brain, and not any sort of scientific research -- good and bad being wholly subjective concepts and science having absolutely zero concern with personal beliefs) so insistently? What makes it important to point it out, obnoxiously, over and over again with a shit-eating grin on your face like you just won a high school debate?

You're like, "BOOM MOTHER****ERS, WHAT ABOUT THIS!!! Sorry, did I blow your mindsssss? DEAL WITH IT!" and I'm all, "What the **** is wrong with you?"

:spock:

Do I really need scientific research to tell me (and you) that homosexuals have bad wiring (or an abnormality if you prefer)? I can understand you not liking my pointing it out, but that doesn't mean I'm incorrect.

I brought it up in this thread because someone mentioned equality.

What makes this arbitrary shit that popped into your brain relevant or interesting? What makes it "fact?" Most importantly: what does it have to do with a cultural institution that has existed in innumerable forms over the course of the past several millennia? Marriage is a malleable societal concept, not a specific natural phenomenon. What nature "intended"* has **** all to do with it.

*And again, "nature" is a descriptor of the various interacting systems that make up the world around us. It is not an active entity, and it has no "intentions" beyond "____ happens and that causes ____."

Because someone mentioned equality in this thread (again).

Wasn't there a huge uproar a few weeks ago about someone referencing a member's mentally challenged child? Does Trisomy 21 qualify as bad wiring?

It might be helpful if you'd actually refrain from hitting Submit Reply until you have all your thoughts typed out. Jeez.

I've already explained why it is fact. Nature/God/whatever gave homosexuals the organs to copulate and breed with members of the opposite sex and the desire to copulate with the same sex, which cannot lead to procreation. That's dictated by Nature/God/whatever. Those are facts. Feel free to prove otherwise.

I don't know why your bringing up marriage (if that what you are bringing up). I haven't mentioned it.

Trying to understand your ultimate point here. Are you saying gays don't deserve to be treated as equal because they are biologically "flawed" as you say? Even if we were to consider them flawed, that same logic (biological flaw) could be used against other segments of the population for the same reason, segments that you would probably consider to be deserving of being treated as equal.

Bloo bloo, I expanded my post two minutes after replying to your dumb, stale horseshit. I hope it didn't make you strain too hard to click "reply" again.

Sweet disingenuousness~

Certainly the ability to marry a partner of your own mutual choosing is not a matter of equality! Also, my conception of "nature" is Stone Cold Fact and anyone who disagrees is a naive rube! *repeats post 7000 times*

I really don't have an ultimate point, other than to point out that heterosexuals and homosexuals are not equal, specifically when it comes to the propagation of the species.

Cool, then maybe you should shut the **** up.

:spock:

You can marry your dog for all I care, male or not. I'm actually rather ambivalent when in comes to the subject of homosexual marriage.

You aren't attempting to stifle discussion, are you?

That's imbecilic. Are you saying that a gay dude can't get a chick pregnant? They choose not to. And what completely blows your point out of the water, sometimes to closeted ones do reproduce. The parts and/or the wiring aren't broken.

Sorry, I didn't respond to your other questions.

As I said above, yes, when it comes to propagation of the species, homosexuals are clearly not equal to heterosexuals. Heterosexuals who cannot breed with each other have something medically wrong with one of them (or both). Two homosexuals of the same sex trying to breed cannot procreate even though their sexual organs might be working just fine. They are just trying to fit a round peg in a square hole, so to speak.

Is a heterosexual couple who can't breed as equal as a heterosexual couple who can breed? No, from the perspective of the propagation of the species.