Should gays be a protected class?

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Taejin

Originally posted by: daveshel
Whether you want to call it a movement or a trend (or an agenda for that matter), American courts are beginning to recognize gays as a legally protected class.

"The legal definition of specified groups of people who suffered widespread discrimination in the past and who are given special protection by the judicial system."

This question is being dealt with more in the courts than by legislatures because there is a lack of unity among various jurisdictions as to what constitutes a protected class. There is a good deal of support for this position on the basis of the inclusion of "sexual orientation" on the list of those protected by various anti-discrimination laws, including the Equal Rights Amendment, which, of course, never became law.

On the other hand, the other protected classes are arguably limited to members who became members by means not of their own choosing. There is a good argument that religion is much more a matter of choice than sexual orientation, especially in the case of one protected as a member of a religion that they adopted later in life.

I'd rather not include a poll, because I'm more interested in analysis than demographics. (I'm also not interested in google results, slogans, and conclusions not supported by analysis.) I personally am kind of on the fence on this, balancing my long-held beliefs in personal freedoms against my feeling that homosexuality is unnatural. So here's a rare chance to engage in a discussion that could actually influence somebody's opinion!

Why can't people just assume you're not of any sexual orientation? Geesh, if people didn't have the urge to haul around the fact that they were gay or straight, we wouldn't have these superficial problems.

Well, the way it works is people assume you are heterosexual. When they find out you're not, that's when the trouble starts.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: daveshel
Laws and consent of others notwithstanding, I am just attempting to draw a parallel between two natural attractions and illustrate why I an reluctant to support homosexuals as a protected class.

Homosexuals are not the protected class. SEXUAL ORIENTATION is the protected class. The protections apply to a human characteristic: Sexual orientation. The protections are available to all people, gay AND straight, because everyone has a sexual orientation. Just like protections on grounds of race apply not just to black people, but also to whites, asians, etc. If a gay owned business decided to fire all heterosexual employees, or a gay politician decided to give a pay raise to only gay employees, that would be a violation of anti-discrimination laws based on sexual orientation (assuming such laws were enacted). Heterosexuals would have the SAME protections as gay people. (Altho of course in practice gay people are more commonly unfairly treated on grounds of sexual orientation than straight people, and so the protections are almost certainly going to be more relevant to gay people than straight people. Nevertheless, the protections ARE equally available to gays and straights, and so it is innaccurate to describe this types of laws as "preferential treatment" for gay people).

 

[MCWAR]

originaly posted by Steeplerot
quote:
Why do you think it is unnatural?
Quite common in the animal world.
Actually considering yourself completely straight is pretty unnatural in the animal world
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Its also quite common to see older dogs trying to hump a new puppy. Would you consider rubbing your penis on a one year old child natural?

I dont believe in descriminating against gays at all, but that does not make it natural.
To me its the lables that muddy up the ability to have a real discussion about it. All men and woman have the same human rights. Just because some guy prefers to put a mans groin in his mouth should not grant him special rights.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: MCWAR
originaly posted by Steeplerot
quote:
Why do you think it is unnatural?
Quite common in the animal world.
Actually considering yourself completely straight is pretty unnatural in the animal world
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Its also quite common to see older dogs trying to hump a new puppy. Would you consider rubbing your penis on a one year old child natural?

I dont believe in descriminating against gays at all, but that does not make it natural.
To me its the lables that muddy up the ability to have a real discussion about it. All men and woman have the same human rights. Just because some guy prefers to put a mans groin in his mouth should not grant him special rights.

What "special rights" are you talking about? Give an example of the types of "special rights" that gay people are seeking for themselves.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

-------------------------
"We are not homophobes; we are happy to live alongside
gay people, as long as they recognize that they can
never have the same civil rights as we do. Accept your
own inferiority, and we will accept you."
-George W. Bush, President of the USA

OT, aidanjm, but that's not an actual quote by Bush, correct? Didn't someone just generalize Bush's position on homosexuality into that phrase?

The man may not be a good president, but he's never said that.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: aidanjm

-------------------------
"We are not homophobes; we are happy to live alongside
gay people, as long as they recognize that they can
never have the same civil rights as we do. Accept your
own inferiority, and we will accept you."
-George W. Bush, President of the USA

OT, aidanjm, but that's not an actual quote by Bush, correct? Didn't someone just generalize Bush's position on homosexuality into that phrase?

correct

 

[MCWAR]

originaly posted by aidanjm
quote:
What "special rights" are you talking about? Give an example of the types of "special rights" that gay people are seeking for themselves.
-------------------------------------------------------------


Okay, to some degree I stand corrected. Gay people want the same rights as every one else. Problem is, they are every one else. I am subject to the same laws as a man who likes men and vise versa.

I have a real problem with legislation based on whom a person wants to sleep with and it is not because I am morally offended by their choice of partner. There are laws on the book forbidding certain sexual activity -- incest, bestiality, pedophilia and paligamy. If civil rights legislation can be passed based solely on the sexual orientation of gays, then what would preclude any of the taboo practitioners from asserting their own civil rights?

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: aidanjm

-------------------------
"We are not homophobes; we are happy to live alongside
gay people, as long as they recognize that they can
never have the same civil rights as we do. Accept your
own inferiority, and we will accept you."
-George W. Bush, President of the USA

OT, aidanjm, but that's not an actual quote by Bush, correct? Didn't someone just generalize Bush's position on homosexuality into that phrase?

correct

I looked that quote up a couple of days ago after seeing it in your sig. While I agree that it is highly reflective of Bush's attitude towards homosexuals, it's dishonest to represent it as a quote, which is what your signature does.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: aidanjm

-------------------------
"We are not homophobes; we are happy to live alongside
gay people, as long as they recognize that they can
never have the same civil rights as we do. Accept your
own inferiority, and we will accept you."
-George W. Bush, President of the USA

OT, aidanjm, but that's not an actual quote by Bush, correct? Didn't someone just generalize Bush's position on homosexuality into that phrase?

correct

I looked that quote up a couple of days ago after seeing it in your sig. While I agree that it is highly reflective of Bush's attitude towards homosexuals, it's dishonest to represent it as a quote, which is what your signature does.

It is humor, or a joke, with a point. I don't agree that it is dishonest, because I don't believe that anyone reading it is going to believe Dumbya explicitly said those things. It has more of an impact presented the way it is, in my opinion.

edit: just re-read my sig quote, and it it so obviously over the top, I cannot believe anyone is going to believe G W Bush actually said that. Attributing the quote to Bush is taking Bush's subtext and making it the text. That is amusing, to me at least.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: MCWAR
originaly posted by aidanjm
quote:
What "special rights" are you talking about? Give an example of the types of "special rights" that gay people are seeking for themselves.
-------------------------------------------------------------


Okay, to some degree I stand corrected. Gay people want the same rights as every one else. Problem is, they are every one else. I am subject to the same laws as a man who likes men and vise versa.

I have a real problem with legislation based on whom a person wants to sleep with and it is not because I am morally offended by their choice of partner. There are laws on the book forbidding certain sexual activity -- incest, bestiality, pedophilia and paligamy. If civil rights legislation can be passed based solely on the sexual orientation of gays, then what would preclude any of the taboo practitioners from asserting their own civil rights?

You shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against such people. But so long as their preferred sex partner can only be classified as 'victim, not lover' their sexual activity should remain illegal.

Polygamy is the exception there - I frankly don't have a problem with it, though I question the stability of a 'relationship' with so many sub-relationships, and I'm not sure how you would go about classifying a polygamous marriage WRT the established two-person system (whether inclusive of homosexuals or not).

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
It is humor, or a joke, with a point. I don't agree that it is dishonest, because I don't believe that anyone reading it is going to believe Dumbya explicitly said those things. It has more of an impact presented the way it is, in my opinion.

edit: just re-read my sig quote, and it it so obviously over the top, I cannot believe anyone is going to believe G W Bush actually said that. Attributing the quote to Bush is taking Bush's subtext and making it the text. That is amusing, to me at least.

I dunno, it sounds enough like Bush that I could have believed he said that in his governor days, or earlier

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: MCWAR
originaly posted by aidanjm
quote:
What "special rights" are you talking about? Give an example of the types of "special rights" that gay people are seeking for themselves.
-------------------------------------------------------------


Okay, to some degree I stand corrected. Gay people want the same rights as every one else. Problem is, they are every one else. I am subject to the same laws as a man who likes men and vise versa.

I have a real problem with legislation based on whom a person wants to sleep with and it is not because I am morally offended by their choice of partner. There are laws on the book forbidding certain sexual activity -- incest, bestiality, pedophilia and paligamy. If civil rights legislation can be passed based solely on the sexual orientation of gays, then what would preclude any of the taboo practitioners from asserting their own civil rights?

The ONLY issue that can be represented as a "Gay Rights" issue is Same-Sex Marriage.

Currently, the government recognizes the legal contract of marriage and provides a set of services to those that enter into this contract (tax benefits, hospital visitation rights, etc) As a government contract, it should not be able to discriminate against anyone on the the basis of race, religion, or gender. But it does. It declares that Fred can't marry Sam, based on nothing more than the GENDER of one party. That is discrimination. It has nothing to do with sexual preference, deviant behavior, etc. It doesn't not open the door to polygamy, beastiality, or anything else. The contract still requires only 2 consenting (human) adults. It is a matter of discrimination based upon gender and nothing more. To allow same-sex marriage would not be an endorsement of 'gay behavior' or anything like that.

At least, that's the way I see it. I came to that realization in this very forum last year sometime. Until then, I made some of the same arguments against homosexual marriage. When someone showed me it had nothing to do with homosexuality, but gender discrimination, I changed my thoughts on the matter.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Why do you think it is unnatural?
Quite common in the animal world.
Actually considering yourself completely straight is pretty unnatural in the animal world.

Just because something happens in the animal world, does not make it acceptable for humans.

Some animals kill and eat their own offspring. Should we humans allow this?

Some animals have sex with their own offspring (often before the offspring is 'mature' enough.) Should we humans allow this?

Some animals get territorial and kill any one who gets near them or their mate. Should we humans allow this?

So, do you agree that we should structure *all* our laws around what we find to be 'natural' in the animal world, or only the ones you happen to agree with?

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: daveshel
Gays should have the same rights and freedoms as everybody else so far as those rights and freedoms are conferred on the basis of their membership in the human race, but not not additional rights and freedoms as gays. Like group membership in a Windows network, they get permissions from the everyone group, but I am questioning whether they should they get additional permissions from the gay group.

<---thats all i can say.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Why do you think it is unnatural?
Quite common in the animal world.
Actually considering yourself completely straight is pretty unnatural in the animal world.

Just because something happens in the animal world, does not make it acceptable for humans.

Some animals kill and eat their own offspring. Should we humans allow this?

Some animals have sex with their own offspring (often before the offspring is 'mature' enough.) Should we humans allow this?

Some animals get territorial and kill any one who gets near them or their mate. Should we humans allow this?

So, do you agree that we should structure *all* our laws around what we find to be 'natural' in the animal world, or only the ones you happen to agree with?

no, of course not. But it shows the fallicy of calling homosexuality unnatural. You can argue the morality of homosexuality but you can't argue against its natural occurance.

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: MCWAR
originaly posted by aidanjm
quote:
What "special rights" are you talking about? Give an example of the types of "special rights" that gay people are seeking for themselves.
-------------------------------------------------------------


Okay, to some degree I stand corrected. Gay people want the same rights as every one else. Problem is, they are every one else. I am subject to the same laws as a man who likes men and vise versa.

I have a real problem with legislation based on whom a person wants to sleep with and it is not because I am morally offended by their choice of partner. There are laws on the book forbidding certain sexual activity -- incest, bestiality, pedophilia and paligamy. If civil rights legislation can be passed based solely on the sexual orientation of gays, then what would preclude any of the taboo practitioners from asserting their own civil rights?

The ONLY issue that can be represented as a "Gay Rights" issue is Same-Sex Marriage.

Currently, the government recognizes the legal contract of marriage and provides a set of services to those that enter into this contract (tax benefits, hospital visitation rights, etc) As a government contract, it should not be able to discriminate against anyone on the the basis of race, religion, or gender. But it does. It declares that Fred can't marry Sam, based on nothing more than the GENDER of one party. That is discrimination. It has nothing to do with sexual preference, deviant behavior, etc. It doesn't not open the door to polygamy, beastiality, or anything else. The contract still requires only 2 consenting (human) adults. It is a matter of discrimination based upon gender and nothing more. To allow same-sex marriage would not be an endorsement of 'gay behavior' or anything like that.

At least, that's the way I see it. I came to that realization in this very forum last year sometime. Until then, I made some of the same arguments against homosexual marriage. When someone showed me it had nothing to do with homosexuality, but gender discrimination, I changed my thoughts on the matter.

I agree - the problem that people have with marriage is that it has a gender requirement - one of each. Considering that society reconizes that there are differences between the genders is it surprising that law takes these differnces in to account?

 

[MCWAR]

originally posted by: cKGunslinger

quote:
As a government contract, it should not be able to discriminate against anyone on the the basis of race, religion, or gender. But it does. It declares that Fred can't marry Sam, based on nothing more than the GENDER of one party. That is discrimination
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I dont see it that way. If the gov't told sam he could not get married period because he is gay. That is descrimination. I know lots of gay people who have been or are married. Just not to the same sex. That rule is applied across the board. Sam cant marry a man and I cant marry a man. Equall treatment.


Well on some level I dont have a problem with fred getting married to sam. Hell, let them be as miserable as the rest of us married folk. I feel sorry for our economy if and when it happens. Suddenly employers are going to have to extend benifits to some lazy punk laid up in his old mans bed.etc.....

 

[Hossenfeffer]

Originally posted by: MCWAR
originally posted by: cKGunslinger

quote:
As a government contract, it should not be able to discriminate against anyone on the the basis of race, religion, or gender. But it does. It declares that Fred can't marry Sam, based on nothing more than the GENDER of one party. That is discrimination
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I dont see it that way. If the gov't told sam he could not get married period because he is gay. That is descrimination. I know lots of gay people who have been or are married. Just not to the same sex. That rule is applied across the board. Sam cant marry a man and I cant marry a man. Equall treatment.


Well on some level I dont have a problem with fred getting married to sam. Hell, let them be as miserable as the rest of us married folk. I feel sorry for our economy if and when it happens. Suddenly employers are going to have to extend benifits to some lazy punk laid up in his old mans bed.etc.....

On the flip side of that extreme, think of the example of a lesbian couple that may or may not be married. This couple raises a child, either through natural childbirth or adoption. One of the women dies. My common sense would think the child would be under the care of the other woman, but the family of the dead woman comes in and takes the child. That's just not kosher in my book.

I don't think gays should be a separate class, by any means, so long as they are afforded the same rights as anyone else. I think that a marriage could easily be hatched between two people of the same sex.

One of the main hangups I have is this. If marriage is to procreate, what about the couples that never try to have children, or simply can't? Should their marriages be null and void? And seeing as how a same-sex couple can sometimes adopt a child, can give that child love and a nurturing household to grow up in...

But I digest...

 

[MCWAR]

sorry internet glitch

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: MCWAR
originally posted by: cKGunslinger

quote:
As a government contract, it should not be able to discriminate against anyone on the the basis of race, religion, or gender. But it does. It declares that Fred can't marry Sam, based on nothing more than the GENDER of one party. That is discrimination
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I dont see it that way. If the gov't told sam he could not get married period because he is gay. That is descrimination. I know lots of gay people who have been or are married. Just not to the same sex. That rule is applied across the board. Sam cant marry a man and I cant marry a man. Equall treatment.


Well on some level I dont have a problem with fred getting married to sam. Hell, let them be as miserable as the rest of us married folk. I feel sorry for our economy if and when it happens. Suddenly employers are going to have to extend benifits to some lazy punk laid up in his old mans bed.etc.....

I never actually understood the fear that suddenly, same-sex couples are going to rush into 'fake' marriages to get health insurance and benefits. Wouldn't the same thing apply to heterosexual couples? What about some lazy punks laid up in his old lady's bed, etc?

Hmm.. it's definitely a sticky situation. Both sides seem to have valid lines of reasonings sometimes.

 

[slurmsmackenzie]

Originally posted by: daveshel

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: daveshel
I personally am kind of on the fence on this, balancing my long-held beliefs in personal freedoms against my feeling that homosexuality is unnatural. So here's a rare chance to engage in a discussion that could actually influence somebody's opinion!

So you think everyone should have the same rights and freedoms, but at the same time, homosexuality seems distasteful and odd to you, so maybe gay people shouldn't have the same rights and freedoms as you afterall?

Gays should have the same rights and freedoms as everybody else so far as those rights and freedoms are conferred on the basis of their membership in the human race, but not not additional rights and freedoms as gays. Like group membership in a Windows network, they get permissions from the everyone group, but I am questioning whether they should they get additional permissions from the gay group.

agreed... basic human rights guaranteed to all. rights as gays would be like someone having rights as an alcoholic.

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: raildogg
You still have not convinced me that two gays living together are a family. I don't consider a man and a woman living together to be a family and certainly don't consider gays living together to be a family. Keep trying however.

Um, who is claiming that a gay couple is a family? Maybe they are a family to each other. However I'd say there would need to be at least three people in the group to qualify as a family. Two people are a "couple". Imo a gay couple and their child are a family, tho.

I was responding to Steeplerot's claim that anything can be a family. He said your roomates that you live with are your family etc.

I consider two gays living together who are married to be a family.

To raildoog and pizzabird - is a heterosexual couple and their gay child a family? Or does the presence of the gay child automatically invalidate the family in some way, in your eyes?
Also, if a gay couple and their children are not a "family" then what are they, according to you?

Any married couple is a family, gay or straight. How does being gay invalidate the family?

Well, a gay couple cannot "produce" a child, so therefore its a likely a adopted child. I would consider a gay couple living together who are married and has a adopted child to be a family.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Man isn't an animal.

AH!!! Final proof by his own admission...

Rip -- If you're living, and you're not an animal, you must be a vegitable. :laugh:

Harvey, I'm definitely not a fruit.

 

[judasmachine]

as long as there are other people singling them out explicitally for their sexual preferance YES.

 

[Shuxclams]

Originally posted by: daveshel

Originally posted by: Shuxclams



Well, from the gay people I have spoken with, they are "just attracted" to the same sex... sounds too simple apparently. I guess I should come up with a reason why I am attracted to the oppisate sex to quantify why a person somehow is attracted to the same sex.

If it makes anyone feel better you can discriminate against people who dont share your political views......










SHUX

OK. I am "just attracted" to 15-year old girls. I recognize that this attraction is a perversion that isn't good for me or anybody else, and I do not act on it. Call it repression , call it just good sense, maybe even call it a sense of right or wrong. Does it mean that I should expect society to recognize that I am responding to natural urges?

Please don't ask for this to be a civil discussion then throw non-sense like perversion into the fray. We are talking about, or supposed to be at least, two consenting adults of age. Even the most liberal churchaes have set guidelines for decency with gay relationships as being that of consenting age. As for the paraniod right and the argument that if "we allow gays to have rights, why not pedophiles or incestual relations". In both those cases its not between two consenting adults. Nor is that the case if it is a human and animal relationship.

While homosexual acts are seen in nature, it is obviously NOT the norm, but does it make it perverse? I am not attracted to men, never have been and I would be surprised if I ever became attracted to a man. It was explained to me by many gay freinds that they are simply 'attracted' to the same sex in the same manner I am attracted to the opposate sex. That just makes sense, if I sit back and think about how I love the way my Fiancee sits, how far removed would it be if she where a he? And if that were the case, why shouldnt I be 'OK' with that, why or how is that perverse?.

If you are indeed attracted to 15 year old women I would consider that far more "perverse" and abnormal for a grown man than for a grown man to be attracted to another grown man.








SHUX