Senator Obama's Open Letter to the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered (LGBT) Community (1 Viewer)

[V Chip]

I do too. I just don't think people ought to become a protected class based on behavior.

I totally agree, which is why I discriminate against religous people on a daily basis. They made that choice, so I make my choice to deny them their humanity! When they file out of their churches/synogogues/strip mall meeting places, I fling monkey feces on them, saying "your behavior doesn't make you a protected class!! LOLOLROFLICIOUS!"

:dunno:

 

[Pure Energy]

This is exactly the point I had tried to make last night but the board was bogging down.

As BD noted, the above statement isn't true. I don't know where you heard that but it would mean that either boys comprise the majority of victims -- and research disputes that -- or that girls are far more likely to be molested by women, which isn't true.

You and BD are correct. In my attempt to sanitize and make that post less potentially inflammatory, the post lost context and as I read it today is inaccurate. The point I wanted to focus on is for people to do their own research and come to their own conclusions and not simply limit themselves to the mainstream media.

To St dude's point, there are two posts that I consider less than civil already in this thread, and I didn't want that to escalate that by posting links to research that people won't buy into if it conflicts with their position on the topic.

 

[DavidM]

You and BD are correct. In my attempt to sanitize and make that post less potentially inflammatory, the post lost context and as I read it today is inaccurate.

One consideration is that you were confusing statistics about same-gender molestation against boys, not all children. In that case, you would have been correct. A statistic I saw was that over 90% of boys who have reported being molested were victimized by a man. Among female victims, about 7% were molested by women.

As to the sexual orientation of molesters, as one abuse site posed on the topic, it's most often a crime of opportunity and not preference. Most children are abused by somebody they know.

 

[Taurus]

I totally agree, which is why I discriminate against religous people on a daily basis. They made that choice, so I make my choice to deny them their humanity! When they file out of their churches/synogogues/strip mall meeting places, I fling monkey feces on them, saying "your behavior doesn't make you a protected class!! LOLOLROFLICIOUS!"

:dunno:

Beautiful.

 

[Richard]

>>I do too. I just don't think people ought to become a protected class based on behavior.

If that behavior is legal, should they possibly be discriminated against or should laws be allowed to antagonize them based on hate or predjudice?

TPS

I think you know my position on these matters, but in case you have forgotten, I will elaborate after I answer your questions as worded. People are discriminated against all of the time for various reasons or conditions. But without putting too fine a point on it, discrimination against homosexuals is not always clearly defined, not should it be in some cases. Many situations in which they are considered to be discriminated against are unlawful without regard to that persons sexual habits. Most of the cases we hear about are in relation to housing, although I believe them to be few and isolated. But if a landlord chooses not to rent to someone based on any behavior, whether it is someone's personal sexual habits (homosexual or heterosexual) or some other factor that leads the landlord to believe he/she would rather not rent to them, I side with the landlord. Should we make smokers a protected class, so they don't face discrimination in housing or hiring decisions? IMHO, a person who owns property or a business has the right to hire whom they choose or rent to whom they choose, without government interference. A person is not entitled to special consideration due to any behavior.

I don't know how you made the jump to laws being "allowed to antagonize them based on hate or prejudice," so I don't know what you are referring to. Most anti-sodomy laws are either "off the books" or ignored at this point. You should know by now that I do not hate people who practice homosexuality, nor do I believe someone should be mistreated for this behavior, but that has little or no bearing on making homosexuals a protected class. Granting special status to a behavior has no precedent I am aware of and has no societal benefit I can discern. This is and always has been about acceptance of the behavior as mainstream, or "normal," -- always has been.

I totally agree, which is why I discriminate against religous people on a daily basis. They made that choice, so I make my choice to deny them their humanity! When they file out of their churches/synogogues/strip mall meeting places, I fling monkey feces on them, saying "your behavior doesn't make you a protected class!! LOLOLROFLICIOUS!"

:dunno:

I was about to agree with your right to "discriminate"/dislike or speak against religious people on a daily basis, until I read your "monkey feces" statement. You are free think what you will of anyone. Make no difference to me. You are apparently trying to be clever with your feces statement, as if homosexuals constantly live in fear of such actions. Don't give me some isolated occurrences and try to paint them as commonplace. Do some homosexuals face unpleasant situations? Certainly. But the cases you and others like to point to are covered under current law. It would be unlawful to throw feces or otherwise assault someone, so there is no need for some manufactured government dispensation.

But go ahead and try to paint me a some kind of hate-monger, homophobe. Few people are as intolerant as someone who sees themselves as enlightened, then demands that others think as they do.

 

[Richard]

One other thing. My policy has become not to involve myself in threads about homosexuality when child molestation becomes part of the thread. I broke that policy to reply to two comments, but IMHO discussions about child molestation have no place in a discussion primarily about homosexuality. I also think we have kind of threadjacked here, since the thread was about Obama's letter, but I suppose it was inevitable.

 

[Taurus]

He's referring to the practice of religion being totally a choice, Richard. Yet religion is a hugely protected class. So your argument is down in flames before leaving the launchpad. If you own an apartment building and are stupid enough to come out and say you won't rent to Jews, you will lose the resulting suit faster than you can say "D'oh!"

 

[DMaestro]

If you own an apartment building and are stupid enough to come out and say you won't rent to Jews, you will lose the resulting suit faster than you can say "D'oh!"

Maybe the argument is that it shouldn't be that way, regardless of what choice has been made.

 

[Richard]

He's referring to the practice of religion being totally a choice, Richard. Yet religion is a hugely protected class. So your argument is down in flames before leaving the launchpad. If you own an apartment building and are stupid enough to come out and say you won't rent to Jews, you will lose the resulting suit faster than you can say "D'oh!"

Oops. Nevermind.

As you know, I don't think organized religion should be tax-exempt either, unless they can prove societal interest as with any charity.

 

[V Chip]

I was about to agree with your right to "discriminate"/dislike or speak against religious people on a daily basis, until I read your "monkey feces" statement. You are free think what you will of anyone. Make no difference to me. You are apparently trying to be clever with your feces statement, as if homosexuals constantly live in fear of such actions. Don't give me some isolated occurrences and try to paint them as commonplace. Do some homosexuals face unpleasant situations? Certainly. But the cases you and others like to point to are covered under current law. It would be unlawful to throw feces or otherwise assault someone, so there is no need for some manufactured government dispensation.

But go ahead and try to paint me a some kind of hate-monger, homophobe. Few people are as intolerant as someone who sees themselves as enlightened, then demands that others think as they do.

I wasn't trying to paint you as a homophobe. I think Taurus covered my point, but I just wanted to make sure you heard me saying it/verifying it.

(The monkey feces wasn't trying to be clever, it was trying to be silly.)

 

[Richard]

I wasn't trying to paint you as a homophobe. I think Taurus covered my point, but I just wanted to make sure you heard me saying it/verifying it.

(The monkey feces wasn't trying to be clever, it was trying to be silly.)

Again, mea culpa, my bad, so sorry.

 

[Hoyasaint]

Again, mea culpa, my bad, so sorry.

Stop admitting mistakes and engaging in rational conversations. ITS NOT THE EE way as of late

Dads: You mentioned that you are against marriage for gays, etc because of the man and woman definition and ability to procreate.

Are you equally opposed to civil unions that would essentially provide the same benefits and negative implications as marriage, socially, economically, etc but are not restricted to male and female relationships?

Sorry if you answered that but I didn't see it

 

[saintnsane]

Just another reason for me not to vote for the man.

 

[Pure Energy]

One consideration is that you were confusing statistics about same-gender molestation against boys, not all children. In that case, you would have been correct. A statistic I saw was that over 90% of boys who have reported being molested were victimized by a man. Among female victims, about 7% were molested by women.

Thank you for clarifying my point. It went a bit offtrack as I removed the labels that were included in the research.

 

[DadsDream]

Stop admitting mistakes and engaging in rational conversations. ITS NOT THE EE way as of late

Dads: You mentioned that you are against marriage for gays, etc because of the man and woman definition and ability to procreate.

Are you equally opposed to civil unions that would essentially provide the same benefits and negative implications as marriage, socially, economically, etc but are not restricted to male and female relationships?

Sorry if you answered that but I didn't see it

Civil unions are fine by me. Then, let the state jurisdictions get to decide what's what.

See, to me, you're expanding the very definition of the term "marriage" when you include same-sex unions under that word. Moreover, same sex unions usually do not bear the additional costs associated with a marriage.

Granting same-sex couples the exact same breaks which were given to married heterosexuals because of children is giving away something for nothing, other than political correctness, in my view.

Daughter #3 ran up an extra $109 in text messaging this month...Daughter #1's car is dying and she wants Dad to co-sign for a new one...Daughter #4 needs an extra $150 going into the senior prom season...Daughter #2 is married, she's Son-in-law #1's problem now, not mine!