Equal rights for...

[hemybel]

ehem... you know what? I agree that we (including the politicians) should all fight for the equal rights of Women, by helping them... raising funds for them, I also agree that we should all fight for the equal rights of the elderly, disabled and children, raising funds for them... making laws for them.... treating them better, so that they may be equal with us... but EQUAL RIGHTS FOR THE HOMOSEXUALS??? :lol: I'm not against them you know... they are people too... and I know some of them who are nice to me... but... they are not disabled.... I just can't understand it.... I've seen Clinton's speech in TV about homosexuals... that's why...

what can you say?

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 10:05 PM
I'm not against them you know... they are people too...
Yes, exactly. And all people should have equal rights. What's so hard to understand about that?

[Tormented by Treachery]

If the issue youre talking about is the one that is raging here, locally, let me explain:

If you fire a woman from a job because she is a woman, you can get sued by her for discrimination. If you fire a homosexual from a job because he or she is a homosexual, the law currently doesn't allow him or her to sue you.

They aren't disabled, but neither are women or minorities, so why do they get laws specifically placed to protect their rigths? Why shouldn't homosexuals?

I'm all for it. Gay marriage, protecting their rights, etc.

[commiecrusader]

Originally posted by Tormented by [email protected] 20 2006, 03:33 PM
If the issue youre talking about is the one that is raging here, locally, let me explain:

If you fire a woman from a job because she is a woman, you can get sued by her for discrimination. If you fire a homosexual from a job because he or she is a homosexual, the law currently doesn't allow him or her to sue you.

They aren't disabled, but neither are women or minorities, so why do they get laws specifically placed to protect their rigths? Why shouldn't homosexuals?

I'm all for it. Gay marriage, protecting their rights, etc.
I agree entirely with the above statement. It's not about them being at a physical or mental disadvantage, but at the moment, homosexuals are disadvantaged socially because of widely held prejudices in the global society.

[VonClausewitz]

Are there any recorded instances of someone loosing a job solely because they're gay ?

Loosing a job because you are incompetant and gay doesn't give you the right to cry oppression really.

Just curious, I'm not very big on the minutae of company goings-on.

[Kittie Rose]

I know you can loose your job for being transsexual. Even transsexuals I know support htis they've had corporate supremity drilled into their brains so much. Doesn't happen here in Europe though, AFAIK.

[Columbia]

Not all nations are a free and fair as the United States. It's just a fact of life. It's why people by the millions have risked it all to come here year after year. You don't see millions of people trying to emegrate to Cuba or Venezuela.

[Tormented by Treachery]

Hey Columbia, don't be generalizing too much. I live in Maine, and there've been lawsuits in the state.

VonClausewitz, I agree that if you constantly show up late and are gay and you get fired, you have no case. But if the homosexual sued, the case would be laughed out of court because of the obvious idiocy involved. Remember, the burden of proof lies on the prosecutor, and thus if there is even reasonable doubt as to the reason of termination, the defendant is innocent, duh. :-P . But to answer your question, yes, it does happen. The only real way someone could get nailed on this is if a remark was made and recorded like "That fag isn't going to work here!" or something.

[Columbia]

Hey Columbia, don't be generalizing too much. I live in Maine, and there've been lawsuits in the state.

Am I supposed to understand what this means?

[CubaSocialista]

*REACTIONARY POST REMOVED*


I am extremely sorry for this, it was in poor taste. Due to personal experiences, (the homosexuals that I know personally)I have come to attribute their assinine attitudes to all homosexuals. That was wrong.

I am very sorry.

[Sentinel]

Originally posted by CubaSocialista
Let them do what they want, but they ought to keep their flamboyant, ridiculous culture with them.

Wow! Please don't call yourself a socialist in public. Do me that favor.


You dont see people forcing "straight sex" on people.

I presume you by "straight sex" mean "straight culture" ? It's forced upon homosexuals
every day. That kind of behavior is called homophobic.


I dont care for gays.

No, you are a homophobe, see? You have no place in the leftist movement. We don't want you and we don't need you. :angry:

I feel sorry for you.

[boosh logic]

I don't think he's a homophobe, e.g. I could say I don't care for swimming - doesn't mean I've got anything against it, just that I'm not interested. His arguement seems to be just stereotypical though - "flamboyant culture"? I don't understand how a culture that is systematically ridiculed and rejected by society can be described as flamboyant.

Straight sex is everywhere - movies, magazines, tv, the list is endless. Apart from the recent film Brokeback Mountain, homosexuality isn't exactly as mainstream as heterosexuality, and that film isn't even about sex, it's about two men who love each other.

[Sentinel]

I say his post was both homophobic and ..ridiculous when contradicting itself.

He first said:


Let them do what they want, but they ought to keep their flamboyant, ridiculous culture with them.

Which means: they should strive to look like straight people in public and not show that they are gay by acting "flamboyant."

And then:


You dont see people forcing "straight sex" on people.

Which, of course, this very post attempts to do.


Originally posted by boosh logic
Straight sex is everywhere - movies, magazines, tv, the list is endless.

Yes. But some people don't realise this, since they consider straight culture "normal"
and gay culture something unnatural and "flamboyant and ridiculous". Which is pure homophobia.

This always gets me really mad.. grr...

[KC]

Homosexuals should be ignored. Just ignored. Let them do what they want, but they ought to keep their flamboyant, ridiculous culture with them. You dont see people forcing "straight sex" on people.


Not all gay people are "flamboyant". In fact, the majority of gay/bisexual people I've met are completely normal people. To generalize about homosexuals like that is a really stupid and immature thing to do.


I don't understand how a culture that is systematically ridiculed and rejected by society can be described as flamboyant.

I think he's talking about the stereotypical homosexual. Apparently he thinks that all gay people are alike in that respect, which is completely wrong.




Which means: they should strive to look like straight people in public and not show that they are gay by acting "flamboyant."

Not all gay people act that way.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 02:03 AM
they ought to keep their flamboyant, ridiculous culture with them.
If that is your true standpoint, then you can bloody well go away. We don't want your poisonous, homophobic, anti-communist shit here.

[Sentinel]

Originally posted by Lazar
Not all gay people act that way.

Of course not :lol:

I just said that he thinks so. The ignorant fool.. :angry:

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Originally posted by CubaSocialista+Jan 26 2006, 03:03 AM--> (CubaSocialista @ Jan 26 2006, 03:03 AM)
[email protected] 20 2006, 04:08 AM
ehem... you know what? I agree that we (including the politicians) should all fight for the equal rights of Women, by helping them... raising funds for them, I also agree that we should all fight for the equal rights of the elderly, disabled and children, raising funds for them... making laws for them.... treating them better, so that they may be equal with us... but EQUAL RIGHTS FOR THE HOMOSEXUALS??? :lol: I'm not against them you know... they are people too... and I know some of them who are nice to me... but... they are not disabled.... I just can't understand it.... I've seen Clinton's speech in TV about homosexuals... that's why...

what can you say?
Homosexuals should be ignored. Just ignored. Let them do what they want, but they ought to keep their flamboyant, ridiculous culture with them. You dont see people forcing "straight sex" on people.

I dont care for gays. [/b]
I don't care for homophobes. Fuck off.

[Sentinel]

About hemybel's original post:


but EQUAL RIGHTS FOR THE HOMOSEXUALS??? laugh.gif I'm not against them you know... they are people too... and I know some of them who are nice to me... but... they are not disabled.... I just can't understand it....

You sure must live in a barrel or something if you haven't noticed how gays are persecuted in the society.

Some of them are nice to you? Patient guys. :lol:


I've seen Clinton's speech in TV about homosexuals...

I haven't, so tell us what he said? Not that I really have much hope that anything
valuable for the beaten down ever came from that asshole's mouth.

[Columbia]

I am a bit unclear about the exect concept of this thread.

But I'll wiegh in for kicks:

I have no problem with homosexuality, and believe sex is very simple and complex at the same time.

I suppose that most people who don't want them on their employement team insure they don't get hired from day one.

Also, it's not easy to prove someone was fired because they were female, Jewish, homosexual, etc. They have the burden of proof to show the employer discriminated against them. And the threat of such a low suit often brings a settlement rather than a court battle.

Right now, I have a friend who's business contracted a woman to do X wants to fire her becuase she's incompetent. But she told them she would sue for her being a woman if they fired her, even thought eh contract allowed for early termination. so these things happen on both ends I suppose.

I only find the women's movement (which I support fully) having some members calling themselves "wymen" silly. What a joke. It really doesn't DO anything.

[Sentinel]

I suppose that most people who don't want them on their employement team insure they don't get hired from day one.

But what if the employer didn't know that they were that from day one? Most homosexuals don't have "I AM GAY" printed on their foreheads. :lol:

And asking people right on about their sexual preferences in an interview would be considered outrageous discrimination almost everywhere.


Also, it's not easy to prove someone was fired because they were female, Jewish, homosexual, etc. They have the burden of proof to show the employer discriminated against them.

And because of this, dicrimination shouldn't be legislated against? Is that what you mean? I don't see your point here.


Right now, I have a friend who's business contracted a woman to do X wants to fire her becuase she's incompetent. But she told them she would sue for her being a woman if they fired her, even thought eh contract allowed for early termination. so these things happen on both ends I suppose.

It is of course unfortunate that laws can be abused, but they are still very necessary.
That's why the courts exist, to look into individual cases.

[CubaSocialista]

Foot out of mouth.


That was completely unnecessary and very reactionary. I apologize for that post.

[boosh logic]

The Sentinel, to quote you from way back;

and gay culture something unnatural and "flamboyant and ridiculous". Which is pure homophobia.

This always gets me really mad.. grr...



I don't think this is neccessarily homophobia, as although it is criticising the culture as well as generalising, I don't think they were saying they hated homosexuals. Besides that though, I agree with what you said.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 05:08 AM
ehem... you know what? I agree that we (including the politicians) should all fight for the equal rights of Women, by helping them... raising funds for them, I also agree that we should all fight for the equal rights of the elderly, disabled and children, raising funds for them... making laws for them.... treating them better, so that they may be equal with us... but EQUAL RIGHTS FOR THE HOMOSEXUALS??? :lol: I'm not against them you know... they are people too... and I know some of them who are nice to me... but... they are not disabled.... I just can't understand it.... I've seen Clinton's speech in TV about homosexuals... that's why...

what can you say?
Why did you make this thread? Why did you feel it necessary to say all of this to complete strangers on a message board?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by boosh [email protected] 27 2006, 05:40 PM
I don't think this is neccessarily homophobia
Oppression is a very nuanced attitude, fear and violence against sections of society that fall outside of the status quo.

Homophobia, just like all forms of oppression comes in many different ways. Our attitudes have been shaped by those who control it. Our history and attitude towards things we dislike has happened over decades or centuries, if not millenia.

Oppression is not as straight forward as simple "hate", it is engrained much deeper into our actions, our language, our culture, our understandings and even our willingness to learn.

It seems to me that you just think saying "I hate homosexuals" or "I want to murder all homosexuals" is what quantifies homophobia. That's simply not the case.

Any attitude or conseuqnce of existence which maintains status quo dominance over a persecuted section of society is oppression: Homophobia included.

What the Cuban said was not overt homophobia, but it still played to a stereotypical, mainstream idea about homosexuals which serves to protect the dominance of the status quo.

He may not have been conscious of it, we usually never are consious of it because it's so fundamentally engrained in our existance, but it was homophobia nevertheless.

[CubaSocialista]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+Jan 27 2006, 05:56 PM--> (The Anarchist Tension @ Jan 27 2006, 05:56 PM)
boosh [email protected] 27 2006, 05:40 PM
I don't think this is neccessarily homophobia
Oppression is a very nuanced attitude, fear and violence against sections of society that fall outside of the status quo.

Homophobia, just like all forms of oppression comes in many different ways. Our attitudes have been shaped by those who control it. Our history and attitude towards things we dislike has happened over decades or centuries, if not millenia.

Oppression is not as straight forward as simple "hate", it is engrained much deeper into our actions, our language, our culture, our understandings and even our willingness to learn.

It seems to me that you just think saying "I hate homosexuals" or "I want to murder all homosexuals" is what quantifies homophobia. That's simply not the case.

Any attitude or conseuqnce of existence which maintains status quo dominance over a persecuted section of society is oppression: Homophobia included.

What the Cuban said was not overt homophobia, but it still played to a stereotypical, mainstream idea about homosexuals which serves to protect the dominance of the status quo.

He may not have been conscious of it, we usually never are consious of it because it's so fundamentally engrained in our existance, but it was homophobia nevertheless. [/b]
Probably.

I was at a leftist protest, and these homosexual militants dressed in rainbow colors, dresses, lipstick, ridiculous wigs... People were laughing at us when we protested. They made us look like clowns.

Ever since I've had that ingrained angst...I'm sorry I applied it in such a broad manner.

[Free Palestine]

Homosexuals should be ignored. Just ignored. Let them do what they want, but they ought to keep their flamboyant, ridiculous culture with them. You dont see people forcing "straight sex" on people.

Your idea of "flamboyant" being anyone courageous enough to admit openly that they are gay? So the "normal' ones must be the ones too afraid to come out of the closet because of people like you right? You like those don't you? The ones you called "normal queers" because you can't tell if they are homosexual or not right? Oh I get it. Your stupidity and blind hatred make perfect sense when you put it that way.

[Tormented by Treachery]

I think we've had enough people break down his post, he apologized three times, I think we can bury the hatchet at this point.

[CubaSocialista]

Originally posted by Free [email protected] 27 2006, 10:06 PM

Homosexuals should be ignored. Just ignored. Let them do what they want, but they ought to keep their flamboyant, ridiculous culture with them. You dont see people forcing "straight sex" on people.

Your idea of "flamboyant" being anyone courageous enough to admit openly that they are gay? So the "normal' ones must be the ones too afraid to come out of the closet because of people like you right? You like those don't you? The ones you called "normal queers" because you can't tell if they are homosexual or not right? Oh I get it. Your stupidity and blind hatred make perfect sense when you put it that way.
I apologized already.

And apparently your problems with blurring the lines between Jews and Zionists makes you level with my own ignorance.

[Seong]

what can you say?

I can say that you see them as alien because you haven't had much contact with them. Fair enough.

As the daughter of a homosexual I'd suggest that you not view 'those people' through the stereotypes placed upon them. My father is not flamboyant, he does not speak like a woman, and he does not do the airkiss thing. He does however, watch Sex & the City. Equal rights for all people, yes gays are people too. I have first hand experience :P

[CubaSocialista]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 05:59 AM

what can you say?

I can say that you see them as alien because you haven't had much contact with them. Fair enough.

As the daughter of a homosexual I'd suggest that you not view 'those people' through the stereotypes placed upon them. My father is not flamboyant, he does not speak like a woman, and he does not do the airkiss thing. He does however, watch Sex & the City. Equal rights for all people, yes gays are people too. I have first hand experience :P
Please do not take what I previously said as a statement with which to measure me, it was the application of a stereotype...

[Seong]

Tis cool. We all think and say stupid things sometimes - it is not the measure of who we are, just a measure of how much we have left to learn. :cool:

[Nietzsche]

How can you talk about rights and all people having rights and then attack people for not liking homosexuals? Isn't that a right, too? As long as homosexuals can lead their lives, there is no problem with people not liking it. You don't have to be straight and you don't have to be gay. And you can hate either one. You can respect their rights without respecting the people themselves.

I have no problem with homosexuals. The more homosexual people there are, the more women there are for me and that's fine. :D

Who and how you f*** is your own private decision. This is not a public issue. I have no right to tell you what to do. And this, of course, includes your sex life.

But everyone is entitled to their opinion (even though not to their own facts). If someone thinks that homosexuals are sick, that's his good right. Compulsory tolerance is a contradiction in terms. "I hereby force you to accept tolerance as an absolute and I am intolerant to non-tolerance." It's ridiculous.

[Sentinel]

Originally posted by Nietzsche
How can you talk about rights and all people having rights and then attack people for not liking homosexuals? Isn't that a right, too

You're just forgetting the fact that we are leftists. We consider all people equal.
Therefore homophobia is unacceptable amongst us. "Disliking" homosexuals is having
prejudices against a large part of the population, it's equally bad as racism.


As long as homosexuals can lead their lives, there is no problem with people not liking it.

That is an outrageusly ignorant and un-leftist statement. And while "privately" disliking homosexuals could still be considered unharmful, when someone say they do out loud, they are making a negative statement against homosexuals and spreading hate.

Completely out of question amongst leftists.

Cubasocialista: It's OK. You made a mistake, but sometimes that's how we learn things. No hurt feelings. :) It was really mature of you to apologize.

[CubaSocialista]

Originally posted by The Sentinel+Jan 30 2006, 02:22 PM--> (The Sentinel @ Jan 30 2006, 02:22 PM)
Nietzsche
How can you talk about rights and all people having rights and then attack people for not liking homosexuals? Isn't that a right, too

You're just forgetting the fact that we are leftists. We consider all people equal.
Therefore homophobia is unacceptable amongst us. "Disliking" homosexuals is having
prejudices against a large part of the population, it's equally bad as racism.


As long as homosexuals can lead their lives, there is no problem with people not liking it.

That is an outrageusly ignorant and un-leftist statement. And while "privately" disliking homosexuals could still be considered unharmful, when someone say they do out loud, they are making a negative statement against homosexuals and spreading hate.

Completely out of question amongst leftists.

Cubasocialista: It's OK. You made a mistake, but sometimes that's how we learn things. No hurt feelings. :) It was really mature of you to apologize. [/b]
That gives me a sense of vindication, thanks.

[Atlas Swallowed]

Laughter its alot better than spit, rocks billyclubs, rubber bullets, tear gas....
It sounds like laughter is what they were going after, lighten up atleast they caught peoples attention.

[Nietzsche]

Originally posted by The Sentinel+Jan 30 2006, 02:22 PM--> (The Sentinel @ Jan 30 2006, 02:22 PM)
Nietzsche
How can you talk about rights and all people having rights and then attack people for not liking homosexuals? Isn't that a right, too

You're just forgetting the fact that we are leftists. We consider all people equal.
Therefore homophobia is unacceptable amongst us. "Disliking" homosexuals is having
prejudices against a large part of the population, it's equally bad as racism.


As long as homosexuals can lead their lives, there is no problem with people not liking it.

That is an outrageusly ignorant and un-leftist statement. And while "privately" disliking homosexuals could still be considered unharmful, when someone say they do out loud, they are making a negative statement against homosexuals and spreading hate.

Completely out of question amongst leftists. [/b]
Who decides which people are good and which are bad? Who forces me to comply? How do you want to make me not think bad about homosexuals?

Why is disliking homosexuals prejudice and liking homosexuals not?
Both is a prejudice, the one negative, the other positive. It's like trying to kill blonde-jokes by proving that blondes are more intelligent. You accept the basis of the prejudice by fighting it.

While you try to force-feed everyone a positive prejudice, I just allow people to think on their own.

You don't end racism by turning it the other way around. In fact, this way you just perpetuate it.

And why hate intolerant people? Isn't that intolerant?

You are really contradicting yourself.

This has nothing to do with left or right or whatever. It's just a matter of common sense to me.

Another thing: Why is it prejudice?

And if you are all so tolerant, why am I a restricted member, then? Isn't that discrimination? I have nothing against that. This is a left-wing forum and I accept your rights here. But you contradict yourself. Ahh, all this really makes me laugh. :lol:

[boosh logic]

Why is disliking homosexuals prejudice and liking homosexuals not?


They are both prejudice (if you mean liking homos more than heteros), but that is not what is being asked. Equality is what is needed, not liking one more than the other based on pre-conceptions. Abandon all predetermined views of people from races, cultures and orientations.

No-one said you should like homos more than heteros, or vice versa, but that you shouldn't pre-decide wether you like someone based on their sexual stance.

[Nietzsche]

Originally posted by boosh [email protected] 30 2006, 11:07 PM
They are both prejudice (if you mean liking homos more than heteros), but that is not what is being asked. Equality is what is needed, not liking one more than the other based on pre-conceptions. Abandon all predetermined views of people from races, cultures and orientations.

No-one said you should like homos more than heteros, or vice versa, but that you shouldn't pre-decide wether you like someone based on their sexual stance.
I couldn't agree more. It's stupid beyond belief to do so. But I don't think that you can end stupidity simply by force. You will have people parroting that they don't care whether someone is gay or not and still believing that gay people suck.

I just don't think that helps. It just makes things worse.

You can educate people, but you can't force them. Well, actually you can, but it doesn't help. :D

This will lead to people hating gay people even more.

As usual, I agree with most of your goals, but I disagree completely with your means, which - apart from being immoral by themselves - just make matters worse instead of improving them. It's sad and ironic.

All this pro-gay crap is what stirs that strong anti-gay reaction in the first place. Even I get sick of it, and I have nothing against gay people.

[commiecrusader]

All this pro-gay crap is what stirs that strong anti-gay reaction in the first place. Even I get sick of it, and I have nothing against gay people.
No it's not. Lack of experience is what stirs up all this hate. People think that just because a man/woman is gay it makes them into a cockicidal/vaginicidal maniac that will fuck you their way whatever you think to the idea. This is just plain wrong. Gay people are no different to straight people. You get camp straight people, flamboyant straight people, introverted gay people, there is no applicable stereotype for a gay or straight person of either sex. People who are anti-gay haven't experienced this fact, or are indoctrinated by bullshit from centuries old means of control like the bible.

[Nietzsche]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2006, 04:37 PM
No it's not. Lack of experience is what stirs up all this hate. People think that just because a man/woman is gay it makes them into a cockicidal/vaginicidal maniac that will fuck you their way whatever you think to the idea.
Whew. I never heard that one. I used to think that people just see it as sick and unnatural to have intercourse with the same sex. That the basic anti-gay feeling has other roots, I agree. But the strong responses are reactions to the stupid plot to make being gay a "cool thing".

[Sentinel]

But the strong responses are reactions to the stupid plot to make being gay a "cool thing".

These "strong responses" are called reaction against progress.
Reactionary thinking has no chance against the rolling wheels of history.

Progress will always prevail.

This kind of reaction differs in no way from the reaction against secularisation of society, the workers rights movement, feminism etc.
How being gay becoming "cool" is progress? Read my posts in this thread:

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=45277

[Nietzsche]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 31 2006, 07:47 PM

But the strong responses are reactions to the stupid plot to make being gay a "cool thing".

These "strong responses" are called reaction against progress.
Reactionary thinking has no chance against the rolling wheels of history.

Progress will always prevail.

This kind of reaction differs in no way from the reaction against secularisation of society, the workers rights movement, feminism etc.
How being gay becoming "cool" is progress? Read my posts in this thread:

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=45277
I agree that all this "gay is cool"-stuff is in part a plot to make money from the gay subculture. But it is supported by people who think they were fighting prejudice. In the end, as usual, reason will win (you called it progress, I agree) and nobody will care whether someone is gay or not. Maybe this stupid transition period is needed.

But that doesn't help: It still pisses me off. :D

The more interesting question is: We had women, we had gay people, ...
who's next?

[CubaSocialista]

Originally posted by Nietzsche+Feb 1 2006, 07:41 PM--> (Nietzsche @ Feb 1 2006, 07:41 PM)
The [email protected] 31 2006, 07:47 PM

But the strong responses are reactions to the stupid plot to make being gay a "cool thing".

These "strong responses" are called reaction against progress.
Reactionary thinking has no chance against the rolling wheels of history.

Progress will always prevail.

This kind of reaction differs in no way from the reaction against secularisation of society, the workers rights movement, feminism etc.
How being gay becoming "cool" is progress? Read my posts in this thread:

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=45277
I agree that all this "gay is cool"-stuff is in part a plot to make money from the gay subculture. But it is supported by people who think they were fighting prejudice. In the end, as usual, reason will win (you called it progress, I agree) and nobody will care whether someone is gay or not. Maybe this stupid transition period is needed.

But that doesn't help: It still pisses me off. :D

The more interesting question is: We had women, we had gay people, ...
who's next? [/b]
Well, a right winger would employ the slippery slope argument saying "Well, if men can marry, soon people will be marrying animals and inanimate objects, and it'll go to extremes, we'll never know where to draw the line."

Of course, it's rightist exaggeration, but it's the homophobic argument we're most used to hearing.

I'm still trying to find a better rebuttal against it.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 02:41 PM
The more interesting question is: We had women, we had gay people, ...
who's next?
Maybe we could liberate the working class entirely (that would solve many problems) :hammer:

[Atlas Swallowed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 08:45 PM


I'm still trying to find a better rebuttal against it.
Male right wingers have been fucking female sheep for hundreds of years. It will not be our side that pushes for inter-species marrige.

[Tormented by Treachery]

Originally posted by 313C7 [email protected] 1 2006, 08:50 PM
Maybe we could liberate the working class entirely (that would solve many problems) :hammer:
I agree.

Beastiality is a commonly pushed smear, aimed at nothing more than trying to discredit something completely unrelated.

[Nietzsche]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 08:45 PM
a right winger would employ the slippery slope argument saying "Well, if men can marry, soon people will be marrying animals and inanimate objects, and it'll go to extremes, we'll never know where to draw the line."

Of course, it's rightist exaggeration, but it's the homophobic argument we're most used to hearing.

I'm still trying to find a better rebuttal against it.
Well, at least a religious nutcase would. Not everyone opposing government controls is religious. ;)

How about this rebuttal:

"Maybe. So what! Mind your own business."

At least that's what I would answer. :D

What's the use of marriage anyway besides any religious issues?

It's just that when you break up (divorce) there is a legal fight about the property.
That's all. Well, okay, you have a big party, too.

For a real argument:

Neither animals nor objects have any property rights. Therefore marriage only makes sense for human beings in the first place. All the legal stuff going on when you marry can't be done with animals or things. That's why you can't "officially" marry them. Gay people are still human and have human rights and can therefore enter a marriage contract. Dogs can't do that and neither can a piece of pie.

Maybe that can help you. :)

[boosh logic]

Plus there is the fact that no animal (except maybe a parrot) can say "I do". ;)

[Ol' Dirty]

Equal rights for all. All I have to say.

[hemybel]

Originally posted by Severian+Jan 20 2006, 08:07 AM--> (Severian @ Jan 20 2006, 08:07 AM)
[email protected] 19 2006, 10:05 PM
I'm not against them you know... they are people too...
Yes, exactly. And all people should have equal rights. What's so hard to understand about that? [/b]
well for me what i meant is this... yes they should be treated like ordinary men... because if you gave them special treatment... you know.. like women, elderly and children should not go to war... don't include them there.... they are not that weak or disabled...

[Sentinel]

well for me what i meant is this... yes they should be treated like ordinary men... because if you gave them special treatment... you know.. like women, elderly and children should not go to war... don't include them there.... they are not that weak or disabled...

I wasn't aware that the gay rights movement was trying to get gays exemption from conscription? Is that so where you live? That's not the point though.

Gay rights activism is not about getting "special treatment". It's about being considered equal to all, something that isn't the case in large parts of the world, and you know it! What's the purpose of this bullshit thread?

And no, we are not "that weak or disabled". I'm bisexual and did my military service in Finland -98 and it worked out just fine. And I'd be happy to join a just war, say a revolution against religious cappies, any day. ;)

[Tormented by Treachery]

The homophobic people wanted the military to not allow homosexuals to serve, so who exactly is pushing this?