Homosexuality Discussion Thread #712

[Acim]

I would guess this isn't first time this nuance of the ongoing debate has come up, but I am hoping to isolate a particular point.

My desire for respondents is for you to state if you are "proponent of homosexuality" (rights, behavior, etc.) or are essentially anti-homosexuality for whatever reason. Reason need not be given. This is part 1, and is a bit trivial but is a request I, as OP, have.

The second part is main purpose for this thread, and is me wondering if proponents of homosexuality (like myself) think a clear distinction ought to be made in the various arguments about 'rights' and such.

That distinction, as I see it, is between orientation and behavior. Now, I realize this distinction gets made often, but I'm not sure how much it does get made between proponents. IMO, it gets made somewhere between proponents and those who are anti. A la, hate the sin, not the sinner type rhetoric.

Both as a proponent of homosexuality and as my brand of spirituality goes, I do not think homosexual orientation is a sin, nor does it represent person as sinner. The sexuality part, maybe, but I would assure anyone reading this, it is not the 'homo' part, for me, but the 'sex' part, and even then, it is only a maybe, and only within context of 'let us be clear on what sin actually is.' I think I could, rather easily, be persuaded to not think of sexuality as sin.

However, I do think the larger point of this discussion, that comes up fairly often when rights are being discussed is the orientation and love part. And it gets clouded, unnecessarily so, by the behavior part. To the point where I wonder why any proponent would argue for rights on that level? Admittedly whatever I am insinuating or implying from that question will be received differently by different people, and perhaps I'm only one that thinks it is behavior argument where hang up is. I don't think I am, but I'll admit I could be.

So, that's the discussion, possible debate I wish to have, and am really hoping proponents can focus on the orientation (attraction) in considering how to move the larger debate forward.

 

[Skwim]

Didn't really understand the point of your second part, but with further postings by others maybe it will become clear.
As for being a "proponent" of homosexuality, I'm for live and let live when it comes to sexual orientation and behaviors. So I don't see a need to make any kind of judgmental distinction between the two.

 

[Archer]

Well I think homosexuality is wrong. The act mainly though I would venture to say the emotional part that goes along with the sexual part has been felt in every human. I really think homosexuality is a choice though it seems it is more of a choice not to be than to give in and be homosexual.

That being said I also believe every human should have the same rights. Marriages of homosexuals in a Christian Church I am 100% against but I am not against and would say sort of support, the legal bonding in a sectarian (state) setting.

I am completely against protected status where if I should get in a fight with a gay it can be called a hate crime. Many crimes could be called hate crimes. Murder is a hate crime, stealing in a directed way is a hate crime.

So I say equal rights for all and absolutely no protected group status. It is bad enough the we have protected status people getting jobs before more qualified non protected groups and I do not think it is fair that a homosexual could get a job before me because he may be a funky butt lover.

Well I guess I could just tell people I am bisexual if it ever happens. Hey a non practicing bisexual

 

[Breathe]

What two---three---four---or even forty---adults do is none of my business so long as it is done safely, responsibly, and with the consent of all involved, be it directly or indirectly.

So, yeah. I support gay rights, lesbian rights, straight rights, transgender rights, etc.

 

[pwfaith]

Well I think homosexuality is wrong. The act mainly though I would venture to say the emotional part that goes along with the sexual part has been felt in every human. I really think homosexuality is a choice though it seems it is more of a choice not to be than to give in and be homosexual.

That being said I also believe every human should have the same rights. Marriages of homosexuals in a Christian Church I am 100% against but I am not against and would say sort of support, the legal bonding in a sectarian (state) setting.

I am completely against protected status where if I should get in a fight with a gay it can be called a hate crime. Many crimes could be called hate crimes. Murder is a hate crime, stealing in a directed way is a hate crime.

So I say equal rights for all and absolutely no protected group status. It is bad enough the we have protected status people getting jobs before more qualified non protected groups and I do not think it is fair that a homosexual could get a job before me because he may be a funky butt lover.

Agree! Just gonna copy the above b/c it sums up how I feel as well.

I don't think gender or sexuality should determine hate crimes across the board, person could have been slugged simply for being a jerk and it have nothing to do with who they have as a partner.

 

[waitasec]

sex is sex.

 

[Oneatatime]

I support gay rights aimed at ensuring that they suffer no disadvantage on the grounds of their homosexuality which is basically what anti-discrimination laws are intended to do already in all aspects of diversity.

Unfortunately some groups and individuals choose to interpret anti-discrimination laws as giving them the right to do whatever they feel is required by their particular views or beliefs. The obvious example being those religion people who hold homophobic views who feel that they are suffering discrimination because they aren't allowed to disciminate against homosexuals. This is going beyond the simple right to live without suffering disadvantage because of race, religion or sexual orientation.

I agree that the debate often gets sidelined by those who wish to discuss whether it's natural or unnatural, whether it's ok if homosexuals love each other not, and so on. I don't consider these to be particually important issues in the debate because the legality and permissability of hetersexual relations is rarely debated in such terms. It's largely taken as given that hetersexuality is alright as long as relationships are consensual and I don't see why homosexuality can't be seen in the same light.

I am against positive discrimination because I believe that individuals should get opportunities based on ability purely. Unfortuately there are those who would consider any homosexual getting a position instead of them to be an example of positive discrimination because they are unable or unwilling to accept that a homosexual was the better candidate. The organisation I work has been recognised for it's support it gives homosexuals in being open about their sexual orientation if they wish too be. There are clear moral and business cases for creating an environment where people can be who they want to be when there is no risk of detriment to others.

 

[Archer]

I am against positive discrimination because I believe that individuals should get opportunities based on ability purely. Unfortuately there are those who would consider any homosexual getting a position instead of them to be an example of positive discrimination because they are unable or unwilling to accept that a homosexual was the better candidate. The organisation I work has been recognised for it's support it gives homosexuals in being open about their sexual orientation if they wish too be. There are clear moral and business cases for creating an environment where people can be who they want to be when there is no risk of detriment to others.

It goes deeper than that though. I am pretty sure that this was directed at my post so I will put this out there.

You are hiring a person for a job and you have two candidates that are fresh out of college with a 4.0 GPA with the same major. Both are white and one is homosexual and the other is not. Who do you hire?

Better be the queer because there is a chance of getting sued for discrimination. I mean the whit guy cant sue can he? Who would believe he did not get the job because the other guy was gay?

It happens every day with protected class people.

It will be this kind of thing all over again. Hell I will just claim I am Gay.

Landmark Ruling Buttresses Affirmative Action

But in a landmark 2003 case involving the University of Michigan's affirmative action policies-one of the most important rulings on the issue in twenty-five years-the Supreme Court decisively upheld the right of affirmative action in higher education. Two cases, first tried in federal courts in 2000 and 2001, were involved: the University of Michigan's undergraduate program (Gratz v. Bollinger) and its law school (Grutter v. Bollinger). The Supreme Court (5-4) upheld the University of Michigan Law School's policy, ruling that race can be one of many factors considered by colleges when selecting their students because it furthers "a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body." The Supreme Court, however, ruled (6-3) that the more formulaic approach of the University of Michigan's undergraduate admissions program, which uses a point system that rate students and awards additional points to minorities, had to be modified. The undergraduate program, unlike the law school's, did not provide the "individualized consideration" of applicants deemed necessary in previous Supreme Court decisions on affirmative action.
In the Michigan cases, the Supreme Court ruled that although affirmative action was no longer justified as a way of redressing past oppression and injustice, it promoted a "compelling state interest" in diversity at all levels of society. A record number of "friend-of-court" briefs were filed in support of Michigan's affirmative action case by hundreds of organizations representing academia, business, labor unions, and the military, arguing the benefits of broad racial representation. As Sandra Day O'Connor wrote for the majority, "In order to cultivate a set of leaders with legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry, it is necessary that the path to leadership be visibly open to talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity."

Read more: Affirmative Action History & Timeline (Civil Rights Act, Supreme Court Cases, etc) — Infoplease.com Affirmative Action History & Timeline (Civil Rights Act, Supreme Court Cases, etc) — Infoplease.com​

​

 

[Yeshe Dawa]

My desire for respondents is for you to state if you are "proponent of homosexuality" (rights, behavior, etc.) or are essentially anti-homosexuality for whatever reason. Reason need not be given. This is part 1, and is a bit trivial but is a request I, as OP, have.

Hi Acim!

I am a "proponent of homosexuality" and all LGBT people.

The second part is main purpose for this thread, and is me wondering if proponents of homosexuality (like myself) think a clear distinction ought to be made in the various arguments about 'rights' and such.

That distinction, as I see it, is between orientation and behavior. Now, I realize this distinction gets made often, but I'm not sure how much it does get made between proponents. IMO, it gets made somewhere between proponents and those who are anti. A la, hate the sin, not the sinner type rhetoric.

I do not think that either a person's sexuality or the expression of their sexuality is wrong. Like the example you gave - I think that some Christians' position that LGBT people are okay as long as they don't express their sexuality in any form is repressive and wrong.

Peace and blessings,
Yeshe
:flower2:

 

[waitasec]

It goes deeper than that though. I am pretty sure that this was directed at my post so I will put this out there.

You are hiring a person for a job and you have two candidates that are fresh out of college with a 4.0 GPA with the same major. Both are white and one is homosexual and the other is not. Who do you hire?

Better be the queer because there is a chance of getting sued for discrimination. I mean the whit guy cant sue can he? Who would believe he did not get the job because the other guy was gay?

It happens every day with protected class people.

It will be this kind of thing all over again. Hell I will just claim I am Gay.


[/COLOR][/LEFT]

hey you, it's been a while
1st off how would you know this person is a homosexual?

 

[methylatedghosts]

It goes deeper than that though. I am pretty sure that this was directed at my post so I will put this out there.

You are hiring a person for a job and you have two candidates that are fresh out of college with a 4.0 GPA with the same major. Both are white and one is homosexual and the other is not. Who do you hire?

Better be the queer because there is a chance of getting sued for discrimination. I mean the whit guy cant sue can he? Who would believe he did not get the job because the other guy was gay?

It happens every day with protected class people.

It will be this kind of thing all over again. Hell I will just claim I am Gay.

Thing is, you're not going to get 2 people who are the exact same, sexuality aside. I would hire the person who has the personality that fits with the other people that I've hired, and therefore the personality that I get along with better.
1) Credentials
2) References
3) Experience
4) Personality
....
x) Sex, sexuality, skin colour, religious beliefs etc

Of course, it's not necessarily in that order, but just to illustrate what I mean.

 

[Archer]

Well I can see suits over this with protected status.

this:

Federal suit planned against UC over ban on affirmative action


Activists challenge Proposition 209, charging that the 1996 law on university admissions violates right to equal protection under the Constitution.


February 16, 2010|By Larry Gordon
Seeking to increase the ranks of black, Latino and Native American students at the University of California, civil rights activists said they will file a federal lawsuit Tuesday challenging the state law that bans affirmative action in admissions.
The suit contends that Proposition 209, which was passed by California voters in 1996, violates equal protections guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and says it has limited the numbers of non-Asian minority students at UC's most selective campuses. The suit also criticizes the university system for relying too heavily on high school grades and test scores in admissions, saying that the practice discriminates against students from schools without strong honors classes and counseling.

will be this:

Federal suit planned against UC over ban on affirmative action


Activists challenge Proposition 209, charging that the 1996 law on university admissions violates right to equal protection under the Constitution.


February 16, 2010|By Larry Gordon
Seeking to increase the ranks of black, Latino, Native American and homosexual students at the University of California, civil rights activists said they will file a federal lawsuit Tuesday challenging the state law that bans affirmative action in admissions.
The suit contends that Proposition 209, which was passed by California voters in 1996, violates equal protections guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and says it has limited the numbers of non-Asian minority students at UC's most selective campuses. The suit also criticizes the university system for relying too heavily on high school grades and test scores in admissions, saying that the practice discriminates against students from schools without strong honors classes and counseling.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/16/local/la-me-affirm16-2010feb16

and then there is this:
http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2010/november/hate_112210/hate_112210

It is a federal offense to kick a homosexuals *** even if you did not know.

and this:

http://www.loompanics.com/Articles/hatecrimes.html

I am a hetero sexual white male. Where is my equal protection?

EDIT: what I was getting at with this was not anything to do with blacks. What I was getting at is heterosexual whites do not always get a fair shake. So a man exactly like me who decides to be a funky butt lover gets one hand up and the FACT is being a funky butt lover will always be a wild card I do not have.

 

[waitasec]

i still don't understand how you know a person is homosexual...
unless you ask them but isn't that illegal?

 

[methylatedghosts]

Well I can see suits over this with protected status.

this:
will be this:

Federal suit planned against UC over ban on affirmative action


Activists challenge Proposition 209, charging that the 1996 law on university admissions violates right to equal protection under the Constitution.


February 16, 2010|By Larry Gordon
Seeking to increase the ranks of black, Latino, Native American and homosexual students at the University of California, civil rights activists said they will file a federal lawsuit Tuesday challenging the state law that bans affirmative action in admissions.
The suit contends that Proposition 209, which was passed by California voters in 1996, violates equal protections guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and says it has limited the numbers of non-Asian minority students at UC's most selective campuses. The suit also criticizes the university system for relying too heavily on high school grades and test scores in admissions, saying that the practice discriminates against students from schools without strong honors classes and counseling.

Affirmative Action Articles | Federal suit planned against UC over ban on affirmative action - Los Angeles Times

and then there is this:
FBI — Hate Crimes Report

It is a federal offense to kick a homosexuals *** even if you did not know.

and this:

The Hate Crimes You Don’t Hear About

I am a hetero sexual white male. Where is my equal protection?

EDIT: what I was getting at with this was not anything to do with blacks. What I was getting at is whites do not always get a fair shake. So a man exactly like me who decides to be a funky butt lover gets one hand up and the FACT is being a funky butt lover will always be a wild card I do not have.

I'm not sure how exactly it works in the U.S., but let me tell you about it from my perspective in New Zealand.

We have, in NZ, some kind of affirmative action. There must be a certain percentage of Maori students in certain classes. On the face of it, that looks awfully unfair - that just because you're Maori, you get an easier ride into university, and if you're anyone else, you have to work hard and get in on just ability alone. However...

Post-white man NZ created a situation that was incredibly unfair towards Maori. You couldn't speak Maori - you had to speak English. Generally you were 2nd-class citizens. Employment opportunities were lower, and tended to be more labour-based. That along with the culture the English brought with abuse of alcohol, paints a rather awful picture. For several generations, Maori were essentially taught "You are worthless. You don't have anything to offer. You are only good for working the fields.". Keep that up, and soon enough you believe it, and you live it. Maori are amongst the highest rates of unemployment, smoking, drinking, early preventable deaths, family violence... all those things, as a result of how they were treated for so long. Still, the belief exists among Maori, that they aren't going to get anywhere with their lives, that they might as well do what they've done for the last few generations, sit on the dole, get drunk, and beat their wives.

I feel that affirmative action, while on the surface is unfair, addresses this problem. Essentially, it tells Maori that "hey, you are just as able as anyone else, to make something of your self. Ok, you've not had the best start in life, and you've made some silly mistakes, but here's a helping hand to allow you to see your potential". And a fair few of these students come from families that have told them nothing more than "All you're good for is being a mum and having a family. School's a waste of time."



EDIT: I got rather side-tracked here...
I don't honestly think that homosexuality is going to experience that kind of affirmative action. I don't think homosexual people have had the experience like Maori have, here in NZ, at least not to the same extent.

 

[methylatedghosts]

i still don't understand how you know a person is homosexual...
unless you ask them but isn't that illegal?

As far as I'm aware, it's about as legal as asking what someone's race, or sex is...

 

[Acim]

I agree that the debate often gets sidelined by those who wish to discuss whether it's natural or unnatural, whether it's ok if homosexuals love each other not, and so on. I don't consider these to be particually important issues in the debate because the legality and permissability of hetersexual relations is rarely debated in such terms. It's largely taken as given that hetersexuality is alright as long as relationships are consensual and I don't see why homosexuality can't be seen in the same light.

Of all the proponents that have responded this comes closest to what I was getting at, and yet is still a bit off. "Often gets sidelined" is the part that comes closest.

Incidentally, one who I think is anti-homosexual, has come even closer to that I'm getting at.

Well I think homosexuality is wrong. The act mainly though I would venture to say the emotional part that goes along with the sexual part has been felt in every human. I really think homosexuality is a choice though it seems it is more of a choice not to be than to give in and be homosexual.

Me, as a proponent, I do not think the act is wrong. Archer does. As do many others. But Archer is willing to acknowledge that the emotion (the attraction) has been felt in every human. If the anti crowd could all get on board with that, and really on board (not experience it necessarily for themselves, but understand it as legitimate feeling / attraction that is perhaps felt in great many humans), then I think the larger debate would move forward.

But since we (proponents) want to put forth statements like "sex is sex" or "I do not think ... a person's ... expression of their sexuality is wrong," I'm saying that proponents get bogged down in something that is not really advancing things, as that 'right' is going to happen anyway.

Seriously, if proponents won the discussion on the former, the whole rights thing would be resolved. Insisting on winning debate on the other is interesting and laced with drama, but I would say impractical.

I also know it is impractical because I can think of situations for many people (perhaps not all) where "not all sex" or "not all sexual expression" is a person's freedom / right. Instead, there are acts out there which have to have stipulations (i.e. consent, and consent that is agreed to my I would say elitists) otherwise, it is just plain wrong, and needs to be prevented. Even while we as a society are doing nothing to prevent those cases. Absolutely nothing. IMO, perpetuating it by our (passive) resistance. This may be the sort of argument that 'slippery slope' is made of, but if taken back a step, like, "is it okay for a human to have great love for an animal as long as they don't express that sexually?" Yes? Well, then if you can agree to that, and we can all kinda sorta acknowledge that feeling, then you are 18 steps closer to understanding the issue that allows for debate around that to advance forward. At same time, this is distinct issue, but serves as way to help understand how the argument, when reframed could carry far more weight with those against, if certain, unmistakable criteria, were 'held off,' for just a few moments why we get at heart of the issue.

If you understand that sex is not merely physical touching (of some sort) and then argue 'sex is sex' that is different. But such connotations around anything sexual are simply going to cloud the judgments of those against 'the very idea' of touching in 'that way.'

 

[Archer]

i still don't understand how you know a person is homosexual...
unless you ask them but isn't that illegal?

well I dont know about the legality of it but.

House Passes Ban on Job Discrimination Against Gays

Thursday, November 08, 2007

• Print
• ShareThis

WASHINGTON — The House on Wednesday approved the first federal ban on job discrimination against gays, lesbians and bisexuals.
Passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act came despite protests from some gay rights supporters that the bill does not protect transgender workers. That term covers transsexuals, cross-dressers and others whose outward appearance does not match their gender at birth.
The measure would make it illegal for employers to make decisions about hiring, firing, promoting or paying an employee based on sexual orientation. It would exempt churches and the military.
After the 235-184 vote, supporters are expecting a tough fight in the narrowly divided Senate, where Massachusetts Democrat Edward Kennedy plans to introduce a similar version.
A veto from President Bush is expected if the proposal does pass the Senate. The White House has cited constitutional concerns and said the proposal could trample religious rights.
Backers of the House bill proclaimed it a major civil rights advance for gays. "Bigotry and homophobia are sentiments that should never be allowed to permeate the American workplace," said House Majority Whip James Clyburn, D-S.C.

The decision by Democratic leaders to exclude protections based on gender identity created sharp divisions in the party and among gay rights activists.
Republicans, meanwhile, said the bill could undermine the rights of people who oppose homosexuality for religious reasons and lead to an onslaught of dubious discrimination lawsuits.
"This is, frankly, a trial lawyer's dream," said Rep. John Kline, R-Minn.
Protections for transgender workers were in the original bill. But Democratic leaders found they would lose support from moderate and conservative Democrats by including transgender employees in the final bill.
"That's a bridge too far," said Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Va. "It's better to take it one step at a time."
Rep. Jerrold Nadler, however, said excluding transgender workers was shortsighted.
"As we have seen in many states, the failure to include the transgender community in civil rights legislation from the beginning makes it more difficult to extend protections later," said Nadler, D-N.Y.
Rep. Barney Frank, one of two openly gay members of Congress and an important supporter of the bill, urged colleagues not to let the dispute over transgender workers doom an important gain in civil rights.
Frank, D-Mass., said he hoped the bill would send a message to "millions of Americans who are gay and lesbian that they are not bad people, that it is not legitimate to fire them simply because of who they are."
He also pledged to continue to fight for a bill to protect transgender workers.
Job discrimination based on factors such as race, gender and religion are banned under federal law. Nineteen states and the District of Columbia have laws against sexual-orientation discrimination.
Only nine states specifically protect transgender people from discrimination: New Jersey, Minnesota, Rhode Island, New Mexico, California, Illinois, Maine, Hawaii, Washington. The District of Columbia has a similar law.
By January, laws also will be in effect in Iowa, Vermont, Colorado and Oregon.

Read more: House Passes Ban on Job Discrimination Against Gays - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum - FOXNews.com​

​

 

[Breathe]

i still don't understand how you know a person is homosexual...
unless you ask them but isn't that illegal?

Gaydar?

 

[Richard J. Charles]

I am a supporter of gay, transgender rights etc.
I believe that it is bigoted of religious people to say that gay people will go to Hell because they are gay. It is so stupid it isn't worth thinking about.
Homosexuality is not a choice. That is fact. So why should we discriminate against homosexuals? It is no better than racism.

 

[methylatedghosts]

Gaydar?

Oh, believe me, that's not 100% reliable.... >_<