Gay Rights

melt away.:

And i think it's difficult to allow that because our nation was built on God, and God clearly doesn't like that.

Reason number eight on Why gay marriage will ruin society:

"Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America."

---

To the point of gay marriage: too big a deal is being made out of something that could be so easily rectified.
Though I agree with some of the people above: Gay rights is not limited to gay marriage, and should be extended to cover GLBT rights in any case.

I don't see why gay marriage is such a big deal. It's two people getting married. Regardless of gender, marriage is something special. Why do people hate it so much?

I don't think total equality will ever be achieved. Transgendered people can become jobless or won't be treated in hospitals just for being transgendered. We might come close, but there will always be those people that can't think of anyone but themselves.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but surely it would take about five minutes to write down that guys can marry guys and girls can marry girls and sign it B.Obama? He's gotta have people around who can organise the rest. I'm not even American, but really - just do it already, and it's something off the to-do list. Then he can worry about the economy without gay rights petitions and whatever else coming in at him.

dresden.:

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but surely it would take about five minutes to write down that guys can marry guys and girls can marry girls and sign it B.Obama? He's gotta have people around who can organise the rest. I'm not even American, but really - just do it already, and it's something off the to-do list. Then he can worry about the economy without gay rights petitions and whatever else coming in at him.

He can't write it down and sign it, though. He can only sign what Congress give to him, he can't make a law pass alone. So I do think it isn't entirely his fault, even if he did everything possible on his side to initiate new laws regarding GLBT rights it would still have to go through both houses of Congress which is not an easy thing considering there are still many people of a distinctly conservative mindset both within America as a whole and within the legislature.

It would (probably) take five minutes in Britain, but not in America.

^Exactly. And to add on to it: America has a checks and balance system so that one branch doesn't have more power than the other. It's not that Obama is all of the sudden against gay rights, it's just that there are problems in the congress and senate.

Bloodraine, if it would take five minutes in Britain, why hasn't it been done yet, out of curiousity?

^Probably because the current party is against it. I believe that they feel that civil unions are equal to marriage, if I'm not mistaken.

dictionary:

Bloodraine, if it would take five minutes in Britain, why hasn't it been done yet, out of curiousity?

Civil Partnership Act 2004

Bloodraine:

dictionary:

Bloodraine, if it would take five minutes in Britain, why hasn't it been done yet, out of curiousity?

Civil Partnership Act 2004

Sorry, I didn't read that very long. It's legal, and very dry.
Is it like a legal marriage sort of thing, where you're not married in the religious sense, but you are in the legal sense?

dictionary:

Bloodraine:

dictionary:

Bloodraine, if it would take five minutes in Britain, why hasn't it been done yet, out of curiousity?

Civil Partnership Act 2004

Sorry, I didn't read that very long. It's legal, and very dry.
Is it like a legal marriage sort of thing, where you're not married in the religious sense, but you are in the legal sense?

It's exactly the same as a civil marriage but it's called a civil partnership.
Same in all respects except for the name. You can read an overview of civil partnerships here.

To the people who were saying that the only rights gays/lesbians are deprived of is marriage - that isn't exactly true. There are still several states where descrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity is still legal in the workplace (cut wages, cut jobs, etc.) Also, there are still several more states that will not include a crime against someone solely because of their sexual orientation as a hate crime. (I could be out of date on this--recently they were pushing for a law that would include crimes against GLBT people in the FEDERAL definition of a hate crime, thus encompassing those states too. But I'm not sure if that got passed or not.) Not to mention there are states where it's against the law for a homosexual couple to adopt.

As to focusing on that as a top issue? Look, I'm all for gay rights. I've been to protest rallies, I've tried to start programs in my high school... I've been an advocate for the cause for five years. But there are so many other pressing issues right now.

Gay marriage isn't going to determine who can live and who can die. Gay marriage isn't going to determine if people can keep their homes. This economy is a top issue. The war in the middle-east is a top issue. And while gay rights are certainly very close to the top of my personal political hopes, it's not like if we don't handle that now, we'll never be able to. We can't guarantee the same about some other issues our country is facing right now.

TheNewFoShizzle:

You make a really good point, but I think that any sort of important problem should be at the top of the nation's agenda. Who's to say that the rights of people are less important than the wars being fought in another country for the same sort of thing? Or more important than people losing their jobs and more money than they have? Because sometimes, if someone is not straight, they won't be hired. I think that is just as important as anything else, and it should be handled just as efficiently as any other problem of the 'political' sort.

Takanori Matsumoto.:

Because sometimes, if someone is not straight, they won't be hired.

But no amount of law-making will fix that. That is called discrimination, and although it is probably illegal in most places to discriminate against people on their sex or gender, or sexuality, or race etc., it will still happen regardless of what the law says. If gay marriage were allowed gay people would still be vilified and some homophobic employers would still probably overlook gay people for a vacant position.

TheNewFoShizzle:

Gay marriage isn't going to determine who can live and who can die. Gay marriage isn't going to determine if people can keep their homes. This economy is a top issue. The war in the middle-east is a top issue. And while gay rights are certainly very close to the top of my personal political hopes, it's not like if we don't handle that now, we'll never be able to. We can't guarantee the same about some other issues our country is facing right now.

You know, I thought about this because at first I agreed.
But now I don't.
Everything you just say gay marriage wouldn't determine actually can determine that.
If you can't legally be married you can't get your spouse's health insurance through work and that could cause you to die. If you rent a house from a lady who passes away and her son inherits it and evicts you because you're gay, you wouldn't have a home. It's hard to put food on the table if you won't be hired because you're gay. So... they can go hand in hand. Quite easily.

absinthe.:

But no amount of law-making will fix that. That is called discrimination, and although it is probably illegal in most places to discriminate against people on their sex or gender, or sexuality, or race etc., it will still happen regardless of what the law says. If gay marriage were allowed gay people would still be vilified and some homophobic employers would still probably overlook gay people for a vacant position.

Yes, but with protection from the law you can sue the person who passed you up for that position on basis of sexual orientation.

^That's true, but the law doesn't actually prevent it from happening - which was what I was trying to illustrate.

absinthe.:

^That's true, but the law doesn't actually prevent it from happening - which was what I was trying to illustrate.

No, it doesn't.
It just allows measures to be taken which help to ensure it will happen less and less.

druscilla's mystery.:

TheNewFoShizzle:

Gay marriage isn't going to determine who can live and who can die. Gay marriage isn't going to determine if people can keep their homes. This economy is a top issue. The war in the middle-east is a top issue. And while gay rights are certainly very close to the top of my personal political hopes, it's not like if we don't handle that now, we'll never be able to. We can't guarantee the same about some other issues our country is facing right now.

You know, I thought about this because at first I agreed.
But now I don't.
Everything you just say gay marriage wouldn't determine actually can determine that.
If you can't legally be married you can't get your spouse's health insurance through work and that could cause you to die. If you rent a house from a lady who passes away and her son inherits it and evicts you because you're gay, you wouldn't have a home. It's hard to put food on the table if you won't be hired because you're gay. So... they can go hand in hand. Quite easily.

absinthe.:

But no amount of law-making will fix that. That is called discrimination, and although it is probably illegal in most places to discriminate against people on their sex or gender, or sexuality, or race etc., it will still happen regardless of what the law says. If gay marriage were allowed gay people would still be vilified and some homophobic employers would still probably overlook gay people for a vacant position.

Yes, but with protection from the law you can sue the person who passed you up for that position on basis of sexual orientation.

You're right. Under very specific circumstances, it can cause things like that. But the economic problems are causing it by the masses. Our unemployment rate is currently the highest it's been in 26 years--and that's just measuring by those drawing unemployment, not by the actual total number of Americans not working. There are places like California that have actually shut down their welfare program because they can't afford to keep it running. Some places may not be even giving out unemployment checks at all soon, because they can't afford to.

I'm not saying it's impossible for social issues to have economic implications. I'm just saying, gay marriage is something that can be dealt with after the economy recovers. If we don't help the economy...well, then, it won't recover and we'll all be screwed.

And as to being able to sue someone who fired you based on sexual orientation? That's only if you can prove it.

^ It is quite easy to prove, actually.
And I'm just not so sure I like how you said 'gay marriage can be dealt with after the economy recovers'. It makes it seem like it's an offhand topic, and it's not just the right to be married they're fighting for.

Takanori Matsumoto.:

^ It is quite easy to prove, actually.
And I'm just not so sure I like how you said 'gay marriage can be dealt with after the economy recovers'. It makes it seem like it's an offhand topic, and it's not just the right to be married they're fighting for.

I said earlier, I'm a strong supporter of the cause. I'm not saying it's not an important issue. In fact, I do recall mentioning being an activist for LGBT rights.

I'm just saying, if the economy isn't dealt with NOW, there are going to be a lot more long-term repercussions for the country as a whole. Yes, LGBT rights is at the top of my list as far as social issues go, and it's definitely one of the things I take into consideration first when it comes time to vote. But, I do think that economic recovery should be a top priority, because of the crisis the country is in. I know four different families off the top of my head that are facing losing their homes right now. I know more people than I can count who don't have jobs, or whose hours and/or wages have been cut significantly. And if this isn't dealt with, and NOW, this country is in for a lot rougher roads ahead.

Gay rights/equality laws should be passed as soon as possible, and yeah, there are things we can (and should) be doing NOW to handle that. I'm just saying that if it comes down to absolutely having to do one first, despite my strong feelings for LGBT rights and advocacy, I think the economy would need to come first.

^ I see where you're coming from now. Thank you for clarifying. I just thought you were saying that it should be pushed down in priority, and I had a problem with that idea.