Gay Rights

Bloodraine:

kelseykillscliche:

^
I think she meant that the people in California were more liberal. I mean, California was the start of one of the most cultrally liberal movements ever, the hippie movement. So you can't really say they're not a big state when it comes to liberalism :shifty

I fail to see that there's a single state in America that isn't a big state when it comes to Liberalism. Okay, maybe this is just me being incredibly picky, but there's a big difference between using the adjective 'liberal' and the connotations it creates and refering to the political ideology of Liberalism. The vast majority of America lives by some sort of Liberalism.

I guess that's true. Maybe just places that accept people who are gay more. Places like the South advocate religious beliefs greater than people in the North, or at least that's what I've come to think. So people in the South would be less willing to accept gay people because they're gay. People in the North wouldn't care.

(And this wasn't a post meant to generalize all people in the South and North :shifty)

I'm not sure of the state of gay rights in Australia. I think they differ to those in most of America. I have no clue though.

Elliott Preston:

I'm not sure of the state of gay rights in Australia. I think they differ to those in most of America. I have no clue though.

In terms of homosexual couples, here in Australia they receive the same benefits and are recognised the same as heterosexual couples. Although I think this is a relatively new thing. I believe we still have a way to go in Australia before we can truly say we accept LGBT people as a country. We don't have same sex marriage, obviously, but in Tasmania and I think the ACT and Vic homosexuals can have a legal union of sorts.

That's a steo forward I guess. :)

An openly gay senior girl wore a tux for her senior picture to be put in the school annual.
The school is refusing to put the picture in the yearbook because her outfit is innappropriate.
It's pretty fucking disgusting and ignorant, if you ask me.
I'm posting about it here because I think it fits and I don't think it needs it's own topic.
Article here.

druscilla in white.:

An openly gay senior girl wore a tux for her senior picture to be put in the school annual.
The school is refusing to put the picture in the yearbook because her outfit is innappropriate.
It's pretty fucking disgusting and ignorant, if you ask me.
I'm posting about it here because I think it fits and I don't think it needs it's own topic.
Article here.

I'm confused.

Is she being barred because she's wearing a tux or because it's a gay girl in a tux? Either way, it's silly and doesn't make a difference. A tux is not indecent, skimpy or inappropriate in any way.

druscilla in white.:

An openly gay senior girl wore a tux for her senior picture to be put in the school annual.
The school is refusing to put the picture in the yearbook because her outfit is innappropriate.
It's pretty fucking disgusting and ignorant, if you ask me.
I'm posting about it here because I think it fits and I don't think it needs it's own topic.
Article here.

That's ridiculous. She should be able to wear whatever she wants! It's a free country! My goodness! She should sue them...

Joe Jonas:

That's ridiculous. She should be able to wear whatever she wants! It's a free country! My goodness! She should sue them...

She is.
They're going to court and claiming it violates her first amendment rights and they have precedent. That's all in the article.

druscilla in white.:

She is.
They're going to court and claiming it violates her first amendment rights and they have precedent. That's all in the article.

Ah, okay, good. I just read the post about it. I'm glad she is. I'm rooting for her.

Mike Dirnt.:

I'm confused.

Is she being barred because she's wearing a tux or because it's a gay girl in a tux? Either way, it's silly and doesn't make a difference. A tux is not indecent, skimpy or inappropriate in any way.

The school refuses to return comment.
So it's essentially speculation.
They said it was inappropriate.
When people dug into it all they could find out was that the girl is openly gay.
So they put two and two together...

Bardot.:

In terms of homosexual couples, here in Australia they receive the same benefits and are recognised the same as heterosexual couples. Although I think this is a relatively new thing. I believe we still have a way to go in Australia before we can truly say we accept LGBT people as a country. We don't have same sex marriage, obviously, but in Tasmania and I think the ACT and Vic homosexuals can have a legal union of sorts.

Not anymore, obviously. But being a homosexual used to be illegal in Tasmania.

^Being homosexual used to be illegal pretty much everywhere in Australia...

Only six years ago did the United States agree that it wasn't illegal for men to have sex in the fourteen states that still considered it a crime. ("Sodomy laws".) Lawrence vs. Texas, if you want to look it up.

Mike Dirnt.:

I'm confused.

Is she being barred because she's wearing a tux or because it's a gay girl in a tux? Either way, it's silly and doesn't make a difference. A tux is not indecent, skimpy or inappropriate in any way.

Do you think it would be more or less acceptable for a straight girl to wear a tux?
I think it would be exactly the same, there would still be this outdated and restrictive idea on gender. It's similarly 'unacceptable' for a straight man to wear a dress, it wouldn't be more or less so if he was gay. People who subvert perceptions on gender generally are treated badly regardless of sexuality. So whilst sexuality obviously plays a part, I think gender roles (and sticking to them in a ridiculously rigid manner) is the biggest issue here.

Bluntly, I think that homosexuals do not receive the same rights as heterosexuals, which is wrong.
In America, your unalienable rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Gay people do not receive these 3 rights that are unalienable because they are restricted on their rights to marriage.

Permitting homosexuals the privilege of having civil unions is a good first step, but I'm sure that many people aren't satisfied with this.

--This is really not the place I planned to put this. Please ignore--

Adam Gontier.:

Bluntly, I think that homosexuals do not receive the same rights as heterosexuals, which is wrong.
In America, your unalienable rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Gay people do not receive these 3 rights that are unalienable because they are restricted on their rights to marriage.

Permitting homosexuals the privilege of having civil unions is a good first step, but I'm sure that many people aren't satisfied with this.

Not that I don't agree with what you are saying, but homosexuals are- theorectically- given those rights. They have a right to live, they have a right to liberty which are the freedoms of speech, petition, religion, etc etc, and have the right to the persuit of happiness, but not guarenteed happiness. Which is a cruel kind of play with words.

As Harvey Milk a gay right activist in California said in a speech that it says in the Declaration of Independence that All Men Are Creative Equal So that means Gay, Straight, Black, White, Jewish, Catholic, Muslim what ever have the right to have their natural rights.

Around the time proposition 9 came out in California and was passed I had just started doing research on Harvey Milk and I was shocked that after everything they fought for, for gay rights protection in California that this law was passed. It's unfair that this group of people that make as equal of a contribution to society are prevented from civil union because of their way of love.

It basically contradicts on the line that all men are created equal. If you want to keep their word in the Declaration of Independence then let them have the same rights as we do.

I think the argument the other side uses is that marriage isn't a "right".

But wouldnt marriage fall under the pursuit of happiness an inalienable right?