When I hear gay rights

....So let me get this strait.....you equate gay rights with pedophilia and criminal activity? i hate to quote but here goes..."No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property..." Its all quite clear people. This is the United States of America and we live by the Constitution NOT by the bible. Some of the founders may have been Christians but they declared this a secular nation.

We once said the same thing about black people, "they want those special rights". Then it was women, "they want those special rights." and now it's gay people, "They want those special rights."

It's not special rights, it's about equal and civil right.

You have the right to marry whom you choose, and if a gay person would have the right to marry who they chose, there is nothing unequal about that.

You said you have read the constitution, then you should be aware that amendments were ADDED to preserve and aid the rights of the minorities I listed.

Article 15, Section 1.
Article 19

America, before only catered to white men. Do you believe it should go back to being that way? I don't. We've taken so many steps forward for civil rights, we just need to take a few more.

If the constitution isn't that hard to understand as you say, then it shouldn't be that hard to understand that gays and pedophiles are not the same. Dumbass.

Your use of the words pedophile and beastiality in your discussion is telling. First there is no scientific connection between being gay and being a pedophile or practicing beastiality. Whereas I'm certain that some gays are pedophiles, I'm equally certain that a larger number of heterosexuals are pedophiles.

Also, gays and lesbians are not seeking "special" rights when they insist on being allowed to marry, rather they are seeking the same rights and financial benefits that you automatically aquire when you are married.

Third, I'm not a geneticist but based on what I've read, being gay or lesbian is predominantly the result of genetics, NOT choice. For them to try to be "straight" would be like asking you to be gay. Think you could do that?

Cet homme est fou et doit être enfermé à jamais!

Sorry dude, but you have a ridiculous and incredibly offensive viewpoint. If you actually expect me, or any one else to take you seriously, then you're dead wrong.

If a woman loves another woman, or a man loves another man, it's not "against the fundamental building blocks of nature". Why? Because they can't make babies together? What about a sterile hetero couple? They just happen to be born without procreation abilities, so therefore they're against the building blocks of nature, and SURELY, if we allow them to marry the foundations of society will crumble and the world will cease to exist and hell will reign on earth.

I'm sick of the liberal "your opinion matters" stance and, "let's treat the wackos with respect" because we can enlighten them. You're obviously so stuck within your own existence, you can't even treat someone else with respect, so why should you get any? Personally, I think we should just publicly ridicule people like you. You deserve it.

"What should we do about it without losing equality?" You mean, how can we treat people differently based on superficial differences without offending a certain group of ignorant wackos? I don't know dude, think about it. No better yet, don't think about it, because you've proven you're incapable of that.

You don't get civil discourse. If that makes you giggle on your side of the screen, then do it. I'm certainly not going to say that your different sense of humor will shatter my own personal existence. I'm strong enough to know that the way you live your life won't effect me, and that's more refreshing than the coffee I'm about to drink!

Tommygun & Bully2: Thanks for the info. I haven't read it yet, but am looking forward to do so.

Also to all others: Let me apologize if my sexual terminology is antiquated. I truly do not mean to be offensive. As we discuss this issue I will have to ask for your forgiveness in advance and please extend the grace to me until my terminology speeds up to what is currently socially acceptable. Thank you, I appreciate your tolerance.

As for the psycho-analyzers...please keep your day jobs. I never had a bad experience with gays and I am happily hetro. I truly hold my worldview under no necessity or compulsion...I just think differently than you and wish to be judged on those merits alone.

Now, back to the issue: 1st, I want to acknowledge this is a hyper-sensitive subject and I desire to treat it respectfully. 2nd, I still wish to have an honest, open, adult discussion of this issue. 3rd, I wish to discuss the civil rights aspect at this time. 4th, I will try to warn you in advance in case of "potential offensive" talk is approaching so you can prepare yourself.

I am in full support of equal rights. But here's where I struggle, I have seen the harm of special interest pushes cause by getting more equality than others (hence, not equal at all). Affirmative Action as an example.

My belief is the current American documents support equal rights. I am currently resistant to amending the Constitution specifically for sexual orientation. Here's why: There's a group that doesn't want to be discriminated against for their sexuality - and it is a valid concern for them. (potential offensive talk coming up...) And, there's a group that distrusts the state of mind of one whose sexuality goes against the fundamental building blocks of nature. - and it is a valid concern for them. (if you're upset now, take a deep breathe) So we have this tension between these two groups. What do we do about it without losing equality?

First, most pedophiles aren't gay. (Have you seen the current TV show which exposes men who try to meet underage girls?) Indeed, hetrosexuals are reported to have a very wide range of sexual interests.
Sexual acts between concenting adults are now legal in the US as of two years ago whenTexas lost it's case against two gay men caught in bed together.
But it's the issue of Civil Rights for gays and other minorities that needs to be considered.

I can not believe you'd compare a gay person to a pedophile or a dog fucker. You deserve to rot in hell.

Hey again, Darino.
I agreed with you on Church and State (I think).

But your distaste of gay civil rights shows your self-centeredness.* OK, neither of us are gay or bi (as much as I know about you, I'm assuming).

What does YOUR opinion about the "sacred" practice of heterosexuality have to do with whether others who are gay or lesbian have their own civil rights to marry, adopt children or keep those by a previous str8t marriage? Or have family health care, or have protection from estate laws?

*If by "special" gay/lesbian rights you mean unjust rights, I would just like to remind you that we have "special rights" already--hetereo rights under many different complicated categories of law. And I, for one, am not arrogant enough to mandate that every person in my country have sex exactly the way I have it or like it. Wouldn't that be totally unwarranted government intrusion into all American bedrooms? Or maybe some of us are once a missionary, always a missionary with the right-winger approach to enjoyment that is no one else's business.

Think about it, and let me know if I misunderstood you. I hope not, Darin.

BTW, what's your position on transgendered people who have a physiological issue with their born sexual anatomy? Don't knee-jerk, anyone?
WHAT DO YOU ACTUALLY KNOW ABOUT IT, and WHAT IF IT HAD HAPPENED TO YOU?

mike

When I hear people argue the Special Rights arguement I go back to what I wrote in my blog a month ago.

"In a case involving Alexander Ruppert, the city of Chicago claims that Rupert is not covered by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution."

"The 14th amendment states: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States: nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” "

"This could make for some interesting legal arguments. Alexander Ruppert is a citizen of the U. S. Which part of that doesn't the city of Chicago understand? As a citzen, that means Chicago cannot abridge his privileges or immunities or deprive life, liberty or property without due process. Chicago, as a legal entity of the State of Illinois may not deny equal protection of the laws. Yet that is exactly what Chicago is trying to do, deprive Alexander Ruppert of equal protection. Why are they trying to do this and under what pretense? Chicago is claiming that gay people are not covered by this amendment."

Special rights? I would think not. We are asking for Equal Rights, not special rights. How can the City of Chicago argue that an illegal alien or a Saudi terrorist has rights in Chicago but a gay man does not? Where are the equal rights? How can a whole City Government be so ignorant and intolerant. I get the same arguement from my Congressperson and no matter how many articles of outright discrimination I send to her, she cannot consider a stance opposite of her bigotted party. When equal rights are not afforded a group then the group needs to be protected, as the Civil Rights Act did in 1964. What is so different now aside from your prejudice? Nothing.

It just goes to show you that even a well thought out explanation is wrong. Gay rights boils down to a simple question: why should I be treated different under the law than someone who is straight? Why should I not be able to marry who I want? Yes, I've read both the Bill of Rights and The Constitution. Both are about protecting the rights of the People. Protecting against such infringements by the state as the state declaring which religion we should practice. Or that we can have a free press, with access to information. Perhaps a fair interpretation is also that the Government can't tell me who I should or should not share my life with.

Hearing "special priviledges" was the same montra for opponents of Civil Rights, the Women's right to vote, the list goes on and on. If GLBT people had the rights you speak to, why are they denied jobs, housing, similar rights to marry and adopt and raise families across this country, this country that bases it's laws on the bill of rights? People who live, not practice or choose, a "lifestyle" that includes connections to a same sex partners are beaten up or pushed around throughout this once great nation. It is time to stop hearing special rights and guarantee free and equal rights to all of our citizens, indpendent of their choice of loves. All of them, period

Dude, you not only come across as ill-informed; but at best, ignorant and unintelligent to go along with your intolerance.. Oh, and maybe even a bit Closeted or in denial ? People really need to get over their unfounded perceptions of Gay people. There are Pedophiles in BOTH camps. it has nothing to do with Gay or Straight -- it has only to do with someone taking advntage of young children - morally wrong in either case.

And I fully agree with Wave ... If we are to be denied Fair and Equal RIGHTS, then quit taxing the hell out of us to send YOUR kids to public schools.

My gaydar went off too...

I'm not sure why you equate gay rights with pedophiles and beastiality, but this indicates you have a negative view of homosexuals, maybe even some self-loathing or projection... maybe you are just 'saying' this stuff to get us to respond?

Get to know a few and/or come out. Did you have a bad experience with a gay person or did someone abuse you?

Gay people (the term 'gay' typically includes Lesbian, Bi and Transgender people) are not asking for special rights, but equal rights and discrimination is discrimination, whether private or public and is not moral or Christian.

What are you afraid of if we have the same rights as married couples? We pay *more* taxes and have less rights, but yet contribute to society -- is that fair? Sounds like you want special rights for just heterosexuals...

Wonder how this fellow equates Gay and Lesbian folk with pedophiles.

For decades, statistics indicate that the high predominance of pedophiles are HETEROSEXUAL.

Hello, Darino...Closet Case!!

In regards to your comment about sexual "preference" I ask you one simple question, if you are in fact heterosexual...when did you CHOSE to be straight? Scientific studies show that homosexuality is a biological trait...not something one decides on his or her own. And if this is the case, as most logical, well-researched people believe, why should anyone have the power to discriminate on any level (especially when opinions and viewpoints are often skewed by religious rhetoric in our "secular" nation)? The same laws and regulations put in place against gay rights and gay marriages are the same type of laws used in the 50's (and pre-50's) against interracial marriages. It's prejudice and discriminatory on all levels and inexcusable.
And remember, the constitution once counted African-Americans as only 3/5 of a person and denied women the right to vote.

you didnt just causaly mention homosexuality bestiality and pedopheilia. you lumped them into the same group and threw down a very steap slippery slope.

You're wrong about how you're interpreting the bill of rights and the constitution and at the same time compleately ignored the declaration of independence. As well as disregarding the rest of the law in the country

Your rights as a person living in the US begin with one thing "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." (additional law as layed out by the constitution ((which is a much longer document than you apperantly have any idea)) details some more rights and dosent others) It has nothing to do with race, creed or sexual orientation, which you repeatedly cite. What you're trying to get at is the EOE Standard created by LBJ nearly 200years later. A standard that nearly all buisnesses follow today.

Pedophelia is against the law. The act of having sex w/ children is wrong w/o any moral ambiguity about it. So is putting children in harms way (Visa vie in the care of a pedophile). I dont know why you chose to compare homosexuals to pedophiles, because there isnt any evidence that the two can be compared.

Doing a job isnt about weather or not you can prescribe to a certain belief. Weather or not my accountant is a satanist, a jew, a catholic bhudist or muslum is unimportant as long as he can add subtract devide multiply file papers and all the other nessceary trates that come with being an accountant. A religious institution (that perscribes to the EOE standard) should take that into account as well.

Gays are not asking for "special" rights our expectation is that we receive the same treatment as everyone else regardless of "male, female, creed, religion or color" or sexual orientation.

Lastly. Laws are made and unmade every day. The constitution which you so dearly hold has had 27 amendments and then some. The whole point of the gay rights debate is that we want the laws changed to reflect us as an equal people with the same rights and protections and headaches as everyone else.

Asking for the same rights that many heterosexual folks take for granted isn't asking much - it's asking for equal rights, not "special" rights.
Common sense should make this very clear.

And, last time I checked, it wasn't 1787.
The values and rights of the constitution can be kept in tact quite easily without inserting Bronze Age ideology into it.

Oh, and though it's already been mentioned, I do have to say something about it;
Even bringing up pedophilia and/or bestiality while talking about gay rights speaks volumes to your narrow viewpoint on homosexuality in general.
How can you speak so assuredly about something you obviously don't know much about in the first place?
It obscures the other points you're trying to make in a most unpleasant manner...it just sounds ignorant.

I've been gay all my life (earliest memory of knowing I was "different" was in 1st grade), and the thought of the pulsing, moist gentiles of a horse, or a slutty two-year-old lying on red satin, makes me want to wretch more than anything else.
"Gay people get it on with baby horses" may not be what you were trying to say, but by bringing it up in this context, you've really damaged your argument, even if I, personally, disagree with your viewpoint anyhow.

PS: Thank you for not Bible-thumping.

Well, since you asked to be corrected if you were wrong, let me be the one to break the news to you - the Supreme Court ruled laws against sodomy unconstitutional several years ago. The particular case the Court ruled upon dealt with sodomy laws in Texas, but the ruling rendered such laws in all states invalid, so they are no longer being enforced and the removal from the books of each state is now just a matter or that state's legislative process. So sodomy laws, like laws against interracial marriage, are now little more than impotent remnants of a by-gone era.

As far as your position advocating discrimination on the basis of religion, the only positive thing I can say on the subject is at least you are consistent in your logic. However, I cannot advocate such a view and neither does our government - institutions which discriminate are ineligible for federal funding under the law and may place any tax exempt status they enjoy at risk as well. Whether the discrimination is based on religion or sexual orientation (a more accurate term than sexual preference), it is discrimination plain and simple. I will have to listen to your video comment again as I could be mistaken, but I was under the impression that you originally stated you were against discrimination based upon religion.

As for your statement that you do not wish shame or guilt upon anyone, when you compare homosexuality with bestiality and pedophilia, your implication that gay men and women are predatory criminals is as clear as it is unfair. If you are sincere in your claims, I am certain you will choose more accurate, less inflammatory examples when making your case. I would also ask that you consider the source of this comparison, as it is a tactic commonly used by opponents of gay rights. Do you really think those who came up with the idea of using bestiality and pedophilia as examples did so innocent of the knowledge that it was an unfair comparison?

Like you, I too believe that everyone should have a right to voice their opinion free of fear of persecution. I also believe that everyone has the right to point out whenever false, misleading or just plain offensive opinions have been made.

I wish no one shaming guilt or to be restrained by a closet. I wish for honest and open discussion about this issue w/o fear of death threats. I will add this, i personally support a mosque or synagog to have the choice NOT to hire a catholic (b/c their religious choice disqualifies them to be a preferred or qualified candidate) without fear of lawsuit. I think they should have right to refuse a catholic's employment and shouldn't be forced to do so. And if a catholic makes a fuss, oh well.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, however I think sodomy in many states is a crime. So having a homosexual preference is not a crime, it would just be the act of homosexual sodomy. But I don't spend a lot of time reading sodomy laws...maybe I should b/c I just became a landlord and my leases make statements against illegal activity...someone please link me some sites to study up on that...

But that's all beside the point. If we see a movement for any type of preferences, they have a right to protest and hold assembly and I'll fight and spend money for their right to do so and not be squelched. However, in reading the bill of rights and the constitution, there appears to be NO special rights for sexual preference.

You're right, Darino - you have to be so careful about offending gay people these days. Not like the good old days when homosexuals knew their place - out of sight, in the closet, tortured by guilt for their sinful ways. But nowadays gay men and women strut around as if they are worthy of respect - it's almost as if they forgot they should be consumed with guilt for being gay.

But you aren't trying to equate homosexuality with pedophilia and bestiality - those are just examples you keep pulling out of the air, right? It's a total coincidence that you and every other person who argues against gay rights these days compares being gay with molesting children or having sex with animals. Never mind that both bestiality and pedophilia are crimes involving the victimization of children or animals and being gay is neither illegal nor does it involve anyone's participation against their will. Anyone who accuses you of repeatedly bringing bestiality and pedophilia into the conversation as an effort to demonize homosexuality, thereby implying that being gay is also a predatory crime, is way off base.

You're just talking about preferences. You know, like religion - that's a preference as well. People choose to practice their religion, whether it be Christianity, Judaism (while most are born ethnically Jewish, whether or not they practice is a conscious decision), Islam, Buddhism, or any other religious "lifestyle". It's a choice based on preference, right? So by your standards, an employer should have the right to deny employment based on a persons sexual preference. But then what is the difference between a "no gays" policy and a "no Catholics" policy? I mean, both are "chosen lifestyles".

Face it, Darino - gay rights aren't special rights, they are equal rights. There isn't any increase in homosexuality, only an increase in the number of homosexuals who are no longer willing to hide the fact that they are gay. Being gay is not a crime and the guilt and shame that kept previous generations in the closet loses its effectiveness with each passing year. As more and more gay men and women come out, it is only natural that they are going to speak up for themselves and stop letting it pass when someone says something offensive or just plain stupid. I fail to see the down side of all of us taking into consideration the feelings of others when we express our opinions.

Dnguyen, please follow the conversation, I was talking about preferences - whether it be for key lime pie, or how we have sex. I was NOT making a moral judgement on those preferences. There seems to be a lot of sensitivity around the gay issue. It feels like I have to walk on eggshells, b/c I might upset somebody - heaven forbid! That doesn't make me feel very accepted. If feels like one just can't talk freely and openly about it for FEAR of offending - why is that?

I can't believe you just equated homosexuals to pedophiles and those who have sex with animals or plants.

Seriously. Listen to yourself.

If you disagree with me, does that mean I automatically have closed eyes or a closed mind? My point with our rights was contrasted with our preferences. I like chocolate pie better than key lime pie, yuk! My point is preferences - whether we want to have sex with a plant, animal or person or eating pies are not guaranteed by this country's documents. As far as having a harder road you must follow, I wish you well - b/c as American's our best moments and discoveries have come out of our struggles. God Speed and thank you for your response.

You carry the constituition and bill of rights with you? Well there's another thing you carry with you... Pure Ignorance.
1. Being gay is not a choice, if it was I would probably choose being heterosexual, because it's easier. And if it was a choice not so many kids commited sucicide because we have to deal with ourselves and with the public discrimination (people like you)!
2. Pedophiles and gay are not the same. Actually most pedophiles are heterossexuals. I explain they have sex (or try to have it) with children, either male or FEMALE!

So be more informed, if you don't understand gay people that's one thing. But don't confuse 2 very distinct things like pedophile's and gay, cause that's pure ignorance! And you're saying: ok men you can have sex with underaged girls, just not with boys!!!

OPEN YOUR EYES! OPEN YOUR MIND!

Yeah, I need some help on the videography. It was my first time with a web cam. A freelance guy wanted my comments for a news group in San Francisco, so a little rushed and unprepared he handed me the thing and said, "Talk". Please share, how is my ideology flawed?

Both your videography and ideology are severely flawed, I suggest you improve upon them.